A Text-Book of the History of Architecture / Seventh Edition, revised

by A. D. F. Hamlin

[CHAPTER XI.]

BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: As before, Essenwein, Hübsch, Von Quast. Also, Bayet, L’Art Byzantin. Choisy, L’Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins. Lethaby and Swainson, Sancta Sophia. Ongania, La Basilica di San Marco. Pulgher, Anciennes Églises Byzantines de Constantinople. Salzenberg, Altchristliche Baudenkmäle

von Constantinopel. Texier and Pullan, Byzantine Architecture.

ORIGIN AND CHARACTER. The decline and fall of Rome arrested the development of the basilican style in the West, as did the Arab conquest later in Syria. It was otherwise in the new Eastern capital founded by Constantine in the ancient Byzantium, which was rising in power and wealth while Rome lay in ruins. Situated at the strategic point of the natural highway of commerce between East and West, salubrious and enchantingly beautiful in its surroundings, the new capital grew rapidly from provincial insignificance to metropolitan importance. Its founder had embellished it with an extraordinary wealth of buildings, in which, owing to the scarcity of trained architects, quantity and cost doubtless outran quality. But at least the tameness of blindly followed precedent was avoided, and this departure from traditional tenets contributed undoubtedly to the originality of Byzantine architecture. A large part of the artisans employed in building were then, as now, from Asia Minor and the Ægean Islands, Greek in race if not in name. An Oriental taste for brilliant and harmonious color and for minute decoration spread over broad surfaces must have been stimulated by trade with the Far East and by constant contact with Oriental peoples, costumes, and arts. An Asiatic origin may also be assigned to the methods of vaulting employed, far more varied than the Roman, not only in form but also in materials and processes. From Roman architecture, however, the Byzantines borrowed the fundamental notion of their structural art; that, namely, of distributing the weights and strains of their vaulted structures upon isolated and massive points of support, strengthened by deep buttresses, internal or external, as the case might be. Roman, likewise, was the use of polished monolithic columns, and the incrustation of the piers and walls with panels of variegated marble, as well as the decoration of plastered surfaces by fresco and mosaic, and the use of opus sectile and opus Alexandrinum for the production of sumptuous marble pavements. In the first of these processes the color-figures of the pattern are formed each of a single piece of marble cut to the shape required; in the second the pattern is compounded of minute squares, triangles, and curved pieces of uniform size. Under these combined influences the artists of Constantinople wrought out new problems in construction and decoration, giving to all that they touched a new and striking character.

There is no absolute line of demarcation, chronological, geographical, or structural, between Early Christian and Byzantine architecture. But the former was especially characterized by the basilica with three or five aisles, and the use of wooden roofs even in its circular edifices; the vault and dome, though not unknown, being exceedingly rare. Byzantine architecture, on the other hand, rarely produced the simple three-aisled or five-aisled basilica, and nearly all its monuments were vaulted. The dome was especially frequent, and Byzantine architecture achieved its highest triumphs in the use of the pendentive, as the triangular spherical surfaces are called, by the aid of which a dome can be supported on the summits of four arches spanning the four sides of a square, as explained later. There is as little uniformity in the plans of Byzantine buildings as in the forms of the vaulting. A few types of church-plan, however, predominated locally in one or another centre; but the controlling feature of the style was the dome and the constructive system with which it was associated. The dome, it is true, had long been used by the Romans, but always on a circular plan, as in the Pantheon. It is also a fact that pendentives have been found in Syria and Asia Minor older than the oldest Byzantine examples. But the special feature characterizing the Byzantine dome on pendentives was its almost exclusive association with plans having piers and columns or aisles, with the dome as the central and dominant feature of the complex design (see plans, Figs. [74], [75], [78]). Another strictly Byzantine practice was the piercing of the lower portion of the dome with windows forming a circle or crown, and the final development of this feature into a high drum.

CONSTRUCTION. Still another divergence from Roman methods was in the substitution of brick and stone masonry for concrete. Brick was used for the mass as well as the facing of walls and piers, and for the vaulting in many buildings mainly built of stone. Stone was used either alone or in combination with brick, the latter appearing in bands of four or five courses at intervals of three or four feet. In later work a regular alternation of the two materials, course for course, was not uncommon. In piers intended to support unusually heavy loads the stone was very carefully cut and fitted, and sometimes tied and clamped with iron.

Vaults were built sometimes of brick, sometimes of cut stone; in a few cases even of earthenware jars fitting into each other, and laid up in a continuous contracting spiral from the base to the crown of a dome, as in San Vitale at Ravenna. Ingenious processes for building vaults without centrings were made use of—processes inherited from the drain-builders of ancient Assyria, and still in vogue in Armenia, Persia, and Asia Minor. The groined vault was common, but always approximated the form of a dome, by a longitudinal convexity upward in the intersecting vaults. The aisles of Hagia Sophia[17] display a remarkable variety of forms in the vaulting.