DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0453
Bk. I. Gh. I.
INTRODU CTORY.
417
for all. The conseqtience is, that if we were at present writing a
history which stopped with the beginning of the 7th century, the only
philosophical rnode of treating the question would be to consider the
style as one and indivisible for that period; but as the separation was
throughout steadily, though almost imperceptibly, making its way,
and gradually became fixed and permanent, it will be found more con-
venient to assume the separation from the beginning. This method
will no doubt lead to some repetition, but that is a small inconvenience
compared with the amount of clearness obtained. At the same time,
if any one were writing a history of Byzantine architecture only, it
would be necessary to include Ravenna, and probably Yenice and some
other towns in Italy and Sicily, in the Eastern division. On the other
hand, in a history devoted exclusively to the Romanesque styles, it
would be impossible to omit the churches at Jerusalem, Bethlehem, or
Thessalonica, and elsewhere in the East. Under these circumstances, it
is necessary to draw an arbitrary line somewhere ; and for this purpose
the western limits of the Turkish Empire and of Russia will answer
every practical purpose. Eastward of this line every country in whicli
the [Christian religion at any time prevailed may be considered as
belonging to the Byzantine province.
During the first three centuries of the style (324-622) it will be
convenient to consider the whole Christian East as one architectural
province. When our knowledge is more complete, it may be possible
to separate it into several, but at present we are only beginning to
see the steps by which the style grew up, and are still very far from
the knowledge requisite for such limitations, even if it should here-
after be discovered that a sufficient number exist. AIl the great
churches with which Constantine and his immediate successors
adorned their new capital have perished. Like the churches at
Jerusalem and Bethlehem, they were probably constructed with
wooden roofs and even wooden architraves, and thus soon became
a prey to the flames in that most combustible of capitals. Christian
architecture has been entirely swept off the face of the earth at
Antioch, ancl very few ancl imperfect vestiges are founcl of the seven
churches of Asia Minor. Still, the recent researches of De Vogiie in
Northern Syria,1 and of Texier in Thessalonica2 show how much unex-
pectecl wealth still remains to be explorecl, and in a few years more
this chapter of our history may assume a shape as much more complete
than what is now written, as it excels what we were compelled to be
content with when the Handbook was published, 1855.
Since therefore, under present circumstances, no ethnographic
1 ‘ Syrie Centrale : Arclritecture cinle 2 ‘ Byzantine Arcliitecture,’ by Texier
et religieuse du Ier au YIImo Siecle. Par and Pullan. Folio, London, 1864.
le Comte Melchior de Yogiie'.’
2 E
VOL. I
INTRODU CTORY.
417
for all. The conseqtience is, that if we were at present writing a
history which stopped with the beginning of the 7th century, the only
philosophical rnode of treating the question would be to consider the
style as one and indivisible for that period; but as the separation was
throughout steadily, though almost imperceptibly, making its way,
and gradually became fixed and permanent, it will be found more con-
venient to assume the separation from the beginning. This method
will no doubt lead to some repetition, but that is a small inconvenience
compared with the amount of clearness obtained. At the same time,
if any one were writing a history of Byzantine architecture only, it
would be necessary to include Ravenna, and probably Yenice and some
other towns in Italy and Sicily, in the Eastern division. On the other
hand, in a history devoted exclusively to the Romanesque styles, it
would be impossible to omit the churches at Jerusalem, Bethlehem, or
Thessalonica, and elsewhere in the East. Under these circumstances, it
is necessary to draw an arbitrary line somewhere ; and for this purpose
the western limits of the Turkish Empire and of Russia will answer
every practical purpose. Eastward of this line every country in whicli
the [Christian religion at any time prevailed may be considered as
belonging to the Byzantine province.
During the first three centuries of the style (324-622) it will be
convenient to consider the whole Christian East as one architectural
province. When our knowledge is more complete, it may be possible
to separate it into several, but at present we are only beginning to
see the steps by which the style grew up, and are still very far from
the knowledge requisite for such limitations, even if it should here-
after be discovered that a sufficient number exist. AIl the great
churches with which Constantine and his immediate successors
adorned their new capital have perished. Like the churches at
Jerusalem and Bethlehem, they were probably constructed with
wooden roofs and even wooden architraves, and thus soon became
a prey to the flames in that most combustible of capitals. Christian
architecture has been entirely swept off the face of the earth at
Antioch, ancl very few ancl imperfect vestiges are founcl of the seven
churches of Asia Minor. Still, the recent researches of De Vogiie in
Northern Syria,1 and of Texier in Thessalonica2 show how much unex-
pectecl wealth still remains to be explorecl, and in a few years more
this chapter of our history may assume a shape as much more complete
than what is now written, as it excels what we were compelled to be
content with when the Handbook was published, 1855.
Since therefore, under present circumstances, no ethnographic
1 ‘ Syrie Centrale : Arclritecture cinle 2 ‘ Byzantine Arcliitecture,’ by Texier
et religieuse du Ier au YIImo Siecle. Par and Pullan. Folio, London, 1864.
le Comte Melchior de Yogiie'.’
2 E
VOL. I