DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32867#0049
THE SOURCES — THE NAME
19
elements. The other sources, if there be more than one, cannot be separately dis-
tinguished now; they are apparent in those features which cannot be recognized as
of Greco-Roman origin, and which, for the sake of clearness, will be called the native
elements.
The classic elements will speak for themselves ; they are easily recognized. I have
referred to their sources as Greco-Roman and not simply Roman, because the ele-
ments, as they appear, although they were introduced into Northern Syria in impe-
rial Roman times, are those of Grecian origin. The native elements are less familiar
and should be briefly described. The most conspicuous feature that is foreign to the
classic styles is the use of enormous blocks of stone in buildings
of all kinds. This form of construction is as old in Syria as the
foundations of the Temple of the Sun at Ba'albek, though, of
course, it is practised on a smaller scale in the buildings now
under discussion. This style of building we shall call mega-
lithic construction. In the same connection may be mentioned
the employment of great slabs of stone for intermediate floors
and for roofs of short span, which seems an anomaly in a country
where wood must have been very plentiful, judging from its lav-
ish use in all other floors and roofs. A thircl feature is the arcu-
ated lintel— the flat beam of stone with a semicircle cut
in it above the opening which it spans (Fig. 2). This is, one
might say, a combination of Roman form with Greek principle.
Other strange elements are found in the ornament; these must be described indi-
vidually as they appear in capitals, moldings, and other forms of decoration.
h
¥
c
—w
h
iA
f 1
(,
. v
'X'
iKii-
S "
Fig. 2. Arcuated lintels.
When these elements have combined and formed the developed style of the fifth and
sixth centuries we are at a loss to know how to classify it with other known styles,
and what to call it.
No important history of architecture relating to the Christian period has been
written during the last forty years that has not discussed the monuments of Central
Syria which M. de Vogiie published after his expedition in 1860-61. In reviewing
the style of these buildings, authorities differ in the names which they apply to it. A
number of writers class it, without question, as Byzantine ; others, more guarded, call
it Romanesque, making it one branch of the parent stock of which the Byzantine is
another. This position is perhaps the more tenable, but the relation between the two
styles cannot be so close as that term would imply, as a comparative study of them will
show. Both styles unquestionably grew up out of the decay of an architectural style
prevalent throughout the Roman Empire, and in this sense may be called Roman-
esque ; but the question of descent must be carried back of the Roman style, for Roman
architecture, as we know it, represents the union of at least two art families, the one
19
elements. The other sources, if there be more than one, cannot be separately dis-
tinguished now; they are apparent in those features which cannot be recognized as
of Greco-Roman origin, and which, for the sake of clearness, will be called the native
elements.
The classic elements will speak for themselves ; they are easily recognized. I have
referred to their sources as Greco-Roman and not simply Roman, because the ele-
ments, as they appear, although they were introduced into Northern Syria in impe-
rial Roman times, are those of Grecian origin. The native elements are less familiar
and should be briefly described. The most conspicuous feature that is foreign to the
classic styles is the use of enormous blocks of stone in buildings
of all kinds. This form of construction is as old in Syria as the
foundations of the Temple of the Sun at Ba'albek, though, of
course, it is practised on a smaller scale in the buildings now
under discussion. This style of building we shall call mega-
lithic construction. In the same connection may be mentioned
the employment of great slabs of stone for intermediate floors
and for roofs of short span, which seems an anomaly in a country
where wood must have been very plentiful, judging from its lav-
ish use in all other floors and roofs. A thircl feature is the arcu-
ated lintel— the flat beam of stone with a semicircle cut
in it above the opening which it spans (Fig. 2). This is, one
might say, a combination of Roman form with Greek principle.
Other strange elements are found in the ornament; these must be described indi-
vidually as they appear in capitals, moldings, and other forms of decoration.
h
¥
c
—w
h
iA
f 1
(,
. v
'X'
iKii-
S "
Fig. 2. Arcuated lintels.
When these elements have combined and formed the developed style of the fifth and
sixth centuries we are at a loss to know how to classify it with other known styles,
and what to call it.
No important history of architecture relating to the Christian period has been
written during the last forty years that has not discussed the monuments of Central
Syria which M. de Vogiie published after his expedition in 1860-61. In reviewing
the style of these buildings, authorities differ in the names which they apply to it. A
number of writers class it, without question, as Byzantine ; others, more guarded, call
it Romanesque, making it one branch of the parent stock of which the Byzantine is
another. This position is perhaps the more tenable, but the relation between the two
styles cannot be so close as that term would imply, as a comparative study of them will
show. Both styles unquestionably grew up out of the decay of an architectural style
prevalent throughout the Roman Empire, and in this sense may be called Roman-
esque ; but the question of descent must be carried back of the Roman style, for Roman
architecture, as we know it, represents the union of at least two art families, the one