DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.5386#0172
145
Venice, we are told, was occasioned by refugees from Alexandria, who
brought with them thence the remains of that Evangelist. The present
is not indeed the original structure, nor does the interior of that basilica
answer to the expectation excited by the portals; but the Gothic fashion
of the Doge's palace seems to indicate the style imported by the Alex-
andrian freemasons. It is usual to term this Moorish ; but the Moslems
had no original architecture ; they borrowed from Byzantium. Gibbon
observes* that, in Spain, the third of the Abdolrahmans invited the
artists of Constantinople, the most skilful sculptors and architects of the
age, to construct his city, palace, and gardens, at Zehra. This was in-
deed so late as between A. D. 912 and 961. But of the Abbassides,
Almanzor, A. D. 754, was the first who encouraged the acquisition of
profane science, and Almamon, the seventh of the Abbassides, (between
A. D. 813 and 833,) is said by Gibbon to have invited the muses from
their ancient seats. His ambassadors at Constantinople, and his agents
in Armenia, Syria, and Egypt, collected the volumes of Grecian science.t
It can scarcely be doubted that architecture was included among the
sciences he so encouraged ; and although Gibbon mentions the surprise
of Mahomet the Second, upon entering Constantinople after its surren-
der, at the palaces and buildings it contained, so different from the
architecture of the East, which must perhaps be understood in a very
qualified senset, it may nevertheless be believed that Alexandrian archi-
tects had been encouraged there, and that these were the artists who
had been furnished to the Abbassides. The Mahommedan architecture,
therefore, from Samarcand to Cordoba, including also those structures
in Hindostan so finely represented by the pencil of Daniell, may be
supposed to have been of Byzantine, or, to speak more correctly, of
Alexandrian Greek original. It is probable that so early as on the
taking of Alexandria (A. D. 620) by Chosroes, who had demolished the
* Vol. x. p. 38.
+ Gibbon, vol. x. p. 41, 42.
| The possessions of Mahomet the Second, in the Enst, were confined to Asia
Minor, which had been laid waste by Tamerlane, who destroyed all the principal
buildings in it fifty years before. That the Turks possessed no considerable specimens
of architecture at that time may be concluded from the church of St. Sophia having
served as the model for all the mosques they constructed afterwards.
U
Venice, we are told, was occasioned by refugees from Alexandria, who
brought with them thence the remains of that Evangelist. The present
is not indeed the original structure, nor does the interior of that basilica
answer to the expectation excited by the portals; but the Gothic fashion
of the Doge's palace seems to indicate the style imported by the Alex-
andrian freemasons. It is usual to term this Moorish ; but the Moslems
had no original architecture ; they borrowed from Byzantium. Gibbon
observes* that, in Spain, the third of the Abdolrahmans invited the
artists of Constantinople, the most skilful sculptors and architects of the
age, to construct his city, palace, and gardens, at Zehra. This was in-
deed so late as between A. D. 912 and 961. But of the Abbassides,
Almanzor, A. D. 754, was the first who encouraged the acquisition of
profane science, and Almamon, the seventh of the Abbassides, (between
A. D. 813 and 833,) is said by Gibbon to have invited the muses from
their ancient seats. His ambassadors at Constantinople, and his agents
in Armenia, Syria, and Egypt, collected the volumes of Grecian science.t
It can scarcely be doubted that architecture was included among the
sciences he so encouraged ; and although Gibbon mentions the surprise
of Mahomet the Second, upon entering Constantinople after its surren-
der, at the palaces and buildings it contained, so different from the
architecture of the East, which must perhaps be understood in a very
qualified senset, it may nevertheless be believed that Alexandrian archi-
tects had been encouraged there, and that these were the artists who
had been furnished to the Abbassides. The Mahommedan architecture,
therefore, from Samarcand to Cordoba, including also those structures
in Hindostan so finely represented by the pencil of Daniell, may be
supposed to have been of Byzantine, or, to speak more correctly, of
Alexandrian Greek original. It is probable that so early as on the
taking of Alexandria (A. D. 620) by Chosroes, who had demolished the
* Vol. x. p. 38.
+ Gibbon, vol. x. p. 41, 42.
| The possessions of Mahomet the Second, in the Enst, were confined to Asia
Minor, which had been laid waste by Tamerlane, who destroyed all the principal
buildings in it fifty years before. That the Turks possessed no considerable specimens
of architecture at that time may be concluded from the church of St. Sophia having
served as the model for all the mosques they constructed afterwards.
U