DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32867#0050
20
NORTHERN CENTRAL SYRIA
Italian, the other Greek. The trabeated architecture of the Romans was essentially
Greek and was, to a great extent, the product of Greek artists, while the arcuated style,
— the principles of construction expressed in the arch and the vault,— which is the more
truly Roman characteristic, comes from another source and may be termed the Italian
element. The two were mingled in such a way, in many of the monuments of the
empire, that a homogeneous style was formed, in which the arch and vault, of Italian
origin, were combined with the column and beam of the Greeks, the former being the
constructional principle of the style and the latter furnishing its adornment. Now,
neither the style which we call Byzantine, nor that to which the monuments of
Northern Syria belong, was a direct product of this composite style, as the buildings
in France were a few centuries later. Hagia Sophia, the archetype of the one, is a
shell of brick and concrete, while the buildings of Syria are, in the main, column-
and-beam buildings made of cut stone iaid dry. The great fourth-century churches
of Constantinople were undoubtedly the result of a study of the buildings which the
Emperor Constantine had built in his new capital, and which, though little remains of
them to-day, were probably of the brick-and-mortar, vaulted character of those build-
ings which had just been completed in Rome by Constantine’s predecessor, Diocle-
tian, whose baths in that city are among the most important monuments of the
epoch. These Roman principles of construction, imported to the Bosporus, were
influenced in time by somewhat similar principles coming from Persia and other
parts of the Orient where the dome and the vault had known a long and eventful his-
tory. The churches and other buildings of Northern Syria, on the other hand, are in
no way related to buildings of this type ; their prototypes were not found in Rome
nor in Constantinople nor in Persia. What, then, was their origin ? Antioch was of
course the metropolis of Northern Syria, the center of her government and of her
art; but hardly one stone is left upon another in the Antioch of our day, and no pro-
totype can be found there. But when we consider the Greek origin of the city, and
its size and importance during the Alexandrine period of Greek art, we cannot but
suppose that, even in the fifth century of our era, it still retained a vast amount of
Greek architecture of the third and second centuries u.c., and that many of the monu-
ments built there by the Romans were in Greek style. The Romans never fully
succeeded in Romanizing the architecture of a Greek city. The Roman monuments
in Athens are Greek in their essentials. The arch alone is foreign to Greek architec-
ture, and even here the Arch of Hadrian is more Greek than Roman. The arch of
the Romans, except in the earlier aqueducts and a few other examples, is a concrete
shell; the arch as employed in Grecian lands is an autonomous structure of dry cut
stone, and thus we find it in Northern Syria.
The architects of Northern Syria, from the second to the seventh century, far from
following the Roman principles of construction prevalent at the time, avoided mortar,
bricks, vaults, revetments of stone, and all the other Roman methods, insisting upon
NORTHERN CENTRAL SYRIA
Italian, the other Greek. The trabeated architecture of the Romans was essentially
Greek and was, to a great extent, the product of Greek artists, while the arcuated style,
— the principles of construction expressed in the arch and the vault,— which is the more
truly Roman characteristic, comes from another source and may be termed the Italian
element. The two were mingled in such a way, in many of the monuments of the
empire, that a homogeneous style was formed, in which the arch and vault, of Italian
origin, were combined with the column and beam of the Greeks, the former being the
constructional principle of the style and the latter furnishing its adornment. Now,
neither the style which we call Byzantine, nor that to which the monuments of
Northern Syria belong, was a direct product of this composite style, as the buildings
in France were a few centuries later. Hagia Sophia, the archetype of the one, is a
shell of brick and concrete, while the buildings of Syria are, in the main, column-
and-beam buildings made of cut stone iaid dry. The great fourth-century churches
of Constantinople were undoubtedly the result of a study of the buildings which the
Emperor Constantine had built in his new capital, and which, though little remains of
them to-day, were probably of the brick-and-mortar, vaulted character of those build-
ings which had just been completed in Rome by Constantine’s predecessor, Diocle-
tian, whose baths in that city are among the most important monuments of the
epoch. These Roman principles of construction, imported to the Bosporus, were
influenced in time by somewhat similar principles coming from Persia and other
parts of the Orient where the dome and the vault had known a long and eventful his-
tory. The churches and other buildings of Northern Syria, on the other hand, are in
no way related to buildings of this type ; their prototypes were not found in Rome
nor in Constantinople nor in Persia. What, then, was their origin ? Antioch was of
course the metropolis of Northern Syria, the center of her government and of her
art; but hardly one stone is left upon another in the Antioch of our day, and no pro-
totype can be found there. But when we consider the Greek origin of the city, and
its size and importance during the Alexandrine period of Greek art, we cannot but
suppose that, even in the fifth century of our era, it still retained a vast amount of
Greek architecture of the third and second centuries u.c., and that many of the monu-
ments built there by the Romans were in Greek style. The Romans never fully
succeeded in Romanizing the architecture of a Greek city. The Roman monuments
in Athens are Greek in their essentials. The arch alone is foreign to Greek architec-
ture, and even here the Arch of Hadrian is more Greek than Roman. The arch of
the Romans, except in the earlier aqueducts and a few other examples, is a concrete
shell; the arch as employed in Grecian lands is an autonomous structure of dry cut
stone, and thus we find it in Northern Syria.
The architects of Northern Syria, from the second to the seventh century, far from
following the Roman principles of construction prevalent at the time, avoided mortar,
bricks, vaults, revetments of stone, and all the other Roman methods, insisting upon