[217]. ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ by Texier and Pullan. Folio, London, 1864.
[218]. De Vogüé, ‘Églises de la Terre Sainte,’ p. 101.
[219]. For a careful analytical description of the church, see Professor Willis, ‘Architectural History of the Holy Sepulchre,’ London, 1849.
[220]. The particulars for these churches are taken from Texier and Pullan’s splendid work on Byzantine architecture published by Day, 1864.
[221]. Another very small church, that of Moudjeleia, though under 50 ft. square, seems to have adopted the same hypæthral arrangement.
[222]. A great deal of very irrelevant matter has been written about these “giant cities of Bashan,” as if their age were a matter of doubt. There is nothing in the Hauran which can by any possibility date before the time of Roman supremacy in the country. The very earliest now existing are probably subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.
[223]. The constructive dimensions of the porch at Chillambaram (p. 353. History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, 1876.) are very similar to those of this church: both have flat stone roofs, but in the Indian, though a much more modern example, there is no arch.
[224]. These are all given in colours in Texier and Pullan’s beautiful work on Byzantine architecture, from which all the particulars regarding this church are taken.
[225]. A wayside retreat or shelter.
[226]. A restoration of the church from Procopius’s description, ‘De Ædificiis,’ lib. i. ch. iv., will be found in Hübsch, ‘Altchristliche Baukunst,’ pls. xxxii. and xxxiii.