DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45584#0035
is-Sanamen.
319
fragments to have been almost exactly equal in scale to the interior entablature, when
set upon its pilasters, raises the outer cornice 2 m. above the interior cornice, and
makes its full height correspond to the height of the crown of the arcuated cornice
above the apse (Ill. 292 Sect. A.-B.). This arrangement of the two orders at once
raises the problem of the roofing of the building, and the question as to whether the
outer entablature was crowned by pediments on the north and south. It is quite certain
that the interior space between the portals and the apse was not roofed over·, for it
is plain that there were no interior free-standing columns to carry a root. The entabla-
ture above the engaged columns of the side walls is continuous, as is shown by an
excellent photograph of the west wall of the interior published by M. Kondakow,1 and
there is no provision for connecting the engaged columns with free-standing columns
within the chamber. I am fully persuaded that this part of the building was open to
the sky; but that does not mean that there was not a gabled roof above the apse
and a corresponding gable above the north wall, or a gable roof over a portico on
the north, as I have indicated in my restored section (Ill. 289, Sect. C-D).
The question of the presence or absence of a porch for the facade is another
matter. I incline to the opinion that there was a porch of four columns, the inner
pair centred upon the space between the portals. This spacing would require the
arcuation of the entablature over the middle intercolumniation, which would correspond
with the arched entablature within. The falling off of the ground in the spaces opposite
the side portals suggested the arrangement of steps given in the plan (Ill. 289). There
is ample material in the fragments lying all about the Tychaion to warrant the resto-
ration which I have suggested; it is only a question whether some of them may not
have come from another building; but, considering the similarity in technique and in
scale between the fragments and the details of the building which are in place, this
seems hardly likely.
The restoration of the north wall was not a difficult problem. In my drawing
(Ill. 292) I have called this the facade, which it would be if we could be certain that
there was no portico outside of it. Much more of this wall is in situ than would appear
in a casual glance at the wall as it is now, encumbered with the confusion of a late
rebuilding. It will be seen, by reference to the photograph (Ill. 288), that the pilasters
at the ends and the two side portals are preserved to a height of about 3 m.; the
doorway on the right preserving its frieze and one console, that on the left, its frieze
and parts of its cornice above the socket for a console. The details of these small
portals are given on large scale in Plate XIX (A). Of the great portal only two
courses of the right hand jamb are in place; but the lintel, a beautiful example of late
Classic carving·, has been reset in the middle of the wall at a level much lower than
the original. The probable height of the doorway, as shown in Ill. 292, was obtained
from doorways in the region that are well preserved, and from the relation of the
ornament above the lintel to the niches which flanked it. A piece of the frieze of
the door-cap is to be seen in the modern wall at the left in Ill. 288, and one end
of its cornice and one of its consoles were found in the crude wall in front of the
building, shown in the same photograph. All these details are presented in a scale
drawing in Plate XIX (B). The niches which must have been placed above the smaller
doorways are represented by two sections of coupled colonettes and two coupled
Archeologitsclieskojo Puteschestwije pa Sirij i Palestine, Petrograd, 1904, Pl. VII.
319
fragments to have been almost exactly equal in scale to the interior entablature, when
set upon its pilasters, raises the outer cornice 2 m. above the interior cornice, and
makes its full height correspond to the height of the crown of the arcuated cornice
above the apse (Ill. 292 Sect. A.-B.). This arrangement of the two orders at once
raises the problem of the roofing of the building, and the question as to whether the
outer entablature was crowned by pediments on the north and south. It is quite certain
that the interior space between the portals and the apse was not roofed over·, for it
is plain that there were no interior free-standing columns to carry a root. The entabla-
ture above the engaged columns of the side walls is continuous, as is shown by an
excellent photograph of the west wall of the interior published by M. Kondakow,1 and
there is no provision for connecting the engaged columns with free-standing columns
within the chamber. I am fully persuaded that this part of the building was open to
the sky; but that does not mean that there was not a gabled roof above the apse
and a corresponding gable above the north wall, or a gable roof over a portico on
the north, as I have indicated in my restored section (Ill. 289, Sect. C-D).
The question of the presence or absence of a porch for the facade is another
matter. I incline to the opinion that there was a porch of four columns, the inner
pair centred upon the space between the portals. This spacing would require the
arcuation of the entablature over the middle intercolumniation, which would correspond
with the arched entablature within. The falling off of the ground in the spaces opposite
the side portals suggested the arrangement of steps given in the plan (Ill. 289). There
is ample material in the fragments lying all about the Tychaion to warrant the resto-
ration which I have suggested; it is only a question whether some of them may not
have come from another building; but, considering the similarity in technique and in
scale between the fragments and the details of the building which are in place, this
seems hardly likely.
The restoration of the north wall was not a difficult problem. In my drawing
(Ill. 292) I have called this the facade, which it would be if we could be certain that
there was no portico outside of it. Much more of this wall is in situ than would appear
in a casual glance at the wall as it is now, encumbered with the confusion of a late
rebuilding. It will be seen, by reference to the photograph (Ill. 288), that the pilasters
at the ends and the two side portals are preserved to a height of about 3 m.; the
doorway on the right preserving its frieze and one console, that on the left, its frieze
and parts of its cornice above the socket for a console. The details of these small
portals are given on large scale in Plate XIX (A). Of the great portal only two
courses of the right hand jamb are in place; but the lintel, a beautiful example of late
Classic carving·, has been reset in the middle of the wall at a level much lower than
the original. The probable height of the doorway, as shown in Ill. 292, was obtained
from doorways in the region that are well preserved, and from the relation of the
ornament above the lintel to the niches which flanked it. A piece of the frieze of
the door-cap is to be seen in the modern wall at the left in Ill. 288, and one end
of its cornice and one of its consoles were found in the crude wall in front of the
building, shown in the same photograph. All these details are presented in a scale
drawing in Plate XIX (B). The niches which must have been placed above the smaller
doorways are represented by two sections of coupled colonettes and two coupled
Archeologitsclieskojo Puteschestwije pa Sirij i Palestine, Petrograd, 1904, Pl. VII.