Symbolism of

domes

The symbolic meaning of the dome has

developed over millennia. Although the
precise origins are unknown, a mortuary
tradition of domes existed across the
ancient world, as well as a symbolic
association with the sky. Both of these
traditions may have a common root in
the use of the domed hut, a shape which
was translated into tombs and
associated with the heavens.
The mortuary tradition has been
expressed in domed mausoleums,
martyriums, and baptisteries. The
celestial symbolism was adopted by
rulers in the Middle East to emphasize
their divine legitimacy and was inherited
by later civilizations down to the present
day as a general symbol of governmental
authority.

Origins
Mortuary tradition

According to E. Baldwin Smith, from the

late Stone Age the dome-shaped tomb
was used as a reproduction of the
ancestral, god-given shelter made
permanent as a venerated home of the
dead. The instinctive desire to do this
resulted in widespread domical mortuary
traditions across the ancient world, from
the stupas of India to the tholos tombs of
Iberia.[1] The Scythians built such domed
tombs, as did some Germanic tribes in a
paraboloid shape.[2] By Hellenistic and
Roman times, the domical tholos had
become the customary cemetery
symbol.[1]

Celestial tradition

Smith writes that in the process of

transforming the hut shape from its
original pliable materials into more
difficult stone construction, the dome
had also become associated with
celestial and cosmic significance, as
evident from decoration such as stars
and celestial chariots on the ceilings of
domed tombs. This cosmological
thinking was not limited to domed
ceilings, being part of a symbolic
association between any house, tomb, or
sanctuary and the universe as a whole,
but it popularized the use of the domical
shape.[3] Michele Melaragno writes that
the nomadic tribes of central Asia are the
origin of a symbolic tradition of round
domed-tents being associated with the
sky and heavens that eventually spread
to the Middle East and the
Mediterranean.[4] Rudolf Wittkower writes
that a "cosmic interpretation of the dome
remained common well into the
eighteenth century."[5]

Divine ruler

A
circle

An
octago
n

A
 A
square

Herbert Howe writes that throughout the

Middle East domes were symbolic of "the
tent of the ruler, and especially of the god
who dwells in the tent of the heavens."
Passages in the Old Testament and
intertestamental literature document this,
such as Psalms 123:1,[note 1] Isaiah
40:22,[note 2] I Kings 8:30,[note 3] Isaiah
66:1,[note 4] Psalms 19:4,[note 5] and Job
22:14.[note 6][6]

Domes and tent-canopies were

associated with the heavens in Ancient
Persia and the Hellenistic-Roman world.
A dome over a square base reflected the
geometric symbolism of those shapes.
The circle represented perfection,
eternity, and the heavens. The square
represented the earth. An octagon was
intermediate between the two.[7] Persian
kings used domed tents in their official
audiences to symbolize their divinity, and
this practice was adopted by Alexander
the Great.[4]

The distinct symbolism of the heavenly

or cosmic tent stemming from the royal
audience tents of Achaemenid and
Indian rulers was adopted by Roman
rulers in imitation of Alexander,
becoming the imperial baldachin. This
probably began with Nero, whose
"Golden House" also made the dome an
essential feature of palace
architecture.[8] The allegory of Alexander
the Great's domical tent in Roman
imperial architecture coincided with the
"divinification" of Roman emperors and
served as a symbol of this.[9] The semi-
domed apse became a symbol of
Imperial authority under Domitian and
depictions of emperors into the
Byzantine period used overhead domes
or semidomes to identify them.[10] Karl
Swoboda writes that even by the time of
Diocletian, the dome probably
symbolized sovereignty over the whole
world.[11]
Early and Medieval
Christianity
Martyriums and baptisteries

The Christian use of domes

acknowledged earlier symbolic
associations. The traditional mortuary
symbolism led the dome to be used in
Christian central-type martyriums in the
Syrian area, the growing popularity of
which spread the form. The spread and
popularity of the cult of relics also
transformed the domed central-type
martyriums into the domed churches of
mainstream Christianity. In Italy in the 4th
century, baptisteries began to be built like
domed mausoleums and martyriums,
which spread in the 5th century. This
reinforced the theological emphasis on
baptism as a re-experience of the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The
dual sepulchral and heavenly symbolism
was adopted by early Christians in both
the use of domes in architecture and in
the ciborium, a domical canopy like the
baldachin used as a ritual covering for
relics or the church altar. The celestial
symbolism of the dome, however, was
the preeminent one by the Christian
era.[12] The octagon, which is transitional
between the circle and the square, came
to represent Jesus' Resurrection in early
Christianity and was used in the ground
plans of martyriums and baptisteries for
that reason. The domes themselves were
sometimes octagonal, rather than
circular.[13]

Basilicas

Literary evidence exists that the idea of

the cosmic temple had been applied to
the Christian basilica by the end of the
4th century, in the form of a speech by
Eusebius on a church in Tyre. However, it
is only in the mid 6th century that the
earliest literary evidence of a
cosmological interpretation of a domed
church building exists, in a hymn
composed for the cathedral church of
Edessa. Kathleen E. McVey traces this to
a blending by Jacob of Serugh of the two
major but contradictory schools of
biblical exegesis at the time: the building-
as-microcosm tradition of the Antioch
school combined with the Alexandrian
view of the cosmos and firmament as
composed of spheres and hemispheres,
which was rejected by the Antioch
school.[14] Gold was used as the color of
Heaven, and Charles Stewart notes that
the emphasis on light from windows
beneath the domes of Justinian's
imperial commissions corresponds to
the Neo-Platonist idea of light as a
symbol of wisdom.[15]

Iconography
Beginning in the late eighth century,
portraits of Christ began to replace gold
crosses at the centers of church domes,
which Charles Stewart suggests may
have been an over-correction in favor of
images after the periods of Iconoclasm
in the eighth and ninth centuries. One of
the first was on the nave dome of Hagia
Sophia in Thessaloniki, and this
eventually developed into the bust image
known as the Pantokrator.[16] Michele
Melaragno writes that the concept of
"Christ the King" was the Christian
counterpoint to the Roman tradition of
emperor deification and so absorbed the
dome symbolism associated with it.[17]
Otto Demus writes that Middle Byzantine
churches were decorated in a systematic
manner and can be seen as having three
zones of decoration, with the holiest at
the top. This uppermost zone contained
the dome, drum and apse. The dome was
reserved for the Pantokrator (meaning
"ruler of all"), the drum usually contained
images of angels or prophets, and the
apse semi-dome usually depicted the
Virgin Mary, typically holding the Christ
child and flanked by angels.[18]

Islam
The Green Dome built above the tomb of
Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar in the Al-Masjid al-

Nabawi (Prophet's Mosque) in Medina, Saudi Arabia,

dates back to at least the 12th century.

Royalty

According to Oleg Grabar, the domes of

the Islamic world, which rejected such
imagery, continued the other traditions.
Muslim royalty built palatial pleasure
domes in continuation of the Roman and
Persian imperial models, although many
have not survived, and domed
mausoleums from Merv to India
developed the form.[19] In the early
centuries of Islam, domes were closely
associated with royalty. A dome built in
front of the mihrab of a mosque, for
example, was at least initially meant to
emphasize the place of a prince during
royal ceremonies. Over time such domes
became primarily focal points for
decoration or the direction of prayer. The
use of domes in mausoleums can
likewise reflect royal patronage or be
seen as representing the honor and
prestige that domes symbolized, rather
than having any specific funerary
meaning.[20]
Form

Doğan Kuban writes that even seemingly

minor variations in shape, structure, and
functional use had theoretical
implications, and were the "result of
complex and culturally significant
developments in the Islamic world, where
the dome and minaret became symbols
of Islam."[21] The wide variety of dome
forms in medieval Islam reflected
dynastic, religious, and social differences
as much as practical building
considerations.[22]

Theresa Grupico writes that the use of

the octagon in the Dome of the Rock,
imperial funerary architecture, or mosque
architecture may be a borrowing from
earlier Byzantine or Persian use or reflect
the idea of Paradise having "eight
gardens with eight doors". The use of
Koranic text to decorate the pendentives
of domes in the Islamic world replaces
the human depictions of Christian
iconography, such as the Four
Evangelists, but similarly represents the
way to the Word of God.[23]

Oleg Grabar characterizes forms in

Islamic architecture as having relatively
low levels of symbolism. While
conceding this in a general sense, Yasser
Tabbaa maintains that certain forms
were initially very highly symbolic and
only lost such associations over time.
The phenomenon of muqarnas domes, in
particular, is an example. Tabbaa
explains the development and spread of
muqarnas domes throughout the Islamic
world beginning in the early 11th century
as the visual expression of a theological
idea of the universe propounded by the
Ash'arites (a modification of the
Atomism of Aristotle with
Occasionalism), which rose to
prominence in Baghdad at this time. Only
later was the style used in a purely
decorative manner.[24]

Ottoman mosques, such as the Mosque

of Suleyman the Great in Istanbul, have
been interpreted as "challenging" the
Hagia Sophia or "inviting similarities" of
message beyond the merely visual.[25]

Modern Era
Circles and ovals

Centrally planned churches in Europe

spread from the middle of the fifteenth
century onward as part of the
Renaissance. Sylvie Duvernoy writes that
the 1450 architectural treatise written by
Leon Battista Alberti was inspired by
Vitruvius' ancient book De Architectura
Libri Decem but written from a humanist
perspective and, unlike Vitruvius,
advocated for central plans because the
circle was "the favourite shape of nature".
Of the nine church designs provided in
the book, six were circular or polygonal
centrally planned designs, with the
polygonal shapes recommended to be
drawn with equal angles so that they can
be inscribed in a circle.[26] Irene Giustina
writes that the pointed dome was
considered safer in Renaissance Italy but
was also "against the rules of antique
architecture". The pointed profile was
considered barbarian and timburios were
used as much to conceal the dome's
shape externally as for structural
reasons. Semicircular dome profiles were
preferred.[27]
The appearance of the oval in
architecture has been extensively
discussed by architectural historians.
Although not an idea originating in the
Renaissance, by the beginning of the
1500s the idea of the oval was "in the
air", according to Santiago Huerta.[28]
During the discussions of the Council of
Trent (1545-1563), which began the
Counter-Reformation of the Catholic
Church in response to the Protestant
Reformation, the circle and square were
declared too pagan for Christian
churches.[29][30] Although the council did
not make any direct pronouncements
regarding architecture and, according to
Hanno-Walter Kruft, the effects of those
reforms actually adopted by the Council
were varied, the one known written
example of the Council's resolutions
being applied to architecture, Cardinal
Charles Borromeo's Instructiones
fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae of
1577, "condemns the circular form as
heathenish." The publication was
addressed only to Borromeo's own
diocese of Milan, but gained currency
throughout Europe.[31] Sylvie Duvernoy
writes that the use of a circular plan and
an oval plan in the twin domed churches
built between 1662 and 1679 at the
northern entrance to the city of Rome,
Santa Maria dei Miracoli and Santa Maria
in Montesanto, indicates that the two
forms were then considered symbolically
equivalent.[32]

Victoria Hammond writes that, in

addition to the oval form's inherent
appeal, its use in domes may have been
influenced by the European Age of
Exploration, as well as by the theory of
the elliptical orbits of planets.[33] Sylvie
Duvernoy notes that while Johannes
Kepler was too young to have influenced
the initial popularity of oval churches, his
1609 publication of his discovery of the
elliptical motion of planets could have
contributed to their persistence.[34]

Unity
According to James Mitchell, in the
Renaissance the dome began to be a
symbol throughout Europe of the unity of
religion.[35] Nathaniel Curtis wrote that
the large domes of the Renaissance
implied "ideas of power, dominance or
centralization - as the capitol of a nation
or of a state." He noted that Guadet said
of St. Peter's, "it is less the roof of the
greatest of all churches than the covering
and sign of this centre to which
converges the entire unity of
Catholicism."[36]

Government
Kendall Wallis writes that the decision to
build the national capitol building of the
United States with a large dome "took a
form laden with symbolic sacred
meaning and ascribed a radically secular
meaning to it." The decorative use of
coffers is meant to evoke a connection
with the classical origins of democracy
and republicanism. "It represented the
legislative power of the republic",
sanctified. The ideas of religious
association and sky symbolism also
persisted in their resonance with the
providential overtones of America's
sense of its vocation in the world and,
more pronounced in the state capitols, in
the stars and sky scenes depicted on the
domes. Those state capitol domes built
after the American Civil War that
resembled the second national capitol
dome referred symbolically to the Federal
government and so to the idea of "the
Union".[37]

Both Hitler and Stalin planned, but never

completed, enormous domed assembly
halls as part of their efforts to establish
global capital cities. Hitler's Volkshalle, or
"People's Hall", was meant to have a
dome 250 meters wide and hold 200,000
people. The Palace of the Soviets in
Moscow was meant to be the tallest
building in the world, rising above a
domed congress hall 100 meters wide
for 21,000 world socialist delegates. The
foundations were begun for the Palace of
the Soviets on the site of the demolished
Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, but
technical problems postponed the
project and it was abandoned after
Stalin's death in the 1950s. R. J. Overy
writes that these were meant to be
monuments to dictatorship and Utopian
civilization that would last for ages.[38]

According to Giovanni Rizzoni, although

the dome traditionally represented
absolute power, the modern glass dome
of the German Reichstag building
expresses both the sovereignty of the
people, who as tourists are literally above
the legislature while touring the dome,
and the accessibility of parliamentary
democracy, due to the transparency of
the glass dome and the window it
provides into the legislative chamber
below.[39]

Notes
1. "Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou
that dwellest in the heavens".
2. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of
the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are
as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the
heavens as a curtain and spreadeth them
out as a tent to dwell in".
3. "Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling
place".
4. "Heaven is my throne and earth is my
footstool".
5. "In [the heaven] hath he set a
tabernacle for the sun".
6. "He walketh in the circuit of heaven".

References
1. Smith 1950, pp. 51-53.
2. Melaragno 1991, p. 9.
3. Smith 1950, pp. 64, 79.
4. Melaragno 1991, p. 7.
5. Wittkower 1971, p. 10.
6. Howe 1966, p. 12.
7. Grupico 2011, pp. 3, 8.
8. Smith 1950, p. 53.
9. Melaragno 1991, p. 8.
10. Hourihane 2012, p. 303.
11. Swoboda 1961, p. 81.
12. Smith 1950, pp. 53-56, 79.
13. Grupico 2011, pp. 8-9.
14. McVey 1983, pp. 117-118.
15. Stewart 2008, p. 177.
16. Stewart 2008, pp. 174-175.
17. Melaragno 1991, p. 10.
18. Ousterhout 2008a, p. 23.
19. Grabar 1990, pp. 20-21.
20. Grabar 1963, pp. 195, 197.
21. Kuban 1987, p. 73.
22. Peterson 1996, p. 68.
23. Grupico 2011, pp. 9-11.
24. Tabbaa 1985, pp. 61, 69.
25. Grupico 2011, pp. 3-4.
26. Duvernoy 2015, p. 426.
27. Giustina 2003, pp. 1038-1039.
28. Huerta 2007, pp. 227-229.
29. Nuttgens 1997, p. 205.
30. Kruft 1994, p. 93.
31. Kruft 1994, pp. 93-94.
32. Duvernoy 2015, p. 443.
33. Stephenson, Hammond & Davi 2005,
p. 178.
34. Duvernoy 2015, p. 454-455.
35. Mitchell 1985, p. 262.
36. Courier 2013, p. 29.
37. Wallis 2010, pp. 4-6.
38. Overy 2004, pp. 218-220.
39. Rizzoni 2009, p. 190.

Bibliography
Courier, Nathaniel Courtland (2013). The
Secrets of Architectural Composition .
Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-
32074-8.
Duvernoy, Sylvie (2015), "Baroque Oval
Churches: Innovative Geometrical Patterns
in Early Modern Sacred Architecture"
(PDF), Nexus Network Journal, Turin: Kim
Williams Books, 17 (2): 425–456,
doi:10.1007/s00004-015-0252-x , retrieved
January 13, 2019
Giustina, Irene (2003), "On the art and the
culture of domes. Construction in Milan and
Lombardy in the late sixteenth and in the
first half of the seventeenth century" (PDF),
Proceedings of the First International
Congress on Construction History, Madrid,
Spain: Sociedad Española de Historia de la
Construcción, pp. 1033–1042
Grabar, Oleg (December 1963). "The Islamic
Dome, Some Considerations". Journal of
the Society of Architectural Historians. 22
(4): 191–198. doi:10.2307/988190 .
JSTOR 988190 .
Grabar, Oleg (March 1990). "From Dome of
Heaven to Pleasure Dome". Journal of the
Society of Architectural Historians.
University of California Press. 49 (1): 15–
21. doi:10.2307/990496 . JSTOR 990496 .
Grupico, Theresa (2011). "The Dome in
Christian and Islamic Sacred Architecture"
(PDF). The Forum on Public Policy. The
Forum on Public Policy. 2011 (3): 14.
Retrieved November 16, 2014.
Hourihane, Colum, ed. (2012). The Grove
Encyclopedia of Medieval Art and
Architecture . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-539536-5.
Howe, Herbert M. (1966). "The Dome of
Clement". Transactions and Proceedings of
the American Philological Association.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press. 97: 261–273.
doi:10.2307/2936010 . JSTOR 2936010 .
Huerta, Santigo (2007). "Oval Domes:
History, Geometry and Mechanics" (PDF).
Nexus Network Journal. SAHGB
Publications Limited. 9 (2): 211–248.
doi:10.1007/978-3-7643-8699-3_4 .
ISBN 978-3-7643-8444-9.
Kruft, Hanno-Walter (1994). History of
Architectural Theory (illustrated, reprint
ed.). Princeton Architectural Press.
ISBN 978-1-568-98010-2.
Kuban, Doğan (1987). "The Style of Sinan's
Domed Structures". Muqarnas. 4: 72–97.
doi:10.2307/1523097 . JSTOR 1523097 .
McVey, Kathleen E. (1983). "The Domed
Church as Microcosm: Literary Roots of an
Architectural Symbol". Dumbarton Oaks
Papers. Dumbarton Oaks. 37: 91–121.
doi:10.2307/1291479 . JSTOR 1291479 .
Melaragno, Michele G. (1991). An
Introduction to Shell Structures: the Art and
Science of Vaulting (softcover ed.). New
York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
ISBN 978-1-4757-0225-5.
Mitchell, James H. (1985). "The Noble
Dome". The Antioch Review. Antioch
Review, Inc. 43 (3): 261–271.
doi:10.2307/4611482 . JSTOR 4611482 .
Nuttgens, Patrick (1997). The Story of
Architecture. Hong Kong: Phaidon Press
Limited. ISBN 978-0-7148-3616-4.
Ousterhout, Robert G. (2008). Master
Builders of Byzantium (paperback ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
ISBN 978-1-934536-03-2.
Overy, R. J. (2004). The Dictators: Hitler's
Germany and Stalin's Russia (illustrated
ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
ISBN 978-0-393-02030-4.
Peterson, Andrew (1996). The Dictionary of
Islamic Architecture . Routledge. ISBN 978-
0-203-20387-3.
Rizzoni, Giovanni (2009). "The Form of
Parliaments & European Identity". In Rorato,
Laura; Saunders, Anna (eds.). The Essence
and the Margin: National Identities and
Collective Memories in Contemporary
European Culture . The Netherlands:
Rodopi. pp. 183–198. ISBN 978-9-042-
02571-4.
Smith, Earl Baldwin (1950). The Dome: A
Study in the History of Ideas . Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-
03875-9.
Stephenson, Davis; Hammond, Victoria;
Davi, Keith F. (2005). Visions of Heaven: the
Dome in European Architecture (illustrated
ed.). Princeton Architectural Press.
ISBN 978-1-56898-549-7.
Stewart, Charles Anthony (2008). Domes of
Heaven: The Domed Basilicas of Cyprus
(illustrated ed.). ProQuest. ISBN 978-0-549-
75556-2.
Swoboda, Karl M. (May 1961). "The
Problem of the Iconography of Late Antique
and Early Mediaeval Palaces". Journal of
the Society of Architectural Historians.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
20 (2): 78–89. doi:10.2307/988105 .
JSTOR 988105 .
Tabbaa, Yasser (1985). "The Muqarnas
Dome: Its Origin and Meaning". Muqarnas.
BRILL. 3: 61–74. doi:10.2307/1523084 .
JSTOR 1523084 .
 Wallis, Kendall (2010). "Bearing
Bandmann's Meaning: A Translator's
Introduction by Kendall Wallis". In
Bandmann, Günter (ed.). Early Medieval
Architecture as Bearer of Meaning .
Translated by Kendall Wallis. Columbia
University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-50172-9.
Wittkower, Rudolf (1971). Architectural
Principles in the Age of Humanism
(illustrated, reprint ed.). New York, NY: W.
W. Norton & Company. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-
393-00599-8.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Symbolism_of_domes&oldid=891763313"
Last edited 15 days ago by Amate…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.