Cyril Mango Byzantine Architecture faber and faber [ElectaPhotographs: Bruno Balestini Drawings: Studio Enzo di Gracia Layout: Arturo Ansan Paperback edition first published in Great Britain in 1986 bby Faber and Faber Limited 3 Queen Square, London WCIN 3AU All sights reserved [No part ofthis publication may be reproduced in any ‘manner whatsoever without permission in wt Faber and Faber Limited ‘This volume is the redesigned paperback of the original Italian edition published in 1974 by Electa Editrice, Milan, and the English edition published in 1979 by Academy Editions, London Britis Library Cataloguing in Publication Date ‘Mango, Cyril Byzantine architecture —(History of world architecture) 1. Architecture, Byzantine—History L-Title IL Series 7232 NA370 ISBN 0571145140 Printed in IelyChapter 1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ‘Chapter It MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES; ARCHITECTS, WORKMEN, AND PATRONS ‘Chapter Il CITIES OF THE EARLY BYZANTINE PERIOD 2 Chapter IV EARLY BYZANTINE ECCLESIATICAL ARCHITECTURE 3 Chapter V_ THE AGE OF JUSTINIAN 7 Ghapter VI THE DARK CENTURIES 9 Chapter Vl THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE PERIOD 108 Chapter VIII THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD 11 Chapter IX, THE DIFFUSION OF BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE IN EASTERN EUROPE 3 NOTES, 199 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 205 INDEX, 207 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS 21ns ss book I ace acempted to presen the development of Bante arbiter in retion fo the mon sho eeted and the toa end maton! conitons tat [Proll a the me. Ginn the limi og ofthe tet oul be reed 2 ot onal cay rather thomas «Bandbook. have no iced «rt mute of et sont monuments end ave ceen lft out of contilation abot yomphial ae, ‘ich ay tot the exception of Ravens and Vn) Non Afr, 3pm, CP alec, Georgi, the Cres a the eon of Neofored, Nev be | ad fo be ‘ine othe annotation the exionce of elaborate bogaphic ads ee Be Bibliegephywnder"Refoence) bas made sak redundant Tsboul he to then the snttciont and india thot bore kindly supped photaeapts 1d hove beled mein oie way te Dambarion Oaks Byzantine Conte, Washington DC, the Michgen Princo Alenia Expedition fo Mount Sina and ale Unni rR. Andonom, Mr N.V. Artaamoft Dr . Coma Prftsor GH. Foryth lr i. Jromé, Pofeor J Monger ts Mandell Profesor Seek, RL Van Nice. am pater tea “Maelo ber ata el acing te lations nd i ALL. Hass for eng ond ping ny mansChapter I: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ‘When we speak of the Byzantine Empire we are using a convention of ‘modern historiography. In reality, there never existed a state that called itself che Byzantine Empire; there was instead che Roman Empire ‘entered on Constantinople, the New Rome, The inhabitants of this Empire identified themselves as Romans or simply as Christians, and che better educated among them thought that their Empire had been instituced by Augustus. We are, therefore, posing an academic question when we ask, “When did the Byzantine Empire begin and when did it end?” The only answer that can be given is that historians, in their need to carve up the past inco manageable and reasonably coherent periods, have decided that the Byzantine Empire began with the foundation af Con- stantinoplein A.D, 324 and ended with its capture by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. It is an arbitrary but convenient division. ‘Under this definition, Byzantine architecture was the architecture of the Byzantine Empire and had a lifespan of eleven centuries, discounting its prolongation in lands of che Orthodox faith well beyond the boundary date of 1453. This, however, leads us toa further question: “Granted that this chronological division is acceptable to historians, i it also a mean ingful one in terms of architecture?” Or, to pat it differently: “Do the monuments erected within the Byzantine Empire between 324 and 1453 share certain traits that identify them as Byzantine and distinguish them from those of other cultures and styles, such as the Roman, the Roman- ‘esque, the Gothic, or the Islamic?” It is dificult to give an unqualified answer. One may be inclined to say that after the seventh, and surely after the ninth, century Byzantine architecture did acquire a distinctive physi- ‘ognomy which it retained until the end, whereas in the early period (the fourth to sith centuries) one is still dealing with an architecture that is ‘essentially antique, though in the process of transformation, ‘Thus there is considerable justification or drawing a line somewhere in the seventh century and applying the term Early Christian (or Late Roman) to the architecture that precedes this line, and Byzantine to that ‘which follows it; the more sos such a line would correspond toa very real division, not to say a chasm, inthe history of the Empire. Ifone adopted this expedient, however, one would be robbing Byzantine architecture of ‘what is generally regarded as its first golden age, namely, the age of Justinian; and Byzantine architecture without St. Sophia is somewhat like body withoutits head, But if we take in the age of Justinian, where are we to sct the limit? Between the foundation of Constantinople and the accession of Justinian in 527 there was no dramatic breakin the fortunes of the Easter Empire; and so we are inevitably brought back to a starting point inthe early fourth century. ‘More than a hundzed years have passed since European antiquarians began showing a systematic interest in monuments of Byzantine archites tute. The fist book bearing the general ttle Byzantine Architecture was, if Tam not mistaken, that published in 1864 by Charles Texier, the indefatigable explorer of Asia Minor, and by a certain R. Popplewell Pollan.’ Ie stil retains some valve for the record it contains of several buildings that have since disappeared or been altered in other respect, however, itis a hodgepodge of undigested and often irelevant informa tion. Nor could it have been otherwise: for in 1864 there did not exist a sufficient corpus of material upon which to base @ general account of Byzantine architecture Tan the following decades the accumulation of material proceeded apace. The Cristian monuments of Syria were recorded by the Marquis de Vogié and by H.C. Butler, those of Asia Minor by H. Rot and Gerteude Bell, among others; thote of Armenia by N. Maer, T. Toramanian, and J. Strzygowski those of Constantinople by A. van Milingen, W.S. George, and J. Eherslt; those of Greece by G. Lampakis and G. Milt. Thanks to the intensive exploration carried out by these and many other scholars, a vast body of material was built up. How was it to be classified and interpreted? “The approach chat commended itself atthe begining of tis century tnay be termed typological. This means tha buildings were classified by genera and species, Ths we obtain the group “basilica,” which is divided {nto subgroups: basilica with or without a transept; with three or five aisles; with or without a gallery; with timber oF masonty rof; with one or tmoteapses, Or we have the so-called centralized building, which may be square circular, polygonal, or cruciform; it may be timber-rooted, vault- 1d, of domed; if ie hat a dome, this element may be supported on suinches or pendentives. Once the classification had been established, the next step was to determine th “origin” ofeach group and distinctive feature, meaning usually this geographical origin. So the question was posed, “What is the origin of the dome?” and was answered, for example, by the statement "The dome comes from Mesopotamia,” as if one were saying, “The kangaroo comes from Australi.” As inthe biological sc ences, this approach further assumed that types of buildings underwent a szadual evolution like independent orpenisms. ‘The typological method is that of the historian of art, whose primary concern is with forms. Its main weakness, it seems tO me, les in its abstraction from realty, whereas buildings are by definition concrete; indeed, they are in the fist instance, utilitarian. This defiiency was clearly sen by Jean Lassus, whose Sanctus ebriens de Se (1947) represents the first serious attempt to apply to the study of Byzantine architecture anew method, namely, the furctional.Thisis the approach of the archaeologist, who wants to know what a building was used for and who believes tae its form was largely dictated by is faneton ‘Ac Tits sight the functional approach appears very attractive Te teaches ‘sto pay lite attention to those disembodied forms that were supposed to have floated ftom one end ofthe ancient world to another without muchregard to historical probability o the means of theit transmission I tells 1s, for example, that the church was designe for the celebration of the lisoray, and as liturgical usage changed so did its architecruralseting; that ‘ martyrium, that is, a shrine enclosing an object of Christian “testimony”—whether this was a martyr’ tomb ora place sanctified by Crist’ life on earch—was planned differently from an ordinary congreg ational church? that a monastery was intended tobe inhabited by «group cof monks who, in addition to theie devotions, also practiced agriculture. The functional method is refreshingly concrete where the typological cones abstract. Yet, when we attempt to apply it to specific eases, it often fais to produce the results it promises. A note of warning is sounded by ‘one ofthe best living authorities on Roman architecture. “Under the early Empire,” he writes, “each aspect of daily life still had its own clearly defined architectural setting, You could not possibly mistake a temple for marker, oralaw-court for abathing establishment. By the third century these distinctions were rapidly disippearing...and by the time of Con stantine it was becoming increasingly dfficule eel a a glance the srt of bull with which one was dealing.”* If this is true of the age of Constantine, it is equally true of the subsequent Byzantine period. Leaving aide the controversial problem of martyria, we may cite two examples. The fist concerns monasteries. There was certainly a difference of function between the monastic church and the parochial church, if only for the reason thatthe former excluded members of the opposite sex. Whatever architectural provisions were rade in a parochial church fo segregating men from women (f, indeed, any were made), these were not needed in « monastic church. In reality, however, no difference existed berween these two types of churches, and the only way of telling them apart is by the presence of subsidiary buildings. The second example is more specific. In the courtyard of Hadrian’ Library at Athens a large quatrefoil building was constructed at the beginning of the fifth century. In ground plan it resembles a group of {important churches of the fifth ae sixth centuries found in many parts of the Empire, especially in Syria Te was, in fact, considered for along time tohave been a church, until it was shown with the help of an inscription that it was probably a reading room of lecture hall In other words, the archicectral form ofthe building was not dictated by its function ‘These examples (and many more could be cited) are not intended to show that the functional method is invalid, On che contrary, every student of Byzantine architecture should pay the closest attention to che dest zation of the buildings he is considering. In so doing, however, he will often discover that function and form do not necessarily go hand in hand, ‘The study of ancient and medieval architecture is not the exclusive preserve of the ar historian and the archacologist, however important their contributions may be. Buildings provide the most tangible and concrete legacy of a past civilization. They are historical “documents,” no less so than written documents; in some cases they even speak with a clearer voice than the written word, This, believe, i true of every period, ‘butts particularly applicable to the Byzantine. The reason for thisis that the written records of Byzantine civilization, plentiful as they ave, exhibit «curious opacity. They speak in clichés and seldom come down to the particular. They tell us a great deal about the nature of Christ and very Title about the facts of everyday life. If we ask a simple question such a, "What was the nature ofa provincial Byzantine townin the tenth century? itis almost impossible to obtain an adequate answer from written records. Its here that the study of architecture comes to our aid. It can show us what kinds of buildings were erected and what kinds were not (the negative aspect is I think, as revealing a the positive); how big they were; ‘what materials were available and what was the level of technology; finally, by paying attention to the forms, we ean detect the presence of absence of innovative trends and of foreign influences. ‘This historical approach is the one I have attempted to follow in this book. I realize that its application toa general treatment ofthe subject may bbe premature, and that it lends itself better to limited investigations of given areas than to a synthesis encompasting many centuries and many lands. The results which an approach of chis kind can yield are illustrated by the admirable work of G. Tebalenko, Villages antiques de la Syrie du sword (1953-58), In it he examines the monuments ofa particular area—the Limestone Massif of northern Syria—uithin a broad framework of eco: ‘nomichistory, thereby succeeding in bringing tolifeanentirecultureandin illuminating the monuments themselves in a manner which no amount of at history could have achieved. The case of the Limestone Massif is, of course, exceptional: its monuments, built of large squared stones, have never been subjected to deliberate devastation, and so have survived nearly intact—whole villages with their houses, farms, churches and monasteries, and their “industrial” installations (oil presses), which provide the key to the economic development of the region. In most other parts of the Byzantine Empire an investigation of this kind would yield ‘much poorer results, but there are areas other than the Limestone Massif in which it could be successfully applied. Until e numberof such regional studies have been undertaken, a survey of the eleven centuries of Byzantine architecture cannot attain the kind of contact with the historical, geographical, social, and economic relies of the Middle Ages that would be desirable. IF Lhave attempted this tas, it ‘was with a view to posing some questions that appeated to be interesting rather than in the hope of solving them, The reader, on his part, will require some familiarity with Byzantine history and culture, which he can sain from any one of several excellent handbooks.” A final word of warning. In spite of the vast amount of material at our disposal, we still have very fragmentary and unbalanced knowledge of Byzantine architecture. Consider the following facts. Constantinople,‘which we know much better than most other Byzantine cities, had inthe course of the Middle Ages more than five hundred churches and monas- teries. Of these, about thirty have survived in varying degrees of ruination, chat is, less than ten percent. There is almost no trace ofthe two imperial palaces— the Great Palace and the palace of Blachernae—and of the hundreds of great mansions of the capital only two or three are represented by some insignificant remains. The second most populous city of the Empire—1 am speaking of the Early Byzantine period—was Alexandria, yet we know nothing of its Christian architecture. The third largest city, Antioch, has been partially excavated, but none ofits more {important buildings has been recovered. Se mach for the fragmentary character of our documentation. Another serious limitation is that the documentation is not representative. The casual observer may be excused for thinking that the Byzantines built nothing but churches; in fact, chey built many other categories of struc: tures, such as houses, palaces, baths, cisterns, fortifications, and bridges, ‘A.considerable volume of secular architecture has survived from the Early Byzantine period, much less from the Middle and Late; it has received, however, very little attention, as compared with ecclesiastical architec: ture. Ihave attempted, whenever possible, to rectify the balance, but have been obliged, like my predessors, ro speak mostly of churches. A great deal cof preparatory work will have to be done before we can make any general statements concerning secular Byzantine architecture, Chapter Il MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES; ARCHITECTS, WORKMEN, AND PATRONS In the Byzantine period, building techniques remained remarkably stable on a regional basis from century to century—a stability that is easily explainable because the techniques in question depended first, on the local availability of building materials, and, second, on certain established ‘workshop traditions that often persisted regardless of such upheavals as foreign occupation. A general understanding of these techniques isessen- tial, since they determined, to an appreciable extent, what could or could rot be done architecturally —given, of course, the technological poss bilities of the times. Very broadly speaking, Byzantine construction falls into two cate sgories. The first is ashlar masonry, characteristic of Syria Palestine, much of Asia Minor, as well asthe border regions of Armenia and Georgia; the second is brick and rubble, typical of Constantinople, the western coast of ‘Asia Minor, the Balkans, and Italy—hence representing the central tradi ton of Byzantine architectute.' Ashlar masonry lent itself admirably to the construction of vertical surfaces that could be enlivened by carving, ‘but was less suitable for roofing. Small spans could be covered in stone, «ther in slabs laid down flat or in blocks forming vaules, but this could not ‘be done for large area, which had to be roofed in timber or some other comparatively lightweight material, such as brick or scotine? The ‘comments that follow will be largely confined to the second kind of construction, which we may call, for convenience, Constantinopolitan.? ‘The normal way of building a wall was, first, 0 put up its ewo faces consisting of squared, oblong stones. This was done course by course, and the intervening space was filled witha core of rubble etn agreat quantity of mortar. When the construction reached the height of afew feet, there followed « band of brick, often five courses high, which went right through the wall, from one side to the other. Then the process was repeated, Tn a sense, brick was the basic element of construction. Apart from binding walls together, it determined their thickness and hence served asa ‘edule, In Constantinople bricks were made square, the sides being about 14 to 15 inches and the thickness 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 inches—somewhat larger than normal Roman bricks. A wall 2 bricks thick would thus measure (allowing for 1 mortar joint) 29 1/2 ro 31 1/2 inches. The manufacture of bricks seems to have been subject to some kind of control, and, becween the fourth and sixth centuries, they were often stamped, although the exact meaning of these stamps has not yet been determined. Arches, vaults, and domes were built exclusively of brick, which, in arches of great, span, was occasionally of double size, ike the Roman bipedals. Daring certain periods we encounter buildings that are made entirely or predominantly of brick. Confining ourselves to Constantinople, we may mention the ruined basilica of St. Mary Chalkoprateia (c. A.D. 450), which is all of brick, although the contemporary basilica of St. John of Studius has three courses of scone alternating with five of brick. During1, Constantinople, city 2. Yalova (Turkey), cruciform Coured construction of brick and seenler building Alt-brick stone, contraction 3. Constantinople, St. Mary Chalkoprateia. Alt-brick ‘construction the period of Justinian we find « characteristic type of masonry: the lowest partof the walls, oughly up to the springing of the arches oft is buile of stone; from there upward itis brick, except that at intervals of about six feet we find a single course of stone. All-brick construction at Bodrum Cami efirst story appears again inthe tenth cent {As for the normal system of rubble and brick, it persisted throughout the Byzantine period, at any rate until the fourteenth century, when -rubble construction appeared because bricks were no longer available ‘Sach was the conservatism of Byzantine builders that na clear method has yet been found of distinguishing the work of one period from that of wventh and twelfth centuries do we find a distinc another. Only in te tive variation, which consisted in slightly recessing every second course of brick and concealing it beneath the mortar joint, which, as a result, appears disproportionately thick. Some observers have seen a gradual diminution through the centuries inthe size ofthe bricks, others a slight thickening of the morta joints, but these factors are subject ro 40 much variation, even within the same building, that no criterion of practical applicability can be drawn from them ‘The methods I have described were directly descended), as was only natura, from those used in western Asia Minor and the Balkans in the second and third centuries A.D. Super looks like Roman construction ofthe Imperial period in Italy, yet there isa fundamental difference between the two: Italian Roman construction is predicated on a core of cement, which, thanks to the unique properties of pozzolans, is homogeneous and (once it has set) monolithic; the facing is skin-dcep and can be removed without doing any damage tothe structure.* In Byzantine construction the rubble core does not achieve « homo ‘geneous mass and iskeptrogether by the facing; without the latter it tends to disintegrate. This explains the importance of the bonding courses of brick and the relative thickness of these courses, To Byzantine architects inherited a repertory of Roman f lv, Byzantine construction technical means of translating them fully into practice Byzantine mortar was of lime and sand and contained an admixcure of {inert matter, namely, crushed brick or, occasionally, pebbles. It was applied very liberally. While in Roman buildings of the Imperial period the morta joints are thinner than the bricks, in Byzantine buildings the reverse is true. The ratio between the thickness of brick and mortar joint was about 1:1 in the fourth century and nearly 2:3 in the sixth, This practice is probably to be explained by a desire to economize on bricks ‘Whether this was so or no, the excessive use of mortar had an unavoid: able result: buildings tended to setee and warp as the mortar dried out, ss must have begun already during construction, In lange case of St and this proc buildings his was especially serious, as we shall observe in Sophia; but nearly all Byzantine buildings show irregularities and defor ‘ations that are connected with the large quantity of mortar they contain,4, Nicaea (Lik), city walls 6, Resala, iste, barrel vault Recessed-brick construction (6th century. (eh century. 5. Constanta, market building, Late Roman brick-and-stone constuction with brick quoins (th century) Byzantine vaulting is basically of three kinds: the barrel vault, the cdomical vault, and the cross-groined yault.Allof these could be built with ‘or without centering, depending on their span. The method of building an tuncentered barrel vault was the following. Fits, the four walls had to be brought to theie full height. Then the workmen started at both ends of the space to be covered, placing the bricks radially, but a a slight inclination away from the center to prevent chem from slipping down. They must have worked quickly and wsed afast-drying mortar. When the two ends of the construction came together in the middle, the intervening wedge- shaped space was filled with a “plug” of brick, thus locking che entire vaul into position. Domical and cross-groined vaults were built over spaces delimited by four arches. In the former case the bricks were laid at a ‘gradually increasing inclination from the horizontal, first to form penden. tives and thus provide a circular base for the vault, and then proceeding ‘upward until the crown was reached. Inthe groin vault the bricks were laid parallel tothe extrados of the arches: where they met atthe corners of the space to be covered, they naturally formed a ridge, but this gradually disappeared nearer to the crown, The dead spaces above the springing of vaults were filled with earthenware jars so as to reduce the load. In vaulted construction we normally find a great deal of irregularity and improvi- sation: the geometrically accurate diagrams found in modern publications are rather misleading in this respect. ‘The dome, which usually formed the crowning element of Byzantine churches as well as other types of buildings, was constructed on the same general principle as the domical vault, that is, it rested om pendentives, ‘The difference berween the two is that whereas in the domical vault the pendentives and the calotte form a continous spherical surface, thisis not the ease in the dome, which is built on a smaller radius than that of the pendentives beneath it. This distinction in no way affects the nature of the ppendentives, which are the same in both cases.” The shell ofthe dome was often ribbed or gored on the inside so as to produce a number of tapering segments that could be either flat or concave, These ribe or ridges contributed tothe strength of the dome, but they were not constructive in the sense that, unlike Gothic ribs, they were integral with the web between them. ‘Weare les well informed on the use of timber, which was employed for the roofs of basilicas and houses, for scaffolding, centering, and for tie beams. The supply of long, straight timbers must have been generally arce, except in certain heavily wooded areas, such as the Lebanon range, Cyprus, and Lycia. A couple of examples may serve toillustrate this point, ‘The sixth-century Saint Nicholas of Sion, later confused with the more familiar St. Nicholas of Myra, is said tohave felled a huge cypress tree that ‘was inhabited by « demon. After the tree had been trimmed, it was decided to use it as a beam in the church he was building, bu while it was being transported, three cubits were broken off its length. This was7 Constastiople, St Irene, construction of orossgroined vault (Gib century) (alter W.S. George, 1912). 8. Zenobia (Halabiye),practorium, ‘70ss-roined vault (6th century). 9, Constantinople, Christ Pantocrator (Zeyrek Kilise Cam), crossgroined vault (121b century) considered a great disaster, because the trunk was now too short for is intended purpose. But St. Nicholas miraculously restored it ite fall length, andi took ts place in the oof ofthe church. This story is set in Lyci hence in a densely wooded are, and shows how much importance seas attached even there ta tll, stright tree. Several cencuries ater and tunder Arab rule, the puteiarch Thomas I of Jerusdlem (807-20) restored the raf of the Anastasia, the circular church erected over Christ's tomb, For this purpose he had to impor at great expense filty trunks of pine and cedat fom Cyprus.” He would doubtless have had fa less trouble had the roof been of masonry. ‘Aunigue example of timber russ rot ofthe sixth century is preserved inthe monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sina. After ths period fever and fewer baslicas were built, and one reason for the adoption of the ‘masonty-roofed church may have been precisely the dificulty of obtaining suitable timber. ‘The exterior of buildings was occasionally plastered, but more often appears to have been left plain. The joints between the courses of brick and stone were pointed up with a thin layer of fine mortar, which was ‘pressed witha blunt implement sos to form slight groove, Oftenincised lines were added. Omamental patterns of brick are quite exceptional before the tenth century. Exterior marble revetments are even taret (for example, the western fagade of St. Sophia). The treatment of the interior stands in sharp contrast to that ofthe exterior ere (except in buildings of ashlar masonry) every inch ofthe walls was covered with marble plcage, stuceo, pinting, and mosaic. us to the important topic of marble, In terms of structural elements, the use of marble was confined to columns, comices, and anchitraves, butt wat also applied toa reat numberof subsidiary features such as door jambs and lintels, vindow grilles, parapet slabs, pulpts, and of course, pavements and mural revetment. Ever since exotic colored marbles were introduced to Rome in the Late Republican period, they became, sto speak, a statu symbol, and their production was enormously expanded in the fitst and second centuries A.D.* No building of any pretension could do without them, and itis noteworthy that dhe Byzantine ckplrasis usually devotes more space to marble than to any other feature of 1 building. The total effect of a Late Roman or Eaely Byzantine interior was toa large extent predicated on a lavish use of marble “To achieve the multicolored effect chat was so greatly prized, a great ‘number of quarries, situated all around the Mediteranean, had to be exploited. Red porphyry, the most prestigious and expensive ofall stones, cane ony from Egypt; green porphyry from Laconia; verd antique from ‘Thessaly; fiery yellow marble (illo antico) from Tunisia ivory-colored «ny fot Hierapolisin Phrygia.” The supply ofthese materials depended ‘ona combination of factors: the existence of a servile labor force to work the quarries, case of communication an, in particular, of navigation intheMediterranean, and the ability co lift up and transport very heavy blocks cof stone for which special ships had to be built Since transport by sea was ‘much easier and cheaper than transport by land, quarries situated close to the seashore enjoyed a natural advantage. This, no doubt, explains in part the extraordinary diffusion of Proconnesian marble (from the island of Proconnesis in the Sea of Marmara), which, already in the first century A.D., was being widely exported, and which became the standard marble of Byzantine architect in appentance it is neatly white witha bluegray vein), ithad the advantage of being an all purpose marble, equally suitable for ornamental carving as for lage elements such as column shafts." ‘While our knowledge of ancient marbles is constantly growing, we are still unable, in most cases, to answera question of particular interest wo the ‘While not particulaely fine-grained or striking historian of Byzantine architecture, namely, “When did the various ‘quarries cease production?” The supply of red porphyry seems to have ended about A.D. 450, if one may judge by the descriptions of imperial satcophagi green marble of Caryetur, in Euboes, extensively used for columns in the Roman Imperial period, was still quatrid in the early fifth century A.D, The Thess time of Justinian, I suspect that the majority of marble quarries were abandoned in the sixth or seventh century because of the deteriorating situation of the Empire and the dwindling ofthe servile labor force. I am rot even sure that the quarries of Proconnesus continued to be worked hich, until that date, were normally made of porphyry. The ian quarries of verd antique were certainly in operation atthe after that date. This was, doubtless, an important factor in shaping the development of Middle Byzantine architectur We now come to the men who erected the buildings. In the Early Byzantine period the architectural profession was represented by two kinds of specials, the méchanikor or méchanopoios(mechanicus in Latin) and the arcbitek#b, the former category being by far the more exalted."? "The term méchanikos is often translated s engineer, but thisis somevhs misleading: he could more properly be described as an architect having a ‘rounding in mathematics, His social positon was quite high. The archi tects of St. Sophia, Anthemius and Isidore, were both mécbunitoi, and ‘Anthemius was a prominent mathematician. In his far-flung building ‘operations, Justinian relied on the services of such men. The reconstruc tion and fortification of the frontier city of Dara was supervised by the ‘échenikos Cheyses of Alexandria. When this city was damaged by a sudden flooding of the stream that flows through it, the emperor called in Anchemius and Isidore for consultation. The problem was solved by building a dam, whose design was revealed to Chryses in a vision. The building of the city of Zenobia on the Euphrates was carried out by two young méchenikei, John of Constantinople and another Teodore (nephew ofthe fist). The latter subsequently supervised the reconstruction ofS10, Resa, Audience Hall of ‘abundir, stone domical voult without pendentives (6b cencury) U1, Constantinople, Karegionrile ister, domical vaults (110b or 12th century). Sophia at Constantinople after its cxginal dome had collapsed in 358, ‘The méchanikos was, however, fasly sare individual. The arcitek. Jones, or master builders, ranked decidedly lower. Inthe fourth century they were still supposed to have a liberal eck professional instruction, for which, ho wages: aie more than teachers of elementary mathematics and short hand, but exactly half of what surveyors and teachers of erature were allowed ro charge. We may imagine that, as time wenton, the arcbitektones sank tothe evel of craftsmen. The majority of Farly Byzantine structures ‘were probably pu up by such master builders or even by foreman. Iti worthy of otic that after the sixch century hardly any Byzantine ach tects are recorded by name. + Below the arcitektones came the skilled craftsmen who belonged to the pebeian clas. Their relative status is reveled by the salaries specified in Diocletian's Tariff of A.D. 301 (their absolute worth is almost impossible ro cleat): figute painters got 150 denari per day pus their food; wall painters, 75; mossicists, 6; ordinary masons and carpenters, 50.7 tically all such craftsmen belonged to hereditary guilds (colle), which unlike modern trade unions, were organized not forthe protection of workers but for their coercion. As such, the craftsmen were liable t all kinds of compulsory services, such as cleaning out drains Tes no wonder tha they sought to escape the tentacles ofthe central evernment by fleeing to the countryside. A decree of the emperor Honoris of A.D. 400 complains that the cities were losing ther splendor because che collet had abandoned their upkeep and hidden themselves inthe country. By the ith cent the building profession seems 1 have broken down, and we may imagine thatthe number of independent, lating workmen increased corespond ingly In the tenth century, at Constantinople, construction workers were once again organized in gills and subject regulation by the city prefect Iisunlkely that the same situation existed inthe provinces Such, in bie, were the materials and techniques used, the men that carried out construction. A number of contemporary texts may help us to understand how, in different pazts ofthe Empire and at different mes, uikdng (usually a church) was pot up, how the materials were obtained, and what the role ofthe architect was ue first text i the we known letter ofthe emperor Constantine to Macarivs, bishop of Jerusalem, concerning the erection ofthe church of the Holy Sepulcher in 326. It may be summarized as follows: “We wish this charch to be the most beautiful in the world. We have isued instructions to this effect to the Vicarius Orientis and the governor of Palestine. After consulting with you, these officals will provide the necessary craftsmen and materials, and defray the expense. You are, however, to communicate directly with ws in regard to the following two points: 1, The nature and quentity of the marble to be supplied; ion, and they gave wer, they received rather modest y the system of compuliory services in snd such were 12. Constantinople, Myrelsion (Bodrum Cami), gored dome (1028 century) 13, Constantinople, St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Cami), north erm of perambulatory, ribbed dome (14th centary or later,2, Whether the ceiling is to be coffered, for in that case it should also be gilded.” ‘A perusal of cis bureaucratic document prompts the following observa: tions, First, Constantine himself does not seem to have been particularly ‘concemed about the architectural form of the church as long as it was the ‘most beautiful in the world, Second, the church was to be built entirely at ‘government expense—understandably 0, since it was « “propaganda monument.” Thicd, whereas the provincial administrators had been ingtructed to furnish the necessary labor (by the system of the forced corvée) and materials, it was the bishop who acted, as it were, as che chairman of the planning commission. No mention whatever was made of the architect (we happen to know from another source that it was a certain Zenobius). Fourth, the bishop was to communicate directly wich the femperor with regard to the marbles and the gilding, probably because these were the most expensive items on the agenda. Besides, marble was not produced in either Palestine ot Syria and would have to have been {imported from provinces lying outside the jurisdiction ofthe two officials rentioned in the leter. ‘The second document, dating from about A.D. 380, isa letter of St Gregory of Nyssa to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium."* Gregory was in the process of constructing a martyrium. First, he explained its form and ‘gave the dimensions: it consisted of a central space, in the shape of an ‘ectagon with « conicel roof, and four radiating arms so as to give a ‘cruciform plan; something like Qal'at Saman, only much smaller, since the aems were eight cubits wide and twelve long, and the walls three feet thick Gregory trusted that his correspondent, who was skilled in such matters, ‘would be able, on the bass ofthe measurementshe had supplied, to make rough reckoning ofthe volume of work involved and dispatch to Nyssa as many workers as were needed. The structure was to be built of brick (since ro stone was avaiable locally), but it would comprise certain elements of stone of marble, namely, eight columns together with their capitals and pedestals for the octagon, a carved doorframe, and a peristyle of at least forty columns. Gregory had been offered local labor—thirty masons for cone solids (gold piece) per day plus food—but he considered these terms to be exorbitant. The workers fom the region of Iconium, he thought, ‘would be less demanding; furthermore, he wanted to havea clear contract ‘of how much each workman was to do per day. Financial necessity ‘compelled him to be exacting in this respect. Here we are dealing not with a government project, but with a small building that was put up at the expense of the local church or bishop, ‘whose limited funds obliged him to cut corners whenever possible, Once again, there was no mention ofan architect. Se. Gregory was in possession of a plan oF some type of drawing of a fairly rudimentary kind: he was rather vague about the elevation of the building, siying that the height of the arms was to be proportionate to their length and width, and 6 14. Constantinople, St. Sophia, west jagade, extemal marble revetment (6th century) about the peristyle, which was to consist of about forty columns Evidently, such matters could be improvised on the spot. He also assumed that his colleague, the bishop of Iconium, was sufficiently ‘expert in matters of construction to be able to calculate the necessary number of masons. As for the wages, the terms that had been offered to St, Gregory were indeed rather exorbitant: a daily wage of 1/30 of 2 solidus per man would have amounted, assuming fairly steady employ ment, to a yearly income of about 10 solidi, whereas the average rate for the fourth to sixth centuries, as we know from other sources, was about 5 to 7 solidi, Gregory assumed that the masons of Ieonium would rot only be more reasonable, but would also be willing to travel a distance of about one hundred miles, which presupposed the existence of a floating labor force (Our third text concerns the construction of the cathedral of Gaza from 402 t0 407.2 Here, as at Jerusalem, the project was state finan: ced, but it appears that the labor was supplied voluntarily by the Chris tian community rather than by forced levy. Gaza at the time was still predominantly pagan, having a Christian flock of only 280 persons, ‘while its total population certainly numbered several rens of thousands. Yet, armed with imperial support, Bishop Porphyry did not hesitate to burn down the pagan temple of Zeus Marnas. Upon its site the new Christian cathedral was co be built. A dispute then arose among the faithful. The Marneion had been a circular building having some kind cof a dome and two concentric porticoes. Some thought that the church should be built according to the same formule, while others urged that it should not be in aay way reminiscent of the pagan temple. The bishop decided to wait. Soon thereafter he received a leter from the empress Eudoxia containing a plan (ckariphos) ofthe church drawn on a sheet: the plan was cruciform. Porphyry engaged the services of an architect (ercitektin) from Antioch, a certain Rufinus, who marked the outline of the plan on the ground by means of chalk. The foundation trenches were then dug, the bishop himself taking part in the work Stone was obtained from a local quarry. The following year the empress sent thirty-two columns of Carystus marble (veined green marble from Euboea). Five years later the enormous cathedral was completed. Some interesting observations may be made on the basis ofthis text We are here dealing with an ordinary episcopal church, not a martyr jum; yet some persons suggested © circular domed plan, and the church that was eventually built was cruciform. Secondly, the plan was sent ready-made from Constantinople. The honest architect Rufinus had no part in designing i; he was called upon to realize it, and he had ro control over the dimensions of the thirty-two columns that were hipped from Euboea on orders ofthe empress, after the lower par ofthe walls had already been boil ‘The theee texts we have quoted reflect very different historical and local15. Nyssa, martyrium, ground plan (efter J. Streygowski, 1903) circumstances, yet chy have some points of similarity. In each case the dominant role was played by the bishop. The architect, or master builder, ithe was mentioned at al didnot apps asthe originator of the plan ut merely as it executor, and he seemed o be working onthe bass of firy sketchy drawings. The marble columns received particle mention, and they were provided directly by the imperial government. The laborers might be raised by forced core; they might be provided volunarly by the Christian commnity;o they might be hired by she bishop If these conditions wer typical (and think they were), we ned no be surprised by the uniformity of Early Christian achitectre, The tsk of the master builder was noc so mich design and invent sro improvise on the basis of accepted format; and he had to work fy quikly. Unlike Gothic cathedrals, Early Christian churches were pu up with remarkable speed, Ith eathedral of Gaza took five years to complet, this may have teen due to the smallness of the Christian community; Se. Sophia a stantinope alo took five years ‘We may now take one fly untspical example, the monastery of St Simeon Stites the Younger [to distinguish him frm his more famous namesake of Qal'st Saman) on the “Wondrous Mountain,” a shore discance southwest of Antioch. fs ins are sll standing and cover considerable area: a walled precinct measuring about 400 by 550 feet with 1 complex of churches forming a rectangle 200 by 280 feet." The mona tery was built roughly berween the years 541 and 565 and is clearly ‘modeled on Qal'at Saman: an octagonal cout inthe middle enclosing the saint's pillar, and four radiating arms, except that here three churches were placed side by side to the east of the octagon—a central basilica, « smaller basilica tothe north, and a martytium with a trefoil chevet to the south, ‘The Lives of Simeon and of his mother Martha describe in some detail bow cis complex was built. The plan was allegedly traced by an angel, and then a multitude of Isaurian masons appeared bringing their sick, so that the stint would cure them. These Issurians must have been migrant workers who sought employment at Antioch, probably on a seasonal bass. Year after year they kept coming to the Wondrous Mountain an return for being healed of various diseases, put in periods of work. They ceven brought their own tools and provisions. The capitals of the main basilica were carved by @ monk who had had no previous training in this craft, but was miraculously granted a "spirit of wisdom.” Particulaely curious is the account ofthe construction ofthe martysium of St. Martha. Ies plan, coo, was revealed supernaturlly by the deceased saint, who particulaely insisted on having the trefoil chevet covered by a barrel vault. The builder had other ideas (we are not told what they were), but he was quickly disposed of. Thereupon another Issurien builder turned up, and he, without being instructed, put up exactly the kind of vault that St. Martha had wanted. Here, then, we have a “do it yourself” operation which shows the remarkable resources that could be mobilized by a holy man who set up a popular center of pilgrimage. Important architectural features, sich as the roofing ofthe trefoil, were, if we ate to trust the text, improvised on the spot. What is particularly interesting, however, is that the entire work appears to have been done without any money changing hands. We may wonder how many of the rural churches of the Early Byzantine period ‘were put up by voluntary labor and with the help of the contributions in kkind made by the faithful. ‘This brings us to the final poin of finance and patronage. The erection ‘of public buildings was entirely in the hands of the state, which in the fourth and fifth centuries repeatedly attempted to discourage such activity in favor of the restoration of existing buildings The problem arises, therefore, only with regard to churches, and here three kinds of patronage were involved that cannot always be distinguished: the state, che local church, and private benefactors. As we have seen from the above examples, the government and the Church often acted in concert, the former providing either the catal cost or part of it. The stme kind of overlap existed between ecclesiastical and private patronage. Without‘wishing to minimize the amount of disinterested piety that found an outlet in the construction of churches, we should nevertheless indicate some of the complex economic interests that were involved inthis domain. The Church was immensely rich in the Early Byzantine period or, to put it more accurately, an immense amount of moncy passed through its hands. This came mainly from two sources: che offerings ofthe faithful, in principle voluntary (but in practice not always so), and rents from the properties, which accrued by way of bequest. On the debit side were the salaries paid to the clergy, the maintenance of buildings, and the distr bution of charity. It was the bishop's task to encourage donations; a substantial donor, however, often wished to see his liberality immor- talized by a monument. A new church meant new jobs forthe clergy anda ‘ew source of offerings: indeed, laymen often built churches as acommer- cial speculation and then drew a share ofthe proceeds, At the same time a new church, if not suficiently endowed, meant an added drain on the resources of the bishopric ‘There are indications tht by the sixth century the system was beginning to break down. Too many churches had been bu, too many clergymen appointed under pressure from patrons, The field was “saturated,” and expenditures were exceeding receipes. Even the Great Church of Con- stantinople (meaning a group of four churches, including St. Sophia, that were served by the same clergy) was in desperate financial trouble: Justinian was forced to decree that no further ordinations be made. ‘There is no doubt in my mind that e more thorough examination of these economic factors would shed a great deal of light on the pattern of ‘ecclesiastical archieceure in the Early Byzantine period; conversely, the archaeological evidence could be used to supplement that of the written sources. It may be possible in this way to find an explanation of certain puting architectural phenomena, such as the high incidence of multiple churches, that is, two or three churches built side by side. Was not the intention, perhaps, to satisfy the wishes of individual donors and at the same time cut down on overhead by having a single body of clergy and of. ‘custodians for the whole group? In a broader sense we may gain a better understanding of the extraordinary wave of church building, especially ia the fifth century, and of its subsidence in the reign of Justinian, This subsidence was caused nor only by the deteriorating condition of the Empire, but also by the sclerosis of the mechanism of church finance. {As to the cost of erecting a church, perhaps the only reliable figure we have is that relating to S. Vitale at Ravenna: 26,000 solid, an enormous sum for those days. The patron was the banker (agentariusJulianus, who was also concerned with the construction of several other churches at Ravenna. We have no means of determining, however, whether Julianus expended so much money oat of his own pocket or whether he was financed by the imperil treasury. The figures we are given for the erection of St. Sophia st Constantinople are clearly fantastic. 16, Monastery of St. Simon Stliter the Younger, near Antioch, ground lan (after W. Djobadze, 1965).(Chapter HL: CITIES OF THE EARLY BYZANTINE PERIOD ‘The question may well be asked whether it is possible to speak of the Byzantine city ssa distinct architectural comples. Inthe vast majority of ‘cases a Byzantine ity (Tam speaking now of the period downto the sixth ‘or seventh century) was merely the continuation of a Roman city, which, in turn, may have been founded inthe Hellenistic period or even earlier. Usually the cities in question had reached their peak during the second century A.D. In the second half of the third century there was widespread ucban decline, which in many instances extended into the fourth century. ‘The fifth and sixth centuries were marked by an upsurge of building activity in the eastern provinces. Then, inthe seventh, came a catastroph- ie crash, often amounting to a cessation of urban life. The Byzantine period inthe life of such ites was not marked by any radical change inthe layout ofthe streets, the system of fortification, of burial, or ofthe water supply. The most obvious alterations were the erection of churches and the abandonment of the pagan temples; there were also less noticeable developments connected with civic administration, marketing and public ‘A second, much smaller, category is represented by cites that were founded de novo duting the Early Byzantine period, The case of Con: stentinople, which is that ofan antique city enlarged into a huge metropo- lis in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., is exceptional ‘Asan example of the first category of cities we may take Gerasa Jerash) in Jordan, not because it was a place of particular importance inthe ancient world, but for the rather more prosaic reason that it has been quite thoroughly investigated! and is not encumbered by later settlements. ‘Gerasa was « Hellenistic foundation, bt its development occurced during the Roman period. In the first century A.D. it was laid out on a grid pattern with a straight colonnaded cardo 1,000 yards long and with 2 decurtani. The entre city, covering an are of 210 acres, was atthe same time enclosed by a wall. In the reiga of Hadrien a plan was formed of extending the city wall othe south s0 as to enlarge the enclosed area by about one third, but this was never cared out. The most spectacular public buildings were put up at the end of the first century and in the second century. Gerasa was endowed with two theaters, the south theater seating capacity of 3,000 and a smaller north theater; two mont mental temples chat of Zeus in the south section ofthe city (c. A.D. 163) and that of Artemis (, A.D. 150-80) fronting on the cardo and covering, wih its temenos and dependencies, an area of 8.4 ates; several bathing ‘establishments; an elegant nymphacum (A.D. 191), and an extramural hhippodrome (date uncertain; pethaps Severan period), seating, sbout 15,000 spectators. In Diceletian’s time a circular plaza was laid out around, the south tetrapylon to serve as a commercial center or bazaer. Gerasa naturally became a bishopric inthe fourth century, but, in fact, nothing definite is known ofits monumental history until the middle of the fifth. The two major temples appear to have ceased functioning at bout this time, but were not demolished. Instead, a vast eccesiastic complex arose directly to the south of the temple of Artemis, replacing a pagan sanctuary that may have fallen into disuse at an earlier period. Including its late accretions, this complex measured 600 feet from east to ‘west and, like the adjacent temple, it fronted onthe cardo. A monumental entrance of the second century A.D. was used to give access to the complex, which was built on several successive cerraces. After mounting & staircase, the visitor found himself facing the rear wall ofthe cathedral, a rectangular basilica measuring about 140 by 75 feet. This was erected perhaps in the second half of the fourth century (itis, unfortunatly, undated), largely out of reused building material, Farther west lay an open colonnaded courtyard, atthe center of which was a fountain whose water miraculously turned to wine on the day of Epiphany. A second basilica, nearly as large as the first, was added in 494-96; this was @ martyrium dedicated to St. Theodore, It had an atrium of its own and various dependent structures, one of which was use as a baptistery. To the north of St. Theodore’ lay a maze of rooms chat must have hoosed the clergy, and next to them a bath (presumably forthe use ofthe clergy) that was buile by Bishop Places in 454-55 and renovated in 384 This ereat episcopal complex, the result of accretions extending over two centuries, prompts a number of observations. Comparison with the adjacent temple of Artemisis particularly instructive, The latter, placed in the middle of a vast open courtyard, was intended to be seen from all directions. In che case of the Christian complex, on the other hand, it would have been practically impossible ro obtain an exterior view of the basilias, so hemmed in were they on all sides, This observation applies to the majority of Early Christian churches. Some attempt at mooumentality was indeed made here: [am refecrin to the broed staircase leading up from the caro. Yet the custom of orienting the apse ofthe cathedral all but negated this attempt, for, after mounting the staits, the worshipper found himself facing blank wall. He then had to walk through a narrow passage along the side wall of the cathedral before he could reach the courtyard with ts miraculous fountain, Even from the courtyard he could sce only the triforium level ofthe fagade, the rest being hidden from view by the surroanding colonnade. Before the erection of St. Theodore's there may have been a western entrance tothe atrium, but we happen to know thatthe area in question was anything but monumental it was used as a ‘dump for the carcases of animals, and the stench was so bad that one had tohold one's nose with the hand—a rare case where ephigraphy unveils to us the realities of a Neue Eastern town? ‘A number of other churches arose in Gerasa. That of the Prophets, “Apostles, and Martyrs, of cruciform plan enclosed in a square, was put up in the northern part ofthe city in 464-65 at the expense of « lady called Marina. A martyrium of unknown dedication, basiican in plan (refered toas the Procopius charch), was built in the southeast comer of the city in17. Gene, city lan fatter C,H. Kreling, 1938)18 Gaus, cxtheal complex. 19. Gora, eatbodal comple, 21. Gerss, Church ofthe Prope, ground plan (ater C. H. Rraeling, Fountain Court, looking southeast. “Apestes, and Marty, gro pla 1938; 20, Gersa cathedral, reconsiction alter CH, Kmeling, 1938). of Fountain Conn. i roy a aw cated 2 ey22, Gersa, St Job the Bapss, Se Goong, and Ss. Cosmas and Danian, ground plan ater CH, Kracling, 1938) 526 from the benefactions of Bishop Paul and the deacon Saul, under the direction of a clergyman called Procopivs. A group of three conjeined chutches sharing a common atrium was put up in 529-33 a short distance west ofthe cathedral complex. The central chutch, of circular plan with comer exedrae (531), was buile in honor of St, John the Baptist ac the expense of a certain Theodore; the south church (529), the gift of an anonymous donor, was dedicated to St. George and had the form of a basilica whose arcades were carried on piers instead of columns; the north church, named after the medical saints Cosmas and Damian (533), was similar in form to that of St, George. It was pat up atthe expense of the same Theodore with supplementary contributions from other persons, including the teibune Dagisthacus, later to become one of Justinian's generals, ‘The remaining churches of Gerasa are all basilicas, They ate the so- called Synagogue church, built in 330-31 on asite previously occupied by a synagogue; the church of Sts. Peter and Paul, put up by Bishop Anastasius about 540; the Propylaca church (perhaps of 565), incorporating large portions of an antique building; and finaly the church of Bishop Genesius (611), whose mosaic pavement was donated by the goldsmith John and a ‘A study of the epigraphic material associated with these churches demonstrates that the local bishop had become the most important patron of the arts at Gerasa. It was he who erected churches at his own oF diocesan expense; or he persuaded rich members of the congregation to do 0. Nowhere is the name of an architect mentioned; and in only one case, as we have seen, does a superintendent of works appear, who happens 0 bea cleric ‘We know much less concerning nonreligious public activities at Gerasa during the Christian period. It appears, on the bass of coin finds, that the hippodrome continued to be used until the end of the sixth century Concerning the fate of the two theaters within the walls che excavators have nothing to tell us; but there is an interesting piece of evidence attached to another small theater (seating capacity 1,000), a building of the second or third century, situated next to a pool Bitketein, about half a mile north of the city. Here was found an inser. tion of the year 535 recording the celebration, under official auspices, of festival called Maioumas.’ This festival was of Syrian origin bat was widely diffused in the Roman worl it comprised some form of scenic representations tha is, mimes, and had a bad reputation, for which it was repeatedly banned by imperil legislation—apparently to ltele avail. At Constantinople it persisted until the eighth century. "The observations I have made concerning Gerasa could also be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the classical cities of western Asia Minor, such as Ephesus, Pergamum, Miletus, and Sardis. Most of these were fortified in the third century, at the time of the Gothie invasions, and survived ‘place now called‘without substantial diminution until the beginning ofthe seventh. Their temples were despoiled and used as quarries of building material; churches ‘were built; gymnasia and boulewteria were abandoned, while public baths and theaters were maintained. Retil marketing shifted from the agora to the colonnaded street, called emolos, nd in some cass large avenues were laid out for this purpose, lke the Arcadiane at Ephesus. In the domain of charity there was even anexpansion of public services, since the Church provided poorhouses, inns, and hospitals. In other words, che texture of life gradually changed, bot life went on until the great crash, which in Asia Minor was caused by the Persian invasion in the second decade of the seventh century. Thereafter the majority of cities were abandoned and replaced by motntsintop castles; among che few survivors were Ephesus and Smyrna, which, however, were greatly diminished as compared with their former size (Our second category, that of cities founded inthe Byzantine perio, s represented by few examples that have been explored, All of them, moreover, have had « shoe lifespan, hardly longer than a centuey. The city that has been most thoroughly studied is probably Caritin Grad in ‘Yugoslavia, plausibly identified with Justiniana Prima.* This was an artificial creation of the emperor Justinian, built to honor his own birthplace. The excavated walled city iselongated in plan and quite modest insize length 350 yards, average width not much more than 109 yards) in face, ony slightly larger than the monastic complex of Qal'at Saman, whichis 440 yards long and over 109 yards wide. The acropolis is entirely occupied by the episcopal cathedral and palace—fastiniana Prima was made the seat ofthe archbishop of Ilyricum. The lower city was traversed by along colonnadeed caro, intersected by a much shorter decumans. At ‘the point of intersection was circular piazza which, as at Gerasa, was the commercial enter. To the east ofthe card four churches have been found and tothe west, one: between them, they take up a considerable portion of the city’s area. The only other large public building that has been ident- ified was a bath, Water was supplied by an aqueduct over a distance of twele miles. The cemetery was situated outside the walls. In short, we hhave here an antique plan invaded by ecclesiastical establishments. Places ‘of entertainment are lacking, nor would they have been required by the predominantly rural population that must have lived, for the mast part, outside the was. Other Byzantine towns of which something is known alo owe their ‘origin to exceptional circumstances. Resafa (Seegioplis) in the Syeian desert,’ while serving a caravan post between Palmyra and Soura on the Euphrates, was above alla place of pilarimage, since it contained the immensely popular shrine of St. Sergius. It was made into « city by Justinian, who buile the impressive wall that are still standing as wel 1s the cisterns. The fortified area is trapezoid, measuring roughly 600 bby 440 yards; the fact that a good part of i is occupied by churches is 4 23. Canin Grad, city plan (after D. ‘Mano Zi, 1968) here less surprising than at Carigin Grad, Of the street plan very litle has been recovered, since the excavators have concentrated their atten- tion on the ecclesiastical buildings and he walls. ara and Zenobia were strongly fortified frontier posts. The former was founded by the emperor Anastasius in 507 and made stronger by Justinian. Unfortunately, it has not been subjected to archaeological ‘exploration, but considerable remains are still standing. The plan is irregular because ofthe nature of the terrain and measures about 1,100 yards from north to south and 820 yards from east to west. The stone for the construction was obtained locally, and extensive quatries are sill visible to the west of the city, their vertieal surfaces cut stepwise Once the stones had been extracted, the guartes were used for busi ‘The visible ruins of Dara testify’ 10 the engineering skill of the Justinianian age, The walls are very strong and are surrounded on the cast side by a moat. The stream that flows through the city was, as we have seen, dammed; it enters and leaves the fortfi Inside the city the most notable features today are the immense cisterns; the remains of a church are also visible. The emperor Anas id to have built there “two public baths, churches, colonnaded streets, storchouses for corn, and water caters.” The city of Zenobia (Helabivel, which guards a gorge of the Eu- phates, was not entirely « Byztntine creation, since it had been founded by Zenobia, queen of Palmyra.” Justinian enlarged it however, and it scems that all she constructions visible inside the walls ae of the Byzantine period. The walled area, which is more or les triangular, i not very extensive (550 yards from east to west and 440 yards along the river bank), but once again the proficiency of Justinian's mécbarikoi arouses our admiration. The wall, which rise steply to an unassailable citadel, are immensely strong and comprise a three-story guardhouse or ractoriu whose massive vaults in stone end brick are in places hardly touched by the passage of fourteen centuries. Not so the breakiater, ‘hich was ingeniously devised by John and Isidore; fr the most part, it has been swept away by the Euphrates. The layout of the streets was a8 regular as the terrain allowed, with cardo and decuman intersecting & right angles, and a rectangular forum. Pubic buildings incaded atleast two churches and a bathing establishment. The starkness of thet archi- teceure accords well with the military character of Zenobi ‘The Byzantine cities we have just described were all quite small by antique or modern standards. Dara, the largest of them (maximum Tr would be reasonable to assume that as a result of the vast architectural activity of Prince Jaroslav the Wise there was formed a sufficient body of qualified local builders who were responsible forthe majority of churches erected after the midale of the eleventh century. ‘We may take as an example Se. Michael's at Kiew, founded in 1108, ‘which is suficiently well recorded, although it was barbarously demolis hed in 1935-36.» Byzantine masters certainly took part in the decoration ‘of this church, as evidenced by the famous mosaic of the Communion of the Apostles that was placed in ts apse, but the architecture, though very close to Byzantine models, appears to have been local work. Note the fat surface of the cylindrical drum of the dome, unbroken by engaged piles ters, the clumsy fenestration, and the treatment of the facades, whose arched divisions are nearly of the same height, whereas a Byzantine chitect would normally have given greater emphasis to the central one. ‘This last feature was to remain traditional in Russia fora long time to Tn the course of the twelfth century the principality of Kiev was sradually losing importance because ofthe fragmentation of its posses ions among members ofthe ruling house and increasing pressure from the ‘peoples of the steppe. Political superiority now passed tonortheast Russia, the area between the Volga and Oka rivers, situated astride animporcant trade route and protected by dense forest from the depredations of the steppe nomads. In addition to the town of Rostov, which is recorded already inthe ninth century, a number of other urban centers grew up here —Suzdal’, Vladimir, Percjesav’-Zalesskj, and Moscow. The pein: cipality of Vladimir Suadal’, as i is called, naturally had a different sevgraphical orientation from that of Kiev--on the one hand, toward Novgorod, on the other, toward the Bulgars of the Volga and the Caucasus. Molded by these factors, there developed in Vladimie-Suedal amarchitectare that may be called specifically Russian.” ‘The continuity with the Kievan tradition is obvious. If we consider one of the earliest monuments of the northeastern group, the church of theTransfiguration at Perejasaol’Zalesskij, founded in 1152, we find in it the familiar Kievan ground plan and basic organization of the elevations, although the general effect is very different. The difference (discounting the onion dome, which is not original) is due, in the first place, to the building material: instead of brick itis limestone, carefully squared and laid on very thin mortar joints, The proportions are also different: the climination of the narthex has produced a cubic mass that tapers very slightly toward the top. The windows are fewer and narrower than in the Kievan e ation—limited to a corbel table atthe top of the apses and a crenellated border at the summit of the deum—contributes to produce an effect at ‘once simple and powerful, despite the small size of the church (50 1/2 by 51 1/2 feet, discounting the apses). It i obvious that this very assured architecture was not of local origin. The limestone was imported from afue (allegedly from the land of the Volga Bulgar, while the craftsmen came almost certainly from Galif, a town that was open to influences from farther west, hence the Romanesque character ofthe corbel table. Prince Andrej Bogoljusblj (1157-74) attempted to raise his capital, the city of Vledimir, to first rank in Russia and to make it the seat of = metropolitan bishopric. To this end an elaborate legend was invented ‘whereby the Virgin Mary, represented by the miraculous Byzantine icon of Our Lady of Vladimir, assumed the protection of the city, and a new feast, that of the Protective Veil Pokrov), was instituted. In other words, Andrej was not only trying to emulate Kiew, bat he was looking beyond Kiev to Constantinople itself, the city which, above all others, claimed the Virgin Mary a its patron. During Andrei’s reign there was great architec: tural activity in and around Vladimir. The walled area of the city was tripled and provided with monumental gates, one of which, the Golden Gate, has survived in a greatly altered condition. To emphasize his Allegiance to the Virgin Mary, he built the great cathedral of the Dorm tion between 1158 and 1160. This building, which was to assume # symbolic importance in the subsequent development of Russian architec ture, has not survived in its original form: burned down in 1185, it was reconstructed on an enlarged five-asled plan by Prince Vsewolod III from 1185 to 1189. Andrej also built for himself at a short distance from Vladimir the castle of Bogoljubovo, begun in 1158, Surrounded by a stone wall, this was a remarkable ensemble, containing « palace linked to « church by means of a raised passageway rather like a covered bridge on arches. Part ofthis passageway, inelading a staircase tover, stil survives, ‘but the church was completely rebuilt in 1751 To gain « firsthand impression of the architectural achievement of adres reign, we mus visit the famous church ofthe Pokrov on the Net!” River near Viadimir (c, 1165). Built on an artificial stone platform of pyramidal shape, this small but elegant church strikes us today by its ls ches, almost like slits, The sparseness of the exterior decor: unencumbered cubie shape with accentuated vertical articula 79. Church of the Pokrov on the Ne! River, near Vladimir, west facade,280, Vladimir, St. Demetras 281. Viadimir, St, Demetris, detail of south fagade original aspect must have been, however, rather different, since the church was surrounded on thee sides by an open ambulatory, probably ‘one story high, that gave acess to the gallery. Es tory the building has an entirely finished appearance. We may notice certain details that were to gain wide currency in Rustian architecture: the deeply recessed Romanesque portals, the division ofthe fagades into two zones by a band of blind arcading supported on ornamental colonettes, and the introduction of exterior sculpture. This sulptue, limited to the lunettes, is here rather restrained and repeats on three sides an identical without this ambuala theme, that of David playing the harp among the animals If we compare the church ofthe Pokrov with that of Perciastavl'Zaless: kaj, which is only ten years earlier, we c see the trend toward greater ornateness that was fostered by Andrej Bogoliubski His palace church at Bogoljubovo must have been even more sumptuous, and we know that it was paved with sheets of brass—an innovation in those days. To realize his ambitious schemes, the prince invited craftsmen from “every land including Germans. The presence of these foreigners explains the numer cous Romanesque elements in the architecture of Viadimir Suzdal’, but it ‘can hardly account for the very characteristic figutal seulpture which we find forthe first time in the original phase ofthe Dormition cathedeal and Which attains an extraordinary richness in the palace church of St. Demetrius, built at Viadimir by Vsevolod III between 1193 and 1197. This is fairly small building, and in plan ic is practically a carbon copy of the Pokrov. On the outside its walls are plain up tothe zone of the arcade fon colonettes, but from there upward they are covered by a continuous carpet of sculpture whose repertory includes a few Christian subjects but is, for the most part, secular, This is clearly a princely art, nd though many analogies may be found with it in mosaics (such as those of the Norman Stanza at Palermo), in metalwork, textiles, and illuminated manuscripts, a similar treatment of fagades cannot be found either in western Europe or in the Caucasus The last stage in the evolution ofthe Vladimir-Suadal’ style is provided by the church of Se. George at Jur'ev-Pol'skij (1230-44), which is pre served to about hal ofits originalbeighe, the upper half having been rebui alter its collapse in 1471. This almost square, fourpier church with three ‘outer porches (one cannot help being reminded of St. Sophia at ‘Trebizond) is deservedly famous fr its carved decoration, which entirely covered the exterior from the ground up. The decoration was of to kinds: from the arcaded zone upward it was in fairly high relief and included a number of complex Biblical eompositions, whereas thelower zone, instead ‘of being left plain, asin the church of St. Demetrius, was carpeted with a continuous rinceau ornament in very low relief which even invaded the engaged columns, setbacks, and archivolts of the portals ‘The reconstruction of the upper part of the church is naturally hypoth tical, but the view has been expressed that it may have had the towerlikeform that is characteristic of several Russian churches of che very end of the twelfth and the beginning ofthe thirteenth century. This interesting innovation did not pertain toa single region, since it manifested itself almost simultaneously at Cernigoy (Pjanica church), at Smolensk (church ‘of St. Michae), Ovrué (church of St. Basil Palock (Spaso-Efrosin'jey monastery), and as far north as Novgorod (Pjatnica church “Yin the market"). While the ground plan remained the traditional one, an effort, was made to accentuate the verticaity of the fagades and tor as high as possible. This was achieved in the Pjatnica church at Cernigov (c. 1200) by building the four arches under the dome at a higher level than the barrel vaults of the eross-atms. The dome bate, instead of having the ‘normal cubical shape, was also arched on each side, so that the éxternal effect is that of a pyramid of arches rising in three steps one above the other. The introduction of this new, soaring style is linked by Soviet scholars to the growing importance of towns and of the urban bourgeoisie However that may be, it was not allowed to develop: the Tartar invasion of Russiain the 1230s put an effective end to almost all architectural activity. Southern and northeastern Russia were the most cruelly devastated: only IVolya') and in the extreme north (Novgorod Pskov), ons not occupied by the Tartars, could architecture continue, but even in those parts it did so on reduced scale ‘The next significant step came a hundred and fifty years late in the principality of Moscov assumed the political heritage of Vladimir Suadal'. Settled sometime in the twelfth century Moscow was at first a small fort at the confluence of the Moskva and Neglinnaja rivers. From about 1300 on, its territory began to expand rapidly atthe expense of surrounding principalities. In 1526 the metro: whi id architectural politan of Russia moved to Moscow and, on this occasion, the frst stone church wat built—the cathedral of the Dormition, which may have resembled in plan the church of St. George at Jur'ev-Pol si In 1366-67 the older wooden fortifications were replaced by the stone wall of the Kremlin, From the 1390s date the Kremlin churches of the Annunciation (of which only the basement remains) and ofthe Nativity, a small four-pier structure preserved t0 about one-thied ofits original height The nature of Muscovite architecture comes into sharper about 1400 on, thanks to a number of churches that ar still standing in more ot less their original form. These are the Dormition church et ‘Zvenigorod (c. 1400), the church of the Sava (Savvino-Storodenski) monastery close to the same town (1405), the church of the Sergius (TroiceSergiev) monastery at Zagorsk (1422) and of the Andronikov monastery in Moscow (1425-27)—the lat painter Andzej Rublev, who took part in their decoration. All of them are nearly square structures with three projecting epses, four internal piets, and one dome. Each side, except the eastern, is pierced by a recessed portal of degenerate Romanesque design, topped by an ogee archivol. acs from two made famous by the282. Juror Pol si, St. George 283, Jur'er Pol shi, St. Georg, oth porch 284. Cemigov, Patnica church, ‘exterior from the soutbert Each church in this group is placed on a podium so that the portals are reached by flights of stars. Another innovation consists of a band of flat carving that is often set halfway up the facades in the same place as the blind arcading of the Viadimir-Suzdal’ school. The roof line has been altered in all of the abo fairly complex, with a succession of superimposed ogee arches imitating the same effect that was sought two centuries eatlier by the architec of the Pjatnica church at Cernigov but without achieving the same bold verticality. Interesting as these churches are in the perspective of the great destiny that was awaiting Moscow, they are in themselves modest, provi ial, and frankly retraspective Indeed, the insufficiency of this architecture became apparent when, ia the second half of the fifteenth century, Muscovy became not only @ European power bat also, after the fall of Constantinople, the only Orthodox power in the world. In assuming the role of the Thied Rome, i needed a new architectural expression. For thsit tured not to Byzantium but to its own past and, in so doing, sought, paradoxically, the help of Italian architects. The immediate reason for this new departure was provided by the Dormition cathedral of Moscow. The original building of 1526 being by 1470 in a precarious condition, the czar Ivan TIT decided to build a larger one after the model ofthe Dormition cathedral of Vladimir. A local architect was engaged, but in 1474, when the new church was inished, it suddenly collapsed. Convinced of the ineptitude of ite builders, the czar instructed his ambassador in Venice to ‘engage the services of a capable Italian architect. The choice fell on Aristotele Fioravanti of Bologna, who at th time enjoyed a considerable is said, had just declined an invitation from the sultan Mehmed II to build a seraglio at Istanbul new cathedral of the Dormition, which he built between 1475 and 1479, Fioravanti showed himself to be not only an ingenious tech nician but also an able artist. He, too, was instructed to imitate the venerable cathedral of Viadimir and thise did, but what he produced was aot a slavish replica. He borrowed the basic forms—the five domes, the ‘hed articulations ofthe ‘monuments: orginally it appears to have been reputation as an engineer and who, Int six internal piers, the terior, the bet of blind arcading on colonettes—and subjected them to a regularization that was inthe spirit of the Renaissance, Allthe internal bays were made square and ‘equal, whereas in the original the central bay was, nacually, the largest the piers of the nave received a round instead of « cruciform shape; the ‘external division of the fagades were given equal width and equal height the projection ofthe apses was minimized to achieve a nearly flat effect, and the zone of blind arcading was integrated with the lower row of windows. By means of these subtle touches Fioravanti was able to fuse the forms of medieval Russian architecture with those of an Italian palazzo, Fioravanti was not the only Italian architect wha was active in Moscow about the year 1500. The Faceted Palace (Granovitaja Palata) was the285, Moscow, Andronikow ‘monastery, church, reconstruction ‘of nont facade after NN, Voronin, 1961-62) 286, Moscow, Kremlin, St ‘Michael's Ctbedral, exterior. ‘work of Pietro Antonio Solario and Marco Ruffo; while another major church in the Kremlin, that of St. Michael, which was to serve a the mausoleum of the reigning dynasty, was built in 1505.9 by Alevisio or Aloisio, known as Novy}, that is, “the Younger.” While borrowing some details from Fioravanti, Aevisio reverted to the traditional division ofthe interior into « wider nave and narrower aisles, separated by rectangular piers. The most noteworthy feature of his building is, however, itsexterior decoration. The vertical facades are treated like those of a twosstory Italian palace: the pilasters are provided with Corinthian capitals; the row windows are given false rectangular frames to make them look wider; an emphatic horizontal cornice runs at the springing of the arches, while the arches themselves are filled with huge carved scallop shells. The effec is both picturesque and incongruous. An observer of the year 1500 might well have supposed that Muscovy was about tobe drawn into the cultural orbit of western Europe and would adopt Renaissance architecture at ane tangible manifestation of this cosmopolitan trend. The Russians, however, were pot ready for such an experiment. They turned back to theit own traditions in architeccure, first, in a bizarve outburst under the czars Basil TIL andl Ivan IV the Terrible, to presumably native style of spires and tentlke roofs inspired bby wooden buildings (of which the cathedral of St. Basil the Blessed on Red Square isthe most famous example); then by way of reaction, they reverted to the traditional fivedome formula, which continued to be repeated until the advent of the Baroque and European Neoclassicism 4. Rumania ‘The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia were the last East -Buropean countries to fall under the cultural influence of Byzantium. This happened when, after liberating themselves from Hungarian rule— Wall: achia in 1330 and Moldavia in 1365—they assumed a political organi zation ad then petitioned the patriarch of Constantinople to appoint their bishops. The metropolitan of Wallachia, who had his seat a the princely capital of Arges, was installed in 1359; that of Moldavia, whose prince resided at Suceava, in 1401. It is not exactly known by what steps the Rumanian people were won over to the Orthodox faith, but there can be ‘not doubt that they received their religion not directly from Byzantium bat from the southern Slavs. Church Slavonic remained their liturgical language until the end of the seventeenth century The two Rumanian principalities were not destined to enjoy their independence fora long time. After the failure of the so-called Crusade of ‘Varna in 1444, Wallachia submitted to the conqueror af Constantinople in 1462, Moldavia kepe up a brave resistance under its raler Stephen the Great (1457-1504) but had to surrender upon his death. Though they became vassals of the Ottoman Empire, the two principalities were not brought under direct Turkish cule but were allowed to be governed by 191287. Cosia, monastery church, exterior from the sonsbwest. 288, Dealu, monastery church, XXIIL, Voronep, monastery chur, ‘exterior jrom the southeast their native princes. In fact, it was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that Rumania, thanks to its semi-independent status and its {great natural resources, assumed a prominent role in the Orthodox world. The two bospodars as they were called, became the habitual benefactors of the bankrupt patriarchate of Constantinople and of the monasteries of Mount Athos. M migrated to Rumania, where they could count on a better living than they re and more Greeks, clerics as well a businessmen, eked out under their Turkish masters. This infiltration continued until the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the native princes were removed from power by the sultan and replaced Steck governors whe exploited the country for the next hundred years, It may be said that until the revolutionary war of 1821 Rumania was the milking cow of the Greek: Orthodox Church In considering the architectural monuments of Wallachia and Moldavia, which form two quite distinct schools, we must remember that by the second half of the fourteenth century, when the earliest of these nonuments was built, the Byzantine capital had ceased to be an archi tecrural center, At that time the only creative schoolof Orthodox architec: ture in the Balkans was that of Serbia, but Bulgaria lay closer at hand, Tt may have been from the latter that builders came to Wallachia to put up the princely church of St. Nicholas at Curtea de Arges (c. 1350), a faitly large crossin-square church on square piers. It is marked by the sob ior aspect—the walls and even the apses are devoid of plastic effects—and by the unusually small number of windows, which leave a ofits ex maximum amount of spice for the fresco decoration that covers the interior fom top to bottom. The influence of Serbia, however, soon made itself manifest, Its said to have been introduced by the monk Nicodenns from Mount Athos, a native of Prlep, who founded a numberof monas teries under the protection of the princes of Wallachia, His foundations, which have come down to usin a ruined or highly altered form (Vodita near Turnu-Severin, Prislop in Transylvania, and Tismaniain Oltenia), are all marked by the trefoil plan, which was to remain dominant in'the country. The only reasonably well-preserved foundation in which Nicodemus is said to have taken partis the monastic church of Cozia (1386), which isa pore example of the Morava schoo! not only i its form bur also in its carved exterior decoration. Note that hete, too, the deep narthex was probably surmounted by «tower. The fifteenth century is practically blank in the architectural history ‘of Wallachia. By contrast, the first two decades of the sixteenth were marked by considerable building activity under the prinees Radu the Great (1495-1508) and Neagoe Basarab (1512-21) and led to the forma tion of «curious national style. Two important churches, both faced with cut stone (an exceptional feature in Wallachia), both, unfortunately, very extensively restored, have come dovtn tous: they are the monastic church ‘of Dealu (1502) and that of the episcopal monastery of Custea de Arges,5 g 290, Curtee de Arges, church ofthe ‘episcopal monastery, exterior jrom the northeast, belore restortion (ajterL. Reisenberer, 1867) built by Neagoe Basarab. The old metropolitan church of Tingovigte of 1517, avast pile crowned by eight domes, was completely demolished at the end of the lst century Both Dealu and the episcopal church of Curtea are descendants of the ‘Morava school leis enough to compare the plans of Cozia and Dealu to see their similarity. The most obvious difference is that, inthe later, two tall domes have been placed over the eastern bay ofthe narthex. They are very lose to the main dome and seem, soto speak, tobe huddled together in an unbalanced group. This effect, too, was probably inspired by che close justaposition of dome and belfry tower in the churches of the Morava school (for example, Kruevac and Kalen), feature which, as we have seen, probably existed at Cozia. Another innovation we find at Dealu is the surface ornament. The fagades are divided into two zones by « heavy ‘cornice, and each zone is decorated with blind arcading. In addition, the dome bases and dome drums are covered with a profusion of geometric ‘ornament in flat relict ‘These decorative effects are further elaborated in the episcopal church ‘of Curtea de Arges, “scientifically” restored between 1872 and 1878 by the French architect Lecomte de Nou, who managed to convert it into a Victorian monstrosity." The plan is again a trefoil, bat the narthex, placed ina transverse direction, has been enlarged to the point of exceeding the nave in size and has been given an “ambulatory” plan, with a central bay fenced in by twelve columns. The main dome, whieh i built on squinches, and the dome over the central bay ofthe narthex are, once again, placed very close together and are nearly ofthe same height. Two smaller domes, rising over the western comers of the narthex, ate spirally fluted in ‘opposite directions and have diagonal slit windows, The organization of the fasades is neatly the same at at Deal, namely, there are two zones divided by a twisted-cord molding, The upper 2one is covered with blind areading, each arch containing a roundel, while the lower zone has been split into rectangular panels The profusion of ornament in the episcopal church almost defies class fication, It has become customary to see a Caucasian, that is, Armenian and Georgian, influence both in the blind arcades rendered in cut stone and in the panels of carved ornament in low relief. Close asthe similarity sometimes is between Caucasian and Wallachian examples, and granted that there was an Armenian colony in Wallachia, it remains to be explained how the decorative scheme of such earlier monuments as the Georgian church of Nikortsminda (1014) or the church of the Savior at Ani (1036), both of which have been quoted in this connection, could have remained for so many centuries in the consciousness of Caucasian masons. Whatever may be the truth of the matter, much of the ornament of the episcopal church, such asthe stalactite comice under the eaves of the roof and on the base ofthe main dome, the honeycomb capitals ofthe narthex, and the spiral flung of the main domes (often applied to minarets), is 195clearly Ottoman, ‘With the episcopal church of Arges, Wallachian architecture said to have attained its own individuality if not its fina form. [cannot describe here the seores of churches that were builtin the seventeenth and cightoenth centuries for the most parton the same trefoil plan, and shall instead cast a glance at the churches of Moldavia, which show greater originality and les contact with the Byzantine tradition. This land, at the time when it frst appeared on the scene of history—roward the middle of the fourteenth century—was ecclesastcally dependent on Galié and ‘open to Western influences from Poland and Hungary. In fact, the earliest church that has survived in Moldavia, St. Nicholas at Radiuyi (1359-65), which some authorities ascribe to Bogdan I, is a simple Romanesque basilica adapted to Orthodox usage. I is only after the establishment of the metropolis of Suceava and not earlier than the reign of Stephen the Great that we find the distinctive Moldavian school of architecture which confronts us fully formed, that is, without « preparatory stage during ‘which its peculiarities might have crystallized. It isa great pity that the ‘monastic church of Putna, which was the principal foundation ofthe reign (1466-81), should have been totaly rebuilt in the seventeenth and later ‘Among the thirty or so existing monasteries and churches that were built by Stephen,” we may choose for consideration that of Voronet of 1488, Setting aside the exornathex, which was added in the sixteenth ‘century, we have before usa plan that is typical of the reign: i consists of large rectangular narthex or pronaos covered by a domical vault, a trefil nave with a tall dome, and two external buttresses placed between the ‘middle and the lateral apses. There can be not doubt that this is, basically, the Serbian trefoil plan, which, as we have seen, was transmitted 0 ‘Wallachia in the late fourteenth century. The main difference consists in the vaulting of the nave, In the Byzantine and Serbian systems the arches ‘which support the dome spring from pilasters. In Moldavia the pilasters are suppressed so that the transverse arches go from wall to wal. Having thus increased the lower span of the dome, the Moldavian afchitect proceeded to diminish it ata higher level. He frst made a circular base by means of four pendentives and seta cylindrical drum upon it; then, within this drum, be made a second set of arches, placed diagonal tothe first, so tha their springing came directly above the crowns of the lower arches, ‘The upper arches ate, once again, joined by pendentives, and upon this diminished base rises «second, very tall cylindrical drum, whieh is covered by the dome, Iris an ingenious, if not a very attractive system which, for an Orthodox church, had the further disadvantage of fragmenting and ‘complicating the surfaces available for internal painted decoration, ‘The origin of the Moldavian dome has been the subject of much discustion.* Since nothing of the kind is found in either Byzantine or ‘Western architecture, scholars have been searching in other directions,291. Tigoviste, monastery church, exterior 292. Voronep, monastery church, ‘exterior from the southeast. ‘The ever-useful Armenians have been pressed into service; so have the Arabs of Spain and even the Assyrians. Yet nothing sufficiently similar has been discovered among those peoples, not to mention alikely means of transmission. The most natural supposition, then, is that the Moldavian dome was devised in Moldavia. The sume originality must be claimed for the dome base. In monuments of the rue Byzantine tradition this element is cubical, and it encases the internal pendentives; in Moldavia, on the ther hand, there are usually cwo superimposed bases, the lower one square in plan and the upper one star-shaped (sometimes both ate star shaped), and in most cases they are purely ornamental, that is, they do not correspond to anything inside, Even though it is decked out in this fashion, the dome, when seen from the outside, has litte organic connec- tion with the rest ofthe building, which is covered with a steep gabled roof ‘made of timber. The roofs that wesee today are relatively modern, endive admitted that the original ones were more articulated, like the one that has been reconstructed at the cathedral of Suceava; even so, the slender, towerlike domes, which seem to imitate the effect of Gothie spires, mast have appeared as an intrusive element. The hybrid character of these churches is further accentuated by their portals, doors, and windows, which are uniformly of Gothic design. In the largest Moldavian churches, such as that of the monastery of Neary (1497) and the cathedeal of Suceava (1514-22), the later being 141 feet long, the ground plan has been considerably elongated both to the cast, by the expansion of the bay in front ofthe apse, and especially to the ‘west: an open exonarthex has been added, the narthex has been divided into two domed bays, and a funerary chamber (which was to become ‘raditional) has been inserted between the narthex and the nave. These several compartments are strung out longitudinally, and each of them is crowned by alittle dome that isnot apparent on the outside, since they are covered by the steep roof required by the wet climate of the county. All the distinctive elements of Moldavian architecture were fully elaborated inthe reign of Stephen the Great and continued tobe repeated with slight variations for the next century. However, following the trans fer of the capital from Suceava to lag Jassy) in 1564, they began to be modified by a medley of heterogencous borrowings that were never fused nto an organic whole. This decadent trend may he illustrated by the famous church of the Three Hierarchs at Lagi, built in 1639. Its basic form that of a triconch preceded by pronaos and an outer nerthex—is traditional, but instead of one dome there are two, both of equal height and both raised on clumsy square bases. The entire exterior, whichis bile, of stone, is covered with carved ornament of diverse inspiration: we find here the heavy twisted-cord molding borrowed from Wallachia, the blind areading on colonettes that must have come from Russa, stylized vases and flowers of n Ottoman flavor, and upward of wenty horizontal bands of geometric ornament—all of this juxtaposed with Gothie doors and 293. Neamt monastery, Church ofthe Ascension, isometric section sand ground plan after N. Tonescu, 1963-65), 195294. lai Gasp), Church of the Tree Hierarebs, exterior from the southwest windows. tis amusing to note that this piece of “kitsch,” made even more ‘vulgar by the ministrations of Lecomte de Nou, was the work of an architect from Constantinople, a certain lenache Etisi, while the interior was decorated by Russian painters Tt remains to note one feature for which the Moldavian churches are particularly famous, namely, their exterior painted decoration. These are {ound in a fairly compact group of monuments: the cathedral of Suceava berween 1522 and 1535), Homor (1535), Moldoviga (1537), Arbore (4541), Voronet (c. 1547), Sucevita (1602-4), and a few more. External paintings were probably more common in Byzantine art than we normally suppose, and itis possible thatthe idea reached Moldavia via Serbia; in no other Orthodox country, however entirely carpeted with frescoes, includ do we find exteriors that are such enormous and elaborate 196 ‘compositions as the Last Judgement on the west fagade of Voronet, the ‘Tree of Jesse on the south wall of the cathedral of Suceava, and the Heavenly Laddet on the north wall of Sucevita, Hlere we witness the culmination of a tend inherent in the Byzantine tradition: architecture has become subservient to painting; the entre church, inside and out, is merely a framework for exhibiting rows of icons, ‘The foregoing pages have shown thar the diffusion of Byzantine archi fectute in eastern Europe was a complex phenomenon that extended over several centuries and affected, in different ways, the countries in which it took place. Bulgaria, the frst of these countries to have fallen under Byzantine influence, never developed a truly distinctive style. Russia received a strong injection of Byzantine architectural forms in the tenth and cleventh centuries and did not ask for a second one—a significant shall presently return. Serbia had a brief exposure to Bycantine architecture in the late twelfth century and a in the early fourteenth: on the basis of the latter she ereated her own “school.” Finally, Rumania did not come into direct contact with Byzantium but received her Orthodox architectural tradition moetly from the Serbs In order to explain the different development of the Byzantine contribs tution to these countries, we would have, in the first place, to take into account any architectural substratum that may have existed in them. The ‘eae of Bulgaria is not altogether clear, for itis recorded that, before the Christianization of the country, the khan Omurtag (814-31) built two palaces for himself, one at Pliska, the other at Silistra. The buildings erected after 864 were not, therefore, the first to have been put up afer the barbarian invasions of about A.D. 600; yet in examining the evolution ‘of Bulgarian architecture down to the fourteenth century, i is difficult to detect any trace of a national tradition. In the case of Russia we can confidently say that there was no substratum whatever. Inboth Serbia and Rumania there wat, before the advent of Byzantine influence, some contact with Western architecture — in the former by way of the Dalmatian coast, in the latter by way of Hungary — and this Western clement was never completely suppressed. Byzantine architectural forms were part of a cultural and religous “package,” and cheir adoption was dictated by the king and the ruling class, that i, it was imposed from above. Russia was no mare “ready” for [Byzantine architecture in 989 than it was for Renaissance architecture in 1500 or for Neoclatscism under Catherine the Great. In the same way Serbia could suddenly switch from the traditions of the Raia sehool to Byzantine models when the policy of King Milutin made this desirable, In every case, the architecture that was borrowed was contempora Byzantine architecture, which, evidently, had the value of a “status symbol The introduction of Byzantine building methods was normally initiated fact to which I296 Suc Irom the north 297, Suceava, St. Georg, int dome over outer martes 198 12, St. George, exterior by Byzantine master builders, After a time ative craftsmen acquired enough proficiency to do without their Byzantine mentors, and so local or national schools ame into being. We: their subsequent development took place in compete isolation. The insti: ould not imagine, of course, that ution of itinerant teams of masons was quite widespread in the Middle ‘Ages, both in western and eastern Europe, and provided a means for the dissemination of new ideas. Dalmatian masons worked in Serbia, just as Ruthenian and German masons worked at Vladimir. Theie activity can usually be detected by technical and ornamental innovations; it seldom affected the basic design of buildings. Through the agency of both local and external stimali Byzantine formulas were reinterpreted to produce in Russia, Serbia, and to a lesser extent, Rumania a series of outstanding monuments that often surpassed the creative potential ofthe Byzantines themselves, Separate as these developments we points of convergence: the same striving for heig they sometimes showed achieved by the superimposition of vaulted forms, may be observed at the Pjatnica church of Cernigoy and a century later at Graéunica At the same time we should note that Byzantine architecture did not enjoy in the Middle Ages the same prestige as Byzantine painting. The case of Russa is instructive in tis respect. We have seen that after the eleventh century the Russians showed no interest in keeping up with Byzantine architectural developments, and this in spite of the fact that close ties continued to exist between the two counties, that the metro politans of Russia were usually Greeks, and that Russian pilgrims traveled to Constantinople and a colony of Russian merchants resided there. Yee when Andrej Bogolubskij attempted to outdo Kiew and emilate Con: stantinople, when he claimed for Viadimir the Protective Veil ofthe Virgin Mary, he did not wish to imitate Byzantine monuments, either contem: porary or older, Instead, he hed recourse to German masons, “Why,” we may atk, “did he not reproduce at Vladimir the basilica of St. Mary of Blachernae (where the miraculous Veil was kept), ustas the Venetians had copied, acentury ealier, the church of the Holy Apostles? Was it pethape because Byzantine architecture was no lon impressive in Christendom? A final observation. While the Byzantine Church developed a theology ‘of painting, it never developed a theology of architecture, It conferred « symbolic significance on certain features of the church building and ‘especially on items of liturgical furniture: the apt, the bema, the chancel screen, the altar table, and the ciborium. On the other hand, it never considered to be the most prescribed a particular architecrural form. It was two centuries after the fall of Constantinople that che zealous patriarch Nikon of Moscow decided that one form of church rather than another was demanded by Orthodox worship. “In conformity with regulative and statutory law,” he ordained, “as prescribed by ecclesiastical rules and statute, churches shall be built with one, three, or five domes, bat never in the shape ofa tent.”NOTES CHAPTER "re soul ote, Bower the ae fio by W, Saleen, AdbidiceBandendmale ow Contry, publ in 195, ‘Thi heme ly developed in A. Grab’ Mey Pais, 198-6), 2B Ward Pesking, “Memoria, Mares Tomband Church,” JS, n.. 17 (968,28 Tavs, “Anstaphai eo & Bilt ros Arinon.” Paks .. Arctwoogikis Hees (950,416; A. Fats, "Fro Pgs to Christy a Athens" DOP, 19 (0965), 196. For pols heory, G.Ossopry's Gch der Izaminschen tse, Se Mach 1963) isthe Bes ude. This work sheen ranted ino French and English Fot a mere compicenaive sounding history, intone, and tre, ee L. Beier, Le Monde ‘penn, vl (ai, 198750. (CHAPTER "The dition i develope by G. Milt, Leo pcp dan ecient Pai, 1916, 2140 CE 9. Crowfoot arly Chachi Pals (London, 1940, 108 2 Thee valle cscaion ey 8. Ward Peking, “Neteon the Strate ad Bling Meade of Esty Bysantine Architect” in The Git Pele of th Bysontne Epon, Scand Repo, oD. alot Rie (Edinburgh, 1958, 380 Se alo Deis, Sion ‘tr Actline Rortaninopels Bade Bader, 1956), 19. The paneer wook by A Chis, ‘Lia de bic e Byanti Pati, 183), deserves vot, bt hes ben lage pci ‘See A Bots and. War. Peking, Eonaon and Roman Acie, Pelican History of ‘Ar (Harmondsworth, 970, 246 ‘This avin inchs expe by KC. Coswe, Ey Mastin Architect, 1 2,2 (Ontors, 196, 4704. 5G. Anvich, Fagor Niko, Lagi Bein, 1913), 308 2H. Viena FM, Able oul, fa (Pri, 1919), 229, 244 1G. Forsyth “The Monastery of St. Cathesne a Mout Sins" DOP, 22 (1965, 89 and fi 21 See |B, Wasd Peking, "Tepaania the Male Tad,” RS, 411951, 69 "These and many ether males sein antiquity ate dsuted ad ated by RG, Marrs Ramona Roo, 1971), "See [.B. Ward Perkin, “Roman Gaetan Sacophai fom the Quacs of Procnas,” Siitenon Report or 1837 (Washington, D.C, 1958), 455; oem, “The Imported Saco hag of Roman Tyee” Bald te Bera, 2(1969), 1186, 192 See AIM. Jones, The Later Roman Ene, I (Oxford, 1964, 1013: G. Downey, "Byeamioe Architects: Ths Tsing sed Method,” Brenton, 18 (194648), 99 ‘Preapn, De seit, 1.2, 7 Darel wi. 25 anc, At ean te only to: Paris, who, aboot #30, bul the palace of Bigs (Theophines| erst Bor, 183898), bt he may have Ben mare of + pers than professions nese he hell the rank of pac; and Nikos, wh inte ey ae cetay cece the monastery of Christ Patera at Constantinople: C. Merwe, Sent Lis Inia ds Bre Pavokor over Badapent Constantinople, 1923), 8 © fey, Late Roman Eo, 101, ‘sid 858 (6 Le Lived peel J Nile Gener, 189) ch XXI; Engh anion in. Mane, ‘The Ao te Bote Epi 512.1455: Some en Documents testa ote HE Jose Englewood Cf NJ, 1972, 206 "NEgebia, Vite Contin, 29; Engh anion in Mango, enc ond Docent, rr "Epis XXV, el F Pagal in Gr Nyse pet, VI Laden, 1999), 79; Eek ‘eesaton i Mango, Sees and Docent, 27 2 tak the Denon, Vi Parc H. Gree td MA. Kuen (ari, 1930, ch 75 15 Bgl raralaton a Mang, Sco end Decmons, 30 2'5eW. Dba in i, 150965, 228 2SeC. Mango, Tain Baler," in Popernin: Fasc Diy (Heer, 196), 38 2 The imperil llton om pbc biking is deued by V. Javier, La Lition de asp rome a oie publ (Si en oven, 1969) See HLM Jones, “Chareh Finance in he Fithand Sach Cea,” 735, a8 111960, ae Sent, Libr Ponti clase Ravemata, of O. Holder Egger, “Monuments (Germanse Historic, Serpe era Longburicur et scare (168), De cee, oh 38 ‘CHAPTER "See Cons, Cito be Deco CH. Kislng (New Haven, Con, 1938) bi, a6 Dae. 1624, 4701 ‘The excraions sted in 1912, ae lin proses. A peat uber of peininary reports Suse been publ, bt theres nop tate nythens Sethe aisesby Dj Mano Zi and tern Sear m1) 0938, 31 6; 910 (1959), 2954; 12961), 1 1916196, 44786: 17 (96,169; 19 4969, 1A 3c H. Spanner and S. Guyer, Ral erin, 1926), ad the eps by J. Kalluits in A, 195411981957, 648 1963, 9280 idemin AAS, 91095659), 21 1 16969), 75 16; W. Karna in AA, 1968, 307; 1970, 98, “iy deersed by C_Presr, Normpotmse Bauder (ei 191), 441 2c the sua acoua by J. Laan Ay, 1951, 41h "The mast compechensve account of Constctncle i that of R. Jain, Comal ‘ymin, 2nd (aris, 196) Sacha does justice fo the charcoal emains. Areng ‘lar works scecp. van Ning, Byorne Conseils Lando, 1899). On the xy ‘sory the cy, sce LG ese, Stan ePrice Komontnoe, "Mixes lynne Monacenin” 141975), Coder Thodam, XV.1.7. See J. Ehero Le Grnd Pati de Console Pai, 1910; R. Calan, Ender de poppe de Consntinaple yeartine 2 vl (etn, 196) MgeeP, Verzone, “dae prin porfido, Maco in Venti.” Pali, 8938, 8 AR, Nea, “Der amite Ba beim Mein, ti, 16 (1960), 209 See Van Miligen, Byenie Contontinple,B. MeyerPath and A.M. Scheider, Die Landmaser son Komtantinopel ern, 83, Naini Contotinopolians in Nott dist, 0. Sek Ben, 176), 29 See FW. Dechann, "Friese Kichen nantes Heiter,” Hi, 54 (1959), 109 fA, Frama, “From Pagani ta Chretoniy inthe Temples of Athens” DOP, 19 (1965, 187 199)cuarreriv "Cade oan, XIILA. ura ros 1.32 contre he aie etiney of Theme, Ont, 3 47 ed "Beats, Hixon ects, VILL bid 4.37 ‘Theleratr onthe xg ofthe Christo bs is inenens and forthe most part tere Ang mare recet enti, se P ene, “A pp de rigs de edie acl thse” Académie Reale de Bebe, Ballet Se Cle de Let, 1948, 306 Ward Peking, "Constanie aod the Origins of the Chenan Basi,” Pap of eB Schoo Rome, 2 198,691; R. Krauser, *Cortetine's Chr Fountions,? ‘Alte de VIL Iterations Kou r Chie Arche, Ter 965,23 ide, ‘The Consainin Basie,” DOP, 21967, 1176 5c A. van Milgse,Byentine lnc in Comtontnple: Ther History ond Arciecae (Londen, 112,38: )- Ebel and A, Thiet, a ge de Conte Pai 1913), 3 4G; Mathew, The Euty Chart of Conttnpe: Anciecte and Lite niveeiy Pa, Pa, 1970, 19, The aceped date of conirason (63) sn bee, be pated back oy aboot en years See Diehl, Le Termes, sn Saldn, Moments cit de Suloige(Pai, 1918) 3 (4; 8. Plane, Patcbritnie mbmeia Tosser (Tesla, 1949), 124 A Xsngpols, "Pel ct, Acwiopion Thess,” Makedoik,2(1953), 4724 ‘Tore Aegean aso seth nfl yah by AK. Olas, FH pls attri dark be, 2 vl Athens, 195057, See Piles in To oon Avalos Hate (1961), 14 "The plan pulsed by G E. Jeers, "The Bac of Corsten, Cys Te Antigua Jona 8 (192), 345, a need of considerable revision CE AHS. Mega in Joe! of lei Sue, 15 (953), Soppement (Archaea Report), 3. "Fora pail ctlgue of thse crits, se E. Kine, "The Hor nd Lin Tapestry a Darbrton Oa,” DOP, (546), 65 Sef Ls, Les iced cestode," At del VI Cong lems sted cheno Cron, Kaen, 162 Watcan Cy, 1989), 381 sees A. Graber, Ary Sec. Dlehape, Le Orica der mary sets, 1999), 30 "Bseavavo pr: W. Harvey and) H. Hare, "Recent Doser athe Chach f che avy Beton," Acelog,87 (193), 7 "See esp Vincent and Al Joss some, fe, 16 fs KH, Wir, Ko nti ice Hegre Gahran (tg, 1932) "Se, for example, R Kets Fal Chto end Byzance, Pelican History of Art Hammoadovorth, 195), 39 and fig. 16. The fondant of de Constantin sue eve recealy ben dcvered See. C, Cin, Tht Chart he Hoy Sele in ome (Condon 1976), 4 Hae pl. VI, "See Vincent and Abel, nso wowele fe. UM, 337 M6; HL ioc, “Lon sancane pins de Ascari,” RBA, 6 1957), 48 Hal ceaty later (373), Roman lad ald Pens bi nocagonal csc o he suri fhe Mou af Oven, hing he suppose se ofthe Ascension a enclexing he macula tae ft by Chi fee. On tbe ater sce TMi, RB, 61960), 357A, Ova, Coro he Banine (Choc: the Holy Lan (B00, 1970), 0.78, GA and MLC. Sottion, HE bo on Haw Dion Theo, 2 val (Aeon 1952) P. Lene, "Saint Demir de These.” BCH, 77 (1958), 6 On the i's, se H. Dalene, Ler Saint rts Brel 1929), ji, Othe rmoounent, D. Kester, Die Wallabnkicle des Sineoe Stes (Bern, 1939); J Las, sve dey Pars, 1947), 1291; Taek, Vile oes del Sr da ord [ars 1938228 2 As ast by Eva, Hi es L14 Tae argument in favor of Consatine i present by R. Krauser, “Zu Konan: “Aponte ip Kensantiopl,” Mut: Fst T Keser Mts, 964, 224 the ‘ppt view by G Downey, “The Bue ofthe Orin Char ol the Apo." DOP, (9313316 PSeeabovech 2.8.19 See Anich on be Ont I (Princeton, 1958), 5 Lass, Sancti dn, 123 285ee J. W. Crsfoot, Care at Bons and Samana Se (London, 1939, 1, WE, lisse, The Origin and Fantions ofthe Alsed Teron Churches in Syria ae [Nore Mesoetai," DOP, 2 (1973) 914 See}. Kallis in, 1957, 100. Se A. Grabs 1 smponar dant a anti Pai 1936) 2*See[ Lavin, “The Heese ofthe Lol” A Bll, 4 (1960), 1; R. Nama aH Beking, Di Epes Keb am Hippo 2 bl Beli, 1968) 1 PY Smoage, "Les Ghusnieset Sri,” Bann, (1939), 115 6 cHAPTERY "Deaeitis, Vib. 2A Ovadih, Cops, ale 1 >See the id reports by RM. Haron and N. Fa in DOP 191965, 2304620 (196, 222 621096), 272 Hs 221968, 193 “Onsheovgnalfnetion ofthe curchseeC. Mango, “The Chancho tS and Bass Constantinople.” lbrbuch dor Onsite Byrn, 2 (1972), 19, Oni ciel fears P.Sanpacesi, “La Chiesa dei SS. Seri e Basa Cnstainop, Resta del tino nacional dt nceologeeStonsdelAe a+ 1196), He, Mahe, Th ny Carbs of Content 421 andthe ler accu by Va Bilinger, Chuck (2; her and Thier, Ee, 21 See AM, Shier, Die Gch i Wet dr Soper, Foch, 12 (Bel, 141) 0p hie coneribton ko mathemati, se GL. Haley, Anema of Tall (Caste, Maz, 1959, 7The excelent account of this church by WS. George, The Chr of Sin Een ot CConttpe (Oxfor’ 1912), has not yt been. superseded, albegh mach mere a te stace paca yc wees in the ay yeas thierry. "Deans, Li For technical asus of he ttl problems oS. Spi se J Maisons, “ostnian'sChrch of St Sop,” Arica ito, 12 0969), 3, "See KJ Conant, “The Fist Dome of St, Spi. ans Rebun Ballo te Besse Aste, 10948), 7 See. W. Emesan and RL. Van Nis, “Haga Soph, Istanbul Arcana 470943), 25 "N}.CHobboat, A Jumey hgh Albi. 0 Centennial ed, Londen, 185), on, Constetnaple new eas, 185), 27. See the secant by FE. Unge ie E. Mamboury and T. Wigan Di Kapa soe Konan erin Legg 1934), 54 "D,Foweine and). Straypowsi, Die byeominschn Waseikiter son Konsatopel (Wieona, 189), 97. K. Walger, Byewnice Baader su Koma Hannon 1925), S44, harried te show ht Bibi Dink wae rots citer, Maral dobar, edd. (Pat, 19231, 191 "KO. Dalan, Der Vase Ag Kosantinopl, Lone, 5 (Bamber, 1939), 26 Amerie Joana ofDesion de Ase Minne, Lari, 188,55. and See Ful, Rasewe pliner (Reve, 1961) %G. Bevin, "La moa aside US. Apolinare Nuovo.” eR, 57 (1951), 5 Lie Pow eel a, De Een, 9. EW Dechmann, “Gino Argenta” Fla, 561951), 51 Bernt, Le Ged Pei de Contain, 8, 2G, Hoi, "npg del tu iil elle ei el if i xo enna (430,90 A, Glow, Regjontome ct inpndece das epi yamine a VI ele Rome, 1969), nf Arcee and Other Ar, pinion ofan Amstican Asha! Expilon Sinn 1899-1900, pt. TN You, 1903, 180. Table, Vill ones de Spc dnd, 344 em, “Tena cos dans Si de nord Sp, 50 (1979), 134 Lass, Sones ne, 285 1 Sy, plication othe Pinccon Univesity Archacloil Expedson oS in 19045 pd 1909, dy Tet B by HC. Bar Lider, 1920, 26 Ct. Creel, Hey line Arteta 6116 "9G H, Forsyth, "The Monastery ofS. Cathie oe Mount Sia.” DOP, 21968, 1 See Fanchager x Epes IV, Dic obec ena, 1951, 30m Phi ace D. Lame, Pipe le Maclin ononae Pt, 1989), 45 0 the aso se HLH Jewel and EXE. Hach, Te Char of On Lay of he Handed Gees (London, 1920; A.K. Orlando, “La Forme primi de a eth paletiione de aos" At de Congas i di Aeeo. Ci Rens, 162, 139 SAK Odanes, "Neder bereunuien Hag Tats Gone" Ep. He By Sp, 3926), sorte Fett, cuarrer vi AKLA, Thompson, “Athenian wilh: A.D 267-600," JRS, 49 (1999), 70. BRL Serato, Medial Attn, Cait, XV Prinetan, 1957, 27 Seed 7.04 AScech 7.0 4. See Die Le Tourn anl Slain, Morano cies de Salonga, 17 Malls, Die He Soi on Thsloie (Warburg, 1999), ages fra date inthe ey eighth "Kuhn, aly Chitin and Beanie Arbiter, 180, See. Schmit, Di Kees Kiev Nie Bei Leis, 1927), ba om uve ade In 1912,H Gregor, Eearele monstized Hyacinte aie” Byzntion, 9 (1950), 257 Mango, “The Date ofthe Nartox Moats of he Chic of he Damion a Nici. DOP, 15 (959), 245; U,Pehlow, "Neo Besiuchtungen ro Archie und Aust, de Koimeskrbe in Lenk Lata, 22 (1972, 145, See H. Rot, Keesile Denkmalr (Lap, 1908), 32 fF: Day,“ so Nicola Ming” Mem E Teo, , Sule Tes, 252 Vatean Cy, 1968), 293 ¥. Deni, “Deneck Act Nikalao Kile” Tk ane dems 1513968, 13, 1G de Jrpbanion, Mate doe enatateoe, Melange de! river Sx oen, 15 (ew, 1928, 118 1e-The Byeantine Chrch of Vie (Bnye)" ZV, 1 Belgrade, 968), 96S, Fle, “Las Moouensbyzatinsdela Teague,” Cons cla lane nena ats, 197, 298 dts ths hrc in she tire or forces cent. 10), Morgenstern DOP, 22 (1968), 297 23/24 (169-70, 38 "241 Bacal, The Chaco se Arba Se ar Madi (Vienna Ke Gra, 1969) By deondby FW. Haack BSA, 15 (1906-7), 251 The cur of Bechet aed Mogi Ao edited bythe tor ad I. Seutenko in DOP, 271979), 235, 14 Srp, Di Benker Armenian Eup, 2a, 1918). Anon several ther monsraiy on Amenian architect, Tay etion: NM. Teka Abebne ‘Arno, 2k (seve, 1961) AL Jakoeon, Or ta dies Ament Moro Len lng, 1930. GN. Cobian, Razshona po enmostoy sree This, 1967, ha lenges the aceptedchroolgy faery monuments A gop aside inprviedy ‘rchitctare mile amen, pubes in consacion with an ehbiton atthe Paso Venera Rome 968, "CEP. Chee, Tbe Amann he Byte Ei Lisbon, 1963). "See A Khatchaian,L'Archtecte amie da Von VE ce Pt, 19709 "Qn the Tat‘Abkn sce. Bel, Chechen Monae the Tr‘Abdin and Negboning isis Heidelberg, 1933) on Bsbilie, W ME, Rauay an GL Bel, The Phonan nd (One Cine (Londo, 193) 8 Fie, Kadir) we Kenan grinder ‘nelle san, 1971 See GN. Cabin, Pam ie Dison (TEs, 1948) A.B, Eon, Ha Rie (Green, 1951 See Mand N. This, “ta Cate Men et donation,” Cab, 21971), 4846 Bal, Cc and Monsen oe Ti Abn, 821 CHAPTER vit "The relevant tex are ranted in Mango Soares end Docume, 160, 192 25ee Bye, “Biya Sara” Belle, vl 23, 890959), 79. 2scef anu, Smet, 264 Tekan, Vile ati, 1, 145 See P. Lene, "Un aspect dase des nase Byzance: Les manastzs dood des Ince” Cat, 1967, 9 See A.K. Onan, Monkton, 2d (Athens, 958 See T. Macy, AHLS. Mey, C. Margo, and EW. Havin, "The Monastry of Lips (evar Ie Cari Itanb” DOP, 18 (1960), 289 8; C Mango and EW. Heke, "Addon ids Fears Cai, Iau” DOP, 221968, 177 YCLA. Gear, Recher rl ile one ds et bia Pacis 1928), 1 {Van Milingen, Chu, 196 ff; Ehret and Thiers, fey, 199 fl; D. Tabor Rie, “Bxcwation at Ba Car, 190," Byanon 8 1195), 191 fh CL. Seer, "A New Investigation ofthe Bodum Cant and she Poblem of she Myrelain,” tbl Al Masso Vili, 1314 (1967, 210 4A me dead invention of the menue by Mi ‘Stiker eect "See Din Le Taurens, ar alc, Le Monannts cit de Saline, 193 DE vanghis, Pana Chl Thesis, 1954 The car a deal reared in 83, "Micha! Pacts, Chon, Bas I, ch. 20. A comenint chest bat been compe by Ca Gree,” Aveta Ds 48 an. 1972), 80, 2, Pt, Vie et offce de, Eathymee Jeune,” ROG, 8 (0909), 1924. Orlando, Aros, 7951), 1 MALG. Seer, "Ho aos lps ts Hoi sppemstobave ben monastic 5. Grates atin de Constantino (ats, 196,90 ff; AHLS. Mega, "The Shrpou Seen” AA, 611967, 1 Bours, “Byzamtne Chaches of Acs Eph (1881, 119 The charchSee EG. Sta, To akedoiton chemin ts mond Hoson Lous Pid (Athen, 1970), 1788, "See H. Mean, “The Chronology f Sone Middle yentne Churches” BSA, 32 (193132), 1041; G-C Nes, "Byram a the Arb,” DOP, 1 (1964), 201 MAX. Orlando, “To petanorpton toxon ex bye Head” Ep. Het. By. 1 985,400 "See KA. Crvwal Het Maa Art Lord, 1940), 421, 62, an ‘ew tha his foc detain wa desc rm Late Reman pat msifeedinthe ‘neste provinces spent stoi mot likely Se. Btn, "Origiromane sent ‘ee decease ceoplaticabinticn.” Ati de V Corgeso Iterrinee di Sadi ‘Best, Home, 1985, Il 22 FE On arte peclem, see AHLS. Mego, “Bysanine Rete Reve," Chariton AK. Oreo, IT Athens, 1966), 20 See the bri secs by G. Bal, "Noth dep iets Stn Mane," ltd Comins Morametebr ioe, VI chars, 1913, 1 {€; and PAM Mylonas, "L’achietre ds Mont Aton” in Le Mili de Mont des, I (Chevetoe,1963), 225 1 (iow lagteaon) A eomprehensive sty il aking. Oz Lav see G. Met, “Recherdet au Mont Aes," BCH, 291505), 72 IE Ska, le byte de Chinon Pais, 1951), 38 2See]Stegowsi, “Nex Moni al Chi,” Bycantviche Zeist, 3189), WO fl AK. (Ouladon,Moniment Byers de Cn (Athens, 1930) — plier oa The epee encening the moniter have been coleted by Gregeis Phases, Te Newmans (Chis, 186). The dt of 105 coped fr lt net bythe Rein monk Badin IDL32: Simone Vai Grr Bast, ef. N. Barus, IE St Ptesbug, 186), 202 pln wpb by G. Jey in Prac of the Scie of Antigua, 20. 28 fasisi6, 113 See R.W, Sch and SH. Barely The Monaro St. Lake of Sis, n Phas (London, 1901) Seles, To oiladomibon contin 2M, Chasis, “A propor de dite da fondateur de Sune Lc," Cab, 19 (1969), 127 anges that iw moms Fearn of 1011 whe Sts, To olodamibon chorion, 9 #246, bles tet ae founded bythe emperor Connie IX Monomiche (40125), The poe res open, DArchimanciteAmtonin, Odeo iim napisabu Aig (St Peterburg, 187, 6 2°The Sly by G. Milt, Le Monat de ph Pais, 199), eis anna See A. Pas, He en Chalet Mond Papas Kamar" ch, Eb (97H), 3s “LF Mathews, "ObseraionsotheChurchot Penta Kamara oa Hebel." DOP, 270973,1076, > Embjis«Tamori, oP. Lips Esa (Madi, 1943), 37 fb; English rslaton a Margo, Soto nd Decioens, 2171 tal, Chronopmpi, Michael IV, ch 31 2B, Constantine IE, ch, 185. Engh eansaton in Mango, Sources and Docume, asi >for he elerane documentation se C. Mang, The Br Hous Copenhagen, 1959), 19 1 An itereing od engeving othe chrch wa ae pula by S Eye," Aarne’ ve erin aki,” Leb Arkeolis Milt Yi, 112 (196, pl VIL Desoon roti de sto reseed Camano Bssio, 179828 Lee Disses, Histone Bone, 1828), 12816 OR DenargelandE Maboury, Le Quarter des Manges Pats, 1938), 19 apd. V. MS. DerNenesian, gamer Chuck fb Hoty Cr Cari, Mas, 1965), 7 is 84 > Hate iver par Eten Aled Tao, pie, ans Mac (Pas, 1917, 32 Billy desribed in te Lift St. Miche lense L eit, ROC, 71902), 30 CG. Osos, "Observations onthe Artec in Brean,” DOP, 2511973, 914 * Zonua, tome Bor I (Boop 1877, 767, Van Milingon, Church, 212M Bevo apd Thiers, fis, 1716 ‘2am Millage, Chance, 219 IE; Ebest and Thies, io, 185; AMS. Meg, “nozeson Recet Worf the Byranine Inte io Istanbul,” DOP, 1 (1963), 33 See D: Oats, "A Samary Rept ca the Excavation... he Kaye Cami,” DOF, 6 (0960), 25 EPA Underwood, The Kanye Dim 1 New York 966, 8 “Mango, "The Manasery of St, Abercae 4 Kuyon.” DOP, 22 (968,169, See CL. Seer and YD Kuban, "Wark at Kelenerhane Ca in Ital. DOP, 25| as7.250 “See FUspensil, "Konstancope! i Suraj Kodehs Vesa, AIK, 121907), 2414 apple. A KOrlnde, "Ta beatin nbn sia," Tni, 4 (1933), 1 "Sethe stimulating burton of O. Denar, Brow Mowe Dionton Londo, 1948), soft ‘SecA. K Osenos, Byzantine Kor (Athens, 199) “Fert monument of Byzantine Aten, se Howtos tit Hele, 2 by A Xpegopouar (Athen, 192) LN. Trols, Plo xt ir Aen iene 1960), 149, ho, belive, exaggerates the prosper of meal the ‘CHAPTER Vin. "Thecas of St Sopia at Teizond,dacued in ti cage,encepsonl Note, weve, ‘hac inthe mile ofthe rel cerry a alin Sek sl, with coil domes staat ‘decoration, and revetment of ted, cfr aes wns bi inthe Imperial Pace of (Contaninpl.Deszipton a Marg, Sure ond Docent, 28 HEH. Swit Hap Sop (New Ver, 1940), 6, 112 ao tte tthe Latin ce fying brereses onthe westside ofthe church wel th ely hace ested tere 3B Paso L'Arep Dio anh, 246) +See K: Andis, Cato the Mowe Princo 1933. Bon, Fortes dale dels Gre centrale,” BCH, 610937, sem, Le Moe gue Pec, 1969), 601th SR. Trani, “Frankish Arcctare in Gree,” Jounal of he Roja! Inte of Bib ‘Arcs set. 3, (1928, 39,13 Ba, Ls Mon gue, 987 SCE Boo, "Monuments dae byanin et ar occidental ane Pelopennte aa XI sie," OhrtrineA.K Onando, I, 86H On ibe vase C, Bours, yc euro me neue Athens, 1965), ho pins othe eae bat exceptional exec of ‘sock ulin che Thesokos rch of Hovis Louk and in Se Niclas rel eotu)- Onte cere the ether ort by CN, Bul, Map a eri t pantie hodenorb Ashen, 1959) 3CtA, Xyngoplos,“Frakbyzantin lpia enAthéwi,.” Ah Ep, 1931, 6 See W. Miller Wine, "Miteteiche Belegungen sm sidiche Jen” i 13 (0960, 9 idem, “Die Sabfetgugen von Keni, Sack vad Can a, 12 (i992) 5946 Bice, Tei’ de bi Birane Kile,” Bellten, 13194), 37 51. Papp ia Es Hes By. Sp, 22 (1952), 110, ae ated eo ety ht ain wth he cath of St. “Toypon, eb bythe empeoe Theodore Il (125438) WE, Frail, “The Palace ofthe Grsk Emperor of Nite at Nyhi,” Arbo 49 (4886, 3828. ie, "Teme akin. Lasker sera Belle, 25 (961), 1 AK Opes, Arbo, 2988), 701 tid 110955, 31Pid, 21936346 AK. Odlanes, Hl Paro Ars Athens, 1983) See Mary ta, “Th Monster of Lip," DOP, 1(196), 251A general enment of Panolgan architect at Constamtinple bas ees atenpte oS. Eye, Soe dei Bat ‘minus tara, 1963 Tekh with Gexman eae ‘C; Mango and E,W. Hevkis, "Repent on Fed Work in Ianbl and Crp a9, 522 Van Milinge, Chee, 192; herl and Thi, Ei, 277; Mano and Hak, In DOP, 1811968, 519 Oa Mechs se I Sete, “Théodore Meshiter, Corse et orate de egos," in Ae sid a Byeance sons by Peldlyes Wenice, 972,15 1s om the recomstrstin ofthe Chora, te PA. Underraed, The Kee Ds New Yok, 196), wi Van Milingn, Chee, 243 f; Ebest and The, lies, 149; H. Hallendben, Z| ‘Annette der Kile Cain Ian,” Tey 19 (1968, 240, *CLC. Mango, “Constasigpttans.” Jl £0(196), 32 2"See5. Eee, “Takada Bian devine ait ee,” Belen, 33 (1969), 351 em “Les Mnametsbszancns dela Trace argue” Con clan laren atin 197 sas Meyer Path and Schnee, Die Landmener vom Konno, 95; Mang, “Con- stanzopltan," 30 2 Tare is 0 yptodeterenimen ofthe je Paasopn haces of Taal on il ast coal Dik Le Towne, nd Saladin Ler Monument cdot de Salon, Force nr churches tA Xsngoponos, Tee miko Theta Teele, 1952). ‘The church aow known a St. Paton may be that of the monstery ofthe Vig Derblepos, bk shortly Before 154: se G.I. Theoharis, "Ho Matos Blt" Braet, 4 (1970), 974 ihn effort inthis deton Ins been made by S. Cu, “The Twin damed Naber in Paleo Archer,” ZVI, 18 (0790), 338 church ofthe Prophet Elk: Diehl, Le Toaras, ad Salaia, Monuments crn de Sadie, 20 (On he eniticton with Nex Mon: G1 Thess, "Dye erga ‘borin cis téa Nez Monée Thenaloikés,” Makan, 4 (3960, 383 K On the Moray iba Vita se A. Kyrgopoues, Tse its nao 4 Fon the dt of founda between 1381 and 1380), C.L Tocris, “Hoi hdl ts en These Monés in Vntadte," Penigior tomer. Gnrion tou Palin, ed, PK. Chest (Thesis, 1960, 49 There is, wafrtnaty, po monograph onthe mehiecture of Misa. Mach Mastraive rnateral hasbeen coleted by G. Mit, Mavamens bent de Mari, 1910), ana witout ombichthe ame sthar Heo prepnctfer a ie conimetay. Seo ‘heel: puideboak by M: Chasis, ger, 2n ed Athens, 1990 see Tl Halles, "Unenuchangen mir Genes und Typoege det “Misrayps Mea bac or Ks, 18 0969) 105 See. Deloye,"Conidérions ur Fela des rns dane idea Viege Hod tind Mit," Acesd IF Cons trina des Eder Brant I Belgrade 1960, 41. Devore asm thatthe fit permanent governor we py a 308 Te seems likly, however tht thishappened a uy ab 1256 sd anna, therefore, belted 0 the dig f the Hodepen See Ovando, Atbeon, 1 (1985), 192 66 ti, a1 vb, 38 idem, “Les Ml plone de Miri At Soc yon es Plots, 7 fh, See Mango, Sous and Dacionent, 252. or, 18 298 Bueno, “Des Monuments bani de Tenn," Beaton, (192728, 5776 Baltic, "The Byzantine Churches of Trbisced,” Astle Sd, 10(1960), 1 ™D. Tao Rice, The Church of Hap Sophie Trend Edinb, 1968. » Byentine Act Landen, 1860), 4 ccuarren ix 'Sce ©. Dems, The Chich of Sex Maco iv Venice: Hida, Archit, Spine (Washing, D.C, 1960), 10 2Fer ater ncn ofthe historic witng se D, Oboksy, The Bycotine Commonvet (Londen, 1972 see F Users and K. Shor, "Abobs Pia,” IRAIK, 10 (503), an or mote eptoditesceun,K- Mine, Arhiekaac mdnookooa Bin (Soli, 1955), 30 “On tie date ef L Ognenov, "Les Foils de Msunbei” BCH, 34 (1960), 24 See, Beads, Soha cee Shs Sel, 967, whe dats toward the mil of ith entry, CFD. Seite, “La Résoeton da spe has ans Fachtecre. des Bans sux KX sites." AIF Comps trina des Eis Byes, ohne, 961, Raps. 165 Foe a sic cunt the st see V. Iranove Mevednoe, Pro Voda arte Mc Sei, 1965) See K. Mates, Kal» PS, 1952), SE, D. Suite, "U's toade de Pry." XM Comps nero! der Eder Breen, Octie,1961, Reports, 212, ‘Seu. Mile, Ege rnde de Pes,” CRAT(I93), 180, "foe the history of the ty see Académie Bulge des Sciences, Inti Archi, Nese, [Sal 1965), 151F orthechachs, A. Reerov,Mewmeritt k Geli, 1932, "See O, Feld “Noch cnmal Alesios Apoauhos und die byzetnche Kirche vn Sem: yin” Brest, 371967, 37 CEG. Bot, “Note sare analog entre erciecte seb t's ule Moyen Ae Bull de nine Aroq Bali" 1011930), 97 LAwiene see: Lass Pars, 1919). ONL Okanes, “Stl se. Geori” in SmKomd, 1 Prague, 1927), 225 A Dera, "Les Deus iss des eaves de Ras." Lo aon be Sve, Reca dt.T pent, Pus, 1980), 13018 "See Suen Belgrade, 1968) "See V9. Dele, oped Lei, 1967. WN. Olney, “Aa,” Sg, (193), 22 PY. Peto and. Botewi, Det, 2a arab Belgrade, 1981 2S, Nenadovit Bop sits grade, 1963) 2G. Botkvi, "Deux Epes de Min: Sear Nagin et Grae, Ae byt he eS, 1195 6 HS, Nenad, Dlaoce slater mane, Arba hod Pc, Sele Akar Nas, Spomeni, 116 Belge, 1967 See V. Ker, “Les Origins de Tachitectre de cle de Mors en dab Bega, 1972), 157 2) Masimove, "Morava," ia Mons tose dab, 184 MLK Karger Deon Key, I Oosow Levee, 1961), 94 28th 9810; H, Lapin, Ki’ Ha Spi er, 7D, PAHS, Megan, “The Ov! Foro the Thedckos Church of Contatioe Lip,” DOP, 1 964), 207 See VN, Lauer, Masive Neeorade(Monow Leningrad, 1947), 334 in Momese tots 203Dre Ki, 3871 Demi, 295 VN, Lace, ielstic mesa Moscow 1966, 25 The moe storie treatment of he monumers of natin Ren, nding tone ‘of Naso downto the mide ofthe ftom cartary, that of NIN Voronin, Zade| sss Ras, 2 vl (Moscow, 151-42. See GK. Vane, Skene dane Rac (Moscow, 19691, AN. Gras, Sets ich ‘mite oe ishustvo damon kj Ris" Akadema Nauk SSSR, Ty Oteds Drone a ‘Ltt, 11962, 233 Oa theclparect fre Pl eK. Voge, Shae Viel bo Rat oro, 1968) Doron Zan enor Ras, 10406 MPA. Rappoput, "Ceo Van v Ove,” Sonet boon, (1972, 82 See AL Neknsy, Vowthnesnie Moskonkogs ihe, | Meow, 1925), 46 fy Snape, Amor? Fonte (Moscow, 1935, LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AA Abotgiche Arcee ‘AAihSgr- Ama dhl de Sie ‘rch Eph "Arbol Egbes BCH Bul de Conopondoce Hele Baler Belen Tan Ta Kuro) BSA Arua the Bic Sco at bes (Cabich Cais Achebe (GRAD Comptes de Sane de Ace de Inenpions Bile Le DOP Dumbo Ook Paps Ep. He Bye. Sp Epis Het Brant Spun Falhar ol Ravers IRAIK tee Raoge Arora ts + Kemstainaple Iafonch lamba Foncbuare er ener Migr {Lebo der DechenArhiokben Itt JTRS Joust of Romer Sar JTS Jona Teal Stas RBIs! Ree Biline ROCKr Ree de FOr Cation SooKind Somisuion Konda ZU hac Rose Viet litte 204 The only eteve monograph on thc, chat of . Tafa, Manmet ati de Cand de Aes Pas, 1931) i fray, ean ia any resets. The state ofthe church before the restoration is ected By L. Rees, Lee di romain spcopl de Kare Amis Vale Vien, 1857 3G. Bal, Inference epee sr Fah oie (Ve de Nee, 939), DP, Heavy "Le Régae et es eoostracons dense Gran" Méangs Chos Dish I (Pars, 1930, 49 ff; Academia Repos Populare Roane, Repoor! monamentelor bird a ie pal i Son el Hare Bacar, 1958, See P Henry, La Fed le Molde di nord Pai 1930), 441 18, Grabt,LOcgin des facades pees desis olde,” Md ofr 3N lone (Paris, 193, 365; Rama: Pated Caco Molds, Unena Word Art Sve 192), ‘SV Beil, Die ratluriche hn Bet, 196, 08 98,56SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY REFERENCE Dumbarton Oaks Bibliographies, Ser L. Litersture on Byzantine Art, 1892-1967, Vol. T, By Location, Ed] S. Allen, Washington D.C., 1973 Reallesikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, Ed K. Wessel and M. Reste, Stuttgart, 1963. SOURCES ‘Manco C., The Art ofthe Byzantine Empire 312-1433: Sources and Documents in the History of Art, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1972. GENERAL Datrow O.M., East CBristian Art, Oxford, 1925. Detvove C., L'Art byzantin, Grenoble, 1967 Drei, C., Manuel dare byzantin, 2nd ed., 2 vals, Pars, 1925, Enexsort J., Monuments darchi- tecture byzantine, Paris, 1934. Gaapan A., Martyrivm, 2 vol., Paris, 1943-46, Kaauruensen R., Early Christian ‘and Byzantine Architecture, Pelican History of Art, Harmondsworth, 1965. Ostaxnos A. K., Hé sylostegor aleincbristianite Basilke. 2 vols, Athens, 1950-57. Vousaci W. F., and Laronaine: Dosocr J, Byzanz und derebystl: che Osten, Bropylien Kunsigeschi- chte, 3, Berlin, 1968, CONSTANTINOPLE Ayrostapis E. M., Ekphrasis sé: Hagias Sophias, 3 vels., Leipzig: ‘Athens, 1907-9, Detcuntan F.W., Studien zur Architektur Konstantinopels int 5. lund 6. Jebrbandert nach Christus, Baden Baden, 1956, Epexsorr J.,’and Tuas A., Les Exglses de Constantinople, 2 vols., Paris, 1913 Mariews T. F., The Early Chur. ches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy, University Park, Pa., 1971 ‘Mittincea A. van, Byzantine Chur ches in Constantinople: Their His: tory and Architecture, London, 12. ASIA MINOR Rorr H., Kleinasiatische Denk ‘miler aus Pisidien, Pamphylien, Kappodokien und Lykien, Leip. ig, 1908, Stezvoowskt J., Kleinasien, ein Newland der Kunsgescbicbte, Leip. 2ig, 1903, SYRIA AND CYPRUS Buren H. C., Architecture and Other Arts, Publication of an American Archacological Expedi tion to Syria in 1898-1900, New ‘York, 1903, Buriee H. C., Ancient Arcitee ture in Syria, Sect. As Southern Soria; Sect. B: Northern Syria Syria, Publication ofthe Princeton University Archaeological Expedi- tions to Syria in 1904-5 and 1909, Div. I, 2pts,, Leiden, 1919-20. Burtex H. C., Early Churches in Syria, Princeton, NJ, 1929. Lassus J., Sanciuaives ebrétions de Syrie, Pasis, 1947 Sorentou G. A., Te byzantina mnémeia tis Kyprom, Athens, 1935, Teuntenno G., Vilage antiques de la Sprie du nord, 3 vols., Paris, 1953-58, PALESTINE Caowsvor J. W., Barly Churebes in Palestine, London, 1941. Ovapian A., Corpus of the Byzan- tine Churches in the Holy Land, Bonn, 1970, caucasus Asmraxasuns §., Itoiie grains ‘ogo iskusstva, Moscow, 1963. ‘ARuTyUNAN V. M., and Sarangay S.A., Pamjtniki armianskogo zod- deste, Moscow, 1951 Beunze V., Grusinsoja arbitel tur, Tbilisi, 1967, Jaconson A. L., Ocerk istni zod- ‘estea Arment, Moscow-Leningrad, 1950, Kuarcnatuan A., L'Architecture arménionne du IV au VI sigcle, Pacis, 1971 Srazvoowsés J., Die Bawbunst der Armenier und Europa, 2 vols. Vienna, 1918. Toxansiy N.M., Aphitehian dreo- rej Armenii, Brevan, 1946. GREECE Dis. C., Le Tourweav M., and Satapin H., Les Monuments chrétiens de Salonique, 2 vols., Paris, 1918, Mecaw H., “The Chronology of Some Middle-Byzantine Chur- ches,” in Annual of the British Schoo! at Athens, 32 (1931-32), 90 ia Muter G.,L'Beole greeque dans arcbitecture byzantine, Pati, 1916, Ontannos A. K., Archeion tn by- zantinén mnémeidn ts Hellados, Athens, 1935. Soreriou G. A., Xvxcoroutos A, and Outaxbos A. K., Hew: cetérion tn mesaiénikén nonércion 183 Hellados, 3 pts., Athens, 1927-33, BULGARIA Fitov B., Geschichte der althugan schen Kut, Berlin-Leipzig, 1932, Mavrooinoy N., Sterobilgarkoto ikustvo, Sofia, 1959, Mafarey K., Arbitelwate » sred. novekovna Balkan, Sofia, 1965, RUSSIA Haxatuton G. H., The Art and Arebitecture of Russia, in Pelican History of Art, Harmondsworth, 1954) storia russkogo iskusstea, LIT, Moscow, 1953-55, Kancer M. K., Drevnij Kiev, 2 vols., Leningrad-Moscow, 1958. 6 Rarroronr P. A., Drevnenusskaja arbitektura, Moscow, 1970. Vonoxin N.N., Zodzest severo vostodno} Rusi, 2 vols., Moscow, 1961-62. YUGOSLAVIA DeKoxo A., Mommentalna i de Borationa Arbitektura 4 sednje vekovunj Sbii, 2nd ed., Belgrade, 1962. Muter G., L’Ancien art serbe: Les églises, Paris, 1919. Perkovic V. D., Pregied entvenib sponenika kyoz povesnicu Srpskog narod, Belgrade, 1950. RUMANIA Ganka Buvestt N., “L'Ancienne architectore religieuse de la Vahi- hie,” in Bulesinul Comisinnit Monamentelor Istorice, 35, face 114-12, Bucharest, 1942. Henry P., Les Eglises de la Moldavie du nord, Paris, 1930, Toxsscv N.,lotora architect in 20sRominia, 2 vols., Bucharest, 1963+ 65, Toca N., and Ba G., Histoire de Tort mountain ancien, Pasis, 1922. NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION The ox ofthis volume was writen in 1973, For enalyss of subsequent publications, te rade refered to Ch. Debvoye, “Chronique ach doloique™ in Byzantion, 10. 46 (1976) pp. 188g. and pp. 482 e¢ seq: no 47 (1977), pp. 370 et 4 See abo Reallexikon zur byzant sehen Kunst, ed. by K: Wesel and BM Resel Note aio the new revised edition of R. Kratheimer, Early Christ and Byzantine Architecture ‘ondswort, 1979). Forinformation ‘nthe latest discoveries inthe Church othe Holy Sepulchre, se C.Cotias- 206 non, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (London 1974), Mention alio bas tobe made of three ‘recent books on monuments in Inanbul: T. F. Mathews, The By- zantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey (University Pork, Pa., 1976); W. Miller. Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topogra- phie Istanbuls (Tubingen, 1977) U. Peichlow, Die Irenckirche in Istanbul (Tibingen, 1977) ‘The Basilica A of Resala bas been dated to 559 A.D,, see. Ulbert, in Archiologischer “Anzeiger, 1977, pp. 363 et seq. Qalb-loze bas been dated conjecturaltyt0 c, 460 by G: Tebalenko in Syria, no. 50 (1973), bp. 134 et seq. Finally, I should lke to rectify the statemsent on p. 170 of the present edition: the Buiar reign (of Samuel jact did leave an archi- tectural monument: the Basilica ofS. Acbilleios on Lake PrespaINDEX Abbasid architecture, 108, 118 Aboba, se Pliska Acheitopoietos basilica, Thess- slonica, 39, 40, 43, Plates 46,47 Acropolis, Athens, 140 Adrianople, 179 Aadiatic Sea, 171, 177 Actius cistern, Constantinople, 31, Plate 29 Aght’amar, 128, 166, Plates 186, 187, Xi Agnellus, 76 Ainos, sce Enez Akominatos, Michael, 140 ‘Alhan Manastri, Cilicia, 43, Plates 50, 31 Aleppo, 48 ‘Alevisio or Aloisio “Nowy,” 191 ‘Alexander the Great, 80 Alexandria, 9, 14, 44 Alexius 1, Emperor, 130, 136 AlMundhis, Chief, 52 ‘AlMundhir audience hall, Resa, 52, 96, Plates 10, 75 Amalasuntha, 76 Amida, 104 Amphilochius, Bishop, 16 Anargyroi church, Kastor late 201 ‘Anastass church, Jerusalem, 12 Anastasius, Bishop, 23, Anastasius, Emperor, 24, 97 ‘Anatolia, 40, 70, 98, 107 Andravida, 146 Andrew, Saint; relics of, 44, 168 Andronicus Il, Emperor, 177 Andronikey monastery, Moscow, 189, Plate 285 Ani, 130, 195, Plate 188 ‘Ankara, 90, 96, 150, Plate 132 ‘Annunciation ‘church, Moscow, 189 Anthemius, 14, 61, 64 Anthony, Saint, 97 Antioch, 9, 18, 44, 51, 58, Plate 16 140, Antioch Kaui, 51, Plt Antiochus, alice of; Constan inp, 32 late 73 Antiphontis monastery, Cyprs, fn Aphentel basilica, Lesbos, Plate ° Apokaukor church, Slymbri, 175 Apollo-Helios statue, Constantin- le, 28 Apostles, church of the; Con- stantinape, 86 Apostlcion, Constantinople, 168 ‘Apalnthioiss sonastery, Cypus, a4 Aquedsts, 70, Pete 40 Arab conquerors, 38,84, 89,98, Toe, THe; 118, 195, act: {hr of, 108: Byzantine victory oven, 170 Aramis, 98 ‘Aap Cant, oe St aul “Archangel church of he; Sige, 96 Piste 13? Architecture individual sles Arch of Thcodsie 1, Consan- Tinople, Pe 39 Ange 191, 192, 193, 194, Plates 283, 290 Ary 118 Arilje, 177 Armen, 7,40, 57, 84 15, 174, 180 arhitecrre, 98-107, 116 127, 190, 174, 193, 195; con -vcron technics, Ane, 14,146, Plas 204, 206210 Artemis, temple of, Gerasa, 20, Plate 17 Ascension, church ofthe; Nea, Plate 293 Ascension, church of che; Rev ‘ica, Plt 264 Asenovgrad (Stanimaka), 173, Planes Asi Minor 4,89, 97,130, 141 ie, 170 church architec 115, 130, 179 . stern, Constantinople, 31, Plate 29 Astrapas, Michael, 178, Ateni, 98 Athanasis, Saint, 118, 130 Athens, 8, 31, 89, 127, 140, Plate 202 Achonite churches, 118, 156, 179 Actica, 18 Agustus, Emperor, 7 ‘Avan, 98, Plates 142, 143 ‘vars, 89, 170 ‘Ayasofya mosque, Biaye (Vite), 96 Babylas, Saint, 44 Baghdad gate, Ragga, 118, Plate 170 Bais, walls of, 82 Balkans, 73, 111, 168, 174, 1925 ‘basilicas, 38, 43; conquests of, 168, 172, 176, 179; construc: tion materials and techniques, 9, 10, 118; frontier of empire, 37, 115, Baradacus, Jacob, 84 Basil 1, Emperor, 108, 109, 137, 174 Basil I, Emperor, 115, 171, 175 Basi IIT, Czar, 191 Basilcas, 7, 39, 43, 46; Arme Basilica Ursiana, Ravenna, 73 Belisarius, General, 73 Bell, Gertrude, 7 Bethlehem, 46, Plates 52, 53 Binbir Dirck cistern, Constan- tinople, 70, Plates 29, 93 Binbirkilise, zee Madengehi Bishop Genesius, church of; Gerass, 23, Plate 17 Bithynia, 97, 118, 130 Bizye (Vise), 90, 96, Plates 133, Ba Blachernae monastery, Arca, 146 Blachernae monastery, Flis, 146, Plate 203 Blachernae palace, Constantinople, 150, Plate 29 Black Sea, 57, 141, 162, 170, 175 Bodonitsa castle, Thermopylae, 146 Bodrum Camii_ (Myzelaion), Constantinople, 10, 110, 113, 115, 128, Plotes 12, 29, 163, 168 Bocotia, 116, 118 Bogdan I, 194 Bogoliubovo, 188, Plate 277 Bogoljubskij, Prince Andrej, 187-188, 198, Boris, King, 170, 172 Bosra, 52, 82, 104, Plates 67, 68 Brontochion monastery, Mista, 159 Bayas palace, Maltepe, 108, Plate T Bubonie plague, 89 Bulgaria and Bulgarians, 111, 116, 141, 168, 187, 1925 architec. ture, 172175," 195, 198; tory, 108, 170, 171 Burning Bush, Mt. Sinai 84 Butler, Howard Crosby, 7, 79 Byron, Lord, 69 Byzantine architecture: architects and workmen, 14, 15-18, 35, 57, 111, 182, 198; Armenian school, 98-107, 116, 127, 128, 174, 193, 195; characteristics, 31, 96, 97; classification as, 7 172; classification of, appro ches, 7-8: Comnenian period, 130, 4, 136, 137, 141, 150; Constantinian period, 820-46; construction materials, 9-14, passin, 42, 111, 1825 construc tion technigues, 9, 10, 11, 14, dark centuries, 89-107; dates, 7, 35; diffusion of, into eastern Europe, 168-198; early period, 8, 20-56, 68, 138, 166; finane: ing, 18; Georgian influence, 20798, 107, 193; Gothic influence, 141, 146, 160, 195; late period, 65, 140-167; middle period, 26, 4108-140; Moldavian, school, 194-196; Occoman influence, 61, 73, 194, 195; Palacologa period, 141, 153, 155, 156, 166, 135, Romanesque ifluen: ce, 141, 177, 188; Russian in fence, 180, 196, 198; Trape zuntine, 162, vaulting, 11, Wallachian school, 192.194, 195, Byzantine Empire, 7, 8 Armenians in, 98; break-up of, 89, 141; cities, 9, 20-34; fron tiers, 57, 58: history, 98, 108, 115, 130, 170 ‘Cantacuzenes, house of, 148 Capitals, Justinianic period, 86; “rworsone,” 42 Cappadocia, 51 Garin Grad, 24, lee 23 Carysts, 14, 16 Catherine the Great, 196 Caveasian influcnce, 193, 194 Caucasus, the, 130, 182, 186, 188 Caves, monastery’ of the (Pee eskaja Lavea), Kiev, 184 Gephlonia, 148 Gernigor, 184, 189, 190, Plates 272, 384 Chalke, Constantinople, 109,128, Plate 27, Chalki (Meybeliads), 127, Plate 183 Chalkis, 146 ‘Charlemagne, 108 Cilandar monastery, Mt. Athos, 178, Plate 261 (Chios island, 120, 124, Plater 176, 7 Chlemoutsi (Clermont) castle Peloponnese, 146 Chora church, see Christ of the ‘Chora church Chournes, Makarios, 156 Christian architecture: Asia Mic 208 nor, 7, 42, 86; basilcas, 7,38, 40," 42-43, 44; Constantin: jan church, described, 46; creation of, 35, 38; Greece, 7, 42,80, 115, 116, 118-120, 124, 127, "128," 130; Justinianie, 58.68, 70, 73-80, 84-88; marty tia, 8, 44-46; monasteries, 109, 1a, 134, "136, 137,138; ‘Morava school, 176, 180, 192, 193; Palestine, 35, 46, 58; Ra scia school, 176, 177; Serbia, classifications, 176; Syria, 7, 38, 40, 43, 46, 109 Christianity, 18, 108; adopted by Christianoo, 127, Plate 178 Christianoupolis, 127 (Christof the Chora chureh (Keriye Cami, Constantinople, 89, 136, 153, 155, Plates 29, 195, 196, 214.216, XV Christ Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Constantinople, 134, Plates 189, 190 ‘Christ Pantocrator (Zeyrek Kilise Cami), Constantinople, 134, 150, 166, 182, Plates 9, 29, 191.193, Christ's comb, 12, 46 CChiyses of Alexandria, 14 ‘Chrysostomos monastery, Cyprus, 124 Church archiceces architecture ja, 43, 51, Plates 50, 51 rercian monastery, Zarake, 146 Cisterna Basilica, Constantino ple, 31, 68, Plate 95 Cisterns, 68, 70 Clement, disciple of St. Metho- dius, 170 Clermont, see Chlemoutsi Cloisonne technique, 118. Column of Arcadius, Constantinos ple, Plates 34, 35 see Christian Golumn of Marcian, Constan- tinople, Plate 36 Comidas de Carbognano, Cosimo, 128 Comnenian dynasty, 130, 134, 136, 137, 150 Comnenus, Alexius, 176 Comnenus, Isaac, 136, 141 Constanya, Pate 5 Constantia, 40 Constantine I, Emperor, 31, 51; building program, 55, 38, 46, 51; Christianity ‘adopted by, 35; Constantinople “founded by, 28, 35; letter of, quoted, 16; palace of, 52 Constantine V, Emperor, 97 Constantine VI, Emperor, 89 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Emperor, 108, 135 Constantine IX, Emperor, 120, 128 Constantine Lips monastery (Fe- rari Isa Cami), Constantino- ple. Plate XIV; north chur ch, 110, 141, 113, 115, 116, 166, 182, Plates 29, 160.162; ornamental elements, 174 south church, 148, 150, Plate 2 Constantinian period, 8, 20-46 Constantinople (Istanbul), 42, 57, 61, 118, 120, 137, 159, 179, Isl, 182, 191, 192; buildings, described, 28:31, 58-70, 108. 1B, 128," 130, 134," 136, 148°156; Greek’ concepts in, 127, 128; pictured, Plates 3, 7, S144, 12-14, 30-40, 43-45, 72, 73, 76-78, 80.93, 95, 117, 118, 126, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 185, 189, 190-196, 211-216, 217, 218, 221, 222, 247; Syrian architecture, compared, 80,82, 84; city plan, Plate 29; ‘city walls, 28, Plates 1, 38; Comnent period, 130, 134, 136, 137, 150; construction materials and techniques, 9, 10; construction workers, 15; domes, 58, 64, 79, 108; earthquakes, 64, 89; fire (A.D. 532), 61; historical events, 20, 28, 35, 61, 64, 89, 90, 141, 148, 156, 170, 176: importance of, 7 174; Latin doin 7 146; Maioumas festival, 23, monasteries, 109, 134," 136; Nika riot, 615 origins, 20, 24 35; Palacologi period, 141, 150, 153, 154, 159, 175; panorama ‘of, Plate'184; religion in, 31, 34; Russians in, 198; sea walls 108; urban development, 28, 3; water supply, 70 Constantius IE, Emperor, 28, 48, a Consteuetion materials, 9-14 pase in, 40; glazed tile discover: ies, 11 Consttuecion techniques, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 Contatini, Doge Domenico, 168 Corinth, 40, 89 Cosmidion, 127 Council of Chaleedon, 109 Covi, 192, Plate 287 Crete, 86, 116 Crimea, 108 Croats, 170 Cross-insquare principle, 96, 104, 118, 184 Cross-vaulted principle, 146 Crusades, 130, 141, 146, 172, 191 Curtea de Arges, 191, 192, 193, 194, Plates 285, 290 Cyprus, 11,40, 124, 141 Cyril, Saine, 170 Cyzicus, 98 Daspisthacus, 23, Dalassena, Anna, 134 Dalmatian coast, 42, 176, 196 Danube River, 89, 115, 168, 172, 176 Daphne, 44Dap, 127, 138, 140, 166, Plates 180, 181 Dara, 14, 24, 57, 58, Plate 26 Dealo, 195, Plate 280 177, Plate XVII ‘Stephen, 177 an, 51 Demettivs, Saint, 46 Demre, se Myra Dereajzi, 9, 96, Plates 135, 136 Desjatinnsja Cerkow', see Tithe church Despots, palace of; Mistra, 156 Diana, temple of; Ephesus, 65 Diehl, Charles, 70 Diocletian's palace, Spatato, 28 Diocletian's tariff, 15 Domes, 11, 12, 194; Armenia, 98, 104; Constantinople, 58," 64) 79," 108; Greece, 120;' Jus ‘inlanie, 58, 61, 79, 82; Mal- davia, 193-196; Ravenna, 79; Serbia, 194 Domus Aurea, Rome, 52 Dormition cathedral, Moscow, 189, 190 Dormition cathedral, Vladimir, 181, 188, 190, Plate 276 Dormition church, Kiev, 186 Dormition church, Nicaea. (Tze nik), 90, 96, 136, 150, Plates 1r'129 Dormition church, Skripou, Plats 168, 169 Dormition church, Zvenigor: ‘od, 189 Doula, house of, 148 Doukas, John, 146 Durdjevi Stupovi, sce Pillars of Se ‘George Dusan, Stephen, 171, 176, 177, 179 Divati se Holy Cross church Ebersolt,J..7 Ecclesius, Bishop, 76 Echiiadzin, see Vagarshapat dessa, 98 Egypt, 12, 42, 64, 84, 89 Elazit, 70, Plate 96; Karamagira Bridge, Plate VI Elegmi (Koryunhs), 136, Plate 197 Eleonachurch, Jerusalem, 46, Plate 4 Eleousa (Vingin of Mercy) church, ‘Constantinople, 134, 136 Bleusis, 127 Eliah, church of ‘the prophet; ‘Constantinople, 174 Elijah, church of the propher: "Thestaloniea, 156 Bilis, 146, Plate 203 Enez (Ainos), 154, Plate 220 Ephesus, 25,65, 86, 146, Plate 121 Epiphanivs, Sant, 40 Epirus, Despotate of, 141, 146, 148 Ereruyk, 98, Pate 141, 1X Erevan, 98 EskiImaret Cami, sce Christ Pantepoptes Esphigmenou monastery, Mt, Ath os, Plate 139 tis, Ienache, 196 Fuboea, 14, 16 Eudoxia, Empress, 16 Fufrasiana basilica, Parenzo ores), Plate 48 Euphrates River, 14, 24 Fasebivs, 35, 42 Euthymivs the Younger, Saint, 116 Eutychius, 178 Evgard, 104 Ezr (Esdras, Archbishop, 104 Faceted Palace (Granovitaja Pal tal, Moscow, 190 Falier, Doge Vitale, 168 Fatih Camii, Enez (Ainos), 154, Plate 220 Fatih Cami, Trilye, 98, Plate 138, 19 Fenara Isa Caml, see Constantine Lips Fethiye Cami ‘malkaistos Fioravanti, Aristotele, 190 Pondaco dei Turchi, Venice, 154 Forums, Constantinople, 28, Plate 25 Fossati, Gaspere and Giuseppe, 64 Frangopoulos, House of; Mistra, Plate 235 Frangopoulos, John, 159 Franks and Frankish influence, 14, 146, 156, 160 see St. Mary Paro Galata, 146 Galerius, Emperor, 52 Galig, 187, 189, 194 Galla Placidia mausoleum, Raven na, 73, Plate 98 Gautier, Théophil Gaza, 16 George, W.S.,7 Georgia, 9, 141, 162, 180; archi tecture, 98, 104, 193, Gerasa (Jerash), 20, 23, 24, 43, Plates 17-15, 21, 22, i, Consea 6 inople, Plate Galen Gate, Constantinople, 28, Plates 29,19, 120 Golden Gate, Kiew, 181, 184 Golien Gate, Vlainis, 187 Golden-headed hutch (Panag Chrvekepaln), Contantnn ple 162 Golien Horn, Constantinople, 2, 134, Gonziler de Clio, Ruy, 127 Gostsna, 86 Gothic architesture, 141, 146, 160, 195 Gratania, 178, 180, 198, Pater 238, 260 Grand Comneni, 141 Granovitaa Palata, see Faceted Palace Great Church, Constantinople, 19 Great Laveaci St. Athanasius, Me. “Athos, 118, 130, Plate 177 Great Palace, Constantinople, 108, 74 Greece, 86, 140-141, 156; church auchitecire, 7, 42, 80, 115, 116, 118-120, 124, 127, 130; Prankish: domination and in! fluence, 141, 146, 136; his- torical events, 89, 108, 116, 118, 170, 177; Oriental a. chiteeture in, 130 Gregory, Bishop, 51 Gregory Nazianzus, Sant, 31 Gregory of Nyse, Sant, 1618 Hadrian, Emperor, 20, Hadrian's Library, Athens, 8 Hagia Sophie, see St. Sophia, Constantinople Hagioi Theodoroi, church of the; Mistea, 159, Plate 228 Hab, 107; Plates 152-154 Halabiye, see Zenobia Harun al-Rashid, 108 Helena, Queen, 179 Helena, Saint, 46 Heraclea Lyncestis, 175 Heraclius, Emperor, 98 Herzegovina, 180 Heybeliada, ee Chalk Hierapolis, 14 Hippodrome, Constantinople, Plates 29, 30 Hobhouse, John C., 65 Hodegetria, Mistra, 159, Pletes 229.231 Hohenstaufen family, 148 Holy Apostles, church of thes Constantinople, 28, 44,51, 68, 108, 168, 198, Plate 29 Holy Apostles, church of the: 209Thessalonica, 156, 166, Plates 223, 224, 26 Holy Archangels monastery, near Prizgen, 179, Plate 262 Holy Cress church, Aght'amar, 128,166, Paes 186, 187 Holy Cross (Davari) church, near Mesltheta, 98 Holy Mountain, ee Mount Athos Holy Sepulcher church. Jeruss lem, 15, 46 Hlomor, 196 Honors, Emperor, 15 Hormislas, palace’ of, Constan tinople, 58 Hosios Loukas, se St. Luke Hungary, 191, 194, 196 Hyakinthos, 90 period, 98, 108, 109, Illyricum, 46; Archbishop of, 24 Imperial ‘Palace, Constantinople, 61, 76, 109, 127, 130; Plate 29; Golden Hall (Chrysocrlli- nos), 52, 76,79; New Hall (Kai- nourgion), 109 Iran, 98 Irene, Empress, 89, 134 Isind, 104, 107 Isaac I (Isaac Comnenus), 136, 141 Isidore of Miletus, 14, 24, 61, 64 Isidorus the Younger, 64 Islamic architecture, 80, 84, 118 Isova, 146 Istanbul, see Constantinople Istanbul Archaeological Museam, 111, 150 Istria, 42 Italy, 57, 73, 89, 108, 177; church, architectare in, 40, 42; colonies of, M41 Ivan IL, Czar, 190 Ivan IV the Terrible, Czar, 191 Iviron monastery, Mt. Athos, 120, 130 Tank, see Nicaea Jaroslav the Wise, 181 Jessy, sce Tag Jerash, see Gerasa Jerusalem, 12, 15, 16, 46, Plate 54 John (Chioce monk), 120 John I Tzimiskes, Emperor, 127 John II, Emperor, 134 John Asen I, King, 172 John Chrysostom, Saint, 43 John of Constantinople, 14 Juliana, Anica, Princess, 58 Jolianas the banker, 19 Jur'ev-Pol'skij, 188, 189, Plates 282, 283 Jostiana Prima, 24 Justin I, Emperor, 37 Justin 1, Emperor, 57 Justinian I, Emperor, 7, 19, 31, 109, 140; building projects, 14, 19, 24, 31, 46, 57-58, 59, 61, 68, 86, 109, Justinianie period, 7, 14, 97-88; breakup of Byzantine empire, 88, 89; church. archivecture, 58.68, 70, 73-80, 84-88; con” structiontechniques, 10;middle Byzantine period and, architec ture compared, 108, 109 Justinian’ sbridge, Sangerius River, Plate 96 Kaisoriani, M11 Kalabaka, 64 Kalendethane Cami, Constantin- ople, 89, 136 Kalenié, 180, Plate 269 Kantakouzenoi family, 156 Karapiimrik cistern, Constan- tinople, Plate 11 Karamajara Bridge, near Ele Plate 96 Kariye Camii, see Christ of the Chora Karyes, 118, Plate 175 Kasnitzis, Nikephoros, 140 Kastoria, 140, Plates 200, 201 Katapoliani basilica, Paros, 86, Plate 123 Katé panagia, near Arta, 146 Kemalpasa, see Nymphaion Kerulatios, Michael, 120 Kiev, 138, 171, 180-186, 198, Plates 267-271, 273, Kilise Camii (Molla Gada Cami), Constantinople, 153, Plates 29, 217, 218 Konya, Sultan of, 141 Kremlin, Moscow, 189, 190, Plate 286 Krum, Khan, 170 Kruievac, 180 Kumanovo, 178, 179, Pate 263 Kumbelidikichurch, Kastor, 140, Plate 200, XIII Kursurnlija, 176, Plate 251 Kurjunls, see Blegri Lacedaemonia, 156 Laconia, 12 Lampakis, G., 7 Lascaris, house of, 14 ‘Lassus, Jean, 7 Lavra, Mount Athos, 118, 130, Plate 177 Lazar, Prince, 179 Lazarevig, Stephen, Prince, 180 Lavarica, Kruevac, 180, Plate XX Lebanon range, 11 Lecaperus, Romanus and Theo- ‘dora, 113 Lechaion, 40 Lecomte de Nou, Jean, 193, 196 Leo IV, Emperor, 110 Lesbos, Plate 49 Lesnove, 179 Licinius, 38 Limestone Massif, Syria, 8 Lips monastery, see Constantine Lips Ljubostinja, 180 Ljuboten, 179 Longobardia, Governor of, 113 Lake, Saint; relies of, 44, 168; tomb of, 124 Lake of Steri, Saint, 116 Lycia, 11,90, 174 ‘Macarius, Bishop, 15 ‘Macedonia, 42, 120, 175, 177 Madengechie (Binbitklise), 98, 107, Plates 155, 156 ‘Magnesia (Manisa), 146 Magyers, 116 ‘Maioumas festival, 23 Malatya, see Melitene ‘Maleinos, Me. Kyminas, 130 ‘Manasia, see Resava ‘Manisa see Magnesia ‘Mankaphas, Theodore, 141 Manuel 1, Emperor, 134, 162 Marcos Aurelius Forum, Rome, 28 ‘Maritsa River, 136, 154, 179 Mark, Saint; relies of, 168, ‘Marmara, Sea of, 28, 96, 98, 136 Marneion, Gaza, 16 Marr, N.,7 ‘Martha, Saine, 18 ‘Martin, Saint, 73 Martyria, 8, 16, 44-46 Matelié, 179, Plate 263, Matthew, Saint, 168 Maximinian, Bishop, 76, 79 Megas Agros, 98 Mehmed IL, Sulten, 190 Melitene (Malatya), Emir of, 108 Mes® Street, Constantinople, 28 Mesembria (Nesebiil, 173, 175, Plates 246, 247 Mesopotamia, 7, 57, 79, 84, 98, 107, 111 Methodius, Saint, 97, 170,Metochites, Theodore, 153 ‘Metropolis, Misra, 159, 160 Michael TI, Emperor, 146 Michael 111, Emperor, 108, Michael 1V, Emperor, 127 Michael VIII Palacologus, Em peror, 150 Michael Maleinos, Saint, 130 Milica, Princess, 180 Millet, Gabriel, 7,176, 323 Milutin, King, 176, 177, 178, 179, 196 Mistra, 127, 141, Plates 228-230, 231.235; described, 156-160, Mithra, sectaties of, 38 Moldavia, 191, 192, 194, 19: ‘dome, 194-196, Moldovige, 196 Molla Gi ‘Cami Monasteries and monasticism, 97, 98, 118, 130, 137, 138; Con stantinople, 110," 134, 136; described, 108-109, ‘Monemvasia, 89, 127, 159, Plate 182 ‘Monophysitism, 58, 84, 98 Morava school, 176, 180, 192, 193 ‘Moravia, 170 ‘Mores, see Peloponnesis Moscow, 186, 189, 190, 191, 198, lates 285, 286 Mount Athos (Holy _Moun- tain), 110, 118, 130, 156, 178, 180, 192, Plates 159, 177, 261 ‘Mount Kithairon, Plate 158 Mount of Olives, 44, 46 Mount Sinai, 12, 34, 43, 84, Plates 103,116 Mren, 107, Plates 150, 151 Mshatea, 82, 84 Mezkhera, 98 ‘Municipium ‘Tropaeum Traian, ‘Adamelisi, Plate 41 Musmiye, 96 ‘ami, sce Kilise Myra (Demre), 90, 96, Plates 130, BI Myrelaion, sce Bodrum Cami Narses Il, Archbishop, 104 Nativity, church of the: Beth: Teher, 44, 46, Plates 52, 53 Nativiey, church of the; Moscow, 189 Naum, disciple of St. Methodius, 170 Nazianzos, church of; Cappadocia, 31 Nea Ekklesia, sce New Church Nea Moni, see New Monastery, Chios Neamt, 195, Plate 293 Negev, 84 Nemanid dynasty, 176, 179 Nemanja, Stephen, 176 Neoclasscism, 191, 196 Nerezi, 176 etl” River, 187, Plates 278, 279 Nero, Emperor, 52 Nesebar, see Mesembria Nestos River, 177 New Church (Nea Ekklesia), Constantinople, 108-109, 111, Plate 29 New, Monastery (Nea Moni), Chios, 120, 124, 138, Plates 176,177 New Monastery, Thessalonice, 156, ‘Nicaea (Ten), 90, 136, 150; Plates 127-129; walls, Plate 4; empire of, 141, 146 Nicephorus I, Emperor, 170 [Nicetas the Patrician, 97 Nicholas of Myra, Saint, 11,90 Nicholas of Sion, Saint, 11 ‘Nicodemus (monk), 192 Nicomedia, 35 Nicopolis, 148 Nike Riot, 61 Niketas (Chiote monk), 120 Nikon of Moscow, 198 Nikortsminda, 195 Niphon, 195 Norman conquest, 176 Norman Stanza, Palermo, 188 North Africa, 57, 89, 116 Novgorod, 184, 186, 189, Plate 274 Novi Pazar, 177 Nymphaion (Kemalpasa), near Smyrna, 146, 155 Nyssa, 16, 91, Plate 15 Ohrid, 154, 170, 171, 175, 177, 118, Plates 249, 252, 256 (Old Metropolis, Mesembria, 175, (Olga, Princess, 171 Ohenia, 192 Omurtag, Khan, 196 Onogur Bulgars, 172.173 Orsini family, 148 Orthodox Baptistery, Ravenna, 73, Plates 99, 100 Orthodox Church, 176, 191, 192, 196 Ostrogothie rule, 73, Ottoman Turks, 7,171, 191, seeal- 10 Turkey; Turks (Our Lady of Isova church, Isova, 146 Our Lady of Vladimir church, Pachomius, Abbot, 159 Palaeologan architecture, 141,150, 153, 154, 155, 167, 179 Palaeologi, house of, 134, 141, 148, 155, 156 Palermo, 188 Palestine, 15, 46, 57, 79, 84; a chitecture, 33,46, 38; construc- tion materials and techniques, 95 holy laces of, 44; loss of, to empire, 89 Panag Chiyskehals, se Gold Sr Hlended church Panag Gorgoepekoos, Athens, "Mate 202 Panag Kara te 13 Panagin Kosmoroteir, Pheri te 198, 19 PanagiaLykodemou, Athens, 127, vio Panagia sn Chalke, set. Mary 1 the Coppersmith Panmoria, 170 Panta monastery, Mice, 159, Phe XV Pantocrator church, Consantin pest Christ Banioeator Pantocrator church, Mesembia, 1 Parco Pore) 40, Pate 48 Pargoriias, church ofthe: Ar ta Ho, Pe 307209 Paros isan, 86, 89, Plate 123 Parthenon, Athens, 140 Patlein, 111 Patriarchal Palace, Consent oe, 8 Pas Bishop, 23 Paul he Silesian, 109 Pera Lava, see Caves, mon ste of the Pelekete, 98 Peloponnesis (Mores, 89, 127 Tn te, 136.199, 160) Perel Zakesk, 186,188 Peiblepos monastery, Misr, 19 Perit 116,120, Plate 167 Persia 37, 89,98 Peter, King 17,172 Pheri, 136, Per 198, 199 Phildeipbia 141 Pildelphion Square, Constan Tingle, 28, Pte 23 86, Pie 122 sa, Chall, PhilPriloserus cistern, Constantin ple 31,90 Phocis, Plates 171173, 179, XE Photis, 108 Physi, 12 Pillars of St. George (Durdjevi Stupovil, neat Novi Pazar, 78 Piatnce church, Ceenigow, 189, 180,198, Pate 284 Piatnienchureh, Nowgored, 189 Piaccus, Bishop, 20 Paton, 97 Pliska, 172, 173-174, 196, Plate 2 Pokeor, church of thes near Vladimir, 187, 188,” Pits 278279, Poland, 194 Polack, 189 Pore, se Parenz0 Porphyrogenitus, palace of the; Constantinople 155 Porphyry, 12, Plate 31 Porphyry, Bishop, 16 Porta Pansea, near Tekkala, 146 Presi, 111, 170, 172,173, 174, a8 Prilep, 177, 192 Princes’ Islands, 127 Prislop, Transylvania, 192 Priaren, 178, 179; Plates 257, 258 Proconnesus island, 14,42,68, 73, 79,174 Procopius, 57, 64, 68, 70, 109 Procopius church, Gerasa, 20, Plate 17, Prophet Elijah, church of the: Constantinople, 174 Prophet Elijah, church of the; ‘Thessalonica, 156 Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, church of the; Gerasa, 20, Plates 17, 2t Propylaea church, Gerasa, 23, Plate 17 Protaton of Karyes, Mt. Athos, 118, Plate 17 Protective Veil (Poko), feast of, 187 allan, R. Popplewell, 7, 166 Putna, 194 Qultat Saman, 16, 18, 24, 48, Plates 59465, 108 Qalblosch, 80, Plates 105-107 Qasr ibn-Wardan, 80, 84, Plater 109-114 Radhiuy, 194 Radu the Great, 192 Ragga, 118 Raseia (Ratka), 179; school of ar- chitecture, 187, Ravanica, 180, Plate 264 Ravenna, 19, 40, 52, 57, Plates 98 108, VI. Resafa (Sergiopolis), 28, 52, 59, 104, Plates 25, 69, 70, XIT; cistems, 24, 82, Plate 6; city plan, Plate 24; origins, 24 Resava (Manasija), 180, Plate 266 Rizokastron wall, Athens, 140 Roman architecture, 10, 12, 28, 38, 40, 44, 52, 109, 138 Roman Empire, 7, 14 Romanesque architecture, 141, 177, 188 Romanus Il, Emperor, 127 Rostov, 186 Rott, H.,7 Round Church, Preslav, 173-174, Plates 243-245 Roblev, Andrej, 189 Roffo, Marco, 191 Rafinas, 16 Romania, 191-196, 198 Russia, 9, 168, 180; Byzantine ar- chitecture diffused to, 180- Se Se Se Se Se Se Se. Se St Se s si s s: ss s Se Se si Se Se si Se St St 191, 196, 198; conversion of to Christianity, 171; Musco- vite period, 184, 190, 191; ‘Tartar invasion, 189) Abercius, Elegmi (Kurgan), Plate 197 ‘Acacius, Constantinople, 28 Andrew, Pevisterai, 116, Pla tel Anne, Trebizond, 162 Athanasius, Great Lavra of; Mr. Athos, 118, 130 Babylas, Antioch-Kausive, 51, Plate 66 Basil, Arta, Plate 210 Basil, Ovrué, 189 Basil the Blessed, Moscow, 191 Catherine, Me. Sinai, 12, 34, 43, Plates 115, 116; description and history, 84 Catherine, Thesseloniea, 155, Plate 227, Clement, Ankara, 90, 96, 150, Plate 132 Clement, Ohrid, 171, 176, Plate 249 Demetrius, Thessalonica, 46, 48, 173, Plates 55.58 Demetris, Vladimir, 188, Pla ses 280, 281 Eudocia (icon), Constantin. ple, 111 Eugenios, Trebizond, 162 Euphemia, Conscantinople, 32, Plates 29, 73 Gayane, Vagarshapat(Echmiad: zn), 104 George, Constantinople, 52 George, Gerasa, 23, Plates 17, 2 78, George, Jur’ev-Polskii, 188, 189, Plates 282, 283 George, Kiev, 184 George, Staro Nagoritino, 178; Plate XIX George, Suceava, Plates 296, 297 Se Se Se Se St St St St St St st s si s St si Se George, Thesslonica, late 71 George of Mangana, Constan tinope, 128, 130, Paes 29,185 Irene, Constantinople, 2, 1, (4,68, 86,89, 159, Pls, 29 117, 118 136, VT seb seer carthqke, 89 Tren, Kiev, 181, 184 Joho, Bagaven, 104 John, Ephesus, 86 John Alezourgetos, Mesemtbria tNesebin, 173, Plate 247 John Lateran, Rome, 38 John Mangouis, Athens, 140 John of Plekee, Trike, Pate 10 John of Stade, Constantin: ple, 9, 58, 40, 43, Plats 29, Bis Joho Prodromas, Selvnbria, Paeri9 John the Baptist, Gessa, 25, Plates 17,22 Jon, che Baptist, Mesem (Nesebin), 175, Plte 246 John the Evangel, Ephesus, Plate 21 Leonidas, Corinth Lechsion, 40 Luke (Hosios Loukas), Phocis, 118, 124, 138, Plates 171-173, 179 Mary Chalkoprateia, Constan tinople, 9, 108, Plates 3,29 Mary of Blachernae, 28, 198, Plate 29 Mary of the Coppersmiths (Panagia tén Chalkeom), Thess: alonica, 113-115, Plates 165, 16 ‘Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Cami), Constantinople, 150, 153, Plates 13, 29, 212, 313, Mary Peribleptos, Constan tinople, 127, Plate 39 Meletios, Mt. Kithairon, Plate was s St St. Se st si si si si si St si Se s 8 8 si Se Se Ss Se Se. Se Michael, Kiev, 184, 186; Plate 213 Michael, Moscow, 191, Plate 286 Michal, Smolensk, 189 Michael, Sip, 179 Mocius, Constantinople, 31, 68,108, Plte 29 Nicholas, Cartes de Ares, 192 Nicholas, Kurdumlija, 176, Plate 251 Nicholas, Myra (Demre), 90, Plates 130, 131 Nicholas, Radayi, 194 Nicholas Bolnitki, Ohrid, 172 Oners (family), 148 Panteleimon, Nerezi, 176, Plate XVI Panteleimon, Thessalonica, 155 araskeva, Mesembria (Nese- an), 175 Paraskevi, Chalkis, 146 Paul (Arap Cami), 146, Plate 25 Polyeuktos, Constantinople, 58, Plates 29, 76.78 Ripsime, Vagarshapat (chia 2in}, 98, Plates 144-146, X Sergius, Resafa, 24, 52 ‘Simeon's pillar, Qal'at Seman, Plate 62 Simeon Stylites the Younger, monastery of, near Antioch, 18, Plate 16 Sophia, Andravida, 146 Sophia, Bizye (Vize), 96, Plates 13, BS Sophia, Constantinople, 7, 10, 12, 57, 58, 70, 86, 109, 128, Plates'14, 29, 84-92, Til ar chiteets, 14; construction, 18, Gt, 68; cost of building, 19; dedication of, 28; described, 59,61, 64, 65,68; dome, 79; terior, Plate IV; rebuilding of after earthquake, 130; renov- ation and additions, 108, 138 Southeast porch constricted, 11; wauling, Plate V St. Sophia, Kiev, 138, 181-82, 184, Plies 268.271 St. Sophia, Mista, 159 St Sophia, Monemea Plate 182 St Sophia, Novgorod, 184 St. Sophia, Obrid, 154, 171, 175, 178, Paes 249,256 Se. Sophia, Sofia, 173 St. Sophia, Thesalonica, 89, 90, 116, 136, Plates 124, 125 St. Sophia, Trebizond, 162, 166, 18, Plates 237-239 St Sophia, Viz (Bizye), 96, Plates 13, D4 St. Theodora, Arta, Plate 206 St. Theodore, eras 20, Plate 17 St. Theodore, Mesembrin (Nese bin 175 St. Titus, Goryna (Crete), 86, Pues 119,120 Sts, Carpos and Papylos, Constan- tinople, Plate 29 Sts, Cosmas and Damian, Ganstan- ‘inople, 127 Sts, Cosmas and Damian, Gers, 25, Paes 17,22 Sts. Michael and Gabriel, Mesom- ‘rin (Nesebie), 175 Sts, Peter and Paul, Constantin. ‘ple, 59 Sis. Peter and Paul, Gerasa, 23, Plate 17, Sts, Sergius and Bacchus, Const tinople, 58, 39, 61, 76,79, 86, Plates 39, 80-83 17 Sts, Theodore, Misra, 127 Samosata, 98 Samuel, King, 171,172 S. Apollinae in Classe, Ravenna, 40, 16,79, Plae 101 S.Apalinare Nuovo, Ravenna, 73, Plate 108 127, 159, S.Glovanni Evangsista, Ravenna, B 5. Marco, Venice, 28, 86, 168, Plates 9,240,341 S. Michcle in Afrcisco, Raven 23, 76,79 S. Stefano, Ravenna 79 S. Vitae, Ravenna, 19,52, 57,84, Plates 12, 103: deserption and history, 76,79 Sangarivs (Sakaeya) River bride, 70, Piste 96 Sta, Croce, Ravenna, 73 Sta. Maria Maggiore, Ravenna, 7, 7° Sardis, 23, 146 Saul, Deacon, 23 Savion, cathedel of che; Cernig, 184 Savior, church of the; Ani, 193 Savior, chorch of the; Constan tinope, 128 Sawa monastery, neat Zeenigor od, 189 Seg Turks, 115, 130, 141, 162, ‘ec aio Pkey; Tks Selymbria Silo, 175, Plate 219 Seraglio Point, Constancinople, 128, Plate 37 Serbia snd Serbs, 14, 168, 170, 171, 192, 196, 198; churches, 175, 176, 177, 180; see abo Yogosavia Sersopois, see Resafa Setgis monastery (Trice Ser Bis), Zagors, 189 Serres, Despot of. 179 Severus, Septimus, 28 Sgouros, Progano, 178 Shrines, 8, 446 Sicily, 108, 116, 148 Sige, 96, Plate 137 Sista, 196 se Selymbria Simeon, King, 170, 173,174, 177 Simeon Seyites, Saint, 48, 97 Simonis, Queen, 177 Sirmium, 35, 46 Sisian, 98 Skripoo, 116, 118, Plater 168,169 Slavs, 89, 108, 170, 172,175, 191 Smederevo, 176 Smolensk, 189 Simyrm, 24,146 Sofia, 173 Solaro, Piet Antonio, 191 Sopocani, 177, Plate 255 Spalato, 28 Spaso-Efrosnjev monastery, Pol wok, 189 Stenimaka, sce Asnovgrad Searo Nagoritino, 178 Stephen of Ail, 84 Stephen the Great, 191, 194, 199, Sup, 177, 179 Stobi, 175 Strumica, 176, Plate 250 Straygowski, Joseph, 7, 98 Stadenica, 177, Plates 253, 254 Stugins basilica, see Se, John of ‘Studins Suceava, 191, 194-196, Plates 296 297 Sura, walls of, 82 Synagopue church, Gerass, 23 Syria, 16, 24, 48, 80, 96, 115; a chitestre, 7,80 84 and Ar pared, 98, 104; church ba Ings, 7, 35, 40, 43, 46, 109; materials and techniques, 9 frontier of the empire, 37; Limestone Massif of, {1 ‘Tamerlane, 179 ‘Tarchaniotes, MichaelDoul ‘bas, 150 ‘Tarver, 181, 189 i, Constantinople, 15, Plates 29, 221, 222, a5,‘Tetraconch, Resafa, Plate 69 Tetrarchic period, 28, 35 ‘Texier, Charles, 7, 70, 154, 166 Thebes, 140 ‘Theodora, Empress, 8, 150 ‘Theodore of Gerasa, 23, ‘Theodore the Studite, 97 ‘Theodoric, 73 ‘Theodosian Walls, Constantin- ople, 28, Plate 39, 1 ‘Theodosius I, 28, 31 ‘Theodosius I, 28, 31 ‘Theophanes Contessor, 97 ‘Theophilus, Emperor, 108, 109 ‘Theotokos church of St. Lake ‘monastery, Phocis, 118, 124, Plates 171-173 Thessalonica, 46, 137, 148, 175, 179; buildings, described, 39, 40, 46, 48, 52, 89,90, 113-114, 116, 136, 155, 166, 173; pies sured, Plates 46, 47, 35.58, 71, 124, 125, 165," 166, 223-227: Palacologan period, 155, 175 ‘Thessaly, 12 ‘Thomas [of Jerusalem, 12 ‘Thrace, 57, 174 Three Hierarchs, church of the; Tag assy), 195, Plate 294 ‘Tiga River, 173 ‘Timothy, Saint; relic of, 44 ‘Tismania, Olenia, 192 Tithe church (Desjatin kkov’), Kiev, 180, Plate 267 Toramanian, T.,7 ‘Trajan Forum, Rome, 28 Transfiguration, cathedeal of the; ag Cemigov, Plate 272 ‘Transfiguration, church of the; Percjaslavl-Zalesskij, 187 ‘Trapezuntine architecture, 162 ‘Tedat, 130 Trebizond, 130, 160, 166, 188, Plates 236-239; ermpire of, 141 Trier, 38, Plate 42 Trikkala, 146 Trilye, 98, Plates 138, 139 ‘Tripbylie, 127 Tenovo, 172 Troice Sergiev, see Sergius monas- tery Tur ‘Abdin, 84, 98, 107 Turkey, 70, 90, 104, 154 Turks, 141, 166; conquerors, 64, 130, 171, 176, 179, 191, 192; Asia Minor, 115, 130," 141, 166; Sef, 115, 130, 141, 162; se also Ottoman Turks ‘Tyre, 38, 42 ‘Trimiskes, John, 127, 128 Ukbaidir, 118 Umayyad, palace, Mshatta, 82, 108 Ursicious, Bishop, 76, 79 Vagatshapar (Echmiadzin), 98, 104, Plates 144-146, X Valens, Emperor, aqueduct of, Plaie 29 Van Millingen, A., 7 Varna, Crusade of, 191 Vatopedi, 120 Veljusa, 176, Plate 250 Venice, 58, 141, 154, 168, 190; '. Marco church, 28, Plies 7, 240,241 Victor, Bishop, 76 Vigilant Powers, church ofthe, xe Zvactnots Vikings, 70 Vira, see Phere Virgin, basilica of, see Acheio- poitos basilica Virgin, church ofthe; Asenovgrad (Stanimaka, 175 Viegn, chute ofthe; Avan; Plates 143, 1 Virgin, church of the; Hb, 107, Plates 153,134 Virgin, church of the; Kalenié, Plate 265, XXI Virgin, church of the; Matejé, Plate 263 Virgin, church of the; Studenica, 177, Plates 253, 254 Virgin Eleousa, church ofthe; Vel ius, 176, Plate 250 Virgin Hodegetra, church ofthe Mista, 9 Virgin Kosmosotees (Savior ofthe ‘Warld) monastery, Vira 136 Virgin Levitha, church of he; Prissen, 178, Plates 297, 258 Virgin of Mercy, see Eeousa Virgin Periblepeos, church of the; Oheid, 176 Vita of Kotor, 177 Vize, see Bioye Vladimie, Prince, 171, 180 Vladimir, Russia, 186, 188, 190, 198, Plates 276-281 Viattadon monastery, ‘Thess alonica, 156 Vodita, near Turnu-Severin, 192 Vogié, Marquis de, 7 Volga River, 172, 186 Voronet, 194, 196, Plates 292, ‘XXII, XXIV Vsevolod Ill, Prince, 187, Vydubickij monastery, Kiev, 184 Wallachia, 191, 192-193, 194, 195 William II Vilehardouin, 156 Yalova, Plate 2 Yugoslavia, 24, 171, 175-80, see ‘abo Serbi Zagors, 189 Zarake, 146 Zeno, Emperor, 51 Zenobia, Queen, 24 Zenobia Halabi), 14,24, 58,82, Plate 8,27, 28 Zenobius, 16 Zeus, empl, Gerasa, 20, Plate 17 ‘es Marnasvemple, Guz, 16 Zesrippus, baths of, Constantn- ‘onl 28, 61, Plate 29 Zegrek Kilise Cami, see Christ ‘Pantocrator Zoravor, near Evgaed, 104 Zosimous, 35 ‘Zvartnotz (Church of the Vigilant Powers), near Echmiadzin (Va ‘garhapat), 104, Plates 147-149 Zvenigorod, 189LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS Nore: Photographs by Bruno Balestrini. All those supplied by otber sources are gratefully acknowledged below. The murbers listed refer tothe plates. Alpago Novello, Adriano, Archivio Landesmuseum, Trier: 42 ‘Centro Studie Documentazio- Mango, Professor Cyril, Oxford: te della Cultura Armena, Mile "T"4, 5,6, 8,10,26,33,-4, 60, ani VII 1X, X, XML, XIV, 6}, 64,70, 108,111,112, 13, XV, XVI, XXII, XXIV 114, 126, 131, 133, 134, 137, Anderson, Ru 25,28, 61, 62,65, 138, 139, 140, 152, 154, 170, 63, 74, 166, 107, 108 199, 220, 236, 244, 245, 250, Archivio Electa, Milan: VIL 265, 292, 94, 297 ‘Avtamonoff, NV. 34,40, 73,93, Michigan-Princeton-Alexandria 190, 221 Expedition to Mount Sina Bildarchiv Foto Marburg, Mar. org/tahe 93 Morgenstern, J 136 Bireli, Diego, Mestre: 79 ‘Mundell, M.C. 268 Boyd, 5. 188 Novosti Press; Rome: 270, 271, 212, 274, 375, 276, 278,280, 281,282! 283,284,286 E Powell, Josephine, Rome: 143, ee aria 21g 5,146,149 sears Dytantine Con. Ques Exo, Cremona: 287, 28, 291, 295, 256 ter, Washington, D.C.: 3, 9, care ’, Tg 14 3087, 91, 162, Riceaeini, Luisa, Milan: IK, IV, V 193, 246, 218 Sevienko, Professor I: 78, 197, Fogg Are Museum, Harvard Uni- 239 versity, Cambridge, Mass.: 128 Tasig, Dusan, Belgrade: 155, 182, Gad, Borel-Boissonas, Geneva: 57 204 Harrison, Professor RIM, the Unie Thierry, Nicole, Etampes: 151 versity of Newcastle upon Titus, Turin: IT Tyne: 16, 77 Van Nice, R. Li: 12, 64 Jeremig, Mus 261 Yale University, New Haven: 20 Courtauld Institute of Art, Lon: don: 246, 247, 248 aisByzantine Architecture ‘Byzantine architecture bad its roots in the evolving Christian tradition othe late 3nd and 4t centuries, ‘aud the early churches were modelled on the secular basilica. Constantine's renanting of Byeantiane as Constantinople and inauguration ofthe city as capital ofthe castes Roma empire x 330 s oneal taken asthe starting point ofthe Byzantine ea. Cyril Mango's bighly orginal study shones ns fone the ‘thread of development in style and form was maintained over a thousand yea, and bow Broavtine ye aiding spread into casters Europe and part of wetter Europe, rom lialy to Russia as eee dominating the Near East for centariex—above all in Constantinople. The role of the acbitet the workman and the patron, ad the use of materials and techniques, are recurring themes, City ancbitecre ‘s feared a: wll asthe very distinctive Byzantine eclsastial architecture, the most famous example (ofthis being the 6th contury masterpiece, lagi Sophia. Cyril Mango is one ofthe world's lading autborties on Byzantine art and architecture. He bas been professor of Byzantine and moders Greek at Oxford University since 1973, ‘SBN O-S71-14534-0 I | 90000 | 9 M80s71 145140 History of World Architecture ‘Ancient Architecture Hans Wolfgang Miller & Seton Lloyd Baroque Architecture Christian Norberg-Schulz Byzantine Architecture Cyril Mango Gothic Architecture Louis Grodecki Greek Architecture Roland Martin Islamic Architecture John D. Hoag, Late Baroque and Rococo Archisecture Cristian Norberg Schule Modern Architecture/1 Manfredo Tafuri & Francesco Dal Co Modern Architecture/2 Manfredo Tafuri & Francesto Dal Co Neoclassical and 19th Century Architecture/t The Enlightenment in France sd in England Robin Middleton & David Watkin Neoclassical and 19th Century Architecture/2 The Diffusion and Development of Classiciom and the Gothic Revival Robin Middleton & David Watkin Oriental Architecture/t India, Indonesia, Indochina Mario Bussagli Oriental Architecrure/2 China, Korea, Jopan Mario Bossagli Pre-Columbian Architecture of Mesoamerica Paul Gendrop & Doris Heyden Primitive Architecture Enrico Gaidoni Renaissance Architecture Peter Murray Roman Architecture John Ward-Perkins Romanesque Arc Hans Erich Kabac