DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45594#0084
44
II. B. i. Kasr Ibn Wardan.
but since most of the churches in Asia Minor that have been published by Dr. Strzy-
gowski and by Miss Bell are of stone, this double church at Utschajak seems to have
been almost as much of an exotic in its own region as the buildings of Kasr Ibn
Wardan are in Central Syria, and its brick may not have been a home product.
The question of labour too is an important one. We may grant that the designer
of these domes and vaults came from Constantinople; but whence came the artificers
to build them ? The craftsmen of Central Syria had no skill in such work, and, as I
have said, there are now no evidences that Antioch produced labourers trained in this
highly specialized kind of work. They could have come as easily from the capital as
from Salonika or Ephesus. Indeed, we learn from Procopius 1 2 that Justinian brought
workmen and artificers to rebuild Antioch after the city was burned by the Persians;
but we are not told whence they were brought. But, even if we knew that the architect,
the labourers and the materials, all came from Constantinople, not all of the problems
presented in these buildings would be solved. The pointed arches, the pierced penden-
tives, the peculiar carving of the capitals, where did these things come from? Surely
not from the Bosphorus, certainly not from Asia Minor, if the few examples of pointed
arches there are later than the year 564 as they are assumed to be. Pointed arches, ~
belonging presumably to the sixth century, are found in a few instances in the cisterns
of Constantinople where they seem to have been the result of structural necessity; but,
in the present instance they are the keynote of design. The capitals too might be
taken as imitations of true Byzantine capitals, yet they have elements that are neither
Byzantine nor Syrian. May we not venture an hypothesis that these are the work
of a great artist not bound by the fashion of his time, an artist who had travelled
widely, and had observed the architecture of foreign countries? If there are any foun-
dations for believing that the younger Isodoros may have designed these buildings, may
we not further assume that he had adopted these architectural innovations from buildings
that he had seen in the earliest home of arch and dome building, while engaged in
the government work in Mesopotamia and on the borders of Persia? Procopius’account
leaves Isodoros and Johannes at the Euphrates; but he does not give the names of
the architects of all the fortresses which he mentions as having been built under
Justinian farther east. It is most probable that some of them were built by these two
young men; for Procopius gives the names of very few architects, and one cannot
believe that Isodoros’ work in Syria began and ended at Zenobia. Dr. Strzygowski,
after a minute examination of photographs of the badly broken capitals, concludes that
they are not foreign, in style and execution, to Syria, and finds a similarity in them
to certain capitals in Palestine. I cannot agree with these conclusions, and I fail to
observe a similarity between these capitals and those in Jerusalem which he cites. The
capitals of Northern Syria which were composed after Corinthian models, were designed
on totally different lines. The proportions are lower, the horizontal bands are wanting,
and the only details which they have in common with those in question are the lower
row of leaves and the discs which occupy the faces, and these are common to capitals
of this general type and period in all parts of the empire.
The only features of these structures which appear to belong to the soil are the
1 De Aed. II. X. end.
2 It is believed by some authorities that some of the aqueducts with pointed arches above Constantinople belong to
the time of Justinian; by others, however, they are assigned to the Middle Ages.
II. B. i. Kasr Ibn Wardan.
but since most of the churches in Asia Minor that have been published by Dr. Strzy-
gowski and by Miss Bell are of stone, this double church at Utschajak seems to have
been almost as much of an exotic in its own region as the buildings of Kasr Ibn
Wardan are in Central Syria, and its brick may not have been a home product.
The question of labour too is an important one. We may grant that the designer
of these domes and vaults came from Constantinople; but whence came the artificers
to build them ? The craftsmen of Central Syria had no skill in such work, and, as I
have said, there are now no evidences that Antioch produced labourers trained in this
highly specialized kind of work. They could have come as easily from the capital as
from Salonika or Ephesus. Indeed, we learn from Procopius 1 2 that Justinian brought
workmen and artificers to rebuild Antioch after the city was burned by the Persians;
but we are not told whence they were brought. But, even if we knew that the architect,
the labourers and the materials, all came from Constantinople, not all of the problems
presented in these buildings would be solved. The pointed arches, the pierced penden-
tives, the peculiar carving of the capitals, where did these things come from? Surely
not from the Bosphorus, certainly not from Asia Minor, if the few examples of pointed
arches there are later than the year 564 as they are assumed to be. Pointed arches, ~
belonging presumably to the sixth century, are found in a few instances in the cisterns
of Constantinople where they seem to have been the result of structural necessity; but,
in the present instance they are the keynote of design. The capitals too might be
taken as imitations of true Byzantine capitals, yet they have elements that are neither
Byzantine nor Syrian. May we not venture an hypothesis that these are the work
of a great artist not bound by the fashion of his time, an artist who had travelled
widely, and had observed the architecture of foreign countries? If there are any foun-
dations for believing that the younger Isodoros may have designed these buildings, may
we not further assume that he had adopted these architectural innovations from buildings
that he had seen in the earliest home of arch and dome building, while engaged in
the government work in Mesopotamia and on the borders of Persia? Procopius’account
leaves Isodoros and Johannes at the Euphrates; but he does not give the names of
the architects of all the fortresses which he mentions as having been built under
Justinian farther east. It is most probable that some of them were built by these two
young men; for Procopius gives the names of very few architects, and one cannot
believe that Isodoros’ work in Syria began and ended at Zenobia. Dr. Strzygowski,
after a minute examination of photographs of the badly broken capitals, concludes that
they are not foreign, in style and execution, to Syria, and finds a similarity in them
to certain capitals in Palestine. I cannot agree with these conclusions, and I fail to
observe a similarity between these capitals and those in Jerusalem which he cites. The
capitals of Northern Syria which were composed after Corinthian models, were designed
on totally different lines. The proportions are lower, the horizontal bands are wanting,
and the only details which they have in common with those in question are the lower
row of leaves and the discs which occupy the faces, and these are common to capitals
of this general type and period in all parts of the empire.
The only features of these structures which appear to belong to the soil are the
1 De Aed. II. X. end.
2 It is believed by some authorities that some of the aqueducts with pointed arches above Constantinople belong to
the time of Justinian; by others, however, they are assigned to the Middle Ages.