The small dome in the chamber which opens out of the western buttress of the south side on the first-floor level has four angels with uplifted hands, supporting a medallion in the centre. This design is similar to that in the side chapel at S. Prassede at Rome. “The figure representations belong to the time of Justinian, though the Silentiary, otherwise so accurate, does not describe them.” * * * * * _First Scheme._--A reading of Salzenberg’s notes on the figure mosaics will show how little ground there was for his impression that these belonged to the time of Justinian, which the last sentence expresses. Several of these mosaics are dated as being parts of restorations. Thus he shows that Basil I. placed figures on the arch of the great western hemicycle, and that those of the great eastern arch are the work of Palaeologus. The subject has been much obscured by insecure assumptions and inexact assertions. Labarte, who was one of the first to doubt that Justinian was intended by the figure of the kneeling emperor before Christ over the Royal Door, thought that the Silentiary described figure-mosaics as covering the interior.[395] Gerspach in _La Mosaïque_ calls the emperor ‘Justinian’ and appears to mistake the Pentecost cupola for the great dome. In regard to the date of the lunette containing the emperor, Labarte suggested that it was a work of the seventh century, and that the emperor was Heraclius.[396] Woltmann and Woermann placed it still later and write, “There is no kind of resemblance between the beardless portrait of Justinian at Ravenna and this bearded, gray-headed man. It is more likely to be Basil I. the restorer of the western apse, and this opinion is supported by the miniatures of his time.” The pilgrim Anthony seems to refer to it as Leo the Wise, but the Russians ascribe so many works to this emperor without reason that this is inconclusive. The forms of the letters in the inscriptions, however, show that the mosaic is late. Bayet,[397] who has considered the mosaics afresh, and thinks the silence of Paulus is conclusive as to the absence of figure-mosaics when the poem was written, about 562, himself seems to misread some parts of the poet’s description; thus he thinks patterns in mosaic are intended in lines 607-612. The animals of the atrium may possibly have been of glass mosaic: but we think it more likely that inlaid marble like the dolphins of the interior (Fig. 49) is intended. The baskets of fruit, branches with birds, and the golden vine in the church, spoken of in lines 668, &c. seem to refer to the carved and gilt surfaces of the spandrils of the arcade, not to the mosaic, as Bayet supposes.