Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and ArchitectureVan Millingen, Alexander
Philosophy
Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and Architecture
Van Millingen, Alexander
Architecture, Byzantine; Church architecture -- Turkey -- Istanbul; Church buildings -- Turkey -- Istanbul
But in regard to the existence of an intentional widening upwards in
this building, it should be observed: First, that as the eastern wall of
the church, 'the rear wall of the choir,' is Turkish, nothing can be
legitimately inferred from the features of that wall about the character
of Byzantine construction. Secondly, the set back above the middle
string-course on the other walls of the church is an ordinary
arrangement in a Byzantine church, and if this were all 'the widening'
for which Professor Goodyear contended there would be no room for
difference of opinion. The ledge formed by that set back may have served
to support scaffolding. In the next place, due weight must be given to
the distortion which would inevitably occur in Byzantine buildings. They
were fabrics of mortar with brick rather than of brick with mortar, and
consequently too elastic not to settle to a large extent in the course
of erection. Hence is it that no measurements of a Byzantine structure,
even on the ground floor, are accurate within more than 5 cm., while
above the ground they vary to a much greater degree, rendering minute
measurements quite valueless. Lastly, as the marble panelling was fitted
after the completion of the body of the building, it had to be adapted
to any divergence that had previously occurred in the settling of the
walls or the spreading of the vaults. The marble panelling, it should
also be observed, is here cut to the diagonal at one angle, and not at
the other.
Apart from the set back of the masonry at the middle string-course, this
church, therefore, supplies no evidence for an intentional widening of
the structure from the ground upwards. Any further widening than that at
the middle string-course was accidental, due to the nature of the
materials employed, not to the device of the builder, and was allowed by
the architect because unavoidable. Such irregularities are inherent in
the Byzantine methods of building.
[Illustration: PLATE XLIX.
(1) S. MARY DIACONISSA. SOUTH EIKON FRAME.
(2) S. MARY DIACONISSA. DETAIL IN THE SOUTH EIKON FRAME.
_To face page 188._]
[Illustration: FIG. 61.]
[Illustration: FIG. 62.]
[Illustration: PLATE L.
(1) S. MARY DIACONISSA, LOOKING WEST.
(2) S. MARY DIACONISSA. CAPITAL ON COLUMN AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE
CHURCH.
_To face page 190._]
[293] _De top. C.P._ iii. c. 6.
[294] P. 351.
[295] _Archaeologia_, vol. lv. part 2, p. 431.
[296] P. 352.
[297] Their names appear in the Letter addressed to Menas, by the
monks of the city, at the Synod of 536.
[298] In the Epistle to Pope Agapetus the monastery 'near the
aqueduct' is described as 'Anastasii prope Agogum,' Mansi, viii. p.
907.
[299] _Esquisses top._ p. 70.
[300] Const. Porphr. _De cer._ i. p. 75.
[301] P. 428; Banduri, i. p. 18; viii. pp. 697-98.
[302] _Archaeologia_, vol. lv. part 2, p. 438.
[303] _Mediaeval Art_, p. 66.
[304] _Manuel d'art byzantin_, p. 312.
CHAPTER X
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account