MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
1654
o
Q
o4
O
u
H
W
D
a
C/3
O
O
w
H
MOSLEM
ARCHITECTURE
ITS
ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT
BY
G. T. RIVOIRA
TRANSLATED FROM THE ITALIAN
BY
G. MCN. RUSHFORTH
HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY
1918
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT
THE DARIEN PRESS, EDINBURGH
MA
PREFACE
THIS book does not pretend to be a History of Moslem Architecture — the
style which is sometimes described as Arabic, but wrongly, for the Arabs,
like the Goths, the Langobardi, the Normans, and the other Barbarian
Invaders, brought no architecture of their own with them into the countries
which they conquered. What they carried was the scimitar and the Koran ;
and their energies were devoted to imposing the faith of the Prophet, and
at the same time satisfying their insatiable lust for plunder and rapine.
Too many elements, whether of history, architecture, or art, are still
wanting for the execution of such a colossal undertaking, and for carrying it
out in the manner which I have in view : I mean the writing of a History
based essentially on historical facts, on monuments of ascertained date, examined
by the author in person, if not in every, at least in most cases, supposing
that they are still in existence, and also founded on logical inferences.
My work, on the contrary, is devoted solely to an inquiry into the
origins and the development of the elements which were destined to form
one branch of that style. But it is the main branch, because religious archi-
tecture has always been the principal representative of the great building
art : save only in the days of the Roman Empire, when architectural science
found its highest expression in the Baths and Tombs.
The book is divided into two parts. In the first I describe, by the
help of buildings selected from the most remarkable of their class, and erected
in the most important centres, some of the chief stages in the development
of the Mosque, from its birth down to the XII century. An appendix to
this is formed by a short but searching examination of some of the most
important ecclesiastical buildings of Armenia, which are so little known and
yet so full of interest. The object of this investigation is to ascertain whether
these buildings had any influence_on the old Moslem or Christian architecture/
and if so, what was its nature.
VI
PREFACE
In the second part I discuss at length the new and attractive theory
according to which the origin and development of the systematic use of the
horse -shoe arch belongs to the Iberian peninsula. The scale of treatment is
made necessary by the importance of some of the works which have been
written in support of the theory. This section will, perhaps, arouse most
controversy ; but it is often from the contact of opposing views that a spark
of light is struck.
This new book of mine is a sort of continuation, and at the same time
the completion of my previous work : Le Origini dell' Architettura Lombarda
(Lpmbardic Architecture]. It is written, like its predecessor, from, the stand-
points of the archaeologist, the architect, and the historian — indispensable
conditions for anyone who would undertake an investigation of this nature.
It is my belief that the two works together will, sooner or later, be accepted
as a safe guide for every competent and independent writer about the main
types of religious architecture and the vaulting systems of the West, the
Near East, and Northern Africa, in the period between the I and the XII
centuries of the Christian Era.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
IN making this translation of Commendatore Rivoira's Architettura Musul-
mana, sue origini e suo sviluppo (Hoepli : Milan, March 1914) my chief object
has been to produce a faithful version of the original, and I have endeavoured,
so far as the idiom of the language allows, to preserve all the author's
characteristic phrases and turns of expression. This fidelity, I may add, is
guaranteed by the fact that Signer Rivoira's mastery of English has enabled
him to control every word that I have written.
As in the author's Lombardic Architecture, we have employed a few
architectural terms of Italian origin, not previously used in English, the
principal ones being ' lesena ' for pilaster-strip, ' pulvin ' for impost-block, and
' raccord ' for rudimentary pendentives and those of stalactitic and stalagmitic
form. To these Signer Rivoira now adds names for two Oriental forms of
the arch. The so-called ' ogee ' he would describe as the ' cyma reversa arch '
(' arco a due gole contrapposte ') ; and the form in which the curves at the
base are continued by tangents or straight lines meeting in an angle at the
top, as the 'mixtilinear arch' ('arco mistilineo').
For Oriental names I have generally followed the forms used in modern
standard works, such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Prof. Bury's edition
of Gibbon, and the Cambridge Medieval History. I have to thank Prof.
J. B. Bury of Cambridge, and Prof. G. A. Cooke, and Mr. F. C. Conybeare
of Oxford, for advice and assistance in these matters.
As the years of the Mohammedan era or Hijra (the Hegira of popular
English), starting from July 16, 622, do not correspond to the years A.D.,
the author has indicated them by the number of the year A.D., followed by
the last two or last three numerals of the next year. Thus 956-57 means
the Mohammedan year running from July 956 to July 957; 1123-24 that
from July 1123 to July 1124.
I have retained the measurements in metres given by the author, as
viii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
they were made by himself on the spot ; but I have added within brackets
the approximate equivalents in English feet and inches.
In order to avoid repetition of the titles, references to Signor Rivoira's
previous work in its three forms are given by the names of the publishers ;
and it will be sufficient to remind the reader once for all that these
forms are : —
Le Origini delf Architettura Lombarda. Loescher : Rome, vol. i, 1901;
vol. ii, 1907.
Le Origini delf Architettura Lombarda. Hoepli : Milan, i vol., 1908.
Lombardic Architecture. Heinemann : London, 2 vols., 1910.
G. MCN. RUSHFORTH.
April 1918.
CONTENTS
PART I
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY - i
Medina. The Mosque of Mohammed 2
Mecca. The Mosque 5
Kufa. The Principal Mosque 7
Jerusalem. The Mosque of al-Aqsa at Jerusalem 1 1
Cairo. The Congregational Mosque of Amr at Fustat (Old Cairo) - 23
I&irawan. The Congregational Mosque 28
Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock, or Qubbat as-Sakrah, commonly called the
Mosque of Omar 45
Damascus. The Congregational Mosque - 72
CAIRO - - 137
The Congregational Mosque of Ibn Tulun at Qattai (Cairo) 137
The Mosque al-Azhar 153
The Mosque of Hakim 158
The Mosque al-Aqmar 177
ARMENIA 184
The Church of St. Gaiana, near Etschmiadzin 187
The Church of St. Rhipsima, near Etschmiadzin 193
The Church of the Shoghagath or Effusion of Light, near Etschmiadzin 199
The Cathedral of Etschmiadzin 199
The Church of the Holy Cross at Usunlar - - 206
The Church of the Cross at Aghthamar - 210
The Church of Shoghagath at Khoshavank, near Ani 216
The Cathedral of Ani 220
The Chapel of St. Gregory at Ani 225
The Chapel of the Redeemer at Ani 226
1654 I) ix
x CONTENTS
PART II
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY - 240
SPAIN - 241
The Church of San Juan Bautista at Bafios de Cerrato - 246
The Crypt of the Cathedral of Palencia - 250
The Basilica of Cabeza de Griego - 252
The Church of Santa Comba or San Torcuato at Bande - 257
The Church of Elche 263
The Church of San Miguel at Tarrasa - 267
The Church of Santa Maria at Tarrasa - 291
The Church of San Pedro de las Puellas at Barcelona - 296
The Church of San Pedro at Tarrasa - 298
The Church of El Cristo de la Luz at Toledo - 301
The Basilica of the Saviour at Oviedo - 328
The Church of San Miguel or Camara Santa at Oviedo - 329
The Church of San Tirso at Oviedo - 335
The Church of San Julian de los Prados (Santullano) outside Oviedo 336
The Church of Santa Maria at Naranco 338
The Church of San Miguel at Lino - 342
The Church of San Salvador at Val de Dios - 351
The Church of San Miguel at Escalada - 352
The Great Mosque of Cordova 355
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Cordova. Interior of the Mosque - Frontispiece
FIG. PACE
1. Medina. Mosque of Mohammed - 9
2. Mosque of Mecca, with the Kaaba - 10
3- » ii „ ii during a pilgrimage 9
4. „ „ From a drawing of the XVI cent. 9
5. Jerusalem. Fagade of the Mosque al-Aqsa 19
6. Coin of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus - 10
7. Jerusalem. View of the Haram esh-Sherif- 19
8. „ Mosque al-Aqsa. One of the colonnades of the central nave - 20
9. „ The Golden Gate 20
10,11. „ Mosque al-Aqsa. Capitals of VI cent. 29
12. Fustat (Cairo). Plan of the existing Mosque of Amr 27
13. „ „ Mosque of Amr 29
14. ,, „ „ „ Architraves of carved wood 30
15. Kairawan. Plan of the Congregational Mosque - 32
1 6. „ Congregational Mosque 30
1 7. Denderah. Portico of Temple of Hathor - 39
1 8. Kairawan. Congregational Mosque. Dome of the mihrab 39
19. „ „ „ Details in dome of mihrab - 35
20. „ Fagade of Congregational Mosque - 40
21. Athens. Tower of the Winds or Horologium of Andronicus. Interior of cupola - 40
22-25. Kairawan. Congregational Mosque. Capitals of the colonnades 41
26. ,, „ „ Minaret - 42
27. „ „ „ Bab Leila Regiana 51
28. Seville. The Giralda 42
29. Rome. Arch of Titus. Capital 52
30. Jerusalem. Plan of the Dome of the Rock 47
31. „ The Dome of the Rock 51
32. „ „ „ Interior 52
33- ,, „ „ „ with the Sacred Rock 53
34- ,, „ „ Capital of VI cent. - 52
35. Bethlehem. Church of the Nativity. One of the colonnades of the nave 54
36. Milan. Basilica of Sant' Ambrogio. View of end of church 53
37. Jerusalem. The Dome of the Chain, or ' Judgment-seat of David ' 63
38. Epidaurus. Tholos 60
39. 40. Plans of ancient Roman circular buildings 61
41, 43> 44- ii ii » ii 62
42. Ancient Roman circular building - 65
xii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
45-49. Plans of ancient Roman circular buildings 66
50-53. ,; „ polygonal buildings 67
54. Plan of ancient Roman polygonal building - 68
55. Tivoli. Villa of Hadrian. Plan of the Vestibule of the ' Piazza d' Oro ' 68
56. „ „ „ Vestibule of the ' Piazza d' Oro ' 63
57. Rome. Building in the Campus Martius, called the 'Tempio di Siepe' - 63
58. „ Plan of the building in the Campus Martius, called the ' Tempio di Siepe' 69
59. Ezra. Plan of the Church of St. George jo
60. Spalato. The Imperial Mausoleum, now the Cathedral - 64
61. „ Dome of the Imperial Mausoleum, now the Cathedral - 61
62. Ancient Roman circular buildings - 73
63. Spalato. The Golden Gate 74
64. Rome. The Baths of Diocletian. Main fagade. Remains of architectural decoration 74
65. Pompeii. House of Meleager. Open colonnade with arches 74
66. 67. Plans of ancient Roman buildings with four porticoes - 71
68. Plan of ancient Roman building with three porticoes 7 1
69. Damascus. Sketch plan of the Mosque of Walid - 75
70. „ Mosque of Walid. One of the colonnades of the central nave 77
71. „ ,, Central nave 78
72. Paestum. Temple with colonnades in two tiers - 84
73- » » » » >, Interior - 83
74. Damascus. Mosque of Walid under restoration. Central dome - 83
75. „ ,, ,, Wall of the pre-Roman period 84
76. „ „ „ Architrave of door of Roman period 87
77. „ „ „ before the fire of 1893. Fagade 87
78. „ ,, „ under restoration. Fagade - 88
79- » » » ,, ,, North and west sides of the court 88
80. „ „ „ Capital of the Graeco-Roman period - 89
81. „ „ „ ,, „ Moslem period 89
82. „ ,, ,, under restoration. North side of the court 89
83. „ Tomb of Saladin - 90
84- ,, Mosque of Walid after the fire of 1893. Fagade and minaret of
al Gharbiya - - 90
85. » ,, ,, during restoration. Eastern vestibule - 99
86. „ „ „ „ „ Western vestibule 99
87. „ Remains of the arch called the ' Bab al-Barid ' - 99
„ Mosque of Walid. Kiosk reproducing the ancient treasury - - 100
89- » „ „ Details of mural decoration - IQO
9°- „ „ „ Window with lattice - IQI
91. Cairo. Mihrab in the Mosque of Qalaun - . . I02
92. Palmyra. 'Temple of the Sun' - - . IOI
93. Baalbec. Ruins of Temples - - ^ 105
94. Entrance to the Cave Temple of Lomas Rishi, near Gaya - - . - 112
95- ,, „ „ a.t Karli . JO6
96. Fagade of the Cave Temple at Nasik . TIl
97. Aachen. Palace Chapel. Interior . - 115
98- » „ „ Exterior . Ir6
99. Ctesiphon. Fagade of the Palace of Chosroes I - - 117
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xiii
ioo. Rome. Tomb on the Via Praenestina - 118
10 r. „ House of Caligula on the Palatine. Hanging gallery 118
102. Ajanta. Interior of Cave Temple XII - 117
103. Amman. Outer gateway of the Citadel 112
104. Mycenae. ' Treasury of Atreus ' • 127
105. Ezra. Section of the church of St. George 122
1 06. Rome. Tomb on the Via Appia Antica - 122
107. Florence. Archaeological Museum. Tomb from Vetulonia 127
1 08. Naples. San Giovanni in Fonte - 127
109. Ravenna. San Vi tale. Pendentive of the dome - 125
no. Church of the Dair al-Ahmar, near Sohag. Dome 128
in- „ ,, „ „ Niche-pendentive of the dome 128
112. Milan. San Lorenzo Maggiore - 129
113. Rome. Villa called ' Sette Bassi,' on the Via Latina. Plan of a vestibule 135
114. „ ,, „ „ ,, ,, Section of wall with horse-
shoe niche 135
115. „ Villa Mattei. End of sarcophagus - 130
1 1 6. „ „ The other end of sarcophagus - 130
117. Madrid. National Archaeological Museum. Pagan gravestone - 140
118. Qattai (Cairo). Mosque of Ibn Tulun. One of the smaller minarets - 139
119. „ „ ,, „ Outer wall 142
120. „ „ „ ,, Interior 141
121. „ „ „ „ Interior 142
122. „ „ „ „ The principal mihrab 145
123. „ „ „ „ Great minaret 140
124. Venice. San Marco. Mosaic of XII cent, showing Pharos of Alexandria 145
125. 126. Tagiura. Mosque - 146
127. Mamallapuram. Ganesa Ratha 149
128. „ Bhima Ratha - 150
129. Ajanta. Facade of Cave Temple XIX - 151
130. „ Interior of Cave Temple XIX - 150
131. Cairo. Mosque al-Azhar - 152
132. „ „ „ Side of the court and minarets 155
133. „ „ „ Pendentive of the dome 157
134. „ Ruins of the Mosque of Hakim - 152
I35- >i Mosque of Hakim. Interior of dome of the mihrab 156
136. „ „ „ Southern minaret 156
137. ,, ,, „ Northern minaret - 159
138. „ Minaret of the Mosque of Salih Ayyub 159
139. Osia. Temple of the Sun 160
140. Palermo. Capella Palatina 161
141. Bhuvanesar. Temple of Muktesvara 162
142. Palermo. Santa Maria dell' Ammiraglio - 165
143- „ San Cataldo • - 167
144. Durham. Nave of the Cathedral - 169
145. Church of San Miniato al Monte near Florence. Facade 170
146. „ „ „ „ „ Interior - 171
147. Tunis. Zituna Mosque. Minaret 172
XIV
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
148. Tripoli. Mosque of the Camel, with minaret and domes - 172
149. „ Court of the Mosque of the Camel 1 75
150. „ Mosque of the Camel - *75
151. Delhi. QutbMinar J76
152. Cairo. Facade of the Mosque al-Aqmar - 179
153. „ Gateal-Futuh - *79
154- » Gate an-Nasr - l8°
155. „ Gate az-Zuweleh - - 180
156. Ani. Mosque - " I°I
157. Cairo. Mosque of Muayyad. Pendentive of the dome - - 182
158. Umm ez-Zeitun. Chapel. Raccord of the cupola 184
159. Rome. Columbarium in the Vigna Codini 182
160. Constantinople. Mosque of Bajazet II - 185
161. „ Mosque of Suliman the Magnificent - 185
162. „ Mosque of Ahmed I - - 186
163. Etschmiadzin. Plan of St. Gaiana 187
164. „ St. Gaiana - I91
165. Rome. Plan of the original 'Basilica Nova' of Maxentius, or Basilica of Constantine 188
166. Mutilated plan of a Roman building - 189
167. Bagnair. Church of the Mother of Light 192
1 68. Rome. Santa Costanza - - 192
169. Constantinople. St. Irene - 195
170. „ „ Interior - 195
171. Etschmiadzin. Plan of St. Rhipsima - 193
172. ,, St. Rhipsima - 196
173. Plan of a Roman bath-room - 194
174. Etschmiadzin. Plan of the Cathedral - - 200
175. Ani. Church of St. Gregory the Illuminator - 197
176. Kanligia. Monastery Church of Marmashen - 198
177. Etschmiadzin. Porch of the Cathedral - - 201
178. Johannavank. Church 202
179. Haghpat. Church - 207
1 80. Usunlar. Church of the Holy Cross - 201
181. Rome. Nymphaeum of the Licinian Gardens, called ' Minerva Medica '- - 208
182. „ Mausoleum of St. Helena - 208
183. „ The ' Mausoleum Augustorum ' at the Vatican - 211
184. Salonica. Church of the Virgin - 212
185. Aghthamar. Church of the Cross 213
1 86. „ „ „ Carving - 214
187-189. „ „ „ „ 217
190. „ „ „ Wall-paintings - 218
191. Tivoli. Villa of Hadrian. Imperial Palace. Angle raccord - 218
192. Khoshavank. Church of Shoghagath . - 223
193. „ Chapels near the convent - - 223
194. Sanahin. Churches 224
195. Ani. Cathedral. North side and west front 224
196. „ „ South side - 227
197. Pisa. Cathedral - ... - 228
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
xv
FIG.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217-
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
227
-230
Rome. Fragment of sculpture of the Imperial age
Santa Maria Capua Vetere. Tomb called 'la Conocchia'
Salonica. Church of the Apostles
Piacenza. Cathedral
Arghina. Remains of the Cathedral
Ani. Chapel of St. Gregory
„ Chapel of the Redeemer
Etschmiadzin. Plan of the ancient Church of the Illuminator or the Angels
Perugia. Plan of Sant' Angelo
Ani. Remains of the Church of St. Gregory or the Angels
Ravenna. Baptistery of Neon. Vertical section -
Rome. ' Domus Augustana.' Plan of the central room -
„ „ „ Pendentive of dome in central room
Saint Riquier (Centula). Churches of the Saviour and St. Richarius, SS. Mary
and the Apostles, and St. Benedict -
Ticor. Church of the Trinity
Cordova. The double Western or Seville Gate -
„ An arch of the double Western or Seville Gate
Baftos de Cerrato. Church of San Juan Bautista from the south-west
„ „ San Juan Bautista from the south-east
,» ,, „ „ Porch
„ „ „ „ Nave
„ „ „ „ North arcade of the nave -
,, „ „ „ Column
„ ,, „ „ Votive inscription -
„ Plan of the original Church of San Juan Bautista
Crypt of Saint Paul. Sarcophagus of St. Theodechildis
Plan of Santa Comba or San Torcuato -
Sanctuary of Santa Comba or San Torcuato
Santa Comba or San Torcuato
Plans of Roman cruciform buildings -
Jouarre.
Bande.
234-236.
237. Plan of a Roman cruciform building
238. Ravenna. Plan of the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia
239. „ Basilica Ursiana. Fragment of tessellated pavement -
240. 241. „ Palace of Theodoric. Remains of mosaic pavement -
242. » » >j » j> i)
243. Rome. Palatine. Fragment of mosaic from the ' Domus Aurea '
244. Tarrasa. Plan of San Miguel
245. „ San Miguel. Interior -
246. „ „ Exterior -
247. Pompeii. Stabian Baths -
248. Ravenna. Baptistery of Neon. Exterior
249. „ „ „ Interior
250. Plan of a Roman sepulchral building
251. Rome. Plan of the Oratory of the Holy Cross at the Lateran
252. Naples. Apse of San Giorgio Maggiore -
PAGE
228
228
229
230
230
231
232
233
234
238
235
236
237
239
238
243
242
243
244
253
244
254
253
253
249
255
257
255
255
259
260
26l
262
263
264
256
265
265
268
266
269
272
27O
275
274
274
276
XVI
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
253,
255,
257,
259-
260.
261.
262.
263.
264.
265.
266,
268.
269.
270.
271,
273-
274.
275-
276.
277.
278.
279.
280.
281.
282.
283-
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293-
294.
295-
296.
297.
298.
299,
301.
302.
3°3-
3°4-
3°5-
306.
3°7-
308.
254. Plans of Roman three-lobed buildings
256. „ „ buildings
258. „ „ three-lobed buildings
Rome. Arch of the Neronian Aqueduct on the Caelian -
Germigny des Pres. Church. Exterior -
Interior -
„ „ Plan of the Church -
Milan. Plan of San Lorenzo Maggiore
Ravenna. Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. Exterior
Interior
267. Plan and elevation of a Roman tomb
Tarrasa. Santa Maria
Barcelona. San Pablo del Campo. West front -
)> J5 >5
272. „ San Pedro de las Puellas. Capitals -
Tarrasa. San Pedro
Toledo. El Cristo de la Luz
„ „ „ from the north-east -
„ „ ,, Details of decoration of the front
„ Puerta Visagra -
Arch in the Mosque
Entrance to the Mihrab -
Capitals
Saragossa. Castle of Aljaferia.
Cordova. The Great Mosque.
Granada. The Alhambra
Seville. The Alcazar
•286. Madrid. National Archaeological Museum.
Toledo. Puerta del Sol
Monreale. Cathedral
Palermo. Cathedral
Durham Cathedral. South aisle looking east
Amalfi. Camposanto or ' Paradiso ' of the Cathedral
„ „ „ „ „ Supports with inscription -
Toledo. Santa Eulalia
„ San Sebastian
Ravenna. San Vitale. Plan
,, Sala Lapidaria in the Archiepiscopal Palace.
Argentarius
„ San Vitale
Constantinople. SS. Sergius and Bacchus
300. „ St. Sophia
Oviedo. San Miguel or Camara Santa
Le6n. Panteon de los Reyes or Chapel of Santa Catalina
„ San Isidore. Exterior
„ „ Interior
Oviedo. San Julian de los Prados
Chapel called the ' Temple of the Clitumnus ' near Spoleto
Naranco. Santa Maria. North side
„ „ Nave and sanctuary
Epitaph of Georgius
277
278
281
276
279
280
286
287
289
289
288
290
293
294
299
299
300
303
3°4
305
3°4
306
306
307
308
3°9
310
3ii
312
3i3
312
323
320
321
322
33i
332
33i
333
334
334
334
339
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xvii
FIG. FAGS
309. Naranco. Santa Maria. Western end 339
310. ,, „ Medallion in the nave - 340
311. Buddh Gaya. Carved post from the railing of a sacred enclosure - 340
3I2> » » » » >i »> • 343
3 1 3. Lino. San Miguel. Details from one of the jambs of the door - 343
314. „ „ Abacus and carving on arch 344
315. „ ,, Base of column 344
3l6- ii » 347
317. Santiago de Compostela. Cathedral. Exterior • 348
318. „ „ „ Interior 349
319. Val de Dios. San Salvador 347
320. Lena. Santa Cristina. Interior - 350
321. „ „ Exterior - 350
322. Escalada. San Miguel. Interior 353
323- » » Exterior 353
324. „ „ Capital - 354
325. „ „ Part of the portico 354
326. Cordova. Mosque 357
327-330. Madrid. National Archaeological Museum. Capitals 358
331. Cordova. Mosque. Vestibule of the Mihrab of Hakam II. 359
332. ,, „ Cupola of the Mihrab of Hakam II. 360
333. „ ,, Vestibule of the Mihrab of Hakam II. Cupola 361
334. „ ,, Chapel of Villaviciosa 362
335- » i, ii i> Cupola 367
336.337- ,i ii 368
338- .. >i 369
339. „ „ A doorway - 369
340. „ „ Arcade and court 370
1654
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
I PART I
IT is an old and still accepted idea that the mosque of Mohammed (570-1-
632) at Medina represents, in an elementary form, the prototype of the
congregational mosques1 of the first centuries of Islam.
According to Caetani,2 the building erected by the Prophet was intended
at the outset, in his own mind, for his personal and private use ; but it
assumed as time went on — owing to unforeseen circumstances, and by an
unconscious process — first of all a public character, and later, after the Master's
departure, a sacred character as well, becoming above everything else a real
and genuine place of worship.
Lammens,3 on the other hand, thinks that the mosque or ' masgid '
came from the tribal 'maglis,' that is to say, the council-tent, the central
point of social life for the individualist Arabs, with its sacred precinct, its
far higher degree of inviolability than the ordinary tent, and the greater
honour paid to it. This conception would, then, be applied to the Prophet's
first abode at Medina, which would thus have become the earliest mosque of
Islam and the meeting-place for the Companions. The idea would also be
connected with the mosque founded by Sad ibn abi Waqqas at Kufa, which
was designed for a place of meeting, and provided with shelter from
extremes of weather.
1 LANE, Arabic-English Lexicon, explains 'garni, the congregational mosque,' as 'the mosque
in which the congregational prayers of Friday are performed.'
2 Annali delf Islam, vol. i, pp. 432-447.
3 Rivista degli Studi oricntali, vol. iv, pp. 240-250, Ziad ibn Ablhi.
2 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
However this may be, the fact remains that the plan of the principal
mosques of the first centuries of the Moslem era, consisting of a central
quadrangular court surrounded by colonnades, that on the south being
deeper than the others and set apart as the place of prayer, has a real con-
nection with the plan of the mosque at Medina. And this is what we shall
see presently in dealing with some of them, either no longer in existence,
but only described in books, or still standing either wholly or in part.
THE MOSQUE OF MOHAMMED AT MEDINA. — The following is its history,
taken chiefly from Caetani.1 When the Prophet entered Medina in the
year 622 he determined to build his own house wherever the camel on
which he was riding should stop of its own accord. This happened on a
piece of private ground, which he forthwith purchased, started the work of
laying out and building, and had everything finished by 623. 2 The result
was a court about 100 cubits square, enclosed by walls nearly 7 cubits high,
the lower part being built of stone and the upper of sun-baked clay bricks.
No part was roofed. Connected with the structure, which had three entrances,
were the dwellings of the founder and his wives. Not far off was a well.
In one angle of the court was set, for the present, a bench under a tiled
roof as a refuge for the most indigent of those who shared the Master's
exile.
The 'qibla,' the point to which every Moslem turns when he prays,
was placed in the north wall of the court looking towards Jerusalem,
beneath a small roof supported by trunks of palm trees. Mohammed soon
{624) ordered it to be moved to the south side, looking towards Mecca,
where the holy place called the Kaaba was to be found. It now occupied
the site where the principal entrance had been at first, the latter being
moved to the original site of the qibla. The qibla consisted of a large
stone.3 The ' mihrab," or niche pointing to Mecca, belongs to a later
date.
As time went on the Master's companions complained of being exposed to
the full force of the sun's rays, and a shelter was erected in the court, formed of
interwoven palm branches smeared outside with clay, and supported by trunks
1 Annali, vol. i, pp. 374-379. 432'468; vol. in, 2, pp. 964-967; vol. iv, p. 197.
2 CAETANI, Chronographia Islamica^ pp. 4, n.
3 BURTON, Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, vol. ii, p. 72.
MEDINA 3
ef palm trees. The roof was so low that the faithful when they stood upright
could touch it.
In the early days the Prophet used to address the faithful from a palm
trunk fixed in the ground. Afterwards he had a pulpit made of tamarisk wood,
with three steps, on the topmost of which he took his seat.1 Burton says that
later, in the time of the art-loving Caliph Walid I (705-7 is),2 this took the form
of the ' minbar ' of to-day ; 3 but Lammens holds that the minbar of early times
is distinct from the pulpit of a modern mosque.4 A minbar was provided for
the congregational mosque at Fustat by Amr in 644-45. 5
From the summit of the roof, Bilal, an old and faithful follower of the
Master, endowed with a stentorian voice, summoned the faithful to prayer.
This practice of calling the faithful to prayer by means of the human voice from
some high place, such as the roof of the sacred building, was intended by
the Moslems to avoid the use of the hammer, the rattle, the bell with its
Christian associations, and the trumpets of Judaism.6 It had this merit, that
behind the physical utterance lay the far more persuasive and moving appeal
of the spirit. The summoning of the faithful by a public crier is supposed
to have had its origin in a custom in use in eastern Arabia.7
Mohammed's mosque was rebuilt in 638 by the Caliph Omar (634-644), as
it had become too small. A considerable part was pulled down, and a new and
larger structure erected, consisting of a walled enclosure with a cobble pavement
and six entrances. The walls were built of sun-baked bricks, and the roofs
formed of interwoven palm branches, coated with mud on the outside, and
supported, according to some authorities, by palm-wood pillars, though others
say that they were of bricks like those used in the walls. A restoration
took place in 64O.8 Another renovation was carried out (646-47) under Caliph
1 CAETANI, Annalt, vol. ii, i, pp. 213, 214.
2 The dates of the Moslem sovereigns are taken from the chronological tables in LANE-
POOLE'S The Mohammadan Dynasties.
3 BURTON, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 72.
4 Universite Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth, Melanges de la Faculte orientale, 1907, pp. 96-100;
LAMMENS, Etudes sur le regne du calife omaiyade Moa-wia Fr.
5 CAETANI, Chronographia, p. 283. For the method of indicating the years of the
Mohammedan era, see Translator's Preface, p. vii.
6 MARGOLIOUTH, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 222.
7 CAETANI, Anna/i, vol. i, p. 457.
8 Ibid., Chronographia, pp. 202, 220.
4 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Othman (644-656), and in 664-65 a ' maqsura ' or fenced-off part of the mosque
was constructed.1 The walls were built of hewn stone, and the roof was of
timber brought from India.2
In the days of Islam's power and splendour, Walid I (705-715), after laying
the foundations of the mosque of Damascus (706-714), made Medina the object
of his liberality, and set about a reconstruction, for which purpose he borrowed
builders and mosaic- workers from the Greek emperor, as we are told by Ibn
Khaldun,3 who must have confused the caliph with his father, Abd al-Malik
(685-705). The works were directed by Omar, son of Abd al-Aziz, who is said
to have been the first to invent and adopt the mihrab,4 though a niche of this
kind seems to have been introduced at Damascus in the time of the famous
Muawiya (661-680). The new mosque, which was finished in 709-10, had its
roof supported by columns, and possessed four minarets, one at each corner.
Its dimensions were 200 by 167 cubits.
Mahdi (775-785) enlarged it on the north side, the length of which was
increased from 200 to 300 cubits. Additions were made by Mamun (813-833),
and after a fire came another reconstruction, begun in 1256, and completed in
1289. The renewed structure was enlarged and embellished in the next period
by the sultans of Egypt, but in 1483 it was struck by lightning and set on fire.
It was rebuilt by Mohammed ibn Qait Bey (1495-1498), and embellished by
Suliman I, 'the Magnificent' (1520-1566). Taken all together, this must
have been the mosque seen by Burton in i853,5 and by Snouck Hurgronje
in 1 884-85, 6 and represented in the accompanying drawing (Fig. i, p. 9),
reproduced by Schefer7 from a manuscript of 1574.
The mosque, as enlarged by Mamun, has been described by Ibn Jubair,
who saw it in 1184. It was oblong in plan, the long axis running from south
to north. A similar orientation was followed in the mosques of Samarra
and Abudolaf, and elsewhere. The four sides were enclosed by cloisters.
1 CAETANI, Chronographia, pp. 295, 493.
2 BURTON, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 73, 74.
3 IBN KHALDOUN (Le Strange), Prolegomenes historiques^ vol. ii, p. 268.
4 IBN BATUTA (Defremery, Sanguinetti), Voyages d' Ibn Batoutah, vol. i, p. 272.
5 Op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 75-78.
6 SNOUCK HURGRONJE, Mekka.
7 Publication de 1'Ecole des Langues orientales vivantes, Il'serie, vol. i, SEFER NAMEH,
Relation du -voyage de Nassiri Khosrau en Syrte, en Palestine^ en Egypte, en Arabic et en Perse
{Schefer), pp. Ivii, Iviii, 162, 163.
MECCA 5
The north and south sides had five aisles apiece, running from east to west ;
the west side had four, and the east three. The length of the building was
196 paces, and the breadth 126. The roof was carried by columns built up
of stone blocks morticed together, each drum being set on a bed of lead
spread on the top of the one below it. There were no arches, and the roof
rested immediately on the columns, which were coated with stucco, smoothed
and polished, so that they presented the appearance of marble.
The walls of the place of prayer within, as well as the outside of its
entrance wall, were faced, in the lower part, with marbles of various colours,
and in the upper with mosaics representing plants of different kinds, with
fruit hanging from their branches. In the case of the walls of the mihrab
the decoration was more carefully executed than elsewhere. The inner face
of the north wall of the court was treated in the same way, but the east
and west walls (which had been through a restoration) were only coated with
plaster painted with designs in colours, and the like. The walls contained
nineteen entrances, fifteen of which were closed, and four were open.
The mosque was provided with three minarets, one at either end of the
south side, of small dimensions, and tower-like appearance ; the third one,
at the south-east angle, having the form of an ordinary minaret.1 There is
every reason to think that the two plain tower-like minarets seen by Ibn
Jubair were the work of Walid, showing as they did the primitive form of
these structures.
Of a higher degree of sanctity than the mosque of the Prophet at Medina
THE MOSQUE OF MECCA. — The following is a short account of this famous
mosque, which consists of the Kaaba standing in the centre of a quadrangle
enclosed by cloisters (Figs. 2, 3, pp. 9, 10).
The Kaaba, which means 'the square house,' has a mythical origin.
Before its reconstruction, about the year 605, in the time of Mohammed, it
consisted merely of four dry-stone walls, about the height of a man, without
a roof. Later, the sacred structure, 18 cubits in length, was protected
by two coverings, one of wool, the other of silk. Round the new shrine
the Caliph Omar (634-644) in 638 had an enclosure formed, bounded by four
1 IBN GUBAYR (Ibn Jubair) (Schiaparelli), Viaggio in Ispagna, Sicilia, Stria e Palestina,
Mesopotamia, Arabia, Egitto, pp. 176-181, 254.
6 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
walls. Fresh alterations and enlargements were carried out (646-47, 649) by
Othman (644-656), and after him by Abdallah ibn Zobeir, who rebelled against
the Ummayyades, and was acclaimed caliph (683-84). Walid (705-715) rebuilt
the quadrangle with a marble colonnade, and new additions were made by
Mansur (754-775), and by Mahdi in 783-84. As he left it the mosque
of Mecca — ' masgid al-Haram' — remained till the time of Ibn Khaldun
(1332-1406), and of Ibn Batuta who saw it in I326.1
Ibn Jubair,2 who came as a pilgrim in 1183, describes it as follows. The
Kaaba was square, about 28 cubits high, barely 54 palms long, and about 48
broad. In metres these measurements would be respectively, 15 m. (50 ft.) in
height, 12 (40 ft.) in length, and 10 (33 ft.) in breadth.3 The walls were
5 palms thick, and constructed of stone courses accurately laid. The Black
Stone, which was believed to have been dropped on the earth by God for
Adam to sit on, was to be seen built up in the outside angle on the east.
When Ibn Jubair saw it, it was split into four pieces, and this act of sacrilege
he lays to the charge of the Carmathians of the Bahrayn, who had carried it
off in 930. Within, the walls were lined half-way up with parti-coloured marbles,
while the upper half was covered with plates of silver gilt. Marble was also
used for the pavement. Three pillars of some Indian wood standing on the
axis of the building supported the ceiling, which had a covering of coloured
silk stuff. The exterior was draped with veils of green silk mixed with cotton
warp, showing at the top a band of red silk bearing inscriptions. On the
veils were worked arches, legends, and invocations. Light came through
five windows of stained glass, and there were two entrances. One, that
leading to the chapel, looked towards the east, and was at a height of over
ii palms from the ground. It was reached by a wide flight of steps, and its
silver gilt doors of marvellous workmanship had been given by Caliph Muktafi
(1136-1160). The other entrance was at the north angle, and led to the
terrace roof of the building and also to the ' Station of Abraham,' a room
containing a stone bearing the impression of a pair of feet, supposed to be
those of the patriarch.
The building stood in the middle of a quadrangle, 400 cubits in length
1 CAETANI, Annali, vol. i, pp. 90-99, 174-179; vol. iii, 2, pp. 961-964. CAETANI, Chrono-
grapht'a, pp. 201, 202, 295, 316. AMARI, Storia dei Musulmam di Sicilia, vol. i, pp. 45-47. IBN
KHALDUN, Proltgomtnts historiques, vol. ii, pp. 254-261. IBN BATUTA, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 305-327.
2 Op. cit., pp. 54-83.
3 SNOUCK HURGRONJE, op. cit., vol. i, p. 2.
KUFA 7
and 300 in breadth, enclosed by a continuous three-aisled cloister having three
rows of marble columns. Above was a battlemented terrace roof. Inscrip-
tions were displayed referring to the works carried out in the mosque by
order of Caliph Mahdi in 783. The Haram or sacred precinct had nineteen
entrances, and there were seven minarets, four of which stood at the four
corners. Ibn Jubair thought them singular in form. Six were square for
half their height, built of stone with artistic carving, and surrounded by lattice
work of wood carved with great skill : which means that it was encircled by
a balcony protected by a parapet. In the upper half, the minaret had the
form of a column — in other words, became cylindrical — with a facing of fire-
baked bricks arranged in patterns. The summit was crowned by the ball,
encircled by a balcony similar to the one below.
These six minarets, though they all had the same form, presented in
every case differences of appearance. The seventh was unlike the rest, and
among its stucco ornaments the eye was caught by the ' lattices with oblong
openings, looking like mihrabs/ in other words, formed like an arcade. The
ball at the top ' was carried on piers of masonry with openings between
them,' i.e. a kiosk.
If we can trust a drawing reproduced by Schefer from a manuscript of
I5741 (Fig. 4, p. 9), the minarets of the XVI century were not those seen by
Ibn Jubair. His references to the minarets at Mecca are interesting, and
we can only regret that the geographer did not mention their date. In
any case we cannot suppose that they belonged to the work of Mahdi,
for there is no trace of minarets of this form in the VIII century, nor, for
the matter of that, in the two following ones. Perhaps they were due to
Muktafi, who, in 1155, had given the Kaaba the beautiful doors of its main
entrance.
In conclusion, we may notice that, out of regard for its sanctity, the plan
of the al- Haram mosque at Mecca was never repeated.2
THE PRINCIPAL MOSQUE AT KUFA was erected in 639, by order of Sad
ibn abi Waqqas, the traditional founder of Kufa (638-39), the houses of which
were rebuilt of sun-baked clay bricks under the direction of Abu-1-Hayyag
ibn Malik. It was square in plan, the base being the length of a bow-
1 NASIRI KUSRU (Schefer), op. cit., pp. Ivii, Iviii, and frontispiece.
2 CAETANI, Annati, iii, 2, p. 858.
8 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
shot. Above the front was a gallery open on all sides, which commanded
a view of the country round. This gallery had marble columns of alien
origin, carried off from buildings erected by the Persian kings, which
supported the roof with its ceiling decorated in the style of a Byzantine
church. The court was enclosed, not, in the first instance, by walls, but
merely by. a ditch. To the south of the mosque was erected the residence
of the governor, which included the State Treasury. It was built of fire-
baked bricks taken from Persian royal edifices at Hira, and the architect
was Ruzbih of Hamdan (Ecbatana), who had previously been the Persian
governor of the place.
During the caliphate of Muawiya I (661-680) the mosque of Kufa
was rebuilt on a larger and more splendid scale under the direction of
his lieutenant, Ziyad, who employed Persian workmen who were not
Moslems. One of these, who in the past had worked for the Sassanid
monarchs, and to whom Ziyad had imparted the idea that was in his
mind, though he was unable to put it into form, made a design for him
on the model of the structures raised by the Sassanid kings, that is to
say, an immense colonnade with columns 30 cubits high, formed of stone
drums from Ahwaz, held together by iron clamps and beddings of lead.
The ends and the back side were closed by walls. The design was
accepted.1
The new structure was, we may believe, the one seen by Ibn Jubair
in n84/2 Its dimensions were very large. The place of prayer, on the
south side, had five aisles, while the remaining three sides of the court had
two apiece. These aisles were divided by columns built up of solid stone
drums bedded on molten lead. The roof rested immediately upon them,
and in height they far surpassed those of any other mosque.
To judge from still existing buildings, or from others which have dis-
appeared, but of which we have descriptions, and until fresh discoveries are
made, the second mosque of Kufa was, in the first place, the earliest embodi-
ment of the type unintentionally formulated by Mohammed in the case of
his own dwelling at Medina, that is to say, a court enclosed by a wall, and
1 CAETANI, Annati, vol. iii, 2, pp. 857-860. Rivisla degli Studi orientali, vol. iv, pp.
247-249 ; LAMMENS, Ziad ibn Ablhi. AMARI, op. cit., vol. iii, 2, pp. 826-828. CAETANI,
Chronographia, pp. 199, 207.
2 Op. cit., pp. 198-200.
FIG. i. — Medina. Mosque of Mohammed.
(From a drawing of the XVI cent.)
FlG. 4. — Mosque of Mecca. (From a drawing of the XVI cent.)
FIG. 3. — Mosque of Mecca, with the Kaaba, during a pilgrimage.
IO
• U4MMIMfe5H
FIG. 2. — Mosque of Mecca, with the Kaaba.
FIG. 6. — Coin of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus representing the
Basilica Fulvia Aemilia in the Forum Romanum
(Capitoline Collection.) (I cent. B.C.).
JERUSALEM ,,
provided with a covered place having a flat roof supported by pillars,1 a
regulation which was the origin of the colonnaded mosque plans of the first
Moslem centuries. And, secondly, it is the earliest instance of the court
surrounded by cloisters. In the previous cases, the Kaaba of Mecca had a
mere enclosure wall, and the court of the mosque of the Prophet at Medina
was confined in a similar manner.
THE MOSQUE AL-AQSA AT JERUSALEM was thought by De Vogue"2 to
have been built on the site of Justinian I's (527-565) great basilica of the
Virgin, which he pictured as having an aisled nave with timber roofs supported
by two tiers of columns, and also by wall-shafts carried on corbels. Of this
church he would have us see portions of the fagade with its doors. When
Chosroes II sacked the city in 614, the Christian sanctuary was probably
burned, but it seems to have been restored at once, at any rate, so far as
the church proper was concerned, for when the Caliph Omar (634-644) came
to receive the submission of Jerusalem, he made his devotions in the building.
Later, Abd al-Malik (685-705) erected the mosque al-Aqsa on the site
of the restored basilica of Justinian, and we may believe that he gave it the
form of a court surrounded by porticoes of varying depth. The year 692
saw the completion of the work. The structure was barely finished before
it suffered from earthquakes. In the caliphate of Mansur (754-775) the east
and west sides collapsed and were rebuilt. Soon after, in the time of Caliph
Mahdi (775-785), the building was once more ruinous and almost abandoned.
The plan was then changed, the length being diminished and the breadth
increased ; and, apparently, the mosque received the form which, in spite of
numerous modifications in detail which it has undergone, it preserves to-day.
The changes made by Mahdi are supposed to have consisted in the con-
struction of the domed transept, at the expense of the nave and aisles, and
the addition of four aisles.
After the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders (1099) the Templars
turned the mosque into a royal residence, built a church and living-rooms
within it, and converted part of the substructures into stables. When Saladin
recaptured the city and restored Moslem rule (1187), he had every trace of
the Christian religion in the building obliterated, restored it to the form and
uses of a mosque, and gave orders for its repair and embellishment. It was
1 CAETANI, Annali, vol. i, pp. 446, 447- 2 L* Temple dc Jtrusahm, pp. 69-79, 99-104.
1654 2
12 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
then that the transept was subjected to radical alterations, with the result that it
has become an archaeological puzzle. In 1236 a nephew of Saladin erected the
existing portal of the fagade (Fig. 5, p. 19). In 1327 Nasir Mohammed repaired
the back wall. Further restorations took place in 1345, 1347, 1509, 1817.
The story told by Le Strange l is different. Omar built a mosque at
Jerusalem, in all probability of wood. Presumably about the year 691, Abd
al-Malik rebuilt the mosque al-Aqsa. The greater part of it must have
fallen in an earthquake which is put in the year 746, but is not mentioned
by the ancient chronicles of Tabari (X century) and Ibn al-Athir (1160-
1223). Mansur's restoration is placed about 771. A second earthquake is
made responsible for another destruction, but it was rebuilt by Mahdi about
780, with increase of length and reduction in breadth. Between 828 and 844
Abdalla ibn Tahir, the independent governor of Khurasan, built a porch
with marble columns in front of the northern fagade.
The earliest description of this mosque, that of Muqaddasi (c. 985)^
mentions Abd al-Malik's building, the walls of which were constructed of
hewn stone, the blocks being dressed and adjusted with care, and crowned
with battlements. He also refers to earthquakes which happened after the
coming of the Abbasides (750), and involved the collapse of the whole
building with the exception of the mihrab and its surroundings. Further,
he notices the restoration carried out by a caliph, supposed to have been
Mahdi, when the portions spared by the earthquakes were preserved.
The new mosque was more substantially constructed than its predecessor.
It had twenty-six entrances, fifteen of which were in the front or north side,
and eleven on the east. The doors of the fagade were enclosed by the
marble-columned porch of Abdalla ibn Tahir. The court, on the right or
western side, had cloisters with marble columns and piers, and, on the further
or northern side, rooms with vaulted ceilings decorated with mosaics. On
the left or eastern side there were no cloisters.
The mosque proper had its central part covered by a lofty roof of great
extent sloping outwards, above which rose a magnificent dome. The surfaces
were covered with sheets of zinc. The structure was not in contact with the
eastern wall of the court, but was separated from it by an interval, the reason
being, either that Caliph Omar had ordered the erection of a place of prayer
1 Palestine under the Moslems, pp. 83-171.
2 MUQADDASI (Le Strange), Description of Syria, including Palestine, pp. 41-48.
JERUSALEM I3
in the said space, and the commands of the sovereign were regarded as
binding; or because, if the building had been extended as far as the wall,
the mihrab, which ought to come midway in that wall, would not have
coincided with the axis of Abd al- Malik's rotunda, and this would have been
a shock to Moslem sentiment.
The mosque suffered again from earthquakes in 1016 and 1034, when
Abdalla ibn Tahir's porch fell, the walls enclosing the Haram were damaged,
and the dome was shaken. Zahir (1020-1035) had the latter restored by the
architect Abdalla from Cairo. In fact, Nasiri Kusru,1 on his visit in 1047,
found only five entrances on the north and ten on the east, which points to
a reduction in the number of openings in order to increase the defensive
value of the wall. The porch at the entrance had also disappeared. At this
moment the dimensions of the mosque were 120 cubits from north to south,
and 150 from east to west, which is equivalent to 300 by 240 ft. It contained
two hundred and eighty marble columns supporting arches of stone. The
central mihrab, flanked by four columns of cornelian colour, had decorations
of enamelled work, like the massive dome out of which it opened. The
ceilings were carved. The great central door in the entrance front was of
metal covered with exquisite niello work, and had been given by Caliph
Mamun (813-833).
In 1099 the building, which appears to have been damaged in the
capture of the city, was handed over to the Templars, who rearranged it
and reduced it to its present proportions. Ali of Herat, writing in 1173,
recorded some of the measurements, which correspond fairly with the actual
dimensions.
Saladin, on his recovery of Jerusalem, restored the edifice to its original
use, re-dedicated the mihrab, executed various decorative schemes, and made
the alterations still to be seen in the transept. Under Nasir Mohammed, Sultan
of Egypt (1293-94, 1298-1308, 1309-1340), the south wall of the mosque
was rebuilt, with two windows piercing it, and marble ornamentation. A
description of the mosque by the topographer Mujiraddin in 1496 shows that
it was identical with what we see to-day. He gives the dimensions as
230 ft. from north to south, excluding the mihrab, and 170 ft. from east to
west. On the north side were seven doors corresponding to as many aisles,
on the west two, and on the east one.
1 Op. cit, pp. 79-82.
i4 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Lastly, Caetani l believes that Omar, between 639-40 and 642-43, after
restoring the Christian basilica erected on the ruins of the Temple of Jerusalem,
raised, on the platform of Herod's Temple (B.C. 37-4), a mosque of very rough
and primitive construction, consisting at best of timber, resting on the remains
of the church of the Virgin, and covered with a roof of a temporary nature.
This church was so notorious in the whole of Western Asia that it figures
in Mohammed's famous dream, to be mentioned presently. As a proof of
his view as to the poverty of Omar's building, he refers to the summary
description given by Arculf,2 who saw it about 670 : ' Ceterum in illo famoso
loco, ubi quondam templum magnifice constructum fuerat, in vicinia muri ab
oriente locatum, nunc Sarraceni quadrangulam orationis domum, quam subrectis
tabulis et magnis trabibus super quasdam ruinarum reliquias construentes,
vili fabricati sunt opere, ipsi frequentant : que utique domus tria hominum
millia simul, ut fertur, capere potest.'
I will now endeavour in my turn to give an approximate explanation of the
facts.
(1) We know that Justinian's basilica, dedicated to the Mother of God,
though begun by Archbishop Elias, was erected by that emperor at the instance
of St. Sabbas, and with Theodores for its architect, in the space of at least
twelve years ; and that it was called the ' New ' church of the Virgin, apparently
to distinguish it from two other churches of St. Mary, viz. the one known
as ' in Probatica,' and the other in the Valley of Jehoshaphat,3 both mentioned
by Theodosius (c. 530).* Justinian's church must have been built after 530, as
it is not referred to by Theodosius.
(2) The account in Procopius5 brings out the difficulties which had to be
overcome in the course of erection, as the church stood on a platform, part of
which rested on the rock, while part was over a void, involving massive stone
substructions. We learn from him that the church was called ' St. Mary's/
but distinguished in local usage as ' the New ' ; that its like was not to be seen
elsewhere ; that the exceptional width of the building created difficulties both as
1 Annali, vol. iii, 2, pp. 950, 951 ; vol. iv, pp. 507-509. Chronographia, pp. 200, 239.
2 TOBLER, Itinera et descriptiones Terrae Sanctae, vol. i, p. 145 ; Arculfi Relatio de Locis Sanctis,
scripta ab Adamnano.
3 CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Recueil d'archeologie orientale, vol. ii, pp. 137-160; La prise de Jerusalem
•bar les Perses en 614.
4 TOBLER, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 65, 66 ; THEODOSIUS, De Terra Sancta,
5 Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae ; PROCOPIUS, De aedifictis, vol. iii, pp. 321-324.
JERUSALEM 15
to the construction of the roof and the choice of a suitable material for it ;
that owing to the serious weight of the roof with its ceilings, columns of very
great size had to be used ; that the aisles (the number is not stated) were
separated by colonnades in two tiers ; and that the entrance was reached through
a narthex, a square colonnaded fore-court, and a vestibule.
A hostel for pilgrims, and a hospital for the sick of the poorer classes, were
attached to the church.
The design, in the matter of the colonnades, evidently followed that of
Constantine's church of the Holy Sepulchre.1 That design was of Roman
origin, for we remember that the city of Rome afforded instances of two-
storied basilicas with tiers of columns or piers, earlier in date than the Christian
era and the age of Augustus. Thus there was the two-storied Basilica Fulvia
Aemilia, so called from the censors of B.C. 179, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and
Marcus Fulvius Nobilior.2 It is shown on a coin struck by Marcus Aemilius
Lepidus (consul in B.C. 78) on the occasion of a restoration, which is reproduced
by Babelon,3 and shown in the accompanying illustration (Fig. 6, p. 10). Similar
was the Basilica Julia, reconstructed by Augustus, and dedicated in A.D. I2,4 as
we are told by the younger Pliny.5 It is hopeless to look for the design in the
East before these dates, although, in the face of facts, it has been described as
Oriental and Hellenistic.6
It should be made clear that this basilica of Constantine's at Jerusalem,
which, we now know certainly, was distinct from and independent of the
church called the 'Anastasis,' did not terminate in the extraordinary form
which De Vogue"7 imagined, though even nowadays there are people who
shut their eyes and swallow it.8 It ended simply in a semicircular apse of the
same height as the rest of the building.9 Equally devoid of foundation is
1 EUSEBIUS (ed. Heikel), Vita Constantini, iii, 37.
2 DE RUGGIERO, // Foro Romano, pp. 396-399.
3 Description historique et chronologique des monnaies de la Republique Romaine, vol. i, p. 129.
4 DE RUGGIERO, op. cit, pp. 408-412.
5 PLINIUS, Epistolae, v, 9 ; vi, 33.
8 CATTANEO, U architettura in Italia dal secolo VI al Mille circa, pp. 38, 39. The Burlington
Magazine, Dec. 1911; STRZYGOWSKI, The Origin of Christian Art. LEROUX, Les origines de
Vldifice hypostyle en Grece, en Orient et chez les Romains, pp. 281-283.
7 Les tglises de la Terre Sainte, pp. 326-335, pi. vi.
8 CABROL, Dictionnaire d1 archtologie chrlticnne et de la Liturgie, vol. i, i, col. 186, 187 ;,
LECLERCQ, Abside.
9 EUSEBIUS, Vita Constantini, iii, 38.
16 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
the three-lobed choir with which the imagination of others1 has endowed the
church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, as founded by the Empress Helena
(327-333). A personal examination which I made of the outer walls,
including testing of the different kinds of mortar employed, has confirmed
me in the opinion, which I have stated elsewhere,2 that this choir was
really part of the works ordered by Justinian but not carried out according
to his intentions. In fact he strongly disapproved of the attempt to fit a
three-lobed sanctuary on to a basilican nave, and this is the inference to be
drawn from the language which he used to his legate : ' The building which
you have erected is badly put together.' 3 Fresh confirmation of my view
has come from other sources.4 Besides, in the time of Constantine, churches
had semicircular endings, and not only in Palestine, but in Egypt as well,
as the case of St. Menas at Kharb Abu Mina shows.5
(3) Antoninus of Placentia6 saw the church about the year 570 as he
descended from Sion, and it was evidently the same building, for he found
that it possessed 'xenodochia.' He does not, however, indicate its topo-
graphical situation. Still, if we follow him in his pilgrim's round, we find
him, after visiting the church of the Virgin, at prayer in the Praetorium,
where stood the basilica of St. Sophia close to the platform which contained
the remains of ' Solomon's Temple.' ' We may infer from this, with some
semblance of support, that Justinian's famous church stood in the neigh-
bourhood of the Praetorium, and, more precisely, on what is known to-day as
the Haram esh-Sherif ; and this is the generally accepted view (Fig. 7, p. 19).
(4) There can be no doubt that St. Mary's was destroyed by fire in
614, sharing the fate of every other church in Jerusalem. It is equally clear
that no attempt was made to save it from its state of desolation, for it is
1 HARVEY, LETHABY, DALTON, CRUSO, HEADLAM, The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem,
pp. 1-30. LETHABY, Mediaeval Art, pp. 58, 59.
2 G. T. RIVOIRA, Le origini deW Archilettura Lombarda (Loescher, Roma), vol. ii, pp. 24-27 ;
(Hoepli, Milano), pp. 338-341 ; Lombardic Architecture (Heinemann, London), vol. ii, pp. 20-22.
3 MIGNE, Patr. gr., vol. cxi, col. 1070, 1071 ; EUTYCHIUS, Annales.
4 Palestine Exploration Fund, 1908, p. 304; DICKIE, Masonry Remains around the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre,
5 KAUFMANN, Die Menasstadt und das national heiligtum der altchristlichen Aegypter in der
westalexandrinischen waste, vol. i, pp. 40-103.
6 TOBLER, op. cit., vol. i, p. 104; ANTONINUS MARTYR, Perambulatio Locorum Sanctorum.
7 P. BARNABE, d' Alsace, Le Pretoire de Pilate et la Forteresse Antonia. P. BARNABE MEISTER-
MANN, Nueva Guia de Tierra Santa, pp. 109-117.
JERUSALEM 17
not mentioned among the churches restored by the patriarch Modestus
(6I6-626).1
(5) Arculf does not refer to it. The ' templum ' mentioned in the passage
quoted just above, means the Jewish Temple, not the church of the Virgin
or any Christian building. Arculf always describes churches by the words
1 basilica ' and ' ecclesia.' 2
Nor does he fix the exact situation of the mosque of Omar. The
indication is vague : in the neighbourhood of the temple. He only fixes the
site (or 'platea,' as Antoninus Martyr calls it) formerly occupied by Herod's
Temple, which was ' in the neighbourhood of the eastern wall of the city.'
This interpretation of Arculf s language is confirmed by Eucherius (c. 440), who
wrote when neither Justinian's church nor the mosque of Omar were in
existence. ' Templum vero, in inferiori parte urbis in vicinia muri ab oriente
locatum magnificeque extructum, quondam miraculum fuit, ex quo parietis unius
in minis quedam pinna superest, reliquis ad fundamenta usque destructis.' 3
(6) Mohammed's famous and visionary journey by night to Jerusalem and
the seventh heaven, which took place before his residence at Medina, and
actually in the year 621, seems to me to be connected with the Temple of
Jerusalem, assuming that the enigmatical language of a verse of the Koran
(xvii, i) — \Praise be unto Him who transported His servant by night from
the sacred temple (al-Masgid al-Haram) to the farther temple (al-Masgid
al-Aqsa)' — refers to Jerusalem; and always remembering that the story of
the visionary journey rests almost entirely on tradition.4 It was in that
temple that the Prophet met Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets,
and joined with them in prayer. In the centre, again, of that temple rose
the Sacred Rock, the scene of Abraham's intended sacrifice of his son, the
site of David's altar, the early 'qibla' of the Israelites, believed to be the
centre of the world. On that rock had descended and been set up the
ladder of fire which, with the help of the archangel Gabriel, Mohammed
had climbed to visit the seven heavens, and by which he had returned
to earth. That rock Abd al- Malik had tried to make the rival of the Black
1 MIGNE, Patr. gr., vol. Ixxxix, col. 1427, 1428; Epistola Antiochi monachi. Vol. cxi, col.
1083; EUTYCHIUS, Annales.
2 TOBLER, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 141-202 ; Arculfi Relatio de Locis Sanctis.
3 TOBLER, op. cit., vol. i, p. 52 ; EUCHERIUS, De Locis aliquibus Sanctis.
4 IRVING, The Life of Mahomet, pp. 82-95. NOLDEKE, SCHWALLY, Geschichte des Qorans,
vol. i, p. 134. SPRENGER, Das leben und die lehre des Mohammad, vol. ii, p. 527.
i8 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Stone of the Kaaba. And to this day popular belief connects it with the
Prophet's vision, and points in proof to the impression left by his turban
and by the hand of the archangel Gabriel.
Of that temple nothing was left but the platform on which it stood,
while it is possible that the rock was no longer exposed to view in
the days of Mohammed, though it is still pointed out by the Bordeaux
Pilgrim in 333. l But there can be little doubt that both survived in
the vivid memory of the Jews, who were, in most cases, the source of
the Prophet's inspiration when he came to lay down his rules of religious
obligation.2
The Prophet's journey cannot have had any connection with Justin-
ian's basilica of the Virgin. In this part of Asia the best known,
the most sacred, and the most famous Christian monument was the Holy
Sepulchre.
(7) The dimensions of the mosque of Omar cannot have been small,
considering the number of the faithful which, according to Arculf, it could
hold. The structure may have consisted of colonnades made up of shafts
taken from other buildings, with wooden roofs. The employment of columns
would explain the story of the collapse of the mosque,3 which may have
been due, not so much to the haste with which it was constructed, as to
the width of the aisles. Arculf, in fact, mentions the use of great beams.
The small account in which he held the edifice may be due to the absence
of ornament, or to its very mean character. The mosque did not possess
a mihrab, and the qibla was represented by a stone.4
It may be mentioned here that there was another mosque of Omar at
Jerusalem, connected with the Holy Sepulchre, and built between 877 and
940.5
(8) It was Abd al-Malik who rebuilt Jerusalem's earliest mosque, and
his object was to outdo in splendour the ' Martyrion ' of the Holy Sepulchre.
He achieved no small success, if we are to judge by the rotunda which he
raised in front of the building, and by the elegance of the remains of the
1 TOBLER, op. cit, vol. i, p. 17 ; Itinerarium a Bordigala Hierusalem usque,
2 CAETANI, Annali, vol. i, pp. 457, 458.
3 Ibid., vol. iii, 2, p. 942.
4 MIGNE, Pair, gr,, vol. cxi, col. noo; EUTYCHIUS, Annales.
5 Recueil <? archtologie orientale^ vol. ii, pp. 302-362 ; CLERMONT-GANNEAU, La basilique de
Constantin et la mosquee cfOmar a Jerusalem.
I
FIG 5. —Jerusalem. Facade of the Mosque al-Aqsa (XIII cent.).
FIG. 7. — Jerusalem. View of the Haram esh-Sherif, or sacred enclosure.
2O
FIG. 8. — Jerusalem. Mosque al-Aqsa. One of the colonnades of the central nave
(VII and VIII cent.).
JERUSALEM 21
mosque which met the eyes of Muqaddasi,1 and surpassed that of the great
mosque of Damascus.
The language of the geographer2 seems to imply that opposite to the
mihrab seen by him, rose the dome of the central nave, carried on arches
springing from isolated piers, and also on wall-piers. In that case the qibla
of Abd al-Malik's mosque must have stood beneath a dome, and a transept
must have existed, the plan being originally in the form of a T.
On the other hand, the account of Nasiri Kusru3 shows that the central
dome rested on sixteen marble columns, which might well suggest the idea
of a reconstruction of the original dome between 985 and 1047, or, more
precisely, in connection with the works ordered by Zahir. According to
Ibn Khaldun4 (who mistakenly ascribes to Walid what was done by his
father), it was through the Greek emperor that the caliph obtained the
builders and mosaic-workers required for the erection and decoration of the
mosque al-Aqsa.
(9) De Vogue 5 long ago called attention to the radical changes effected
by Saladin at the end of the building. Now it seems to me that, if nothing
else, the feature in this part which was constructionally of most importance,
viz. the wooden dome, was on this occasion rebuilt from the ground. As a
matter of fact, Ali of Herat in 1173 recorded the following dimensions of the
dome itself: diameter, 40 ft., height from the pavement, 90 ft.6 The dimensions
of the existing dome, which is of ovoidal section and made of wood, are, on
the contrary, hardly more than 24 m. (79 ft.) for the internal height, and
ii (36 ft.) for the diameter. Moreover, the niche-shaped pendentives, recalling
those of the mosque of Hakim at Cairo, though lightened by hollow circles,
suggest a later date than the second half of the XI century, and certainly could
not belong to the ponderous dome seen by Nasiri Kusru.
(10) The central nave of the existing mosque, about 12 m. (39^ ft.)
in width, is very probably in its main lines that of Abd al-Malik, remodelled
by Mahdi (Fig. 8, p. 20). I say in its main lines, for the pointed arches are
unquestionably later than the caliphate of Mahdi : in his time and in these
countries pointed arches were not systematically used in buildings. The
columns seem to belong to the work of Justinian, as is indicated by the
1 Op. cit., p. 41. 2 MUQADDASI, op. cit., pp. 41, 42.
3 Op. cit., p. 80. 4 ProUgomenes, vol. ii, pp. 268, 375.
5 Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 101.
6 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems^ pp. 108, 109.
1654 3
22 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
uniformity of their bases and the flat moulding of these, just as in the case of the
isolated columns in the so-called Golden Gate close by (Fig. 9, p. 20), which I
regard as belonging to the same period. De Vogue* thought that it was later
than the IV century, but not going beyond the end of the VI.1 Moreover,
some of the Corinthian capitals, especially the better specimens, such as the
first and second seen in Fig. 8, which have been made for their places, belong
to the time of Justinian, and, with their stiff and twisted leaves with their points
sharply turned over, recall the capitals of the same class in the Golden Gate.
The rest of the capitals betray a lifeless, stylistic imitation of those which we
have described, and may be referred to the time of Mahdi, who, among other
things, in a restoration of the nave, considerably increased its height so that
it rose above the aisles, and gave it a gabled roof.2 These also fit their
columns, showing that they were made for their places. De Vogue's failure
to realize the nature of this imitative art led him into mistakes about the date
of al-Aqsa. Byzantine Corinthian capitals may also be found in other parts
of the mosque (Fig. 10, p. 29): some have the basket form (Fig. u, p. 29),
others are melon-shaped of the VI century. I have given elsewhere a brief
account of the Byzantine capitals in Jerusalem.3
All this points to the conclusion that these columns, which are about
90 cm. (2 ft. ii in.) in diameter, belonged to the basilica of the Virgin.
Their squat proportions may be due, not to any diminution they have
suffered, but to the intention from the outset of making them suitable for
carrying a second range of columns, as well as supporting the great weight
of the timber roof. Certainty as to their origin might be obtained by
verification of the tint of the marble of which they are composed, for we
know from Procopius that they were flame-coloured : ' which in colour resemble
a flame of fire.' This, together with the inference drawn from the account
of Antoninus of Placentia, is the only light which can be thrown on the
existence of Justinian's basilica on the platform of Herod's temple. But
about its orientation we may say something more, for whatever was its precise
site in the locality, we may be sure that it was set east and west, as was
usual in that period, and not north and south. There were no local conditions
to make the latter course necessary. In any case, the words of Procopius
1 Le Temple de Jerusalem, pp. 64-68.
2 MUQADDASI, Op. cit, pp. 41, 42.
8 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 22-26; (Hoepli), pp. 336-339; (Heinemann), vol. ii,
pp. 19-21.
CAIRO 23
show that the sanctuary was at the east end : ' . . . but a fourth part of
the church was wanting towards the south and east, where the priests have
to perform divine service.'
All the same, there is no reason to think that the present nave of the
mosque al-Aqsa was originally the nave of the church of the Virgin. It
has the Moslem and not the Christian orientation, and it is set in relation
to the Dome of the Rock. I may add that the evidence of a marble slab
with the print of one of the Saviour's feet in the transept of the mosque,
which some have used to support the idea that the church originally stood
here, is baseless. The footprint, supposing it to be the same, was noted by
Antoninus Martyr in the church of St. Sophia.1
(n) It is not clear whether Abd al-Malik's mosque had minarets. The
earliest accounts are silent about them, as is Muqaddasi, who lived at
Jerusalem. The four minarets with which it has been provided appear only
at a late period, and in narratives which are mostly of an apocryphal character.2
Still it would not be surprising to find four towers for the call to prayer,
in the form in which we do find them in 673, connected with the mosque
of Amr at Fustat.
Abd al-Malik's mosque seems to have exhibited two noteworthy
peculiarities. They are these : the dome rising above the mihrab, and the
T-shaped plan. These features, apparently, did not belong to any earlier
mosque.
THE CONGREGATIONAL MOSQUE OF AMR AT FUSTAT (OLD CAIRO) was
erected in 642 by Amr, the invader of Egypt (639), during the caliphate
of Omar (634-644), in the city of Fustat or ' Fossatum,' founded by him,
and known by the double name of Fustat Misr.3 Later, the city was enlarged
by the suburbs of Askar (750) and Qattai (868),4 and remained the capital
of Egypt until the rise of Cairo.
At the outset its dimensions were not imposing. The roof was rude
and low, and seems to have been supported by a few columns taken from
other buildings. The floor was of pebbles set in concrete. It is very probable
that the internal walls were built of unbaked bricks left rough. The lighting
1 TOBLER, op. cit., vol. i, p. 104; ANTONINUS MARTYR, Perambulatio Locorum Sanctorum.
2 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, pp. 148-151, 170.
3 BUTLER, The Arab Conquest of Egypt, pp. 339-34* •
4 HOUTSMA, BASSET, ARNOLD, HARTMANN, Encyclopedic de f Islam, pp. 835-846, Caire.
24 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
presumably came from openings in the roof, just as it does in the great
colonnade to-day. The orientation was inaccurate, and the whole building
so uninviting that at the conclusion of the services the faithful preferred to
adjourn for purposes of recreation to the surroundings of the Friday meeting-
place in the open air.
Its dimensions were 50 by 30 cubits, that is to say, some 28 by 17 m.
(about 92 by 56 ft.). There were six entrances, two on each of the north,
east, and west sides respectively. It did not possess either an internal
court, or a mihrab, or a minaret. It was bounded on every side by a street ;
and to the east, some 4 m. (13 ft.) distant, stood the house of the
founder.
In 673, during the caliphate of Muawiya (661-680), Maslama ibn
Mukhallad, the governor of Egypt, had it enlarged on the north and east,
the floor covered with matting, an open court formed on the outside, the
walls plastered, and four towers erected, one at each angle. The number
of muezzins was increased, and they were ordered to chant the prayer at
daybreak instead of using the hammer. All this took place in 672 -73. l
Towards 696 the governor, Abd al-Aziz, pulled down the whole or a
part, and rebuilt the mosque with additions on the west and north. But the
roof still remained low, and ten years later it had to be raised. This
implies that Abd al-Aziz demolished only part of the building, and was
obliged to maintain throughout the low elevation of the original roof.
I may remark that the lowness and poverty of Amr's building are
anything but calculated to prove the much-vaunted ability of the Coptic
architects, or their love of lofty roofs ; even supposing, as has been stated
as a fact in some quarters, that, from the accession of Muawiya to the
time of the Fatimids, the Moslem rulers employed their services for the
works they carried out.2
In 711 the Caliph Walid I (705-715) gave orders to the governor, Qurra
ibn Shiarik, to demolish it completely and rebuild it from the ground. The
site was enlarged on the south and east, a mihrab constructed in the form of
a niche, and four entrances made on the east, four on the west, and three on
the north. The execution was entrusted to one Yahya ibn Hanzala, whom
Amari suspects to have been of Persian origin ; and the work was finished in
the space of thirteen months.
1 CAETANI, Chronographia, p. 588. 2 WHISHAW, Arabic Spain, pp. 16, 123.
CAIRO 25
In 715-16 the treasury of the mosque was built. The fact that it was
covered by a dome, and that afterwards a fountain was set beneath it, suggests
that its form was similar to that of the treasury in the congregational mosque
at Damascus: that is to say, it rested on isolated supports. In 750-51, when
Salih ibn AH was governor, four colonnades were added on the north. In
791 the governor Musa ibn Isa added an open space in front of the north
wall. In 826 orders issued from the governor Abdalla ibn Tahir to enlarge
the building on the west, preserving the original arrangements. The works
were completed by Isa ibn Yazid (827-829). The mosque now covered an area
of 190 by 150 cubits, or about 109 by 86 m. (358 by 283 ft.). The number
of columns was reckoned at three hundred and seventy-eight. The walls were
pierced by thirteen entrances, three on the north, five on the east, four on
the west, one on the south ; and there were five minarets.
We hear of other additions in 851-52 and 872, and also of a fire, the
damage from which was repaired by Ibn Tulun. The earthquake of 885 did
some injury, and in 886 another fire destroyed much of the work of Abdalla
ibn Tahir, which was made good by Khumarawayh (883-895). In 936 nearly
all the columns were embellished. In 968 a fresh addition was made. The
mosque had mosaic decorations which Hakim (996-1020) in 997 concealed
under whitewash. This caliph also carried out some works in the court.
Under Mustansir (1035-1094) a minaret was added, and in the same caliphate
Nasiri Kusru reckoned four hundred marble columns. In 1168-69, under
the last Fatimite caliph, Adid (1160-1171), it was burned when Fustat was
fired (the conflagration lasted fifty-four days) in order to prevent its occupation
by Amalric, King of Jerusalem (1162-1173). Saladin, on becoming ruler of
Egypt (1169-1171-1193), carried out a restoration in 1172-73, rebuilding the
side which contained the qibla, that is the southern. Repairs were executed
between 1250 and 1257, and between 1260 and 1277. On the last occasion
the north wall was rebuilt. More repairs were done in 1288.
The mosque suffered severely in the memorable earthquake of 1303,
rhen the colonnades on the north and east sides of the court collapsed.
'he Sultan Nasir Mohammed (1293-94, 1298-1308, 1309-1340) had it
restored, the works being entrusted to the scribe Ibn Kattab. At the end
of the XIV century it was on the verge of ruin, but the merchants had it
restored, and the whole south side rebuilt. The work was finished in 1401.
It seems that some repairs were executed under the Sultan Mohammed ibn
Qait Bey (1495-1498). In 1798 the whole was restored, and the mosque
26 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
assumed the general aspect which it presents to-day in spite of various minor
repairs at different times.1
From the story of the vicissitudes of the structure here set forth, and
mainly derived from the ' Kitab al-Mavaiz ' of Maqrizi,2 it will readily be
seen how difficult, not to say impossible, it is to hit on the right solutions
in a building which has undergone so many reconstructions and restorations.
Difficulties of this kind are increased by the wretched condition of the sides
of the court and their colonnades. Of those on the east and west only the
bases survive ; on the north only one row of columns is left. Under these
circumstances I shall omit any detailed description, though the materials
are ready to my hand, and confine myself to exhibiting the plan and two
views of the building as it is to-day (Figs. 12, 13, 14, pp. 27, 29, 30), with
the addition of a few pertinent observations.
(1) The mosque as founded by Amr, was simply a quadrangle com-
posed of colonnades enclosed on every side by walls, and devoid of any
trace of the plan which afterwards became distinctive of congregational
mosques, and had been already applied in the second mosque of Kufa in
the days of Muawiya. The internal divisions were, very probably, of equal
breadth, for even now the central nave ending in the principal mihrab is no
wider than the others.
Of Amr's structure no vestige whatever remains. Walid, with his
demolition of the old mosque and enlargement of the new, erased it for
ever from the list of Moslem monuments. The fact has been noticed
before now.3
(2) The southern part of the present mosque, that is to say the place
of prayer, though it may preserve fragments of the enclosing wall containing
the qibla, as well as the plan of the aisles, with many of the marble columns
of Roman or Byzantine origin, brought from other buildings, and belonging
to Walid's reconstruction, Tahir's enlargement, and Khumarawayh's restoration,
has nothing to show above ground older than Saladin's rebuilding or, perhaps,
even the later one of 1401.
1 CAETANI, Annali, vol. iv, pp. 563-570. BUTLER, The Arab Conquest of Egypt, pp. 343, 344.
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1890, pp. 759-800; CORBETT, The history of the Mosque
of Amr at Old Cairo. LANE-POOLE, A history of Egypt in the Middle Ages, pp. 17, 73, 301, 302.
AMARI, op. cit., vol. iii, 2, pp. 832, 833. NASIRI KUSRU, op. cit., p. 147.
2 LANE, The manners and customs of the modern Egyptians (ed. E. Rhys), App. F., pp. 603-606.
8 Ibid., App. R, p. 587.
CAIRO
The pointed arches larger than semicircles and raised on very tall
imposts, which are used throughout, have certainly nothing to do either
with Walid, to whose time belongs the earliest employment of the round
arch with a slight suggestion of the horse-shoe form ; or with Abdallah ibn
Tahir, for the pointed arch larger than a semicircle, in its simple form, i.e.
not elevated, was systematically used for the first time in the mosque of
Ibn Tulun (872-73, 879) ; or
with Khumarawayh, for it
was only in 970 that the
builders of the mosque al-
Azhar decided to employ the
pointed horse - shoe arch
springing from a high base.
Consequently, all that
has been asserted about the
great antiquity of the mosque
which bears the name of
Amr, falls to the ground.
(3) We have no precise
information as to the nature
of the four towers erected in
673 by order of Muawiya.
Maqrizi does not describe
them as minarets. It has
been supposed that they had
the form of wooden sentry
FIG. 12.— Fustat (Cairo). Plan of the existing
Mosque of Amr.
(From The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1890.)
boxes set at the angles of
the flat roof and reached by
stairs outside the building,
and were used for the call to prayer: that they were in fact the
germ of the great tower minarets of the future. This idea receives some
support from the fact that, as late as 1050-51, the traditional site of the
muezzin's chamber was on the roof of the place of prayer.1
But Maqrizi does mention the erection of a minaret by order of
1 The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1890, pp. 77I-773J CORBETT, The history of the
Mosque of Amr at Old Cairo.
28 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Maslama ibn Mukhallad ' for the mosque which was in Fustat ' — presumably
the congregational mosque of Amr. If this is so, there must have been five
structures used by the muezzins for the call to prayer. Butler speaks
definitely of minarets inscribed with the name of Maslama.1 Caetani2 merely
says that he built the first minaret. We will not attempt to solve the
riddle, but are content to believe that the first minaret at Fustat was
built in 673 and in the form of a simple tower, for we do not forget that
in Syria, from which country Muawiya's order to Maslama came, minarets
maintained that form as late as the X century,3 while in Africa it is repre-
sented by the one at Kairawan (721-727).
THE CONGREGATIONAL MOSQUE OF KAIRAWAN. — Okba, governor of Africa,
first set out the plan and then raised the edifice,4 apparently of clay.5 The
work of foundation was begun in 670-71 and finished in 674-75. 6
Hassan, who captured Carthage (696-705), found the structure standing
and rebuilt it. It has been supposed that to this occasion belongs the
erection of the square minaret still in existence ; but we shall see presently
that its real author was Bishr. By order of the Caliph Hisham (724-743), at
the request of Bishr, the governor of Kairawan, the mosque was once more
pulled down and rebuilt, as it was found to be too small. A third demolition
and consequent reconstruction was carried out by the governor of Africa,
Yazid (772-787). Ziyadat Allah I, the Aglabite emir of Africa (816-837),
razed it to the ground in order to rebuild it. Ibrahim II (874-902)
lengthened the aisles of Ziyadat Allah I's mosque, that is to say, he set the
existing portico against the old fa9ade, and also constructed the porticoes
on the east and west of the court.7 He made the gate al-Behu, or the
1 BUTLER, The Arab Conquest of Egypt, p. 343.
2 Chronographia, p. 588.
3 MUQADDASI, Op. Cit., p. 75.
4 ADZARI (Fagnan), Histoire de VAfrique et de PEspagne intitulee Al-BayanJl-Mogrib, vol. i,
pp. 15-17. IBN KHALDOUN (De Slane), Histoire des Berberes et des dynasties -musulmanes de
VAfrique septentrionale, vol. i, p. 328. Journal Asiatique, 1841, vol. i, pp. 117-120; DE SLANE,
Histoire de la province d'Afrique et du Maghrib, traduite de Farabe d } En-Noweiri.
5 AMARI, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 114, 115.
6 CAETANJ, Chronographia, pp. 548, 609.
7 In order to simplify matters I always treat the side containing the qibla as the south (though
this does not exactly coincide with the direction of Mecca), which also fixes the relative orientation
of the other sides of mosques.
29
FIG. 10. — Jerusalem. Mosque al-Aqsa.
Capital of the VI cent.
FIG. 1 1. —Jerusalem. Mosque al-Aqsa.
Capital of the VI cent.
FIG. 13.— Fustat (Cairo). Mosque of Amr (VIII-XVIII cent).
FIG. 14. — Fustat (Cairo). Mosque of Amr. One of the outer aisles
with architraves of carved wood.
FIG. 1 6. — Kairawan. Congregational Mosque (IX cent.).
KAIRAWAN 3I
Pavilion, with the cupola belonging to it, and also the cupola in front of the
mihrab. He embellished the wall above the mihrab, as well as the mihrab
itself. Through all these changes the original mihrab and Bishr's minaret
were left untouched. We hear of various later alterations, but they made
no essential difference in the appearance of the building.1 We will now
examine it in detail.
The mosque forms an oblique parallelogram, with its principal axis
directed towards Mecca. About a third of the space is occupied by the
place of prayer, in front of which is a colonnaded quadrangle (Fig. 15, p. 32).
The place of prayer, temple, or mosque proper (Fig. 16, p. 30), consists of
sixteen parallel aisles bisected by a central wider aisle or nave, each of which
contains seven bays formed by arches, the whole being bounded on the
south by a broad aisle. These two main aisles, which strike the eye both
in plan and elevation and form the letter T, recall, as has been remarked,2
the plan of the early Christian basilicas, such as the Constantinian church
of St. Peter on the Vatican at Rome, founded by Pope Silvester (31 4-335). 3
Ziyadat's new building and Ibrahim II 's additions are self-evident. We
find confirmation, too, of the statement in Bakri (1068) that Ziyadat Allah
completely demolished the pre-existing mosque, retaining nothing but the
original mihrab, and that against his will.4 This mihrab was not made by
Okba, in whose days the qibla was designated by a stone. The earliest
mihrab seems to have been the one erected in the congregational mosque
of Damascus.
Ziyadat Allah's mosque is, as a whole, the one we see to-day, both
in plan and elevation. It was based on the form of a T, with just the same
number of parallel aisles and arched bays as still exist. The horse-shoe
arch was used exclusively. In order to make the roof as high as possible,
without an excessive weight of wall, the arches were set up on high
imposts, which recall the similar elevation of the architraves in the pillared
1 Les monuments historiques de la Tunfsif, deuxieme partie, Les monuments arabes ; SALADIN,
La mosqute de Sidi Okba a Kairoitan, pp. 7-31. MERCIER, Histoire de VAfrique septentrionale
(Berblrie\ vol. i, pp. 203-207, 254, 255, 280. AMARI, op. cit., vol. i, p. 154; vol. ii, p. 48.
EL KAIRUANI (Pellissier et Remusat), Histoire de VAfrique, pp. 42, 43, 79, 83.
2 SALADIN, La mosquee de Sidi Okba a Kairouan, p. 40.
8 DUCHESNE, Le liber pontificalis, vol. i, pp. 176, 193, 194.
4 Journal Asiatique, vol. xii, pp. 412-492; EL BEKRI (De Slane), Description de FAfrique
septentrionale.
l654 4
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
FIG. 15.— Plan of the Congregational Mosque of
Kairawan (IX cent.).
(From SALADIN, La mosqute de Sidi Okba & Kairouan.}
KAIRAWAN 33
hall of the temple of Hathor at Denderah (I century, A.D.) (Fig. 17, p. 39).
This feature of boldly stilted arches was destined to become one of the
characteristics of Moslem architecture.
In the colonnades which open on the court, as well as in those belonging
to the great transverse nave, columns were used in pairs in order to provide
starting points for both the longitudinal and the transverse arches. The
same device appears in the central nave wherever a similar combination of
arches occurs.
The arches were secured, after the Arabic practice, from the danger of
parting asunder or of earthquakes, by fixing chains or wooden beams in the
imposts, but there was nothing to counteract any pressure on the outer walls.
Chains had already been used by the Byzantines, as for instance in St. Irene
at Constantinople (VIII century). In order to give more cohesion to the build-
ing, two of the transverse arcades, the third and the sixth, were connected with
the eastern and western walls by means of arches springing from wall-shafts.
Behind Ziyadat Allah's mihrab, as retouched by Ibrahim, the original
mihrab still exists walled-up.
The only columns used were of alien origin. Very few of these are
fluted, but they form a varied collection of marbles, sometimes of the greatest
beauty, the like of which I have never seen equalled in any of the ancient
mosques, erected as such, which I have examined. Some of these shafts
have bases of every description, some have none at all. Some stand on the
pavement, others are partly buried beneath it. Others are made to fit their
place by the addition of a plinth.
The capitals, in the same way, were taken from ancient buildings. Every
shape, every kind of technique may be seen ; and their range includes the
Christian as well as the Pagan centuries. There are Corinthian capitals
with acanthus foliage, whether of Roman or Byzantine character ; Composite
with plain or carved leaves ; cubical funnel-shaped capitals with lotus leaves
framed by a band of reticulated carving, recalling specimens in San Vitale at
Ravenna (526-547) ; in other cases covered with zigzag ribbons or tendrils.
Nor is the melon-shaped type wanting.
The capitals are surmounted by shallow abaci of wood. A wooden abacus
has the advantage of providing an elastic stratum above the capital, thus
protecting it from fractures. It is also more economical, as wood is very
easy to work.
Ibrahim II made no extension of Ziyadat Allah's mosque, but only some
34 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
alterations. He constructed the dome over the mihrab, embellished the
building, and added to its front a two-aisled portico crowned by a cupola.
In my opinion Ziyadat's mosque was reached through the enclosure formed
by the present outer wall without its surrounding colonnades, which were
added by Ibrahim II. What Ibrahim did may be summed up as follows: —
(i) Two new colonnades were constructed inside the central nave leading
to the mihrab, thus diminishing its width, while at the same time it was
strengthened against the thrust of the dome which rose in front of the mihrab.
This dome was erected at the same time. From the columns sprang horse-
shoe arches of slightly pointed form, decorated with bands twisted into a knot
at the apex, like those of the external arcades.
The dome (Figs. 18, 19, pp. 35, 39) rests on three open arches, and a fourth
which is built up. They spring from clusters of isolated columns and from
wall-columns. The blind arch is decorated with a triplet of arches framing
rectangular windows, and a couple of niches, the whole enclosed in a single
arch, as was the fashion at Ravenna.1 The spandrel spaces are filled by niches
and roses.
The transition from the square base to the octagon inside is formed by
four hood-shaped pendentives at the angles in the form of shells. Round
the octagon run eight blank arches springing from colonnettes supported by
brackets. Four of them act as relieving arches to the pendentives, the
others surmount cusped arches, each of which is pierced by a sexfoil opening.
This internal octagon is represented on the exterior by a square mass relieved
by arcading.
In its turn the octagon inside passes into the circular drum of the dome
by means of spherical pendentives.2 The drum itself is relieved by arches,
some blank and others pierced by windows. The way in which the transition
is effected recalls that in the baptistery of Neon at Ravenna (449 or 458-477).
Externally the drum has a polygonal form. The cupola itself is composed of
concave segments, the ribs starting from corbels.
When the dome was built, the wall in which the mihrab is set was
decorated with metallic lustre tiles brought from Baghdad, and at the same
time the mihrab itself must have been altered, as is shown by its slightly
pointed main arch. The arches in Ziyadat's work are invariably round.
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Hoepli) p. 40; (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 39.
2 Ibid. (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 29-35, 39> ^3-
KAIRAWAN
35
But it is just possible that the alteration was made when the Fatimid
Muizz tried to change the position of the qibla (656-57). !
(2) The eastern and western walls were strengthened on the inside by
means of wall-arches carried on columns.
(3) A two-aisled portico (Fig. 20, p. 40) was constructed along the front of
the place of prayer, slightly pointed arches of horse-shoe form being used, and
.alterations made in Ziyadat's facade, the arches of which (less carefully built
than those of Ibrahim II) are
larger than semicircles, and have
decorative bands which are con-
tinuous instead of forming a knot
at the top like those of the outer
portico.
In front of the central en-
trance was a dome called the
' Oobba bab al-Behu,' or dome
of the gate of the pavilion.
Bakri2 writes of it in glowing
terms. It was rebuilt in the first
half of the XIX century. In its
present form the square base
passes into the octagon by
means of niches in the angles
filled in with two spherical seg-
ments. The octagon has on
each face an arch, four of which
frame the pendentives, and is
lighted by windows. It passes into the circle of the drum by the aid of
shafts supported on corbels, which are designed to carry those parts of the
drum which hang in the air. The interior of the drum is encircled by an
arcade pierced with windows. The cupola is divided into concave sections,
the ribs being supported by brackets.
With regard to this dome we may remark that the device of using
colonnettes for angle raccords is of considerable antiquity. The internal
1 BAKRI, Journal Asiatique, vol. xii, pp. 412-492 ; EL BEKRI (De Slane), Description de PAfrique
stptentrionale.
2 Ibid.
FIG. 19. — Kairawan. Congregational Mosque.
Details in the dome of the mihrab (IX cent).
36 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
octagon of the Tower of the Winds, or Horologium of Andronicus at
Athens, dating from the II century B.C., or the early years of the first,1
passes into the circle of the roof by means of dwarf shafts at the angles
(Fig. 21, p. 40).
(4) The lateral colonnades of the court were constructed. These must
be 'the aisles added to the mosque' by Ibrahim II,2 unless by these 'aisles'
are meant all the cloistered sides of the court. As Ziyadat's outer walls
were preserved, they were strengthened by the addition of wall-arches, just
as in the place of prayer. All these colonnades, viz. that in front of the
sanctuary, and the two on the east and west sides of the court, evidently
belong to the same age, except where they have been retouched or rebuilt.
The masonry of the walls of the fa£ade, where they have not been repaired,
is uniform ; and the slightly pointed arches have been decorated with a band
framing the arch and forming a knot at the summit, the centre of the knot
being marked by a disc of green enamel. A number of these discs are still
in place.
With very few exceptions the marble columns used are of alien origin,
and various means have been taken to fit them to their places. In some cases
marble carvings of the Roman epoch have been used for the purpose. The
capitals (Figs. 22, 23, 24, 25, p. 41) are also antiques, and illustrate every possible
form and date, as do those in the mosque proper. By way of exception there
are a few made expressly for their places, with clumsy plain leaves. The
finest specimens were reserved for the colonnade through which the sanctuary
is approached. Here, among others, are a couple of funnel shape, with
leaves of the wild thistle completely undercut, and pine cones at the angles,
exactly like those on the breccia colonnettes of the mihrab. In the eastern
cloister may be seen three of the funnel type exhibiting discs, leaves, and
crosses, the latter being either erased or mutilated : the whole without
undercutting.
The western side has original wall-arches. The eastern side in the last
century underwent a considerable amount of restoration and reconstruction.
In addition to the important works which we have described, Ibrahim
must also have erected the two-aisled portico on the north side of the
1 E. A. GARDNER, Ancient Athens, pp. 488-491.
2 IBN KHALDOUN, Histoire des Berberes et des dynasties musulmanes de PAfrique septentrionale*
vol. i, pp. 420, 421.
KAIRAWAN 37
court, thus completing the quadrangular cloister in front of the mosque. As
a matter of fact .this part, in spite of the alterations and renewals which it
has undergone, does betray, where the masonry is ancient, its identity in date
with Ibrahim's work.
The minaret which bisects the northern arcade is placed to the left of
the main axis of the mosque (Fig. 26, p. 42). It is in the form of a massive
tower about 26 m. (85 ft.) high, the side in front being not less than 10.70 m.
(35 ft.), and is constructed of materials taken from older buildings, including
carved and inscribed stones of the Roman period. The walls are 3.30 m.
(10 ft. 10 in.) thick at the base.
The door which opens on the court exhibits another fragment of
Roman origin in its lintel, above which is a relieving arch of horse-shoe
form. In the XI century a second entrance was made, as is mentioned
by Bakri.1 It has similar rectangular windows with relieving arches of the
same form.
At the point where the tower is set back a second stage begins, the
faces of which are relieved by blank arches of horse-shoe form. The
materials, so far as can be judged from the very little which is visible inside,
are different from those of the lower stage of the tower. The form of the
external arches would suggest the time of Ziyadat Allah ; but as things are,
it would be hazardous to give any definite opinion about it, for we do not
know whether the earliest minarets terminated in a simple roof to cover
the tower and shelter the muezzin, or in some construction of masonry. The
earliest example of a minaret with an additional structure on the top that
is known to me is the one erected by the Caliph Mutawakkil (847-861)
at Samarra, where the shaft was designed to carry a kiosk crowned by
a cupola.
Above the second stage rises a third, with open arches supporting a cupola
resting on angle niches. It is the result of a reconstruction carried out in
the first half of the XIX century.
The lowest stage is the minaret built by Bishr, acting under the orders
of Hisham, and not by Hassan as Bakri says.2 It was precisely in the time
of Hisham that the site was secured, for the foundations were laid in water,
1 Journal Asiatique, vol. xii, pp. 412-492; EL BEKRI (De Slane), Description de FAfrique
septentrionale.
2 Ibid.
38 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
as we are told by the same writer.1 The confusion in Bakri must be due to
the mention of Hassan's name in place of that of Hisham.
The exterior faces of the walls, both of the mosque and of the court,
including the buttresses of various form and size with which they are
strengthened, are so uniformly covered with coats of whitewash that any sort
of examination of them is impossible. I will confine myself to noting that
the very few pieces of wall surface which are visible, viz. those in the tower
buttresses at the outer angles of the mosque proper, have every appearance
of belonging to the work of Ibrahim II.
Of the ten entrances which existed in the time of Bakri in the XI
century, the two now walled up, which opened into the frontal portico,
must be the oldest. They were designed to give access to Ziyadat's
court, and were closed in the course of the works of Ibrahim II. What
the age of the others may be I cannot say. I only note that the cupola
of the portico in front of the 'Bab Leila Regiana ' gate, erected in 1284
(Fig. 27, p. 51), has the same form as the one belonging to the corresponding
western gate, as well as the one which crowns the minaret, and was rebuilt
in the last century. In all three the square base has, besides the angle
niches, a small niche in each side.
Apart from its state of preservation and the great variety of ancient
columns and capitals which it contains, the most remarkable features of the
congregational mosque of Kairawan are : the T plan of the two main aisles,
the wooden ties for the arches, the hood-shaped pendentives in the dome
over the mihrab, and the minaret, so far as it is original.
The plan may possibly have been used previously in the mosque al-Aqsa
at Jerusalem ; but we have no certain information. As far as I can see, the
mosque of Kairawan was the first example. In Walid's mosque at Damascus
(706-714) the architect merely led up to the qibla by a wide transverse aisle.
As to the wooden ties, apparently a device of the Moslem age, though,
as we saw before, they were found in St. Irene at Constantinople as early
as the VIII century, it has been said that they were employed as far
back as the time of Abd al-Malik in the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem
(687-69 1 ).2 Doubts, however, have been thrown on the date of* the arches
to which they belong. And therefore those in the mosque of Kairawan
may be regarded as the oldest specimens. It seems to me that these ties
1 Journal Asiatique, vol. xii, pp. 412-492 ; EL BEKRI, Description de VAfrique septentrionale .
2 DE VOGU£, Le Temple de Jerusalem^ p. 83.
39
or
#7
/;. .-. • -,'**• •
'"- *Z£~m: '. • * .'-Ai^.<*«!
:-"^ .
FIG. 17.— Denderah. Temple of Hathor. Portico (I cent.).
FIG. 1 8. — Kairawan. Congregational Mosque. Dome of the mihrab (IX cent.).
40
FIG. 20. — Kairawan. Facade of the Congregational Mosque (IX cent.).
FIG. 21. — Athens. Tower of the Winds or Horologium of Andronicus.
Interior of the cupola (II or I cent. B.C.).
FIG. 22.— Kairawan. Congregational
Mosque. Capitals of the colon-
nades.
Fir,. 24. — Kairawan. Congregational
Mosque. Capitals of the colon-
nades.
FIG. 23. — Kairawan. Congregational
Mosque. Capitals of the colon-
nades.
FIG. 25. — Kairawan.
Mosqu<
nades.
Congregational
Capitals of the colon-
42
•:jf
i
m
:•'••
»t
in 11
FIG. 26. — Kairawan. Congregational Mosque.
Minaret (VIII, IX?, and XIX cents.).
FIG. 28. — Seville. The Giralda
(i 184-1196).
KAIRAWAN 43
are connected with the great elevation given to the arches, demanding
some counteracting force.
With regard to the conical pendentives, I have not succeeded so far in
discovering along the northern coasts of Africa any examples earlier than
those in Italy. It was probably by way of Sicily, evacuated by the Byzantines
in 882, and finally conquered by the Moslem armies of Ibrahim in 895, that
this Romano-Campanian invention reached Kairawan. Nor have I come
across any older examples shaped like shells and framed within arches, and
recalling the decorative treatment of the upper stage in the interior of the
baptistery of Saint Jean at Poitiers (possibly belonging to the years 68 2 -696). l
The minaret is the oldest now in existence, and its long life has by no
means reached its close. The thickness of the walls, the character of the
materials used, the kind of mortar employed, may well assure it some other
thousand years of existence, provided that it does not succumb to some
natural catastrophe, or to the still more dangerous effects of man's destruc-
tive impulses.
The square form, with occasionally a cylindrical upper part, is the
prevailing one in early Moslem times, and is illustrated by the minarets of
Mutawakkil (847-861) at Samarra, and of Ibn Tulun (872-73-879), and
Hakim (990-1003) at Cairo. Abd al-Rahman Ill's (912-961) rebuilt minaret
at Cordova is another example. All the Syrian minarets of the X century
belong to the same class.2
In addition to its early date the minaret at Kairawan, in the plainness
of its exterior, presents one feature which throws some light on the develop-
ment of structures of this kind. The earliest minarets were plain square
towers. The four belonging to the great mosque of Walid at Damascus were,
in this respect, just like that at Kairawan. Such at least is the impression
given by Ibn Jubair, who in 1184 saw two of them still there (viz. the one
on the east and the one on the west) in the form of towers.3 If they had
exhibited any kind of ornament he would have said so, for he mentions
various things in the mosque less worthy of notice. The minarets of the
mosque at Medina, probably the work of the same caliph, were, as we saw,
of a similar fashion.
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 84-88 ; (Hoepli), pp. 385'389 J (Heinemann), vol. ii,
PP- 52-54.
2 MUQADDASI, Op. Cit, p. 75. 3 IBN JUBAIR, Op. cit., p. 257.
1654 e
44 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
It is not till we reach the IX century and the minaret of the great
mosque of Samarra (847-861), or that of the mosque at Abudolaf (which,
from its analogies with the former, may also be ascribed to the IX century),
that we meet with architectural decoration in the form of niches at the
summit or at the base. For though Muqaddasi l seems at first sight to
say that the minaret erected by Hisham (724-743) for the magnificent
White Mosque at Ramleh in Palestine (reduced by the earthquake of 1033
to a heap of ruins 2) was embellished with columns, his real meaning is that
these columns of great size were used in the mosque itself. Not till the
caliphate of Abd al-Rahman III (912-961) do we meet with any free
use of architectural and artistic ornament : and what there is, is worthy of
that distinguished ruler. Thus Edrisi,3 describing the minaret of the
congregational mosque of Cordova, mentions that the four sides were
ornamented with two tiers of arches springing from marble columns of great
beauty, and that the front was further embellished ' with the products of
the various arts of gilding, lettering, and painting.' This elaborate decorative
treatment of minarets must have created a tradition in the Spanish provinces
if it lasted till the gradual decay of the Moslem dominion, as is evidenced
by the Giralda at Seville (1184-1196) (Fig. 28, p. 42), originally the minaret
of the principal mosque of the city, which fell into Christian hands in 1248.
It seems to have been inspired by the now curtailed minaret of Hassan
at Rabat in Morocco (1178-1184).
This gradual growth of the artistic treatment of the minaret may be
compared with the similar evolution in the case of the bell-tower or campanile.
At Ravenna the bell-tower of Sant' Apollinare Nuovo was, between 850 and
878, embellished by the insertion of two- and three-light openings with
marble shafts, and sometimes terra-cotta bowls (' ciotole ') fixed in the
spandrels of the arches ; and also by the use of the saw-tooth stringcourse.4
At Milan, again, the tower of San Satiro, of 876, exhibited for the first
time the architectural scheme which was to be characteristic of the
Lombardic campanile and its derivatives.5 I would note here that the date
1 Op. cit., pp. 33, 34. 2 NASIRI KUSRU, op. cit., p. 64, note.
3 EDRISI (Jaubert), Geographic, vol. ii, pp. 62, 63.
4 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 48-54; (Hoepli), pp. 45-58; (Heinemann), vol. i,
PP- 44-53-
5 Ibid. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 273-275; (Hoepli), pp. 203, 204; (Heinemann), vol. i,
p. 169.
JERUSALEM 45
1045, which there has been an attempt to attach to its oldest part, is wrong.
Both masonry and artistic features are opposed to it.
Before leaving the congregational mosque of Kairawan, I may say a few
words about the origin of the Composite capital — a digression suggested by
the very frequent occurrence of that form among the alien capitals there to
be found.
I have dealt elsewhere l with its invention, which I place in the reign of
the first two Flavian emperors (69-8 1 ) ; and I have pointed out that it appears
in its developed form on the Arch of Titus (79-81), erected after his death
(Fig. 29, p. 52). It was still unknown in the time of Augustus (29 B.C.- 14 A.D.),
as we learn from Vitruvius, who lived under the great emperor to whom he
dedicated his book,2 or else, as has been thought, in the last quarter of the
century preceding the Christian era.3 In that work there is no mention of
the Composite among either the principal or the derived forms of capitals.4
THE DOME OF THE ROCK, OR QUBBAT AS-SAKRAH AT JERUSALEM, COMMONLY
CALLED THE MOSQUE OF OMAR, stands over the Sacred Rock in the centre of
Herod's temple. Its founder was Abd al- Malik, and his object was to restore
the ancient Jewish qibla and make it a rival to the Black Stone of Mecca, so
as to divert the streams of pilgrims from the latter city. His real motives
were dynastic and political ; and in the structure he raised he aimed at
dazzling the eyes and the minds of the followers of Mohammed, and making
them forget the grandeur and magnificence of the rotunda of the Holy
Sepulchre. Such is the account of Muqaddasi.5
The fact of the foundation is still attested by the well-known inscription
in Cufic characters, running above the cornice of the colonnade which supports
the dome. Caliph Mamun's (813-833) fraudulent substitution of his own name
for that of the real founder is easily detected. As a matter of fact, the Arabic
writers unanimously ascribe the building to its true author.
The foundation was accompanied by the erection of the mosque al-Aqsa,
imitation of Constantine's idea of the ' Martyrion ' and the ' Anastasis ' at
Jerusalem, orientated on the same axis.
1 Nuova Antologia, 1904, fasc. 790; RIVOIRA, Delia seoltura ornamentale dai tempi di Roma
impcriale al Mille.
2 De Architectura, lib. i. 4 De Architectura, iii, 5 ; iv, i ; iv, 3 ; iv, 7.
3 CHOISY, Vitruve, vol. i, pp. 365-369. 5 Op. cit., p. 23.
46 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
The works and expenses were put in charge of the learned Rija ibn Hayah
of the Kinda tribe, and Yazid ibn Sallam, a native of Jerusalem, with his two
sons as assistants. Later, Suliman (715-717) fetched another inhabitant of
Jerusalem to superintend the erection of his magnificent mosque at Lydda ;
and the man was a Christian called Bakah.1 The rotunda was begun in 687,
and the works were completed in 691. It is said that they swallowed up the
revenues of Egypt for seven years. On the eastern side a building was erected
intended for a treasury.
The workmen were drawn from every part of the Moslem provinces.
Ibn Khaldun,2 who, as we saw, substituted the name of Walid for that of
Abd al- Malik, would make out that the workmen were sent by the Emperor
of Constantinople. What is certain is that when, some years later, in 700,
the same Abd al-Malik wanted to repair the damage which Mecca and
his temple had suffered from an inundation, he entrusted the works to a
Christian architect.3
Under Caliph Mamun the building underwent some restoration, but
what its nature was we do not know. One view is that it was confined to
some repair of details,4 while another is that the outer wall was rebuilt.5
The latter appears to be based on the bronze tablet with Cufic inscrip-
tion attached to the outer face of the lintel over each of the four entrances,
bearing the date 831, and referring to works carried out by order of Mamun,
who entrusted them to an emancipated slave, Salih ibn Yahya. If this
theory be correct — and the earthquake shocks which shattered the mosque
al-Aqsa suggest that the Dome of the Rock must have felt their effects
to some extent — it would explain up to a certain point the falsification of
Abd al-Malik's inscription.
The earliest description is that of Ibn al-Fakih (903). We learn that
it had four entrances, each with its marble porch ; and each entrance had
four doors. The number of windows was fifty-six. The dome had an
inner and an outer cupola, the latter being gilded. Twelve piers and
thirty columns supported the structure. The aisles were covered with
sheets of lead, and the whole was faced with marble. Here the number
1 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, p. 304.
2 Proltgomenes historiques, vol. ii, pp. 268, 375.
3 AMARI, op. cit., vol. iii, 2, p. 837.
4 DE VOGU£, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 86.
5 The Survey of Eastern Palestine, 1889; CONDER, The Adwan Country, pp. 60-63.
JERUSALEM
47
of columns is inexplicable, as there cannot have been more than twenty-
eight combined with the twelve piers. A similar difficulty is caused by
the forty-eight or more columns recorded by Ibn abd Rabbih (about
Some repairs were executed in 913. We have another description by
Muqaddasi about the year 985. The octagon had four porches, with four
doors apiece, that is to
say, three which opened
between the columns of
the portico, and one in
the outer wall. The in-
terior contained three
concentric colonnades
with low ceilings. The
central part was circular,
with marble columns and
round arches carrying a
high drum pierced with
large windows, and the
dome. The dome was
double. The internal
dome was divided into
ornamental compart-
ments; the external dome
was simply constructed
of timber covered with
sheets of gilt metal.
There was a free space
between the two domes, which were kept in place by iron rods crossing one
another. The rest of the structure, including the drum, was decorated, both
internally and externally, with marbles and mosaics, after the fashion of
Walid's mosque at Damascus.
In 1016 the dome collapsed in an earthquake, and the outer walls at
the south-east angle were damaged. Zahir, the Caliph of Egypt (1020-1035),
ordered the restorations recorded for the years 1022, 1027, and 1033.
Among the works executed on this occasion were the mosaics of the drum.
The restored building was not long after (in 1047) visited and described by
FIG. 30. — Jerusalem. Plan of the Dome of the
Rock (VII, IX, XI, and XII cents.).
48 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Nasiri Kusru.1 His measurements agree with the actual ones, but the same
cannot be said of the distribution and number of the supports. The smaller
colonnade in those days contained four piers alternating with pairs of columns
(eight in all) ; the larger had eight piers with twenty-four columns interposed
in threes. In the present building it is in the smaller colonnade that the
alternation of piers and three columns occurs, while that of piers and pairs
of columns is in the larger. The existing arrangement is the same as that
seen by Ali of Herat in 1173. The roofs were everywhere covered with sheets
of lead. The Rock in the centre was surrounded by a marble balustrade.
On the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099 the building was
turned into a church. The interior was decorated with Christian paintings,
and the Rock was covered by a marble pavement and enclqsed by an iron
railing. Saladin re-dedicated it to Moslem worship, with some restoration
and renewal of the internal decoration of the dome. In 1318 and 1319
Nasir Mohammed, the Mameluke Sultan of Egypt, effected some repairs.
Soon after, in 1326, it was seen by Ibn Batuta,2 who found it rich 'with
various kinds of glittering pictures ' on the exterior as well as in the interior.
In 1448 the covering of the dome was destroyed by a fire, but was replaced.
Suliman I the Magnificent (1520-1566) carried out important works of
restoration and embellishment. Further repairs are attested in 1776, and in
the reign of Sultan Mahmud II (i8o8-i839).3
So much for the annals of this celebrated rotunda. We will next subject
it to a brief examination (Figs. 30, 31, 32, 33, pp. 47, 51, 52, 53).
It is an annular structure, consisting of two concentric circles of piers
alternating with columns, the larger octagonal, the smaller circular. The
outer wall forms a regular octagon, each side measuring about 21 m. (69 ft.)
on the outer face which contains seven lofty blank arches, five of which are
pierced by as many large windows, round-headed in construction, or in other
cases by four windows and a door. The four entrances are placed at the
cardinal points, and each is protected by a porch.
In the outer range the round arches spring from Ravennate pulvins of
varying height so as to fit the columns, and are kept in place by substantial
wooden ties, each of which consists of a pair of rafters fitted together, con-
1 Op. cit., pp. 89-93. 2 Op. cit, vol. i, p. 122.
3 DE VOGU£, Le Temple de Jerusalem, pp. 73-98. LE STRANGE, Palestine imder the Moslems,.
pp. 83-171.
JERUSALEM 49
cealed under an embossed and painted stucco decoration or a skin of marble
facing of the XVI century. In the inner range, on the other hand, the
arches spring immediately from the capitals, and here again they have wooden
ties, but left plain and bare.
The eight trapezoidal piers at the angles of the larger or outer range
are extended so as to carry the beams of the aisle roofs. On the other
hand, the four belonging to the inner range, which are rectangular, but on
their longer sides follow the curve of the dome, are carried up so as to form
the external buttresses designed to strengthen the drum. The inner face of
the drum is decorated with mosaics.
The capitals are of two kinds: (i) Corinthian, slightly bell-shaped, with
two rows of acanthus leaves, the points of which arch over, in style inter-
jnediate between Roman and Byzantine. One of them has a cross on the
abacus. (2) Composite (Fig. 34, p. 52) with vase-shaped outline like the former,
and acanthus leaves which are either free or bend over at the tips as before.
They are all of alien origin, as are the shafts which they surmount, and the
bases of the latter, now concealed within XVI-century pedestals, but known
to be of the same character. They are obviously later in date than the
capitals of the church of the Nativity at Bethlehem (327-333) (Fig. 35, p. 54),
which are still Roman in style ; but they are earlier than the birth of the
Byzantine capital with crisply raffled leaves of the Acanthus spinosus, which
was invented by the School of Salonica in the V century.
The dome, slightly curved inwards at the base, where the internal diameter
measures 20.60 m. (about 68 ft.), is of wood and double, the outer dome being
covered with lead. The inner surface has stucco decoration, painted and
^gilded. At_the spring of the dome runs a wooden gallery, following its
curve and opening into the interior. It is reached by an iron staircase fixed
against the outer face of the drum. The internal height of the dome is
_30.6o m. (about 100 ft.) above the floor of the aisles.
When the outer face of the external wall on the west and south-west
was stripped during the restoration of 1873 and 1874, the nature of the
masonry was laid bare. It consisted of courses of stone blocks of various
heights. At the top of the wall an unsuspected decorative feature was dis-
covered in the shape of a range of decorative niches crowning the octagon
and forming a sort of external gallery, not for use, but to serve as an
ornamental finish to the building. It belongs, in fact, to the class of galleries
the earliest specimen of which is to be seen in the apse of Sant' Ambrogio
50 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
at Milan (789-824) (Fig. 36, p. 53). The illustrations published by Clermont-
Ganneau1 show these niches (of which there were thirteen on each face) as
round arches springing from dwarf piers, with angle shafts carved out of the
piers, and surmounted by Lombardic cubical capitals formed by the inter-
penetration of a sphere and a cube. Observations made before the niches
were once more hidden by the replacing of the facing showed that originally
they were open arches, which were afterwards turned into niches decorated
with mosaics, and were finally filled in with stone. Clermont-Ganneau con-
sidered that they were of the same date as the foundation of the rotunda, and
originally intended for windows which, later, were blocked by the lowering of
the roof of the aisles.
As it is impossible to be sure whether the construction of the outer wall
was really all of a piece, or even to compare it with other walls in the building
with the object of establishing their identity in date, I confine myself to the
following observations.
(1) The outer wall near the top is set back to the extent of a metre, the
original intention being, no doubt, to provide a support for the timbers of the
roof; and accordingly the existence of windows in that part of the wall would
be inexplicable. From another point of view it is incredible that the beams
rested on the top of the wall, thus giving room for the supposed windows to
light the aisles, for in that case the slope of the roof would have interfered, at
the point where it touched the drum, with the plane of light of the drum itself,
or else would not have had a sufficient gradient to throw off the rain water.
Therefore we must dismiss the idea of a range of windows at the top of
the wall.
(2) Ibn al-Fakih, who counted the windows in 903, found only the
fifty-six which are there to-day. And though he records the number
of piers, of columns, and even of the steps leading to the platform on
which the octagon stands, he makes no mention of the niches which
crowned it.2
(3) In 1047 Nasiri Kusru3 measured the height of the perimetral walls,
and found it to be 20 cubits, that is to say, nearly the same as the present
height of IT m. (about 36 ft.). He also gives an account of the way in
1 Palestine Exploration Fund; Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the years 1873-1874;
The Kubbet es Sakhra, 1899, vol. i, pp. 179-227.
2 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, pp. 120, 121. 3 Op. cit., p. 91.
FIG. 27. — Kairawan. Congregational Mosque.
Leila Regiana Bab (XIII cent.).
FIG. 31.— Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock (VII, IX, XI, and XII cents.).
FIG. 32.— Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock. Interior (VII, IX, XT, and XII cents.).
FIG. 29. — Rome. Arch of Titus.
Capital.
YIG. 34. — Jerusalem. The Dome of
the Rock. Capital of the VI cent.
FIG. 33. — Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock. Interior, with the Sacred
Reck (VIT, IX. XI, and XII cents.).
FIG. 36.— Milan. Basilica of Sant' Ambrogio. View of
the end of the church, with the apse of 789-824.
FIG. 35. — Bethlehem. Church of the Nativity. One of the colonnades of the nave (327-333)-
JERUSALEM 55
which they were built ; but he makes no allusion to the range of niches : yet
we know that his architectural description of the rotunda is both minute and
accurate. Not one geographer, or topographer, or pilgrim mentions these
niches, up to the day when Suliman covered them up with his new facing.
(4) The cubico-spherical Lombardic capital, the history of which I have
traced elsewhere,1 is never found — at least I have never been able to find it —
in the East before the time of the Crusades. Hence it is unlikely that such
a conspicuous use of it should have been made in the days of Abd al- Malik,
and that afterwards it should have been forgotten for so many centuries both
in Palestine and in Syria.
If I may hazard what is merely an opinion, and always assuming that
the walls are all of one date, I think that when the outer wall was built, or
rebuilt under Mamun, it was intended to finish it off with battlements, as had
been done in the congregational mosque of Damascus ; 2 but later, after the
walls had been constructed, the design was changed ; arches were turned at
the top of the walls, and then converted into niches. This work is the
more likely to have been done in the time of Mamun, considering that, a
little later, the minaret of the mosque of Mutawakkil at Samarra (847-861)
was ornamented with niches at the summit, a feature which, on the other
hand, did not appear in the congregational mosque of Damascus (706-714),
in the construction of which, possibly, some of Abd al- Malik's workmen
from Jerusalem were engaged. -At a later date, during the Crusaders'
occupation of Jerusalem, or, perhaps, in the course of Saladin's restoration, the
angle shafts, with their cubical capitals, were carved, while the mosaics, with
which the outer face of the wall was covered in its upper half, were either
renewed or restored. Finally, when Suliman had the whole wall refaced,
the niches were built up.
Constructively, the windows in the Dome of the Rock are round-headed
like the arches of the colonnades. It was the new facing which altered their
appearance. The doors, placed at the cardinal points of the compass, are
rectangular, and have lintels with recessed relieving arches. The porches
which protect them have been either altered or rebuilt.
The arrangement of the interior does not appear to be original, as has
been always supposed. The only part which can be regarded as original is the
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 563-566; (Hoepli), pp. 254-257; (Heinemann), vol. i,
pp. 207-209. 2 MUQADDASI, Op. Cit, p. I?-
^54 6
56 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
disposition of the piers. Nasiri Kusru says distinctly that only two columns
alternated with the piers in the smaller circle, while there were three in the
larger ; whereas Ali of Herat saw them distributed as they are to-day.
The inference would be that between 1047 anc^ IJ73 tne annular arcades
were rebuilt, with an increase of the number of columns in the one which
carried the drum and the dome — the object being to augment its capacity for
bearing the superimposed weight — and a diminution of the number in the
outer circle. The band with Abd al-Malik's inscription would not be touched,
though the decoration below it would be renewed.
My own examination of the building does not confirm De Vogtie's
view that the problems which it involves are of easy solution. On the
contrary, it presents me with a whole series of questions demanding answers.
To satisfy them would require the testing of the masonry in the different
parts of the building, as well as a fresh examination of its artistic features.
These problems have been increased by the instructive information which
Clermont-Ganneau has furnished about the buttresses at the base of the
dome, which differ in structure from that of the lower part of the drum on
its outer face, and also about the stringcourse breaking the inner surface
of the drum, and evidently belonging to the age of the Crusades. A third
point is the construction of the piers in the inner circle, which are composed
of rough blocks of stone and even of rubble, and are quite unlike the
masonry of the outer wall.
Round about the great rotunda stand various smaller ones, records of
which exist from the year 903 onwards. At that date, according to Ibn
al-Fakih, they consisted of the Dome of the Chain, situated in front of the
eastern entrance of the Dome of the Rock, which was supported by twenty
marble columns and covered with lead ; the Dome of the Prophet, to the
north of the Rock ; and the Dome of the Ascension. They are also
mentioned by Muqaddasi in 985, who describes them as of small dimensions,
covered with lead, supported by marble shafts, and open on all sides.1
We will confine ourselves to the Dome of the Chain (Fig. 37, p. 63), as
Arabic writers'2 have stated that it was founded by Abd al-Malik to serve
as a treasury ; nor have there been wanting those who, in our own days,
have believed that it is contemporary with the Dome of the Rock.3
1 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, pp. 121, 123.
2 Ibid., pp. 145, 153. 3 DE VOGU£, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 104.
JERUSALEM 57
This structure is a kiosk, consisting of an internal range of six columns
supporting a hexagonal drum covered by a cupola, and an external concentric
one of eleven columns (two being included in the mihrab) which form the
outer open hendecagonal arcade. The arches are semicircular, with wooden
ties. The marble shafts with their bases have been brought from elsewhere.
The capitals are of various types and dates, from the funnel or melon-shaped
ones of Byzantine origin, down to others betraying the artistic decadence
which we shall see in the capitals made expressly for the galleries in the
congregational mosque of Damascus, and to be ascribed to the time either
of Abd al-Malik or of Mahdi. Lastly, there are some of Arabic style and
still later date.
It is obvious that the building has undergone frequent alterations.
Thus we know that Ibn al-Fakih (903) found it possessing twenty marble
columns, whereas Nasiri Kursu (1047) saw eight marble columns and six
stone piers. At the present time only seventeen columns are to be seen.
Mujiraddin (1496) states distinctly that it was rebuilt by Baybars I (1260-
1277), Sultan of Egypt.1
Such being the state of the case, and the facings preventing an examination
of the masonry, it is impossible to speak definitely about the building. I
will only mention the following points : —
(1) Two features, the round arches and the wooden ties which some
of them have, may bring it into relation with the Dome of the Rock,
and suggest that it belongs to the same date. But do not the walls of the
mosque al-Aqsa, the date of which is quite uncertain, also contain round-
headed windows? And as for the wooden ties, is there not a serious doubt
whether those in Abd al- Malik's building may not be later than 1047 ?
(2) It would be astonishing to find a building of such light construction,
and yet strong enough to survive the series of earthquakes which have
passed over the Haram, and shattered or damaged the structures upon it.
(3) Lastly, if it is true that its original purpose was a treasury, it cannot
have had its present form, but rather must have resembled the treasury
belonging to the mosque of Walid at Damascus (which we shall deal with
presently), viz. a group of columns supporting an enclosed structure covered by
a dome.
The Dome of the Rock, the most beautiful of the earlier Moslem religious
1 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, pp. 121, 152, 153.
58 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
buildings, judging by those which survive and I have seen, conveys two
important lessons.
The persistent use of the round arch all through the works carried out
in the building before the time of Suliman — the service-gallery in the dome,
with its three-lobed arches, is an exception — indicates the form of arch to
which Abd al- Malik's workmen were accustomed, which was still in use after
his time, and is recorded by Muqaddasi.
The adoption of a wooden dome illustrates the traditional practice in
Palestine of using timber for cupolas of large size, a practice perhaps due to
the frequency and severity of earthquakes in those regions. Thus the
' Anastasis ' of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem had a wooden roof, as I
have shown elsewhere.1 And my opinion has the following evidence behind it.
The very brief account of Eusebius2 leaves us without information as
to the nature of the roof of the rotunda of the Resurrection. But the monk
Antiochus3 tells us that at the capture of Jerusalem (614) by Chosroes II it
was burned, a fact which betrays the material of which it was composed. He
also informs us that it was restored by the patriarch Modestus (616-626).
An Armenian pilgrim tells us that the dome of the restored building was
raised on two tiers of columns, twelve in each range ; and that its height
of 100 cubits was equal to the diameter of the whole building.4 We learn
from Arculf5 that it consisted of two concentric ranges of isolated supports
enclosed within an outer wall.
Modestus afterwards reconstructed the dome as it was before, that is
to say, in wood. The fact is confirmed by the statement of Eutychius6 that,
between 813 and 833, the patriarch Thomas imported fifty cedar and pine
trunks from Cyprus, and set to work to rebuild it. ' Gradually removing the
roof he reconstructed it by the insertion of these new beams.' But his recon-
struction took the form of a double dome : ' Above this roof he erected
another one of wood leaving a space between the two in which a man could
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 14-36; (Hoepli), pp. 327-348; (Heinemann), vol. ii,
pp. 12-26.
2 EUSEBIUS, Vita Constantini, iii, 34.
3 MIGNE, Patr.gr., vol. Ixxxix, col. 1427, 1428; Epistola Antiochi Monachi.
4 Palestine Exploration Fund, 1896, pp. 346-349; (Nisbet Bain), Armenian Description of the
Holy Places in the Seventh Century ; MOSES KAGANKATWATSI, History of Agvan.
5 TOBLER, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 146-150; Arculfi Relatio de Locis Sanctis.
6 MIGNE, Patr.gr., vol. cxi, col. 1130, 1131 ; EUTYCHIUS, Annales.
JERUSALEM 59
walk ' — just like the Dome of the Rock. This explains why he was accused
of having rebuilt it on a larger scale than the old one, and in consequence,
put in prison.
But in Jerusalem the ' Resurrection ' was not the only round church with
a wooden roof, for the same material was used in that of the Ascension on
the Mount of Olives, which was rebuilt from the foundations by the patriarch
Modestus1 to replace Constantine's church on the same site.2 It is described
by Arculf,3 who states that its plan imitated that of the Resurrection, and
that it had a wooden roof, except in the central part, where it was open to
the air.
The plan of Abd al-Malik's great building has been invariably regarded
as Byzantine or Hellenistic in origin, from the idea that it was derived from
Constantine's round churches at the Holy Places, and that these were earlier
than the annular rotundas of the West. Choisy 4 connects it with the cathedral
,of Bosra (511-12), the plan of which he describes as Eastern. I have
(demonstrated elsewhere,5 by the evidence of facts, the incorrectness of so
unfounded yet widely accepted a theory, revived of late by Strzygowski 6 with
fresh additions ; and I have shown how, on the contrary, it was in Pagan Rome
that the conception of the annular rotunda, with columns or piers, vaulted, and
crowned with a true and proper dome, was created and developed ; for in
architecture new ideas appear first in germ, and only later reach development
land perfection. The demonstration was perfectly natural, for the circular
plan was a characteristic product of Roman architecture, and its origin may
be traced back to the primitive Italian hut-dwelling.7 When the new
discoveries of Boni on the Palatine at Rome have been fully investigated, they
will be found to shed fresh light on the subject.
All that the East did was occasionally to produce circular buildings of
unbroken outline, with an internal colonnade designed as an additional support
for the roof, which was usually conical in form. Such was the Tholos of
1 MIGNE, Patr.gr., vol. Ixxxix, col. 1427, 1428; Epistola Antiochi Monachi.
2 EUSEBIUS, Vita Constantini, iii, 43.
3 TOBLER, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 162-165 ; Arculfi Relatio de Lotis Sanctis.
4 Histoire de r architecture, vol. ii, p. 97.
5 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 31-36; (Hoepli), pp. 343'348; (Heinemann), vol. ii,
pp. 23-26.
6 The Burlington Magazine, Dec. 1911 ; The Origin of Christian Art.
7 STUART JONES, Companion to Roman History, pp. 89, 190.
6o
Epidaurus,1 the plan of which I reproduce from Marquand2 (Fig. 38). But
whenever an Eastern architect wanted to cover the central space of such
buildings with a vault, he had to turn to Roman models for the design.
On the present occasion, without discussing the grander circular struc-
tures still standing, such as the Pantheon (120-124), and the Imperial
Mausoleum known as Santa Costanza (326-329), I confine myself to repro-
ducing a series of plans of enclosed buildings of circular plan, vaulted, and
of either simple or annular form, taken from Montano3 (Figs. 39, 40, 41, 42,
43, 44, pp. 61, 62, 65) and Bramantino4 (Figs. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, p. 66). The
fact that these buildings were designed for
tombs or temples, as well as their structural
importance, show that they cannot be later
than either the year 313, or the transfer of the
seat of empire to Constantinople. In one
case I also reproduce the elevation (Fig. 42) as
it shows an unlighted gallery round the upper
stage — a sort of anticipation of the service
passages round mediaeval apses. Some of
these structures were of very great size : one,
for instance, on the road to Marino, was more
than 19 m. (62 ft.) in diameter.
The plan of the annular rotunda was
not the only creation of the Roman as against
Eastern builders. The fact is equally true of
polygonal structures with recessed rectangular
or semicircular niches. Constantine's octagonal church at Antioch has indeed
1 CAWADIAS, To lepov TOV 'Aa-KXrjirtov tv 'E7ri8av/ow, pp. 48-71.
2 Greek Architecture, pp. 306, 307.
3 Scielta de varii tempietti antichi, taw. 2, 30 ; Raccolta de tempii e sepolcri disegnati dall' antico,
taw. 5, 22, 23, 40.
With regard to the illustrations of Montano it may be noted : that the plans are correct ; that
the elevations have the missing parts restored from what survived ; and that the decorative and
artistic details are on the whole imaginary. There is no foundation for Soria's statement (in the
Preface to Montano's work) that the buildings which he describes ' could not possibly have existed
in elevation ' ; for some of them are standing at the present day, such as the Nymphaeum of the
Horti Liciniani and the round church of Santa Costanza.
4 MONGERI (Studi del Bramantino), Le rovine di Roma al principio del sec. XVI, taw. 47, 53,
54, 55. 69.
FIG. 38. — Epidaurus. Tholos.
JERUSALEM
01
been alleged as the prototype of this design ; and, as a matter of fact, its
interior did display an alternation of such recesses : ' Within, the house of
prayer was raised to an immense height, having the form of an octagon,
surrounded on every side by chambers (or compartments) both on the
upper and on the ground floor.' l And it seems to have had a flat roof-
But a building of this kind, the appearance of which cannot be satisfactorily
reconstructed from such a slight and vague description, has no predecessors
FIG. 39. FIG. 40.
FIGS. 39 and 40. — Plans of ancient Roman circular buildings.
(From MONTANO, Sciclta de varii tempietti antichi, taw. 2, 30. )
in the Eastern world. Rome, on the other hand, at one time displayed
innumerable structures of this type, mostly of the Pagan epoch and sepulchral
in character, exhibiting the most extraordinary, ingenious, complicated out-
lines imaginable. The plans of some of these are here reproduced, borrowed
from Bramantino3 (Figs. 50, 51, p. 67) and Montano 4 (Figs. 52, 53, 54, pp. 67, 68).
Another may still be seen in the great Nymphaeum of the Licinian Gardens
(253-268).
1 EUSEBIUS, Vita Constant! ni, iii, 50.
'2 DE VOGU£, Syric ccntrale. Architecture civile ft religieuse du Ier au VII' Siecte, vol. i, p. 15.
3 MONGERI, op cit, taw. 29, 33.
4 Scietta de varii tempietti antichi, taw. 42, 43; Raccolta de tempii e sepolcri disegnati dalf1 antico,
tav. 21.
62
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
The complicated internal outline of buildings with the circular plan
had been developed at Rome in the early Imperial age, starting with
FIG. 41.
FIG. 43. FIG. 44.
FIGS. 41, 43, and 44. — Plans of ancient Roman circular buildings.
(From MONTANO, Raccolta ae tempii e sepolcri disegnati dalF antico, taw. 5, 23, 40.)
the Frigidarium in the Stabian Baths at Pompeii, which were of Oscan
origin in* the 'II century B.C., but * had! been remodelled some time after
the establishment of a Roman colony there (80 B.C.) in the time of
FIG. 37. — Jerusalem. The Dome of the Chain, or 'Judgment-seat of David.'
fic. 56. — Tivoli. Villa of Hadrian. Vestibule
of the 'Piazza. d'Oro' (125-135).
FIG. 57. — Rome. Building in the Campus Martius,
called the ' Tempio di Siepe' (117-138).
(From GIOVANNOLI, Vedute degli antichi vestigj di Roma, fogl. 39.)
64
FIG. 60. — Spalato. The Imperial Mausoleum, now the Cathedral (300-305).
FIG. 42. — Ancient Roman circular building.
(From MOXTANO, Raccolta, &c., tav. 22.)
66
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
FIG. 45.
FIG. 46.
O O
FIG. 48. FIG. 49.
FIGS. 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49. — Plans of ancient Roman circular buildings.
(From MONGERI,Z£ ravine, &c., taw. 47, 53, 54, 55, 69.)
JERUSALEM 67
Sulla.1 Another instance is the Domus Augustana as rebuilt (about 85) by
Domitian. But it was the Emperor Hadrian, with all his architectural genius,2
FIG. 50. FIG. 51.
FIGS. 50 and 51. — Plans of ancient Roman polygonal buildings.
(From MONGERI, Le rovine, &c., taw. 29, 33.)
who gave the chief impulse to the creation of structures with elaborate out-
lines, not merely in plan,
whether of the interior or
exterior, but also in eleva-
tion, and in the cupola.
Among such works of his
may be mentioned the
vestibule of the ' Piazza
d'Oro' in the Villa at
Tivoli (125-135) (Figs.
55» 56, pp. 63, 68), and
the so-called ' Tempio di
Siepe' (Fig. 57, p. 63),
the appearance of which
has been preserved by
FIG. 52. FIG. 53.
FIGS. 52 and 53. — Plans of ancient Roman polygonal buildings.
(From MONTANO, Scie/fa, &c., taw. 42, 43.)
1 British and American Archaeological Society of Rome, Feb. isth, 1910; RIVOIRA, The Roman
Thermae, The Baths of Diocletian. Rivista di Roma, 1910, pp. 378, 379, 411-415; RIVOIRA,
Origine delle terme dei Romani.
2 R. ACCADEMIA DEI LiNCEi, Rendiconti, vol. xviii, fasc. 3 ; RIVOIRA, Di Adriano architetto
e dei monumenti adrianei. Nuova Antologia, 16 Aprile 1910; RIVOIRA, Adriano architetto e i
monumenti adrianei.
68
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
A16 Giovannoli,1 while Hiilsen has discovered its plan among the Uffizi
drawings at Florence.2 This very interesting design is here reproduced
(Fig. 58, p. 69), preceding as it does, with its square block hollowed out into
four niches at the angles, and its elongated apse, by some four centuries the
church of St. George at Ezra (515-16) (Fig. 59, p. 70).
What enabled the Roman builders to develop this extraordinary variety
of plan was the hardness of their mortar and the plastic nature of their
building materials.
The history of the origin and development of circular vaulted buildings,
FIG. 54. — Plan of an ancient
Roman polygonal building.
(From MONTANO, Raccolta, &c., tav. 21.)
FIG. 55. — Tivoli. Villa of Hadrian.
Plan of the Vestibule of the
'Piazza d'Oro' (125-135).
and indeed of all Roman vaulted structures on a large scale, the Baths in
particular, will have to be rewritten in the light of my statements and
researches on the subject.3 In the same way it will be necessary to reconsider
1 Vedute degli antichi vestigj di Roma, foglio 39.
2 Sonderabdruck aus den jahresheften des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts, xv, 1912,
pp. 124-142 ; Trajanische und Hadrianische bauten im Marsfelde in Rom.
3 Le origini delP architettura lombarda. Lombardic architecture. R. ACCADEMIA DEI LINCEI,
Rendiconti, vol. xviii, fasc. 3 ; RIVOIRA, Di Adriano architetto e i monumenti adrianei. Nuova
Antologia, 16 Aprile 1910; RIVOIRA, Adriano architetto e i monumenti adrianei. Rivista di Roma,
1910, pp. 378, 379, 411-415 ; RIVOIRA, L'origine delle Terme. Journal of the British and American
Archaeological Society of Rome, vol. iv, pp. 353-360; RIVOIRA, The Roman Thermae, The Baths of
Diocletian.
JERUSALEM
69
the question of the diffusion of this type of building from Rome as a centre,
and the nationality of those by whom that diffusion was carried out. And
it must not be forgotten that, just when the Roman science of construction
and statics reached its zenith, and immediately after the transfer of the seat
of empire to Constantinople (330), the East was found to be so poor in
architects and builders, that first Constantine the Great (334 and 337), and
then Constantius II (344), were obliged to grant exemption from public
burdens in order to attract them.1 Such
a state of things was unheard of in Im-
perial Rome before she lost the source of
her vitality.
In these days when Schools of Art
are being discovered all over the East,
and theories run riot on the evidence
of little else than jewellery, enamels,
ivories, textiles, painting, and carving—
as if it were to sources like these that
architects went for the solution of con-
structive and statical problems, or for
the suggestion of new types of plan and
elevation — this history which has to be
written, and these studies which have to
be made, will be found to be full of
instruction, for they will bring to light
three facts.
The first is that the grandest Imperial
vaulted buildings, showing the greatest
variety and complexity of form, are of
Roman origin.
The second is that the ideas embodied in the plans and construction
of such buildings were spread abroad by means of Latin architects educated
in the Roman school.
The third is that the share of Greek or Hellenized architects in creating
this type is either small or negligible. Let it be remembered that Apollodorus,
summoned to Rome by Trajan, left his mark on the emperor's new Forum
FIG. 58. — Rome. Plan of the building
in the Campus Martius called the
'Tempio di Siepe' (117-138).
(From the drawing, No. 2976, in the Uffizi
at Florence.)
1 HAENEL, Codices Gregorianus Hermogenianus Theodosianus, lib. xiii, tit. iv, 1-3.
;o
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
in the shape of buildings which were elegant in appearance, but had flat
ceilings ; and not in the form of vaulted structures on a grand scale and
of original plan. And when he built the Baths of Trajan, he merely
imitated the existing Baths of Titus, without leaving any impress of originality
upon them. In fact, who has ever thought of the architect from Damascus
as specially distinguished for his thermal buildings ?
Thus, for example, in Diocletian's palace at Spalato (300-305 ),1 the
general plan of which goes back to the Roman stationary camp,2 evidence
will be found in more than one feature, from the architectural point of view,
of Roman design and Roman workmanship. For
instance, the Imperial Mausoleum with its internal
recesses (now the cathedral) belongs to a Latin
sepulchral type of building (Fig. 60, p. 64) ; and no
less Roman is the heavy, overloaded, internal archi-
trave, recalling the one in the same emperor's Baths
at Rome — a fashion which began in the time of
Hadrian (117-138), as is shown by the drawing of
A16 Giovannoli which I used as an illustration in
a former work, and reproduced here again a few
pages back (Fig. 57, p. 63).3 The remarkable brick
dome, made up of tiers of fan-shaped arches (Fig.
6 1, p. 73), has no analogy in any Eastern work, but
it does connect itself with the very singular cupola
of an ancient Roman annular rotunda, a drawing
of which, by some unknown hand of the XVI
century, I found in the Uffizi Collection at Florence.
It is developed from spherical pendentives, and is supported by compound
piers (Fig. 62, p. 73). Again, the corbelled arcade of the Golden Gate
(Fig. 63, p. 74) recalls, on a smaller scale, those, either horizontal or stepped,
on the principal front of Diocletian's Baths at Rome, which were opened
in 306 (Fig. 64, p. 74).
Another point which I would note about Diocletian's palace is that the
feature of arches springing directly from columns is not of Oriental" origin, as
FIG. 59. — Ezra. Plan of the
Church of St. George
1 BuLid, RUTAR, Guida di Spalato e Salona, p. 67.
2 FROTHINGHAM, Roman Cities in Northern Italy and Dalmatia, pp. 311, 312.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Heinemann), vol. ii, p. 40, Fig. 401.
JERUSALEM 7i
is universally believed.1 It really comes from Campania. The earliest
authentic instances of open colonnades carrying arches are to be found in
a D D o
a D a a
a a o a
D D Q
D D a
a o D
a o a
D L3==L_J L_esO G G C
a a a a
a D D a
D a a a
FIG. 66. — Plan of an ancient Roman
building with four porticoes.
(From MONGERI, Le ravine, &c., tav. 58.)
FIG. 67. — Plan of an ancient Roman
building with four porticoes.
(From MONTANO, Scielta, &c., tav. 25.)
FIG. 68. — Plan of an ancient Roman building
with three porticoes.
(From MONTANO, Raccolta, &c., tav. 3.)
the 'oecus' of the House of Meleager (Fig. 65, p. 74), and the peristyle
of the House of Fortune at Pompeii. Other writers have already called
1 Bullettino di Archeologia e Storia dalmata, 1908, Supplemento, pp. 1-17; STRZYGOWSKI,
Spalato, una tappa dell' arte romanica nel suo passaggio dall' Oriente nell' Occidente.
72 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
attention to the fact that it was the Romans who developed the arcade as
an important architectural feature.1
Before leaving the Dome of the Rock I should like to call attention
to the four porches which cover the entrances, by way of recalling what I
have written elsewhere on the subject ; 2 viz. that it is mere assertion 3 to say
that the porch is a feature of Eastern origin, and that the earliest examples
are to be found in Syrian churches of the VI century. As a fact, the
Romans had used it freely from Pagan times onwards. Herewith I give
the plans of three buildings, apparently of sepulchral character, taken from
Bramantino4 (Fig. 66, p. 71) and Montano 5 (Figs. 67, 68, p. 71), possessing
three or four porticoes apiece. Constantine's basilica of St. Peter at the
Vatican also had an elaborate porch corresponding to the ' porta regia maior. '
THE CONGREGATIONAL MOSQUE OF DAMASCUS. — The following is the
commonly received account of the origin of the Ummayyad mosque at
Damascus.
A temple of the Sun or of Jupiter, going back to the pre-Roman
epoch, and probably to the reign of Antiochus of Cyzicus (112-95 B«c.), or
else belonging to the Roman period, and most probably to the first or second
century of the Christian era, was transformed into a church by Theodosius I
(378-395), or Arcadius (395-408), or else by Theodosius II (408-450). When
Damascus fell irrevocably into the hands of the Moslems in 636, they made
a division of the building, keeping one half for themselves and assigning
the other half to the Christians. Finally, Walid I (705-715) took possession
of the whole building and turned it into a mosque. In so doing he may
have entirely rebuilt it, or he may have merely altered it, or, again, he
may have confined himself to decorating it in a style of great splendour
and magnificence. The local tradition, both Christian and Moslem, agrees
that the great mosque of Damascus was originally a Pagan temple, which
afterwards became a Christian church, and was finally transformed into a
mosque.
1 MARQUAND, op. cit., p. 255.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 237-239; (Hoepli), pp. 271-273; (Heinemann), vol. i,
pp. 220-221. i .
3 CATTANEO, op. cit., pp. 75, 76.
4 MONGERI, op. cit., tav. 58.
5 Scielta de varii tempietti antichi, tav. 25; Raccolta de tempii, e sepokri disegnati dall'antico, tav. 3.
73
C
rt x
C u
c3 <**"""*•
O) O
Is
*o
d
74
cu
o
-
<u a>
be -C
cj cj
o
PH
(U
"S
O
'rt
(0.
C/3
DAMASCUS
75
Let us now examine the building and see what account it can give of
itself in its present condition.
The site is a rectangle of some 163 by 98 m. (about 530 by 320
ft.), enclosed by four walls which have square towers at the angles. Rather
less than half of the enclosure is occupied by the part devoted to worship.
The rest of the area consists of a court surrounded on three of its
IT!,
r - -
1
!
o o !
O.
14
1
I
i
i
_i_ j
3
•
'
•
13
|g n 0°/ 8 ? w
4
— -«^
Q
_^__ Pre- Roman.
lUXUl
imamiwm By/.antine.
FIG. 69. — Damascus, i Sketch plan of the Mosque of Walid (VIII cent.).
1. Minaret al-Arus.
2. Bab al-Amara.
3. Bab Gayrun.
4. Minaret of Isa.
5. Mihrab al-Sahabah.
6. Tomb of John the Baptist.
7, 8, 9. Entrances to the temple of the Roman period.
10. Mihrab al-Maqsura.
11. Bab Ziyadah.
12. Mihrab al-Hanbali.
13. Minaret al-Gharbiya.
14. Bab al-Barid.
inner sides by covered walks intended to shelter the faithful (Fig. 69). The
interior of the place of prayer (Figs. 70, 71, pp. 77> ?8), measuring about
139 by 38 m. (452 by 125 ft.), is divided into three aisles of equal breadth,
running east and west. A cross-aisle cuts it into two equal halves. Each
half is divided by eleven arches, whichjspring from columns standing on
pedestals and carry a second tier of smaller arches springing from squat
columns which support the beams of the roof.
1654 8
76 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
I may remark at this point that the oldest example of a sacred building
containing a nave with two tiers of columns designed to carry the roof, is to
be found in the so-called temple of Neptune at Paestum (perhaps of the
V century B.C.) (Figs. 72, 73, pp. 83, 84), a title which Spinazzola regards as
erroneous, it having been recently discovered that the name belonged to
another and older temple (VI century B.C.) standing close by.
I would also remark that there appears to be no foundation in fact for
the conjectural restoration of a hall in the palace of Mshatta1 with two tiers of
columns, one above the other, the upper one being arcaded and having the
arches tied together by chains, though everything suggests that this method
of reinforcement was not in use at the period. This reconstruction seems
to me to have been made in defiance of the ordinary rules of statics, and on
the very slight evidence which the ruins of the palace afford.
The transept mentioned above contains four large piers which support
the great arches carrying the central dome of about 13 m. (43 ft.) in diameter.
The drum passes from a square into an octagon by means of four angle
niches, partly recessed in the wall and partly projecting from it. At the
base of each is a small hood-shaped niche. The drum is lighted at the top
by windows, below which runs a narrow gallery. The dome is also pierced
by openings, and is formed of tufa blocks set in mortar and built in rings.
It was constructed without centering, as I saw for myself during the restora-
tion after the disastrous fire of 1893. The pendentives are built with
blocks of hard limestone set in coarse mortar (Fig. 74, p. 83).
The portions of the transept on either side of the dome have flat roofs,
and in that to the south is placed the central mihrab. This plan of a
building with longitudinal aisles, bisected by a transept, was no novelty. The
Basilica Aemilia in the Forum at Rome, in the shape in which it was
rebuilt by Aemilius Paullus in 55 B.C., the work being finished in 34 B.C.,2
had its nave and three aisles divided by a cross-aisle in the middle. This
has been made clear by the recent excavations. It was, no doubt, through
this transept, which must have had a door at either end, that the armed
horse and foot soldiers passed wh,en they came down from the Esquiline and
burst into the Forum on the occasion of Galba's murder.3
1 Jahrbuch der Koniglich Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen, 1904, pp. 205-373, taf. v. and vi.
SCHULZ, STRZYGOWSKI, Mschatta.
2 DE RUGGIERO, op. cit., pp. 399, 400.
3 Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Plutarchi vitae parallelae, vol. v, FaX/Jas, cap. xxvi.
77
FIG. 70. — Damascus. Mosque of \Yalid before the fire of 1893.
colonnades of the central nave (VIII cent.).
One of the
FIG. 71. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid under restoration. Central nave
(VIII cent.).
DAMASCUS 79
The sanctuary is enclosed on three sides by walls, and lighted by
numerous round-headed unsplayed windows. The fourth or northern side is
open to the court by an arcade with piers, above which rises the lofty wall
which contains the windows.
After the fire of 1893 tne interior was restored on the old lines. The
transept, however, was in part rebuilt, the other part being merely restored ;
and the drum of the dome was increased in height by nearly a metre.
Before that date the upper of the two arcades had square dwarf piers and
semicircular arches. In the lower tier the columns, which stood on pedestals,
were surmounted by capitals, the majority of which were Corinthian, of
various dates and styles, in some cases not fitting their columns. They carried
pulvins forming imposts for the arches, which were of slightly horse-shoe form.
Moreover, the dome was elliptical in shape, with two centres ; and was entirely
built of tufa blocks set in mortar of unsuitable character. Its form was due
to the fact that the piers were set so as to form a slightly oblong plan.
The four piers of the drum of the dome consist in each case of two
separate piers set back to back, of different heights and measuring in section
3.20 by i. 80 m., and 3.20 by 2.40 m. (about loj by 6 ft. and io£ by 8 ft.).
We cannot be sure when this strengthening took place. We do know,
however, that Walid's dome had to be built twice over ; for the first one fell
owing to the want of experience of the builders who, in view of the saturated
nature of the subsoil, ought to have raised the angle piers on piles, and not
merely on vine wood faggots. The result was that the dome had to be
built over again.1
Moreover, one of the Cufic inscriptions on these piers tells us that
the original dome was rebuilt in io82,2 under the direction of Malik Shah
when Muktadi was caliph (1075-1094), in consequence of the fire of io69,3
or else after another mentioned by Ibn Jubair,4 which may be identified by
the occasion of the siege and capture of Damascus about the year 1077.
Accordingly, the duplication of the piers must have taken place either under
Walid, or in 1082. I incline to the latter date, as it is inconceivable that
after the collapse of the first dome, involving as it did the reconstruction of
1 MAQRIZI (Quatremere), Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de VEgypte, vol. ii, i ; App., p. 266.
CAETANI, Annali, vol. iii, i, p. 388.
2 Journal Asiatique, 1891, i, pp. 420-423; VAN BERCHEM, Notes £ archtologie arabe.
3 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de FEgypte, vol. ii, i, App., p. 285.
4 Op. cit., p. 259.
80 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
the foundations of the supporting piers, the latter should be erected in a
duplicated form, and not as single solid piers.
I find no description of Walid's dome. Muqaddasi1 only says that it
was of great size, and was crowned by an orange supporting a pomegranate,
both of gold. It is not improbable that it was modelled on the Dome of
the Rock at Jerusalem (687-691), and may have had a double cupola of
wood, rising out of a high circular drum. We do not know how the drum
was connected with the arches of the square base. It may have been by
squinches, but it was certainly not by means of niches like the present
ones, copied from their predecessors, as Choisy2 believed, thereby misleading
students of architectural origins. If we go back to the history as told us
by the monuments themselves, in the days of Walid the Moslem world as
yet knew nothing of the pendentive in the form of a tall niche, still less of
the kind employed at Damascus. What it did know was a squinch or raccord
serving the same purpose. One has recently been discovered in Persia, in
the ruins of the palaces of Chosroes II (591-628) at Qasr es-Sherin.3 So
far as we can judge, the ordinary niche-shaped pendentive did not make its
appearance among the Moslems before the caliphate of Aziz (975-996), as we
shall see when we come to the mosque of Hakim at Cairo. The other form,
which also consists of a niche, but with its sides standing free as at Damascus,
is of later origin, and we shall discuss it when we deal with the mosque
al-Azhar (970-972) at Cairo.
In reality, the dome, as it existed before 1893, must be ascribed to the
XV century.
I note here that an idea of the appearance of Walid's cupola might be
obtained, if we possessed it, from the description of the green dome of the
residence of the Emir Muawiya, afterwards caliph (661-680), which stood
to the south of the precinct of the mosque,4 and gave its name (al-Hadra) to
the whole building.
Of Malik Shah's dome, on the other hand, we have a vivid and detailed
description by Ibn Jubair.5 It was a double cupola, hemispherical in form,
and recalled the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem. The two cupolas, one
1 Op. cit., pp. 17, 1 8.
2 Eart de batir chez les Byzantins, pp. 85, 166, pi. xxi.
3 DE MORGAN, Mission scientifique en Perse. Recherches archtologiques, vol. iv, 2, pp. 341-357.
4 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de I'Egypte, vol. ii, i, App., p. 263.
5 Op. cit., pp. 254, 255, 286-289.
DAMASCUS 81
above the other, separated by a wooden flooring, were formed of timber
strengthened by radiating ribs, also of wood, converging at a crowning wooden
ring, and were tied together half-way by iron rods. The outer cupola was
covered with sheets of lead like the other roofs of the mosque. The interior
one was richly ornamented on its inner surface with rosettes carved in wood
and other artistic and original carvings, as well as with exquisite polychrome
decorations. The whole was a blaze of gold. The dome was reached by
a staircase on the outside, and through one of the windows at the bottom
of the outer cupola. There was another set of windows in the inner cupola.
The base rested on four piers. It was circular in form, built of large blocks
of stone, and lighted by windows which had dwarf piers in the jambs.
Anyone who has studied on the spot the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem
will at once be struck by the numerous analogies between its cupola and the
one at Damascus as described by Ibn Jubair. Note especially that it was
reached from the roof, that it was surrounded by a gallery, that one could
enter it, go round it, and examine the interior of the mosque. We also see
how the writer has exaggerated the soaring height of the Damascus dome.
The Dome of the Rock, imposing as it is, has no excessive elevation ; and
the one at Damascus, as we are told by Ibn Jubair himself, was reputed to
be lower.
At the time when Malik Shah's dome was built, its base also must
have been constructed. His dome was probably destroyed, as has been
suggested by others,1 in the catastrophe caused by order of Tamerlane in
1400, when everything in the mosque which was not of stone was destroyed by
fire. The consequent restoration was carried out by order of the Sultan of
Egypt, Malik Muayyad (i4i2-i42i).2 It was then that the previous wooden
cupola was replaced by one of masonry, which has been rebuilt since the
fire of 1893. In the reconstruction of the XV century must be included the
drum, which then assumed a polygonal form. The one which Ibn Jubair
saw in 1184 was circular.3
The very incomplete study of the structure of the outer walls of the
mosque, which is all that the existing conditions allowed me to make, has
enabled me to arrive at results which agree, on the whole, with Mr Dickie's
1 SALAUIN, Manuel d 'art musulman, vol. i, p. 81.
2 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de l'£gypte, vol. ii, i, App., pp. 286, 287.
3 Op. cit., p. 288.
82 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
account.1 The eastern wall, with the adjuncts at the angles on the north
and south sides, is built of blocks of stone, and is strengthened on its outer
face by wall-piers carrying an architrave with a dentilled cornice, part of
which survives. This is the oldest work in the building, and is regarded
as pre-Roman (Fig. 75, p. 84).
In the southern wall, partly rebuilt in its western half in I3i8-i9,2 are
remains of a structure slightly projecting from the line of the wall, and with
masonry of a different type from that which we have seen before. It
contains three doors, viz. a larger one in the centre with a smaller one on
either side ; each of the latter being surmounted by an 'aedicula,' and separ-
ated from the larger one by a pair of niches. This work is believed to be
of the Roman period, and its carving recalls specimens in the temples at
Baalbec (II and III centuries). The Biblical Greek inscriptions on the two
doors which can be seen on the outside (Fig. 76, p. 87), viz. the central one and
the one to the left, seem to have been added when the Pagan temple gave place
to the church of St. John the Baptist. This transformation appears to have
taken place in the reign of the Emperor Arcadius, who, according to a lost
Greek inscription, restored the building.3 But, even if he were not its
founder, its construction and completion may be to a large extent due to
him.
The other parts of the southern wall which were not rebuilt in the XIV
century (including the angle adjunct on the eastern side and the quadrangular
bases of the two minarets at the south-east and south-west corners), and are
strengthened by buttresses, reveal, in their lowest part, the fact that they
were not built in either the Roman or the pre-Roman period, or again at the
same time as the upper part of that wall, which belongs to the work of
Walid. They must be ascribed to the Christian epoch previous to the
Moslem conquest. The north and east sides may, with the exception of
the angle adjuncts mentioned above, be regarded on the whole as belonging
to the VIII century. The three Roman doors were blocked up in the time
of Walid, and the central one was partly filled by one of the transept
wall-piers, while the western one gave place to the principal mihrab. The
1 Palestine Exploration Fund, 1897, pp. 268-282; The Great Mosque of the Omeiyades,
Damascus.
2 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de PEgypte, vol. ii, r, App., p. 282.
3 PORTER, Five Years in Damascus^ vol. i, pp. 61-77.
^o
2 ^f
o £
~ c
2 8
•o X
§ X
Si X
g*~
c X
5: <U
5 £
= <§
II
O «>
u C
• ""*
£ «
o
r- c
o
o
£ >
3 * —
»*>
r»
O
84
FIG. 72. — Paestum. Temple with colonnades in two tiers (V cent. B.C. ?).
FIG. 75. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid. Wall of the pre-Roman period.
DAMASCUS 85
wealth of precious stones described by the Arabic writers earlier than the
XI century,1 as lavished on the decoration of the latter, is quite in keeping
with Walid's standard of magnificence. Moreover, the ' garib ' or central
aisle with its imposing entrance, set at right angles to the mosque, was
intended to confer all the dignity possible on the sacred recess, and to bring
it better within the view of the throngs of the faithful in the court.
It has been stated that this mihrab was the first to be made in the form
of a niche, the second being that in the mosque at Medina as restored by
Walid.2 But in fact the earliest niche pointing in the direction of the qibla
seems to have been made at Damascus before the time of Walid, and this
would be the subordinate mihrab seen, at the same time as the principal one,
by Muqaddasi,3 who says that it was intended for the private use of the sultan,
and that, having fallen into a bad state, it was restored in his time to its
original condition at the said sultan's expense.
Ibn Jubair 4 calls it the mihrab of the Companions of Mohammed, incorrectly
according to Caetani,5 and adds that it was the first built in Islam. From a
statement by Ibn Khaldun6 it may be gathered that this niche was the work
of Muawiya. What he says is this : the ' maqsura ' is the isolated enclosure,
containing the mihrab and everything in and near to it, reserved for the sultan
at the time of public prayer ; the use of such an enclosure is said to have been
introduced by the founder of the Ummayyad dynasty in consequence of the
assassination of the Caliph Ali (656-661), of the attempt on Amr, the governor
of Egypt, and of the serious wound inflicted on Muawiya himself in 66 1 by
the Kharijite sectaries.
This inference is opposed to the view of Lammens,7 as the maqsura (one
of the secular creations ascribed to Muawiya) was originally a kind of private
closet set apart for the sovereign in the mosque, to which he retired for the
purpose of deliberation. The Abbasides transformed it into a private enclosure
from which they assisted at the services in the mosque. Moreover, the attempt
on Muawiya must have happened more than two years before the murder of
Ali, or at least in 659.
1 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, pp. 227, 228, 236.
2 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de FJtgypte, vol. ii, i, App., p. 283.
3 Op. cit., p. 18. 4 Op. cit, pp. 255, 256.
5 CAETANI, Annali, vol. iii, i, p. 389. 6 ProUgomenes historiqucs, vol. ii, p. 72.
7 Universite Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth, Melanges de la Facultt Orientate, 1907. Etudes sur le
regne du calif e Omaiyade Mo'awia I'", pp. 32, 33, 94, 95.
86 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
The fact, nevertheless, remains that Muawiya had the first maqsura made
at Damascus, in 664-65 according to Caetani j1 and Asakir's (tn75)2 statement
that the congregational mosque at Damascus did not originally possess a prayer
niche, does not exclude the possibility that it was provided with one under that
caliph. However that may be, before the construction of Walid's great niche,
another of smaller size had already been erected by Moslems ; 3 and this was
clearly the one which was restored in the time of Muqaddasi and left untouched
by Walid. Hence the necessity for its repair about the year 985.
Besides these two mihrabs Ibn Jubair noticed a third, known as that of
the Hanifites, placed, for reasons of symmetry, in the western half of the south
wall. It was, perhaps, made in the course of the works of 1082, for it is not
mentioned by Muqaddasi.
I observe here that the mihrab is derived from the apse of the church,
and not from the shrine of the principal image of Buddha.4
Near the western angle of the south wall is a door with a relieving
arch above it, but not ancient. The original main entrance on this side of
the mosque was the Bab as-Saat (the Gate of the Hours), which was towards
the south-east angle.5 It is interesting to read the description by Ibn
Jubair6 of the remarkable water-clock which was the origin of the name of
the gate.
The front of the mosque (Figs. 77, 78, pp. 87, 88) was from the first
designed with arcades having arches of slightly horse-shoe form, supported by
piers measuring 1.50 by 1.20 m. (about 5 by 4 ft.), as I was able to ascertain
during the recent works of restoration, my view being confirmed by the
architect (Apery) in charge of them, and not by columns, as has been so
often stated. These arches had doors, and were not left open, as has been
stated.7 As late as the X century all the Syrian mosques, with the exception
of the one at Jericho, were closed in the same way on the side of the
court.8 Later, the arches in question seem to have been thrown open,
though they were provided with curtains.9
The end wall of the transept, which is strengthened by buttresses
corresponding to the arcades inside and the buttresses of the south wall,
1 Chronographia, p. 493. 5 MUQADDASI, op. cit., p. 20.
2 CAETANI, Annali, vol. iii, i, p. 384. 6 Op. cit, pp. 261, 262.
3 Ibid., vol. iii, i, pp. 388, 389. 7 SPIERS, Architecture East and West, p. 222.
4 HAVELL, Indian Architecture, pp. 5, 6. 8 MUQADDASI, op. cit., p. 75.
9 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de FEgypte, vol. ii, i, App., p. 273.
FIG. 76.— Damascus. Mosque of Walicl. Architrave of
door of the Roman period.
FIG. 77. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid before the fire of 1893. Fagade (VIII cent.).
88
FIG 78. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid under restoration.
Facade (VIII cent).
FIG. 79. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid under restoration. North and west
sides of the court (VIII and XV ? cents.).
FIG. 80. — Damascus. Mosque of Wai id.
Capital of the Graeco-Roman period.
FIG. 8 1. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid.
Capital of the Moslem period.
~
2
FIG. &2. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid under restoration. North side of the
court (VIII and XV? cents.) with the minaret al-Arus (X and XII cents.).
FIG. 83. — Damascus. Tomb of Saladin.
FIG. 84. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid after the fire of 1893. Facade
(VIII cent.) and minaret al-Gharbiya (1483).
DAMASCUS 91
is pierced by a triplet of arches (the supports have been rebuilt with abaci
surmounting the capitals, instead of pulvins as at first), above which is a
triplet window. Both are enclosed in a single large arch. The gable
contains a window flanked by two round openings.
The quadrangle on to which the front looks is surrounded by a two-
storied cloister (Fig. 79, p. 88). The upper gallery on the east and west sides
retains the original alternation of piers and columns. That on the north,
with piers only, is due to a reconstruction later than the XIV century,
for Ibn Batuta l (t 1377) found the old arrangement of columns and piers
still there.
The arches on the ground floor are rather larger than semicircles ; those
of the upper story are round. These arches were designed with polychrome
voussoirs, like those in the vestibules.
The columns have been brought from other buildings, and are sometimes
made to fit by the aid of pedestals. They are surmounted by alien Corinthian
capitals of the Graeco- Roman period (Fig. 80, p. 89), but also in some cases
by capitals of various kinds made for their places. Some of these are cubical
funnel-shaped with the angles cut off, the surfaces thus obtained being some-
times occupied by leaves. Others are surrounded by smooth leaves, the tips
of which are alternately pointed and rounded. Others are of rude Corinthian-
esque type, with acanthus or even palm leaves, almost devoid of undercutting,
and sometimes having, instead of cauliculi, crocket leaves at the angles. There
must also have been some of Composite type. The specimen of poor work-
manship here illustrated (Fig. 81, p. 89) may have come from the upper gallery
on the north side. The capitals in the galleries are surmounted by pulvins.
In the northern side of the quadrangle a door opens : the Bab al-Faradis
(Gate of Paradise or of the Gardens) of Muqaddasi,2 the Bab an-Natifiyyin
(Gate of the Sweetmeat Sellers) of Ibn Jubair,3 known to-day as the Bab
Amara. Doubts exist4 as to where the gate so named by Muqaddasi stood,
in view, for one thing, of his statement about the age of the minaret close
by, known as the Madinet al-Arus (Minaret of the Wife), and supposed to
have been built by Walid,5 and therefore to be the oldest in existence,6
which is not the case (Fig. 82, p. 89).
1 IBN BATUTA, op. cit., vol. i, p. 200. 2 Op. cit, p. 20. 8 Op. cit., p. 260.
4 MUQADDASI, op. cit., p. 20, note 2. LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems^ p. 230.
5 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de fAgyptc, vol. ii, i, App., p. 273.
6 PORTER, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 61-77.
1654
92 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
The oldest part of this minaret, that is to say, the large square tower,
shows two different kinds of masonry. Near the ground it consists of big
blocks; the upper part is built of dressed stone. Neither resembles the work
of Walid's time in the mosque and quadrangle.
The view which I take of its history is as follows. It was built a little
before Muqaddasi's coming to Damascus (about 985), was seriously damaged
by the fire of H74,1 and was rebuilt, except the lowest part, by Saladin the
Great, whose tomb is close by (Fig. 83, p. 90). To this rebuilding belongs the
square tower with its roof: the slight structure above it is a later addition.
Western influence of the XII century is betrayed by the two-light openings
in the main tower, with pointed or horse-shoe arches and cubical capitals cut
out of the same piece as the shaft and base, enclosed in the sunk face of a
single arch, and also by the small arched corbel course below them.
The minaret seen by Muqaddasi was a simple tower, and in the X
century the Syrian minarets were of that form.2 It was also decorated with
mosaics, and as I do not find that minarets were so embellished before the
erection of that built by Abd al-Rahman III at Cordova in 945-46, we have
here the proof of Muqaddasi's statement that the minaret al-Arus at Damascus
was of recent origin in 985.
Walid's mosque had four minarets placed at the angles of the outer wall.
Two of them are the south-east and south-west corner towers of the original
Christian building, the lowest parts of which still survive, and upon which
Walid built. The other two stand at the interior north-east and north-west
angles, and were built by him. This arrangement was derived from the four
corner turrets erected in 673 under Muawiya's orders in the mosque of
Amr at Fustat. It was also applied to the mosque at Medina on the
occasion of Walid's restoration.3 The fact that the towers at Damascus are
older than the mosque is confirmed by the very early belief that the minarets
were originally watch-towers or astronomical observatories of the Greek period,
and that they had belonged to the church of St. John.4
The minarets on the north side fell,5 and were not rebuilt. They were
no longer there in Ibn Jubair's time, as we learn from him.6 The other two
1 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de VEgypte, vol. ii, i, App., p. 287.
2 MUQADDASI, op. cit, p. 75. 8 BURTON, op. cit, vol. ii, p. 75.
4 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, p. 234. MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks
de ftigypte, vol. ii, i, App., p. 273.
5 MAQRIZI, op. cit, vol. ii, i, App., p. 273. 6 IBN JUBAIR, op. cit, p. 257.
DAMASCUS 93
on the south side are not original. The eastern one, the Madinet Isa
(Minaret of Jesus), having been damaged by the fire of 1271-72, was rebuilt
in a more artistic form at the cost of the Christians, who were believed to
have been responsible for the fire.1 It is not, therefore, of the XI century
as Saladin suggests.2 The western one, the Madinet al-Gharbiya, was restored
in 1483 3 by Qait Bey, Sultan of Egypt (1468-1495) (Fig. 84, p. 90).
From the east and west sides of the outer wall of the mosque project
two vestibules, which also have upper galleries. They are known as the Bab
Gayrun or Gate of Gayrun, and the Bab al-Barid or Gate of the Post. Here,
too, the capitals of the columns are in some cases of alien origin, while others
have been made for their places (Figs. 85, 86, p. 99). The western vestibule
has a double colonnade in front of it, with funnel-shaped capitals carrying pulvins,
possibly of the VIII century, and with piers at intervals, forming a covered
gallery leading to a great monumental arch, known as the Bab al-Barid
(Fig. 87, p. 99), the pediment of which was originally supported by two cruciform
piers at the ends and four columns between them. The carving is clearly of
the same date as that on the triple southern entrance to the mosque. Its
Corinthian capitals, too, recall many of the same order in the lower galleries
round the court.
The three domed structures standing in the court of the mosque are none
of them original, or even as old as the time of Ibn Jubair, as may be seen from
his description of their predecessors.4 The one of octagonal form, however,
on the west, with its alien columns standing on the modern pavement of the
court and surmounted by Graeco- Roman capitals (Fig. 88, p. 100), is interesting
from our point of view, as it shows us a reproduction on a small scale of the
one mentioned by Muqaddasi,5 which was evidently the same as that seen two
centuries later by Ibn Jubair, and was the ancient treasury of the mosque.
It was an octagon consisting of eight lofty columns decorated with polychrome
mosaics, and supporting a large domed structure.
I may remark here that as late as the X century in Syria the public
treasury of the principal cities of each province was to be found in the chief
mosque of the place, where it occupied a chamber raised upon piers or
columns.6 A structure of this kind must have been derived from the typical
1 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamclouks de F£gypte, vol. ii, i, App., p. 273.
2 Manuel d 'art musulman, vol. i, p. 81. 5 Op. cit., p. 18.
8 PORTER, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 61-77. 6 MUQADDASI, op. cit., p. 75.
4 IBN JUBAIR, op. cit., pp. 257. 258.
94 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
' horrea ' of Roman times, standing on four isolated supports. An instance of
the traditional survival of its form is to be seen in the interesting and
sometimes elaborately carved ' horreos ' of the province of Oviedo in Asturias.
The great Ummayyad mosque of Damascus, placed fourth in order of
dignity by the Moslem world, those of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem taking
precedence, was from the first regarded as one of the wonders of architecture.
It is described as the most magnificent in Islam by Yaqubi1 in 891, by Istakri
(951), whose work was republished by Ibn Haukal2 in 978, and by Muqaddasi
about the year 985. 3 Others called it one of the palaces of paradise.4 The
caliphs Mahdi (775-785) and Mamun (about 813-833) after seeing it declared
that it was unrivalled and the most wonderful building in the world,5 an
encomium which was not interested, coming as it did from two of the
Abbasides.
Its fame was probably due to the excessive splendour and wealth of its
decorations. We know that the work carried out by Walid, begun in 706
according to Masudi's (953) 6 account, took eight years to finish, as we are
told by Ibn al-Fakih (about 903).' And the cost was so great that,
according to the last authority, it absorbed the land tax of the empire for
seven years. With a building where such a free use was made of alien
material, and in which portions of the pre-existing structure were preserved,
such enormous expense must have been largely due to the decorations and
embellishments, the beauty of which bafHed description. Moreover, gold
and precious stones were used in lavish profusion.
The walls of the place of prayer, both without and within, were com-
pletely faced with parti-coloured marbles, enamelled tiles, and mosaics glittering
with gold, depicting vegetable forms and famous cities. The battlements
crowning the building, which have all disappeared, were also embellished
with mosaics. Below the gilded ceilings with their stucco ornaments ran a
band of inscriptions on a gold ground. The capitals were gilded. The piers
and arches with their gilt keystones were decorated with mosaics. The
interior of the dome, as we have already seen, was radiant with gold, while
1 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, p. 232.
2 Ibid., p. 236. 3 Op. cit, p. 17.
4 MAQRIZI; Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de FEgypte, vol. ii, 3, App., pp. 275, 276.
5 Ibid., p. 276.
6 Societe Asiatique; MA^OUDI, Les Prairies rfOr, p. 87 (Barbier de Meynard).
7 LE STRANGE, op. cit, p. 233.
DAMASCUS 95
its exterior was crowned by a golden orange surmounted by a pomegranate
of the same metal. The principal mihrab was a blaze of gilding, and around
it were inlaid great cut pieces of agate and turquoise. Above was a golden
vine. The pavement was of mosaic. The windows and the arches of the
arcade in the northern wall were filled with gilded lattices and glass of
many colours. The pavement of the court was of marble. In the galleries
and vestibules, walls, arches, and windows had mosaic decoration. The
ceilings and vaults were finely painted, and had stucco ornaments. The
doors were of gilt metal. All the openings were protected by strips of lead.1
Important specimens of the original decorations of the building are to
be seen in the two vestibules in the shape of: marble facings; marble intarsia
work with geometrical designs ; stucco ornaments ; window lattices of cement
with remains of coloured glass ; mosaics with trees, whorls, vases containing
foliage ; doors with metal -plated leaves ; painted arabesques. Then on the
north front of the transept are some very interesting remains of mosaics
with architectural designs, representing, no doubt, some of the cities men-
tioned by Muqaddasi.2 Two examples of Walid's decorations are here
illustrated (Figs. 89, 90, pp. 100, 101).
I may observe that Walid's principal mihrab was not the one seen by
Ibn Jubair in 1184. The works of 1082 ^included, not only the rebuilding
of the central dome of the mosque, but also the reconstruction of the private
enclosure, the roof, and other parts.3 The distinctive feature of the mihrab
was no longer the inlaid precious stones and the golden vine, but arcading-
'Within the niche are small niches on the face of the wall, flanked
by colonnettes of spiral form resembling bracelets, which look as if they
were turned on the lathe.'4 The same type of decoration must have been
repeated, though in a simpler form, in the XV century restoration, for it
was still to be seen there in 1893. The decoration of mihrabs with
arcading reaches its full development in the mosque of Sultan Qalaun at
Cairo (1279-1290) (Fig. 91, p. 102).
The object of Walid in lavishing all this magnificence and splendour on
1 MUQADDASI, op. cit, pp. 17-19. IBN JUBAIR, op. cit, pp. 252-265, 286-289. LE STRANGE,
Palestine under the Moslems, pp. 233-240. MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de VEgypte,
vol. ii, i, App., pp. 262-288.
2 Op. cit., pp. 17, 1 8.
3 Journal Asiatique, 1891, i, pp. 420-423 ; VAN BERCHEM, Notes d'anht'ologie arabe.
4 IBN JUBAIR, op. cit., p. 259.
96 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
the mosque of Damascus was not so much to exalt himself and his house,
as to eclipse the finest churches of Syria and Palestine which he had seen,
especially that of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and the churches of
Lydda and. Edessa,1 and at the same time to glorify Allah.2 Ideas which
were worthy of a great Imperial ruler : of a caliph whose contemporaries
said that at Damascus, in his time, the talk was all of palaces and public
buildings,3 forgetting that it was also the reign under which the crescent was
planted on the walls of Samarcand, India was conquered up to the foot of
the Himalayas, North Africa was finally subdued, and the Iberian peninsula
annexed.
We have no definite information about the artists employed in this
famous mosque. Muqaddasi4 says that for the mosaics workmen were
brought from Persia, India, Western Africa (i.e. Libya, Tunis, and Algeria),
and Constantinople. The fact that he omits Egypt from the list is very
interesting, discountenancing as it does the legend about the great import-
ance of the Copts in the art and architecture of this century. As bearing
on this it may be noticed that when Muawiya I (661-680) made an archi-
tectural innovation at Mecca by the use of bricks and mortar, he had
recourse to workmen from distant Persia, and not to the Copts who lived
close by.5 It is also clear that no Egyptians were employed by Abd al-
Malik for his great buildings at Jerusalem.
As to Persia, I may remark that builders of experience were scarce, not
only in the time of Sapor II (sio-379),6 but equally so under Chosroes I, as
we shall see presently ; nor was there any change in the days of Chosroes 1 1,
who, on the capture of Jerusalem in 614, spared the lives of skilled
craftsmen in order to carry them off as prisoners to his own dominions.7
Later, Persia was able to supply other countries with workmen.
Ibn Jubair,8 again, says that for the building Walid 'ordered the king
of the Romans (Rum) at Constantinople to send him twelve thousand workmen
1 MUQADDASI, op. cit., pp. 22, 23. 2 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, p. 261.
3 PIZZI, Elslamismo, p. 200. 4 Op. cit, pp. 18, 19.
5 Universite Saint- Joseph, Beyrouth, Melanges de la Faculte orientale, 1907, p. 137;- LAMMENS,
Etudes sur le rtgne du calife Omaiyade Mdawia Ier.
6 FAUSTUS OF BYZANTIUM, Vatican MS. 9545, lib. v, cap. iv.
7 The English Historical Review, 1910, pp. 507, 508 ; CONYBEARE, Antiochus Stratego? Account of
the Sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 614.
8 Op. cit., p. 252.
DAMASCUS 97
from his country.' Ibn Khaldun, in his turn, writes that 'the king of the
Greeks' was compelled to provide the architects and builders for the con-
struction of the mosque, and artists for its mosaic decorations.1 It seems
that Walid obtained his craftsmen from the Greek emperor by the threat,
in case of refusal, of marching his armies into the Imperial territories, and
also of destroying the churches existing in the Moslem dominions, including
those of Jerusalem and Edessa, as well as the other structures left by the
Romans.2 Ibn Batuta3 says that the workmen were twelve thousand in
number.
My belief is that Muqaddasi's account is to be preferred, and that it
refers not only to mosaic workers but to all kinds of craftsmen and builders
(those provided by the Emperor of Constantinople coming, as they would,
not only from Greece but also from his Italian dominions), and includes
Syria and Palestine among the countries from which they came. The existence
of a large dome of wood points to the form used in the past in the latter
countries for domes of considerable span, beginning with the churches of
the Resurrection and the Ascension at Jerusalem, and going down to
the cathedral of Bosra (511-12), and the church of St. George at Ezra
(5i5-i6).4
We have still to decide what work was really executed by Walid's
architects and builders, acting under the superintendence of Zaid ibn Wakid.5
This is a problem of much greater difficulty than that of roughly dating the
different parts of the outer walls of the mosque, as it is not possible to make
the necessary excavations in the floors. Hence, whatever is stated here will
be rather in the nature of conjecture, combined with a weighing of opinions,
than of a definite conclusion. Still it will have the merit of setting the subject
as a whole in a clearer light than has hitherto been shed upon it, for
the benefit of those who make a study of this celebrated building.
The architect of the congregational mosque of Damascus preserved
of the plan of the previous structures merely the outer lines of the
enclosure, and of these he retained only those parts which seemed to him
solid enough to bear the weight of new buildings. He was obliged to do this
1 IBN KHALDUN, Prolegomenes historiques, vol. ii, pp. 268, 375.
2 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de Vtigypte, vol. ii, i, p. 265.
3 Op. cit, vol. i, p. 198.
4 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Hoepli), p. 331 ; (Heinemann), vol. ii, p. 15.
5 LE STRANGE, Palestine under tfie Moslems^ p. 233.
98 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
owing to the considerable elevation which he proposed to give to the place
of prayer ; and it was also demanded by the two-storied cloister round the
court. Having completed the new outer wall — in parts merely raised in height ;
in others built new from the foundations — adding the two towers at the
extremities of the north side, and increasing the height of the other two on
the south as bases for the minarets, he erected, parallel to the south wall,
three colonnades, equidistant from one another, with two tiers of arches, the
columns in the lower tier being antiques. The three aisles thus formed
were terminated by the new arcaded fagades on the north. The transept
was also erected with its great central dome. The two smaller cupolas which
flanked it on the north and south in the time of Ibn Jubair1 were added later
than the X century. There is no trace of them in Muqaddasi.2 The sanctuary
proper having been thus formed, the two-storied galleries and vestibules were
next erected, with the four entrances.
We know only in an incomplete and confused way what was contained
within the enclosure wall previous to the time of Walid. It is clear, indeed,
that a large church dedicated to the Baptist was in existence at the same
time as the mosque ; but we know nothing about the exact site, form, and
orientation of these buildings, and we can only make conjectures about them.
For instance, we do not know precisely to what part of the church the noble
triple entrance of the older Pagan temple corresponded. There is every
reason to think that the temple stood north and south, like the so-called
temple of the Sun at Palmyra (Fig. 92, p. 101), which measures about 20 by
1 1 m. (65 by 36 ft.), and has its main axis set accurately north and south.
These points have already been noticed by others.3
We cannot be certain about the fate of the temple, which came under
the enactments of Theodosius the Great against the Pagans.4 The Paschal
Chronicle 5 tells us that he did not merely disestablish the temples, but
destroyed them : ' The illustrious Constantine, while he was emperor, only
closed the Pagan shrines and temples : but this Theodosius went on to
destroy them, including the great and celebrated temple of Balanius at
Heliopolis, with its columns made of three drums of marble apiece, which
he converted into a Christian church ; and in the same way he made the
temple at Damascus a Christian church. And the Christian cause was much
1 Op. cit., p. 254. 2 Op. cit., p. 17. 3 SPIERS, op. cit., p. 2.
4 HAENEL, Codices Gregorianus Hcrmogenianus Theodosianus. De Paganis sacrificiis et templis,
lib. xvi, tit. x, 7-12. 5 Corpus script, hist, byz., vol. i, p. 561.
99
FIG. 85. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid during restoration.
Eastern vestibule (VIII cent.).
FIG. 86. — Damascus. Mosque of Walid under
restoration. Western vestibule (VIII cent.).
— Damricrns RpmAins of thp arrh rnllfH th<* ' Rnh ftl-RariH '
IOO
rt
a
rt
Q
oo
d
s
cd
Q
00
CXD
IOI
IO2
FIG. 91. — Cairo. Mihrab in the Mosque of Qalaun (1279-1290).
DAMASCUS 103
advanced in his reign.' Malalas (670), l on the other hand, mentions only
the transformation of temples into churches : (Theodosius) ' abolished
(KareAvo-e) the great and famous temple at Heliopolis called the Trilithon,
and made it a Christian church. And in the same way he made the
temple at Damascus a Christian church, and many others.' Now the
remains of the church of Theodosius at Baalbec, the ancient Heliopolis,
discovered in the course of the recent excavations,2 show that it was not the
grand temple of Jupiter, built by the Emperor Antoninus (' At Heliopolis, a
city of Phoenicia in the Lebanon, he built a great temple to Jupiter; to be
accounted as one of the wonders of the world ' 3), that was transformed into
a church, for the latter, on the contrary, stood in the great court of the altar
in front of the sanctuary, and there is nothing to show whether this was,
or was not, still intact at the time (Fig. 93, p. 105).
One may always argue that, after the temple of Damascus came into
the hands of the Christians, the cella was demolished, and a church, on a
larger scale than the cella, erected with old materials. The passage quoted
above from the Paschal Chronicle implies such enlargement. That rebuilding
took place is evident, when it is considered that the temple apparently had
the same form as other contemporary ones in Syria, for instance, the temple
of Jupiter and Bacchus at Baalbec (II and III centuries) and the so-called
temple of the Sun at Palmyra (I and III centuries). Yet it cannot have
been a building with several equidistant rows of columns, as some have
thought, nor a basilica with nave and aisles. And it cannot have had an
internal length of 139 m. (about 450 ft.), seeing that the sanctuary of the
colossal temple of Baalbec is only about 45 m. (145 ft.) in length.
The result of the works, apparently begun by Theodosius I and finished
by Arcadius, was a church of ample size, as we shall see presently from Arculfs
account, of great beauty, and unequalled in the region of Damascus, as we
read in Eutychius : 4 ' Now it was a very fair church which had not its like in
all the territory of Damascus.' But it was not a basilica with nave and aisles
of equal breadth and a length of nearly 139 m. (450 ft.), as has been generally
inferred. It must be remembered that such an enormous length would exceed
1 Corpus script, hist. byz. ; IOANNES MALALAS, Chronographia, pp. 344, 345.
2 Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, 1901, pp. 133-159 ; 1902, pp.
87-123 ; PUCHSTEIN, SCHULZ, KRENCKER, Ausgrabungot in Baalbek.
3 Corpus script, hist. byz. ; IOANNES MALALAS, Chronographia, p. 280.
4 MIGNE, Patr. gr., vol. cxi, col. 1120; EUTYCHIUS, Annales.
1654 10
104 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE*
that of the great church of St. Simeon Stylites at Qalat Simaan (V-VI centuries),
which is little more than 96 m. (315 ft.); that of the famous but now almost
entirely destroyed abbey church of Cluny (XI and XII centuries), which
reached to about 135 m. (443 ft.), a building which in its day was without a
rival in the Christian world ; and, thirdly, that of the mosque of Cordova,
which has a length of more than 130 m. (427 ft.). In fact there would not
be a very great difference between its length and that of the largest Catholic
church in the world, the present St. Peter's at the Vatican, which reaches
1 86 m. (612 ft.). The patent anomaly of a church of this form and of such
a length has before now aroused suspicion.1
The orientation of the church of Damascus is not known, as there is no
reference to it. Appearances are in favour of its having been towards the
west. In my ' Lombardic Architecture' I dealt with the question of the
orientation of apses, and discussed what is known about it. I here return
for a moment to the subject, with some additions and corrections.
After the Edict of Milan (313), one of the most important new departures
in the history of mankind, the great basilicas erected for Christian worship in
Rome had their apses turned to the west, as is shown by those of St. Peter
at the Vatican and St. John Lateran, built by Constantine the Great. This
plan was, apparently, followed by his immediate descendants, at least in the
case of the more important churches, where there was no reason against it
on local or architectural grounds. And so the church of the Holy Sepulchre
at Jerusalem was orientated towards the west, while the contemporary church
of the Nativity at Bethlehem was set in the opposite direction. Exceptions
to this are very rare. I may mention the primitive basilica of St. Menas (its
remains have been recently disinterred in the holy city of Kharb Abu Mina
in the Mareotic region) which was founded in the time of Constantine (306-337)
and Athanasius the Great (296-373), Archbishop of Alexandria, and consecrated
under Theodosius I (378-395) and the Patriarch Theophilus (385-412). It
possesses an apse, curvilinear both inside and out, flanked by two niches
measuring 1.60 by 0.70 m. (5 ft. 3 in. by 2 ft. 3^ in.), and turned to the east.2
As late as the reign of Theodosius I the original Christian basilica
which he erected at Baalbec — ' the great and celebrated temple of Balanius
at Heliopolis, with its columns made of three drums of marble apiece, he
1 FERGUSSON, A History of Architecture > vol. ii, pp. 505, 506.
2 KAUFMANN, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 40-103.
'05
FIG. 93. — Kaalbec. Ruins of Temples (II and III cents.).
io6
FIG. 95. — Entrance to the Cave Temple at Karli (I cent. B.C.).
DAMASCUS 107
converted into a Christian church ' 1 — was designed with its principal and
two subordinate apses, semicircular both internally and externally, turned
towards the west. The change to the east, as now to be seen, was the
result of a later alteration when the central apse became a pentagon externally,
after the Ravennate type, which I was the first to point out and establish.2
That form did not originate in the East, as some persist in asserting ; 3 nor
did it come from Egypt, for the apse of the Constantinian church of St. Menas
just mentioned, is semicircular on both sides. Nor do the recent excavations
on the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem prove that apses with polygonal
exteriors made their appearance before the last part of the IV century.
Without entering on the question of the name of the basilica, of which some
meagre remains have come to light and have been thought to belong to the
church of the Ascension built by Helena and Constantine,4 it appears to
me that they are so fragmentary and show such variety of work that the
conclusions based on them are of a very uncertain character. My doubts are
confirmed by two capitals believed to be of the same date as the church, one
of basket-work out of which grow cauliculi and acanthus leaves, the other
of Corinthian type with stiff plain leaves.5 Both are of poor workmanship,
and not comparable nor contemporary with the Constantinian capitals in the
church of the Nativity at Bethlehem. Not to say that, if we confine ourselves
to ascertained facts, the wicker basket capital, Byzantine in style and type,
is never found (unless the contrary be proved) before the V century.
But to resume. It was the Church of Ravenna which made the east-
ward orientation a fixed rule, possibly out of opposition to its powerful rival
the Church of Rome. It first appears in the primatial see of Ravenna in
the time of Archbishop Ursus (370-396).
My very reasonable theory of the western orientation of the church
of the Baptist, together with the existence, in the eastern part of the outer
wall on the south, of the mihrab mentioned above, presumably the work of
Muawiya, and, thirdly, the triple entrance near the middle of that wall, which
before the time of Walid was used by Christians and Moslems alike, can
1 Corpus script, hist. byz. ; Chronicon Paschale, vol. i, p. 561.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 26, 27; vol. ii, pp. 15, 16; (Hoepli), pp. 7, 8, 328,
329; (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 8; vol. ii, pp. 13, 189.
3 BRUTAILS, Prtcis (f Archtologie du May en- Age, p. 42.
4 Revue Biblique Internationale, 1911, pp. 219-265 ; P. VINCENT, Ltglise de l^llona.
5 Ibid., 1911, pi. vi, i ; pi. vii, i.
io8 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
all throw considerable light on the problem of the true position of the two
buildings.
In my opinion this entrance, not exactly at the centre of the wall of
Byzantine times, and therefore somewhat out of the axis of Walid's transept,
formed originally the access to the enclosure within which the Christians erected :
on the west, the basilica with its front turned, according to the usage of the
time, to the east ; on the east, the buildings connected with the new cult. At
a later time, and after the Moslems had established a mosque facing the church,
this entrance, until the days of Walid, gave access to the common enclosure,
to the church, and to the mosque.
This inference is not weakened by the discovery of the head of St. John
the Baptist when Walid was demolishing the buildings, for in the oldest
account of the find, that of Ibn al-Fakih, written about 903, and the source
used by the later writers, there is no mention of the spot where it took place,
but only of that in which the caliph ordered the re-interment of the relic, viz.
the fourth arch of the first row of columns on the east side of the transept ; a
the place, in fact, where the saint's shrine stands to-day.
That the church of the Baptist and the mosque formed two buildings,
near to one another but distinct — the ordinary view being that one half of
the same basilica was apportioned for Christian, and the other for Moslem
worship — has been established by Caetani 2 from the earliest chroniclers,
and by the aid of the text of Arculf (about 670), a passage of such importance
that it must be repeated here : ' et in honorem sancti lohannis Baptiste ibidem
grandis fundata est ecclesia. Quedam etiam Sarracenorum ecclesia incredulorum,
et ipsa in eadem civitate, quam ipsi frequentant, fabricata est.' 3
Several pieces of evidence point to the fact that the Ummayyad mosque
was afterwards erected as a new building, with the exception of a part of
the outer wall of the great rectangle, and that it did not retain anything
whatever of the Pagan temple or Christian church, apart from the fragment
of the outer wall of that rectangle and reused materials taken from those
structures. In the place of prayer the colonnades were arcaded from the
beginning ; and all the larger arches in the building were of horse-shoe form,
and sprung from capitals carrying pulvins of various orders, design, and
workmanship.
1 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, pp. 233, 234.
2 Annali, vol. iii, i, pp. 344-391.
3 TOBLER, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 185, 1 86; Arculfi Relatio de Loris Sanctis.
DAMASCUS 109
Now in Syria, in Roman times, the colonnades of temples carried
architraves. One instance is the temple of Jupiter at Baalbec, begun by
Antoninus Pius (138-161) and finished by Philip the Arabian (244-249),1
where, although the broken arch is found in the stoa of the great court, the
colonnades of the temple proper are designed to carry architraves only. This
system was copied in the first great Christian basilicas of Syria and Palestine.
And so the church of the Nativity at Bethlehem (327-333) had from the
beginning architraves surmounting the colonnades of the nave.2 The principle
was applied to colonnades generally, with an occasional exception when a
wider interval between the columns was arched over. The colonnades
at Palmyra (II and III centuries) provide instances.
Moreover, Syria, at the time in question, was a stranger to the use of
the Ravennate pulvin. This feature, characteristic originally of Ravennate,
and then of Byzantine architecture, appeared for the first time in the old
Basilica Ursiana at Ravenna (370-384) and in San Giorgio Maggiore at
Naples (367- about 387), and there is no proof that even as late as the
reign of Arcadius had it started on its journey to the East.3
Again, what are we to say of the horse-shoe arch, used as an element
of construction, and applied uniformly to all the larger arches of the entire
edifice ? Where are there, we ask, not merely in Syria, but in the Roman
and Byzantine empires, before the first Arab conquests, buildings of known
date which contain colonnades with arches of that form ?
Walid's intention in the construction of his mosque was, as Muqaddasi4
shows, to outdo the greatest Christian churches, just as previously Abd
al-Malik (685-705) had endeavoured to eclipse the Anastasis with the Holy
Sepulchre by his Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem. At the same time he
wanted to follow the traditional plan of the Prophet's mosque at Medina—
an open court, partly occupied by a roofed-in space devoted to prayer, and
accessible to the faithful from the court. Accordingly his building was
designed as a basilica in the form of a parallelogram, the front side of which
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 535-538 ; (Hoepli), pp. 5^53; (Heinemann), vol. i,
PP- 48, 49-
2 Ibid., op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 24-27; (Hoepli), pp. 338-341; (Heinemann), vol. ii,
pp. 20-22.
3 Ibid., op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 11-25; vol. ii, pp. 43'45 '> (Hoepli), pp. 8-18;
(Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 10-18.
4 Op. cit., pp. 22, 23.
no MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
consisted of an open arcade looking on the court. The transept, which in
a cruciform Christian basilica stood in front of the apse, he set on the axis
of the sanctuary, so that it might lead the eye up to the mihrab, the position
of which was indicated by the important central dome.
All this was quite original, and it is not surprising that when the
Caliph Mamun (813-833) saw the mosque he was astonished to find that it
was built on a design which had no prototype,1 and that Edrisi called it the
most singular mosque in existence so far as its plan and arrangements were
concerned.2 The novelties were these : the plan of making the building only
three aisles deep, just like a basilica with nave and aisles ; the dome rising
in the centre of the place of prayer ; the two-storied arcades occurring both
in the place of prayer and in the cloister round the court. But, above all, the
horse-shoe arch, used for the first time as a constructive element. Notice-
able, too, was the mihrab, perhaps the work of Muawiya and incorporated
in Walid's edifice, for it was the prototype of its kind, derived from the apse
of the Christian basilica, and taking the place of the big stone of the qibla.
About the origin and development of that distinctive feature of Moslem-
architecture, the horse-shoe arch, and about the Moslem style generally,
vague theories have been from time to time put forward, supported by
scanty, inconsistent, and often uncertain evidence. These theories are easily
attacked and refuted. Recently a new one has come on the field, which
suggests that the horse-shoe arch style originated in Visigothic Spain. A
considerable number of monuments are adduced in support, it has all the
appearance of explaining the facts, and, moreover, some of the works in.
which it is set forth are masterly.
Hence I feel obliged to make a conscientious, extended, and patient
examination of the evidence produced in its favour, in order to see whether
the whole or part of it can survive the attacks of a serious criticism, and a.
fresh examination of the buildings on which it is based. This examination
will form the subject of Part 1 1 of this book. For the present we will confine
ourselves to a summary of the origins of the horse-shoe arch.
Its discovery took place in ancient times. The earliest instances are to
be found in India, where we see it (combined with the ogee or 'cyma* reversa'
arch), for instance, in the cave of Lomas Rishi, a few miles from Gaya in
1 MAQRIZI, Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks de VEgypte, vol. ii, 3, p. 276.
2 EDRISI, (Jaubert), Geographic, vol. i, p. 351.
Ill
FIG. 96.— Facade of the Cave Temple at Nasik (I or II cent. B.C.).
I 12
FIG. 94. — Entrance to the Cave Temple of Lomas Rishi near Gaya
(III cent. B.C.).
FIG. 103. — Amman. Outer gateway of the Citadel (VII-XII cent.).
DAMASCUS 113
Bengal (Fig. 94, p. 112), dating from about 257 B.C., that is to say, in the reign
•of Asoka (273-232 B.C.) ; in the temples of Bhaga and Karli, in the province
of Bombay (Fig. 95, p. 106), ascribed respectively to the II or III and the
I centuries B.C. ; and in the temple of Nasik, in the province of Bombay
(Fig. 96, p. m), to which a date is given in the I or II century B.C. We find
it again in the bas-reliefs at Buddh-Gaya (put up in the III century B.C.), at
Bharhut (part of which bear the date 185-173 B.C.), and at Sanchi in the
State of Bhopal (set up in the II century B.C. or the I century A.D.).1
It was examples such as these which led the way to the constructive
horse-shoe arch (not merely given that form by a gypsum-mortar addition),
.and not those at Ctesiphon, as Choisy maintains.2 But in India it is not
used as an element of construction before the Moslem conquest.3 Till then
it was only employed in a decorative way.
If we could accept the recently made assertion4 that the horse-shoe arch
—and the pointed arch too— were brought to Egypt by Indian workmen,
we might infer that it was they who introduced it in Walid's mosque. Such
a deduction is, however, excluded by what the monuments of India, either
still standing, or represented in painting or sculpture, tell us about their
knowledge and traditions in matters of planning, construction, and equi-
librium. The same reasons are fatal to another statement,5 to the effect that
in the VIII and IX centuries the architects of India were, perhaps,
unequalled in the world. How one would have liked to have seen these
masters, with their knowledge and traditions, travel to the shores of the
Bosphorus or to Germany in order to design and carry out, for instance, the
rebuilding of St. Irene at Constantinople (VIII century) and the erection of
Charles the Great's round church at Aachen (796-804) (Figs. 97, 98, pp.
115, 116)!
The instances of still earlier date which Dieulafoy, on the basis of a
purely arbitrary dating of the monuments, believes that he has discovered in
1 Atti del Congresso internazionale di Scienze storiche (Roma, 1-9 Apr. 1903), vol. vii; PULLE,
Riflessi indiani neWarte romaica, pp. 1 1 1, 112. FERGUSSON, History of Indian and Eastern Archi-
tecture, pp. 84-99, 108-122. DE BEYLIE, r architecture Hindoue en Extreme-Orient, pp. 34, 51, 53.
VINCENT A. SMITH, A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, pp. 19, 20, 69-71, 74. FERGUSSON,
BURGESS, The Cave Temples of India, pp. 29-33, 38-4°> l84, 232-242, 272-275.
2 Histoire de V architecture, vol. i, p. 132.
3 FERGUSSON, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, p. 120.
4 HAVELL, op. cit. pp., 6, 7. 5 Ibid., p. 21.
n4 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Persia, are very far from being so. Thus the date of the four archivolts
with a radius exceeding the semicircle (three being made so by moulding
in cement, while only the fourth is constructive) in the palace or castle of
Firuz Abad,1 must be brought down more than a thousand years. Else-
where2 I have stated the reasons derived from the history, plan, and. con-
struction of the building, which demonstrate the impossibility of the date
given to it by Dieulafoy, viz. the reign of Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.), or of
Artaxerxes I (465-425 B.C.),3 and I am not alone in thus reducing its age.4
I may add here, that among the ruins of Hatra on the Tigris, ascribed
to the first three centuries of the Christian era, the well-known palace not
merely contains no trace of the Romano-Campanian pendentive, but has not
a vestige even of a dome. Its square or rectangular rooms have barrel vaults
only ; and the hemispherical vault which Dieulafoy 5 has given to one of them
is quite conjectural.
Consequently, we must come down to the erection of the palace or castle
of Chosroes I (531-579) at Ctesiphon, the port at which the merchandize of
India arrived, in order to find, according to Choisy, anything approaching a
horse-shoe arch (Fig. 99, p. 117). This building consists, in its present state,
of a vast hall covered by a barrel vault of elliptical outline, flanked by eight
smaller halls which, like the other, are rectangular. It was built by workmen
sent by Justinian (527-565), according to the tradition preserved by Theophy-
lactus Simocatta (638) — ' They say that the emperor Justinian provided Greek
marble for Chosroes the son of Cabades, and skilled builders and workmen
accomplished in the construction of roofs, and that he built a palace for
Chosroes in the Roman style, situated not far from Ctesiphon.' 6 Among the
craftsmen may, perchance, have been some from Ravenna, considering the
occurrence of blank arcading at the top of the walls. Arched corbel courses
used decoratively in architecture, the archetype of which I discovered in a
tomb of the II century on the Via Praenestina near Rome, at the place known
1 DIEULAFOY, L! Art antique de la Perse, vol. iv, p. 37.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 24, 25, 193-195.
3 DIEULAFOY, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 75.
4 DE LASTEYRIE, L? architecture religieuse en France a Ftpoque romane, pp. 270-272. DE MORGAN,
Mission scientifique en Perse, Recherches archeologiques, vol. ii, pp. 341-360, Kasr-£-Chirin. PERROT,
CHIPIEZ, Histoire de FArt dans fantiquite. Perse, pp. 561-588.
6 Op. cit., vol. v, pp. 15, 1 6.
6 Corpus script, hist. byz. ; THEOPHYLACTUS SIMOCATTA, Historiae, p. 217.
1 1
FIG. 97. — Aachen. Palace Chapel (796-804).
n6
FIG. 98. — Aachen. Palace Chapel (796-804).
FIG. 99. — Ctesiphon. Facade of the Palace of Chosroes I (531-579).
(From DIEULAFOY, L'Art antique dans la Perse, vol. v. pi. iii.)
FIG. 102. — Ajanta. Interior of Cave Temple XII (200 B.c.-i5o A.D.).
n8
o —
8 &>
3 M
^ .5
HH bO
O
Pi 2i
-
o
H
DAMASCUS 119
as 'Acqua bollicante' (Fig. 100, p. 118) — a form derived from pensile arches
designed to carry balconies, such as that in the House of Caligula on the
Palatine (Fig. 101, p. 118) erected after 37 — were developed by the School
of Ravenna, and their occurrence in Western Asia is very rare in ancient times.1
I say in Western Asia, because in India decorative blank arches, of an Indian
type of course, were used both internally and externally from early times-
Thus the fronts of the cave temples at Nasik and Karli were so treated as
early as the I or II century B.C. The cave temple of Ajanta numbered XII
was decorated in this way at some time between about 200 B.C. and 150 A. D.2
(Fig. 102, p. 117).
With regard to the occurrence of the horse-shoe arch at Ctesiphon, I
find that it is not really constructive, the semicircular (and, exceptionally, the
pointed) arch being used systematically throughout the building ; but is only
given that form by means of the plaster.
We are on safe ground when we come to the well-known cruciform
structure forming an outer gateway to the citadel of Amman (Fig. 103, p. 112)^
the erection of which was dated by Dieulafoy either at the end of the Sassanian
epoch (226-651), or else in the first years of the Hijra (622),3 but is now
fixed in the Arab period,4 and consequently after the capture of Damascus
(636), which took place before the conquest of the old Ammonite capital.
Conder5 thinks that it may have been built by the Caliph Mamun (813-833),
but certainly not before the VII century, and, perhaps, in the time of the
Crusades, on account of the decorative blank arcading (which he suspects
was carved in the stonework after the building was finished) with its saw-
tooth ornament, and shafts recalling those in the arcading of the Dome of
the Rock at Jerusalem.
The gateway at Amman, with its examples, not only of the horse-shoe
arch, but also of hood-shaped pendentives, gives rise to some observations on
the deserted castles or palaces of Western Asia, to some of which, such as
those of Sarvistan and Firuz Abad, mythical dates have been assigned. These
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Hoepli), pp. 36, 37 ; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 36, 37.
2 VINCENT A. SMITH, op. cit., p. 275. * Op. cit., vol. v, pp. 102, 103.
4 HOUTSMA, BASSET, Encyclopedic de I'lslam, Amman, p. 336. Publication of the Princeton
University; BUTLER, Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904-1905 ; Ancient Architecture in Syria,
Div. ii, p. 41, 'Amman.'
5 The Survey of Eastern Palestine, 1889, pp. 60-63; The Ad-wan Country. Ibid., Heth and
Moab, p. 158.
*654 i t
120 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
observations have been suggested to me by De Morgan's1 recent study on
the buildings of Chosroes II (591-628) at Qasr es-Sherin, and by an article
written by Lammens.2 The buildings at Qasr es-Sherin are the most important
in the whole of Persia for giving the complete general plan of a royal palace
and its dependencies. They show that the rooms on the ground floor were
barrel-vaulted, only those in the upper floors having ceilings ; and that the
conical squinch was used, as in the case of a square hall covered by an oval
cupola, now partly fallen in, recalling similar constructions at Sarvistan and
Firuz Abad, and also of smaller rooms.
Now to judge by dated buildings, those erected by the Achaemenids
at Susa, Persepolis, and in the valley of Polvar-rud, were without vaulting.
The Sassanids (226-651) were the first to introduce it into Persia, under
Roman influence. Before their time the vault had no place in buildings.
Nor had the Greek influence, which came in with the conquests of Alexander
the Great, any effect in this direction ; for the Greeks, though they were
acquainted with vaulting, rejected it as a form of roofing, because it was
not in keeping with their artistic ideals.3 Their unequalled sense of form
made their architectural work decorative rather than constructive. It was
the Romans, with their innate architectural sense, who caused the arch and
the vault to prevail, who developed their combination, and brought them to
perfection in their baths and mausoleums.
Moreover, there is no instance of a vault with ovoidal outline in
the great palace and temple buildings of Persia and the neighbouring
countries earlier than the palace of Chosroes I at Ctesiphon. Thus the
ruins of the palace at Hatra on the Tigris, dated in the first three centuries
of our era,4 contain only semicircular barrel vaults.5 The Assyrians were
acquainted with the form, but apparently made use of it only in subterranean
water courses, as for instance at Khorsabad, and there is scarcely any
instance of it in buildings above ground.
As for a dome in the true sense — not merely courses of stone or brick,
each projecting a little beyond the other, as in the tombs or so-called
treasuries of Atreus and Clytemnestra at Mycenae (Fig. 104, p. 127) — with an
1 Op. cit., vol. iv, 2, pp. 341-357-
2 Universite Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth, Melanges de la Faculte orientale, vol. iv ; La Bddia et la
Hira sous les Omaiyades, pp. 91-112.
3 DE MORGAN, op. cit., vol. iv, 2, p. 347.
4 DIEULAFOY, op. cit., vol. v, p. 13. 5 ANDRAE, Hatra.
DAMASCUS 121
ovoidal outline, and of large span, I have found no recorded instance before
this one of Chosroes II, perhaps introduced for the first time in this part
of Asia by the craftsmen sent to Ctesiphon by Justinian, but employing a
traditional local curve though the principle embodied was foreign.
The conical cupola had already made its appearance in San Vitale at
Ravenna (526-547), unique in its construction and lightness, which still
excites our admiration. That dome, with the rest of the church, was the
creation of the brain of Julianus Argentarius, and the minds and handiwork
of the craftsmen of Ravenna, who were not partly of Greek origin, as has
been asserted recently,1 though without supplying the necessary evidence : a
practice which is more convenient than convincing. My statement has the
support of, among other things, the planning and equilibrium of the building
which have no parallels in any earlier or contemporary structures in the
East ; the dome of terra- cotta tubes, inserted one inside the other and coiling
round in a spiral up to the crown, a Ravennate feature invented by the
Campanians, developed by the Romans, and raised to its highest expression
at Ravenna ; the pyramidal roof surmounting and protecting the dome from the
weather, a device which marks a departure from the Roman custom of leaving
the outer face of a dome exposed or covering it with a roof in contact with
it, and at the same time contains the germ of the double dome ; the style of
the masonry ; the grace and elegance of its architectural forms, qualities
unknown even to the architect of SS. Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople
(527-5S6).2
The dome of St. George at Ezra (515-16) with its boldly ovoidal form
(Fig. 105, p. 122), constructed of light concrete materials, a little more than half
the thickness of the walls of the drum on which it rests, is clearly of a
different date from the rest of the church, which is built entirely of stone
without the use of mortar. It is due to rebuilding.
De Vogue, in his imaginative reconstruction of the original dome of
the cathedral of Bosra (511-12), a church almost contemporary with the
last, decided, not without good reason, upon a hemispherical instead of a
conical outline.3 His account states that the windows at the base of the
dome are the earliest example of this method of lighting. Nothing could
1 DIEHL, Manuel d'Art byzantin^ pp. 174-176.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 27, 28, 35, 36, 57-79; (Hoepli), pp. 18-20, 40, 61-82,
96, 97 ; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 18-21, 39, 56-84; vol. ii, p. 22.
3 Syrie cenfrale, vol. i, pp. 61-67.
122
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
be farther from the truth, for it had been applied centuries before at Rome
in the imperial age, as may be seen from Montano,1 and from the sketch
of a tomb still perfect in the days of Serlio (1475-1552) (Fig. io6),2 and
shown by Montano to have stood on the Via Appia Antica. Not to speak of
the still surviving examples on a grand scale, represented by the Nymphaeum
of the Licinian Gardens (253-268) and the Mausoleum of Santa Costanza
(326-329).
FIG. 105. — Ezra. Section of the church of
St. George (515-16).
-Rome. Tomb on the Via
Appia Antica.
(From SCAMOZZI, Tutte Fopere d1 Architettura di
Sebastiano Serlio, fogl. 63. )
It is true that a much earlier instance of a conical cupola has been
cited in the case of the Marneion at Gaza. But it never had any real
existence. From the meagre, ambiguous, and disconnected bits of description
which Mark the Deacon gives of the important round temple of the Cretan
1 Scielta de varii tempietti antichi, taw. 29, 30, 34, 38, 42, 43 ; Raccolta de tempii e sepolcri
disegnati datf anlico, taw. 3, 5, 7, 13, 15, 22, 23, 37, 38, 39, 40.
2 SCAMOZZI, Tutte Popere d 'Architettura di Sebastiano Serlio, fogl. 63.
DAMASCUS 123
Zeus, ascribed with considerable probability to the II century,1 all that can
be gathered is that the central structure, which had more than one entrance,
and stood in an open court surrounded by a two-aisled portico, had the
form of a ciborium with a wooden roof, for Mark says that this central part
or cella was destroyed by fire, and that a burning beam fell on the official
who was superintending the work of destruction, and killed him.2 In short,
there must have been a cylindrical structure of masonry with a conical wooden
roof, like the drum of Santo Stefano Rotondo on the Caelian at Rome.
The suggestion had previously been made that the author of the Life of
St. Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza, used the word «i/3wpiov in the sense of a
baldacchino or canopy of some kind ; and the same writer thought that, in
any case, the dome of the Marneion, if it existed, was of the usual form,
that is to say spherical, and not elliptical.3
The Assyrian builders were unquestionably acquainted with both the
hemispherical and the ovoidal cupola, as is shown by the well-known bas-
relief of Kuyunjik (Nineveh) discovered by Layard.4 But it has been
pointed out by others, and the observation has lately been repeated,5 that
the buildings there represented are related to the houses of the present day
in the villages of Syria and Northern Mesopotamia, which are roofed with
small cupolas of sun-baked bricks set in rings, each projecting beyond the
last, and were, perhaps, of the same kind. This way of making a cupola of
masonry with each course projecting a little beyond the one below it, is of
very early origin. The Etruscans were acquainted with it in the VII century
B.C., as is proved by the tomb of the ' Diavolino ' from Vetulonia, which has
been reconstructed in the garden of the Archaeological Museum at Florence.6
Here the dome of the cella has raccords in courses projecting one beyond the
other (Fig. 107, p. 127). In any case we know nothing of the construction of
cupolas such as those represented on the bas-relief, nor how they were
supported. The only thing that seems to be certain is that they were
1 Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. v; HILL, Some Palestinian Cults in the Graeco-Roman
Age, p. 15, n. i.
2 HILL, The Life of Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza, by Mark the Deacon, pp. 75-87, 140.
3 Ibid., Some Palestinian Cults in the Graeco-Roman Age, p. 15, n. i. Ibid., The Life of Porphyry,
Bishop of Gaza, by Mark the Deacon, pp. 85, 86.
4 A Second Series of the Monuments of Nineveh, pi. 17.
5 Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xxx, pp. 77-79 ; BELL, The vaulting system of Ukheidar.
6 MILANI, II R. Museo Archeologico di Firenze, vol. i, pp. 282, 283.
i24 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
designed to cover very small areas, for no vestige of a dome has hitherto
been discovered in any of the great Syrian and Chaldaean remains.
Lastly, pendentives either with conical vaults or in the form of niches
have not as yet been found, recognizable as such, in Western Asia, or in
Egypt, earlier than those at Qasr es-Sherin mentioned above, though it may
be conjectured that this example reached Persia by the route which we have
suggested, and possibly through craftsmen from Ravenna or South Italy, where
the Ravennate niche-pendentive and the hood-shaped pendentive first came
into use.
The assertion that, wherever and whenever the vaulted pendentive appears,
it denotes decided Oriental influence, is quite arbitrary.1 Elsewhere I have
traced the origins of this form of pendentive,2 and my view has won accept-
ance.3 I will only remark here that there is a general confusion between the
pendentive with a simple vault, and the niche-pendentive consisting of a
more or less elongated recess. The oldest specimens which we possess of
the vaulted and niche forms are to be found in San Giovanni in Fonte (V
century) adjoining the cathedral of Naples (Fig. 108, p. 127), and in San Vitale
at Ravenna (VI century) (Fig. 109, p. 125). The nearly contemporary instance
of a niche-pendentive, said to exist in the dome of the three-lobed choir of the
church of the Dair al-Ahmar, or Red Convent, near Sohag in the Thebaid,
is not of the date assigned to it, viz. in the early or mid V century ; and
that on account of the analogies presented by the building known as the
Dair al-Abiad, or White Convent.4 Nor does it belong to the time of
Helena (f 328), the mother of Constantine the Great, the traditional founder of
the latter institution.5 The well-known early church of St. Menas at Kharb Abu
Mina follows the lines of the sanctuaries of the Constantinian age in Egypt,
that is to say, it has a semicircular apse, flanked by two small recesses.
As late as the reign of Arcadius (395-408) the imposing church of the Virgin/
erected at the end of St. Menas, had only a simple semicircular apse.6
Moreover, even if we accepted this date, and allowed that the original
1 VAN BERCHEM, STRZYGOWSKI, Amida, p. 262.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 602-605; (Hoepli), pp. 235-242 ; (Heinemann), vol. i,
pp. 71, 191-199.
3 DE LASTEYRIE, op. cit., pp. 270-272.
4 DE BOCK, Materiaux pour servir a farcheologie de PEgypte chretienne, pp. 39-67, pi. xxvi, xxviiL
5 BUTLER, The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt, vol. i, pp. 351-359.
6 KAUFMANN, op. cit., pp. 40-103.
DAMASCUS
125
structure remained untouched in the Moslem conquest, and survived what
was worse, Caliph Hakim's (996-1020) mania for destruction,1 it has under-
gone such a series of restorations and rebuildings at different periods, that it
has become a perfect enigma.
FIG. 109. — Ravenna. San Vi tale. Pendentive of the dome (526-547).
With regard to the dome, anyone who looks at the exposed masonry
on the exterior (Fig. no, p. 128) will see at once the extensive rebuilding in
the drum, and the complete reconstruction of the cupola. In the interior, too,
the remains of the niches are clearly of a late Moslem period, as are the
1 LANE-POOLE, A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, p. 127.
126 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
decorative colonnettes belonging to them (Fig. 1 1 1, p. 128). My opinion is con-
firmed by a recent work,1 in which the author states that both the Dair
al-Abiad and the Dair al-Ahmar originally had wooden roofs, and that the
three-lobed choir at the east had no dome over its square central space.
In any case, the appearance in Egypt, in the early years of the IV
century, of so new and perfect a form of raccord, would be a very singular
anomaly. Especially, too, in the land of the Pharaohs, where before the
Roman conquest the great buildings had flat ceilings, curved lines being
foreign to the Egyptian style, and the use of vaulting was exceptional and
confined to structures of secondary importance.2 And in Egypt where, even
under the influence exercised by the vaulted buildings of the conquerors,
there is no certain instance of the use of the pendentive, the rudimentary
form of which had been created by those same Romans in the II century
and was not yet evolved in the IV, a task which was probably left to the
Campanians. If the reverse were the case, the Roman builders would surely
have availed themselves of such a useful discovery, and after the transfer of
the capital to Constantinople the Byzantine craftsmen would have diffused it
over the new empire, which cannot have been the case, for the simple
reason that there are no instances of (i) the pendentive formed of a simple
conical vault taken out of a spherical surface before the V century ; or
(2) of the niche form before the VI.
The other example of a vaulted raccord, of somewhat later date, which
Millet3 thinks he has discovered in the church of St. Sergius at Gaza (VI
century), in the course of a description of the building given by Choricus of
Gaza, never had any existence. All that the description shows is that the
square central space was formed of arches supporting walls as high as the
arches themselves, and provided with columns reaching up to the start of
the roof; that the square base passed into an octagon, and the latter into the
circle of the dome.4 The general inference seems to be that the central space
had columns at the angles intended to carry the projecting raccords of the
drum and the dome. But there is no foundation for saying that there were
hood-shaped or niche pendentives, decorated moreover with columns. Nor
is there any information as to whether the dome was of wood or of masonry.
1 SOMERS CLARKE, Christian Antiquities in the Nile Valley, pp. 145-171.
2 PERROT, CHIPIEZ, op. cit., L'Egypte, pp. 112, 530.
3 Revue Archfotogique, 1905, pp. 99, 100 ; L'Asie Mineure nouveau domaine de I ' Histoire de I' Art.
4 BOISSONADE, Chorici Gazaei Orationes Dedamationes Fragmenta, pp. 83-88.
127
FIG. 108. — Naples. San Giovanni in Fonte. Pendentive (V cent.). FIG. 104. — Mycenae. ' Treasury of Atreus.
FIG. 107. — Florence. Archaeological Museum. Tomb from
Vetulonia, showing one of the raccords (VII cent. B.C.).
•Fie. 1 10. — Church of the Dair al-Ahmar near Sohag. Dome (after 1020).
(From DE BOCK, Mattnanx pour servir a FArchJologie de f Egypte chrJtieime.)
FIG. 1 1 1. — Church of the Dair al-Ahmar near Sohag. Niche-pendentive
of the dome (after 1020).
(From DE BOCK, Matfriaux pour servir ci P Archtologie de V Egypte chrttienne.}
129
FIG. 112. — Milan. San Lorenzo Maggiore (VI-XVI cent.).
130
FIG. 115. — Rome. Villa Mattel. End of sarcophagus
(III or IV cent.).
FIG. 116. — Rome. Villa Mattel. The other end of
sarcophagus (III or IV cent.).
DAMASCUS 131
I pass over the other instance cited by Millet1 of the church of Khoja
Kalessi in the region of the Taurus, because it possesses no indications of
date. That given to it by him and by others is purely arbitrary. Moreover,
it contains no trace of raccords.
I must also omit the squinches given to San Lorenzo at Milan,2 for they
are non-existent, the dome being simply the continuation of the drum (Fig. 112,
p. 129). How the original dome was supported we do not know precisely.
It was only after the catastrophes of 1071 and 1124 that hood-shaped
pendentives in tiers were introduced ; and these, again, disappeared in the
reconstruction which followed the disaster of I573-3 San Lorenzo is not a
secular building of the III-IV centuries, as Archinti held,4 but a church of
the VI century, as I have demonstrated, and others have confirmed.5
The important ruins of Qasr es-Sherin may therefore serve, in default of
fresh discoveries, as a touchstone for the dating of a number of desert palaces
or castles, as well as of others in the cities of Western Asia, provided with
conical domes or hood-shaped pendentives.
This test receives confirmation from the article by Lammens referred to
above. According to him, the Lakhmid princes of Hira used to send their
children into the centre of Arabia to be out of the way of fevers and infectious
diseases. The Sassanid kings, too, had their heirs brought up by these
Lakhmid vassals of theirs, in the desert castles of Havarnaq and Sadir. The
Arab conquerors, accustomed as they were to the free air of the desert, fearful
of epidemics, and anxious to maintain the purity of their language, took a
long time to get accustomed to city life. So much so that, in the first century
of the Hijra, the Asrafs of Syria retired into the desert for a sojourn after
the winter rains. And under the Ummayyads, every caliph, the members of
the reigning house, and the chief officials, all had their ' badia ' or residence
in the desert. Hence it is under that dynasty, responsible as it was for
the erection of so many admirable religious edifices, that we may place the
principal movement in the construction of monumental fortified palaces in
the desert.
1 Revue Archtologique, 1905, pp. 93-109 ; LAsie Mineure nouveau domaine de rHistoirc de I' Art.
- VAN MILLINGEN, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, p. 78.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 79-81; (Hoepli), pp. 83-85; (Heinemann), vol. i,
pp. 72-74.
4 Stilt neir Architettura, vol. ii, p. 86.
5 Politecnico, 1911, nn. 11-12 ; MONNERET DE VILLARD, La chiesa di San Lorenzo in Milano.
1654 12
132 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Among these must be reckoned the nameless but imposing structure at
Mshatta (each side of the square of the outer wall measures about 145 m.,
or 477 ft.), the foundation of which is put at about the year 612 by
Dieulafoy,1 while Strzygowski gives it a still earlier date in the IV century.2
On the other hand, it is possible to place it, with considerable probability,
in the caliphate of Yazid II (720-724), for it is known that this effeminate
ruler expressed the intention of building a ' qasr ' to which he might retire
alone with his favourite Hababa, but did not finish it, perhaps because the
works were interrupted by her tragic death, soon followed by his own. As
a matter of fact, the castle of Mshatta was left unfinished and uninhabited ;
and the Abbasides saw no need for venting their hatred of the abhorred
Ummayyads by its destruction.
The light shed by Qasr es-Sherin, together with the story told by
Lammens, thus make it possible to suggest a date for — to give one instance
—the grand fortified palace of Ukhaidir, which has been ascribed to one
of the early caliphs,3 or else has been thought to belong to the time of
the Lakhmids and, perhaps, to be actually the castle of Havarnaq (built in
the first years of the V century by a Greek architect, Sinimmar : a great dome
was erected in the middle of the VIII century4), or else that of Sadir.5 A
more approximate date would be either in the reign of Chosroes II or in
the time of the early Abbasides, omitting the Ummayyads who (as Father
Lammens informs me) built their castles in Syria, not in Mesopotamia.
For similar reasons the smaller palaces of Firuz Abad and Sarvistan,
and also the domed structure at Farakh Abad, may be assigned to an epoch
not earlier than the reign of Chosroes II, and with even greater probability
to Moslem times.
With regard to Firuz Abad, I must call attention to the anachronism of
ascribing it to the epoch of the Achaemenids (688-330 B.C.), for blank arcading
is freely used in its decoration ; whereas in that period, although the Persians
and Assyrians used rectangular panelling in the decorative treatment of walls,
1 Op. cit., vol. v, p. 94.
2 Jahrbuch der Koniglich Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen, 1904 ; SCHULZ, STRZYGOWSKI, Mschatta,
pp. 205-373.
3 BELL, Palace and Mosque at Ukhaidir, p. 135.
4 AMARI, op. cit., vol. iii, 2, pp. 825, 828, 829.
5 CHASSINAT, Memoires publiees par les Membres de Flnstitut Francais d 'Archeologie oricntale du
Catre, vol. xxviii ; MASSIGNON, Mission en Mesopotamie, pp. 1-20.
DAMASCUS 133
they were not acquainted with the system of arcading, which was a Roman
invention.1
To return now to the horse-shoe arch. The earliest dated instance of a
constructive arch of this form in Syria, and appearing there only as an
exceptional and individual feature, was formerly to be found in the church
of Dana on the Euphrates, illustrated by Texier and Pullan,2 now no longer
in existence. In it the frontal arch of the apse and its vault had a radius
larger than that of a semicircle. Its date was the year 540.
It has also been suggested that one of the churches of Zebed in the same
region, viz. the eastern one, in which the plan of the apse is larger than a
semicircle,3 forms a parallel to the one at Dana. But we know nothing about its
date ; and all that can be said about it is that its construction may be connected
with that of its sister church at Zebed on the west, which bears the date 511.
In Cappadocia examples are to be found of churches and tombs excavated
in the rock, where the entrance is surmounted by a horse-shoe arch ; and these
have been ascribed to the centuries of the Christian persecutions, and therefore
to a time before the Edict of Milan (313). Nor do they stand alone, for
in the well-known tomb at Urgub, also cut in the rock, and dated in the
IV century, the horse-shoe arch was freely used in one range of openings
in the fa9ade, this range being surmounted by two others of blank arcading.4
There is no certain proof of the date of any of these caves, and it has been
suggested on good grounds that paintings which they contain are not earlier
than 93O.5 Not to speak of alterations which may have taken place under
Moslem rule. However this may be, the facade in question cannot be as
old as the IV century, and must have been executed under Moslem influence-
It would be too strange an anomaly to find such a singular decorative motive
remaining for so many centuries as an individual and sporadic instance, with
no attempt to copy it, and ignored by the Byzantine craftsmen.
In the Byzantine empire and the kingdom of Persia there is no dated
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 5-9; (Hoepli), pp. 21-26; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp.
23-25-
2 Byzantine Architecture, pp. 173, 174.
3 BUTLER, Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900.
Architecture, Sculpture, Mosaic and Wall-Painting in Northern Central Syria and the Djebel Hauran,
PP- 303. 3°5-
4 TEXIER, Description de fAsie Mineure, vol. ii, p. 76, pi. 89, 90. TEXIER, PULLAN, Byzantine
Architecture, pp. 4, 40, pi. iv. 5 Ibid., p. 40.
i34 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
building with decorative blank arcading earlier than that which appears at
Ctesiphon. And as it was in 540 that Ravenna fell into the hands of Belisarius,
it seems to be a not improbable conjecture that it was brought to the new
Persian capital by craftsmen from Ravenna, where it enjoyed such popularity.
At Urfa, the Roman Edessa, in Mesopotamia, there is a square minaret,
believed to have been the bell-tower of a church of the Virgin erected in the
time of Justinian (527-565), which has horse-shoe arches. But Garovaglio
dates it in Arab times,1 and De Beylie"2 suspected, with good reason, that it
belonged to the age of the Crusades. The counts of Edessa held the district
between 1098 and H44.3 A record is to be found in Caetani4 of an order
given by the Caliph Muawiya, after a destructive earthquake in 678, for the
restoration of the churches of Edessa, and also of the wreck of the ancient
church of the city by another violent earthquake in 681-82. Hence, supposing
that there were any bell-towers there, they cannot have belonged to the time
of Justinian.
To the XII century, again, must be ascribed another bell-tower at Urfa
with an octagonal base, formerly belonging to the church of the Forty
Martyrs, but also converted into a minaret, which has been wrongly assigned
to the V and VI centuries. It recalls the polygonal minaret at Anah on
the Euphrates, which is decorated with sunk panels, and is believed to date
from the early centuries of the Moslem era.5
In Syria and Palestine the oldest certain record of a great bell-tower
on a large scale is of the one belonging to the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem,
erected between 1160 and n8o.6 I may mention with regard to this tower
that, in a miniature of the XIII century, the church is represented with a
pair of similar towers.7
In Lycaonia, that is to say at Binbir Kilisse, there are remains of ancient
churches, ascribed to the times before the Arab invasion of about 700, in
which the horse-shoe arch is freely used.8 But this ascription, though it
1 GAROVAGLIO, Viaggio nella Siria Centrale e nella Mesopotamia, tav. xxxiii.
2 Prome et Samara, pp. 67, 68.
3 LANE-POOLE, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, tab. i.
4 Chronographia, pp. 637, 701.
5 DE BEYLIE, Prome et Samara, pp. 67, 68.
6 BARNABE MEISTERMANN, Nueva Guia de Tierra Santa, p. 86.
7 HEISENBERG, Grabcskirchc und Apostelkirche, zwei Basiliken Konstantins, vol. i, taf. xi.
8 RAMSAY, BELL, The Thousand and One Churches, pp. 14, 41-50, 71-99, 117-126, 147-151.
DAMASCUS
135
may represent the opinion of its authors, is not supported by any certified
date. Such being the case, I would refer the reader to what has been said
by others on the subject.1
In Italy the re-entrant arch in
ancient times barely made a beginning
here and there as a sporadic motive,
sometimes due to the necessities of the
plan, as, for instance, in the villa known
as the ' Sette Bassi ' on the Via Latina
near Rome (II century), as I have pointed
out elsewhere.2 In the central block of
these important ruins are to be seen a
domed vestibule of about 6 m. (19 ft.
9 in.) in diameter, and a room with a
niche at the end of 1.80 m. (nearly 6 ft.)
in diameter, where this arch is used in
plan (Figs. 113, 114). The brick stamps
fix the date of erection in the years 100-133. In the detached block to the
north-west there may also be seen a cruciform room with an apse at its end
w hich is of horse-shoe form. The brick stamps give the year 134.
Otherwise it appears occa-
sionally in carving, as in the
sarcophagus of the III or IV
century in the Villa Mattei on
the Caelian at Rome (Figs. 115,
1 1 6, p. 130).
The Iberian peninsula con-
tains some ancient examples of
the decorative use of the form,
r
FIG. 113.— Rome. Villa called 'Sette
Bassi,' on the Via Latina. Plan of
a vestibule (II cent.).
FIG. 114.— Rome. Villa called 'Sette Bassi,'
on the Via Latina. Section of a wall with
horse-shoe niche (II cent.).
going back to the II or more
probably the III century. For
instance, the Pagan gravestone
from Le6n (Fig. 117, p. 140) in the National Archaeological Museum at
Madrid, and two more of the same kind in the Archaeological Museum (formerly
1 DE LASTEYRIE, op. cit., pp. 17, 18.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 221, 222; (Hoepli), p. 393; (Heinemann), vol. ii,
PP- 58, 59-
i36 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
the convent of St. Mark) at Leon, exhibit in relief, respectively, an arch
enclosing a whorl, two smaller arches flanking a larger one, and two arches
of equal size, all of the horse-shoe form. A cinerary urn of the Roman period,
from Bausen, in the valley of Aran, has similar arches represented on it.1
It has been suggested that these Iberian gravestones received their
carving in the Moslem period.2 But even though this might have been the
case with the two stones in the Museum at Leon, no one who has examined
on the spot the third stone from Leon, now at Madrid, can think, I hope,
that it has undergone any alteration.
Spain contains other decorative examples belonging to the early Christian
period. Hiibner records three of the VI century.3
Early examples of the horse-shoe arch are also to be found in illuminated
manuscripts, though not of such ancient date as those in buildings. I may
mention the precious Evangeliarium, written in Syriac by Rabula in the
monastery of Zagba, in Mesopotamia, in the year 586,4 where the nineteen
Canons have arcades of horse-shoe arches in pairs, in threes, and in fours,
enclosed within a single arch. But the illuminated leaves of parchment
bound with the text, some of which are evidently later additions, belong to
different dates and hands, and are, apparently, in every case, the result of
later insertion. The Crucifixion which appears on one of these leaves has
been ascribed to various centuries between the VIII and the XI.5
Next come the no less precious manuscripts in the National Library at
Madrid : of the Bible (950) ; an Evangeliarium of the XI century ; Fuero
juzgo (1058); St. Beatus, Commentaries on the Apocalypse (1047); with
ornamentation of open arcades, a large arcade between two smaller ones,
arcades enclosed in a single arch, tiers of arcades one above the other,
O
always with the horse-shoe arch. Other examples are to be seen in a
Bible (X century) in the archives of the collegiate church of San Isidore at
Leon, one page of which (reproduced by Amador de los Rios y Villalta6)
1 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, DE FALGUERA, GODAY Y CASALS, L arquitectura romanica a Catalunya,
vol. i, p. 248.
2 CABROL, Dictionnaire tf Archeologie chrltienne et de la Liturgic^ fasc. xii, Banos. LECLERCQ,
col. 191-198.
3 Inscriptiones Hispaniae Christianae, Supplementum^ Lusitania, nn. 304, 311, 312, 31$.
4 Laurentian Library, Florence.
5 MORINI, Origini del culto alia Addolorata, App. D.
6 Museo Espanol de Antigiiedades, vol. ix, pp. 521-532, Pdgina de una Biblia del siglo X quc se
conserva en el Archive de San Isidore de Leon.
CAIRO 137
shows five arches of this form. It is specially noticeable in the Codex of
Eude and Emeteri in the cathedral of Gerona (975). Another example may be
seen in the ' Lex Salica ' (794) in the library of the ancient abbey of St. Gall.
THE CONGREGATIONAL MOSQUE OF IBN TULUN AT QATTAI (CAIRO),
begun in 876-77, or more probably in 872-73, by Ibn Tulun (868-883) at
Qattai, the suburb which he built to the north of Fustat, was finished in
879. The latter date is confirmed by the inaugural inscription built into one
of the piers near the qibla.
It was the third mosque of its kind erected in the Moslem capital of
Egypt. The first was that of Amr, which we have already dealt with.
The second was that of Askar, built in 785-86 in the suburb of Fustat
known as al-Askar. It was enlarged in 826-27, and is mentioned in 1123-
24, but no trace of it remains.
-The architect appears to have been a Christian, and some think that he
was actually a Copt, Ibn Katib al-Fargani. I note in passing that Ibn Tulun
during his caliphate could not find in his dominions anyone capable of
fortifying Acre in the same manner as Tyre — the work demanding a know-
ledge of hydraulics — and entrusted the task to an architect, Abu Bakr, the
grandfather of the geographer Muqaddasi,1 which shows that his noble pro-
fession was practised and honoured in Palestine, and that the Coptic archi-
tects were not the repositories of science that some have supposed.
It was the first building on a large scale in Egypt in which brick piers
were used instead of columns. In the grave disorders of the caliphate of
Mustansir (1035-1094) it was seriously damaged, and an inscription tells us
that under him the north-east gate of the outer wall was restored in 1077.
It is also known that in his time a mihrab was erected in the middle of
the first line of piers, towards the court ; and that work was going on in
the building under the Caliph Hafiz (1130-1149). Mansur Husam (1296-1298)
carried out important restorations and enlargements. Under Nasir Mohammed
(1293-94, 1298-1308, 1309-1340) two minarets were restored. These
lesser minarets stood at the ends of the mihrab wall, and the one at the
eastern angle still exists (Fig. 118, p. 139). More work was executed in 1365-
66. In 1389-90 the northern walk of the cloister by the great minaret was
restored. Work was again going on in 1524. Finally, in 1711 the mosque
1 Op. cit., p. 30.
138 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
was made into a fortified place, and soon afterwards into a wool factory.
In the XIX century it became a hospital for the poor. Of late a careful
restoration of the building has been in progress.1
The mosque of Ibn Tulun which, through all its vicissitudes, has undergone
no essential change, is a rectangle of 140 by 116 m. (about 460 by 382 ft.),
enclosed on three sides by double circuit walls, the space between which forms
outer courts (Fig. 119, p. 142). The inner wall, strengthened on the outside by
buttresses at the corners, is lined on three sides by double arcades with piers.
The fourth or southern side, the place of prayer, has five rows of similar
supports forming five bays in depth and seventeen in length, the central one
leading to the mihrab. The outermost of these rows fell in 1877 (Figs.
1 20, 121, pp. 141, 142). The range facing on to the court has now dis-
appeared, and only four of the original rows of piers remain.
The building was not a direct copy of the mosque of Samarra in
Mesopotamia, as has been asserted.2 As a matter of fact, the mosque of
Samarra, erected by the Abbasid caliph, Mutawakkil (847-861), to replace a
former one built by Mutasim (833-842), and still existing in the shape of
extensive ruins, possesses only one enclosure wall of 220 by 168 m. (about
725 by 553 ft.), strengthened on its outer face by massive buttresses crowned
by round turrets. There seem to. have been ten ranges of supports on the
south, three or four on the north, four or five on the east and west. Apparently
these supports were columns which, it has been suggested, were of wood,3 and
I think rightly, as no vestige of them has survived.4 Moreover, the mosque
built by Mansur (754-775), the founder of Baghdad, was of sun-baked bricks
with a flat roof supported by tree trunks. Harun al-Rashid (786-809) rebuilt
1 CHASSINAT, Memoires publiees par les Membres de flnstitut Fran$ais d 'Archeologie orientate du
Caire, vol. vii ; SALMON, Etudes sur la topographic du Caire, pp. 12-27. LANE-POOLE, A History
of Egypt in the Middle Ages, pp. 63, 65. HERZ, Catalogue raisonnt des monuments exposes dans
le Musee National de fArt arabe (Le Caire), pp. xxv-xxx, 6-9. BOURIANT, Memoires publiees par
les Membres de la Mission Archeologique Fran^aise au Caire, vol. xix, pp. 27-39; VAN BERCHEM,
Materiaux pour un Corpus inscriptionum arabicarum. The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,
1891, pp. 527-562; CORBETT, The Life and Works of Ahmad ibn Tulun. BUTLER, The Arab
Conquest of Egypt, pp. 341, 342.
2 CHASSINAT, Memoires publiles par les Membres de tlnstitut Francais d' Archeologie orientale du
Caire, vol. vii, p. 13 ; SALMON, Etudes sur la topographic du Caire. LANE, op. cit., p. 590.
3 BELL, Amurath to Amurath, pp. 231-235.
4 But see E. HERZFELD'S recently published Erster vorlaufiger Bericht ilber die Aiisgrabungen
-von Samarra, pp. 6-13, which modifies the statement above.
'39
FIG. 118. — Qattai (Cairo). Mosque of Ibn Tulun. One of the
smaller minarets (XIII or XIV cent.).
140
r
FIG. 117. — Madrid. National
Archaeological Museum.
Pagan gravestone (III cent.).
FIG. 123. — Qattai (Cairo). Mosque of Ibn Tulun.
Great minaret.
FIG. 120. — Qattai (Cairo). Mosque of Ibn Tulun. Interior (IX cent.).
142
FIG. 119. — Qattai (Cairo). Mosque of Ibn Tulun. Outer wall (IX cent.
FIG. 121. — Qattai (Cairo). Mosque of Ibn Tulun. Interior (IX cent.).
CAIRO 145
it with fire-baked bricks.1 Again, in the mosque of Gedda on the Red Sea,
ascribed to the latter caliph, Ibn Jubair2 saw two columns of ebony. The
existence of pillars of combustible material at Samarra would explain Ibn
Tulun's wish, as reported by Maqrizi, ' to erect a building which may last even
if Misr were burned by fire or submerged by flood ' ; 3 in other words, to make
use of supports in his mosque which were not of wood, as in that at Samarra,
which he had seen when he was at the caliph's court there. Besides, the
multifoil arch occurs at Samarra, and is still to be seen in the windows of the
south wall of the mosque ; but it is never found in Ibn Tulun's building.
The mosque is orientated in the direction of Mecca.
The outer face of the walls of the internal arcades, which are quite 1.60 m.
(5 ft. 3 in.) thick, was ornamented by large niches alternating with windows,
between smaller niches. The arches of the large niches and of the windows,
which are not splayed, spring from dwarf angle shafts.
The piers, both in the cloisters and in the place of prayer, are rectangular
in shape with four engaged angle columns, and rest on high bases. The
walls carried by the arches are pierced above the piers by openings with
angle shafts, which have both a constructive and a decorative purpose. The
arcades were roofed with flat ceilings.
The pointed horse-shoe arch is used throughout, as is the bell-shaped
capital with leaves.
Walls, piers, columns, and arches are all of brick set in thick layers
of mortar, and everywhere covered with several coats of stucco. The bands
of stucco decoration on the walls and arches are noticeable.
Originally the walls were everywhere crowned by the curious battlements,
many portions of which survive.
The original mihrab (Fig. 122, p. 145) is an interesting object. It is placed
in the middle of the end wall of the sanctuary, still, as a whole, in its original
form. The mosaics of the niche are ruinous. The marble shafts in front,
with their capitals and bases, are antiques. The capitals of the basket
pattern, or funnel-shaped with complete undercutting, have no relation either
in form or style to the stucco capitals of the mosque, and may be assigned to
the age of Justinian.
1 LE STRANGE, Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate, pp. 34, 35.
2 Op. cit., pp. 47, 48.
3 CHASSINAT, Mlmoires publics par les Membres de FInstitut Franfais d'Archtologie orientals du
Caire, vol. vii, p. 14 ; SALMON, Etudes sur la topographic du Caire.
1654 ! 3
144 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
The domed structure in the court was erected by Mansur Husam (1296),
as we learn from the inscription which it . bears. Le Strange1 is wrong in
thinking that it was built as a mausoleum for Ibn Tulun, and only later
furnished with a basin for ablutions.
The mosque was provided with a great minaret set towards the north
between the cloister and the outer wall, to the left of the main axis of the
building. It was the part of the sacred edifice which affected the imagination
of the Moslems most forcibly ; and in form it is unique among the minarets
of Cairo (Fig. 123, p. 140). The only notices relating to the structure after its
foundation which have come down to us are its attempted demolition in the
caliphate of Hakim (996-1020), and later, in the year 1596-97, the removal
of the vessels on its summit intended to hold grain for fowls and pigeons.
In its present condition it appears, so far as I can judge, to be untouched
in its main features, consisting of a large square base of blocks of a hard
limestone with an external staircase, out of which rises a cylindrical tower
with stairs winding round its exterior. How it was finished at the top
we do not know. The two polygonal stories with internal staircase, which
now crown the building, are a later alteration.
The anomaly now to be seen of ranges of two-light openings with
pronounced round horse-shoe arches, instead of pointed horse-shoe arches,
is due to the fact that they are a later insertion, as is shown by the materials
used in them. To the period of this alteration will belong the communication
now existing between the minaret and the roof of the cloister. It may all be
connected with the work carried out in this part of the mosque in 1389-90.
In the next place, the use of stone for the minaret, while brick is exclusively
employed in the mosque, need cause no surprise. In fact, when the mosque
of Hakim (990-1003) was built after the pattern of this one, the same system
was followed. Moreover, one must remember the great bulk of the minaret
and its height (which may have been considerable, like that of the one at
Samarra), requiring the use of a harder material, which was easy to procure
by robbing ancient buildings, a resource not available at Samarra.
It has been suggested that this minaret was copied from the ancient
Pharos of Alexandria, erected by Sostratus of Cnidus in the reign of Ptolemy
II, Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.). It had a square base, above which rose an
octagonal stage, and above that a circular one supporting a lantern. The
1 Palestine under the Moslems, p. 95.
145
FIG. 122.— Qattai (Cairo). Mosque of Ibn Tulun. The principal mihrab (IX cent.).
FIG. 12.4.— Venice. San Marco. Mosaic of the XII century, showing the
Pharos of Alexandria.
1 46
FIG. 125. — Tagiura. Mosque (XVI cent.).
FIG. 126. — Tagiura. Mosque (XVI cent.).
CAIRO 147
staircase was internal.1 This lighthouse was partly demolished under the
Caliph Walid I (705-715), considerably damaged by the earthquake of 95 5, 2
and restored afterwards. Ibn Jubair3 says that the base measured more
than 50 cubits, and that the height exceeded 150 fathoms. On the summit
was a mosque. The tower fell in the XIV century,4 but an interesting
representation of it is to be seen in a mosaic (XII century) at St. Mark's,
Venice (Fig. 124, p. 145).
On the other hand, as far back as the XI century, it has been believed
that the minaret was copied from the one at Samarra.5 This theory is the
more probable one, and it is confirmed by the minaret of the mosque of
Mutawakkil (847-861). The latter as designed had a spiral form, recalling,
with its external staircase, the ancient staged towers of Mesopotamia known
as 'zigurrats.' The base, which is low and ruinous, appears to have been of
square shape. Its height exceeds 50 m. (about 165 ft.), and it is crowned by
a kiosk with a hexagonal base and a spherical cupola, ornamented with
niches which have pointed arches and piers. It too was placed at the north
side, outside the court of the sacred edifice.6
One has only to compare the two minarets in order to be struck at once
by their close relationship. And one is also profoundly convinced that there
could never have been erected at Cairo in the XIII or XIV century a minaret
— I am speaking only of the original outlines of the structure — so bare of
ornament and of so antiquated a form as that exhibited by Ibn Tulun's.
Another minaret of the type of that of Samarra is to be seen in the
mosque of Abudolaf, a few kilometres from that city.7 It is evidently copied
from the one at Samarra, and like it has a spiral form. It rises from a base
measuring 12.50 by 10.80 m. (about 42 by 36 ft.) and 2.50 m. (8 ft. 2 in.)
in height, decorated with narrow niches having horse-shoe arches. The
upper part has fallen.
1 CHASSINAT, Mtmoires publics par les Membres de rinstitut Fran^ais d* Archtologie orientate du
Caire, vol. vii, pp. 25-27 ; SALMON, Etudes sur la topographic du Caire. BUTLER, The Arab
Conquest of Egypt, pp. 389-400.
2 BUTLER, op. cit, pp. 389-400. 3 Op. cit, pp. 10, u.
4 BOURIANT, Mtmoires publiles par les Membres de la Mission Archlologique Franfaise ait Caire,
vol. xix, pp. 473-492 ; VAN BERCHEM, Matlriaux pour un Corpus inscriptionum arabicarum.
5 CHASSINAT, Memoires publics par les Membres de VInstitut Fran^ais d' Archtologie orientale du
Caire, vol. vii, pp. 25-27 ; SALMON, Etudes sur la topographic du Caire.
6 BELL, Amurath to Amurath, pp. 231-235. DE BEYLIE, Prome et Samara, pp. 115-118.
7 DE BEYLI£, Prome et Samara, pp. 119-124.
i48 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
It is thought by some that the small minaret at the south-east angle of
the mosque of Ibn Tulun, corresponding to another which has disappeared
at the south-west angle, dates from the IX century. But its advanced form
is against this, and it must be connected with the works of Mohammed
Nasir.
The chief interest of the mosque of Tulun for our purpose is that
it is the first building in which the pointed horse-shoe arch was systematically
used. For it has yet to be proved beyond the range of doubt that the
remains of an ancient aqueduct ascribed by Corbett1 to Ibn Tulun, and
two or three years earlier than the mosque, are really such.
It has been thought that the form was used before this in the Nilometer
on the island of Roda, the history of which, as told by Marcel in his Mtmoires
sur les Meqyds de rile de Rouda, and repeated by Van Berchem, is as follows.
Built in 714-716 by the Caliph Suliman, and restored by Mamun in 814-15,
it was repaired in 847-48 under Mutawakkil, and in 861-62 under Mustansir ;
again in 1092 and 1766-67; and finally in i799-i8oo.2 From this account,
and from the inscriptions on the building, the inference may be drawn that
the ancient portion of the enclosing wall, with the boldly outlined pointed
horse-shoe arches of the recesses, belongs to the caliphate of Mamun. Lane-
Poole,3 on the other hand, says that it was erected in the year 86 1 by the
governor Yazid, and improved by Ibn Tulun in 873. However this may
be, the Nilometer apparently takes precedence over the mosque of Tulun
in regard to the use of the pointed horse-shoe arch. The original building
was entrusted to an architect who came from Fergana.4
The pointed horse-shoe arch assumed in time, after being set up on
a dado, as in the mosque al-Azhar at Cairo, the light and elegant forms
exhibited, for instance, by the mosque of Tagiura near Tripoli, built, according
to information obtained from Dr Aurigemma, by Murad Agha in I55O5
(Figs. 125, 126, p. 146).
The origin of this constructive feature is to be sought in India, where
1 The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1891 ; pp. 531, 532, 540; The Life and Works
of Ahmad ibn Tulun.
2 BOURIANT, Mlmoires publiees par les Membres de la Mission Archeologique Franfaise au Caire,
vol. xix, pp. 18-22; VAN BERCHEM, MatMaux pour un Corpus inscriptionum arabicarum.
3 A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, pp. 26, 43, 63, 65.
4 SALADIN, Manuel tfArt musulman, vol. i, p. 88.
5 AHMED EN NAIB, Kitab el Manhal, p. 189.
149
FIG. 127. — Mamallapuram. Ganesa Ratha (VII cent.).
150
FIG. 128.— Mamallapuram. Bhima Ratha (VII cent.).
FIG. 130.— Ajanta. Interior of Cave Temple XIX (VI-VII cent).
FIG. 129. — Ajanta. Fagade of Cave Temple XIX (VI-VI I cent.).
'52
FIG. i34.~Cairo. Ruins of the Mosque of Hakim (X and XI cents.).
FIG. 131.— Cairo. Mosque al-Azhar (X-XIX cent).
CAIRO 153
it appears in monuments belonging to the time of the flower and expansion
of the art of Gandhara, a period, according to Foucher, which begins before
the second half of the II century, and extends at latest to the year 6OO.1
Its culmination was between" the years 50 and 150 or 200 of the Christian
era.2 Interesting specimens of the constructive and decorative use of the
form are to be found in the ' rath as ' or small temples (VII century) at
Mamallapuram, not far from Madras, known as the * Seven Pagodas,' each
one carved out of a block of granite.3 Two of these shrines, the Ganesa
Ratha (Fig. 127, p. 149) and the Bhima Ratha (Fig. 128, p. 150), are here
illustrated. In India it is also found combined with the 'accolade' or ogee
arch, which I describe as the ' cyma re versa arch.'
In Western Asia the simple pointed arch had already appeared as a
constructive feature, in — to mention only dated buildings — the palace of
Chosroes I (531-579) at Ctesiphon, and in the minaret and mihrab in the
mosque of Samarra (847-861).
It may be noticed here that from the horse-shoe arch and the 'cyma
reversa ' or ogee arch was developed the bulbous or Tartar cupola, early
specimens of which on a small scale are to be seen in the stupas or dagabas
of Buddhist temples cut in the rock ; for instance, in the cave temples of
Ajanta numbered XIX (Figs. 129, 130, pp. 150, 151) and XXVI. These
caves, twenty-nine in number, are dated between about 200 B.C. and 642 A.D.
The two just mentioned appear to have been made between 500 and 642. 4
Burgess puts cave XIX at the end of the V century.5
•
THE MOSQUE AL-AZHAR AT CAIRO, begun in 970, at the command of the
Caliph Muizz (952-975) by his secretary, an emancipated slave, Jauhar al-Rumi
(t 992), the subduer of Morocco (959), the conqueror of Egypt and founder
of Cairo (969), was finished in 972, and was the first mosque to be erected
in Cairo. The fact was still attested in the days of Maqrizi (t 1444) by
the inscription to be read on the dome to the right of the minbar, in which
Jauhar was described as a Sicilian.
The roof, originally low, was raised at a later time to the extent of a
1 FOUCHER, L'Art grtco-bouddhique du Gandfidra, pp. 40-42.
2 VINCENT A. SMITH, op. cit., p. 99.
3 Ibid, p. 36. 4 Ibid., pp. 274, 275.
5 BURGESS, History of Indian Architecture, pp. 150, 151.
154 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
cubit. Four of the Fatimite caliphs (909-1171) executed repairs. It suffered
seriously from the earthquake of 1303, but was repaired. More restorations
took place in 1325 and 1360. The Sultans Qait Bey (1468-1495) and
Ghuri (1500-1516) erected the two minarets still standing at the middle of
the west side and at the south-west angle of the court. None of the
mosque's minarets are contemporary with the foundation. In 1595-96 the
building underwent considerable alterations, and was repaired.
In its present state it is the result of important modifications, and
forms a group of mosques of various dates,1 especially of the XVIII and
XIX centuries (Figs. 131, 132, pp. 152, 155). Nevertheless, in the oldest part,
i.e. in five of the nine aisles running north and south, the central aisle may,
on the whole, be regarded as original. In fact the archivolts of its arcades,
together with the piers of the first range towards the court, have inscrip-
tions from the Koran in Carmathian characters of the Fatimite period, some
of which seem, according to Van Berchem, to be as old as the foundation
of the mosque. To this range, then, we must give some attention.
The walls which support the wooden roof have been tampered with,
as is shown by the occurrence of round-headed windows. Moreover, the
interesting stucco vine reliefs in the lower part clearly belong, both in
design and execution, to more than one period. The arcades, on the other
hand, with borrowed Roman or Byzantine columns, and pointed arches of
elongated form, were all built at the same time. Their importance lies
in the form of the arches. These arches are pointed, the curves becoming
straight at the key. Those in the nave are set up on high impost blocks,
while those in the aisles are raised by means of pedestals. This type of
arch, derived from the Indian ' cyma re versa arch,' is known as the Persian arch.
The fact, however, remains that Persia, so far as we know at present, contains
no dated examples earlier than those in the mosque al-Azhar, and it appears
to be of Egyptian origin. I describe it as 'the pointed mixtilinear arch.'
We do not know the name of the architect who invented this new form.
But remembering that its introduction corresponds to the Fatimite conquest,
1 HERZ, op. cit., pp. xxxiv and xxxv. LANE-POOLE, A History of Egypt under the Saracens,
pp. 99-104, 117, 242, 276, 302, 324. B6URIANT, Memoires publiees par les Membres de la Mission
Archeologique Fran$aise au Caire, vol. xix, pp. 43-50; VAN BERCHEM, Mattriaux pour un Corpus
inscriptionum arabicarum. LANE, op. cit., pp. 599, 600. NASIRI KUSRU, op. cit., p. 135.
Journal Asiatique, 1891, i, pp. 424-429, 441 ; VAN BERCHEM, Notes d* Archtologie arabe. LANE-
POOLE, The Story of Cairo, pp. 124, 125.
155
\ Li /
FIG. 132. — Cairo. Mosque al-Azhar. Side of the court and minarets.
'56
3
c
Cfl
E
o
X
ri
u
o
ID
OJ
c c
I— I D
O
. I— I
.§ X
15 ^3
rt c
ffi ^
"o >1
OJ JD
8-g
v; _G
Is
V
I*
U
M
M
d
CAIRO
157
and that in the great mosque of Kairawan, as far back as the days of
Ziyadat Allah I (816-837), round horse-shoe arches were raised up on high
bases, it seems to me not improbable that it originated in the desire to
combine the pointed arch, which in its horse-shoe form had been brought
into vogue in Egypt by Ibn Tulun, with the high imposts at Kairawan,
the seat of the Fatimids in Barbary before they attained to the caliphate of
Egypt. Nor does it seem an unnatural conjecture that it was Jauhar, not
only a distinguished general but also a man of letters and therefore of culture,
who suggested the form to
some Christian architect of
Egypt ; and that, under these
circumstances, the designer of
the building, wishing to en-
dow it with some distinctive
feature marking the accession
of a new dynasty, modified
the pointed arch of Tulun's
time under the influence of
the Indian 'cyma reversa' or
ogee arch.
Before leaving the mosque
al-Azhar I must point out that
its well-known cupola does
not belong to the original
structure. Its pendentives in
the form of elongated niches
projecting from the face of the
walls like canopies (Fig. 133), of the same type as those which we saw in the
congregational mosque of Walid at Damascus, point to a date subsequent to
that of the mosque of Hakim, also at Cairo (990-10x53), in which short niche
pendentives recessed in the thickness of the walls are employed, following
the pattern of the prototypes in San Vitale at Ravenna. Those in our
mosque seem to have been suggested by the examples in the Cappella
Palatina, Santa Maria dell' Ammiraglio, and San Cataldo at Palermo ;
which, until the contrary be proved, may be taken as the prototypes of the
species, and in their turn are the offspring of the elegant though dwarf
pendentives in the vestibule of the mihrab of Hakam II at Cordova.
FIG. 133. — Cairo. Mosque al-Azhar.
Pendentive of the dome.
158 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
The Sicilian pendentives, the inner construction of which is revealed
by those in San Cataldo, where the walls have been stripped, have nothing
in common with the pendentives consisting merely of a vault taken out of
the thickness of the wall, which I describe as ' hood-shaped ' or ' Romano-
Campanian.' The latter are sometimes elaborated like those in Ibrahim II's
dome at Kairawan ; and at a later date the Lombards used them in tiers,
as may be seen in the cathedral of Piacenza.
THE MOSQUE OF HAKIM AT CAIRO, begun in 990 by the Caliph Aziz
(975-996), was finished in 1003 by his son Hakim (996-1020). Work was
still going on, however, in 1010-11; and in 1012-13 the decorations and
embellishments were added. It suffered severely in the earthquake of 1303,
when a considerable number of the internal piers fell, the upper part of the
minarets collapsed, and the roofs and walls were damaged. It was restored
under the Sultan Nasir (1293-94, 1298-1308, 1309-1340) by the Emir
Mohammed Baybars, afterwards Sultan Baybars II (I3O8-O9).1 At present
it is a mass of ruins (Fig. 134, p. 152), but we will give a short account of it.
Like the mosque of Ibn Tulun it was built with piers. The court was
enclosed on three sides by a triple range of arcades, now for the most part
gone, with cruciform piers having brick angle columns without capitals. The
place of prayer had from the beginning a depth of five bays divided by
piers like those described above. The piers at the end of each series were
rectangular with lesenas or pilasters. All the piers were connected by
wooden ties ; but this device, considering the nature of the piers themselves,
must have been due to Baybars. The pointed arch of slightly horse-shoe
form is used throughout, and the imposts of the arches are made of wood.
The arches run, as in the mosque of Ibn Tulun, from east to west,
and start from isolated piers or half wall-piers. In the spandrels are openings,
as in the mosque of Tulun. There were flat ceilings. The piers were
built of brick with thick layers of mortar. The outer walls show that they
have been repaired or rebuilt in places where a mixture of stone and brick
occurs. These were the restorations due to the catastrophe of the XIV
century.
1 LANE-POOLE, A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, pp. 117, 123, 129, 276, 302.
BOURIANT, Memoires publiees par les Membres de la Mission Archtologique Fran$aise au Caire,
vol. xix, pp. 50-54 ; VAN BERCHEM, Materiaux pour un Corpus inscriptionum arabicarum*
Journal Asiatique, 1891, i, pp. 429-442 ; VAN BERCHEM, Notes d' archeologie arabe.
159
.s
~n
4)
I
o 7
^ o
a; •*•
s <
'3
u
X
-3
93
•z
a*
t/3 "
o *-;
CS
u
I
-
i6o
FIG. 139. — Osia, Temple of the Sun (VIII cent.).
FIG. 140. — Palermo. Cappella Palatina (XII cent.).
l62
,
s
QJ
H
pq
CAIRO 163
It will be noticed that over the ends of the central bay and the two
last bays to east and west, three domes were set, that in the centre still
surviving and parts of those which flank it at the angles of the building.
The former, rising in front of the mihrab, rests on three arches and part
of the southern outer wall. The square base passes into the octagon of
the drum by means of four pendentives with short niches (Fig. 135, p. 156).
The drum supports the conical cupola, which has four windows at its base
and eight above.
The presence of the typical Ravennate pendentive demands a closer
examination of the dome. If we look at the nave to which it belongs, we
notice that the piers have been altered in order to increase their resistance
to the pressure of the dome. And if we climb a ladder to examine the
exterior of the cupola at close quarters, we find that the bricks are not
exactly like those in the rest of the building, and that they are sometimes
set in herring-bone fashion. This gives rise to a doubt as to whether
the cupola belongs to the date of the foundation, and is not rather the
result of an alteration. But in spite of this, and not forgetting what has
been done in the way of repair and reinforcement, probably after the
disaster of 1303, in order to preserve it, I think that it retains its original
form. In fact the plainness of the pendentives is .quite in keeping with
the simplicity of the bell-shaped capitals below, and with the absence of
ornament in the piers throughout the mosque. To judge by the simple
niche pendentive which survives in one of the two domes at the ends of
the building, and is identical in form with the four belonging to the central
cupola, this dome, too, together with its fellow which has disappeared, must
belong to the time of Aziz and Hakim. The lesena, however, in the south
wall, which carries the transverse arch, is of later date than the original
building, so that the dome itself must be ascribed to the work of Baybars.
At the angles of the north wall of the court were set the two minarets,
the tops of which fell in the earthquake of 1303 (Figs. 136, 137, pp. 156, 159).
Each has a square basement of courses of large limestone blocks, accurately
cut and set in mortar. It is lighted by rectangular windows, and contains
a spiral staircase. Upon this is set an octagonal story, above which rises
the cylindrical minaret. When the latter fell, Baybars enclosed the surviving
parts within clumsy basements, making a staircase in the space between the
old wall and the new ; and at the top he built the fanciful polygonal brick
towers still to be seen, crowned by cupolas of irregular shape. The cupolas
*654 14
1 64 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
were inspired by the one belonging to the minaret of the mosque tomb of
Salih Ayyub (1240-1249), finished in 1 243-44 l (Fig. 138, p. 159) — supposing
that it is the original, the upper part of the minaret having been restored 2 — and
both were derived from the no less bizarre forms found in Indian buildings,
such as the temple of the Sun at Osia in the State of Jodhpur, belonging to
a group of sacred edifices dating from the VIII century (Fig. 139, p. 160),
and the shrine of Muktesvara at Bhuvanesvar in the district of Puri in Orissa
(Fig. 141, p. 162), one of the earliest religious structures in that reign, dated
between the IX or X and the XIII centuries.3
Special attention must be drawn to two features in the mosque of
Hakim : the compound piers and piers with angle columns, and the niche
pendentives.
The compound piers are of the Lombardic type, but with this difference,
that they are not designed as the starting-point of a whole group of members,
as only longitudinal arches spring from them. Their outline was intended
to render the piers less heavy to the eye, and make them more pleasing.
Elsewhere I have dealt with the origin and development of compound
piers.4
The niche pendentives are the earliest dated specimens of their kind,
freely and clearly defined and visible, which I have met with in the Moslem
world. The earlier form used in the bay in front of the mihrab in the
mosque of Cordova (961-976) consists of an angle recess within a pensile
cusped framing arch. The history of this Romano-Ravennate element will
also be found in my previous work.5
It is not easy to say from what source the architect of the mosque of
Hakim derived these pendentives, so characteristic of Fatimite architecture,
of which the only earlier attested examples in existence are those constructed
by Julianus Argentarius to carry the dome of San Vitale at Ravenna (526-547).
It is only too true that nearly all the Moslem buildings were destroyed during
1 BOURIANT, Memoires publiees par les Membres de la Mission Archeologique Fran$aise au Caire,
vol. xix, pp. 102-110; VAN BERCHEM, Materiaux pour un Corpus inscriptionum arabicarum.
2 HERZ, op. cit., p. xlv. 3 VINCENT A. SMITH, op. cit., pp. 25-32.
4 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 291, 315, 316; vol. ii, pp. 107, no, 187, 488, 489;
(Hoepli), pp. 86, 214-216, 220, 244, 282, 283, 307, 408; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 75, 176-178,
1 8 1, 199, 228, 248 ; vol. ii, p. 70.
5 Ibid. (Loescher), vol. i, p. 76 ; vol. ii, p. 604 ; (Hoepli), pp. 79, 80, 236, 237 ; (Heinemann),
vol. i, pp. 71, 193.
FIG. 142. — Palermo. Santa Maria dell' Ammiraglio or Martorana (XII cent).
1 66
FIG. 143. — Palermo. San Cataldo (XII cent.).
CAIRO 167
the Norman conquest of Sicily ( 1060-1091 ).1 And even if those of Palermo,
which capitulated in 1072, were spared2 and aroused the admiration of Edrisi
(ii54),3 not one of them is now in existence. However, when Roger II
(1130-1154) in 1132 began to erect that jewel of art, the Cappella Palatina at
Palermo (Fig. 140, p. 161), the dome was sprung from elegant projecting angle
niches which showed an advance on those of Hakim. The same procedure
was followed when George of Antioch built Santa Maria dell' Ammiraglio,
now known as the Martorana, at Palermo (ii43)4 (Fig. 142, p. 165). I note
in passing that originally this church was of such beauty that Ibn Jubair, who
saw it in 1184, calls it 'unquestionably the fairest building in the world.'
Its campanile, too, with variegated marble columns adorning its stages, excited
great admiration.5 The cupola of the small church of San Cataldo (1161)
close to the Martorana, also rests on niches of the same kind (Fig. 143, p. 166).
All these buildings at Palermo, together with the castles or palaces of
La Zisa and La Cuba (1180), are to be ascribed to the craftsmen of Sicily.
No surprise need be felt at their exhibiting inscriptions in Arabic, Greek, and
Latin, for all three languages were spoken there.6 The assertion often made
that these structures are due to Byzantine or Arabic workmen, is mere
conjecture. The type of pendentive used in the domes now proves that this
was not the case. Besides, it is incredible that Sicily was devoid of native
craftsmen in the XII century, when the cathedrals of Cefalu, Monreale, and
Palermo bear witness to the existence of such by their style of architectural
decoration which was not practised at that time outside Sicily. In any case,
how can the work of Greek artists be traced, for instance, in the mosaics of
the Cappella Palatina containing figures seated after the Moslem fashion?
I may remark here that the question of the presence of Greek craftsmen
in Italy, which seems to be attested by inscriptions in the official language,
by monograms, and by names, has never yet been dealt with properly or
exhaustively. I commend it as a subject of research, and will merely add
that it was not only in Roman times that ancient Greek colonies existed in
Italy, keeping up the use of Greek names and the Greek language, and
1 AMARI, op. cit, vol. ii, p. 450. 2 Ibid., vol. iii, i, pp. 131, 132.
3 EDRISI (Amari, Schiaparelli), L Italia descritta nel 'Libro del re Ruggeroj pp. 25-27,
4 AMARI, op. cit., vol. iii, 2, p. 656.
5 IBN JUBAIR, op. cit., pp. 331, 332. SALINAS, Trafori e vetrate nelle fincstre delle chiese
medioevali di Sicilta.
6 AMARI, op. cit., vol. iii, 2, pp. 856, 857.
1 68 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
sometimes preserving their municipal autonomy and Greek laws ; but that as
late as the Middle Ages, and in parts not under Byzantine rule — the duchy
of Amain, to give one instance — the civil year was regulated according to the
Greek calendar. Moreover, it has a special bearing on our case that, after
Leo III the Isaurian (717-740) had separated Sicily from the Diocese of
Rome, the Greek language was introduced in religious services, together with
the Greek liturgy. It is obvious, too, that the Norman conquest of Sicily
found a population which had thoroughly assimilated the Greek language and
Greek customs.1 Hence it is possible that many buildings ascribed to
craftsmen who are supposed to have been brought from the East, were really,
on the contrary, the productions of Italian workmen, who had nothing
Oriental about them except an origin or a tradition which may have been
centuries or even thousands of years old, or the use of an alien language
imposed on them by the arbitrary will of a ruler.
The mosque of Hakim is almost the last of the new mosques on a grand
scale, of quadrangular plan, with rows of columns, flat roofs, a single dome
in front of the mihrab, and sometimes a second rising above the central aisle,
and a colonnaded court, the whole following the pattern of the prototype
at Medina.
From the second half of the X century onwards the trade of the East
was, almost exclusively and on a great scale, in the hands of Venice, Pisa,
and Amain, with their fleets of galleys.2 These relations with the West,
intensified at a later date by the Crusades, were followed by the introduction
in the East of types of sacred buildings which departed from the traditional
pattern of Islam, and exercised an undoubted influence on Moslem architecture.
On the other hand, through the influence of the East, these relations gave
the impulse to the creation of the Pointed style which enriched the West with so
many wonderful cathedrals and abbeys ; for it was by grafting the pointed arch
of Islam on to the Lombardic vaulted basilica that the Transitional style, from
which the Pointed style sprung, was inaugurated in Durham cathedral (1093-
H33)3 (Fig. 144, p. 169). It was these relations, too, which inspired the parti-
coloured facing of sacred buildings ; for though the Romans had introduced it
in walls and sometimes in arches, they used it only for constructive or
1 SINOPOLI DI GIUNTA, La badia regia di Santa Maria Latina in Agira, pp. 20-23.
2 SCHLUMBERGER, Uepopee byzantine a la fin du dixieme siecle, vol. i, p. 239.
8 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 210, 450; (Hoepli), pp. 468, 614; (Heinemann),
vol. ii, pp. 123, 124, 242.
169
FIG. 144. — Durham. Nave of the Cathedral (1093-1133).
FIG. 145. — Church of San Miniato al Monte near Florence. Fagade
(XI, XII, and XIII cents.).
FIG. 146. — Church of San Miniato al Monte near Florence (about 1018-1062).
FIG. 147. — Tunis. Zituna Mosque. Minaret (1894).
FIG. 148. — Tripoli. Mosque of the Camel, with minaret and domes.
CAIRO 173
economical reasons, whereas the East adopted it as a Christian fashion as
well, first in churches, and later in mosques. Its introduction into Italy was
due to the Tuscans by way of Pisa (the cathedral has recently been discussed
by Goodyear1 and Supino2), and they too were the first to clothe even the
exteriors of churches with splendid marble inlays, and enrich them with
elaborate arcading. One of the earliest examples of the style is the church
of San Miniato al Monte, near Florence, rebuilt about 1018, and probably
finished about 1062 (Figs. 145, 146, pp. 170, 171). The older part of the fa9ade,
only the lower part of which goes back to the XI century, the upper evidently
belonging to the XII and XIII, was copied by the architect of the front
of the parish church of Empoli (iO93).3 The decorative use of inlaid marbles
was derived from the indigenous style of decoration in the interiors of
late Roman and early Christian buildings ; but in a different atmosphere it
assumed a new and distinctive outward appearance.
To all this may be added the unquestionable change both in architecture
and art observable in the Seljuk period (1055-1300), under Central Asiatic
influence. The flat-roofed mosque then assumed various forms. The true
or false vault was introduced, the number of cupolas was increased, the
principal dome obtained an elongated form, means were adopted to give
greater importance to the fa9ade which was also brought into relation with
the internal divisions of the building, and the architectural decoration became
generally more extensive and varied.
Under the inspiration of these new ideas the minaret also started
on a fresh career. As we have seen, it was originally a plain square tower,
like those in Walid's mosques at Damascus and Medina, and in that of
Bishr at Kairawan. The square form took deep root, so that in Spain
it remained in vogue down to the end of the Moslem dominion ; and in
some countries — Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, Libya — it still retains its pre-
eminence, the other forms being less frequent. As recently as 1894, when
it became necessary to rebuild the old minaret of the Zituna mosque at Tunis,
the ancient square shape was retained (Fig. 147, p. 172).
Subjoined is an illustration (Fig. 148, p. 172) of the minaret belonging to
the mosque of the Camel at Tripoli, traditionally supposed to have been erected
after the capture of the city, which took place shortly before Omar fell under
1 The Bulletin of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, vol. vi, 1911.
2 R. Accademia delle Scienze dell' Institute di Bologna, 1913, La coslruzione del Duomo di Pisa.
3 SUPINO, Gli Albori deW arte fiorentina, pp. 64-67.
i74 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
an assassin's dagger at Medina (644).1 Nothing short of extensive testing
of the masonry could decide whether this mosque, which I examined early
in 1911, preserves anything of the original structure. The columns have
been taken from older buildings, and have damaged capitals of similar
origin with abaci. The arches above them are of various forms : pointed
horse-shoe, pointed and stilted, and semicircular (Figs. 149, 150, p. 175).
In the IX century the square form was sometimes combined with the
cylindrical by raising on a lofty four-sided basement a round tower with
an external staircase winding round it. The union was effected in Mesopotamia,
and the minaret of Samarra is an example of it on the grand scale. The
new style of minaret was adopted at Qattai, the suburb of Fustat founded
by order of Ibn Tulun in 868 ; but it did not enjoy a long or prosperous
career in Egypt, nor did it spread thence to other countries. Moreover,
it had no extension in Syria. We know, for instance, that about the year
985 the Syrian minarets were still being built of the square form.2
This Mesopotamian type, however, was the forerunner of the square-based
minaret surmounted by a spiral cylinder with an octagonal base, like the two
ancient minarets in the mosque of Hakim ; and also of the other form with
a square base supporting a spiral column — just like the columns of Trajan
(113) and Marcus Aurelius (about 176) at Rome — an early example of which
is afforded by the minaret of Khosrugird, near Sebzewar, in Persia, of the year
1 1 io,3 which has an artistic character, for the bricks of the shaft are arranged
so as to make a decorative pattern on the surface. The form was also
accompanied by the use of niches to adorn the base and summit, as may
be seen at Samarra and Abudolaf; and a beginning was thus made in the
decorative treatment of minarets. And so the new minaret seen by Muqaddasi
at Damascus (about 985) was covered with mosaics,4 while that of Abd
al-Rahman III at Cordova (945-46) exhibited every kind of embellishment.5
We saw in our description of the congregational mosque at Kairawan how
the practice of decorating the exterior of minarets coincided with the
ornamental treatment of bell-towers. But, for all its embellishment, the
minaret, to judge by those which we have mentioned at Cairo, does not
seem to have departed from the traditional form till the end of the X
century.
1 CAETANI, Chronographia, p. 261. 2 MUQADDASI, op. cit., p. 75.
3 CURZON, Persia and the Persian Question, vol. i, pp. 269-271.
4 MUQADDASI, op. cit., p. 21. 5 EDRISI, Geographic, vol. ii, pp. 62, 63.
FIG. 149.— Tripoli. Court of the Mosque of the Camel.
FIG. 150. — Tripoli. Mosque of the Camel.
FIG. 151.— Delhi. Qutb Minar (XIII and XIV cents.).
CAIRO 177
The earliest literary evidence for the new type of minaret is to be
found in Ibn Jubair under the years 1183 and 1184. Referring to the three
belonging to the great mosque of Medina, he draws a distinction between
towers and minarets — ' this holy mosque has three minarets : two are small
and have the appearance of towers, the third has the form of a minaret'1—
from which it may be inferred that the upper part of the latter was of cylindrical
form with an internal staircase. In fact, our traveller in his account of the
mosque at Mecca says that the six minarets described by him as of square
shape half-way up, the other half being a spiral column, were of singular forms.2
It was then, apparently, in the XI century that, in imitation of the
minarets of the mosque of Hakim, steps were taken towards emancipation
from the traditional, universally accepted, square type of minaret, and there
were substituted forms which gradually assumed varied and singular shapes ;
shapes which were sometimes thoroughly artistic and picturesque, but in
other cases quite extravagant ; and the tendency was always towards greater
and even excessive slenderness. This type in its telescopic form we find
represented on 'the grandest scale by the Qutb Minar at Delhi, some 75 m.
(about 245 ft.) in height, which was erected in 1232, the two highest stories
being rebuilt in the XIV century3 (Fig. 151, p. 176). To a large extent
these forms were made possible by the fact they had not to contain the
bells which were required in Christian worship.
It is true that instances of slender cylindrical minarets of a date earlier
than the XI century have been alleged ; but they are not really of that age.
I may mention — to take one instance — the minaret at the eastern angle of
the mosque of Ibn Tulun at Qattai, which is clearly not of the same date
as the mosque itself, though it is built of brick.
An early and interesting example of the new type of mosque is
THE MOSQUE AL-AQMAR AT CAIRO, erected by the Emir Ibn al-Bataihi in
1125 under the Caliph Amir (1101-1130), and restored in 1397.* The
orientation is towards Mecca.
1 Op. cit, p. 181. 2 IBN JUBAIR, op. cit, p. 73.
8 East and West, 1907, pp. 1200-1205; VINCENT A. SMITH, Who built tht Kutb Minar?
4 BOURIANT, Mtmoires publics, par les Membres de la Mission Archtologique Fran^aise au Caire,
vol. xix, pp. 67-71 ; VAN BERCHEM, Matfriaux pour un Corpus inscriptionum arabicarum. Journal
Asiatique, 1891, ii, pp. 46-58; VAN BERCHEM, Notes d'archtologie arabe. LANE-POOLE, A History of
Egypt in the Middle Ages, pp. 117, 166.
i;8 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
It is reached through a court surrounded by arcades with piers and
columns fitted with ancient Corinthian capitals. Next comes the , place of
prayer, which is divided into three aisles by eight columns with capitals as
above. The central dome has fallen, and only the drum remains. The
shafts belonging to the mihrab have plain bell-shaped capitals, and stand
on bases formed like the capitals, but inverted. The arches are of the
pointed ogee or ' cyma reversa ' form and stilted, and have wooden imposts.
The original roof, to judge by what remains of it, consisted of brick
vaulting.
The most interesting feature is the fa9ade, which indicates the arrange-
ment of the interior, and has bold effects of light and shade obtained by its
deep recesses. It is also richly ornamented (Fig. 152, p. 179). One of its
various decorative forms is that of stalactites, the earliest instance preserved
in Egyptian Moslem architecture.1 The side walls were also embellished on
their outer faces.
The original minaret, being out of the perpendicular, was demolished
in 1412. The one to the left of the fa$ade is modern.
We have no information about the architect of this mosque with its
church-like appearance. But the ornamentation of the arches in the fa£ade
connects it with the gates of al-Futuh (1087) (Fig. 153, p. 179), opened at
the same time as that of an-Nasr (1087) (Fig. 154, p. 180), and of az-Zuweleh
(1091) (Fig. 155, p. 180), in the new Fatimite walls of Cairo built under
Mustansir (1035-1094). Now the design or conception of these gates seems
to have been due, together with the walls, to John the Monk ; and their
construction to three architect brothers, supposed to have been brought from
Edessa by the Armenian emir, Badr al-Jamali (io73-io94).2 Hence it is
possible that the architect was a Christian from Armenia, whence, perhaps,
he brought the idea of stalactite decoration. As a matter of fact, I have
found no instance in Western Asia, in existing buildings of certain date,
of either the stalactite or stalagmite design used as an architectural decora-
tion, or in the form of a raccord, earlier than the erection of the mosque of
Ani in Armenia. The mosque was built by order of Manutche (1072-1110)
after Alp Arslan's capture of the city (1064). The minaret was a- latter
1 HERZ, op. cit., pp. xxxvi-xxxix.
2 BOURIANT, Memoires publiees par les Membres de la Mission Archeologique Fran^aise an Caire,
vol. xix, pp. 6 1, 62; VAN BERCHEM, Materiaux pour un Corpus inscriptionum arabicarum, LANE-
POOLE, A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, pp. 152, 153.
'79
FIG. 152. — Cairo. Facade of the Mosque al-Aqmar (XII cent.).
FIG. 153. — Cairo. Gate al-Futuh (1087).
r8o
FIG. 154.— Cairo. Gate an-Nasr (1087).
FIG. 155. --Cairo. Gate az-Zuweleh (1091).
FIG. 156. — Api. Mosque (1072-1110).
182
O
U
rt
E
J3
'o
U
rt •*
3 M
o >*_
.i: o
<rf
U
CAIRO 183
addition1 (Fig. 156, p. 181). The specimen of stalagmite2 in the traditional
tomb of Zobaide, the favourite wife of Harun al-Rashid (786-809), at
Baghdad, belongs to a reconstructed cupola,3 which, even if it were a copy
of one of 786-809, would be nothing short of a phenomenon from both the
constructive and the artistic point of view, without a predecessor, and
without immediate descendants. According to Saladin 4 it was restored
in 1051, and again in the XIII and XVI centuries. Le Strange5 says that
it is not the tomb of Zobaide at all, but a comparatively modern building.
Again, the similar example known as the tomb of Ezekiel near Baghdad,
and thought by Texier to be the copy of an older cupola,6 really belongs
to the early Seljuk period. And it was under the Seljuks that, according to
Pull£, the art known as Saracenic came into existence in Persia.7
In Sicily the Cappella Palatina at Palermo (1132) contains an early and
exquisite example of stalactite ornament in the pendentives of the nave roof
(Fig. 140, p. 161). Another of the same kind is to be found in the castle of
La Zisa near the same city, the work of William the Bad (i 154-1 166), and partly
also of William the Good (1166-1 iSg).8 An interesting specimen of the same
motive applied to the supports of the domes is to be seen in the mosque of
Muayyad at Cairo (1412-1421) (Fig. 157, p. 182).
Still it must be remembered that these two decorative motives, consisting
of an accumulation of niches or of arched recesses, seem to have sprung from
the honeycomb or cellular design ; and, therefore, it is not unreasonable to
suppose that all three were developed in the same countries.
With regard to the honeycomb design, which is thought probably to have
been diffused under the early Abbasides (750-1 2 58),9 there is nothing to
substantiate De Vogue's10 theory that it was derived from the rudimentary
raccords, such as those of the chapel of Umm ez-Zeitun in Syria (282), where
1 LYNCH, Armenia, Travels and Studies, vol. i, pp. 376, 377.
2 LANGENEGGER, Die bankunst des Iraq, pp. 115-120.
3 DE BEYLIE, Prome et Samara, pp. 32, 33.
4 Manuel d'Art musulman, vol. i, pp. 108, 320.
5 Baghdad during the Abbassid Caliphate, pp. 161-165, 350-352.
6 TEXIER, PULLAN, Byzantine Architecture, p. i.
~ Annuario della R. Universita di Bologna, 1911-12; PULLE, Le conquiste scientifiche e civili
dell 'Italia in Oriente, dalV antichita ai tempi nuovi.
8 AMARI, op. cit, vol. iii, 2, pp. 818, 819.
9 DE BEYLIE, Prome et Samara, pp. 113, 114.
10 Syrie Centrale, vol. i, pp. 41-45.
1654 i 5
184
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
we see overhanging the square base of the dome the polygonal outline which
is multiplied stage by stage and gradually merges in the circle of the cupola
(Fig. 158). This system, first introduced in the dome, was afterwards applied
to other parts of buildings.
It might equally well be said that it was suggested by some columbarium of
the type of one of those in the Vigna Codini on the Via Appia at Rome, belong-
ing to the year 10 A.D.1 (Fig. 159, p. 182).
But it is much more probable that it origin-
ated in the use of niches with cusped arches.
All the changes which we have mentioned
reached their full development at a later
date in Constantinople, under the Ottoman
dominion, in the imposing mosques modelled
on St. Sophia: of Mohammed II (1451-
1481), erected between 1463 and 1469 and
almost entirely rebuilt between 1768 and
1771 ; of Bajazet II (1481-1512), built be-
tween 1489 and 1497 (Fig. 160, p. 185); of
Suliman the Magnificent (1520-1566), erected
between 1550 and 1556 (Fig. 161, p. 185),
the creation of the celebrated Albanian archi-
tect Sinan, of striking grandeur and dignity,
and unrivalled save by the mosque of Selim 1 1
(1566-1574) at Adrianople, which was .the
work (1568-1574) of the same builder;2
and, lastly, of Ahmed I (1603-1617), raised
between 1608 and 1614 (Fig. 162, p. 186).
FIG. 158. — Umm ez-Zeitun. Chapel.
Raccord of the cupola (282).
In all of them the dome is the principal feature.
* * *
We will conclude the first part of this book with a short but instructive
account, bearing directly on our subject, of some of the older characteristic
religious buildings of Armenia. They have sometimes been invested with
1 LANCIANI, The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, p. 333.
2 LAUNAY, E architecture ottomane, pp. 42, 8r-86.
FIG. 160. — Constantinople. Mosque of Bajazet II ([489-1497).
FIG. 161. — Constantinople. Mosque of Suliman the Magnificent (i55°-I556)-
i86
FIG. 162. — Constantinople. Mosque of Ahmed I (1608-1614).
ARMENIA
187
an antiquity to which they have no claim, and this has been made the
basis for hypothetical origins and influences in matters both of construction
and decoration ; whereas, if assigned to their true dates, they will be found
to possess undoubted and remarkable features which we will try to place
in a clear light. These features constitute a real and individual style — a
style which is the most complete representative and the highest expression
of a nation, small indeed in numbers, but which concentrated all the nobler
sentiments in its ancestral faith. A style which, by its adoption of the
Roman or else the Romano- Byzantine plan, indicates on the one hand its
connection with Roman architecture, and on the
other the relations of the Armenian people with
the Greek Empire. But the variations and
innovations, which it displays betray the jealous
care of the Armenians to avoid becoming the
servile followers of the Byzantines, and still less
their subjects.
At the head of the list must be placed the
churches said to have been founded in the last
thirty years of the III century by St. Gregory
the Illuminator, who is supposed to have occu-
pied the episcopal see from 302 to 332, and to
have died about the year 336.1 These are, at
Vagharshapat, the modern Etschmiadzin, St.
Gaiana, St. Rhipsima, the Shoghagath or
Effusion of Light, and the cathedral. Next come the church of the Holy
Cross at Usunlar, and the primatial church of Aghthamar, connected with
the name of an illustrious member of the ancient family of the Arzruni.
They are followed by the churches of Ani erected under the Bagratids at a
time when Armenia was more united and prosperous than usual. These
latter buildings, owing to their ascertained dates, may be used as trust-
worthy guides in our estimate of those of Etschmiadzin, and of other
Armenian churches.
THE CHURCH OF ST. GAIANA NEAR ETSCHMIADZIN. — On the spot pointed
out by the legend as the scene of the martyrdom of the Roman Saint Gaiana
1 BROSSET, Collection d'Historiens armtniens, vol. ii ; SAMOUEL D'ANI, Tables chronologiques, pp.
366, 367, 372.
FIG. 163. — Etschmiadzin. Plan
of St. Gaiana (VII cent).
i88
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
and her two companions, the Apostle of Armenia, with the help of his followers
and under his own direction, built a chapel with the stones, brick, and cedar
wood which he had collected for the purpose.1 The existing building is
ascribed to the episcopate of Ezra (628-640). The porch in front was added
in 1687.2
The plan is a rectangle measuring
internally about 21.40 by 14.50 m.
(70 by 47 ft.), and terminated at the
east by a semicircular apse flanked by
two chapels (Fig. 163, p. 187). In the
centre rises a dome with a polygonal
drum lighted by four windows, and
supported by four isolated piers. It is
crowned by a conical roof of masonry
(Fig. 164, p. 191). The walls, where
they have not been rebuilt, are of
concrete with facings of coursed and
carefully cut and laid stone. The
walls are over 1.50 m. (nearly 5 ft.)
thick. On the whole, except for the
outer roofs, which, like the rest, are
of tufa, and bearing in mind sundry
restorations, the structure seems to
be all of one date. But what is
that date?
The plan shows unquestionable
Byzantine influence, and must be
later than the erection of several
churches in Western Armenia by
the orders of Justinian (5 27-565). 3
FIG. 165. — Rome. Plan of the original 'Basilica
Nova' of Maxentius, or Basilica of Con-
stantine (IV cent.).
For the type of church with a rectangular outline and central dome was a
Byzantine development, though its plan was derived from the tepidarium
of the great Roman baths, with its central hall flanked by six smaller ones,4
1 AGATHANGELOS (Armenian Mechitarists of Venice), Storia, pp. 99, 137, 138.
- LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 270, 271.
3 Corpus script, hist. byz. ; PROCOPIUS, De aedifidis, vol. iii, pp. 253, 254.
4 British and American Archaeological Society of Rome, 1910; RIVOIRA, The Roman Thermae.
ARMENIA
189
or, again, from the 'Basilica Nova' of Maxentius (3 10-3 1 2) l (Fig. 165,
p. 1 88), the model for St. Sophia at Constantinople ; together with suggestions
obtained from Roman tombs and baptisteries, and also from the Christian
buildings of Ravenna.
I produce in this connection a very interesting though imperfect plan
of a Roman building, made by Fra Giocondo, and now in the Uffizi at
Florence (No. 3932) (Fig. 166), showing a central dome with a narthex in
front of it, surrounded by rooms, some of which are cross-vaulted and others
domed ; the whole being enclosed by a square outer wall, and forming an
actual Roman prototype of the Byzantine church
plan.
I have used the word ' influence ' only, because
the ancient churches of Etschmiadzin, Aghthamar,
and Ani have an individual character. Among
other points, it may be noticed that they had no
narthex, an adjunct which, so far as can be seen,
was not adopted before the second half of the
XII century. The church of the Saviour at
Sanahin (961) provides the first dated example of
a narthex, for we know that in 1 1 8 1 the patriarch
John erected a porch at the entrance of the church,
and was buried in it.2 The new feature does not
, , i i- i i c FIG. 1 66. — Mutilated plan of a
seem to have become established at once, for Roman building
though we are told that the ' Mother of Light ' or
Shoghagath at Bagnair, built by Sembat II (977-989) 3 (Fig. 167, p. 192),
possessed a narthex when the primate Basil II (still living in 1207) was
buried there,4 nevertheless, in 1215 and 1217 respectively, the churches of
Saghmosavank and Johannavank were designed without a narthex.
The narthex has been regarded as the special property of the Byzantines,
whereas it appears in innumerable Roman imperial buildings in various shapes,
especially the rectangular, and the form with a niche or apse at either end,
as may be seen from existing examples or from drawings.
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 71, 72 ; (Hoepli), p. 76; (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 66.
2 Mtmoires de FAcadtmie imptriale des Sciences de Saint-Pttersbourg, 1863, vol. vi, n. 6,
pp. 77-81 ; BROSSET, Monasftres armlniens d'Haghbat et de Sanahin.
3 BROSSET, Deux Historiens armeniens ; KIRACOS [XIII century], Histoire d'Armem'e, p. 47.
4 TCHAMTCHEAN, History of Armenia [in Armenian], vol. iii, chronological table.
190 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Moreover, the simple plan of the church compared with those of St. Rhipsima
and the cathedral, points to a date earlier than the two latter churches.
And again, the absence of the characteristic V-shaped niches on the exterior,
apparently a creation of the X century, compels us to date it earlier than
that century. Lastly, the VII century was a period of building activity on
the part of the primates of the Armenian Church, so much so that Narses III
(640-661) was surnamed 'the builder.'1 Hence we may accept the years
628-640 as the period to which St. Gaiana belongs.
The height of the drum as seen from outside seems to be against this
date. In the Byzantine world the dome rose from a drum which was low
externally, not only in the first half, but also in the second half of the VI century.
Instances are to be seen at Constantinople, in St. Sophia, where the dome
was rebuilt by Isidorus the younger between 558-563 ; SS. Sergius and
Bacchus of about 527 ; and St. Mary Diaconissa, founded by the patriarch
Cyriacus (593-605) in 596. It is true that doubts have been raised2 as
to whether the dome of the last church be not, as a whole, the result of a
Turkish rebuilding ; but its drum seems to form a transition between that
of the dome of St. Sophia and that of St. Irene, also at Constantinople,
and the structure would have to be tested in a number of places, and careful
comparisons of the masonry made, before a decisive answer to the question
could be given.
It was not till well on in the VIII century that the Byzantines thought
of raising their domes on fairly pronounced drums lighted by large windows,
as the Romans had already done, the Mausoleum of Santa Costanza at Rome
(about 326-329) (Fig. 168, p. 192) being an illustration of this. St. Irene led
the way in the new fashion at Constantinople (Figs. 169, 170, p. 195).
I have previously stated3 that St. Irene is the result, not of a mere
restoration (following the earthquake which Van Millingen4 places in 740
and Bury5 in 739), as some have thought, contrary to the view which has
prevailed since Fergusson,6 but of rebuilding. As long ago as 1900 I
1 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, p. 265.
2 VAN MILLINGEN, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, p. 186.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 213, 214; (Hoepli), p. 655; (Heinemann), vol. ii,.
pp. 274, 275.
4 VAN MILLINGEN, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, p. 89.
5 BURY, A History of the Later Roman Empire, vol. ii, p. 423.
6 A History of Architecture, vol. ii, pp. 452, 453.
FIG. 164.— Etschmiadzin. St. Gaiana (VII cent).
192
FIG. 167. — Bagnair. Church of the Mother of Light (X cent.).
FIG. 1 68.— Rome. Santa Costanza (IV cent).
ARMENIA
193
had come to this conclusion, essentially on the ground of the form of the
dome, and with the help of the notions which I had acquired by prolonged
study of the origin and development of dome vaulting. The recent in-
vestigations1 have, as a matter of fact, proved that the only remains of
the structure proper of Justinian's St. Irene are some reused columns with
poor capitals (which, if they did not bear explanatory monograms, would
appear work of the decadence and not of the time of Justinian), and the
lower parts of the walls.
In the Moslem world the domes of the VII and VIII centuries occasionally
had high drums lighted by large windows, as in
the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem (687-691) and
the congregational mosque of Damascus (706-714).
These drums, however, were circular in construc-
tion, and intended to carry a dome, not of masonry,
which, considering the span, would have involved
serious problems of weight and thrust, but only of
wood.
The dome of St. Gaiana, on the other hand,
was designed on a very modest scale, and its base
was pierced by a limited number of narrow windows
(one for every two faces of the polygon), which
made the adoption of this form more easy.
FIG. 171. — Etschmiadzin.
Plan of St. Rhipsima
(after the VII cent.).
THE CHURCH OF ST. RHIPSIMA, NEAR ETSCH-
MIADZIN, founded by the Illuminator on the spot
where St. Rhipsima and thirty-three companions were
said to have been martyred,'2 was rebuilt in 618 by the primate Komitas
(617-625). The original building was dark and of mean appearance,3 and was
pulled down.4 Later information about the structure is deficient until we
come to the XVII century.5
The existing church, which is orientated in the usual way, has a singular
1 GEORGE, The Church of S. Eirene at Constantinople, pp. 9-75.
2 AGATHANGELOS, op. cit., pp. 99, 137.
3 BROSSET, Coll. <THist. arm., vol. ii ; SAMOUEL D'ANI, Tables chronologiques, p. 399. BROSSET,
Deux. Hist. arm. ; KIRACOS, Histoire d'Armt'nie, p. 27.
4 Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Des Stephanos von Taron armenische Geschichte, p. 62.
5 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 269, 270.
194
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
plan (Fig. 171, p. 193). With a rectangular exterior, a four-lobed shape is
given to the interior by means of four apses, two larger and two smaller,
between which are interposed four circular niches, each communicating with a
square room or chapel lighted from the outside. The eastern of the two larger
apses contains the altar and has no window. The opposite one serves as
the entrance. The internal dimensions are about 23 by 18 m. (75 by
60 ft.).
The western porch dates from 1653. In 1790 a bell-turret in the form
of an open spirelet was erected above it. In each of the four external
faces of the building are recessed two tall narrow niches with splayed sides
and vaulted at the top. Above the centre of the church rises a spacious
dome resting on spherical triangular pendentives.
Its rather low drum, circular internally and poly-
gonal externally, is lighted by a number of fairly
large windows (Fig. 172, p. 196). The masonry
of the exterior, where it is original — and a good
deal has been rebuilt— is distinguished from that
of St. Gaiana by the small size of the stones.
The plan of St. Rhipsima is another instance
of Byzantine influence in its application to a
church of the principle of grouping within a
quadrangular space the interiors of palace rooms
such as the domed apartments in the ' Domus
Augustana ' on the Palatine ; or of Roman
tombs with recesses, of the type which we illustrated in connection with the
account of the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem. Moreover, the recesses in
the angles recall the plan of a bath-room, formerly existing on the Via
Flaminia at Rome, which was sketched by Bramantino1 (Fig. 173).
In one respect — its complicated internal outline — it seems to be more
advanced than St. Gaiana. On the other hand, the isolated supports of the
dome in the latter church are an advance on St. Rhipsima. And again, the
relatively large windows in the base of its dome put it at a later date than
St. Gaiana. The fact that this base is not elevated in the manner usual in
Armenia at the beginning of the VIII century, may be due to its diameter,
which exceeds 14 m. (46 ft.), it being the largest of all the domes in
Etschmiadzin.
1 MONGERI, op. cit, tav. 68.
FIG. 173. — Plan of a Roman
bath-room.
FIG. 169. — Constantinople. St. Irene (VIII cent.).
FIG. 170. — Constantinople. St. Irene. Interior looking towards the Narthex
(VIII cent.).
196
t
FIG. 172. — Etschmiadzin. St. Rhipsima (after the VII cent.).
'97
FIG. 175. — Ani. Church of St. Gregory the Illuminator (1215)
198
FIG. 176.— Kanligia. Monastery Church of Marmashen (X, XI, and XIII cents.).
ARMENIA 199
The splayed niches of St. Rhipsima, in their turn, are connected with the
church of Aghthamar (904-936) which possesses the earliest dated examples.
For all these reasons, St. Rhipsima seems not to belong to the time
of the patriarch Komitas. Doubts have previously been suggested about
it,1 though the reasons have not been stated before. What the real date
is I am unable to decide. All I can say is that it is later than the VII
century.
THE CHURCH OF THE SHOGHAGATH OR EFFUSION OF LIGHT, NEAR
ETSCHMIADZIN, was founded by St. Gregory on the site of the traditional
dwelling of the martyrs, where he himself had resided after his release (301)
from the cruel imprisonment at Artaxata to which he had been sentenced by
Tiridates (286-34 1).2 It is said to have been rebuilt by the primate Narses
III between 640 and 649. The western porch with its bell-turret was
added in i693-3
The church forms a rectangle of three bays, with a semicircular apse at
the east end. Its internal dimensions are nearly 17.50 by 8 m. (58 by 26 ft.).
From the centre rises a high cupola with spherical pendentives, covered by
the usual conical roof. The drum, polygonal on the outside, is carried on four
half wall-piers, and lighted by four fairly large windows.
As with the other churches of Etschmiadzin, no wood or iron is used in
the building. The absence of the splayed niches, and the character of the
original parts of the external masonry in the body of the church, connect it
with St. Gaiana. On the other hand, the height of the dome, the outer
surface of which seems to be entirely renewed, places it at a later date than
the VIII century.
THE CATHEDRAL OF ETSCHMIADZIN. — The foundation is ascribed to the
Apostle of Armenia, after his return from Caesarea in Cappadocia, to the
jurisdiction of which the patriarchs of Armenia were subject down to the reign
of Pap (369-374).* Later, the Armenian Church became and remained
autonomous.
After the ruin caused by the Persians at Vagharshapat, it is supposed
1 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, p. 270.
2 AGATHANGELOS, op. cit, pp. 60, 137, 138.
3 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 271, 272.
4 FAUSTUS OF BYZANTIUM, Vatican MS. 95451 bk. v.
1654 1 6
2OO
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
that the primate, Narses I the Great (364-383), restored the churches there.
But we have definite information that the cathedral was repaired about 483
by the governor of Armenia, Vahan Mamikonean.1 At this time the residence
of the primate was at Dovin. Archbishop Komitas (617-625) in 618 rebuilt
the wooden dome in stone. Narses III (640-661) is believed to have done
some repairs. It is known that in 1442
there was a restoration by the primate
Cyriacus, after Etschmiadzin had once
more become the seat of the primacy.
When the Shah of Persia, Abbas I
(1587-1629), depopulated Armenia in
the inhuman manner which is notorious,2
the cathedral church lost many of its
venerated stones which were carried
away to New Julfa to form the nucleus
of a second Etschmiadzin there. The
building remained neglected, but after
1629 it was repaired and the roof re-
built. The western porch was added
later and finished in 1658, and in 1682
the eastern, southern, and northern
apses were crowned with open spire-
lets. Other works were carried out in
the XVIII and XIX centuries.3 The
beauty of the church has aroused the
admiration of many travellers.4
The plan (Fig. 174) is a rectangle, from each side of which projects an
apse, semicircular internally and polygonal externally. That on the east, which
is flanked by two chambers, contains the principal altar. In the opposite one
is a door. The dimensions are about 33.50 by 29.70 m. (no by 98 ft.). The
walls are over 1.20 m. (4 ft.) thick.
The tall dome rises in the centre above four isolated cruciform piers, and
1 LANGLOIS, Collection des Historiens anciens et wodernes de VArmenie; LAZARE DE PHARBE,
Histoire d'Armtnie, vol. ii, p. 352.
2 BROSSET, Coll. d'Hist. arm., vol. i, pp. 274-303; ARAKEL, Livre d'Histoires.
3 LYNCH, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 261-268.
4 P. MINAS NURIKHAN, // Servo di Dio abate Mechitar ed il suo tempo, p. 43.
FIG. 174. — Etschmiadzin. Plan of the Cathe-
dral (VII cent, and onwards).
FIG. 177. — Etschmiadzin. Porch of the Cathedral (XVII cent.).
FIG. 180. — Usunlar. Church of the Holy Cross (VIII cent.).
2O2
FIG. 178. — Tohannavank. Church (XIII cent.).
ARMENIA 203
is developed from spherical pendentives. It is crowned by a conical roof, and
the drum, which is polygonal on the outside, is lighted by windows. The
whole edifice is of stone. The exterior of the drum is encircled by a gallery
with pointed ogee or ' cyma reversa ' arches supported by shafts which have
traces of spiral carving, framing medallions with heads of saints.
It has been asserted that the building, with the exception of the dome
and the spirelets, actually goes back, at least in part, to the reign of Tiridates
(286-341). On the other hand, it has been suggested that the main structure
belongs to the work of Vahan Mamikonean. A third view prefers to ascribe
it to the time of the primate Komitas.1 The mystery in which the date is
involved is rendered still more obscure by our ignorance of the vicissitudes of
Etschmiadzin as the seat, first of the archbishops subject to Caesarea, and
later of the primates of the Armenian Church from its establishment down
to its restoration in 1441. I shall not pretend that I have discovered the
clue to guide us in the labyrinth of all the questions, religious, historical,
and archaeological, bearing on the history and the construction of the
cathedral. Nevertheless, starting from my persistent belief that styles of
architecture have always had a development which is rational, gradual, and
linked with the past, and not an arbitrary and imaginary one of spon-
taneous and phenomenal origin, and in the ever faithful company of dated
buildings, I will try to discover what is the most probable age to be
assigned to it.
That the cathedral of Etschmiadzin does not belong to the time of the
Illuminator may be inferred from the fact that the three chapels which he
erected there were constructed of stone and brick, perhaps taken from
Pagan buildings in the Roman Nor-Kaghak,2 and roofed with wood.3 Hence
we may conjecture that his cathedral was made of the same materials.
Samuel of Ani (XII century) bears witness to the very mean character of
these structures.4
However this may be, the Apostle of Armenia certainly did not adopt
for his church a Christian Romano-Byzantine plan which was only developed
in the VI century. Nor can he have introduced the apses with semicircular
interior and polygonal exterior, nor an orientation which was still unknown
to the Christian world. For the orientation of churches and the polygonal
1 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 263-265. '- Ibid., p. 287.
3 AGATHANGELOS, op. cit., p. 137.
4 BROSSET, Coll. tfHist. arm., vol. ii, p. 399 ; SAMOUEL D'ANI, Tables chronologiqucs.
204 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
apse, the reader may be referred to our account of the great mosque of
Damascus.
Moreover, it must be remembered that in those days the Armenians had
not long emerged from barbarism. Moses of Chorene (born in the second
half of the IV century) states that the arts and sciences were introduced into
Armenia between the years 78 and 120 of our era. They would, therefore,
have been unable to provide workmen capable of producing masonry like
that of the cathedral of Etschmiadzin. Though Tiridates erected at Garni,
for his sister Khosrovidukht, a summer residence ornamented with columns
and magnificent bas-reliefs, the commemorative inscription being in Greek,1
that does not prove that the work was done by Armenian^ hands. Nor is
it to be forgotten that under the Sassanid Sapor II (310-379), between 363
and 379, Vagharshapat was mercilessly destroyed,2 and that the sacred
edifices erected there by St. Gregory were certainly not spared. In fact, the
cathedral was rebuilt with great magnificence by Vahan Mamikonean. And
we cannot ignore the passage in Faustus of Byzantium3 (395-416) in which
he tells how Urhnayr, King of the Albanians, with his army, before joining
the Persians of Sapor II in a battle against the Armenians and Greeks,
earnestly exhorted his own soldiers to spare the lives of their Greek prisoners
in order that they might be available as brickmakers, builders, and masons,
for constructing cities and palaces, and for other purposes. The story shows
that the Armenians had not made much progress in building, for they are
not mentioned in this connection.
I think that it was Komitas who gave the cathedral its present form.
His work will not have been confined to mere restoration and a new dome,
but can have been nothing less than a reconstruction, for we know that the
church was in ruins.4
The dome of 618 is not the one now to be seen, though it has been
generally believed to be so. Lynch 5 and Bryce 6 suspected a later date, and
Dubois thought that it was much more recent than the church.7 We shall
1 MOSES OF CHORENE (Armenian Mechitarists of Venice), Storia> p. 264.
2 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 301-305.
3 Vatican MS. 9545, bk. v, chap. iv.
4 SAINT MARTIN, Mtmoires historiques et gtographiques surFArmenie> vol. i, p. 116.
5 Op. cit., vol. i, p. 263.
6 BRYCE, Transcaucasia and Ararat, p. 301.
7 DUBOIS DE MONTPEREUX, Voyage aufour du Caucase, vol. iii, pp. 370-376.
ARMENIA 205
see presently that domes with high drums, like that of this cathedral, first
began to be erected in Armenia in the early years of the VIII century, and
that they were not encircled by blank arcades of elegant form before the
end of the X. The vaults, too, at the four angles of the base of the dome
must belong to the reconstruction, for in the oldest Armenian churches barrel
vaults are regularly used and not cross vaults. Moreover, there is no
evidence that either the pointed ogee or ' cyma reversa ' arch, or the pointed
mixtilinear arch, which came from India, were freely used in other countries
before the erection of the mosque al-Azhar at Cairo (970-972). Again, at
Ani, the decorative arcading on the exteriors of dated buildings regularly
has round arches, with some rare exceptions, as late as the beginning of the
XIII century. The church of St. Gregory the Illuminator, erected in I2I5,1 is
'evidence of the fact (Fig. 175, p. 197). And though in other parts of Armenia
we find arches of a different kind used in churches older than the XIII
century, such churches are not wholly in their original condition. For
instance, the dome with external arcade of triangular arches belonging to the
monastery church of Marmashen in Kanligia, near Alexandropol (Fig. 176,
p. 198), erected between 988 and 1029,2 is the result of the extensive
restoration of 1225. Lynch had already stated his suspicion that this was
so.3 Lastly, the external masonry facing of the body of the church, where
original, is like that of St. Gaiana. That of the dome cannot be verified,
as it has been daubed over with plaster and paint.
All this shows that the essential structure of the primatial church of
Etschmiadzin may possibly be as old as the VII century. The well-known
and often discussed slabs with Greek inscriptions, and the figures of Paul
and Thecla framed by rude arches, which Strzygowski 4 has illustrated, afford
no evidence of date, as they did not belong originally to the building.
The dome and the vaults at its angles are another matter, and for the
reasons stated above cannot be older than the XIII century.
Before leaving the cathedral of Etschmiadzin a passing reference must
be made to the bell-turret of its front (Fig. 177, p. 201), and the similar
open spirelets surmounting the apses.
1 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 374, 375.
2 BROSSET, Coll. d"ffist. arm., vol. ii; SAMOUEL o'Am, Tables chronologiques, pp. 440, 441.
Ibid., Rapports sur un voyage archfologique dans la Gtorgie et dans fArmlnie^ pp. 86, 87.
3 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 131, 132.
4 Byzantinische denkmaler, \ ; Das Etschmiadzin cvangeliar, pp. 1-16.
2o6 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
It has been believed that spirelets in the latter position are a traditional
Armenian feature, and that the cathedral possessed four from the outset.1
On the contrary, facts show that as late as the X and XI centuries the
Armenian churches were without them. Thus the churches of Gagik (904-
936) at Aghthamar, and of the Shoghagath at Khoshavank (928-951), did
not originally possess them ; and they were absent from the cathedral of
Ani (977-1010) and the sepulchral churches of the Bagratids at Khoshavank;
all of them important monuments.
Bell-turrets seem to have made their appearance in the first part of
the XIII century. The church of Saghmosavank, at the foot of Mount
Aragaz, finished in I2I5,2 and designed without a narthex, the existing one
being an addition, was not provided with a belfry till 1235, when the south
chapel with the library was built.3 The church also of Johannavank (Fig.
178, p. 202), not far from the last, completed in 1217, was built without
one. It was only in 1250-51, when the narthex was added, that a
bell - turret was provided in the form of an open lantern.4 Brosset
erroneously substituted for the top of this lantern a kind of ornament
carved in relief.
The adoption of this feature is to be ascribed, even if indirectly, to
the influence of the Crusades. Its typical form, derived, apparently, from
the kiosks surmounting minarets, has been maintained for centuries with the
same persistence as other characteristics of Armenian church architecture.
Sometimes it took the place of the dome, as in the singular, perhaps
sepulchral, church faced with basalt at Haghpat, on the railway between
Tiflis and Alexandropol (Fig. 179, p. 207), where the spirelet dominates the
whole structure. This church, with its cusped niches and gabled bell-turret,
cannot be older than the XIII century.
THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY CROSS AT USUNLAR is situated on the
railway between Alexandropol and Tiflis. It was built by the patriarch
1 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, p. 263.
2 Nouvelles Archives des Missions scientifiques et litteraires, 1910; MACLER, Rapport sur une
mission scientifique en Armenie russe et en Armenie turque, pp. 73, 74.
3 ALISHAN, Airarat, p. 162.
4 BROSSET, Coll. d'Hist. arm., vol. ii ; ZAKARIA, Cartulaire du S. Asile de Johannou- Vank, pp.
165-167.
207
FIG. 179.— Haghpat. Church (after the XII cent.).
FIG. 181. — Rome. Nymphaeum of the Licinian Gardens, called 'Minerva
Medica' (253-268).
FIG. 182. — Rome. Mausoleum of St. Helena (IV cent.).
ARMENIA 209
John Oznezi, surnamed the Philosopher (718-728), after his return from the
court of the Caliph Hisham (724-743), laden with honours and presents.1
The plan follows the usual Romano- Byzantine type : a rectangle
containing a large central block, and three smaller bays on either side. The
semicircular apse is flanked by two square chambers. The dimensions are
over 28 by 1 1 m. (92 by 36 ft.). The octagonal dome rises above the four
piers of the central block, and is carried on hood-shaped pendentives. It
has only two narrow round-headed windows, and is crowned by a steep
conical roof.
Though Grimm 2 says that the plan appears to have been carried out
at one and the same time, I think that the eastern transept, and the arcade
forming a narthex at the west end, are due to a later alteration.
The church of Usunlar is a landmark in the history of Armenian church
architecture, affording as it does the oldest example of a polygonal cupola of
considerable elevation, crowned by a pointed roof (Fig. 180, p. 201).
Rome, both Pagan and Christian, had seen the erection of buildings of
grand proportions crowned by domes raised on lofty drums. Evidence of
this still survives in the Nymphaeum of the Licinian Gardens (Fig. 181,
p. 208) ; the Mausoleum of St. Helena, also used for the burial of Con-
stantius Chlorus3 (Fig. 182, p. 208); and in the representations of the
Imperial Mausoleum at the Vatican (V century). I would call attention to
the illustration of the two rotundas of which the mausoleum was composed :
the one, Santa Petronilla, in process of demolition ; the other, Sant' Andrea
or Santa Maria della Febre, still standing, but only to be destroyed in
I7764 (Fig. 183, p. 21 1). At Jerusalem, too, the Dome of the Rock with
its high drum had been erected as far back as the VII century.
The Armenians, however, were the first to introduce the practice of setting
church domes on high bases, with the result, as Orsi has remarked,5 that
what the cupola lost in diameter it gained in pre-eminence over the subordinate
parts of the building. It cannot be said that they borrowed the idea from
the Byzantines at the time when Armenia exercised an influence in the
1 BROSSET, Deux Hist. arm. ; KIRACOS, Histoire d'Armfaie, pp. 35, 36. Bibliotheca
Teubneriana, Des Stephanos von Taron armenische Geschtchte, pp. 74, 75.
- Monuments a" Architecture byzantine en Georgie et Armtnie, iv.
3 TOMASSETTI, La Campagna Romana, vol. iii, pp. 389-393.
4 RIVOIRA, Lombardic Architecture, vol. i, pp. 82, 83.
5 Bollettino d'Arte, 1912, p. 279; Siberene. S. Severina.
210 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
empire.1 The Byzantines adopted the feature only at a later date, and in
a modified form ; in other words, at the beginning of the XI century, after
the Armenian architects had ornamented the drum with graceful blank
arcading.
Its introduction into the European provinces of the Byzantine Empire
may have been due to the presence at Constantinople of the Armenian
architect and sculptor, Tiridates, who restored St. Sophia after the serious
damage which it suffered in the terrific earthquakes of October 989.2 The
earliest dated instances in those regions are the churches of the Virgin at
Salonica (1028) (Fig. 184, p. 212), and of St. Theodore at Athens (1049).
Another instructive feature in the church of Usunlar is the hood-shaped
pendentive, as against the traditional Armenian predilection for the triangular
form. My theory is that this sporadic instance must be explained by Moslem
influence. In his journey to the court of Hisham, under whose sway he had
brought his own country, the patriarch John may have had the opportunity
of seeing domes supported by pendentives of this type. And his prejudice
in favour of the children of Ishmael may have led him to introduce this
constructive feature, hitherto foreign to the Armenians, but well known to
the Moslem world. In any case we may be sure that it was not Byzantine
craftsmen who introduced it in the church of the Holy Cross, for we know
that the Greeks were banished from Armenia just at this time.3
In the course of his journey the cultured primate may also have derived
the suggestion for his tall cupola at Usunlar from some high-set dome of
the Ummayyad period, such as that of Abd al-Malik at Jerusalem (687-691),
which is known to have had about the same elevation as the present one.4
THE CHURCH OF THE CROSS AT AGHTHAMAR stands on the island of
the same name in Lake Van, where a monastery had been founded in
653. 5 Apart from some XV Ill-century additions, the church is the one
erected by Gagik (904-936), Prince of Van, of the family of Arzruni. In
• l BURY, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 452, 525.
2 Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Des Stephanos von Taron Armenische Geschichte, p. 190. SCHLUM-
BERGER, Epopee byzantine, vol. ii, p. 627.
3 BROSSET, Deux. Hist. arm. ; KIRACOS, Histoire (FArmenie, p. 35.
4 LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems, p. 121.
5 SAINT-MARTIN, Mem. hist, gtogr. sur rArmenie, vol. i, p. 140.
21 I
FIG. 183. — Rome. The 'Mausoleum Augustorum' at the Vatican (V cent).
(From a painting in the Vatican Library.)
212
FIG. 184. — Salonica. Church of the Virgin (1028).
213
FIG. 185. — Aghthamar. Church of the Cross (904-936).
214
FIG. 1 86. — Aghthamar. Church of the Cross. Carving (904-936).
ARMENIA 215
1113 Archbishop David, on his secession from the main Armenian Church,
made it his cathedral.1
We possess detailed and precise information about its history.2 The
materials used were taken from a fortress on the Assyrian frontier, demol-
ished by Gagik. The work was entrusted to the architect Manuel, whom
the prince had previously employed to build, after plans drawn by himself,
the wonderful palace in the new city of Aghthamar. The representations
of sacred subjects were carried out with the advice of a monk.
We do not know precisely to what country the architect belonged. All
we are told is that the ambitious works ordered by the prince on the island
were carried out by skilled craftsmen from all parts. It is possible, however,
that he may have been an Armenian. The name is a common one in
Armenia at the present day. Moreover, the design is too different from that
of IX and X century churches of the Byzantines to be ascribed to one of
that nation.
The subjects of the decorative carvings included the principal personages
of the Old and New Testaments ; the Redeemer, before whom stands the
founder carrying in his arms the model of the church ; lions, bears, boars,
bulls, birds, stems bearing grapes, vine scrolls with animals and reptiles.
All this corresponds exactly to what we see to-day, and has no parallel in
any other Armenian church.
The exterior of the building (Fig. 185, p. 213) is ornamented with carved
cornices and bands displaying branches of the vine or other plants with
leaves and fruit, either in a simple form or accompanied by human figures
sacred and secular, birds, and quadrupeds ; pairs of various kinds of animals
facing one another ; human heads ; small corbel arches. The flat surfaces
are adorned with scenes from the Bible, figures of saints on foot or on
horseback, and other personages, one of whom is seated in the Moslem
fashion, while others support, like caryatides, a band forming an arch
(Fig. 1 86, p. 214). There are also pairs of beasts and wild animals facing
one another, hippogriffs, projecting heads of animals, birds sometimes pecking
at one another, eagles with prey in their talons, winged monsters of
Assyrian derivation, fishes, angels holding the Greek cross, seraphs, Latin
1 SAINT-MARTIN, Mem. hist, gtogr. sur FArmenie, vol. i, pp. 140, 141.
2 BROSSET, Col!. d'Hist. arm., vol. i ; TH. ARDZROUNI (X century), Histoirc des Ardzrcuni,
pp. 235-241.
1654 T 7
2i6 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
crosses, &c. (Figs. 187, 188, 189, p. 217). The interior contains some carved
heads of animals both wild and domestic, and also very valuable remains of
mural painting (Fig. 190, p. 218).
The church, the dimensions of which are about 16.50 by 12 m. (55 by
40 ft.), has four apses, each apse being flanked by two recesses which form
part of the exterior design ; and is surmounted by a dome with a high drum,
polygonal on the outside, and a conical roof. The whole is built of hewn
stone with concrete filling.
The church of Aghthamar throws considerable light on the origin
of the Armenian type of church. Thus it affords the oldest example,
beyond the reach of controversy, of the tall, narrow, V-shaped niches,
looking like stilted hooded squinches, which are one of the characteristics
of the type.
These niches are anticipated by three squinch arches still to be seen
at Hadrian's Villa near Tivoli (125-135), in the large Baths, the Imperial
Palace1 (Fig. 191, p. 218), and the Greek Library. These squinches are either
purely constructive, or both constructive and decorative. It is not irrelevant
to point out the error of those — and they are not a few — who maintain that
niches generally are an essentially and characteristically Oriental form of
decoration ; forgetting that, perhaps owing to the fact that in building they
employed materials which were easily moulded, and tenaciously hard mortar,
no people made such free use of niches for both constructive and decorative
purposes as the Romans. One has only to study the actual remains or
extant sketches of their sepulchral structures, and the truth of this statement
will at once become apparent.
THE CHURCH OF SHOGHAGATH AT KHOSHAVANK, NEAR ANI. — The convent
was founded on the Arpa-Chai, a few kilometres from Ani, in the reign
of Abbas (928-951), by Armenian priests who abandoned Greek territory
in the hope of finding in the dominions of the Bagratids that religious
independence which they strenuously maintained and the Byzantine authorities
refused to recognize. Its original name was Horomosivank. It was burned
by the Moslems in 982, and is supposed to have been restored in 1*038 by
King John Sembat (1020-1041), who is known to have been buried, like
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 602-604; (Hoepli), pp. 235-237 : (Heinemann), vol. i,
P- 193-
217
FIG. 187. — Aghthamar. Church of the
Cross. Carving (904-936).
Fit;. iSS. — Aghthamar. Church of the Cross.
Carving (904-936).
Fic.i89. — Aghthamar. Church of the Cross. Carving
(904-936).
218
eti
Pu,
.'rt
o
if
•- U-)
s^
o 8
s rt
> 0
c>
c5
ri
Q*
U
o
Ov-
ARMENIA 219
his predecessors who had ruled in Ani, in the royal cemetery of the convent
which we are about to describe.1
The church, which is orientated in the usual way, is approached through
an enclosed vestibule, the vaulting of which is carried by four rows of short
columns. This structure is disproportionately large considering the small
size of the church to which it leads, and is shown to be a later addition,
not only by its construction and by the way in which it is joined to the
church, but also by the shape of the isolated supports. Over the middle
of its central aisle rises a small cupola surmounted by an open spirelet to
hold a bell, which, again, is later than the vestibule, as is proved by its
masonry and slightly pointed arches. Moreover, the older Armenian churches
did not have the vestibule or narthex. As late as 1215 and 1217 respectively,
the church of St. Gregory the Illuminator at Ani and the church at
Johannavank were planned without it.
The dimensions are about 16.30 by 10. 10 m. (53 by 33 ft.). The cupola
with its circular drum is carried by four piers and spherical pendentives.
The exterior is relieved by the characteristic splayed niches, but there is
no blank arcading. The east end is flanked by two chapels. The one to
the south, which is in fair preservation, also has a cupola with circular drum.
These chapels are later additions, apparently for sepulchral purposes. The
fact that they are additions is betrayed by the difference in the masonry
and in the form of the dome roofs ; and is confirmed by the cornice of the
sanctuary roof being continued at the sides (Fig. 192, p. 223).
Near to the convent, in the old bed of the Arpa-Chai, stand two partly
ruined chapels which are also decorated with splayed niches, and are without
blank arcading (Fig. 193, p. 223). The larger of the two, and the more perfect,
was erected in 101 1. Close to it is the tomb of Ashot the Merciful (951-977).
This group of churches suggests several considerations. Above all should
be noticed the continuity of a type of domed church with a drum circular on
both faces, and not ornamented with blank arcading. Contrasted with this
are the neighbouring churches of Ani, which also have circular drums, at
least as late as the XIII century, but encircled by one or two ranges of
decorative blank arcades. The logical deduction from this is that the
conventual church is the original one, and that it came through the catastrophe
1 BROSSET, Coll. d'Hist. arm., vol. ii; SAMOUEL D'ANI, Tables chronologiques, pp. 435-437.
LYNCH, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 387-390.
220 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
of 982 unharmed. The fact that it was in every part faced with dressed stones
set in very thin beds of mortar would suffice to protect it from the conflagration
which consumed the adjoining monastery. It is walls composed of rubble and,
still worse, of lumps of tufa, with plentiful use of mortar, which are quickly
consumed under intense heat, as I myself witnessed at Constantinople in 1908
during the great fire in Stambul.
This inference is strengthened by the fact that the structure, apart from
the vestibule and the chapels, is all of a piece ; and that the designers of the
other churches at Khoshavank all took it as their model ; while the builders
of the early churches at Ani were influenced by it, though they added
(but not in every case) the embellishment of graceful blank arcading, which
was first introduced in the large church at Sanahin, built in 961 (Fig. 194,
p. 224).
The other point to notice is that the church has the peculiarity of
possessing the earliest dome with a drum of considerable height, circular both
internally and externally.
THE CATHEDRAL OF ANI was begun by Sembat II (977-989), at the
place which his father, Ashot III (951-977), had converted from a fortress into
a royal residence, and was completed in 1010 by the wife of King Gagik I
(989-1019), on which occasion the patriarchal see was transferred from Arghina
to the new capital.1 The architect was Tiridates, the designer of the cathedral
at Arghina, who flourished in the reigns of the above-named sovereigns.2
Within a rectangle of about 32.80 by 19.80 m. (108 by 65 ft.) is
contained the plan of a Roman Tepidarium, i.e. a central hall with six lateral
compartments, and the addition at the east end of an apse flanked by two
apsidal chapels. Above the central bay rose the dome, which has almost
entirely disappeared, supported by four compound piers, from which arches
are carried across in both longitudinal and transverse directions to half wall-
piers, also of compound form. The walls are of concrete, with facings of tufa
blocks cut and laid with great accuracy. The exterior is encircled by blank
arcading with tall semicircular arches, a few being slightly pointed. With the
exception of the fa9ade, each of the other faces is also relieved by a pair of
1 BROSSET, Coll. d'Hist. arm., vol. ii; SAMOUEL D'ANI, Tables chronologizes, pp. 440-443.
LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 354, 355, 373.
2 DULAURIER, Rechcrches sur la Chronologie armtnienne technique et historique, vol. i, p. 369.
Bibliotheca Teubneriana, DCS Stephanos von Taron armenische Geschichte, p. 138.
ARMENIA
221
the characteristic splayed niches (Figs. 195, 196, pp. 224, 227). So far as the
slight remains enable one to judge, the exterior of the drum of the dome
also had blank arcadinsr.
o
In addition to the windows, the walls are pierced by round openings
recessed within concentric circles. I may remark that 'oculi' appear in
Italian buildings from a very early period.1
The constructional arches of the interior are slightly pointed. The lower
part of the apse is embellished by a range of arched niches, some being
semicircular and some rather pointed.
The cathedral of Ani contains a wealth of instructive features and
suggestions.
(1) The graceful arcading of the exterior — of Romano- Ravennate origin
— is the earliest of such an advanced type known to me, with the exception
of the church of the Saviour at Sanahin, near Haghpat (built in 961 by
the wife of Ashot III,2 and restored in 1184, 1752, and 1832 3), where, at
a rather earlier date, it appears in the important parts of the structure, but
without rising to the free decorative use which we find at Ani.
It was Eastern influence, exercised through the trade of Pisa, which
induced the Tuscan builders, not long after this time, to apply arcading of
elegant form to their churches, as at San Miniato al Monte, near Florence
(about 1018-1062), the culmination being reached in the cathedral of Pisa
(XI, XII, XIII centuries) (Fig. 197, p. 228). They did not, however, do
so as servile imitators, but, on the contrary, created a form of decoration
which was both original and extremely rich in effect.
(2) The remains of the drum make good its claim to be the dated
archetype of a dome embellished by an external blank arcade with slender
shafts. The Romans, indeed, had sometimes surrounded domes with blank
arches, either plain or springing from columns, such as are shown in the
Vatican Latin MS. 3439, f. 85,4 among drawings of fragmentary reliefs of
the imperial epoch (Fig. 198, p. 228), or as may be seen on the tomb known
as 'la Conocchia,' near Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Fig. 199, p. 228). These
arcades, however, have not the elegant form of the Armenian ones.
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Heinemann), vol. ii, p. 224.
2 BROSSET, Coll. d'Hist. arm., vol. ii; SAMOUEL D'ANI, Tables chronologiques, pp, 436, 437.
3 Mtmoires de FAcadtmie implriale des Sciences de Saint- Piter sbourg, 1863, vol. vi, n. 6, pp. 77-81 ;
BROSSET, Monasteres armlniens tfHaghbat et de Sanahin.
4 Vatican Library.
222 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
And outside Armenia there was no attempt to apply them to domes
in a refined form with slender shafts and bases before the first quarter of
the XI century, the first church to set the fashion being that of the Virgin
at Salonica (1028). Its example was followed in many other instances, for
example St. Theodore at Athens (1049). We are told, indeed, of earlier
cases, but only on the strength of assumptions. I may cite, among others,
that of the Holy Apostles at Salonica, assigned to about 1012 j1 whereas
comparison with analogous buildings shows that it cannot be dated before
the second half of the XI century2 (Fig. 200, p. 229).
In Italy, in the days when the tall drums of the Roman style with
their decorative architectural treatment came back into fashion, the minds of
the craftsmen turned either towards mere imitation, as in the case of the
tomb of Bohemond at Canosa (i m-ii i8),3 where the cupola, encircled by
columns, recalls that of the sepulchral edifice of ' la Conocchia ' mentioned
above ; or to embellishments of the drum such as those in the Vatican MS.
referred to ; or, thirdly, to original designs, such as the polygonal Lombardic
cupola, the prototype of which appears to be found in San Michele at Pavia,
rebuilt after ni2,4 which was followed in the cathedral of Piacenza (1122-
1233) (Fig. 201, p. 230) and other churches.
(3) In the interior we find piers with compound bases, and pointed arches.
The fact has been made the foundation for the most fanciful theories as to
the origins of the Pointed style. Now the accumulation of piers and
columns as the starting-points for arches and framing arches with a decora-
tive purpose, does not imply any progress towards the creation of a new
architectural style with ribbed vaulting, in which every member has its
essential place in the plan. Moreover, piers, and, what is more, compound
piers (i.e. piers composed of pilasters and columns), had been in use in the
West from Roman times onwards ; while the pointed arch had been syste-
matically employed by the Moslems as far back as the IX century.
The true origin of the Pointed style was explained in my former work,5
and the explanation is repeated in the account of the mosque of Hakim at
1 BAYET, UArt byzantin, p. 140.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 155, 156.
3 AVENA, Monumenti dell 'Italia Meridionale, p. 95.
4 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 199-201 ; (Hoepli), pp. 302-306; (Heinemann), vol. i,
pp. 244-247.
5 Ibid., Le origini delt Architettura lombarda, Lombardic Architecture.
221
FIG. 192. — Khoshavank. Church of Shoghagath (X cent.).
FIG. 193. — Khoshavank. Chapels near the convent.
224
FIG. 194. — Sanahin. Churches.
FIG. 195. — Ani. Cathedral. North side and west front (977-1010).
ARMENIA 225
Cairo in the present volume. Armenia had no share in starting or facili-
tating its career.
I may note that compound piers had been employed in Armenia, earlier
than the primatial church of Ani, in the cathedral of Arghina near that city,
between 974 and 977 : l the work, as we saw, of the architect Tiridates
(Fig. 202, p. 230).
In taking leave of the cathedral of Ani I would draw attention to the
fact that the principal characteristic of the churches founded under the
dynasty of the Bagratids was architectural ornament, not figure ornament ;
so much so that the only figures decorating the cathedral in question are
two flying eagles (on the west front), recalling the eagle of the Arsacids,
from whom those rulers were descended. Gagik, on the contrary, allowed his
architect to run riot with a whole host of living creatures represented on
the singular church of Aghthamar. It is possible that this artistic dis-
crepancy may be an echo of the hostility between the Bagratids and the
Arzruni in the days of Sembat I (890-914) and Gagik (904-936), com-
bined with the desire to avoid imitation of a building for which Gagik
had not only contributed the funds but also the ideas, for we are told
that his knowledge embraced all subjects, and that he had drawn with his
own hand the plans for the new city of Aghthamar as well as for the royal
palace.2
There is one other characteristic to which I would call attention : the
circular form of the high drums and their steep conical roofs, as if they
were so many huts of the Latin type (capanna) set on the square central
space of the church.
THE CHAPEL OF ST. GREGORY AT ANI is said to have been built by the
Palavid, Vahram (t 1047). The name of the Armenian hero may be read
in the inscription over the door. Another inscription in the north wall proves
that the church was in existence in IO4O.3 Its date will be the end of the
X century or the beginning of the next. The theory of Khanikof,4 that
this was the ' marvellous ' church mentioned by Asoghik (X century) and Samuel
1 BROSSET, Co!!. d'Hist. arm., vol. ii ; SAMOUEL D'ANI, Tables chronologiques, pp. 438-440.
2 Ibid., vol. i ; TH. ARDZROUNI, Histoirc des Ardzrouni, pp. 236-239.
8 LYNCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 381, 382.
4 Revue archeologique, 1858, pp. 401-420; Voyage a Ani.
226 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
of Ani (XII century),1 has been contradicted by the recent discovery of
the remains of that building.
In plan the chapel is a somewhat elongated dodecagon. The two axes
measure respectively 9.50 and 9.20 m. (30^ by 29^ ft.). The exterior (Fig. 203,
p. 231) is relieved by six of the usual splayed niches. Inside, there are
exedras all round the walls, above which rises the circular base of the dome,
arcaded on the outside.
It is easy to see that, with the exception of the roof, the plan and essential
structure are derived from the tombs and nymphaea of Imperial Rome.
THE CHAPEL OF THE REDEEMER AT ANI was built by the Prince Aplkharip,
on his return from Constantinople in 1 034. 2
The ground floor is polygonal, the upper part circular. Both parts are
encircled on their outer face by blank arcading (Fig. 204, p. 232).
This is another instance of a design derived generally from Pagan
Roman sepulchral rotundas.
If we sum up now all that we have said about the early Armenian churches,
the following appear to be the results : —
(i) The plan, while related to its Roman and Romano- Byzantine sources,
differs from them in the absence of the narthex. This is true, of course,
for the ordinary quadrangular plan, for in a few very rare cases the Armenians
erected circular annular churches. A celebrated one was built by the patriarch
Narses III, and was known as the Zuardnoz, or church of the Angels,
near Etschmiadzin. He dedicated it to the Illuminator, but as early as
the year 1000 it was a mere ruin.3
Recent excavations have laid bare its plan, which was of the Romano-
Ravennate type : Roman in its annular form and in its porches ; Ravennate
by virtue of the exedras with open arcades, which surround the central square
space and recall the archetype of that arrangement in San Vitale at Ravenna.
This plan, which is here reproduced after Palakian4 (Fig. 205, p. 233),
1 Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Des Stephanos von Taron armenische Geschichte, pp. 214, 215
EROSSET, Coll. cFHist. arm., vol. ii; SAMOXJEL D'ANI, Tables chronologiques, pp. 441-443.
2 LYNCH, op. cit, vol. i, p. 383.
3 Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Des Stephanos von Taron armenische Geschichte, pp. 214, 215.
4 PALAKIAN, Description of the Ruins of Ani [in Armenian], p. 47.
22;
FIG. 196. — Ani. Cathedral. South side (977-1010).
228
FIG. 197.— Pisa. Cathedral (XT, XII, and XIII cents.).
FIG. 198. — Rome. Fragment of sculpture of the
Imperial age. (From a drawing in Vatican MS.
3439-)
FIG. 199. — Santa Maria Capua Vetere. Tomb called
'la Conocchia' (II cent.).
229
FIG. 200.— Salonica. Church of the Apostles (XI cent.).
230
FIG. 201. — Piacenza. Cathedral (XII and XIII cents.).
FIG. 202. — Arghina. Remains of the Cathedral (974-977).
FIG. 203.— Ani. Chapel of St. Gregory (X or XI cent.).
232
FIG. 204. — Ani. Chapel of the Redeemer (1034).
ARMENIA
233
reminds one of that of Sant' Angelo at Perugia, which I take from Viviani l
(Fig. 206, p. 234), a church supposed to date from the V century,2 but which
may very well belong to the first part of the VI.3
The round church of Etschmiadzin was afterwards copied by Gagik I
(989-1019) when he erected at Ani his church of St. Gregory or of the
Angels, finished in 998 or 1000, which has likewise gone to ruin.4 The
excavation of this structure
(Fig. 207, p. 238) has revealed
a system of strengthening
applied to the central part,
apparently due, as was sug-
gested to me by Father
Gabriel Nahapetian, to the
excessive weight of the dome,
in which the usual void had
not been left between the
extrados of the cupola and
the pointed roof above it.
The fate of these two
rotundas proves that the or-
dinary compact quadrangular
type of Armenian church was
better suited to resist earth
shocks than the circular an-
nular form. For it is nature
even more than time which
has proved the worst enemy
of the Armenian churches.
They suffered little from the
pick-axe of the destroyer. I cannot mention, down to the last century,
a single church so treated, except the one built by Narses III over
1 VIVIANI, Tempio di Sant1 Angelo in Perugia, pp. 5-9.
2 Ibid.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 43-45; (Hoepli), pp. 10-12; (Heinemann),
vol. i, p. 12.
4 BROSSET, Coll. d'Hist. arm., vol. ii; SAMOUEL D'ANI, Tables chronologizes, pp. 441-443.
ALISHAN, Shirac, pp. 51, 52.
I(554 1 8
FIG. 205. — Etschmiadzin. Plan of the ancient Church of
the Illuminator or the Angels (VII cent.).
234
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
St. Gregory's grave at Chorvirap, near Erivan, which was ruined by the
Moslems.1
(2) The masonry follows the Roman tradition, including the bonding
stones at the angles. From the same source came the occasional use of
pottery jars (amphorae) in the haunches of vaults of large span. The roofs,
on the other hand, instead of being covered with tiles or sheets of metal,
are constructed of dressed stones. The entire absence of wood enabled many
churches to escape the fires to which they would otherwise have inevitably
fallen victims in the endless wars
and invasions which Armenia
had to undergo. To judge by
the methods still in use, the stones
were dressed with the axe.
(3) The dome was usually
connected with the square cen-
tral block by means of spherical
pendentives. The pendentive
which merges in the dome is a
Roman invention, perfected at
Ravenna, where it was applied
on a large scale in the baptistery
of Neon (449 or 458-477) (Fig-
208, p. 235) ; but the form which
has a different spherical surface
from that of the dome was also a
Roman invention, but developed
by the Byzantines.2 It is to this latter species, the earliest example of which
(unnoticed by Durm 3) is to be found in the ' Domus Augustana ' on the Palatine
(about 85) (Figs. 209, 210, pp. 236, 237), that the triangular Armenian penden-
tives belong. The hood-shaped pendentive is not used, at least for the domes
of churches, with the exception of that at Usunlar. It does appear in secular
buildings, but at a late date. Yet Armenia was in touch with, if not under
the sway of, Persia, the mythical home of the hood pendentive. The reason
FIG. 206. — Perugia. Plan of Sant' Angelo (VI cent.).
1 BROSSET, Deux hist. arm. ; KIRACOS, Histoirc d'Armenie, p. 31.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Hoepli), pp. 29-36 ; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 29-35.
3 DURM, Die Bauslile. Die Baukunst der Romer, pp. 285-288.
ARMENIA
235
for its absence is to be looked for in the fact that it only obtained a footing,
not merely in Persia, but also in Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, and Syria, at
a time when the spherical pendentive had been already adopted by the
Armenian builders.
(4) It was in Armenia that domes with high drums were first used
in churches, and decorated with blank arcades in which the arches spring
from slender shafts. In the earlier
examples the interior was poly-
gonal. This bold upward expan-
sion was made possible by the
moderate span and compactness
of the churches.
(5) Domes with conical roofs
entirely constructed of masonry are
an Armenian invention. Another
Armenian idea was the open lan-
tern or spirelet to hold the bells.
It may have been suggested by
the pavilions at the tops of min-
arets, a very early example of
which was once to be seen on the
minaret of Abd al-Rahman III at
Cordova1 (945-46). It reminds
one of the characteristic open lan-
terns of wood which crowned the
two circular cupolas of the famous
abbey church of Saint - Riquier
(Centula) (793-798), and the tower
of the adjoining church of St.
Mary2 (Fig. 211, p. 239).
(6) The Armenian use of continuous blank arcading of elegant formj[had
an influence not only in the East, but also in the West, and in^Italy itself,
which had given birth to this form of decoration.
FIG. 208. — Ravenna. Baptistery of Neon. Vertical
section (449 or 458-477).
1 EDRISI, Glographie, vol. ii, pp. 62, 63.
2 MABILLON, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, vol. v, p. 106. RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher),
vol. ii, pp. 91-93; (Hoepli), pp. 395'397 ; (Heinemann), vol. ii, pp. 60, 61.
236
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
(7) The round arch continued to be used, even by the side of the
pointed form.
The lobed arch and the horse-shoe arch make their appearance only at
a late date. An early dated instance of the former is to be found in the
narthex (1250-51) of the church of Johannavank. An old example of the
latter may be seen in the church of the Trinity at Ticor, near Ani (Fig. 212,
p. 238), ascribed by Fergusson1 to the VII century, though Texier2says that
it was finished in 1242.
It is not very easy to find one's bearings in coming to a decision about
the date of this church. And this doubt about the date prevents us from
using it as a touchstone in other cases. The
inscription on the lintel of the west door
suggests that it was erected by the order
of Sahak (Isaac) Kamsarakan, one of the
generals of Vahan Mamikonean, who is
mentioned in the year 484. 3 On the other
hand, the mutilated and transferred inscrip-
tion in the tympanum of the same door
attributes its construction to the patriarch
John Mandacuni (48o-487).4 This early
date would be confirmed by the existence
of an eastern transept, and also by the
clumsy internal cupola, a sort of cone ending
in a spherical cap, the square passing into
the circle by a gradual transition. The drum is low. The date would also
be consistent with the absence of decorative blank arcading, and of the splayed
niches. Armenian churches later than the V century had cupolas and pen-
dentives of another type, were not provided with a transept, and after the
IX century were decoratively treated in the aforesaid way.
The external masonry, however, of the lower part of the front is clearly
of a different date from that of the upper ; and the body of the church,
which has been strengthened with oak tie beams, ' in its turn seems to be
FIG. 209. — Rome. ' Domus Augustana.'
Plan of the central room (about 85).
1 A History of Architecture, vol. ii, pp. 465, 466.
2 Description de I'Arme'nie, la Perse et la Mfaopotamie, vol. i, p. 120.
3 TCHAMTCHEAN, Op. Clt, Vol. ii, p. 2OI.
4 ALISHAN, Shirac, p. 132.
237
3*a&y
• -
FIG. 210. — Rome. ' Domus Augustana.' Pendentive of the
dome in the central room (about 85).
FIG. 207. — Ani. Remains of the Church of St. Gregory or the Angels (finished in
998 or 1000).
FIG. 212. — Ticor. Church of the Trinity.
ARMENIA
239
of a different date from the transept. We thus, apparently, have to deal
with more than one period of
construction ; and this would ex-
plain the appearance of windows
in pairs in the upper part of
the structure, and of a quatrefoil
opening in the western gable.
(8) The decorative splayed
niches, employed by the Romans
in construction as well as in de-
coration, make one wonder why
the Armenian architects never
found out their use as penden-
tives or supports for the dome
in their earlier churches. And
all the more as a sporadic in-
stance of the hood-shaped pen-
dentive was already to be seen
at Usunlar. And besides, long
before, Julianus Argentarius had,
in order to use it like a squinch,
lifted the Roman angle niche
from the level of the ground floor
to that of the dome, and thus
produced the niche pendentive.
And at a still earlier time the
Campanians had, with a similar
object, raised aloft the arched
head of the angle niche, so that
it became the hood-shaped pen-
dentive. This, however, need
cause us no surprise, for the vital discoveries of vaulted architecture were
essentially the legacy of the West.
FIG. 2ii. — Saint Riquier (Centula). View of the
ancient churches of the Saviour and St. Richarius,
SS. Mary and the Apostles, and St. Benedict
(VIII cent.).
PART II
THE leading idea of the second part of this book may be stated as follows.
In 711 the forces under the command of Tarik and Julian, aided by
treachery, destroyed at a single blow, on the banks of Lake Janda, between
Medina Sidonia and Vejer de la Frontera, the army of Roderic and the
Visigothic monarchy. After losing his throne, the last King of the Visigoths
is believed to have lost his life as well in the battle fought by Musa and
Tarik near Segoyuela, in the province of Salamanca (7I3).1 In recording
the epitaph which marked his grave, his namesake Roderic, the Archbishop
of Toledo2 (1276-1280), invokes on the head of Julian, the contriver of his
ruin and of the enslavement of the Iberian peninsula, one of the most
vehement imprecations that in the course of my wide reading I have ever
met with.
The conquered people was allowed the free exercise of its religion,
though the Church was reduced to subjection. And in places where there
had been no resistance it retained the use of the sacred buildings which the
conquerors left standing, with the exception of those which were turned
into mosques. The condition, however, was imposed that no new churches
were to be built, and that the existing ones were not to be enlarged. In
every one of these buildings the round arch only was to be seen.
But we must not suppose that the Moslems brought with them the
horse-shoe arch, which at that time had hardly attained to systematic use, and
had appeared only in a tentative form and restricted to the larger arches in
1 ALTAMIRA Y CREVEA, Historia de Espana y de la civilization espanola, vol. i, pp. 199, 200.
LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, Historia de la Arquitectura Christiana espanola en la Edad media, vol. i, p. 106.
The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. ii, pp. 185, 186; ALTAMIRA Y CREVEA, Spain under the
Visigoths.
2 Chronicon rerum gestarum in Hispaniis ; RODERICUS, De regno regis Roderici, lib. iii, cap. xix.
SPAIN 241
the congregational mosque of Damascus (706-714). Nor do we know precisely,
for the monuments fail us, when it was introduced into the conquered peninsula.
It seems, however, that there was no formal display of the new system of
arching in Spain before the erection of the great mosque of Abd al- Rahman I
(756-788) and Hisham I (788-796) at Cordova. And everything tends to
prove that, as formerly at Damascus the Ummayyad Walid I (705-715) had
raised the—horse-ishoe- ^ardi_ to the rank of a constructive system, so now at
Cordova another Ummayyad was the first to apply the system brought into
being under the auspices of one of his family. It is certain, too, that this
systematic use did not make its appearance in the kingdom of Asturias,
the mountain fastness of the Visigoths, before the exodus of the Mozarabic
monks from Cordova during the fury of the cruel persecution of the Christians
there, begun by Abd al-Rahman II (822-852) and continued by Mohammed I
(852-886).
Hence, the view of not a few writers, including some of eminence, who
assert that the systematic use of the horse-shoe arch was a Hispano-Visigothic
invention, has no support in actual facts. It is not worth while to dwell upon
the strange theory that the churches built by the Visigoths in Spain followed
the Byzantine model because those barbarians coming from the banks of the
Danube had made acquaintance with the methods of Eastern architecture.1
The theory that in Spain the horse-shoe arch was systematically used
in construction from the VI and VII centuries, through a Roman tradition
as old as the II century, is based on a passage in Isidore of Seville
(599-636), on late Roman exedras and niches with arches larger than the
semicircle, and on erroneous dating of buildings.
The words of Isidore are these: ' Arcus dicti, quod sint arcta con-
clusione curvati.'2 This has been rendered: ' They are called arches because
the ends are markedly curved inwards ; ' 3 and this erroneous version has
been generally accepted without question. The real meaning is approximately
1 CLOQUET, Revue de I' Art chrttien, vol. iii, p. 98.
2 MIGNE, Patrologia latina, vol. Ixxxii ; ISIDORUS, Hispalensis episc., Etymologiae, XV, viii.
3 FERREIRO, Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, vol. iii, p. 31.
242
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
this: 'Arches were so called because their curve closes up at the keystone/
I leave it to Latin scholars who know something of architecture, and to
architects who know Latin, to say which is right.
For the exedras and niches some rare instances are cited,1 which only
prove that the form was used sporadically in the Iberian peninsula. This
is precisely what took place in Italy in the imperial epoch, as we noticed in
our account of the Ummayyad mosque at Damascus.
Let us now turn to the monuments.
To the Visigothic age (466-7 ii)2 — by which I mean the period beginning
with Euric (466-484) who conquered the whole of Spain except the small
district where the Suevi (409-584) had established themselves3 — is ascribed
the double western or Seville gate of Cordova, in existence in 711, where
the twin arches, now built up, are of the horse-shoe form
(Figs. 213 [p. 243], 214).* But the three main points alleged
in support of a date not later than the VII century — viz.
the prolongation of the curve of the intrados of the
arches by a third of the radius beyond the semicircle ; the
divergence between the curve of the extrados and that
of the intrados, the former continuing in an outward
direction at the impost ; and, thirdly, the stone voussoirs
FIG. 214. — Cordova, converging towards the centre of the radius — are nullified
An arch of the by the fact that, for instance, the arches of the church
double Western or f San juan B ft de Cerrato whlch certainly does
Seville Gate. J „..,.. , .
not belong to Visigothic .times, show the same internal
curve, and radiate in the same manner as those at Seville ; while the arch
of the door into the church, and also the arch of the apse, exhibit a similar
divergent curve in the extrados.5
There is another point still to be reckoned with, viz. that the arches of
this western gate of Cordova betray to an experienced eye which examines
1 Cultura espafiola, 1906, pp. 735-811; G6MEZ-MORENO, Excursion d trove's del arco de
herradura.
" The Spanish chronology of the Suevic and Visigothic kings, as well as of the kings of
Asturias, Le6n, Castile, Navarre, and Aragon, is taken from LAFUENTE, Historia general de
Espana, vols. ii and iii.
3 LAFUENTE, Historia general de Espana, vol. ii, pp. 1 6, 17.
4 Cultura espafiola, 1906, pp. 785-811 ; G6MEZ-MORENO, Excursion, &c.
5 Ibid.
243
I
FIG. 213. — Cordova. The double Western or Seville Gate.
FIG. 215. — Banos de Cerrato. Church of San Juan Bautista from the south-west
(XII cent.).
244
FIG. 216. — Banos de Cerrato. San Juan Bautista from the south-east (XII cent).
FIG. 218. — Banos de Cerrato. San Juan Bautista. Nave (XII cent.).
SPAIN 245
them, as I have done, on the spot, signs of alteration : an event which must
have taken place in Moslem times, and after Abd al- Rahman I's architect
had introduced in the great mosque of Cordova just this form of arch pro-
longed for a third of the radius beyond the semicircle.
We have historical notices of the foundation, or rebuilding, or restoration
of churches of the Visigothic period, and a few descriptions ; but the con-
temporary chroniclers say nothing about the form of their arches, though
this would have been such a departure from the traditional Roman form.
Among the churches mentioned l are those of St. Martin at Orense, St. Marcian
at Evora, St. Eulalia, the Baptistery, and the great church (the Holy Jerusalem)
at Me*rida, St. Felix at Cordova, St. Romanus at Hornija (Zamora), SS. Peter
and Paul and St. Leocadia at Toledo. To these may be added the cathedrals
of Tarragona and Valencia, and other churches in the latter city and diocese.2
Moreover, we know that King Wamba carried out an important restoration
of the buildings at Toledo,3 and among them we may be sure were some
churches.
Other churches assigned to the Visigothic age are : San Juan Bautista at
Banos de Cerrato (Palencia), the basilica of Segobriga or Cabeza de Griego
(Cuenca), the church of Santa Comba (Columba) or San Torcuato (Torquatus)
at Bande (Orense), San Pedro at Nave (Zamora) ; the baptistery of San
Miguel at Tarrasa (Barcelona), the crypt of San Antolin at Palencia, the
basilica of Elche, the chapel of Burguillos (Badajoz), the chapel of the
Sanctuary of San Miguel in Excelsis near Huarte-Araquil, the chapel of
Arnal (Portugal), the hermitage of SS. Justus and Pastor at Medina Sidonia
(Cadiz), the church of Camarzana de Tera (Zamora), the basilica of Guarrazar
(Toledo), and the cathedral of Se"tabis (Jdtiva, Valencia).4
Of these the only ones which Lampe'rez y Romea regards as genuine, until
the contrary be proved, are : the churches of Banos de Cerrato, Cabeza de
Griego, and Santa Comba or San Torcuato at Bande ; the baptistery at Tarrasa ;
the crypt of the cathedral of Palencia ; and the basilica of Elche. He also
1 LAMP£REZ Y ROMEA, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 119, 120.
2 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, DE FALGUERA, GODAY Y CASALS, L Arquitectura romanica a Catalunya,
vol. i, pp. 302, 309, 310.
3 FL6REZ, Espana sagrada, vol. v, pp. 165-167. Chronicon rerum gestarum in Hispaniis ;
RODERICUS, De reparatione urbis Toletanae, III. xi. MIGNE, Pair. lat.t vol. xcvi, col. 1260; ISIDORUS
PACENSIS, Epitome imperatorum.
4 LAMP£REZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 143, 144.
1654 19
246 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
ascribes, with more or less foundation, to the Visigothic age : San Pedro
at Nave, the chapel of San Miguel in Excelsis, and the church of Cafnarzana
de Tera.
The remaining cases at Burguillos, Arnal, Medina Sidonia, Guarrazar,
Setabis, though they appear to be authentic, are of small importance, both
intrinsically, and because very little of them is left.1 The same writer raises
the question whether the Cristo de la Luz at Toledo may not be in part
a Visigothic church.2
Lamperez y Romea's list of six genuine Visigothic churches may be
increased by the addition of San Pedro and Santa Maria at Tarrasa, the
sanctuary of which is believed to belong to that period.3
Madrazo 4 was the first to draw up a list of this kind, as well as others
containing a far larger number of names, though not accepted by some, and
even recent, Spanish authorities.5 He also reproduced the attribution which
Ambrogio de Morales6 had made, as long ago as the XVI century, in the
case of San Juan Bautista at Banos and of other churches. However, now
that we have come to sifting the list, we will begin with this church. Even
if the list almost entirely disappears in the process, this will in no way
diminish the interest attaching to the monuments which it included, but will
rather stimulate archaeologists to make a fresh start, and enter upon new
investigations. In doing so, they must remember that there can be no doubt
that in the Visigothic buildings of Spain the traditional Roman round arch
was systematically used, and not the horse-shoe arch ; and that these buildings
had no original character, but rather were, as Lafuente says,7 a corruption of
the Roman style. Besides, Spain is so rich in monuments that there is no
need to confer upon any of them an antiquity which they do not possess,
or to make her the inventor of a system of construction which really was
imported from the East.
THE CHURCH OF SAN JUAN BAUTISTA AT BANGS DE CERRATO is the best
1 LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, p. 144.
2 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 177-179.
8 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 311-340.
4 Espana, sus monumentos y artes, su naturakza e historia ; MADRAZO, Valladolid, Palencia
y Zamora, pp. 331-335.
5 SELGAS, Monumentos Ovetenses del sigh IX, p. 143.
6 La Coronica general de Espaua, lib. xii, cap. 37.
7 LAFUENTE, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 115.
SPAIN 247
preserved of the buildings ascribed to the Visigothic period, and also,
apparently, the one which has real evidence to support its claim.
Investigations made in the course of the recent restoration, and descrip-
tions of the building which have been preserved, make it possible to settle
with fair probability, and with the exception of the external colonnades,
what the original plan was like.1 It was a small basilica, with the usual
orientation, possessing a transept, and a porch at the west end. At the east
end was a principal apse corresponding to the nave, and two subordinate
apses opening from the arms of the transept. The apse on the left served
as a baptistery. The font, hewn out of a single block of stone with a
diameter of i.io m. (3 ft. 7 in.), remains in the church to-day. As to the
colonnades outside, we only know that there was once a columned porch.2
The original structure has lost the lateral apses, the ends of the transept,
and the porch with its columns. Hence the present building consists merely
of a nave and aisles, entered through a porch, and terminated by three apses,
the lateral ones being formed in the two spaces originally existing between
the principal and the secondary apses (Figs. 215, 216, 217, pp. 243, 244, 253).
The porch is a rectangular chamber of 4.25 by 2.80 m. (14 by 9 ft.)
with a wooden roof. The raising of the front wall to form a bell-cote is an
addition. The inner doorway has undergone alteration. The outer is orna-
mented on the imposts and circumference with conventional flowers and beads.
The nave, which is 10.80 m. (about 35 ft.) long by 4.67 m. (about 15 ft.)
broad between the columns, is divided from the aisles by four arches on
either side, supported by eight ancient marble columns of varying size, and
by two half wall-piers (Figs. 218, 219, pp. 244, 254). The stone bases of the
columns are of different forms and heights, being in some cases of the Attic
type, in others consisting only of a torus above a socle.
The capitals are either imitations of the Corinthian, or else Corinthian-
esque. The latter sometimes have, besides the acanthus leaves, conven-
tional lilies, palm leaves, and cauliculi with ribbed stalks. Among the
Corinthian capitals are one or two of good workmanship, especially the one
here illustrated with its column and base (Fig. 220, p. 253). The others are
more or less of mediocre design and execution.
The capitals are surmounted by plain moulded abaci, of varying height
1 LAMPEREZ y ROMEA, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 145-149.
^Espafia, sus monumentos y artcs, &c. ; QUADRADO, Valladolid, Palenda y Zamora, pp. 331-335.
248 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
in order to fit the columns. Two, however, which consist of a band and a
flat cyma, are ornamented with carving. All are of an easily worked stone.
The two half wall-piers are decorated with a band of carving at the impost
of the arch.
Both nave and aisles have wooden roofs. The latter formerly had flat
ceilings. The holes for the beams can be seen above the columns. The
sanctuary has a horse-shoe barrel vault, round the base of which runs a
band of conventional foliage and beads, a motive which appears in almost
every part of the building — sanctuary, nave, and porch. The two lateral
apses, which have pointed frontal arches, are covered by ribbed cross-vaulting
of XV-century date, when the free spaces between the apses were closed on the
outside and converted into chapels.1 On the exterior of the walls of these
two modern apses traces remain of the horse-shoe barrel vaults of the
original lateral apses, and also of the band of carved interlacing which ran
below the impost of their vaults.
The walls of the church, where original, are seen to be formed of
irregular courses of stone blocks of various size, roughly dressed, with a
sparing use of mortar. The exterior face of the walls was unbroken : the
two buttresses now to be seen at the east end were added on the construction
of the two cross-vaults. The original windows are splayed on the inside,
have interlaced ornament, and were filled with lattices (transennae) of
geometrical patterns, fragments of which survive. The horse-shoe arch is
used throughout.
The erection of the church is ascribed to King Receswinth (649-672) on
account of the inscription on a votive stone inserted above the sanctuary arch.
A cast of this inscription placed in the porch is here reproduced (Fig. 221,
p. 253). The dedication seems to have taken place on January 3rd, 661.
Tradition ascribes the foundation to the fulfilment of a vow or thank-
offering by the king for having been cured of the stone from which he
suffered, by drinking the water of a spring which rises not many yards from
the church.2 It is well to notice, however, that any therapeutic quality is
negatived by chemical analysis ; 3 and that the name Banos, apparently, was
not given to the place on account of the medicinal properties of the water,.
1 LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, op. cit, vol. i, p. 146.
2 Espafia, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ; QUADRADO, Valladoltd, Palenday Zamora, p. 331.
3 Cultura espanola, 1906, pp. 785-811 ; G6MEZ-MORENO, Excursidn, &c.
SPAIN
249
but because of the existence of a Roman bath there.1 This bath may have
provided the columns used in the nave of the church, as well as the squared
stone of which the walls are built.
The date of the inscription has been put as low as the XII century.2
I leave it to epigraphists to decide whether this be so, and only remark
that, even if the stone were as old as the reign of Receswinth, the existing
building is not the one which he erected.
As a matter of fact, some of the capitals, not of alien origin, but made
expressly for the church, not only display the same manner as the capitals
also made expressly for the church
of San Miguel at Escalada (913-
14) and its porch (1050), but belong
to a somewhat more advanced stage
of art than those in that porch, and
must be dated later than the first
half of the XI century. On the other
hand, the remaining capitals, imitating
the Corinthian, are markedly different
from those at Escalada both in de-
sign and execution, and the date which
suits them will be the first half of
the XII century.
The plan, again, as set out by the
architect Alvarez who restored the
building (Fig. 222), plainly belongs to
a time later than the epoch of about
1000. The lateral apses projecting from the sides of the arms of the transept
are a feature which first appears in the Lombardo- Norman basilica at the
beginning of the XI century.3 The same may be said of the carved bands
of geometrically formed flowers and beads derived from classical ornament.
No Western artist of the Early Middle Ages could have produced such
refined carving as that on the impost bands below the sanctuary vault : not
FIG. 222. — Banos de Cerrato. Plan of the
original Church of San Juan Bautista (XII cent.).
1 LAMP£REZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, p. 145.
- CABROL, Dictionnaire £ Archtologie chrttienne, &c., vol. ii, i, col. 191-198; LECLERCQ, Banos.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, p. 106 ; (Hoepli), pp. 359, 407 ; (Heinemann), vol. ii,
pp. 34, 69.
25o MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
even the imported carver who executed the VH-century sarcophagus of
St. Theodechildis in the crypt of the church of Saint Paul at Jouarre (Fig. 223,
P- 255).1
Not to speak of the great, or rather absolute improbability that a building
mainly roofed with wood, situated in a bare plain, in a district fearfully ravaged
by both Moslems and Christians — the latter had made it a desert by order of
Alfonso I (739-756) for defensive reasons — and near to Duenas and Palencia
(both destroyed, the former in the IX century by order of Alfonso III (866-
909) ; the latter in the XI century by decree of Sancho the Great, King of
Navarre (970-1035), and only re-established at a later period), can have
passed intact through so many centuries of wars, raids, conflagrations,
destructions, and servitude.2
Accordingly, in default of proof to the contrary, the church of San Juan
Bautista must be put at a date later than the resurrection of the neighbouring
town of Palencia by decree of Sancho the Great, and at the same time as the
erection of the parish churches there in the XI and following century ;3 in other
words, it belongs to the XII century. The XII or even the XIII century
had been already suggested by other writers on grounds of artistic style.4
THE CRYPT OF THE CATHEDRAL OF PALENCIA. — It has lately been made
clear that the ancient crypt of San Antolin (Antoninus), consisting of a
low nave with barrel vault strengthened by transverse arches, and small
round-headed windows boldly splayed on the inside, was enlarged by a second
structure of which, when I visited it, there was to be seen a rectangular
chamber with lateral recesses, roofed with stone slabs laid flat upon horse-shoe
arches, and having at the east end a triplet of similar arches supported by
two marble columns of alien origin. These columns rest on bases composed
of a thick roll, a shallow scotia, and a band ; and carry Corinthianesque
capitals of very rude and careless workmanship, surmounted by abaci
ornamented with conventional flowers.
About the dates of these two structures very different views have been
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, p. 84 ; (Hoepli), p. 385 ; (Heinemann), vol. ii, pp. 51, 52.
The Burlington Magazine, vol. xxi (1912) • RIVOIRA, Antiquities of St. Andrews, p. 25.
2 DOZY, Histoire des Musulmans tfEspagne, vol. iii, pp. 24-26. LAFUENTE, op. cit., vol. ii,
p. 153. Espana, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ; QUADRADO, Asturias y Le6n, p. 133.
3 Espana, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ; QUADRADO, Valladolid, Palencia y Zamora, p. 359.
4 MICHEL, Histoire de FArt, vol. i, 2, p. 560; ENLART, L 'architecture Romane.
SPAIN 251
expressed. It has been suggested, for instance, that the oldest part — that
with the barrel vault — is Roman work going back to the time before the
destruction of Palencia (456-57) by King Theodoric (453-466) ; and that an
addition was made to this by order by King Wamba (672-680). Others again,
on more reliable grounds, hold that the first building is Visigothic, and that
the annexe was added in the XI century.1
Palencia, after its second destruction by the Moslems and the final blow
which it received from Alfonso I (739-756) about the middle of the VIII
century,'2 remained for centuries almost forgotten. The bishopric came to an
end, and the diocese was divided in the reign of Alfonso V (999-1027)
between the neighbouring bishops of Burgos and Leon.3 After Baroaldus
became bishop in 693, the see of Palencia remained vacant till 1035, an<^
the existence of an Abundantius4 Bishop of Palencia in 811 is a matter of
controversy. 5 About the year 1030, however, its restoration was decreed by
Sancho the Great, King of Navarre, at the advice of Ponce, Bishop of Oviedo
(about 1028-1035), and with the aid of the King of Le6n, Bermudo III
(1027-1037). The rebuilding of the cathedral seems to have been the first
thing taken in hand, for by 1035 Sancho had established a bishop there in
the person of Bernard I (1035- 1040). 6 A privilege of King Ferdinand I of
Castile and Leon (1037-1065) tells us that the cathedral was of stone—
' lapidum honestissima domus ' — and that the crypt was rebuilt : ' Postquam
est reedificata cripta . . .' 7 Just at the same time tradition connects the
memory of King Sancho and the new cathedral with the existence, among
the ruins of Palencia, of an old church of rude construction.8 For me the
story is the complement of the historical account, and the two together
throw an interesting light on the building which we are considering. The
rude structure of the legend will be the first part of the crypt. Who built
it I cannot say. The idea that it may have been constructed by King
Wamba as a receptacle for the relics of St. Antoninus, which tradition says
^ l LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 165-167.
2 FL6REZ, op. cit., vol. viii, pp. 9, 10, 32.
3 Espana, sus monumcntos y artes, &c.; QUADRADO, Valladolid, Palencia y Zamora, pp. 350-358.
4 GAMS, Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae.
5 Espana, sus monumentos y artes, &c.; QUADRADO, Valladolid^ Palencia y Zamora, pp. 350-358
6 Ibid., pp. 350-358. FL6REZ, op. cit., vol. viii, pp. 9, 10, 32.
~ Espana, sus monumentos y arfes, &c.; QUADRADO, Valladolid, Palencia y Zamora, pp. 350-358.
8 MARIANA, Historia general de Espana, p. 487.
252 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
that he brought to Palencia from Narbonne,1 rests on no ground of proba-
bility. Not only is it uncertain whether there was any cultus of the saint
in the old capital of the Vaccaei before 711, but it seems that the relics
were really brought by Sancho from the abbey of Fredelas.2 Its con-
struction, the apse in particular, is far more suggestive of the barbarous
Visigothic period than of the Roman decadence.
When the cathedral was rebuilt, this early chamber was retained ; but an
opening was broken in the apse at its end in order to connect it with the
new crypt or second chamber which, in default of proof to the contrary,
may be ascribed to the reigns of Sancho the Great and Ferdinand I, and the
episcopate of Bernard I. The difference between the capitals in the crypt
at Palencia and those in San Juan at Banos de Cerrato, though all of the
same style,3 is to be explained by the fact that they were produced at
different periods.
THE BASILICA OF CABEZA DE GRIEGO. — We know that at the end of the
XVIII century the remains indicated a basilica in the form of a Tau cross, in
which the apse, both in plan and in its frontal arch, the arches which crossed
the transept, and those of the doors, were all of the oval horse-shoe form.
The columns dividing the nave from the aisles, the bases of which survived,
were composed of portions of Roman shafts brought from other buildings,
clumsily put together.4 In their present state these remains consist of little
more than the outer walls and those of the apse, together with the foundations
of the bases of the columns in the nave.
The discovery therein, among other things, of a fragmentary inscription
eulogising a bishop called Sefronius, which is ascribed to the VII century,
and also of a sepulchral inscription in Visigothic lettering, referring to the
same bishop and to another named Nigrinus — 'hie sunt sepulcra sanctorum,
Sefronius Episc., Nigrinus Episc.' — together with the form of the arches
and apse, have led to the inference that the church is of Visigothic
origin, and that Sefronius and Nigrinus were two bishops of the ancient
diocese of Segobriga.5
1 LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, p. 166. 2 Acta Sanctorum, vol. xl, pp. 340-357.
3 LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, p. 167. 4 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 150-152.
5 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 150-152. Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xiii, pp. 353-388;
GUEVARA, CORNIDE, MONTEJO, Monumentos romanos y cristianos de Cabeza del Griego.
253
..,
FIG. 217. — Banos de Cerrato. San Juan Bautista.
Porch (XII cent).
FIG. 221. — Banos de Cerrato. San Juan Bautista. Votive
inscription (from a cast).
FIG. 220. — Banos de Ceirato. San Juan Bautista.
Column at the entrance to the sanctuary (XII cent.).
254
FIG. 219. — Banos de Cerrato. San Juan Bautista. North arcade of the nave (XII. cent.).
255
FIG. 223. — Jouarre. Crypt of Saint Paul. Sarcophagus of St.
Theodechildis (VII cent.).
'
FIG. 225. — Bande. Sanctuary of Santa
Comba or San Torcuato (IX cent.).
FIG. 226. — Bande. Santa Comba or San
Torcuato (IX cent.).
256
FIG. 240. — Ravenna. Palace of Theodoric. Remains of mosaic
pavement (493-5 2 6).
FIG. 241. — Ravenna. Palace of Theodoric. Remains of mosaic
pavement (493-526).
SPAIN
257
It has not yet, however, been proved that the Roman ruins in the
territory of Cabeza de Griego actually belong to the ancient Seg6briga. Nor
does the list of bishops of that diocese printed by Gams l — a list which begins
with Proculus in 589 and ends in 688 with Anterius — contain the names of
Sefronius and Nigrinus. Nor do they appear in the Acta Sanctorum.
Moreover, considering that the building was the cathedral of Seg6briga,
the existence of inscriptions in Visigothic character is no proof that what
was left of the structure in the XVIII century was as old as the Visigothic age,
and not rather a reconstruction carried
out after the ruin caused by the Moslem
conquest. When the rebuilding took
place the remains of the Roman columns
formerly belonging to the original
structure were used again in a clumsy
fashion.
It may be that an entirely new
church was built, in which were em-
ployed columns taken from ruins left
by the Moslems, while it was made the
receptacle for relics and sepulchral
memorials brought from one or more
of the churches destroyed in their
ravages.
Whatever the truth may be, the
exaggerated form of horse-shoe arch
used in the building points to a period
some time after the Moslem conquest
and the subsequent systematic use of the horse-shoe arch in the Iberian
peninsula. In its earlier days that arch had not so pronounced a form.
THE CHURCH OF SANTA COMBA OR SAN TORCUATO AT BANDE is a small
building in the shape of a cross with arms of equal length, having at the
east end a rectangular sanctuary (Fig. 224). It is covered with barrel
vaulting, except the low central tower, which has a cross vault. At the
impost of the vaults runs a rudely designed and carved string of cable
FIG. 224. — Bande. Plan of Santa
Comba or San Torcuato (IX cent.).
1 Op. cit.
20
258 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
pattern. The arches of the central square space exceed the semicircle by
a third of the radius, and the same is the case with the sanctuary arch which
springs from a pair of marble columns on either side (Fig. 225, p. 255). These
columns, which come from the Roman baths of Bande, and are partly buried
under the present pavement of slabs, have Corinthian capitals which may
be of the complete decadence of Roman art, or even of the Visigothic period,
and have belonged to the original church of the VII century. The sanctuary
window has a stone transenna with a reticulation of semicircles. The walls
on the exterior are seen to be constructed with irregular courses of large stone
blocks roughly dressed and set in thick beds of mortar (Fig. 226, p. 255).
The church has been regarded as a work of the VII century and of
the Byzantine type. The evidence for this is : a document, the plan and
character of the masonry, the occurrence of the horse-shoe arch, the capitals,
the impost cornice below the vaulting, and the transenna in the sanctuary.1
The document is a deed of gift which says that in the reign of
Alfonso III (866-909), his captain-general, Adoarius, on going to Galicia in
order to bring back its population (872), granted to his own brother Adonius,
a deacon, possession of an estate on which stood two churches dedicated
respectively to the Virgin and St. Columba. These churches, founded more
than two centuries before, were out of repair and in an unseemly state ; and
they were handed over to Adonius with the property on the condition that
he should put them in order as soon as he had taken measures to re-people
the territory to which they belonged.2 This document would make our
church go back to the VII century.
This date, however, is not so certain as appears at first sight. The
presence of the horse-shoe arch does not help to confirm it : rather that
form would show that the present building is later than the Moslem invasion
of the Iberian peninsula. Nor is it supported by the carved impost at the
base of the vaulting in the church or sanctuary, nor even by the transenna
in the latter, for the stringcourse might be mediaeval in date, and the
transenna either Roman or mediaeval. The capitals, again, are equally
inconclusive, as they were not made expressly for the structure in_ which we
find them.
We come next to the plan in the form of an equal-armed cross.
What are we to say of this ?
1 LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 153-156. 2 Ibid.
SPAIN
259
This form of cross, wrongly described as Greek in contrast to the Latin
cross with unequal arms, is not in fact of Byzantine origin as is so gener-
ally asserted. On the contrary, it is derived, like the ' Latin ' cross, from
plans of tombs and other structures of the Roman imperial epoch. I have
dealt with this point elsewhere ; l and, without taking the trouble to search,
FIG. 227.
FIG. 228.
FIG. 230.
FIGS. 227, 228, 229, 230. — Plans of Roman cruciform buildings.
(From MONGERI, Le ravine, &c., taw. 18, 32, 41, 65.)
as I have done more than once, through the drawings in the Uffizi at
Florence and other collections outside Italy, anyone can assure themselves
of its correctness by simply glancing at the designs of Serlio,2 Montano,3
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Hoepli), p. 28 ; (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 28.
2 SCAMOZZI, Tutte rOpere <? architcttura di Sebastiano Serlio.
3 Raccolta de tempii^ e sepolcri disegnati daltantico ; Srielta de varii tcmpietti antichi.
260
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Fie. 232.
FIG. 233.
FIGS. 231, 232, 233. — Plans of Roman cruciform buildings.
(From MONTANO, Raccolta, &c., taw. 4, 18, 28.)
Bramantino,1 and the Vatican Barberini MS. 4424.2 Specimens of the plans
1 MONGERI (Studi del Bramantino), Le ravine di Roma al principle del secolo XVI.
2 HULSEN, // libra di Giuliano da Sangallo.
SPAIN
261
of such buildings, with equal or unequal arms, and of simple and elementary form
as well as of complex variety — one having the appearance of four basilicas
united at the apsidal ends — are here illustrated, the examples being taken
FIG. 234.
FIG. 235.
FIG. 236.
FIGS. 234, 235, 236. — Plans of Roman cruciform buildings.
(From MONTANO, Rcucolta, &c., taw. 31, 34, 4$.)
from Bramantino1 (Figs. 227, 228, 229, 230, p. 259) and Montano2 (Figs.
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, pp. 260, 261, 262).
1 MONGERI, op. cit, taw. 18, 32, 41, 65.
2 Raccolta de tempti, e sepolcri disegnati daWantico> taw. 4, 18, 28, 31, 34, 45 ; Scielta de varii
ttmpietti antichi^ tav. 40.
262
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Nor can the likeness which has been pointed out1 between the church
of Bande and the mausoleum of Galla Placidia at Ravenna (about 440)
(Fig. 238, p. 263), a new account of which, by the way, has lately appeared,2
justify the title of Byzantine for the type to which both buildings belong,
for I have established, as clearly as it is possible to do, the existence
of the previously ignored School of Ravenna, which was responsible for the
erection of so many celebrated buildings in that city, hitherto regarded
as of Byzantine origin.3
There being then no plausible argument for placing the existing church
of Santa Comba in the Visigothic period, one might think of the occasion
when the body of St. Torquatus, first Bishop
of Guadix (about 65),4 was brought thither from
that city. F16rez puts the translation in 777,
during the reign of Abd al-Rahman I (756-
788).5 We know, however, that, even though
doubts may be thrown on the statement that in
716 Abd al-Aziz, son of Musa, levelled Orense
with the ground — ' Auriam vero depopulavit
usque ad solum ' 6 — it being recorded that in 742
the city received with jubilation the troops of
Alfonso I (739-756),7 the fact remains that it
was condemned with its territory, in which the
church stood, to form part of the desert zone
created by the King of Asturias between his
dominions and the Mohammedan provinces, and
that in 832 it still remained in its state of desolation.8 Hence the date 777
must be a mistake. As a matter of fact, both Yepes9 and Morales10
1 LAMP£REZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 153-156.
2 GHIGI, // mausoleo di Galla Placidia in Ravenna.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 1-125; (Hoepli), pp. 1-125; (Heinemann), vol. i,,
pp. 1-107.
4 GAMS, op. cit. 5 FL6REZ, op. cit., vol. vii, pp. 27, 28; vol. v, pp. 312-318.
6 Ibid., vol. xvii, pp. 48, 49.
7 LAFUENTE, op. cit, vol. ii, p. 153.
8 DOZY, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 24-26. FL6REZ, op. cit., vol. xvii, pp. 48, 49. LAFUENTE, op. cit.,.
vol. ii, p. 153.
9 Coronica general de la Orden de San JSenito, vol. v, fol. 24, 25.
10 Viaje a los reynos de Leon, y Galicia, y principado de Asturias, p. 153.
FIG. 237. — Plan of a Roman
cruciform building.
(From MONTANO, Scielta, &c., tav. 40.)
SPAIN
263
state that the body of the canonized Bishop of Guadix was carried away
to Galicia after the Moslem conquest. In any case the translation of St.
Torquatus, whatever may have been its date, caused a change in the title
of our church, which now became ' Santa Colomba de San Torquato,' l and it
may also have led to a restoration of the primitive church. But even granting
this, the laying waste of the territory of Orense, and the long and ruinous
neglect to which our church, like the other edifices there, was condemned,
would demand not a restoration but a rebuilding.
The rudeness and irregularity of the masonry suggest that the rebuilding
was done in haste ; and this circumstance
would be consistent with the date of the
gift by Adoarius. The occurrence of the
horse-shoe arch would agree with the date
of 872, coinciding with the arrival in Galicia
of monks from Cordova escaping from the
persecution of Abd al- Rahman II and
Mohammed II. It must not, however, be
put later than the IX century, for though
St. Rosendus, or Rudesindus, Bishop of
Dumium (before 928-977), in which diocese
Santa Comba was situated, was a great
builder (' Multa monasteria a fundamentis
extruxit, alia reaedificavit, alia correxit et
ad primum suum statum restituit '),2 still,
i- .1 -uuj rc.-T FIG. 218. — Ravenna. Plan of the Mauso-
havinp- taken away the body of St. Tor- d , _ „ 01 ... . ,
leum of Galla Placidia (about 440).
quatus, which he transferred (935) to his
newly founded church of the Saviour at Celanova, leaving only the coffin
at Bande,3 he is hardly likely to have rebuilt a church which he had robbed
of its only treasure. The date was certainly not as late as 1183, when Santa
Comba was consecrated,4 and the masonry and impost cornice of the vaulting
added.
THE CHURCH OF ELCHE. — The remains of this small church, which came
1 FL6REZ, op. cit., vol. vii., p. 27.
- Acta Sanctorum^ vol. vi, pp. 102-119.
3 FL6REZ, op. cit., vol. vii, pp. 27, 28. YEPES, op. cit., vol. v, fol. 24, 25.
4 FL6REZ, op. cit., vol. xvii, p. 99.
264
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
to light in 1905 on the site of the ancient Illici, consist of the base of the
walls of a rectangular nave, measuring about 1 1 by 7.50 m. (36 by 24 ft.),
with a semicircular apse at the east, elongated so as to form a presbytery.
The wall at the east end suggests that the apse was flanked by two chambers,
in the Roman fashion first found in the palace of Domitian on the Palatine
(about 69-85).1
The nave contains a tessellated mosaic pavement with meanders, tendrils,
knots, stars, and other forms of orna-
ment, and also three inscriptions in
Greek characters.
On the ground, among other
things, of these inscriptions ; of some
of the decorative motives of the
mosaic which are related to those of
the mosaic pavements of the V and
VI centuries at Ravenna ; and of the
assertion that, between 554 and 624,
Illici, together with Carthaginian
Spain, Baetica, and Lusitania, was
subject to Byzantine rule, the date
of the church of Elche is put in the
Byzantine period.2
I note that the tessellated
mosaic pavements of the IV, V, and
VI centuries at Ravenna — e.g. the
splendid specimens of the Basilica
Ursiana (370-384), the design of
which has been preserved by Buonamici 3 in a drawing of so much as was
visible more than 3 m. (nearly 10 ft.) below the present floor — were the
work of Italians, and belonged to a Latin, not a Byzantine tradition (Fig.
239). So much so, that Theodoric the Great (493-526) brought skilled
'marmorarii' from Rome for the works in the basilica of Hercules, as we
learn from his letter to the prefect Agapitus.4 To these artists may be
FIG. 239. — Ravenna. Basilica Ursiana. Fragment
of tessellated pavement (370-384).
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Hoepli), p. 21 ; (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 22.
2 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 293-295.
3 Metropolitana di Ravenna^ pp. xii, xiii ; taw. B, C.
4 Monumenta Germaniae historica ; AURELIUS CASSIODORUS, Variac, lib. i, epist. vi.
265
FIG. 242. — Ravenna. Palace of Theodoric. Remains of
mosaic pavement (493-526).
FIG. 243. — Rome. Palatine. Fragment of mosaic from the 'Domus Aurea' (65-68).
266
. _ .i
FIG. 245. — Tarrasa. San Miguel (IX and XII cents.).1
1 Figs. 245, 246, 268, 269, 270, are from photographs by Mas of Barcelona.
SPAIN 267
ascribed the surviving portions of mosaic from Theodoric's palace (Figs. 240,
241, 242, pp. 256, 265).
This is not difficult to understand, for it was in imperial Rome that the
art of mosaic, wedded as it was to architecture, reached its highest develop-
ment and widest expansion in palaces, mausoleums, basilicas, and baths.1 In
Rome, where the mosaics of the time of Nero (54-68) (Fig. 243, p. 265) and
Domitian (81-96) discovered by Boni on the Palatine, not only precede in date,
but, considering the rare material used, such as mother of pearl, the variety,
vigour, and excellence of design, the grand scale of their compositions, and
their marvellous workmanship, surpass the finest specimens of the kind which
Ravenna, I stria, and the East can show.
This and many other aspects of the art of Ravenna would become clear
if people would read with care, as I have done more than once, the ' Variae '
of Cassiodorus, for there is to be found the evidence which forms the basis
of my studies on the subject.
Another point to notice is that the church of Elche is probably later
than the IV century, or rather than the Basilica Ursiana at Ravenna, on
account of its apse at the east end. I may refer to what I said about
orientation in my account of the mosque at Damascus.
Considering that the inscriptions in the church of Elche are in Greek
and of the late period, the natural conclusion is that it belongs to the VI
or VII century, and to the years between 554 and 624.
Before leaving Elche I would point out that elongated semicircular
apses were built by the Romans in the imperial age, and before they appeared
in the East. An example taken from Montano2 appears as an illustration
in connection with the church which we shall deal with next. Another instance
may be found in Fig. 58 (p. 69).
THE CHURCH OF SAN MIGUEL AT TARRASA (Baptistery ?). — Of the' three
ancient churches of Tarrasa the most important and best preserved is that
dedicated to St. Michael. We will describe it first.
Its plan is a square of over 12 m. (about 40 ft.), with four recesses
having approximately horse-shoe arches at the angles (Fig. 244, p. 268). The
interior is divided into nine bays by means of eight columns in the centre and
1 Associazione artistica fra i Cultori di architettura, 1909 ; NOGARA, Mosaici di Roma antica.
'2 Raccolta de tempii, e sepolcri disegnati daW antico, tav. 33.
l654 2 1
268
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
as many wall-piers (Fig. 245, p. 266). At the east end projects an apse
of horse-shoe form internally, but polygonal externally, after the Ravennate
fashion. The entrance was originally at the west end, but this was closed,
and a new one opened on the south. The orientation is to the south-east.
The columns of the central square space which carry the cupola are
made up, and vary in size and the kind of stone used. Those at the corners
are the largest, the intermediate ones being smaller. They stand on rude
Attic bases of every sort and height, or on stepped bases and other forms.
They are surmounted by alien capitals,
two being Composite, or rather a mix-
ture of Corinthian and Composite. The
others are Corinthian, and in some cases
have had the lower part cut off in order
to fit them to the shaft. These mutilated
Corinthian capitals, of which there are
two, are of good work, and might belong
to the II century. The other Corinthian
ones belong to the Roman decadence, and
appear to be of the V or VI century.
They recall in design and execution the
VI -century capitals in the old cathedral
of Trier (about 560-5 70). 1 The Com-
posite capitals will be of nearly the same
date as the later Corinthian ones, and
may have been made for Bishop Irenaeus.
The capitals are crowned with abaci of
varying height, treated either as plain
Ravennate pulvins or with fillets and a
shallow cyma. The former were made for their places ; the latter are of alien
origin. From the abaci spring the round stilted arches which carry the cupola.
The apse is covered by a half dome which tends towards a horse-shoe
form at the base, as does the frontal arch. The same is also the. case with
the heads of the angle recesses. Each of the four bays of the cross has
a depressed cross vault, starting from four corbels. Where the vault touches
the wall, the arch has a slightly pointed form. The central square passes
FIG. 244. — Tarrasa. Plan of San Miguel
(IX and XII cents.).
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, Fig. 471 ; (Hoepli), Fig. 550 ; (Heinemann), vol. ii, Fig. 716.
269
FIG. 246. — Tarrasa. San Miguel (IX and XII cents.).
270
FIG. 248. — Ravenna. Baptistery of Neon (V cent.).
SPAIN 271
into the circle of the cupola by means of four hood-shaped pendentives. The
lantern above the cupola is a later addition. The original windows are mere
slits splayed inside.
Beneath the sanctuary is a small underground three-lobed chapel, each
lobe or recess being of horse-shoe form, covered with a half dome, and lighted
by a single loophole splayed inside. The square central space has a roof
of flat stone slabs. The wall of the passage leading to it is modern.
On the exterior, the walls are built of small cubes of stone set in mortar,
which must have come from some Roman building, and recall the external
facing of the old cathedral at Beauvais (987-997). At the top they have
evidently been altered, and the projecting angles have been strengthened with
large dressed stone blocks brought from ancient buildings. Some fragments
of cornice at the summit are composed of Roman tiles (tegulae) arranged in
steps (Fig. 246, p. 269).
We do not yet know what the building was intended for. Many have
regarded it as a baptistery; and this view was held as long ago as i8i9.:
Recent excavations made in the floor have not solved the problem. In order
to do so it would be necessary to extend them to the underground part, and
all the space within the walls.
Meanwhile I may note that the dedication to St. Michael recalls that of
the circular cemetery church of St. Michael and the Saviour at Fulda (818-822),
where also there was from the first a crypt, remodelled in the XI century.2
It may be that San Miguel at Tarrasa was originally a cemetery church, which
later was used for other purposes while it kept its old name.
The dates of San Miguel and of the neighbouring churches of San Pedro
and Santa Maria have been put at various periods between the V and the
XII centuries.3 The Visigothic age, however, is the one most generally
maintained ; and to it, accordingly, we will devote our attention.
1 Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxii, pp. 523-527; RIA$O, Iglcsias de San
Miguel, Santa Maria y San Pedro, de Tarrasa.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 501-506; (Hoepli), pp. 665-669; (Heinemann), vol.
ii, pp. 281-285.
3 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 306-340. LAMP£REZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, pp.
162-164. Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxii; MADRAZO, Iglesias de San
Miguel, Santa Maria y San Pedro, de Tarrasa, pp. 523-527. Ibid., vol. xxxiii; TORRES AMAT, Egara
(Tarrasa) y su monasterio de San Rufo, pp. 5-30. Ibid. ; FITA, Biblioteca historica de Tarrasa, pp.
31-79. MICHEL, Histoirede FArt, vol. i, 2, p. 563 ; ENLART, L 'architecture Romane.
272
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
It is known that the see of Egara was founded in 450, and that it is not
mentioned after 693. l It is natural to suppose that the erection of the see was
accompanied by the building of a cathedral with its baptistery. This logical
inference explains the existence of San Miguel for those who believe it to be a
work of the Visigothic period ; always excepting the cupola, and the results of a
restoration in the Carolingian age. This view is essentially confirmed by the
strongly Byzantine character, as they say, of the structure ; and also by the
assumption that new types of plan and fresh architectural features were
imported at that time from the East to the West.
Now these new features and this importation are absolutely imaginary.
As a matter of fact, the church of San
Miguel contains no supposed Byzantine
feature which is not really of Latin origin,
and in use in Italy before it was adopted
in the East. Let us now establish this,
starting with the question of the plan.
The prototype of the plan of the bap-
tistery and of the Roman 'laconicum,' with
its recesses to hold basins, is to be found in
the frigidarium of the Stabian Baths at
Pompeii (Fig. 247). There is no earlier
recorded building of similar type. The
Greeks were unacquainted with rooms of
this form until they learned them from the
Romans.2 This model was copied in the
earliest Christian baptisteries, whether cir-
cular or polygonal in form and provided with round or rectangular recesses.
On these lines Pope Hilarius (461-468) erected three chapels adjoining
the polygonal domed baptistery of St. John Lateran at Rome, rebuilt by
Sixtus III (432-440) — two opening directly from the walls of the octagon
on opposite sides, and known as the chapels of St. John the Baptist and St.
John the Evangelist ; the third, that of the Cross,3 being connected with it
1 Risco, Espaiid Sagrada, vol. xlii, pp. 182-184, 196, 197.
~2 Rivista di Roma, 1910, fasc. xii and xiii ; RIVOIRA, Origine delle terme dei Romani. Journal of
the British and American Archaeological Society of Rome, vol. iv, pp. 353-360 ; RIVOIRA, The Roman
Thermae. The Baths of Diocletian.
3 DUCHESNE, Le liber pontificalis, vol. i, p. 242.
FIG. 247. — Pompeii. Stabian Baths.
Frigidarium (II and I cents. B.C.).
SPAIN 273
by means of a portico. The original Constantinian baptistery at the Lateran
was, perhaps, circular like the old baptistery of St. Sophia at Constantinople,
erected under the same emperor (306-337) or Constantius II (337-36 1).1
Archbishop Neon (449 or 458-477), again, when he remodelled the baptistery of
the cathedral of Ravenna, added four semicircular exedras to the octagon
(Figs. 248, 249, pp. 270, 275). That building was erected by local workmen.
It influenced the architect of the Arian baptistery, built there in the time of
Theodoric the Great (493-5 26),2 which originally had four semicircular niches
projecting from the octagon. And when St. Sophia at Constantinople was
rebuilt by Justinian I between 532 and 537, it was provided with a baptistery
—now the tomb of Mustafa I (1617-18, 1622-23) — which had semicircular
recesses at the angles, after the Roman pattern.3 This type of structure, of
Latin origin, was not confined to the centuries immediately following the
peace given by Constantine to the Christians (313), but was in vogue long
afterwards. Thus the baptistery of Agliate (824-860) has two exedras pro-
jecting from its nine-sided body,4 and that of Biella (X century) has four apses
projecting from the central square space, producing the form of a quatrefoil.5
Again, if we look at San Miguel not as a baptistery, the plan is derived
from Pagan Roman or Early Christian Roman models. I give as one illustra-
tion out of many the plan of a cruciform structure with circular angle recesses,
alternately vaulted and domed, and a central cupola, preserved by Montano6
(Fig. 250, p. 274). We may also recall the oratory of the Holy Cross erected
by Pope Hilarius (461-468) opposite the present door of the Lateran
baptistery, destroyed under Urban VIII in 1629, but the plan of which has
been preserved by Bramantino7 (Fig. 251, p. 274) and Sangallo.8 We know
that it was about 1 1 m. (36 ft.) wide, and that its cupola was made of tubular
tiles. I recall, again, the plan of another Roman structure of square form with
four round recesses at the angles, preserved by Sangallo (tav. 8).
With regard to the central plan, I have elsewhere shown exhaustively,
from the evidence of actual buildings, that circular or polygonal structures with
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 89.
2 Mon. Germ. Hist., AGNELLUS or ANDREAS, Liber pontificate ^ p. 334.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 89.
4 Ibid. (Loescher), vol. i, p. 270 ; (Hoepli), p 198 ; (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 165.
5 Ibid. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 287-290; (Hoepli), pp. 216-219 ; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 178-180.
6 Scielta de varii tempittti antichi, tav. 29.
7 MONGERI, op. cit., tav. 30. 8 HULSEN, op. cit., fol. 30.
274
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
a central cupola carried on isolated supports, and vaulted throughout, had their
origin in Rome, whence the conception was borrowed by the Eastern architects.1
And I have returned to the subject in the present volume, when dealing with
the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem.
Another point is that the apse, semicircular internally and polygonal ex-
ternally, was invented at Ravenna.2 Later the Byzantines took it over. We
have dealt with this subject once more in the account of Walid's mosque at
Damascus.
FIG. 250. — Plan of a Roman sepulchral
building.
(From MONTANO, Stielta, &c., tav. 29.)
FIG. 251. — Rome. Plan of the Ora-
tory of the Holy Cross at the
Lateran (V cent.).
(From MONGERI, Le ravine, &c., tav. 30.)
Another invention of Ravenna was the pulvin in the form of an inverted
truncated pyramid, as I have demonstrated, while others had an inkling of it.3
It may, too, have come from Campania, but in any case not from the Byzantines.4
The Basilica Ursiana at Ravenna and the Basilica Severiana (San Giorgio
Maggiore) at Naples (367- about 387) (Fig. 252, p. 276) were furnished with
pulvins in the IV century. The subject has been discussed anew in this
book under the above-named mosque at Damascus.
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 31-36; (Hoepli), pp. 343-348; (Heinemann), vol. ii,.
pp. 23-26.
2 Ibid. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 26, 27; (Hoepli), pp. 7, 8; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 8-10.
3 ARCHINTI, Stitt nelF Archittttura, vol ii, pp. 93-101.
4 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 11-25 ; (Hoepli), pp. 8-18; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp.
10-18.
275
FIG. 249. — Ravenna. Baptistery of Neon (V cent.).
276
o
'£P
o
O
a
OS
SPAIN
=77
The three-lobed crypt, again, is of Roman origin. The same principle is
found in the trefoil type of structure generally, either in its simple form or with
the angles emphasized, and with or without buttresses, examples of which occur
in Italy from the imperial age onwards.1 I give illustrations of the plans of
some of these, taken from Bramantino2 (Fig. 253), Montano 3 (Figs. 254, 255,
256, p. 278), Serlio 4 (Fig. 257, p. 281), and Fra Giocondo5 (Fig. 258, p. 281).
We may also mention the two well-known and often discussed ' cellae ' of the
cemetery of Callistus on the Via Appia Antica near Rome : 6 the cella known as
that of St. Soteris, but believed by Wilpert to be the tomb of St. Zephyrinus ; 7
FIG. 253. — Plan of a Roman three-
lobed building.
(From MONGERI, Le ravine, &c., tav. 21.)
FIG. 254. — Plan of a
Roman three-lobed
building.
(From MONTANO, Scielta%
&c., tav. 16.)
and that commonly believed to be dedicated to Saints Xystus and Caecilia,
but thought by Marucchi 8 to have been intended to receive the body of the
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, p. 4 ; vol. ii, pp. 24, 25, 487, 508, 580, 581 ; (Hoepli), p.
711; (Heinemann), vol. ii, pp. 276, 316. Nuova Antologia, Ap. i6th 1910; RIVOIRA, Adriano
architctto e i monumenti Adrianei. DE Rossi, La Roma sottcrranca cristiana, vol. iii, p. 473.
2 MONGERI, op. cit, tav. 21.
3 Scielta de varii tempietti antichi, tav. 16; Raccolta de tempii, 6 sepolcri disegnati dall'antico,
tavv. 8, 33.
4 SCAMOZZI, op. cit., fol. 74.
5 Uffizi Gallery, Florence; Carta 3932, Catalogo Ferri, p. 219.
6 DE Rossi, La Roma sotterranea cristiana, vol. iii, pp. 468-473.
7 WILPERT, Die Papstgrdber und die Cdciliengruft in der Katakombe des hi, Kallistus,
pp. 91-104.
8 Nuovo Bollettino di Archeologia cristiana, 1908, pp. 157-195; MARUCCHI, La cella tricora
detta di Santa Sotere.
278
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
same Zephyrinus. These cellae, so far as they are original, may date from
the III century. Another instance is the chapel of St. Symphorosa on the
Via Tiburtina (III century). All these plans may have been derived from
the interesting and imposing tri-apsidal structure in the Stadium of Hadrian's
Villa at Tivoli,1 which has been recently excavated.
Next I would remark that with regard to the three-lobed plan, of which
we hear so much, in Constantine's churches of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem
and the Nativity at Bethlehem, the former never existed, and the latter was
FIGS. 255, 256. — Plans of Roman buildings.
(From MONTANO, Raccolta, &c., taw. 8, 33.)
built by Justinian, as we saw in our account of the al-Aqsa mosque at
Jerusalem.
The stilted arches, again, of the central space are not a Byzantine feature.
At the Arch of Dolabella and Silanus on the Caelian at Rome the imposing
aqueduct of Nero (59) contains arches which are stilted to the extent of
more than a metre above the impost cornice (Fig. 259, p. 276).
Lastly, the Romano-Campanian or hood-shaped pendentive was developed
in Campania, where it was in use as early as the V century. This discovery
of mine we discussed in connection with the Ummayyad mosque at Damascus
referred to before.
1 R. Accademia dei Lincei, Notizie degli scavi di antichita, 1906, fasc. 8°; REINA, BARBIERI,
Rilievo altimetrico e planimetrico di Villa Adriana.
279
FIG. 260. — Germigny des Pres. Church (801-806).
280
FIG. 261. — Germigny des Pres. Church (801-806).
SPAIN
281
It is, therefore, not difficult to see that the principal arguments in favour of
the Visigothic date of San Miguel at Tarrasa will not stand the test of facts.
On the other hand, those who put it in a period between the IX and
XII centuries either rely on unsafe or unconvincing historical evidence, and
produce reasons which, if plausible, have no bearing on the questions of
architecture and construction ; or have not studied the building on the spot
and with the architectural and archaeological equipment which is indispensable ;
or else, while possessing the latter qualifications, have been led astray by
their limited and imperfect acquaintance with the religious buildings of those
FIG. 257. — Ferento. Plan of a
Roman three-lobed building.
(From SCAMOZZI, Tutte k opere, &c.,
fogl. 74.)
FIG. 258. — Plan of a Roman
three-lobed building.
(Ascribed to FRA GIOCONDO, in the
Uffizi at Florence.)
centuries. Others, again, have taken refuge in the comfortable practice of
theorizing.
Such being the case, let us try if possible to extricate the church from
the chronological tangle in which we find it involved.
When Nundinarius, Bishop of Barcelona (t about 465), divided the diocese
in 450, and chose Irenaeus to fill the see of Egara, it is probable that the latter
place was provided with sacred buildings befitting the rank to which it had
been raised. The first Bishop of Egara seems to have been well suited for
his post, and his character was such that Nundinarius on his deathbed pointed
him out as his successor. The succession was favourably received by the
Catalonian bishops, and also by the clergy and people of Barcelona; but it
was opposed by Pope Hilarius, and was not confirmed.1 It is not clear
1 Risco, op. cit., vol. xlii, pp. 182-197.
1654
22
282 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
what happened next. The list of the bishops of Barcelona in Gams1 shows
a gap of fifty years between the death of Nundinarius and the accession of
Agricius (516-17); and in this gap, without any indication of date, appears
' Irenaeus intrusus.' Florez does not help to fill the void.2
The date of the death of Irenaeus is not known. All we learn is that
his successor in the see of Egara, Nebridius, was present at the Council
of Tarragona in 5i6.3 However, the fifteen years of his episcopate, from
450 to 465, would be long enough for the erection of a set of sacred buildings,
and it is to these years that Riafio4 ascribes the church of San Miguel and
the cathedral, now no longer in existence.
The see of Egara is not mentioned after 693 when the bishop, John,
appears among the signatories of the Sixteenth Council of Toledo.5 It must
have been swept away in the whirlwind of the Moslem invasion, never to
rise again.6 Afterwards its name is only mentioned as a thing of the past
— a thing that Rome did not wish to see restored — and survived only as
a titular distinction.7
Risco says that the old city of Egara, being, like Barcelona, poorly
fortified, capitulated to the invaders and was allowed to remain.8 Fita,9 too,
believes that Egara survived, like Saragossa and Pampeluna. This may
have been so, for we know that cities which capitulated, though they had to
submit to hard terms, such as those inflicted by Tarik on Toledo,10 were not
destroyed, and their churches were left standing. Therefore, Roderic,
Archbishop of Toledo, was wrong in saying that 'in tota Hispania non
remansit civitas cathedralis, quae non fuerit aut incensa, aut diruta.' n Others,
on the contrary, think that the place was destroyed and became 'terra rasa,'
whence the name Tarrasa instead of Egara.12 This derivation has been denied,
1 Op. cit. 2 Op. cit, vol. xxix, pp. 119-121.
3 Risco, op. cit., vol. xlii, pp. 182-197.
4 Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxii ; RIANO, Iglesias de San Miguel, Santa
Maria y San Pedro, de Tarrasa, pp. 523-527.
5 Risco, op. cit, vol. xlii, pp. 182-197. 6 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 307-308.
7 SIMONET, Historia de los Mozdrabes de Espana, p. 120.
8 Risco, op. cit, vol. xlii, pp. 197-201.
9 Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxiii ; Biblioteca historica de Tarrasa,
PP- 31-79-
10 LAFUENTE, op. cit, vol. ii, p. 129.
11 Chronicon rerum gestarum in Hispaniis ; RODERICUS, Deploratio Hispaniae, lib. iii, cap. xxj.
12 FL6REZ, op. cit, vol. xxix., App. xi.
SPAIN 283
and the name explained by the fact that Egara possessed a fortress or castle.1
'ertain it is that in the time of Charles the Bald the former Egara was known
the Castle of Tarrasa.'2
Whatever may have been the course of events, the churches of Tarrasa,
iven if not destroyed or injured by the Moslem conquerors (according to
Liano3 the territory of Egara fell into their hands about 720), certainly remained
ibandoned, or at least unrepaired, for a considerable length of time. Hence
>n the recovery of the district by the Franks in 80 1, when Egara was made
lependent on the see of Barcelona,4 these buildings, by which I mean the
)ld cathedral and its baptistery, supposing that it had a separate one, cannot
lave been in very good condition after three and a half centuries of existence,
and their deficiencies may well have been repaired. Simonet,5 indeed, says
that Egara was restored by Louis the Pious, and changed its name. This
statement is supported by the evidence of a record contained in two inscriptions,
mentioned by the prior Tapias in 1632, referring to Charles the Great's
(768-814) erection of the church of St. Mary upon the ruins of the cathedral
of Egara. In confirmation of this the prior cites a Bull of Pope Paschal II
(1099-1118) of 1115.° There is no reason to accuse Tapias of having confused
two Roman inscriptions with those which he quotes, or of having deliberately
forged a Papal Bull, especially as he was addressing the reigning pope, Urban
VIII (1623-1644).
Fita7 says that in 856-57 the Moslems, who had once more established
themselves in Barcelona through Jewish treachery in 852, laid Egara in ruins,
and with the spoils of its church enriched the great mosque of Saragossa.
Then Charles the Bald (843-877), having come to terms with Mohammed I,
and taken interest in the rebuilding of the cathedral of Barcelona, proceeded
to restore the church of St. Mary at Egara. This restoration I believe to
1 Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxiii ; FITA, Biblioteca historica de Tarrasa,
PP- 3!-79-
2 Risco, op. cit, vol. xlii, pp. 197-201.
3 Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxii ; Iglesias de San Miguel, Santa Maria y
San Pedro, de Tarrasa, pp. 523-527.
4 Ibid., vol. xxxiii; TORRES AM AT, Egara (Tarrasa) y sit monasterio de San Rnfo, pp. 5-30.
SIMONET, op. cit, p. 288.
5 Op. cit, p. 288.
6 Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxiii, pp. 31-79; FITA, Biblioteca historica de .
Tarrasa.
7 Ibid.
284 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
have been a rebuilding ; and it was then that the existing churches of San
Pedro, Santa Maria, and San Miguel at Tarrasa were erected.
This would explain the fact that the horse-shoe arch occurs in these
churches, for the date of erection would correspond with the exodus of the
monks from Cordova in consequence of the notorious persecutions of Abd
al-Rahman II (822-852) and Mohammed I (852-886). As we shall see
presently, in Asturias the horse-shoe arch in buildings was an importation by
these monks. Nothing else can explain its success in another district, and
that a Christian one, like Catalonia. The independent Christians of Spain
would have had no inclination for an arch of Moslem origin ; and it was only
when the persecuted Mozarabic clergy carried it with them into Christian
territory, that they accepted it.
As a matter of fact, it is only after the IX century and before 1112, when
Santa Maria was consecrated, that these three churches are mentioned, either
together or separately, in documents of the years 966, 973, 977, 991, 997 (or
995)» JOQ1* 1096, noi,and uoS.1 The church of St. Michael the Archangel
is expressly mentioned in the document of 973.
Between 977 and 991 came the terrible invasion of Al-Mansur (977-1002),
who, after defeating Count Borrell II (954-992), took Barcelona by assault
(985), devastated it, set it on fire, and carried away with him to Cordova
a multitude of the population, both of the city and of the surrounding district,
as slaves.2 On this occasion the churches of Tarrasa do not appear to have
escaped without injury, as we may infer from the account in Riafio 3 of the
churches of San Pedro and Santa Maria, which he thought belonged in style
to the XI and XII centuries. The fury of the Moslems had wrecked the
cathedral of Barcelona to such an extent that it had to be rebuilt, and the new
dedication took place in 1058. 4
Finally, we know that after 1092 Bertran, Bishop of Barcelona (1086-1095),
granted the church of Santa Maria to the Augustinian Canons of the monastery
1 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 307, 308. Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia,
vol. xxxiii, pp. 5-30 ; TORRES AMAT, Egara (Tarrasa) y su monasterio de San Rufo. Ibid., vol. xxxiii,
pp. 31-79; FITA, Biblioteca historica de Tarrasa.
2 Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxiii, pp. 31-79; FITA, Biblioteca historica
de Tarrasa. Espaiia, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ; PIFERRER, Pi MARGALL, pp. 110-112.
8 Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxii, pp. 523-527; Iglesias de San Miguel,
Santa Maria y San Pedro, de Tarrasa.
4 FIBRES, op. cit, vol. xxix, pp. 228, 229.
SPAIN 285
of San Rufo ; l and that in 1112 the church itself was consecrated by Ramon
(i 108-1 1 15),2 apparently after a restoration.8
The historical evidence and inferences here put together give the two
fixed limits of date, from the rebuilding of the ancient churches of Egara down
to the restoration and consequent re-dedication of the most important among
them, viz. Santa Maria. We shall see presently how and where San Pedro
and Santa Maria come in this period. First let us see how the case stands
with San Miguel.
The plan is of Latin origin, and one of those revived by Charles the
Great in his empire after he had conquered the kingdom of Lombardy (774).*
It first appeared in Asturias under Ramiro I (842-850) in the church of
San Miguel de Lino. The masonry of the outer walls is like that in the
churches of San Pedro and Santa Maria close by. The horse-shoe arches
point to a date later than the end of the Visigothic kingdom. The columns
in the centre suggest a restoration in the course of which ancient capitals
and Ravennate pulvins of the V or VI century were adapted, and arches
constructed of the high stilted form which was revived after the Renaissance
of about the year 1000. The cross vaults in the outer bays, with their
pointed wall-arches, evidently belong to the XII century. The cupola with
its hood-shaped pendentives points to a date not earlier than the first half
of the XI century, and after the Lombard master builders had made them
the fashion. As a fact, the oldest example which Catalonia can show is
that afforded by the church of San Vicente at Cardona, begun after 1019
and finished in IO4O.5
We have, therefore, before us a church of the IX century, of which
the outer walls, though restored, survive ; but of which the interior with its
vaulting and central tower was, apparently, reconstructed in the XII
century.
Before quitting San Miguel at Tarrasa I may notice the theory of
1 Boktin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxiii, pp. 5-30 ; TORRES AMAT, Egara
( Tarrasa) y su monasterio de San Rufo.
2 Risco, op. cit, vol. xlii, App. x.
3 Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxiii, pp. 31-79; FITA, Biblioteca historica de
Tarrasa.
4 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 209-238; vol. ii, pp. 474-549 ; (Hoepli), pp. 181-192,
647-694; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 151-160; vol. ii, pp. 267-302.
5 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 166, 167.
286
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Lamp^rez y Romea about a Spanish origin of the church of Germigny des
Pres (801-806) (Figs. 260, 261, 262, pp. 279, 280, 286). Theodulfs famous
church was, according to him, inspired by some structure of the type of San
Miguel, and Theodulf, being a Spaniard, fetched workmen from his native
country to erect it.1
Now the Spanish nationality of the celebrated Abbot of Fleury and
Bishop of Orleans (788-821) is by some held to be a mere conjecture;2
and it has also been suspected that his relationship with the Goths of
Hesperia (i.e. Spain) which he mentions, is
purely metaphorical.3 On the other hand it
has been maintained that he was an Italian.
' Erat Theodulfus natione I talus.'4 In my
view his Italian origin would be confirmed
by the fact that he joined Anselm, Arch-
bishop of Milan (814-822), Walfredus, Bishop
of Cremona (816-818), and others in the
conspiracy which caused Bernard, King of
Italy, to lose first his throne (817) and
then his life (818) under tragic circum-
stances.5
As to the church, I have shown elsewhere
that its plan is derived from that of San
Lorenzo Maggiore at Milan (VI century) (Fig.
263, p. 287), perhaps the work of Julianus
Argentarius, the architect of San Vitale at
Ravenna (526-547) ; while its elevation reminds one of the mausoleum of Galla
Placidia in the latter city (about 440) 6 (Figs. 264, 265, p. 289), which in its turn
was inspired by some Pagan Roman tomb of the type shown in one of Serlio's
illustrations7 here reproduced (Figs. 266, 267, p. 288). In fact, if one thinks
1 Revue Hispanique, 1907, pp. 565-575; LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, Sobre algunas posibles influendas
de la arquiteciura Cristiano-Espanola de la edad media en la Francesa.
2 Mon. Germ, hist.; Poetae Latini medii aevi ; Theodulfi Carmina, vol. i, p. 437. "
3 MIGNE, Pair, /a/., vol. cv, col. 187 ; Theodulphus Aurelianensis episcopus.
4 Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti^ vol. ii, p. 314.
5 Mon. Germ, hist., vol. i, p. 204 ; Annales Lanrissenses et Einhardi.
6 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 217, 218; (Hoepli), p. 390; (Heinemann),
vol. i, p. 55.
7 SCAMOZZI, op. cit, fol. 63.
_ Parts of the Original Church still
in existence.
^ Parts now destroyed.
EO Parts added in the XI Century.
FIG. 262. — Germigny des Pres. Plan
of the church (801-806).
SPAIN
287
of the plan of San Lorenzo without the internal irregular octagon, it is the
same, on a different scale, as that of Theodulfs church.
The most important vaulted buildings erected under Charles the Great,
either by him directly or with his assistance, were modelled, with variations,
on those of the Ravennate- Byzantine style which he had seen at Ravenna.
The most celebrated of all, the Palatine Chapel at Aachen (796-804), is
substantially a copy of San Vitale at Ravenna.1
In my former work I said that the church of Germigny des Pre"s appears
to have been erected by craftsmen brought from Italy, together with French
workmen, and that it showed the influence of an Eastern architect.2 This view
I now modify, so far as the architect is
concerned. The great number and variety
of ancient Roman vaulted and domed
structures, which have been preserved for
us in drawings, but in the days of Theodulf
must have still been standing, make me
feel that there was no need to bring in
an architect from the East to design the
church of Germigny des Pres, seeing that
it was so easy to find every sort of plan
in Roman monuments. Accordingly, I
am of opinion that the man who designed
Theodulfs church was an Italian. The
horse-shoe arches (perhaps repeated by the
same workmen from Germigny des Pres
in the campanile of Santa Maria della Cella
at Viterbo3) must have been part of the original design, and suggested by
buildings not far off in the Iberian peninsula, where, thanks to Abd al-
Rahman I (756-788), the form had obtained a footing. This, however, is
all that can be allowed to Spain, which for churches of the central vaulted
type had to resort to Carolingian models.
I say the central vaulted type, for, as far back as the VII century,
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 485-487 ; (Hoepli), pp. 654-658 ; (Heinemann), vol. ii,
pp. 272-276.
2 Ibid. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 219-222; (Hoepli), pp. 390-393; (Heinemann), vol. ii,
PP- 55-59-
3 Ibid. (Loescher), vol. i, p. 277 ; (Hoepli), p. 207 ; (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 171.
FIG. 263. — Milan. Plan of San Lorenzo
Maggiore (VI cent.).
288
MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
FIGS. 266, 267. — Plan and elevation of a
Roman tomb.
{From SCAMOZZI, Ttitte Fopere (far chit ettura, &c., fogl. 63.)
Spain possessed an important build-
ing in the form of a cross with equal
arms, containing colonnades, but
not enclosed in a square. I refer
to the monastic church of San
Roman at Hornija, built by King
Chindaswinth (642-649) in 646, and
of equal - armed cruciform plan.
But it no longer retained its
original plan when Morales saw
it in the XVI century;1 nor, as
a matter of fact, its elevation
either. And the only relics of its
former splendour were several
precious marble columns of Roman
origin, and of various kinds and
colours, which still adorned the
edifice, as is confirmed by Yepes.2
The work described by Morales
as ' obra Gothica ' belonged to a
restoration of the original church.
I may remark by the way that
Morales means by ' Gothic work '
buildings containing marble
columns and the horse-shoe arch.
Thus, in describing San Juan Bau-
tista at Banos de Cerrato, he says :
'It is rich with many coloured
marbles, after the fashion of the
Goths.' 3 Again, in connection
with the sanctuary of Santa Maria
at Oviedo,4 he says that it was in
the Gothic style, being decorated
with marble columns, and still more
1 La Coronica general de EspaJia^ lib. xii, fol. 137. 2 YEPES, op. cit., vol. ii, fol. 183-186.
3 MORALES, La Coronica general de Espana, lib. xii, cap. xxviii.
4 Ibid., Viaje a los .reynos de Le6n> y Galicia, &c., pp. 86-92. Ibid., La Coronica general de
JEsi>afia, lib. xiii, cap. xxxviii.
FIG. 264. — Ravenna. Mausoleum of Galla Placidia (about 440).
FIG. 265. — Ravenna. Mausoleum of Galla Placidia (about 440).
2 go
FIG. 268.— Tarrasa. Santa Maria (V, IX, XI, and XII cents.)
SPAIN 291
because it had horse-shoe arches : ' The three chapels are entirely the work
of the Goths, their frontal arches in particular, which bear a strong resemblance
to those of San Roman de Hornija and of Bamba.' l
The monastery of San Roman, a couple of leagues from the city of
Toro, was destroyed by the Moslems, together with Toro itself and its
neighbours, Zamora and Simancas, as well as Duenas, all of which were
rebuilt and repeopled by Alfonso III (866-909). It was on this occasion
that the monastery was rebuilt, being shortly after made dependent on the
abbey of San Adrian at Tun6n, founded by the same great but unfortunate
king.2
Hence, if San Roman, when Morales saw it before its destruction in
the XVIII century to make way for the present church,3 possessed horse-
shoe arches, those arches were not so old as the Visigoth ic age, and must
have been the work of builders coming in all probability from Moslem
territory. We should bear in mind that the rebuilding of Zamora was
entrusted to architects and workmen brought from Toledo.4
THE CHURCH OF SANTA MARIA AT TARRASA is of the Latin cross plan,
with a horse-shoe apse at the east end covered by a half dome which externally
forms a square block (Fig. 268, p. 290). The frontal arch springs from a rude
cornice, different from the impost cornice of the arches which carry the
cupola. The apse was flanked by two smaller ones, of which there are some
remains. Above the crossing rises the cupola, carried on hood-shaped pen-
dentives, and surmounted by a small bell-tower. The arms of the transept
are barrel vaulted. The nave, which has a narthex at the west end with
a gallery over, has a pointed barrel vault.
On the exterior, the masonry of the apse shows : below the floor line
of the church, careless work of the Visigothic period ; above, courses of small
cubes of stone, like the facing of the external walls of the neighbouring San
Miguel, with some admixture of roughly prepared stones and bricks taken
from ancient buildings. The outer angles are strengthened by dressed stones
of similar origin. The highest part is evidently not in its original state. Some
1 MORALES, Viaje a los reynos de Lc6n>y Galida, &c., pp. 86-92.
2 YEPES, op. cit, vol. ii, fol. 183-186.
3 Espana, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ; QUADRADO, Valladolid, Palencia y Zamora, pp. 259-
263, 535-
4 Ibid.
1654 23
292 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
fragments of the cornice at the top with stepped Roman tiles (tegulae) recall
what we saw at San Miguel. On the other hand, the arms of the transept,
the drum of the cupola, and the nave, are built of small cubes of stone, rubble,
roughly prepared stones, dressed stones, and broken bricks. The nave walls
have been repaired at the top.
The drum of the cupola is ornamented with an arched corbel course
interrupted at intervals by lesenas (pilaster strips). The bell-tower above
is also decorated with arches, recalling the design of the baptistery of Biella
(X century) and its quasi-lantern (XI century).1 The visible or northern
side of the nave is relieved by arched corbel courses grouped in pairs of arches
by lesenas. The west front has a stepped arched corbel course, every second
or every third arch being carried by a lesena.
The exterior walls betray four principal periods of construction. To the
earliest belongs the base of the apse, and this is rightly held to be of the
Visigothic age.2 The apse itself belongs to a second period, viz. the IX
century, contemporary with the first period of San Miguel, as is proved
by the similarity of the original masonry in either case. To a third belong
the transept and the nave ; and here we have the rebuilding which necessitated
the re-consecration of 1112. The IX-century church had not the arched
corbel courses of the present one, for this form of decoration did not appear
in Catalonia before the close of the IX century. With a fourth period are
connected the cupola and bell-tower. The way in which the former is
supported, and the masonry of both, point to a different date from that of the
rest of the church, and this may be put in the years following 1112. The
domical cross vaults must be ascribed to the rebuilding in the XI-XII centuries.
The pointed barrel vault of the nave is to be attributed to an alteration
made after the year above-mentioned, the effects of which, I think, may also
be seen in the exterior of the north wall.
The lessons to be derived from the architectural decoration and the
vaulting of Santa Maria at Tarrasa bring to mind the churches of San Pablo
del Campo and San Pedro de las Puellas at Barcelona.
THE CHURCH OF SAN PABLO DEL CAMPO AT BARCELONA is first mentioned
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 287-290 ; (Hoepli), pp. 216-219 > (Heinemann), vol. i,
pp. 178, 179.
2 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 259.
293
FIG. 269.— Barcelona. San Pablo del Campo. West front (IX, X,
and XII cents.).
294
4
FIG. 270. — Barcelona. San Pablo del Campo (IX, X, and
XII cents.).
SPAIN 295
when Count Wilfrid II (898-91 2) l was buried there — not Wilfrid I, 'the
Hairy' (874-898), the heroic founder of Catalonian independence, as Zurita
states.2 We may therefore conjecture that Wilfrid II was the founder of the
church. There has been much dispute about the date of his burial ; but the
year is 912, as has been proved by De Bofarull y Mascar6.3
It was certainly injured by Al-Mansur in 985, but we do not know whether
it was repaired by Borrell II (954-992), together with the other buildings of
Barcelona which had been ravaged and profaned by the Moslems, or else left
abandoned. It was ultimately rebuilt by Guitart and his wife Rollanda in
in;4 (Figs. 269, 270, pp. 293, 294).
Puig y Cadafalch's 5 account is as follows. San Pablo was in existence in
977, and the inscription on the lintel of the west door takes it back to the last
third of the X century. The names of Bernardus and Raimunda which occur
in the inscription seem to be those of the donors of the doorway. Another
inscription inserted in a wall inside the church proves that the monastery was
in existence at the beginning of that century. Al-Mansur partly destroyed
the monastery, and the monks abandoned it. It was rebuilt by Guitart and
Rollanda in 1117.
The church has the usual orientation and the form of a Latin cross, the
western limb being longer than the eastern. It terminates in an elongated apse,
flanked by minor apses, all three covered by half domes. Over the crossing
rises a cupola supported by hood-shaped pendentives, which is octagonal in its
lower part and nearly circular in the upper. The rest of the church has barrel
vaulting.
Two distinct kinds of masonry appear on the exterior ; one consisting of
courses of roughly cut stones, the other of coursed stones carefully dressed and
set. They correspond to the foundation and to the restoration of 1117
respectively. The masonry of the cupola suggests an alteration of a later date
than that year.
1 The chronology of the Counts of Barcelona is taken from DE BOFARULL Y MASCAR6, Los
Condes de Barcelona vindicados, y cronologia y genealogia de los Retes de Espana; Tabla
tronologica.
2 Anales de la Corona de Aragonh vol. i, fol. 12, 13.
8 DE BOFARULL Y MASCARA op. cit., vol. i, pp. 47-63.
4 YEPES, op. cit., vol. iv, fol. 362. DIAGO, Historia de los victoriosissimos antiguos Condes de
Barcelona^ fol. 73, 83. Espana sus monumentos y artes^ &c. ; PIFERRER, Pi MARGALL, Cataluna,
vol. i, pp. 218-225.
5 Op. cit, vol. ii, pp. 138-144.
296 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
The doorway in the west front is unquestionably of the XII century.
This is shown by the stonework exactly like that of the restoration of 1117; by
its advanced form ; by the spurs at the base of the shafts, a feature which did
not come into existence till the end of the X century.1 The presence of the
inscription given by Puig y Cadafalch, and assigned on epigraphical grounds to
the X century, must be explained by the fact that the lintel on which it is
engraved had been used over again. The round window at the top of the gable
is obviously an insertion later than Guitart's restoration.
The decoration of the principal apse with an arched corbel course broken
by lesenas, warns us that this feature, created at Ravenna though Roman
inspiration,2 and not in the East, as is still so often stated in defiance of the
evidence, while it did not cross the Alps till after the epoch of about the
year iooo,3 had reached the shores of Catalonia a century earlier, where, previous
to the close of the X century, the walls of churches appear to have been un-
relieved by any ornament.4 It has every appearance of having been brought
thither by the Lombard master builders, who have left so many traces of their
presence in Spain.5 San Pablo, the oldest part of which appears to go back to
the last years of the IX or the first of the X century, seems to provide the earliest
instance of the feature in Catalonia. And the domical vaulting in the church
shows that the pointed barrel vault of Santa Maria at Tarrasa is later than 1112.
THE CHURCH OF SAN PEDRO DE LAS PUELLAS AT BARCELONA. — Its history is
as follows. Louis the Pious, during his siege of Barcelona in 80 1, erected in his
fortified camp a small church dedicated to St. Saturninus. After the capture of
the city he founded a Benedictine monastery in his camp, under the invocation
of St. Peter. In 945 Wilara, Bishop of Barcelona (937-957), consecrated the
church of St. Peter in the presence of Count Suniario (912-954) and his family ;
and on this occasion it was enriched with new and large endowments.
Six years after Al-Mansur's devastation of Barcelona (985) the monks
returned to the monastery, which had been sacked and burned, nothing but the
walls being left, and set to work to restore, or rather rebuild it, for the operations,
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, p. 291; (Hoepli), pp. 220, 221; (Heinemann), vol. i,
p. 181.
2 Ibid. (Hoepli), pp. 36, 37 ; (Heinemann), vol. i. pp. 36, 37.
3 Ibid. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 49, 55, 56, 389, 575; (Hoepli), pp. 355, 356, 361, 579, 707;
(Heinemann), vol. ii, pp. 32, 36, 214, 312.
4 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 91, 92.
5 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 78.
SPAIN 297
which must have been extensive, were still going on in 1010. As the record of
the first consecration had been lost, a re-consecration took place in 1147.*
This story is confirmed by the existing church. It has a transverse chapel,
with rude unraised cross vaulting formed of undressed stone and rubble and
supported by angle piers, one of which has been tampered with. The untouched
piers have abaci carved with scrolls, interlacing which sometimes is studded,
palmettes with interlacing springing from the base. The work is of mediocre
design, and all in shallow relief without undercutting. One abacus has a
barbarous human face. Vaulting, carving, everything in the building, suggests
a date earlier than that of San Pedro ; and whether it is a chapel, or the narthex
of the original church (as Puig y Cadafalch thinks), it is certainly older than the
church to which it is attached, and may be regarded as work of the time of Louis
the Pious, and forming part of his chapel of St. Saturninus.
When I saw San Pedro it was in course of being stripped and restored
after the fire of 1909. The plan is that of a cross with oqly three arms more
or less preserved. In the interior the salient angles are provided with two
columns each surmounted, in the cases where they survive, by Pre-Lombardic
cubical capitals carved with leaves packed into shells, of fanciful form and rude
treatment, the backs ribbed — recalling the capitals of the ancient ciborium in
the church at San Giorgio in Valpolicella (7i2-74o),2 and generally the ancient
continuous capitals in SS. Felice e Fortunate near Vicenza (985) ;3 — with roses
of rude form like wheels, and birds taking the place of the flower on the
abacus ; with a curious figure of a serpent, a chain, &c. These capitals, which
one would say were of Lombardic workmanship, are surmounted by abaci
moulded like a cornice (Figs. 271, 272, p. 299). The bases, which are also rude,
stand on plinths, and have a torus, in some cases with a fillet, in others with a
shallow cyma. From these columns spring the arches which carry the drum
of the cupola.
The walls, where original, are of coursed stone with fairly good masonry.
In the arms of the cross, where the original barrel vaults survive, the latter
are constructed with dressed stones of various sizes. The crossing is covered
1 DIAGO, op. cit., fol. 50, 51, 74, 75, 83. YEPES, op. cit., vol. iii, fol. 345-348. DE BOFARULL
Y MASCAR6, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 56, 57. JEspana, sus monumentos y ar/es, &c. ; PIFERRER, Pi MARGALL,
Cataluna, vol. i, pp. 216-218. PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 54, 55, 88, 94, 113-120.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, Fig. 251; (Hoepli), Fig. 154; (Heinemann), vol. i,
Fig. 1 90.
3 Ibid. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 290-292 ; (Hoepli), pp. 219-221 ; (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 180-182.
298 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
by a cupola of elliptical form as it rises from an oblong. Later it was sur-
mounted by a bell-tower. The pendentives are hood-shaped, composed of
materials different from those in the ancient parts of the church, and not older
than the XII century.
All that is left of the original church of San Pedro belongs to one time,
with the exception of the cupola. Hence it must have been rebuilt after the
devastation of 985. This explains the fact noted by Puig y Cadafalch that
the masonry in the ancient part of the church is superior to that of most of
the buildings of the first half of the X century in the district. The capitals
belong precisely to the close of that century.
From our examination of this church we may infer that the cupola carried
on hood-shaped pendentives had not yet made its appearance in the capital of
Catalonia when the epoch of about the year 1000 was reached.
THE CHURCH OF SAN PEDRO AT TARRASA has the form of a Latin
cross with a three-lobed apse, the side lobes having the shape of a trapezium
inscribed in a horse-shoe arch. The three members are covered by two
half domes and a central domical vault carried at the angles by two niches
supporting vertical pieces of wall, which gradually merge in the circle of the
vault. The pavement is of rough tessellated work, with a design of circles
and squares enclosing crosses. The transept is covered in the middle part
by a barrel vault, while the two arms or chapels have ramping half-barrel
vaults. But it is not the original transept, of which there are only traces.
The nave, which has pointed barrel vaulting, has been rebuilt. The portal
on the south side, which has retreating concentric arches unbroken by any
impost, suggests a date later than the XI century. Puig y Cadafalch1 puts
it at the end of the XII or the beginning of the next century.
On the exterior, the apse, the oldest and most interesting part, has a
facing of small stone cubes in courses, exactly like that in the neighbouring
churches of San Miguel and Santa Maria. The two re-entrant angles
between the lobes are strengthened by triangular buttresses. At the present
time the apse is kept up by heavy rectangular buttresses which," if they are
a necessity, are also a disfigurement (Fig. 273, p. 299).
This brief statement shows that the church was built at the same time
as San Miguel and Santa Maria, viz. at the end of the IX century. The
1 Op. cit, vol. i, p. 318.
299
FIG. 271. — Barcelona. San Pedro de
las Puellas. Capital (X cent.).
FIG. 272. — Barcelona. San Pedro de
las Puellas. Capital (X cent.).
FIG. 273. — Tarrasa. San Pedro (IX, and XII or XIII cents.).
300
FIG. 274. — Toledo. El Cristo de la Luz (Visigothic period and X, XI-XII, and XV cents.).
SPAIN 301
view which I take is confirmed by the sort of reredos to the altar formed by
two tiers of arches, which has lately been discovered in the central lobe of
the apse. I do not find this feature of decorative blank arcading high up in
the interior of the principal apse of a church before the date of Theodulfs
church at Germigny des Pre"s (801-806).
THE CHURCH OF EL CRISTO DE LA Luz AT TOLEDO. — I examined this
building during the investigations made in 1910, and therefore under excellent
conditions for fairly intimate study. It consists of two parts : the older,
supposed to belong to the time of Athanagild (554-567), who made Toledo
the capital of the Gothic kingdom in Spain ; T the other, an addition made
by Archbishop Bernard (1086-1124) after the recovery of Toledo (1085),
and remodelled in the XV century by Cardinal Mendoza. Our attention
will be devoted to the former.
It forms a square block, orientated to the south-west and north-east,
measuring internally about 6.60 by 6 m. (21 ft. 8 in. by iQf ft.), and divided
into nine bays by means of four marble columns of ancient origin, unequal
in height and diameter (Fig. 274, p. 300).
Three of the capitals are original ; the fourth is due to restoration. Of
the former, one, rude alike in form, design, and execution, is encircled by
arches framing leaves or plants, above which is a cable moulding surmounted
by an abacus, out of the angles of which four projections are cut, the flower
being represented by some kind of plant or other object. The second is of
Corinthian type, and adorned with leaves of water plants. The third has
been damaged, but is of the same type and has similar leaves to the last. The
lower range of leaves, however, has been cut off in order to make the capital
fit the shaft.
From the isolated columns and wall-piers spring longitudinal, transverse,
and wall-arches, all of horse-shoe form. The bays which surround the centre
are of two stories, the upper being lighted by cusped openings in the outer
and inner walls ; and the vaults which cover them have intersecting bands
recalling those at Cordova.
Above the central bay rises a drum which passes from the square to the
internal octagon by the aid of four small vaults at the angles. It is closed
above by a banded or ribbed vault.
1 PUIG Y CADAFALCH, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 347, 348.
302 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
On the south side may be noticed in the upper story a blank arcade with
one horse-shoe arch and two intersecting trefoil arches.
The exterior of the north wall is decorated in its upper stage by a range
of blank horse-shoe arches framed by three-lobed arches (Fig. 275, p. 303).
The western face is treated with intersecting arches (Fig. 276, p. 304).
The original structure of the outer walls, which is about 50 cm. (i ft.
7j in.) thick, is composed of courses of stone alternating with bands of
fragmentary brick, and is pierced by small rectangular windows and loopholes.
On the eastern side, where the XI and XV century addition begins, traces
are preserved of two early round arches which have been altered later and
converted into the horse-shoe form. This original structure of the wall is very
important, for on the strength of it we may form an approximate conjecture
about the date of the building.
In origin it was, perhaps, merely a cella, with unrelieved walls both
within and without, and a roof. The plaster which covers the walls rising
above the columns within, and also the half wall-piers, prevented me from
verifying the truth of this conjecture. The rudeness of the masonry, and the
use of ancient bricks, point to a period later than the Hispano- Roman ; in other
words, to the Visigothic age.
After the capitulation of Toledo, due, it was said, to a conspiracy of
the Jews against the Visigoths1 — a reversal of their former opposition to
the Prophet and his doctrines at Medina2 — and the establishment of Moslem
rule by Tarik (711 or 712), the chapel was divided by columns, covered
with a ceiling, and turned into a mosque, one late Roman capital being used,
two being made on purpose, viz. that with the arcade and the unmutilated
one with plain leaves, while the fourth is a modern copy. In 980 it was
restored by the Moorish architect, Musa ibn Ali, as is stated by the inscription
on the front.3 It was then that the building was completely remodelled,
nothing being left of the previous structure except the outer walls and the
isolated columns. Inside, the walls were lined with arches, while the exterior
was covered with a brick facing in order to strengthen the building and
enable it to receive vaulting. The three doors on the north were also made.
1 The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. ii, pp. 180, 181 ; ALTAMIRA Y CREVEA, Spain under the
Visigoths.
'2 Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 314-321 ; BEVAN, Mahomet and Islam.
3 LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 177-179.
303
—
o
M
O
o 2
E X
•o
c
—
o
FIG. 276. — Toledo. El Cristo de la Luz. Details of decoration of the
front (X cent).
FIG. 278. — Toledo. Puerta Visagra (IX cent.).
305
•ill
FIG. 277. — Toledo. Puerta Visagra (IX cent.).
\o6
IMG. 279. — Saragossa. Castle of Aljaferia. Arch in the Mosque (XI cent.).
FIG. 280. — Cordova. The Great Mosque. Entrance to the Mihrab (961-976).
30?
FIG. 281.— Granada. The Alhambra (XIII and XIV cents.).
;o8
FIG. 282.— Seville. The Alcazar (XIV cent.).
309
FIG. 284.
FIG. 283.
FIG. 286
FIG. 285.
FIGS. 283, 284, 285, 286. —Madrid. National Archaeological Museum.
Capitals (756-1031).
10
FIG. 287.— Toledo. Puerta del Sol (XIII or XIV cent.).
1 1
I
FIG. 288. — Monreale. Cathedral (1174).
FIG. 289.— Palermo. Cathedral (1185).
r
FIG. 291.— Amalfi. Camposanto or ' Paradiso ' of the Cathedral (XIII cent.).
FIG. 290. — Durham Cathedral. South aisle looking east (1093-1133).
—
o c
<u
o °
- o
>-> TH
O o.
2 a
SPAIN 315
The view here taken is confirmed by the inscription referred to, which states
that the mosque was rebuilt and restored in its upper part.
The Cristo de la Luz has a number of lessons to impart. They are
as follows : —
(1) The two semicircular arches of the original structure, revealed by
the recent operations, show that the horse-shoe arch was not in use at
Toledo in Visigothic and early Mohammedan times. The form does not
seem to have gained a footing quickly in Toledo or to have been in regular
use after 711. Thus in the ancient Puerta Visagra, lately reopened, which
I had an opportunity of studying during its restoration, the horse-shoe arch,
whether of round or pointed form, is not used exclusively, and the semi-
circular arch also occurs (Figs. 277, 278, pp. 304, 305). The gate is dated
in the IX century, but it must be later than the years 814-15 or 872-73, 879,
for the pointed horse-shoe arch was used for the first time in construction,
outside Asia Minor, at one of those dates, in the Nilometer at Roda and the
mosque of Tulun at Cairo.
(2) The intersecting blank arcading used as an architectural decoration
for a wall is the earliest instance of ascertained date that I have met with.
I may take this opportunity to correct what I have said elsewhere about
its application, under a different form, in the cathedral of Durham, which was
rebuilt in IO93.1
Its origin is to be sought in the triple vestibule of the mihrab of Hakam II
(961-976) in the mosque of Cordova. An instance of earlier date, or else
contemporary with that at Toledo, would be afforded by the exquisite mosque of
the castle of Aljaferia at Saragossa, if it could be proved to possess an antiquity
which in my opinion does not belong to it. The view has been held that it
was built in the IX century, but Puig y Cadafalch2 puts its date in the X,
and Saladin3 in the XI century. Anyone who compares the complicated
decoration of the arch shown in Fig. 279, p. 306, with the still restrained
treatment of the entrance to the mihrab in the mosque of Cordova (Fig. 280,
p. 306), will at once see that the art of Aljaferia is in its decadence : an art
which descended to the trifling forms of the age of the reconquest, illustrated
by the mosque of Cordova, the Alhambra at Granada (XIII and XIV centuries)
1 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. ii, pp. 444, 469, 470; (Hoepli), pp. 610, 629, 630;
(Heinemann), vol. ii, pp. 238, 253, 254.
2 Op. cit, vol. ii, p. 551.
3 Manuel d'Art musulman, vol. i, p. 218
1654 24
3i6 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
(Fig. 281, p. 307), and the Alcazar at Seville (XIV century) (Fig. 282, p. 308).
And consequently he will be inclined to date the mosque at Saragossa after
the epoch of about 1000, and before the year 1118.
The mosque at Saragossa is of square plan, and within has two tiers
of blank arcading, partly simple and partly intersecting. The upper story
passes from the square to the octagon by means of small angle arches.
Originally there was a cupola, traces of which exist above the present ceiling.
The arcading on the ground floor still retains some of the marble shafts
supporting the arches, with tall Corinthianesque capitals worked with the
drill, recalling some of the capitals ascribed to the epoch of the caliphate of
Cordova (756-1031), now collected in the National Archaeological Museum
at Madrid (Figs. 283, 284, 285, 286, p. 309).
I do not cite the decorative intersecting arcading on the western face of the
famous Puerta del Sol (Gate of the Sun) at Toledo (Fig. 287, p. 310), because
it is now recognized that it was added in a renovation of the structure, in the
so-called ' Mudejar ' style (style of the Moorish subjects), after the recovery of
the city in IO85.1 It may have taken place in the XIII or XIV century.2
The most extensive and noblest expression of this decorative feature is
to be found in Sicily where, to judge by the important monuments which
survive, it was first used in the cathedral of Cefalu (begun in H33),3 and then
in those of Monreale (founded in ii74),4 where it attained its greatest develop-
ment (Fig. 288, p. 311), and Palermo (begun in 1185) (Fig. 289, p. 3i2).5
Before this it had been used in a restricted way in Durham cathedral (begun
in 1093) (Fig. 290, p. 313), and also in that of Norwich before the year 1119.
Hence it is possible that the Normans, after importing it from Spain into
England, carried it with them to their new kingdom of Sicily, where, owing to
the greater wealth of the country and a finer artistic sense, it assumed the most
attractive forms. From Sicily the craftsmen of the Gulf of Salerno brought it
to their homes, transforming its purely decorative nature into a form at once con-
structive and decorative, and producing the characteristic picturesque cloisters
with pointed intersecting arcades : of the former Capuchin convent in the old
Cistercian monastery, now the Albergo dei Cappuccini outside Amalfi ; of the
1 IBN EL ATHIR (Fagnan), Annales du Maghreb, p. 480.
2 ALTAMIRA Y CREVEA, Historia de Espana y de la civilisation espanola, vol. i, p. 547.
3 PIRRO, Sicilia sacra, vol. ii, p. 426.
4 Ibid., op. cit, vol. i, p. 397.
6 Ibid., op. cit, vol. i, p. 127.
SPAIN 317
unnamed abbey, now the Albergo della Luna, in the environs of the same
city ; and of San Domenico at Salerno, all of them, apparently, belonging
to the XIII century. Another instance is the Camposanto or 'Paradise'
of the cathedral at Amalfi, constructed by order of the Archbishop Filippo
Augustariccio (1266-1292) between 1266 and 1268 (Figs. 291, 292, pp. 312, SH).1
This cemetery cloister has lately been ascribed to a certain Guilio de Stefano
(1103) on ^e strength of an inscription carved on a pair of conjoined pulvins
belonging to it, which reads : ' lo Giulio de Stefano Napolitano Mamoraro
N.D. MCI 1 1.'2 But the linguistic forms of the inscription, the work of a semi-
literate person who expresses 'Anno Domini' by N.D., cannot be earlier than
the XIII century. Besides, the forms lo and Giulio with which it starts, are
enough to suggest doubts of its genuineness. As a matter of fact, such forms
do not occur in contemporary documents, and are inadmissible according to
linguistic criteria. It is not impossible that the C may be an Arabic 6, which
De Stefano put in the middle of Roman numerals ; and in that case the date
will be 1603. Such are the views of Professors P. Kehr, E. Monaci, and
R. Lanciani, expressed in answer to inquiries of mine on the subject. For
myself, I may add that the year may even be 1703, when there was a
restoration of the cathedral of Amalfi ; and the author of the inscription may
have been one of the marble workers employed thereon — not, however, one of
the superior ones, whose names and origins have been preserved.3
(3) The capitals lend themselves to various suggestions and observations
which modify recent attempts to attribute several kinds of this architectural
member to the Visigothic period. These observations and suggestions are
intended to call the attention of archaeologists and writers on architectural and
artistic antiquities to the subject, for in these attributions it seems to me that a
false track has been followed and is still persisted in.
Let us take the two which fit their columns, and were, apparently, carved
expressly for the building. They were made either on the erection of the
Visigothic edifice — supposing, that is, that the cella was at that time divided into
three aisles, which is not my view — or when, after the capitulation of the city,
the chapel was turned into a mosque.
In the first case we have before us a product of the Visigothic age ; in the
second a work modelled after the fashion of that age, it being reasonable to
1 CAMERA, Memorie storico-diplomatiche deir antica citta e ducato di Amalfi, vol. i, pp. 28-30.
2 BAEDEKER, Southern Italy and Sicily, 1912, p. 204.
3 CAMERA, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 30, 31.
3i8 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
ascribe it to a carver of the time of Roderic (709-711) who passed into the
service of his new masters. And what is more, we have to deal with a work
executed in the Visigothic capital, where the best craftsmen were likely to be
found. The forms of the capitals produced in the centre of Hispano-Gothic life
are here seen to be what we should expect in the Visigothic period : on the
one hand a barbaric treatment of the decadent Roman Corinthian capital, with
leaves of water plants ; on the other an extravagant version of the Roman
Composite capital. Thus, the Corinthianesque specimens in Santa Eulalia
(Fig. 293, p. 314) and San Sebastian (Fig. 294, p. 319) at Toledo, erected in
559 and 602 respectively, and afterwards remodelled as we see them,1 belong
to that period. Again, in San Miguel at Tarrasa, the two rude capitals of
Composite derivation, and the unmutilated Corinthian ones which I ascribe to
the V or VI century, are usually regarded as Visigothic.
The Visigothic period saw a deterioration of the already degraded work of
the Roman decadence. I believe the view to be mistaken that, because the
Iberian peninsula produced, from Paulus Orosius, who flourished in the days of
Honorius (395-423) and witnessed the transformation of the nation from Roman
to Gothic, down to Isidore of Beja (VIII century), who assisted at its transforma-
tion from Gothic to Arabic, writers of reputation, among whom the first place
was taken by that 'doctor Hispaniae et lumen Ecclesiae,' St. Isidore, Bishop of
Seville (599-636), it therefore also gave birth to craftsmen who, in their own
sphere, were their equals in capacity. At that period literature and art were
not on the same level in the countries dominated by the Barbarians. When
the architectural genius of Julianus created San Vitale at Ravenna (526-547)
(Fig. 295, p. 323), and Cassiodorus extolled the glories of the new style,2 neither
Cassiodorus himself ^562) nor Boethius (1524) had produced any intellectual
equivalent of the lofty conception of Julianus. Julianus, as I have shown
elsewhere,3 was a member of the Ravennate family of the Argentarii which is
mentioned in an inscription of the reign of Tiberius Constantinus (578-582),
formerly in the church of San Zaccaria, ten miles from Ravenna, but now
inserted in the wall of the Sala Lapidaria of the archiepiscopal palace (Fig. 296,
p. 319). It has been suggested that his son Antonius — ' Antonius.filius Juliani
Argentarii ' — may be referred to in the mutilated inscription recently discovered
1 LAMP£REZ Y ROMEA, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 210-213.
2 Mon. Germ. hist. ; Auctores antiguissimi, vol. xii ; Variae, lib. vii, form. xv.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Hoepli), pp. 72, 73 • (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 64, 65.
FIG. 294.— Toledo. San Sebastian (602).
.CIVSVCARCEMTA
PJVSFILIVSFETR1VCAR
CINTARII-IVNUVIVIXIT.
.ANN PlM-XVfi
IMP DWNTrBEfticONSTAN
TlNOPPAVCANNOVll-ETPG
E/VSDEMANNOllI-^
FIG. 296. — Ravenna. Sala Lapidaria in
the Archiepiscopal Palace. Epitaph
of Georgius Argentarius.
320
FIG. 297. — Ravenna. San Vitale (526-547).
121
FIG. 298. — Constantinople. SS. Sergius and Bacchus (527-532).
122
FIG. 299. — Constantinople. St. Sophia (532-537).
FIG. 300. — Constantinople. St. Sophia (532-537).
SPAIN
323
near San Vittore at Ravenna, which- has been dated in 547 and has had its
missing parts completed.1
For San Vitale, whatever may be said to the contrary, remains for ever,
with its singular, graceful, harmonious form, the first building of central plan,
octagonal both within and without, arched and vaulted in every part, which
was erected for Christian worship in the first five centuries of our era. If
the reader will not make the pilgrimage to Ravenna and Constantinople, as I
have done again and again, in order to satisfy himself of the truth of what I
say by an actual comparison of San Vitale with its nearly contemporary fellow
in the Byzantine world, the church of SS.
Sergius and Bacchus (527-532), let him look
at Figs. 297 and 298 (pp. 320, 321), and he
will have no difficulty in perceiving the
leaviness of the latter from an architectural
>oint of view, emphasized as it is by the
irchitrave treatment of the lower story. This
heaviness is not confined to SS. Sergius and
Bacchus, but is also a feature of Justinian's
church of St. Sophia (Figs. 299, 300, p. 322),
which I am not alone in thinking heavy and
ungraceful.2 That is due to its original sin
of being the offspring of the tepidarium of
the Roman Thermae.3 Its magnificent effect
was produced, as it is still produced, by its
internal decorations.
Then if we pass from the incomparable
San Vitale at Ravenna and the original San
Lorenzo at Milan (VI century) to the noble but still inferior art of orna-
mental carving, we must not suppose that because Corinthianesque and Com-
posite capitals of fair design and execution for that age were made for the
crypt of Jouarre (653), therefore results of similar quality, and what is more, of
identical style, were produced in Spain, or, for the matter of that, anywhere
else. That did not occur in Italy, or in Germany, or in Great Britain ; nor
1 R. Accademia dei Lincei, Notizie degli scavi di antichita^ 1908, pp. 163-165 ; MURATORI,
Havenna : Iscrizione cemeteriale cristiana del secolo VI.
2 JACKSON, Byzantine and Romanesque Architecture, vol. i, p. 100 (quoting C. R. Cockerell).
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 71, 72; (Hoepli), p. 76; (Heinemann), vol. i, p. 66.
FIG. 295. — Ravenna. San Vitale. Plan
(526-547).
324
did it take place in the Iberian peninsula either. Therefore a number of
well-executed capitals, which Spanish writers have ascribed to the Visigothic
period, must really have a different set of dates assigned to them. Thus,
for instance, the two capitals, one Corinthian and the other Composite, of the
portal in the front of San Pablo del Campo at Barcelona, have evidently been
made on purpose for the shafts which support them, and are clearly of the same
date as the impost cornice above them and the rest of the carving on the
front of the church, that is to say, of the year 1117. The capitals produced at
Barcelona in the Visigothic age were of a very different character. They had
stiff, rude, plain leaves, like the two of Corinthianesque type which form the
supports of the high altar in the cathedral.
In Spain, after the Edict of Milan (313), and certainly after the very severe
laws (415) of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II against Paganism,
laws which applied not only to Africa, but to the whole of the Roman
Empire,1 columns and capitals taken from heathen buildings were used, when
possible, for Christian churches. The practice still went on in the days of
King Chindaswinth (642-649). Yepes2 states that the numerous marble
columns used in the church of San Roman at Hornija (646), were brought
from considerable distances. Columns of ancient origin were also employed
in the church of St. Leocadia at Toledo, built by Sisebut (612-621) —
' Ecclesiam sanctae Leocadiae Toleti miro opere fabricavit ' 3 — supposing
that we may connect with it the portion of a spirally fluted column, sur-
mounted by a capital with leaves of the Acanthus sfiinosus, standing near
the side of the church of the Cristo de la Vega occupying the site of
St. Leocadia, which had previously been rebuilt by Archbishop John III
(i248).4 In consequence, sculptors had little to do, and their work became
poorer and poorer. This explains the rude character of the two capitals
above referred to in the cathedral of Barcelona, which was in existence
by 540, when a council was held in it.5
We have seen that, with one exception, all the religious buildings in Spain
1 HAENEL, Codices Gregorianus Hermogenianus Theodosianus, lib. xvi, tit. x, col. 1623, 1624.
2 Op. cit., vol. ii, fol. 184.
3 Chronicon rerum gestarum in Hispaniis ; RODERICUS, De Sisebuto rege, lib. ii, cap. xvii.
, op. cit., vol. vi, p. 312.
4 MARIANA, op. cit., p. 308. 5 FI^REZ, op. cit., vol. xxix, p. 280.
SPAIN 325
ascribed to the Visigothic age fail to make good their claims ; and that in
the one authentic case, the church of Elche, the round arch is used. That
arch was also used in the original Cristo de la Luz at Toledo, which has been
claimed as Visigothic ; and the legend of the systematic use of the horse-shoe
arch in these lands at that period is thus discredited.
Let us now try to get rid of this delusion by an examination of the
oldest churches in the kingdom of Asturias. For in these, the Christians
who had escaped from Moslem fanaticism and tyranny, instead of preserving
religiously, as would have been natural, the supposed Visigothic tradition of
the horse-shoe arch, maintained, on the contrary, that which had really been
he usage in Visigothic times, viz. the round arch. After the rout of Janda
711), followed by the flooding of the Iberian peninsula with Moslem armies,
hen Toledo had surrendered, and the defeat of Segoyuela, with the supposed
eath of the last Visigothic king, had taken place (713), the conspirators
hose treachery had led to the catastrophe, the great mass of the indifferent
d of the cowardly for whom slavery has no terrors, and the evil genius of
:he time-servers, who in every country and every age have always known
how to profit by the work of others without risk to themselves but to their
own advantage and the ruin of their fellow-men, all accepted voluntarily the
yoke of the invaders whom they had invited, aided, and welcomed.
Those, on the other hand, to whom the enslaving of their country was
hateful, and who wanted to preserve their faith uncontaminated and free,
after a fruitless struggle with the invaders sought refuge in the mountains of
the north of the peninsula, especially in Asturias, where Pelayo (Pelagius)
(718-737) raised the standard of independence and started that long crusade
which only ended with the capture of Granada in 1491, and whose victories
were victories not only for Spain but for Catholicism. May this struggle
of the champions of their country and of their creed for ever win the
admiration of those who, like me, have realized and appreciated, whether in
the records or amid the scenes and in presence of the monuments, that heroic
enterprise and its far-reaching consequences.
With all his energies engaged in lowering the pride of the crescent, and
in organizing and consolidating the new kingdom of Asturias, the hero of
Covadonga (718), whose Roman name suggests that he was not of Gothic
race, though he came of a Spanish family,1 confined himself, so far as churches
1 OMAN, The Dark Ages ; European History, 476-918, p. 507.
326 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
were concerned, to restoration.1 Morales,2 however, records the tradition
that he was the builder of the now vanished church of St. Eulalia at Velamio
in which both he and his wife, Gaudiosa, were buried.3
Favila (737-739) erected the church of the Holy Cross near Cangas de
Onis,4 which was rebuilt in 1632. The old church was seen by Morales, who
has preserved a brief description of it. It was a hall of fair size, built of hewn
stone, the outer facing having been renewed. The interior was whitewashed,
and exhibited no decoration to attest the report of its magnificence given by
some ancient authorities. In the chancel arch was inserted the dedicatory
inscription of Favila, his wife, and their sons. Beneath was a crypt or chapel
of the same size as the upper church, access to which was gained through a
well.5
Alfonso the Catholic (739-756) was a strenuous restorer and builder of
churches : ' basilicas plures construxit et instauravit.' 6 But no record of any
church built by him has reached us except in the case of the monastery church
of St. Peter at Villanueva standing on the banks of the Sella not far from
Cangas, which tradition ascribed to him.7 It has been rebuilt. Nor is there
any authority for his erection (740) of the church and monastery of St. Mary
at Covadonga,8 which had been rebuilt when Morales 9 saw it, and was ascribed
by him to Alfonso the Chaste, which was the local tradition.
Fruela I (756-768), the founder of Oviedo, where Fromestanus and
Maximus had built a monastery with a church dedicated to St. Vincent,10
appears to have qrected the church of the Saviour and the Twelve Apostles,
which is believed to have been of basilican plan and modest dimensions, and
was provided with a narthex or sepulchral chapel where the unfortunate founder
and his wife were buried. The basilica was rebuilt by Alfonso II. He also
built on the confines of Galicia the important monastery of Samos, under the
1 MIGNE, Pair, lat., vol. cxxix, col. 1117 ; SEBASTIANUS, Salmatiensis episcopus, Chronicon.
2 La Coronica general de Espaiia, lib. xiii., cap. vi.
3 MIGNE, Patr. lat., vol. cxxix, col. 1117 ; SEBASTIANUS, Salmatiensis episcopus, Chronicon.
4 Ibid.
5 MORALES, La Coronica general de Espana, lib. xiii, cap. ix. Ibid., Viajc a los ~reynos de Leon,
y Galicia, &c., pp. 67-69.
6 MIGNE, Patr. /a/., vol. cxxix, col. 1118; SEBASTIANUS, Salmatiensis episcopus, Chronicon.
7 YEPES, op. cit, vol. iii, fol. 205. MORALES, La Coronica general de Espana, lib. xiii, cap. xv.
8 Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxvii, App. iii.
9 La Coronica general de Espana, lib. xiii, cap. ii.
10 Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxvii, App. vi.
SPAIN 327
invocation of Saints Julian and Basilissa (759), which had been destroyed
before the time of the Christian persecution under Abd al-Rahman II (822-852)
and Mohammed I (852-886), and was more than once rebuilt.1
No building seems to have been erected in the featureless reign of
Aurelio (768-774) ; except, perhaps, the vanished church of St. Martin at
Langreo in the territory of Oviedo, in which he was buried.2 The indolent
Silo (774-783) built (774) the monastery of St. John (Santianes) at Pravia,
where he was buried.3 The church suffered in 1639, in 1836, and in 1868,
and all that is left are scanty remains of the nave and outer walls built of
stones set in thick layers of mortar. These remains and the literary evidence
tell us that it was of very small size ; that it had a nave and aisles ending
in three rectangular chapels, in which the arches sprang from stone spindle-
shaped columns set against the walls ; that it had a transept ; and that the
body of the church was divided by square piers with simple mouldings
supporting low and mean round arches, above which was a wooden roof.4
These facts are of great importance, as they give a clear indication of the
poverty of these royal foundations in Asturias, and also, which is the chief
point, of the traditional use of the semicircular arch.
It was in his reign that his supposed son, Adelgastro, with his wife,
Brunhilda, founded (781) the now vanished monastery of Santa Maria la
Real at Obona, twelve leagues from Oviedo.5 We have no information of
any buildings erected by the usurper Mauregato (783-789), or by the good
Bermudo (789-791).
Then came the long and glorious reign of Alfonso II the Chaste
(791-842). The capital was transferred to Oviedo, and he there carried
out the important works recorded by the ancient chronicles and in documents.6
Among these we may mention the rebuilding of the church of the Saviour,
and the erection of the churches of Santa Maria, San Miguel, and San
1 YEPES, op. cit., vol. iii, fol. 211-234. MORALES, La Coronica general de Espana, lib. xiii,
cap. xviii.
2 MIGNE, Fair, lat., vol. cxxix, col. 1119; SEBASTIANUS, Salmatiensis episcopus, Chronicon.
8 Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxvii, App. xv. YEPES, op. cit., vol. iii, fol. 255, 256.
4 Espana, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ; QUADRADO, Asturias y Le6n, pp. 61, 62. LAMP£REZ
Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 281-284.
5 YEPES, op. cit., vol. iii, fol. 274-277. Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxvii, App. v.
6 MIGNE, Pair, lat., vol. cxxix, col. 1120; SEBASTIANUS, Salmatiensis episcopus, Chronicon.
Ibid., vol. cxxix, col. 1137; Chronicon Albeldense. RiSCO, op. cit, vol. xxxvii, App. vii, xv.
FL6REZ, op. cit, vol. xvii, p. 286 ; Chronicon del monge Silense.
1654 25
328 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Tirso, and also of San Julian outside the walls : l distantem a palatio quasi
stadium unum.'1 I may add that attention has recently been drawn to the
churches of Oviedo and its neighbourhood.2
THE BASILICA OF THE SAVIOUR AT OVIEDO. — The original structure of
Fruela I having been partly ruined by the Moslems, Alfonso the Chaste
proceeded to rebuild it with greater splendour, and entrusted the work to
the architect Tioda.3 The consecration took place in 802, and at some
time between that year and 812 it became the cathedral.
It was a stone structure: 'templum Sancti Salvatoris cum XII Apostoles
ex silice et calce mire fabricavit.'4 It was orientated as usual, and stood on
the site of the present cathedral, rebuilt by the Bishop Gutierre (1377- about
1389), but was smaller both in breadth and length. It had the plan of a
basilica, with nave and aisles ending in three square apses, and a transept.5
THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY NEAR ST. SAVIOUR AT OVIEDO stood to the
north of the cathedral and adjoined it. It was destroyed by the Bishop
Tomaso Reluz (1697-1706). The literary sources show that it was an
orientated basilica with nave and aisles and a transept, in one arm of which
was the principal entrance. At the east end were three rectangular chancels,
and at the west was a narthex intended for royal burials : ' Etiam in occidental!
parte huius venerandae domus aedem ad recondenda regum adstruxit cor-
pora.'6 The dimensions were 106 by 52 ft. The greatest height was 63 ft.
The body of the church and the transept had mean wooden roofs. The
nave was divided from the aisles by three arches on either side supported
by piers. The transept was divided from the nave and aisles by arches, above
which rose its central portion. All these arches were semicircular. The
structure at the west or narthex, set apart for burials, was low. It was
connected with the church by a door; its dimensions were 20 by 12 ft., and
it was lighted by a single loophole. Above it was an even lower gallery
1 MIGNE, Patr. lat., vol. cxxix, col. 1120; SEBASTIANUS, Salmatiensis episcopus, Chronicon.
2 The Guardian, Oct. 6th, 2oth, 1909 ; HUTTON, Some Churches of Northern Spain.
3 Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxvii, p. 143.
4 MIGNE, Patr. lat., vol. cxxix, col. 1137 ; Chronicon Albeldense.
5 MORALES, La Coronica general de Espana, lib. xiii, cap. xxxii, xxxviii. SELGAS, Monumentos
Ovetenses del siglo IX, pp. 29-46.
6 MIGNE, Patr. lat., vol. cxxix, col. 1120; SEBASTIANUS, Salmatiensis episcopus, Chronicon.
SPAIN 329
with a wooden roof. The fronts of the three chapels at the east end were
decorated with six marble columns of ancient origin, bigger than the other
six which supported the barrel vaults of the chapels.1 Morales2 says that
the frontal arches of these chapels were rather like those in San Roman at
Hornija, and in the church of Bamba. At the present day the chancel of San
Roman has disappeared with the rest of the church. But the three chancels
of the church of Bamba, a couple of leagues from Valladolid, still exist, which
church was seen by Morales, though even in his time it was not the building
erected by Receswinth (649-67 2),3 and containing his tomb,4 but the result
of two reconstructions.5 The arches in this case are of the horse-shoe form.
Hence we may infer that the entrance arches of the three eastern chapels
in St. Mary at Oviedo were also of that form.
Considering that in Alfonso the Chaste's churches at Oviedo, either still
in existence or of which the description has been preserved, the round arch
was used exclusively, with the one exception of St. Mary, this anomaly seems
inexplicable. And we are obliged to ascribe it, either to an alteration of the east
end of the church during the episcopate of Pelagius (1098-11153), when, among
other things, the altar in St. Mary was replaced by one of better design and
larger size,6 or else to a caprice or experiment of Tioda's, the architect of the
royal churches, who may, perchance, have heard of the fame of the great mosque
of Cordova, or even have seen it himself.
THE CHURCH OF SAN MIGUEL OR CAMARA SANTA AT OVIEDO was erected to
the south of St. Saviour, and was designed with two stories, the upper, reached
by stairs ('ubi ascensio fit per gradus'),7 being set apart for the custody of the
relics, while the lower was used as a church under the invocation of St. Leocadia :
1 fecit quoque Sanctae Leocadiae Basilicam fornicio opere cumulatam, super
quam fieret domus, ubi celsiori loco Area Sancta a fidelibus adoraretur.'8 At
1 MORALES, La Coronica general de Espaiia, lib. xiii., cap. xxxviii. SELGAS, op. cit., pp. 68-88.
2 Viaje a los reynos de Le6n,y Galicia, &c., p. 87.
8 YEPES, op. cit., vol. ii, fol. 306.
4 MIGNE, Pair, /at., vol. cxxix, col. 1115; SEBASTIANUS, Salmatiensis episcopus, Chronicon.
5 LAMP£REZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 240, 241. Espana, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ;
QUADRADO, Valladolid, Pblenria y Zamora, pp. 263-265.
6 Risco, op. cit, vol. xxxviii, App. xl, p. 371.
7 Ibid.., vol. xxxvii, App. xv ; PELAGIUS, Ovetensis episcopus, Historia de Arcae Sanctae
translatione, deque Sanctorum Reliquiis, quae in ea asservantur.
8 FL6REZ, op. cit., vol. xvii, p. 286 ; Chronicon del monge Silense.
33o MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
the present day the church occupies the angle between the south arm of the
cathedral transept and a side of the cloister.
The crypt or church of St. Leocadia, so far as one can see, is a rectangular
chamber with walls of rubble. It has a rude semicircular unbroken barrel vault,
barely 2.60 m. (8J ft.) high at the crown. Originally it was lighted by very
narrow windows, mere loopholes, splayed internally, in the side walls, and by
one large window at the east end. The sanctuary is marked off only by the
step in the floor.
The Camara Santa, as its ancient parts show, consists of a square eastern
sanctuary, attached to a rectangular cella (Fig. 301, p. 331). The sanctuary has
a low barrel vault. Its frontal arch is carried by two marble columns of Roman
origin. A pair of similar columns decorate the east window, which internally
has an arch, but externally a square head with a rude brick relieving arch, just
like the east window of the crypt below. Their capitals are Corinth ianesque,
with leaves packed into shells, of rude work, relief being produced by the drill,
and recall an angle capital in San Julian de los Prados.
It has been suggested that the cella originally had a wooden roof;1 and
that, in any case, its present appearance is the result of a remodelling of
the building which followed the pilgrimage to Oviedo of Alfonso VI, King
of Castile and Le6n (1073-1109). In support of this theory, the example of
the Panteon de los Reyes at Le6n, ascribed to Ferdinand I (1037-1065)
(Fig. 302, p. 332), is adduced.2 In my opinion, however, the present vault of
the nave with its transverse bands has no connection with Alfonso, whose work
was limited to making a new and larger relic chest.3 It is really due to a
remodelling of the entire building carried out, it appears to me, in the XIII
century, in the course of which the walls were faced with arcading on the
exterior, a cornice of figure corbels was added at the top, and the interior
of the nave was richly decorated. This decoration consists of three arches —
one at the east, one at the west, and the other in the middle — supported by
pairs of statues of the Apostles standing on fantastic bases and surmounted
by richly carved capitals, above which runs an impost cornice.
The Panteon de los Reyes at Le6n, known as the chapel of Santa
Catalina, is not contemporary either with the Benedictine church of San
1 SELGAS, op. cit, p. 65.
2 MORALES, Viaje a los reynos de Le6n,y Galicia, &c., pp. 41, 42. LAMPEREZ Y ROMEA, op. cit.,
vol. i, pp. 316, 317.
3 Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxviii, p. 84.
33'
FIG. 301.— Oviedo. San Miguel or Camara Santa (VIII or IX and XIII cents.).
FIG. 303. — Leon. San Isidore (XII cent.).
!32
FIG. 302. — Le6n. Pantedn de los Reyes or Chapel of Santa Catalina (XII cent.).
333
FIG. 304.— Le6n. San Isidore (XII cent.).
334
FIG. 305.— Oviedo. San Julian de los Prados. East end (VIII or IX cent.). FIG. 306.— Chapel called the 'Temple <
the Clitumnus ' near Spoleto (IV cent.
FIG. 307. — Naranco. Santa Maria. North side (IX cent.).
SPAIN 335
Isidore built ' de luto et latere' by Alfonso V (999-1027), King of Le6n, or
with the second church dating from its reconstruction in stone by Ferdinand I
of Castile and Ledn.1 On the contrary, it is a work of the XII century, and,
to be precise, of the reign of Alfonso VII (1126-1157), crowned Emperor of
Spain in 1135, who rebuilt San Isidore, entrusting the work to the master
Petrus de Deo (otherwise Pedro de Deum Tamben or Petro Vitamben), and
being present at the consecration of the new building, which is recorded in
1149 (Figs. 303, 304, pp. 331, 333).2
The following are the conclusions which I formed from an examination
during the recent works of restoration in the ancient part of the east end.
The Pante6n de los Reyes is attached to the western end of Alfonso's
church, and its unraised cross-vaulting and, still more, its capitals with their
foliage of Pointed character and figures, show that it is of the same date as
the church. If the carving at Le6n be compared with the decorative work
in the Camara Santa at Oviedo, it is easy to see that the latter represents a
more advanced art, especially the figures of the Apostles, which in some cases
-are full of expression, have excellent drapery, have lost the rigidity of the
figures in San Isidoro, and are certainly later than the time of Alfonso VII :
perhaps work of the XIII century, when the chapter-house of the cathedral
of Oviedo was erected.
Before leaving San Miguel at Oviedo and the Pante6n de los Reyes at
Leon, I would call attention to the spurred bases in the latter. This feature
would suffice by itself to date the building, for I have fully demonstrated that
these angle spurs, invented in Italy in the X century, did not cross its borders
till about the middle of the XI.3
THE CHURCH OF SAN TIRSO AT OVIEDO. — The building has suffered so
much from alterations that only the general plan has been preserved. It is
that of a basilica with nave and aisles divided by rude stone piers set at
unequal intervals, from which round arches spring. In the easternmost bay,
however, owing to the smaller span, the arch was made sufficiently pointed to
1 YEPES, op. cit., vol. v, fol. 128-135.
2 Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxv, pp. 206, 207, 356. Espaiia, sus monumentos y artes, &c.; QUADRADO,
Asturias y Ledn, pp. 481, 482. LAMP£REZ Y ROMEA, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 460-463.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Loescher), vol. i, pp. 236, 251, 291, 292; vol. ii, pp. 83, 201, 395, 485,
569, 635-640, 644; (Hoepli), pp. 188, 220, 221, 274, 385, 582, 584, 596, 747-749; (Heinemann),
vol. i, pp. 158, 181, 221 ; vol. ii, pp. 51, 100, 216, 225, 272, 306, 310, 321, 322, 340, 341, 343.
336 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
raise its crown to the same height as the others.1 This irregularity is not
surprising, for — and the point has not been noticed by anyone else — as far
back as Imperial Roman times barrel vaults were given a pointed form, when,
in order to make the height of rooms of varying size uniform, it was necessary
to raise the crown of the vault in some of them. This is illustrated by the
substructures of the villa known as ' Centroni ' (III century) on the Via Latina
near Rome, and by various chambers in the House of Tiberius on the
Palatine.
There is no satisfactory explanation of the ' many angles ' which the
building is said to have presented : ' Basilicam quoque sancti Tirsi miro
aedificio cum multis angulis fundamentavit.' 2
In the rectangular sanctuary the triplet round-arched window is preserved.
With its barbarous bases, rough brick arches, and capitals with rude packed
leaves, it gives an idea of the better style of building and carving in the time
of Alfonso the Chaste ; for we know that in San Tirso, which was the Chapel
Royal (' basilicam in honorem S. Martyris Tyrsi prope palatium condidit'),3
the architect Tioda had displayed all the magnificence he knew : ' basilicam in
memoriam S. Tyrsi condidit, cuius operis pulchritudinem plus praesens potest
mirari quam eruditus scriba laudare.'4
THE CHURCH OF SAN JULIAN DE LOS PRADOS (SANTULLANO) OUTSIDE OVIEDO
has come down to us almost intact. The plan, published for the first time in
iQO/j.,5 was a cruciform church, with nave and aisles, three rectangular eastern
chapels, and a narthex in three divisions.
Within, the two-storied sanctuary has its sides and end embellished with
blank arches springing from marble wall-columns and piers. The columns
at the end stand on a continuous plinth ; the others are partly buried by
the raised pavement. The rude bases which are visible are Attic. The
capitals, some of which are surmounted by an abacus, are Corinthianesque,
having cauliculi and rude leaves with stiff turnover points, all in shallow
carving. Here and there the drill has been used to give relief. They are
inferior to those belonging to the east window in San Tirso.
1 SELGAS, op. cit. , pp. 89-94.
2 MIGNE, Pair, tat., vol. cxxix, col. 1137, Chronicon Albeldense.
3 Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxvii, App. xv.
4 MIGNE, Pair. /a/., vol. cxxix, col. 1120; SEBASTIANUS, Salmatiensis episcopus, Chronicon.
5 REDONDO, Iglesias primitivas de Asturias, pp. 35-44.
SPAIN 337
The two marble shafts forming part of the frontal piers of the sanctuary
arch have geometrical decoration of pavement design, with compartments
containing circles, rosettes, leaves, and plants, carved in shallow relief. The
capitals have, among other things, leaves meant for those of the Acanthus
spinosus, here and there treated with the drill.
The sanctuary and its side chapels all have semicircular barrel vaulting.
The transept was designed with extended arms, each arm being represented
by a chapel, of which only the northern survives. The nave is separated from
the aisles by three arches on either side, supported by square piers. Originally
both the body of the church and the transept had wooden roofs. The existing
vaulting is an alteration. The tripartite vestibule also had a wooden roof
originally.
The walls are built of roughly hewn stone ; and dressed stones of various
sizes, set horizontally, reinforce the exterior angles and the buttresses. The
outside wall of the sanctuary and its chapels is strengthened by six buttresses.
It contains five original windows of rectangular form, with brick relieving
arches leaving a shallow recess. One window still has its original stone
lattice. Below the gable is a three-light window, the middle division being
higher than the sides. The dividing colonnettes have Corinthianesque capitals
ig. 305, p. 334). The surviving north transept chapel also contains original
windows with relieving arches.
The roofs were carried by large projecting brackets. The walls of the
aisles have buttresses corresponding to the transverse arches of the transept
and to the bays of the interior. The arches throughout are of semicircular
form.
We may notice in this church, as in all those built by Alfonso II, the
chancels of square form, and not semicircular in the Roman fashion. This form,
which has been described as ' Visigothic and Asturian,' while others call it
'Celtic,' 'Irish,' 'Scotch,' or 'Saxon,' was really introduced by the Romans
in imperial times. An instance is to be seen in Hadrian's villa at Tivoli,
where the palace (125-135) contains a basilica with nave and aisles and a
rectangular apse.1 I think that it was adopted by Tioda because it was easy
and simple to construct, and did not require materials specially prepared ;
but, above all, owing to want of experience in the difficult art of dome
construction. Dome vaulting was, in fact, for a long time avoided in Asturias.
1 R. Accademia dei Lincei, Notizie dcgli Scavi, 1906, fasc. 8; REINA, BARBIERI, Rilievo
planimetrico e altimetrico di Villa Adriana.
338 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Ramiro I (842-850) rebuilt the church of Santa Maria at Naranco, and
erected that of San Miguel at Lino on the slope of the ridge known as the
Sierra de Naranco near Oviedo.
THE CHURCH OF SANTA MARIA AT NARANCO. — The name of the builder of
the existing church is given by Sebastian, Bishop of Salamanca (880) : ' Interea
supradictus rex ecclesiam condidit in memoriam S. Mariae in latere mentis
Nurantii, distante ab Oveto duorum millia passuum, mirae pulchritudinis,
perfectique decoris ; et ut alia decoris eius taceam, cum pluribus centris forniceis
sit concamerata, sola calce et lapide constructa, cui si aliquis aedificium con-
similare voluerit, in Hispania non inveniet.'1 This is confirmed by the much-
discussed inscription on a fragmentary votive stone of 848 set in the ' mensa ' of
the altar in the church, and published by Canella y Secades,2 which refers to
Ramiro's reconstruction of it.
The church consists of two rectangular halls standing east and west, one
above the other, each being prolonged at either end by two small rectangular
bays. The lower church or crypt, which has an altar just below that in the
presbytery above, is covered with low semicircular barrel vaulting springing
from a plinth. The central portion is strengthened by transverse arches. The
vaulting is constructed of roughly prepared stones, and the arches of dressed
stone. There was an entrance at the west end, and two porches at the sides,
only the northern of which survives. These were carried up so as to form two
porches on the upper story, reminding one of the well-known chapel called the
Temple of the Clitumnus near Spoleto (IV century) (Fig. 306, p. 334).3 The
porch on the south was reached by two flights of steps, which were seen by
Morales.4 The church is entered through the remaining north porch, approached
by modern flights of steps (Fig. 307, p. 334), which has a barrel vault crossed by
two arches corresponding to buttresses outside. Its three outer arches spring
from columns bearing rude Corinthianesque capitals with leaves packed into
shells, and others of cylindrical form decked with palm leaves of elementary
design. The door which opens into the nave is later.
The nave or central rectangular space is not quite 4.20 m. (13 ft. 10 in.)
1 MIGNE, Pair. lat.t vol. cxxix, col. 1122; Chronicon.
2 CANELLA Y SECADES in Espana, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ; QUADRADO, Asturias y Ledn,
p. 118.
3 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Heinemann), vol. ii, pp. 131, 132.
4 La Coronica general de Espana, lib. xiii, cap. liii.
FIG. 308. — Naranco. Santa Maria. Nave and sanctuary (IX cent.).
FIG 309. — -Naranco. Santa Maria. Western end (IX cent.).
340
FIG. 310. — Naranco. Santa Maria.
Medallion in the nave (IX cent.).
FIG. 311. — Buddh Gaya. Carved post from
the railing of a sacred enclosure (about
II cent. B.C.).
SPAIN 341
wide, and its walls are lined with a continuous arcade, which is blank at the sides
and open at the ends — an idea derived from San Julian de los Prados at Oviedo.
It is covered by a barrel vault with transverse ribs carried by rude corbels
(Fig. 308, p. 339). The annexes at either end also have the transverse arch
and blank arcading round the walls. The one at the east formed the sanctuary,
while the western one is thought to have been the choir (Fig. 309, p. 339).
The arches spring from clusters of twisted columns, piers with similar
clusters attached to both faces, and single shafts. The capitals of the
clustered supports are Ravennate pulvins with the corners cut off so as to
form triangles, and are carved with triangles formed of cables, human figures,
pairs of lions facing one another or the reverse. The capitals of the single
shafts are Corinthianesque with leaves packed into shells, recalling those in
San Julian de los Prados. The bases, consisting of a roll either plain or
in the form of a cable, stand on a plinth.
The spandrel spaces between the arches are decorated with medallions
either isolated or attached to bands suspended from the corbels which support
the transverse arches of the vault. These medallions and bands are carved with
scrolls, lions, crosses, arches framing figures of men (a sort of telamon support-
ing what looks like a squared stone), and armed horsemen (Fig. 310, p. 340).
They remind one of the curious stone posts bearing medallions belonging to
railings round sacred trees, pillars, stupas, and temples in India, e.g. those at
Bharhut and Buddh Gaya (Figs. 311, 312, pp. 340, 343), ascribed to the II and
III centuries B.C. respectively,1 or to a date later than the time of Asoka
(272-236 B.C.).2 The Spanish carvings are in low relief, the scroll work and
cables fairly well executed ; but the lions, which seem to be copies from a
single pattern, are flat and of poor design and execution. The men and
horses are frightful caricatures.
The external facing of the walls is of irregularly coursed stone, roughly
hewn ; and at intervals corresponding to the transverse arches within occur
buttresses measuring 50 by 30 cm. (i ft. 7^ in. by u^ in.), with shallow
fluting. High up may be seen traces of windows with moulded arches
springing from small Corinthianesque capitals ; and below are windows with
their round heads and jambs also moulded. In the western gable is a three-
light window divided by shafts with capitals of leaves packed into shells
and moulded arches. The original arches throughout the church are round.
1 FERGUSSON, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, p. 85.
2 VINCENT A. SMITH, A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, pp. 67-73.
'654 26
342 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
Such is Santa Maria — a truly singular structure. Its form led the monk
of Silos (XII century) to believe that it had been built by Ramiro as a
palace for himself, which was afterwards converted into a church.1 The
dedicatory inscription mentioned above is fatal to this story. And its novelty
both in construction and decoration was at the time so surprising in Spain,
that Sebastian of Salamanca believed it to be beyond the reach of imitation.
It is not difficult to understand Sebastian's wonder when we reflect that
the internal decoration of the church has no parallel, so far as I know, in
any other church of that century ; and that it was constructed of masonry
throughout, whereas, as late as the reign of Alfonso the Chaste, churches had
still in part wooden roofs. Vaulting was, perhaps, adopted by Ramiro I in
consequence of the raids of the Normans, who had landed at Corunna in 843
and been defeated by him there.2 It was well known that these terrible
corsairs, who were far more destructive than the Moslems, burned every
church which fell into their hands. The reasons were all the more convincing
as Santa Maria de Naranco did not stand in a walled town. And so it was
that the church, together with San Miguel de Lino, led the way in vault
construction in the Asturias. In those lands the art of vault construction was
little practised, and its statical principles barely known. The fact is brought
home to us if we remember that in Santa Maria, with barrel vaults of such
moderate span and walls quite 90 cm. (nearly 3 ft.) thick, the architect did
not feel that his work was safe until he had strengthened the walls, at the
points where the transverse arches occurred, by solid buttresses.
THE CHURCH OF SAN MIGUEL AT LINO was built by Ramiro I,3 and it
is mentioned in two documents of Ordono I and Alfonso III.4 Though it
has lost a part, it is possible from what is left, with the help of facts mentioned
by Morales,5 to form an idea of what it was like originally. It consisted of
a square block divided into eight bays, of which a central and larger one,
flanked by two smaller ones on either side, rose into the cupola ; while at
the west end were three bays in two stories. A chancel projected at the
, op. cit, vol. xvii, p. 290 ; Chronicon.
2 LAFUENTE, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 248.
3 MIGNE, Patr. tat., vol. cxxix, col. 1138; Chronicon Albeldense. FL6REZ, op. cit., vol. xvii,
pp. 289, 290 ; Chronicon del monge Silense.
4 Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxvii, App. x, xi.
5 La Coronica general de Espana, lib. xiii, cap. liii.
343
FIG. 312. — Buddh Gaya. Carved post from the
railing of a sacred enclosure (about II cent.
B.C.).
FIG. 313. — Lino. San Miguel.
Details from one of the
jambs of the door (IX cent.)
344
FIG. 314. — Lino. San Miguel. Abacus and carving on arch (IX cent.).
FIG 315. — Lino. San Miguel. Base of column (IX cent.).
SPAIN 345
east end. The surviving parts are the three western bays, and half of the
central bay with two out of the four lateral ones.
The three western bays, which are only about 9 m. (28 ft. 9 in.) in
breadth on the outside, consist of a vestibule with two lateral annexes con-
taining the stairs to the upper floor. The vestibule is entered by a wide
arched door, the jambs of which are carved with figure subjects framed by
bands of imbricated leaves varied with rosettes, pine cones, and cable borders.
The figure representations consist of panels containing three human figures,
separated by another with the curious scene of a man taking a somersault
between a gaoler who whips him and a lion preparing to devour him. The
whole is carved in very low and flat relief ; and the figures are very elementary
(Fig. 313, p. 343). The jambs are surmounted by an impost cornice formed of
a waved band bordered by a pair of cables and fillets. These carvings have
been thought to show the style of the XII century,1 but the figure carving
in the north-west of the Iberian peninsula was, at that date, of another
character, as may be seen by that in San Isidore and the Pante6n de los
Reyes at Leon.
The staircases on either side of the vestibule lead to a gallery with a
chamber on either side. Originally the stairs went on up to the bell-tower,
as we learn from Morales. This bell-tower must have been formed by
continuing upwards the wall of the middle section of the west front.
The two bays which flank the central one, and also those at the west
end, including the staircases, are barrel vaulted. The arches in the interior
are supported by marble columns carrying pulvin-shaped capitals hollowed out
at the lower corners and ornamented with scrolls, roses, vine stems, &c.
Others have monstrous abaci of rectangular shape decorated with cables
arranged in herring-bone fashion, framing a waved band (Fig. 314, p. 344).
The bases have extraordinary decoration of arches made of cables, with
human heads and figures, and winged creatures (Fig. 315, p. 344). Other
ornamented capitals and bases from the church are to be seen in the Museum
of Asturian Antiquities at Oviedo. The arches are carved with vine stems,
roses, and whorls.
The outer face of the walls, where original, is of rubble, with squared
blocks at the angles. They are strengthened by buttresses also of squared
stone, carefully cut, and slightly fluted (Fig. 316, p. 347).
1 MICHEL, op. cit., vol. i 2, p. 560; ENLART, L* architecture Romane.
346 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
The windows have arched heads and stone transennae. A round opening
filled by a pierced rosette should be noticed.
San Miguel de Lino is evidently the work of the same architect and the
same carvers as those of Santa Maria de Naranco ; but in Santa Maria the
architectural and artistic decoration is the most important feature, whereas
in San Miguel the construction takes the first place. Both exhibit the same
heaviness in the interior, the same lavish use of slightly fluted buttresses,
the same elementary character of the figure sculpture.
Its form seems to be inspired by Theodulfs church at Germigny des
Pre"s. Accordingly I believe it to be the earliest dated example of this type
in Asturias and the neighbouring districts.
While we are unable to mention any church founded by Ordofio I
(850-866), an event of importance for us which took place in his reign may
be noticed, and that is the cruel persecution of the Christians of Cordova, begun
by the Emir Abd al-Rahman II (822-852), and continued by Mohammed
II (852-886). To escape from this the 'half-Arabic' monks of Cordova
— that is to say the Mozarabes or Christians who had become vassals of
Islam a — sought refuge in Asturias and the neighbouring districts ; and in
this way the horse-shoe arch was introduced there. One of the earliest
instances would be found in the monastery of St. Julian at Samos, rebuilt
by these monks in 862, if it had not been reconstructed in 922.2
Any shortcomings of Ordono in this respect were fully made up by
his son, Alfonso III the Great (866-909), whose reign saw the erection,
either by himself or by others, of numerous buildings, especially in the interest
of the Benedictine Order, of which he was the shield and stay.3 Among
them may be mentioned the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, the royal
monastery of San Benito at Sahagun, San Adrian at Tun6n, and San
Salvador at Val de Dios.
The famous sanctuary of Compostella was a reconstruction (899), in
hewn and cemented stone with marble columns, of the modest church raised
by Alfonso II: 'ex lapidibus ex luto opere, parvam.' 4 Destroyed by Al-
1 SIMONET, op. cit, Introduction. 2 YEPES, op. ciL, vol. iii, fol. 217.
3 SANDOVAL, SAMPIRUS episcopus Astoricensis, Historia, p. 57. YEPES, op. cit., vol. iv, fol. 163.
Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxvii, pp. 217-219.
4 SANDOVAL, SAMPIRUS episcopus Astoricensis, Historia, p. 57. FERREIRO, op. cit., vol. ii, pp.
27-60, 183-201.
347
FIG. 316.— Lino. San Miguel (IX cent).
jr1G. 3I9._Val de Dios. San Salvador (IX cent.).
FIG. 317. — Santiago de Compostela. Cathedral.
349
FIG. 318.— Santiago de Compostela. Cathedral.
350
FIG. 320. — Lena. Santa Cristina (X cent.).
FIG. 321. — Lena. Santa Cristina (X cent.).
SPAIN 351
Mansur and then restored, it was rebuilt between 1074 and 1705 by the
architect Bernard in the Lombardic style (Figs. 317, 318, pp. 348, 349).
The church of the celebrated monastery of Sahagun, dedicated to SS.
Facundus and Primitivus, which had been built in 874 by the abbot Alfonso
and his monks from Cordova in place of an older parochial chapel, was
destroyed by the Moors in 883. Rebuilt by Alfonso III in 905, it was again
destroyed in 988 by Al-Mansur, but was re-edified by order of Alfonso V
(999-I027).1
San Adrian at Tun6n, a couple of leagues from Trubia, endowed by
Alfonso III in 891, 2 was rebuilt and reconsecrated in 1108. There remains
THE CHURCH OF SAN SALVADOR AT VAL DE DIGS, a league from Villa-
viciosa, which was consecrated in 892. 3 It is a small basilica with a two-storied
western narthex containing three divisions, a nave and aisles separated by
piers crowned by heavy mouldings, and three rectangular chancels at the east
end, the central one having two floors. Barrel vaulting is used throughout,
and all the arches are round. Except at the west end, the buttresses outside
do not correspond to the piers within. To the south side is attached a porch,
the walls of which are not bonded into that of the church, the masonry being
different and superior. When it was added, the buttresses were transformed
into half wall-piers. The discovery of the consecration stone of 892 does
not prove, as has been thought, that the porch is contemporary with the
church. Risco4 had already noticec elements in the structure of later date
than the foundation. In fact, apart from the porch, other alterations are
apparent, for instance in the western gable (Fig. 319, p. 347).
Some writers put the church of Santa Cristina at Lena also in the IX
century (Figs. 320, 321, p. 350). It is true that its masonry recalls that of San
Salvador at Val de Dios, while the twisted columns and pulvin-shaped figured
capitals remind one of those in Santa Maria at Naranco. But, on the other
hand, the stilted round arches, and the horse-shoe arches in the transennae
point to a later date which may well be that of the abbot Flaginus mentioned
in the inscription on the three carved stones in the presbytery of the church,
1 YEPES, op. cit., vol. iii, fol. 167-177. Risco, op. cit, vol. xxxiv, pp. 130, 131, 308, 330-333.
Boletin de la R. Academia de la ffis/oria, vol. xxxi, pp. 466-515; FITA, San Miguel de Escalada
Inscriptions y documentos. ESCALONA, Historia del R. Monasterio de Sahagun ', pp. 11-53.
~ Risco, op. cit., vol. xxxvii, pp. 217-219.
3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.
352 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
that is to say the years immediately following 905. These views have been
already put forward by other writers.
Thus we have reached the end of the glorious reign of Alfonso III without
rinding in Asturias any except the semicircular form of arch. The only
exceptions are the three horse-shoe arches in Santa Maria at Oviedo, which,
perhaps, were later than the original structure. The earliest dated church
in this district with horse-shoe arches is San Salvador at Priesca in the
territory of Villaviciosa, consecrated in 920 as we learn from the inscription
preserved in the church. Here the nave arches springing from square piers
with rude impost cornices are of slightly horse-shoe form.
In the dominions of the Kings of Asturias, the oldest authentic instance
is to be found in
THE CHURCH OF SAN MIGUEL AT ESCALADA in the province of Le6n,
as rebuilt by the abbot Alfonso — the refugee with other monks from Cordova
in the time of Alfonso III — between 913 and 914. Risco l gives the text of
the consecration stone, which he had seen. The building must surely have
suffered when Al-Mansur in 988 destroyed Leon and devastated everything
that he came across. It must also have been restored under Alfonso V, who
brought back the inhabitants of Le6n. It is clear that it was in good con-
dition when a portico was added on the south in 1050 by the abbot Sabarico
(I047-I059).2
The church has a nave and aisles, an armless transept, and at the east end
three apses of horse-shoe plan internally, taken out of the end wall (Figs. 322,
323> P- 353)- The nave is separated from the aisles by marble columns taken
from ancient buildings, with late Roman and Visigothic capitals, and also some
made expressly for their places (Fig. 324, p. 354), such as the Corinthianesque
examples in the arcade which divides the transept from the body of the
church. The band of carving above this arcade is obviously later work.
All the arches are of horse-shoe form. The side bays of the transept
and the apses have cross vaults. The other parts of the church have. timber
roofs. The capitals of the portico, though having a certain affinity with the
1 Op. cit., vol. xxxv, pp. 310-312.
2 Espana, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ; QUADRADO, Asturias y Le6ny p. 550. Boletin de la R.
Academia de la Historia, vol. xxxi, pp. 466-515; FITA, San Miguel de Escalada. Inscriptions y
documentos.
353
FIG. 322. — Escalada. San Miguel (X and XI cents.).
FIG. 323. — Escalada. San Miguel (X and XI cents.).
354
FIG. 324. — Escalada. San Miguel. Capital (X cent.).
FIG. 325. — Escalada. San Miguel. Part of the portico
(XI cent.).
SPAIN
355
Corinthianesque specimens made for the church, are really more advanced in
style, and betray another hand and date (Fig. 325, p. 354).
The building with a tower connected with the western porch shows a
different style of masonry from that of the church and its porch.
By way of completing the task which we undertook in the second part
of this book, we will give a short account of the most famous Moslem religious
milding in Spain.
THE GREAT MOSQUE OF CORDOVA. — On the surrender of Cordova, the
Christians were allowed to keep only the cathedral dedicated to St. Vincent,
which was still in their possession in 747. Soon after, however, they were
obliged to give up half of it to the Moslems ; and at length, in 784, Abd al-
Rahman I (756-788), finding this half insufficient for their worship (a wooden
gallery had already been erected, with a roof so low as to inconvenience the
faithful), wished to acquire the other half. Its owners at first refused his
offers, but afterwards consented on the payment of a large sum of money,
and on condition of being allowed to build a new church for their exclusive use.
It was then that Abd al-Rahman took in hand the demolition (785) of
the church, and laid the foundations (786) of the congregational mosque
of Cordova, personally supervising the work in order that it might be hurried
on as quickly as possible. But he did not live to see its completion, and it
was finished by his son, Hisham I (788-796), who also built the minaret, not,
however, before 793, for in that year, on his return from Septimania, he set
aside the fifth part of the rich booty taken in war for the express purpose
of completing the mosque.
Having become too small for the Moslem population of Cordova, Abd
al-Rahman II (822-852) enlarged and embellished it. His successor,
Mohammed I (852-886), completed the decorations. Mundzir (886-888)
repaired the cracks which had appeared in the walls, and improved the
fabric. Abd al-Rahman III (912-961), the first Caliph of Cordova, rebuilt
356 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
the minaret and the front of the mosque, and made the floor even. Hakam II
(961-976) again enlarged the existing buildings. In this he was followed by
Al-Mansur (977-1002), the terrible prime minister of the weak Hisham II
(976-1009, 1010-1013). In this state it remained till the recovery of the
city (1236) by Ferdinand III (1217-1252), after which it was dedicated to
the Virgin of the Assumption, and became the cathedral (1238). This new
character given to the building, which had been the largest and most
splendid in the Moslem world, was the beginning of the alterations from
which it has suffered, reaching their culmination in the XVI century.1
When erecting his mosque at Cordova, Abd al- Rahman I, the wise
grandson of the Ummayyad caliph, Hisham (724-743), had before his mind
a far-famed work of a caliph of his own family — the mosque of Damascus.
And he was guided in what he did by the changes and the plans which
Walid had been the first to adopt at Damascus.
On taking possession of the basilica of San Vicente (said to be of the
VI century, and, apparently, a Roman temple converted into a church), he
built a new outer wall strengthened with massive turret buttresses, within
which he erected longitudinally, north and south, ten rows of columns forming
eleven aisles opening on to the court in front, the central one which led to
the mihrab being wider than the others. The columns were designed to
carry horse-shoe arches, and also a second tier of semicircular arches with
the object of raising the roof as high as possible. This upper story had a
flat ceiling.
The columns, of Roman origin and different kinds of marble, and varying
in height and diameter, were taken from ancient buildings. It is impossible
to say how many, if any, belonged to the previous church. The capitals,
surmounted by abaci of every sort, were also of ancient origin. They were
of Corinthian, Corinthianesque, and Composite pattern, in some cases not
fitting their columns ; and their design and execution show that they range
between the I and the VII century (Frontispiece). One of Composite type
is surmounted by a broken pulvin of the Visigothic period closely related to
two others in the main entrance to the mosque — the Gate of Palms — which
1 DOZY, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 36, 48, 49. JSspana, sus monumentos y artes, &c. ; MADRAZO,
Cordova, pp. 49-107, 119, 195-216, 224-235, 258-428. ADZARI (Fagnan), Histoire de FAfrique et de
VEspagne intitulte Al-BayanJ l-Mogrib, vol. ii, pp. 92, 109, 137, 156, 160, 253, 254, 377-387, 392,
393) 398> 413, 477-479. DE GAYANGOS, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, vol. i,
pp. 217-231. EDRISI, Geographic, vol. ii, p. 58. LAKUENTE, op. cit, vol. ii, p. 190.
357
FIG. 326. — Cordova. Mosque (VIII-XI cents.).
FIG. 327.
w
FIG. 328.
FIG. 329. FIG. 330.
FIGS. 327, 328, 329, 330. — Madrid. National Archaeological Museum. Capitals
ascribed to the period of the Caliphate of Cordova (756-1031).
359
FIG. 331. — Cordova. Mosque. Vestibule of the Mihrab of Hakam II. (961-976).
360
FIG. 332. — Cordova. Mosque. Cupola of the Mihrab of Hakam II. (961-976).
FIG. 333. — Cordova. Mosque. Vestibule of the Mihrab of Hakam II. Cupola
(961-976).
362
FIG. 334- — Cordova. Mosque. Chapel of Villaviciosa (961-976).
SPAIN
363
bear erased crosses. A few examples of simple Composite, neither Roman nor
Visigothic, are the result of restoration or rearrangement.
These capitals have nothing in common with the Composite and Corinthian
ones made expressly for the enlargement of the building by Abd al-Rahman II,
Hakam II, and Al-Mansur. One has only to look at the numerous simple
Composite capitals in the colonnades erected by Abd al-Rahman II, and
especially in those of Hakam II and Al-Mansur, in order to assure oneself of
the fact. They are of clumsy form, with meagre, plain turn-over leaves, the
tall bell being finished off with an echinus or with leaves (Fig. 326, p. 357).
Or else give a glance at the Corinthianesque and Composite specimens with
carved leaves in the mihrab of Hakam II and the cupola of the vestibule in
front of it, and also at those in the cupola of the two vestibules flanking the
one in front of the mihrab. As examples of Composite capitals of the Moslem
period I illustrate here some of those collected in the National Archaeological
Museum at Madrid (Figs. 327, 328, 329, 330, p. 358).
Whether, in preparing for his mosque, Abd al-Rahman I preserved much
or little of the old walls, it is impossible to tell, as the east side and the back
wall were demolished by Abd al-Rahman II and Al-Mansur respectively ; while
the front was rebuilt by the Caliph Abd al-Rahman III, as is recorded by the
well-known inscription on the door into the principal nave (the Puerta de las
Palmas), and by historians.1 Certain, however, it is that the surviving western
side shows that the wall and the buttresses were built at the same time, which
was, undoubtedly, not in the Visigothic period, as has been suggested,2 for it
is incredible that the fagade of a church should be strengthened in such a
manner at that period.
It has been maintained, on the word of Arabic writers, that the founder did
not make much change in the appearance of the Christian building, and that the
mosque was erected within the year 786 ; 3 an idea not in accordance either with
the possibilities of construction, or historical facts. On the death of Abd
al-Rahman I in 788, the operations which he had contemplated were un-
finished;4 and in the two years or more of work, pushed on as we know it
was, they cannot have gone further than the erection of the mosque proper.
1 ADZARI, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 381.
2 Cultura Espaiiola, 1906, pp. 785-811 ; G6MEZ-MoRENO, Excursion, &c.
3 ADZARI, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 378, 379. Cultura Espanola, 1906, pp. 785-811 ; G6MEz-MoRENO,
Excursion, &c.
4 ADZARI, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 109.
1654 27
364 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
And we cannot even imagine that this happened, if we consider that the
five years required for Hisham's completion of the building are too much
for merely constructing the cloistered court and the minaret on the north
side of the mosque. The period of eight years (from 786 to 793) is the
same as that which the mosque of Damascus, the source of inspiration for
that at Cordova, demanded from Walid for the full expansion of its beauty
(706-714).
The enlargement of Abd al- Rahman II was on the south, as far as the
qibla.1 On this occasion the end wall and mihrab of the original mosque
disappeared. Marble columns of alien origin were used, and also others made
on purpose. Some of the capitals also were ancient — Composite, Corinthian,
and Corinthianesque, ranging from the I to the VII century — while others were
carved expressly. The latter belong to the simple Composite type mentioned
above. Here too the upper arches are round and the lower ones of horse-
shoe form.
Abd al-Rahman III, besides reconstructing the front of the mosque,
rebuilt (945-46) Hisham's minaret, which was only 40 cubits high, and had
been overthrown in the earthquake of 880. The new one was a square tower,
some say 72 and some over 100 cubits in height, ascended by a double
staircase. It was embellished with mosaics, and encircled by a double tier
of arches. At the top was a kiosk crowned by three balls of gold and silver
between two flowers, the whole surmounted by a golden pomegranate.2
Hakam II 's addition was also on the south, and was the last made in
that direction, as the slope towards the Guadalquivir prevented any further
extension. The arcades have both round and horse-shoe arches, and most
of the capitals are of the simple Composite type, and made for their places.
The marble shafts are partly ancient, partly made expressly for the building.
There was no lack of ancient marble columns, for Abd al-Rahman III in
1013 made use of such which had been brought from Africa, for the works
at al-Zahra.3
One of the features of Hakam's work is the striking group of structures con-
nected with the mihrab (Fig. 331, p. 359). The mihrab is a chapel of octagonal
form internally, covered by a monolith marble cupola of shell design (Fig. 332,
1 ADZARI, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 137.
2 DE GAYANGOS, op. cit, vol. i, pp. 217-231. EDRISI, Geographic, vol. ii, pp. 62, 63. ADZARI,
op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 381.
3 ADZARI, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 381, 382.
SPAIN 365
p. 360), and flanked by two small chapels. It is approached through a central
space or vestibule which has intersecting multifoil arches — trefoil and multifoil
arches have their source in India (see below, p. 366) — and horse-shoe arches.
The intersection was necessitated by the considerable height at which the arches
are set, being boldly raised on a series of small columns. This vestibule is
covered by a cupola crossed by outstanding ribs springing from shafts, and
forming intersecting arches. This design was suggested by the simple arches
which decorate the interior of Ibrahim II 's (874-902) cupola at Kairawan.
In Hakam's cupola recesses, derivatives of the Romano-Campanian pendentive,
are taken out of the angles, and serve to transform the square base into an
octagon. Each has a frontal overhanging cusped arch (Fig. 333, p. 361). This
principal vestibule is flanked by two smaller ones, corresponding to the chapels
on either side of the mihrab, which have cupolas of the same pattern as the
central one, but simpler. The result is a sanctuary consisting of nave and
aisles ending in chapels. In the eastern aisle formerly stood the minbar, which
Edrisi says had no equal in the world.1
For the execution of the mosaics in this sanctuary the Emperor of
Constantinople, by request, sent a mosaic worker, and a present of 320 quintals
of tesserae.2 This proves that if Spain produced builders and artists worthy
of the praises lavished on them by Ibn Khaldun,3 for mosaics she still depended
on foreigners ; and those foreigners were not Copts.
From this vestibule was derived the suggestion for the so-called Chapel
of Villaviciosa, restored in 1892, with its multifoil arches, whether simple or
intersecting (Fig. 334, p. 362), and its cupola crossed by visible ribs arranged
so as to form a geometrical pattern, the intervening spaces being filled with
shells, stars, and other forms of ornament (Fig. 335, p. 367). The analogies
between this chapel and Hakam II's tripartite structure suggest that it
belongs to the reign of that caliph ; while its position leads one to think that
it occupies the site of Abd al-Rahman II's mihrab, which was destroyed by
Hakam.4 Its purpose, however, is unknown. Lamperez y Romea suggested
to me that its object may have been to give light to the mosque.
The latest enlargement of the mosque, that by Al-Mansur, was on the
eastern side, there being no room on the west, where the caliph's palace
1 Gtographie, vol. ii, p. 61.
2 ADZARI, op. cit, vol. ii, p. 392.
3 Proltgonicnes historiqnes, vol. ii, pp. 361, 362. • •""
4 ADZARI, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 393.
366 MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE
stood.1 It took the form of seven new rows of arches, the mosque now
containing nineteen aisles, and forming a rectangle of over 115 by 130 m.
(378 by 428 ft.) square.2
In this part of the huge edifice the columns are again, in many cases,
of ancient origin. The capitals, however, of the simple Composite type, were
all made for the building. The horse-shoe arch is used without exception
in the colonnades.
None of the ancient mosques built as such, which I have studied,
compared with that of Cordova produce anything like the same impression
of unlimited space, due to the unusual number of its rows of columns, and
of majestic dignity.
The side walls of the mosque are extremely interesting, owing to the
openings and arches which they contain (Figs. 336, 337, 338, 339, pp. 368, 369).
On the east side the pointed horse-shoe arch may be noticed : the earliest
example which I have found in the Iberian peninsula.
The remodelled cloisters of the court in front of the mosque are not in
their original state, as is shown by the Composite capitals with plain turn-over
leaves, made expressly to fit the Roman columns brought from elsewhere.
These capitals are evidently of the IX or X century (Fig. 340, p. 370).
Three important and singular features, at once constructive and decorative,
are to be noticed in the mosque of Cordova, viz. the multifoil arch, intersecting
arches used in construction, and the visible intersecting ribs of the cupola.
The multifoil arch has its origin in the trefoil arch first used in Gandhara
as an ornamental form for the walls and domes of ' viharas,' i.e. monasteries
or houses of idols, and ' stupas ' or shrines to preserve relics or the memory of
sacred events. This was before 600 ; and later it was used in construction in
Kashmir, but not before the VII century. An early and remarkable instance
is afforded by the temple of Martand (j2^-^6o).3
It has been imagined that the trefoil arch made its appearance, earlier than
the instances in Gandhara and at Mathura, in Magadha in Northern India.4
1 ADZARI, op. cit, vol. ii, pp. 477-479. • .-
J Museo Espanol de Antigiiedades, vol. ix, pp. 287-316 ; AMADOR DE LOS Rios Y VILLALTA, La
mezquita-aljama de Cdrdoba.
3 Atti del Congresso inter nazionale di Scienze storiche (Rome, 1-9 April 1903), vol. vii ; PULLE,
Riflessi indiani //<?//' arte romaica, pp. 112-114. FOUCHER, L'Art greco-bouddhique du Gandhara, pp.
125-132, 139-145. VINCENT A. SMITH, op. cit., pp. 45-48.
4 HAVELL, Indian Architecture, pp. 79-84.
36;
FIG. 335- — Cordova. Mosque. Chapel of Villaviciosa. Cupola (961-976).
i
FIG. 336. — Cordova. Mosque (VIII-XI cents.).
FIG. 337. — Cordova. Mosque (VIII-XI cents.).
369
FIG. 338. — Cordova. Mosque (VIII-XI cents.).
FIG. 339. — Cordova. Mosque. A doorway.
370
FIG. 340. — Cordova. Mosque. Arcade and court.
SPAIN
It has also been asserted that the multifoil arch was known in India from early
Buddhist times, as seen, for example, in the larger niches of a pavilion adjoining
the temple of Vitthalaswami in Southern India.1
As early as the IX century it is found used constructively in Mesopotamia,
for the mosque of Samarra (847-861) contains examples in the inside of the
windows of the south wall. In the same century it occurs as a decorative feature
in the dome erected by Ibrahim II (874-902) in the great mosque of Kairawan.
But it is in the mosque of Cordova, and the part due to Hakam, that it appears
for the first time used systematically in construction. And it is there, too,
that it is first used systematically in intersection as described above.
For the subject of intersecting arches I may refer to what I said in my
account of the Cristo de la Luz at Toledo.
With regard to the cupola with visible intersecting ribs, I have never
found one earlier than the time of Hakam II. I have explained elsewhere2
the Roman origin of visible ribs, which were afterwards applied, with the
same object though in a more developed form, to cross vaults and cupolas.
The task which I undertook to perform is completed. After so many
years of study, research, and the toil and sometimes risks of travel, I lay
down the pen with which I have told the story of the origin and develop-
ment of the chief elements which formed the basis of the great styles of
religious architecture in the Later Empire and the Early Middle Ages, both in
the West and in the Near East. I leave it to others to continue the study,
so that more light may be thrown on a noble theme.
1 HAVELL, Indian Architecture^ pp. 182, 183.
2 RIVOIRA, op. cit. (Hoepli), pp. 94, 95. 3°7 J (Heinemann), vol. i, pp. 82, 83, 248.
INDEX OF PLACES
The first numbers generally give the most important references to a subject
AACHEN.
Charles the Great's round church, 113;
115, Fig. 97; 1 1 6, Fig. 98; 287
ABUDOLAF.
Mosque, 4, 44, 147, 174
ACRE.
Fortifications, 137
ADRIANOPLE.
Mosque of Selim II, 184
AGHTHAMAR.
Church of the Cross, 210; 213, Fig. 185 ;
214, Fig. 186; 215, 216, 217, Figs. 187-
189; 218, Fig. 190; 187, 189, 199, 206,
225
AGLIATE.
Baptistery, 273
AJANTA.
Cave temples, 119; 117, Fig. 102; 153,
151, Fig. 129; 150, Fig. 130
ALEXANDRIA.
Pharos, 144; 145, Fig. 124- 147
AMALFI.
Albergo dei Cappucini (Capuchin convent),
cloister, 316
Albergo della Luna (abbey), cloister, 317
Cathedral, Camposanto or ' Paradiso,'
317 ; 312, Fig. 291 ; 314, Fig. 292
AMMAN.
Citadel, 119; 112, Fig. 103
ANAH.
Minaret, 134
. ANI.
Cathedral, 220-222, 225; 224, Fig. 195;
227, Fig. 196
Chapel of St. Gregory, 225, 226 ; 231, Fig.
203
Chapel of the Redeemer, 226; 232, Fig.
204
Church of St. Gregory the Illuminator,
205; 197, Fig. 175; 219
Church of St. Gregory or of the Angels,
226, 233 : 238, Fig. 207
Churches, 187, 189
Mosque, 178; 181, Fig. 156
ANTIOCH.
Constantine's octagonal church, 60, 61
ARGHINA.
Cathedral, 225 ; 230, Fig. 202
ARNAL.
Chapel, 245, 246
ASKAR (OLD CAIRO).
Mosque, 137
ATHENS.
Church of St. Theodore, 210, 222
Tower of the Winds, or Horologium of
Andronicus, 36 ; 40, Fig. 2 1
BAALBEC.
Church of Theodosius, 98, 103, 104, 107
Temple of Bacchus, 103
Temple of Jupiter, 103, 109
Temples, 82 ; 105, Fig. 93
BAGHDAD.
Tomb of Zobaide, 183
Tomb of Ezekiel, 183
BAGNAIR.
Church of the 'Mother of Light,' 189;
192, Fig. 167
BAMBA.
Church, 331
BANDE.
Santa Comba or San Torcuato, 257-263;
257, Fig. 224; 255, Figs. 225 and 226;
245
BANGS DE CERRATO.
Church of San Juan Bautista, 246-250 ;
243, Fig. 215 ; 244, Fig. 216 ; 253, Fig.
217; 244, Fig. 218; 254, Fig. 219;
253, Figs. 220 and 221 ; 249, Fig. 222 ;
245, 252, 288.
BARCELONA.
Cathedral, 284.
„ capitals, 324.
Church of San Pablo del Campo, 292-296,
Figs. 269 and 270 ; 324
Church of San Pedro de las Puellas, 296-
298 ; 299, Figs. 271 and 272
373
374
INDEX OF PLACES
BAUSEN.
Cinerary urn, 136
BEAUVAIS.
The old Cathedral, 271
BETHLEHEM.
Church of the Nativity, 16, 49 ; 54, Fig.
35 ; 104, 107, 109, 278
BHAGA.
Temples, 113
BHARHUT.
Reliefs, 113, 343
BHUVANESVAR.
Temple of Muktesvara, 164 ; 162, Fig. 141
BIELLA.
Baptistery, 273, 292
BINBIR KIUSSE.
Churches, 134
BOSRA.
Cathedral, 59, 97, 121
BUDDH-GAYA.
Reliefs, 113, 343; 340, Fig. 311; 343,
Fig. 312
BURGUILLOS.
Chapel, 246
CABEZA DE GRIEGO.
Basilica, 252, 257, 245
CAIRO.
Gate al-Futuh, 178; 179, Fig. 153
Gate an-Nasr, 178 ; 180, Fig. 154
Gate az-Zuweleh, 178 ; 180, Fig. 155
Mosque of Amr (Fustat), 23-27, Fig. 12;
28 ; 29, Fig. 13 ; 30, Fig. 14 ; 3, 92, 137
Mosque al-Aqmar, 177, 178; 179, Fig. 152
Mosque al-Azhar, 152, Fig. 131 ; 153, 154;
i55> FiS- J32 = 157. Fig- r33 > 27, 80,
205
Mosque of Hakim, 158, 163, 164, 167, 168,
174, 177 5 i52» Fig- J34 ; i56> Figs. 135
and 136 ; 159, Fig. 137 ; 21, 43, 80, 144,
157, 222
Mosque of Ibn Tulun (Qattai), 137-145,
Figs. 118-123; 147, 148, 157, 158, 174,
177, 3iS
Mosque of Muayyad, 182, Fig. 157 ; 183
Mosque of Qalaun, mihrab, 95 ; 102, Fig.
91
Mosque of Salih-Ayyub, 164; 159, Fig.
138
Nilometer (Island of Roda), 148, 315
CAMARZANA DE TERA.
Church, 246
CANGAS DE ONIS.
Church of the Holy Cross, 326
CANOSA.
Tomb of Bohemond, 222
CARDONA.
San Vicente, 285
CEFALtj.
Cathedral, 167, 316
CELANOVA.
Church of the Saviour, 263
CHORVIPAP.
Church, 234
CLITUMNUS, THE (near Spoleto).
Chapel called the ' Temple of the Clitum-
nus,' 338 ; 334, Fig. 306
CLUNY.
Abbey church, 104
COMPOSTELLA (Santiago de Compostela).
Cathedral, 346, 351 ; 348, Fig. 317 ; 349, '
Fig. 318
CORDOVA.
Basilica of St. Vincent, 355, 356
Church of St. Felix, 245
Gate — Western or Seville, 242 ; 243, Figs.
213, 214
Mosque (now Cathedral), 355-371, Figs.
3z6» 33T> 332, 334-341, and Frontispiece;
306, Fig. 280 ; 43, 44, 92, 104, 157, 164,
i74, 235, 241, 301, 315, 329
CONSTANTINOPLE.
Church of St. Irene, 190, 193 ; 195, Figs.
169 and 170; 33, 38, 113
Church of St. Mary Diaconissa, 190
Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, 121, j
190, 323 ; 321, Fig. 298
Church of St. Sophia, 184, 189, 190, 210,
323; 322, Figs. 299 and 300
Church of St. Sophia, Constantine's Bap-
tistery, 273
Church of St. Sophia, Justinian's Baptistery
(now tomb of Mustafa I), 273
Mosque of Ahmed I, 184 ; 186, Fig. 162
Mosque of Bajazet II, 184 ; 185, Fig. 160
Mosque of Mohammed II, 184
Mosque of Suliman the Magnificent, 184;
185, Fig. 161
COVADONGA.
Church of St. Mary, 326
CTESIPHON.
Palace of Chosroes I, 114; 117, Fig. 99;
119, 120, 121, 134, 153
DAMASCUS.
Arch called the Bab al-Barid, 93 ; 99,
Fig. 87
Church of St. John the Baptist, 72, 82, 92,
98, 103, 104, 107, 108
INDEX OF PLACES
375
DAMASCUS — contd.
Mosque of Walid, 72 ; 75-101, Figs. '69 -71,
74-82, 84-86, 88-90; 108-110,113,4, 21,
25, 3*. 43. 47. 55. 57, '57, *73. !74,
193, 204, 241, 242, 267, 277, 278, 356,
364
Mosque which preceded that of Walid, 107,
1 08
Residence of Muawiya (al-Hadra), 80
Temple of Jupiter or of the Sun, 72, 98,
103, 107, 108
Tomb of Saladin, 92 ; 90, Fig. 83
DANA.
Church, 133
DELHI.
Qutb Minar, 177; 176, Fig. 151
DENDERAH.
Temple of Hathor, 33; 39, Fig. 17
DURHAM.
Cathedral, 168; 169, Fig. 144; 315, 316;
313, Fig. 290
EDESSA.
Great Church, 96
Churches, 97
ELCHE.
^Church, 263, 264, 267, 245, 325
EM POLL
Parish Church, 173
EPIDAURUS.
Tholos, 59 ; 60, Fig. 38
ESCALADA.
San Miguel, 352-355 ; Figs- 322-325 ; 249
ETSCIIMIADZIN.
Cathedral, 199; 200, Fig. 174; 201, Fig.
177; 203-206, 187, 190
Church of the Illuminator or of the Angels,
226 ; 233, Fig. 205
Church of St. Gaina, 187, Fig. 163; 188-191,
Fig. 164; 193, 194, 199, 205
Church of St. Rhipsima, 193, Fig. 171; 194;
196, Fig. 172; 199, 187, 190
Church of the Shoghagath, or Effusion of
Light, 199, 187
EVORA.
St. Marcian, 245
EZRA.
St. George, 68 ; 70, Fig. 59 ; 97,121; 122,
Fig. 105
FARAKH ABAD.
Palace or castle, 132
1654 28
FERENTO (Viterbo).
Roman three-lobed building, 281, Fig. 257;
277
FIRUZ ABAD.
Palace or castle, 114, 119, 120, 132
FLORENCE.
Archaeological Museum, Tomb from Vetu-
lonia, 123; 127, Fig. 107
FULDA.
Round cemetery church of St. Michael and
the Saviour, 271
FUSTAT.
(Mosque of Amr) ; see Cairo
GARNI.
Palace, 204
GAZA.
St. Sergius, 1 26
GEDDA.
Mosque, 143
GERMIGNV DES PRLS.
Church, 287; 286, Fig. 262; 279, Fig. 260;
280, Fig. 261 ; 301, 346
GRANADA.
Alhambra, 315 ; 307, Fig. 281
GUARRAZAR.
Basilica, 245
HAGHPAT.
Church, 206, Fig. 179
HATRA.
Ruins, 114, 1 20
HAVARNAQ.
Palace or castle, 132
HORNIJA.
Church of San Roman, 288, 291, 245, 32,4,
329
JERICHO.
Mosque, 86
JERUSALEM.
Church of the Ascension, supposed re-
mains of Constantine's, 107
Church of the Ascension, round church
' of Modestus, 59, 97
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 15, 18, 45,
58> 59. 97. 104. i°9, U4, 278
Church of St. Sophia, 16, 23
Church of the Virgin, built by Justinian,
n, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23
Church^ of the Virgin, ' in Probatica,' 14
Church\ of the Virgin, in the Valley of
Jehoshaphat, 14
376
INDEX OF PLACES
JERUSALEM — contd.
Churches, 97
Dome of the Ascension on the Temple plat-
form, 56
Dome of the Chain, or 'Judgment-seat of
David,' 56, 57; 63, Fig. 37
Dome of the Prophet, 56
Dome of the Rock (Qubbat as-Sakrah),
commonly called the Mosque of Omar,
45-59, Figs- 30-34; 72, 23, 38, 80, 81,
96, 109, 119, 193, 194, 209, 210, 274
Golden Gate, 22 ; 20, Fig. 9
Haram esh-Sherif, platform of Solomon's
and Herod's Temples, Sacred Rock, 14,
16, 17, 18; 19, Fig. 7; 22, 57
Mosque al-Aqsa, 11-23, Figs. 5 ar>d 8;
29, Figs. 10 and u ; 38, 45, 57, 94, 96,
278
Mosque of Omar, connected with the Holy
Sepulchre, 18
Mosque of Omar, on the Temple platform,
14, 17, 18
Praetorium, 16
JOHANNAVANK.
Church, 189, 206; 202, Fig. 178 ; 219, 236
JOUARRE.
St. Paul, crypt, capitals, 325
St. Paul, crypt, sarcophagus of St. Theo-
dechildis, 250 ; 255, Fig. 223
KANLIGIA.
Monastery church of Marmashen, 205 ;
198, Fig. 176
KARLI.
Temples, 113; 106, Fig. 95 ; 119
KHARB ABU MINA.
Church of St. Menas, 16, 104, 107, 124
Church of the Virgin, 124
KHOJA KALESSI.
Church, 131
KHORSABAD.
Subterranean water courses, 120
KHOSHAVANK.
Chapels, 219; 223, Fig. 193
Church of Shoghagath, 216, 219, 220;
223, Fig. 192
Tomb of Ashot the Merciful, 219
KHOSRUGIRD.
Minaret, 174
KUFA.
Mosque, 7, 8, n, i, 26
KUYUNJIK. (Nineveh).
Bas-relief, 123
LANGREO.
St. Martin, 327
LENA.
Santa Cristina, 351; 350, Figs. 320 and
321
LE6N.
Church of San Isidore, 330, 335 ; 331, Fig.
3°3 ; 333, Fig- 3°4 ; 345
Panteon de los Reyes, or chapel of Santa
Catalina, 330 ; 332, Fig. 302 ; 335, 345
Museum, Pagan gravestones, 135, 136
LINO.
San Miguel, 342-347, Figs. 313-316; 285,
338
LOMAS RlSHI.
Cave temple, 113; 112, Fig. 94
LYDDA.
Church, 96
Mosque of Suliman, 46
MADRID.
National Archaeological Museum, capitals,
316; 309, Figs. 283-286; 363; 358,
Figs. 327-330
National Archaeological Museum, Pagan
gravestones from Leon, 135; 140, Fig.
117
MAMALLAPURAM.
Bhima Ratha, 153 ; 150, Fig. 128
Ganesa Ratha, 153; 149, Fig. 127
MARTAND.
Temple, 366
MECCA.
Mosque and Kaaba, 5-7 ; 10, Fig. 2 ; 9,
Figs. 3 and 4; 2, 17, 18, 45, 46, 94, 96,
177
MEDINA.
Mosque of Mohammed, 2-5 ; 9, Fig. i ;
ii, 43, 85> 92, 94, 109, 173, !77
MEDINA SIDONIA.
Hermitage of SS. Justus and Pastor, 245
MERIDA.
Baptistery, 245
Church of St. Eulalia, 245
Great Church (the Holy Jerusalem), 245
MILAN.
Sant' Ambrogio, apse, 49, 56 ; 53, Fig. 36
San Lorenzo Maggiore, 131; 129, Fig. 112;
286; 287, Fig. 263; 323
San Satiro, campanile, 44
MONREALE.
Cathedral, 316; 311, Fig. 288; 167
MSHATTA.
Palace, 76, 132
INDEX OF PLACES
377
MYCENAE.
'Treasury of Atreus,' 120; 127, Fig. 104
'Treasury of Clytemnestra,' 120
NAPLES.
San Giorgio Maggiore, 109, 274; 276, Fig.
252
San Giovanni in Fonte (cathedral baptis-
tery), 124; 127, Fig. 1 08; 239
NAVE.
San Pedro, 245
NARANCO.
Santa Maria, 338-342 ; 334, Fig. 307 ; 339
and 340, Figs. 308-310; 346, 351
NASIK.
Temple, 113; in, Fig. 96; 119
NOR-KAGHAK.
Roman buildings, 203
NORWICH.
Cathedral, 316
OBONA.
Santa Maria la Real, 327
ORENSE.
St. Martin, 245
OSIA,
"Temple of the Sun, 164; 1 60, Fig. 139
OVIEDO.
Church of San Julian de los Prados, 336,
337 ; 334, Fig. 305 ; 328, 330
Church of St. Leocadia, 329, 330
Church of St. Mary, 328, 329, 288, 327,
352
Church of San Miguel or Camara Santa,
329» 33°; 331. Fig- 301 ',' 335, 327
Church of St. Saviour, 328, 327
Church of San Tirso, 335, 336, 328
Church of St. Vincent, 326
Museum of Asturian Antiquities, carvings,
345
PAESTUM.
Temple, with colonnades in two tiers, 76 ;
84, Fig. 72; 83, Fig. 73
Temple of Neptune, 76
PALENCIA.
Cathedral, crypt, 250-252, 245
PALERMO.
Cappella Palatina, 157, 167 ; 161, Fig. 140 ;
183
Cathedral, 167, 316; 312, Fig. 289
Church of San Cataldo, 157, 167; 166,
Fig. 143
PALERMO — contd.
Church of Santa Maria dell' Ammiraglio,
or Martorana, 157, 167; 165, Fig. 142
La Cuba, 167
La Zisa, 167
PALMYRA.
Colonnades, 109
'Temple of the Sun," 98; 101, Fig. 92;
103
PAVIA.
San Michele, 222
PERSEPOLIS.
Buildings of the Achaemenids, 120
PERUGIA.
Sant' Angelo, 233 ; 234, Fig. 206
PlACENZA.
Cathedral, 158, 222; 230, Fig. 201
PISA.
Cathedral, 173, 221 ; 228, Fig. 197
POITIERS.
Baptistery, 43
POLVAR-RUD, VALLEY OF.
Buildings of the Achaemenids, 120
POMPEII.
House of Fortune, colonnade with arches,
7i
House of Meleager, colonnade with arches,
^71; 74, Fig. 65
Stabian Baths, Frigidarium, 62 ; 272, Fig.
247
PRAVIA.
Monastery church of St. John, 327
PRIESCA.
San Salvador, 352
QATTAI ; see CAIRO.
QALAT SIMAAN.
Church of St. Simeon Stylites, 104
QASR ES-SHERIN.
Buildings of Chosroes II, 80, 120, 124,
RABAT.
Minaret of Hassan, 44
RAMLEH.
The White Mosque, 44
RAVENNA.
Basilica of Hercules, mosaics, 264
Basilica Ursiana, 107, 109, 267, 274
Basilica Ursiana, mosaic pavement, 264,
Fig. 239
Baptistery of the Arians, 273
3/8
INDEX OF PLACES
RAVENNA — contd.
Baptistery of Neon, 34, 234; 235, Fig.
208; 273; 270, Fig. 248; 275, Fig. 249
Cathedral, see Basilica Ursiana
Church of Sant' Apollinare Nuovo, cam-
panile, 44
Church of San Vitale, 33, 121, 124; 125,
Fig. 109; 157, 164, 226, 239, 286, 287,
318 ; 325, Fig. 295 ; 320, Fig. 297
Church of San Vittore, epitaph of Antonius
Argentarius, 318, 323
Church of San Zaccaria, near Ravenna,
epitaph of Georgius Argentarius, 318
Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, 262 ; 263,
Fig. 238 ; 286 ; 289, Figs. 264 and 265
Palace of the Archbishop, Sala Lapidaria,
epitaph of Georgius Argentarius, 318 ;
319, Fig. 296
Palace of Theodoric, mosaic pavements,
264, 267 ; 256, Figs. 240 and 241 ; 265,
Fig. 242
ROME.
Arch of Dolabella and Silanus, Neronian
aqueduct, 278; 276, Fig. 259
Arch of Titus, capital, 45 ; 52, Fig. 29
Basilica Aemilia, 15 ; 10, Fig. 6 ; 76
Basilica Julia, 1 5
Basilica Nova, of Maxentius or Constantine,
1 88, Fig. 165 ; 189
Bathroom on the Via Flaminia, 194, Fig.
173
Baths of Diocletian, 70 ; 74, Fig. 64
Baths of Trajan, 70
Buildings of the Imperial Age —
„ with elongated apse, 267
„ with central domed plan, 189,
Fig. 1 66
„ circular or polygonal, vaulted
(tombs or temples), 60; 61,
Figs. 39 and 40 ; 62, Figs. 41,
43. 44 ; 65, Fig. 42 ; 66, Figs.
45-49 ; 67, Figs. 50-53 ; 68,
Fig. 54; 70; 73. Fig. 62; ^9,
274
,, cruciform, 259-262, Figs. 227-
237; 273; 274, Fig. 250; 286;
288, Figs. 266 and 267
„ with porticoes, 72; 71, Figs. 66-68
„ three-lobed, 277, Figs. 253 and
254; 278, Figs. 255 and 256;
281, Figs. 257 and 258
Cemetery of Callistus, cella of St. Soteris,
277
Cemetery of Callistus, cella of SS. Xystus
and Caecilia, 277
Cemetery of Callistus, tomb of St. Zephyr-
inus, 277, 278
ROME — contd.
Chapel or cella of St. Symphorosa on the
Via Tiburtina, 278
Church of St. John Lateran, 104
Church of St. John Lateran, baptistery,
chapels of St. John the Baptist, St. John
the Evangelist, and the Cross, 272, 273 ;
274, Fig. 251
Church of St. Peter at the Vatican, 31,
104
Church of St. Peter at the Vatican, Im-
perial Mausoleum, Santa Petronilla and
Sant' Andrea (Santa Maria della Febre),
209; 211, Fig. 183
Church of Santo Stefano Rotondo on the
Caelian, 123
Columbarium in the Vigni Codini, 184;
182, Fig. 159
Column of Marcus Aurelius, 174
Column of Trajan, 1 74
Forum of Trajan, 69
Mausoleum of Santa Costanza, 60, 122,
190 ; 192, Fig. 1 68
Mausoleum of St. Helena, 209, Fig. 182
Mausoleum, Imperial, at the Vatican, 209 ;
211, Fig. 183
Nymphaeum of the Licinian Gardens
('Minerva Medica'), 122; 209, Fig.
181
Palatine, 59
„ Palace of Augustus (' Domus
Augustana'), 67, 194, 234; 236,
Fig. 209; 237, Fig. 210
„ Palace of Caligula, 119, Fig.
101
„ Palace of Domitian, basilica, 264
„ Palace of Domitian, mosaic pave-
ments, 267
„ Palace of Nero ('Domus Aurea'),
267 ; 265, Fig. 243
„ Palace of Tiberius, 336
Pantheon, 60
Relief of Imperial Age, showing domed
building with blank arcading, 221 ; 228,
Fig. 198
'Tempio di Siepe' in Campus Martius,
67, 68 ; 63, Fig. 57 ; 69, Fig. 58
Tomb on the Via Appia Antica, 122 ; 122,
Fig. 1 06
Tomb on the Via Praenestina, 114; 119,
Fig. 100
Villa known as 'Centroni' on the Via
Latina, 336
Villa known as the ' Sette Bassi ' on the
Via Latina, 135, Figs. 113 and 114
Villa Mattei on the Caelian, sarcophagus,
i35 ; Z3°> Figs- IX5 and Tl6
INDEX OF PLACES
379
SADIR.
Palace or castle, 132
SAGHMOSAVANK.
Church, 189, 206
SAHAGUN.
Church of San Benito, 346
Church of SS. Facundus and Primitivus,
351
SAINT-RIQUIER (Centula).
Abbey church, 235 ; 239, Fig. 211
Church of St. Benedict, 239, Fig. 211
Church of St. Mary, 235 ; 239, Fig. 211
SALERNO.
Convent of San Domenico, cloister, 317
SALONICA.
Church of the Apostles, 222 ; 229, Fig. 200
Church of the Virgin, 210; 212, Fig. 184;
222
SAMARRA.
Mosque, 138, 143, 4, 37, 43, 55, 144, 147,
T53. !74, 37i
SAMOS (Galicia).
Church of SS. Julian and Basilissa, 326,
327
SANAHIN.
Church of the Saviour, 189, 221
Churches, 220; 224, Fig. 194
SANCHI.
Reliefs, 113
SAN GIORGIO IN VALPOLICELLA.
Church, capitals of the ciborium, 299
SAN MIGUEL IN EXCELSIS (near Huarte-
Araquil).
Chapel of the Sanctuary, 245
SAN MINIATO AL MONTE (Florence).
Church, 173; 170, Fig. 145; 171, Fig. 146;
221
SANTA MARIA CAPUA VETERE.
Tomb known as "la Conocchia," 221 ; 228,
Fig. 199 ; 222
SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA ; see COMPOSTELLA.
SARAGOSSA.
Castle of Aljaferia, mosque, 315; 306, Fig.
279
Great Mosque, 283
SARVISTAN.
Palace or castle, 119, 120, 132
S6TABIS.
Cathedral, 245
SEVILLE.
Alcazar, 316; 308, Fig. 282
SOHAG.
Church of the Dair al-Abiad (White Con-
vent), 124, 126
SOHAG — contd.
Church of the Dair al-Ahmar(Red Convent),
124, 125, 126; 128, Fig. in
SPALATO.
Palace of Diocletian, 70
„ Golden Gate, 70 ; 74, Fig. 63
„ Imperial Mausoleum, now the
cathedral, 70 ; 64, Fig. 60 ; 73,
Fig. 6 1
SUSA (Persia).
Buildings of the Achaemenids, 120
TAGIURA.
Mosque, 148; 146, Figs. 125 and 126
TARRAGONA.
Cathedral, 245
TARRASA.
Santa Maria, 291, 292 ; 290, Fig. 268 ;
246, 271, 283, 284, 285
San Miguel (Baptistery?), 266-273, Figs.
244-246; 281-286, 245, 291, 292
San Pedro, 298; 299, Fig. 273; 301, 246,
271, 284, 285
TlCOR.
Church of the Trinity, 236 ; 238, Fig. 212 ;
239
TIVOLI.
Villa of Hadrian, 67 ; 68, Fig. 55 ; 63, Fig.
56 ; 216 ; 218, Fig. 191 ; 278, 337
TOLEDO.
Church of El Cristo de la Luz, 301 ; 300,
Fig. 274 ; 302 j 303, Fig. 275 ; 304,
Fig. 276; 315-318, 323, 324, 246,
37i
Church of Cristo de la Vega, 324
Church of Santa Eulalia, 318; 314, Fig.
293
Church of St. Leocadia, 245, 324
Church of SS. Peter and Paul, 245
Church of San Sebastian, 318; 319, Fig.
294
Puerta del Sol, 316; 310, Fig. 287
Puerta Visagra, 315 ; 305, Fig. 277 ; 304,
Fig. 278
TRIER.
Cathedral, capitals, 268
TRIPOLI.
Mosque of the Camel, 173, 174; 172, Fig.
148; 175, Figs. 149 and 150
TUNIS.
Zituna Mosque, 173; 172, Fig. 147
San Adrian, 291, 346, 351
38o
INDEX':OF PLACES
UKHAIDIR.
Palace or castle, 132
UMM EZ-ZEITUN.
Chapel, 183; 184, Fig. 158
URFA (Edessa).
Church of the Forty Martyrs, bell-tower,
'34
Church of the Virgin, bell-tower, 134
Churches, 134
URGUB.
Tomb, 133
USUNLAR.
Church of the Cross, 206, 209, 210; 201,
Fig. 180; 187, 234, 239
VAL DE DIGS.
San Salvador, 351 ; 347, Fig. 319 • 346
VALENCIA.
Cathedral, 245
VELAMIO.
Church of St. Eulalia, 326
VENICE.
San Marco, mosaic, 147 ; 145, Fig. 124
VICENZA.
SS. Felice e Fortunate, 297
VlLLANUEVA.
Church of St. Peter, 326
VlTERBO.
Santa Maria della Cella, campanile, 287
VlTTHALASWAMI.
Pavilion adjoining temple, 371
ZAHRA (near Cordova).
Palace of Abd al-Rahman III, 364
ZEBED.
Churches, 133
GENERAL INDEX
ABACUS, decorated, 299, 347
„ of wood, 33, 158
Apollodorus of Damascus, Trajan's architect,
69, 70
Apse, elongated, 68, 267
„ lateral, projecting from a transept, 249
„ polygonal, 107, 203, 274
„ semicircular, 15, 16, 104, 107
Arcade, intersecting, 316, 317
Arcading, blank, plain or decorated, 114, 119,
132, T33> J34, 173. 220,
221, 235, 236, 301, 336,
34^
„ „ intersecting, 315, 316
Arch, 'cyma reversa' (accolade, ogee), 153, 205
„ horse-shoe, 27, 109, no, 113, 114, 119,
iSS-U?, 236, 241 ff., 257,
258, 284, 287, 288, 315,
329, 346, 35 i. SS2
„ ,, set on high imposts, 31
pointed, 27, 148, 153, 366
„ ,, „ set on high imposts,
27, 148
„ lobed, multifoil, or cusped (sometimes
intersecting), 236, 365, 366, 371
„ ogee ; see ' Cyma reversa '
„ pointed, 21, 153, 168
,, „ mixtilinear ('Persian'), 154, 157
„ round, 58, 236, 240, 246, 325, 327, 329,
337, 34i, 352
„ springing directly from columns, 7 1
„ stilted, 278, 285
Arched corbel course (sometimes broken by
lesenas), 70, 114, 119, 292, 296
Architects, Armenian, 210, 215, 220, 225
„ Greek, 69
,, of Moslem buildings, 8, 24, 46, 96,
137, i48, 157, 178, 184
Architrave surmounting colonnades, 109
Argentarius, Julianus, architect, of Ravenna,
121, 164, 286, 318
Armenian architecture, 184, 187, 226 ff.
Assyrian architecture, 120, 123, 132
BASE of column, decorated, 345
„ spurred, 296
Bell excluded from Moslem worship, 3, 177
„ tower ; see Tower
„ turret (Armenian), 205, 206, 235
Byzantine influence in Armenian churches, 187 ff.
CAMPANIA, architectural features originating in,
71, 121, 126
Campanile ; see Tower
Capitals, Byzantine, 22, 33, 36, 49, 57, 107, 143
Composite, 33, 45, 49, 268, 356
„ Corinthian, 33, 49, 91, 107, 247, 249,
258, 268, 356
„ figure, 341
„ Lombardic cubico-spherical, 55
„ of the Moslem period, 36, 91, 93, 143-
316, 363
„ Pre-Lombardic cubical, 297
„ of the Visigothic period, 317 ff.
Chancel, square, 337
Choir, three-lobed, 16, 124
Colonnade surmounted by architrave, 109
„ in two tiers, 15, 76
Columns of wood in mosques, 138, 143
Coptic architects and artists, 24, 96, 137
Crusades, their influence on architecture, 55,
119, 1 68, 206
Cupola; see Dome
DESERT palaces or castles, 131, 132
Dome, made of fan-shaped arches in tiers, or
with ribs forming intersecting arches,
70, 365> 37»
„ bulbous (Tartar), 153
„ conical or ovoidal, 120-124
„ double, 58, 80, 81, 97, 122
„ with high drum, 190, 193, 209, 210, 235
„ „ arcaded externally, 203
210, 219, 321, 222
381
382
GENERAL INDEX
Dome with pointed roof of masonry, 209, 225,
235
„ with wooden roof, 122
„ with concave segments, 34, 35
,, with service gallery round base, 60
„ made of terra-cotta tubes or jars, 121, 273
„ of wood, 21, 58, 97
„ lighted by windows round base, 122
EGYPTIAN architecture, 126
Etruscan dome- vault, 123
GREEK architecture, 120
„ craftsmen (subjects of the Byzantine
empire) employed on
Moslem buildings, 4, 21,
46, 96, 97, 365
„ ,, on Persian buildings, 114,
121, 204
„ language and customs in Italy and
Sicily, 167, 1 68
HADRIAN,- his influence on architecture, 67
Honeycomb design, 183, 184
Horrea, form of, Roman, 93, 94
INDIAN architectural forms, no, 113, 119, 148,
i53, l64, 34i, 366, 3?i
KAABA, The, 2, 5, 6, 7, n
LESENA (pilaster-strip), 163, 292, 296
Lombard builders in Spain, 296
MANUSCRIPTS, Spanish illuminated, 136, 137
Maqsura (enclosed part of mosque), 4, 85, 86
Mihrab (niche pointing to Mecca), 2, 4, 13, 18,
21, 24, 31, 85, 86, 95, no, 143
„ with dome above it, 21, 23
Minbar (pulpit), 3, 365
Minarets and angle towers of mosques, 4, 5, 7,
23, 27, 28, 37, 43, 44, 91-93, 134, 144, 147,
148, 163, 173, 174, 177, 364
Mohammed, 1-3, 17
Mosaics, 47, 55, 93, 94,95, T74, 364, 365
Mosque, i, 2, 8, n, 109, no, 173
„ with arcades or colonnades in tiers,
75, 76, 79' 356» 364, 365
,, with front like a church, indicating the
internal plan, 178
„ of Romano-Byzantine type, 184
Mosque of Tau plan, 21, 23, 31, 38
„ with transept, 75, 76, 82, 85, no
Mozarabic monks of Cordova, 241, 284, 346
NARTHEX, 189, 219
Niches, 49, 50, 174, 216
„ splayed or V-shaped external, 194, 199,
216, 239
ORIENTATION of churches, 104, 107, 203, 267
PAVEMENTS, mosaic or tessellated, 264, 267
Pendentives, hood -shaped ( Romano -Cam-
panian), sometimes in form of
shells and decorated with
colonnettes or arches, 34, 37,
43, 76, 80, 114, 119, 120,
124-126, 131, 158, 209, 210,
234, 235, 239, 278, 285, 295,
298
„ niche-shaped, sometimes decor-
ated with colonnettes or arches,
80, 124-126, 163, 164, 167
„ niche-shaped, projecting from the
face of walls, sometimes decor-
ated with colonnettes or arches,
157, 164, 167, 239, 365
„ spherical, 34, 234, 235
Persian architects and craftsmen, 8, 24, 96
Piers, compound, 137, 143, 158, 164, 222, 225
Plan, baptistery type, 272, 273
„ cruciform, so-called Greek cross, 258-261
,, „ Latin cross, 259-262, 291, 295,
298
,, Romano-Byzantine type with rectangular
outline and central dome, 188, 189, 194,
200, 203
„ three-lobed, 277, 278
Pointed style of architecture, 168, 222, 225
Porch, 72
Pulvin, 48, 91, 108, 109, 274, 277, 341
QIBLA, 2, 17, 18, 31
RACCORD (rudimentary pendentive), 80, 126
„ angle, formed by graduated pro-
jections, 123, 183, 184
„ „ supported by shafts, 35, 36
,, of honeycomb design, 183, 184
,, of stalactite design, 178, 183
Ravenna, architectural influence of, 34, 114, 119,
121, 122, 124, 134, 189, 226, 234, 262
GENERAL INDEX
383
Ribs, visible intersecting, in domes and vaults,
365. 371
Roman architecture, 69, 188, 189
Round vaulted buildings (sometimes annular),
59-70, 226, 233, 274, 287, 323
SCULPTURED figures on slabs and bases, 215,
216, 225, 341, 342, 345, 346
Seljuk period, architecture and art of the, 1 73, 1 83
Sicilian influence and craftsmen, 43, 157, 158,
167, 168
Spirelets of Armenian churches, 205, 206, 235
Squinch, 216; see " Raccord "
Stalactite or stalagmite decoration, 178, 183
TEMPLE with two tiers of columns, 76
Ties, wooden, for arches, 33, 38, 48, 49, 57, 158
Tower, bell, 134, 174
Transennae, 248, 258, 337, 346, 351
Treasury of mosque, 25, 56, 57, 93, 94
VAULTING, 120, 126
„ of ovoidal outline, 120
,, pointed barrel, 335, 336
Vitruvius, 45
WALL-FACING of marble inlay, 95, 173
„ parti-coloured, 168
Western influence on Eastern architecture, 55,
119, 1 68
Wooden abacus or impost, 35, 158
,, columns, 138, 143
ties for arches, 33, 38, 48, 49, 57, 158
The greater part of the photographs used for the illustrations in this volume were taken expressly for
the work. Those relating to Armenia were taken by Padre Gabriele Nahapetian (Mechitarist of Venice),
with a view to the study of Armenian architecture, and he has allowed me to make use of them. These do
not include the few (not previously published) relating to Aghthamar, which are due to the archaeologist,
Ervand Lalaiantz. For a small number of others I am indebted to Prof. R. Altamira y Crevea,
Dr. S. Aurigemma, Comm. G. Boni, Miss Bulwer, Prof. C. Enlart, Prof. M. Gomez- Moreno, Mr. H.Johnson,
Mr. P. Hart, Sig. L. Mauri, Sacerdote G. Mesini, Dr. G. Mugnaini, Dr. L. Muniz-Miranda, Dr. R. Paribeni,
Prof. V. Spinazzola, and the late Mr. F. F. Tuckett. The illustrations relating to India are derived from
photographs belonging to the India Office, by permission of H.M. Secretary of State for India, or from
others lent by Prof. Pulle. Lastly, Senor J. Lacoste of Madrid has allowed me to make use of soms of his
Spanish photographs. To all the above-named I offer my best thanks.
1654
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT
THE DARIEN PRESS, EDINBURGH
0
NA
381
R523
Rlvoira, Giovanni Teresio
Moslem architecture
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11