DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45583#0091
Bosra eski Sham (Bostra 01- Bosra)
285
fact that it could not have been covered with stone slabs. His main arches are so
narrow and so low that he has divided the chancel arch into two storeys, and has
carried the gallery across in front of the choir. This necessitates a second storey of
arches above the main arches almost as high as the lower storey. Our restoration,
following M. de Vogue’s at this point, terminates the gallery on either side of the
choir, for it would be impossible to imagine the triumphal arch concealed from view
except from the gallery. The outer wall of the gallery was a great cylinder set upon
the circle within the square below, its outer face flush with the sides of the square at
four points in the middle of the sides of the square and flush with the arches of the
four exedras on the diagonals. A part of this wall is depicted as standing in M. de
Vogue’s sketch, where several openings are shown on the south side and only one in
the west front. I have followed the earlier restorers in placing windows at regular
intervals in this cylindrical wall, assuming that some of the openings had been walled
up, though this is not definitely represented in the early sketch.
The next problem is that of the dome, and here I have followed the design
represented in the church of St. George at Zorah x. The spandrils between the great
arches are warped inward until a circle is formed at the level of the crown of the arches.
Upon this is set a low cylindrical drum, a little lower in proportion than that at Zobah.
The warping process might have been carried well up into the drum, and the drum
may have been an octagon on the outside, but these are minor considerations. It is
probable that a stone roof of slabs, even horizontally laid, would have given stiffness
to the supports of the dome; but it is impossible to know whether this roof was of
wood, as shown by earlier restorers, or of stone. I have often wondered why neither
M. de Vogue nor Professor Briinnow adopted the tall, pointed, elliptical dome of Zor'ah
in their restorations, since this is the only dome in the neighbourhood that has been
spared, and is of very nearly the same date. This sort of dome could be built without
centring and is easily supported. It will be seen that I have adopted it without any
change save by increasing its diameter.
Ornament. The Cathedral of Bosra could never have been beautiful when seen
from without, in which respect it may be classed with the majority of Byzantine churches.
The only interior carved ornament of which we have any record is that of the chancel
arch of which M. de Vogue gives a drawing in his text. This, like the very similar
carved cornice of the exterior east wall, may have been taken from some rather late
monument of Pagan times. According to several early observers, the chief decoration
of the interior consisted of wall paintings which seem to have taken the place of
the mosaics of many later domed churches. But the absence of plastic ornament from the
interior in its ruined condition is not a proof that such ornament did not exist in the
original edifice. Much of it may have been in stucco as we know was the case in
buildings of the Southern Hauran 3. The restoration of the interior, as shown by the
two plates, provides at least one series of details that well might have added to the
carved enrichments of the interior, and which would have disappeared. I refer to the
columnar supports of the narrow arches embraced by the great arches of the octagon.
The discovery of the fragment of a column of cipollino marble within the church is of
course no conclusive proof that the column originally belonged to the building, but, if
the restorations herewith are to be accepted, columns must be provided, and it is
1 Cf. A.A.E.S., II, pp. 412—413· 2 Cf> Div· Π’ A’ 2’ P· 69‘
285
fact that it could not have been covered with stone slabs. His main arches are so
narrow and so low that he has divided the chancel arch into two storeys, and has
carried the gallery across in front of the choir. This necessitates a second storey of
arches above the main arches almost as high as the lower storey. Our restoration,
following M. de Vogue’s at this point, terminates the gallery on either side of the
choir, for it would be impossible to imagine the triumphal arch concealed from view
except from the gallery. The outer wall of the gallery was a great cylinder set upon
the circle within the square below, its outer face flush with the sides of the square at
four points in the middle of the sides of the square and flush with the arches of the
four exedras on the diagonals. A part of this wall is depicted as standing in M. de
Vogue’s sketch, where several openings are shown on the south side and only one in
the west front. I have followed the earlier restorers in placing windows at regular
intervals in this cylindrical wall, assuming that some of the openings had been walled
up, though this is not definitely represented in the early sketch.
The next problem is that of the dome, and here I have followed the design
represented in the church of St. George at Zorah x. The spandrils between the great
arches are warped inward until a circle is formed at the level of the crown of the arches.
Upon this is set a low cylindrical drum, a little lower in proportion than that at Zobah.
The warping process might have been carried well up into the drum, and the drum
may have been an octagon on the outside, but these are minor considerations. It is
probable that a stone roof of slabs, even horizontally laid, would have given stiffness
to the supports of the dome; but it is impossible to know whether this roof was of
wood, as shown by earlier restorers, or of stone. I have often wondered why neither
M. de Vogue nor Professor Briinnow adopted the tall, pointed, elliptical dome of Zor'ah
in their restorations, since this is the only dome in the neighbourhood that has been
spared, and is of very nearly the same date. This sort of dome could be built without
centring and is easily supported. It will be seen that I have adopted it without any
change save by increasing its diameter.
Ornament. The Cathedral of Bosra could never have been beautiful when seen
from without, in which respect it may be classed with the majority of Byzantine churches.
The only interior carved ornament of which we have any record is that of the chancel
arch of which M. de Vogue gives a drawing in his text. This, like the very similar
carved cornice of the exterior east wall, may have been taken from some rather late
monument of Pagan times. According to several early observers, the chief decoration
of the interior consisted of wall paintings which seem to have taken the place of
the mosaics of many later domed churches. But the absence of plastic ornament from the
interior in its ruined condition is not a proof that such ornament did not exist in the
original edifice. Much of it may have been in stucco as we know was the case in
buildings of the Southern Hauran 3. The restoration of the interior, as shown by the
two plates, provides at least one series of details that well might have added to the
carved enrichments of the interior, and which would have disappeared. I refer to the
columnar supports of the narrow arches embraced by the great arches of the octagon.
The discovery of the fragment of a column of cipollino marble within the church is of
course no conclusive proof that the column originally belonged to the building, but, if
the restorations herewith are to be accepted, columns must be provided, and it is
1 Cf. A.A.E.S., II, pp. 412—413· 2 Cf> Div· Π’ A’ 2’ P· 69‘