Byzantine architecture; illustrated by examples of edifices erected in the East during the earliest ages of Christianity, with historical & archaeological descriptions

Front matter

mm

3ai4r

Ids 2 -

Preface

have been preserved by their care, and most of those which adorn modern towns owe their state of preservation either to Christian love of art, or to their adaptation to Christian purposes.

We leave our readers to determine how far the study of the churches of Thessalonica, Trebizond, and of the towns in the South of Asia Minor, throws light upon the progress of early Christian Art; we believe, however, that it will enable them to understand the various phases — not to call them styles — through which Ecclesiastical Architecture passed between the time of Constantine and the end of the Byzantine empire. This work contains specimens of several buildings erected during this long interval; but we have other documents in reserve which would enable us to complete the series. This we hope to do in case our present work should meet with general approbation.

London, August, 1804.

R.

P. P.

ERRATA.

9, srmentra "

35,

„ 17,

sementron "

“to reconcile''

GO,

„ lOetseq. „

f “ semenlra "

137,

„ 18,

t, sementron

“ cupolas "

161,

„ 35,

“ mearet "

„ 15,

“ diagram ”

„ 42,

“Plate LVTII.

„ 48,

„ 8,

163,

“Plate LVIII.

“Plate LVIII.

Ezekiel

semnnlrn

semantron

tended to reconcile

semantra

semantron

cupola

imarel

diagrams

Plato LVTJ.

BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

COS T E N I S.

Page

Introduction to the Study of Byzantine Architecture . 1

Origin of Byzantine Architecture . 7

Works at Jerusalem. jj

Reign of Julian (A.D. 35G—362) ... 15

Reign of Theodosius (A D. 379—395) . 18

Reign of Justinian (A.D. 527 — 565) . 20

Military and Domestic Architecture . 23

Christian Edifices before the Reign of Constantine . 29

St. Paul in Asia Minor. 31

The Dwellings of the Anchorites . 34

Churches cut in the Rock .;. 38

The Christian Monuments of Urgub. 40

The Iconography of the Virgin . 42

Christian Burials . 43

Funeral Ceremonies . 44

Modes of Burial. 44

The Erection of the First Christian Churches . 49

Nisibis. 52

The Fortifications of Dara . 53

The Byzantine Church and its Ceremonies under Justinian and his Successors. 59

The Form and Construction of Byzantine Churches . 64

The Ceremonies of the Primitive Christian Church. 69

The Sanctuary of Cavesus at Deir el Kala’ah, Syria.;. 81

The Temple of Bacchus at Laodicea (Lattakia) . 87

Temples in Asia converted into Churches. 88

The Temple of Venus at Aphrodisias. 88

The Temple of Rome and Augustus at Ancyra . 90

The Temples of Greece converted into Churches. 92

Temples in Italy and Gaul . 93

The Temple of Portumnus at Ostia . 94

Temples in Gaul Narbonnaise converted into Churches. 97

The Corinthian Temple at Riez . 98

The Pantheon at Riez . 98

Contents

Page

The Church of St. Peter at Auriol. 102

The Temple of Augustus at Vienne, converted into a Church under the title of Notre-Dame-de-Vie 103

Introduction

N attentive study of the architecture of the various nations of antiquity leads us to the inevitable conclusion that what we term architectural style was not solely the result of popular taste, but that it was produced in a great measure by the nature of the country in which the architects practised their art. For instance, in Egypt the rectilinear character of the architecture, and the practice of employing innumerable columns to sustain the temples, were well suited to a country which furnished materials of unlimited size, as did the quarries of porphyry and grey granite. Here the builders had only to cut blocks from the mountain-side of the dimensions required for the erection and covering of their temples. These imposing masses, relieved by delicate and ingenious ornament, have ever remained characteristic features of the edifices of the valley of the Nile. But beyond the Euphrates the character of the country is entirely different; and we find that the inhabitants of Assyria and Babylonia, destitute of wood or building-stone, adopted a system of construction quite unlike that of their Egyptian contemporaries. Bricks, dried in the sun, were the only materials employed in their edifices, and on account of the frail nature of the bricks, the walls had to be constructed of great thickness. Arcades were substituted for the horizontal architraves that surmounted the Egyptian temples. The vault made its appearance in Assyria in times of the most remote antiquity. There is therefore no doubt of its Oriental origin; the fiat terrace, upheld by the trunks of palm-trees, was not then employed, and is now only used in private dwellings. In Nineveh, which was built upon a stratum of alabaster, that material was employed for the decoration of public buildings. There the column — the most elegant and varied feature of architecture — is entirely wanting; it is to be found only in Persepolis, a town situated at the foot of a high limestone mountain, which furnished blocks of every dimension.

Although the symbolism and some of the arts practised by the Assyrians and Persians were somewhat similar, we find the greatest difference between the styles of architecture of these two nations. The Babylonians, although not so well furnished with constructive materials as the Assyrians, found in their territory an element which contributed greatly to the solidity of their buildings. The inexhaustible springs of bitumen which existed on the banks of the Euphrates, and in the north of the country, furnished an imperishable cement; and we may still see the bricks of Birs Nemroud lying upon bituminous beds between layers of matting made of reeds from the river-side. With such materials the construction of the vault was an extremely simple process. The most ancient domes of which we find examples in Babylonia are in reality only systems of corbels, like that of the edifice commonly called Treasury of Atreus, at Mycenae; — witness, for instance, the cupola, in the form of a beehive, over the tomb

B

Introduction To The Study Of Byzantine Architecture

of Ezechiel, at Kefeli, to the south of Babylon, 1 which is only an imitation of a more ancient structure. We may mention also the monument known by the name of the Tomb of Zobeide, at Bagdad. Both these edifices partake rather of the style of the monuments of India than of those of Persia.

The founders of the town of Ctesiphon found the art of constructing vaults already spread throughout the country. The vast palace of Chosrocs, the ruins of which stand upon the borders of the Tigris, contains the most ancient known example of a vault with a pointed arch ; this form of arch was, however, used in times of the most remote antiquity in Egypt, 2 at Tiryns, and at Assos, but in every case under different conditions. The Sassanides, during their long dominion over the countries to the east of the Euphrates, erected numerous domed buildings; the Arabs and Berbers imitated them, and the koubba , or chapels covered by domes, were multiplied in Arabia and in Africa to such an extent that they have become to the moderns the types of Oriental architecture.

The Greeks, not being of Semitic origin, and having had for many centuries no other inter¬ course with Asia than that arising from sanguinary wars with its inhabitants, preferred to seek the elements of their art in Egypt. The countries occupied by the Greek race — the Peloponnesus and Ionia — afforded all the elements for the continuation of the traditions derived from Egypt: the rocky mountains of Greece and Asia supplied the early Pclasgi with materials for the erection of their imperishable fortresses. The mode of constructing temples surrounded by columns was introduced into Greece from Egypt, and the Greeks, satisfied with a principle which was as well adapted to their climate, as to their state of civilization, strove to carry to perfection an art which they looked upon as indigenous. The quarries of Mount Pentelicus, the marbles and calcareous rocks of Thessaly and Thrace, furnished all the materials required for the erection of their edifices. When the Greek colonies were established on the coast of Asia, they found there also all the materials necessary for their temples. If in later times, after the conquests of Alexander, the Greeks became acquainted with the style and mode of building of the Persians, they disdained them as too barbarous. Rectilinear architecture was to them the type of perfection, and they only departed from it under unusual circumstances.

It was the task of the Roman Empire, which embraced within its vast limits all the nations, whether barbarous or civilized, of the known world, to modify in an important manner the uniform architecture of the Greeks. It may be affirmed, nevertheless, that Roman architecture did not depart from the rules which we have regarded as fundamental; that is to say, that the stylo of architecture and mode of construction were modified according to the nature of the country. Thus, although we find Roman edifices from the North of Europe to the confines of the Sahara, and from Gibraltar to the mouths of the Euphrates, the character of Italian architecture is confined to its native country. In Italy alone we find that species of masonry which appears to have been an object of predilection to the Roman architects, — the opus reticula linn, —-representing the meshes of a net. It is rarely met with in Gaul, never in the East; we cannot mention a single example of it existing there, although Roman buildings abound. It was employed very generally in Italy, and that because the sort of volcanic tufa furnished by the Campagna of Rome was very suitable for this kind of masonry, when employed in conjunction with pumice-stone and cemented with pozzuolana, which was to the Romans what bitumen was to the Babylonians ; it also formed vaults of great lightness and strength. Thus the materials to be found on Roman soil only awaited an application.

The Etruscans — those Asiatics transported to the shores of Italy — understood the use of the round arch: from them the Romans of the early time of the Republic learnt its con¬ struction. The semicircular vault of the Cloaca Maxima affords us the most ancient example of the application of the arch by the Romans. This method of construction became developed under the Republic, and reached perfection in the time of Augustus; the relieving-arch was then invented, and the first spherical vault, built upon a circular plan, was employed in the erection of the Pantheon of Agrippa.

For a considerable time the Romans followed this first example, and confined their genius to the construction of circular temples covered by domes, imitations of the Tholus , a pyramidal covering of which we find an unique example in the monument of Lysicrates.

1 See Plate II. and, what is more singular, showing both circular and pointed

2 In Ethiopia, Mr. Hoskins found stone arches vaulting the arches.—Fergusson's Handbook of Architecture, 1855, 8vo, roofs of the porches of the pyramids, perfect in construction, part I. p. 252.

TOMB OF EZEKIEL KEFELI NEAR BAGDAD.

INTRODUCTION To THE STUDY OF BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

The science of masonry made a fresh start, when, under the first Caesars, the theatres, originally of wood, were reconstructed in stone. In the more ancient theatres of Greece and Asia Minor, we find no example of the vaulted passage; the doorway of the theatre of Iassus is covered by stones placed so as to form an angular head; the gateways of Assos have arches built of corbels on the horizontal principle, after the most ancient fashion of the Greeks.

The necessity for having large covered halls for public assemblies stimulated the genius of the architects; but they were contented to use wooden roofs for their basilicas as well as for their temples.

Although the use of baths was general in times of antiquity, as the paintings on vases clearly show, we are not acquainted with the arrangement or structure of the Greek or Asiatic bath. The construction of the Baths of Titus shows a great advance made by Roman architecture. The invention of the dome springing from pendentives, which may be regarded as the greatest improvement in the art of construction in brick and stone, appeared in all its perfection in. the Baths of Caracalla. The dome was employed in all the principal edifices of the ancient world. After it had been applied solely to civil structures, the Byzantines

adopted it for their ecclesiastical edifices, and it ended by becoming typical of a Christian

church in all the countries of the East. The idea of tracing the employment of the dome to the Sassanides (from the 2nd to the 4th centuries of the Christian era) is not new.

Mr. Eergusson, a writer who has studied this subject, speaking of the Tact Kesrah, says:

“ Taking it altogether, the building is interesting as containing the germs of much that followed, rather than for any intrinsic merit of its own;” . . . and further on: “If properly worked out and illustrated, it would probably explain nearly all the Eastern forms of the Byzantine style.” 1

The Romans, while adopting the principles of Greek art, did not copy the details in a servile manner. The Greek orders obtained a now character in passing under the Roman chisel. The severity of the Boric order did not suit the splendour and elegance of Rome. Its narrow intercolumniations, its short and massive columns, did not allow sufficient breadth to be given to the porticos, nor sufficient height to the architraves; therefore this order was almost entirely abandoned by the Romans, and seldom made its appearance in succeeding ages.

The Ionic order, which the Greeks had carried to perfection, was adopted by the Romans; but it was the Corinthian that became the Roman order par excellence. The finest specimens of this order may be met with as frequently in the provinces, as in Rome itself. Architects were so familiar with its proportions, that in the most remote provinces it always rose above mediocrity. The temples and other edifices of the Corinthian order were erected on certain fundamental principles; they only differed from one another in some slight details. In Eastern territories the foliage of the capital Avas generally copied from the acanthus-leaf; but at Rome and in the rest of Italy the olive-leaf had the preference. The Attic base was everywhere employed; and at the present time only two or three examples of bases of a different character are to be found.

The mode of fluting indicates also Roman workmanship. Amongst the Greeks the flute Avas but slightly hollowed out; it included only a third of the circumference of a circle. The flutes were seldom more or less than twenty in number. Amongst the Romans the fluting deepened to a half-circle; and this gave a greater play of light and shade, and increased the apparent lightness of the columns. In the latter days of the Empire, the architects, giving freer rein to their imagination, gave themselves up to neAV ideas, not quite so pure in taste, but which required greater skill to execute. In many theatres, and in some of the porticos of the Asiatic towns, we find columns fluted spirally. During the period of the Renaissance this peculiarity found great favour: Raphael introduced it in his pictures, and the columns of the baldaquin of St. Peter’s have spiral flutes.

In their sacred edifices the Romans always placed architraves upon the columns; but in their public buildings, from the earliest times of the Empire, they began to surmount their columns with semicircular arches. The first instances of this mode of building exist in the Theatre of Marcellus, and in the amphitheatres erected in large towns. In later times porticos Avere erected with arcades supported by columns. . It is this kind of architecture

Handbook of Archileclwre, 1855, part II. p. 379.

Introduction To Thk Study Of Byzantink Akc'hitkctube

that the Byzantines adopted and applied, with some slight modification, to edifices of every description. The column surmounted by a round arch did not always give sufficient height to the doorways; so the ltomans of the time of Trajan have left us some examples of the architrave profiled upon the impost. The height of the column was also occasionally increased by the addition of a pedestal. This latter feature was purely a Homan invention; it is not to he found in any edifices of the best period of Greek art, still less amongst the buildings of Egypt. The Byzantines frequently made use of the pedestal; but finding that it did not give their arcades the elevated effect which they wished to produce, they surmounted the capital of their column with a cubical block of stone, a supplementary abacus, or dosseret , the height of which is often greater than that of the capital itself. This abacus was decorated with monograms and leaves of acanthus and honeysuckle.

The dosseret is the distinguishing mark of Byzantine times, and was never employed by Pagan Home.

The successors of Constantine having completely abandoned horizontal architecture, in order to adopt a style more in accordance with the taste of the East, sought many means of giving greater elevation to the round arch. They invented the horse-shoe arch, which consists of a little more than a half-circle. The Sassanides, and other nations of the East, had already used in their buildings this kind of arch, which was derived probably from further Asia, perhaps from India. But the Byzantines employed it as early as the 4th century, as may be seen in the magnificent tomb of TJrgub, 1 which is cut in the rock, and decorated with two orders of pilasters surmounted by liorse-shoe arches. It is to be seen in the Church of Dana, in the region near the Euphrates, built by Justinian, the apse of which is formed by a horse-shoe vault; 2 also in the Church of Digoor, in Armenia, built in the 9tli century. 3

It is not, then, correct to say that the Mussulmans were the inventors of this sort ot arch ; they derived it from the Byzantines, whose buildings they imitated as they advanced by degrees towards the West.

Under the Antonines, Homan architecture lost its severe simplicity, admitting much superfluous ornament. This taste for excessive decoration lasted till the fall ol the Empire. The relation which existed in Greek and Roman architecture between plain and enriched mouldings was changed. The noble projecting corona, which was formerly such a striking feature, disappeared, and the profile of the upper part of the entablature became simply a sloping line, cut up into numerous mouldings. The modillons of the Corinthian order were almost entirely banished. The frieze, which, in the best period, presented always a vertical face, took sometimes the form of a half-cylinder, and at other times was curved in the form of a console. This form of frieze is found in Roman buildings in the East of an early date, as, for instance, in the monument at Dana, the ancient Thanna. 4 As this bears a date, we give it as the type of the form of this sort of frieze. We ascertain from the date of this monument the fact that in the time of Titus the curved frieze was employed in certain buildings.

The doorways of public buildings were but slightly altered: although the proportions were varied, the usual form was retained. In temples and other sacred edifices, the doorway had an architrave, which was profiled above the jambs: two consoles, placed to the right and left of the jambs, sustained the cornice. The Byzantines retained the same sort of doorways for their churches, but altered the mouldings and abolished the consoles. The architrave was generally of one stone, and, to lighten the pressure, a relieving arch was frequently turned over it.

Byzantine windows were of two descriptions : they were either round-arched, like the windows of theatres and amphitheatres, or square-headed. Windows divided into two parts by a column or pilaster appeared only in the reign of Constantine. The mode of filling in the openings was imperfect in ancient times. In domestic buildings the windows were always open: this is the case now generally throughout the East; . in churches many methods of filling in were in use. The larger openings were divided by marble pilasters, between which were placed thin slabs of alabaster, or of a translucent stone which is still used in Persia for the windows of baths. In some churches less important, the opening was filled with slabs of marble pierced with circular apertures, which, without interfering with the ventilation, allowed the admission of sufficient light, and prevented the rain from penetrating into the interior of the church. When glass was fin^t introduced, the windows were filled with small pieces of it

See Plate IV.

8 Description i/e VAmienie, vol. L

* See Plate III.

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

embedded in stucco. Examples of all these various methods are to he seen at Athens, and in the churches of Asia. The first churches in Gaul were also lighted in this manner.

The science of construction acquired by the Romans descended to the Byzantines. Although the constant progress of political and religious ideas led the people to destroy those ancient pagan edifices that were not turned into churches; and although the rich materials employed in them especially the columns, which were often of the richest marble — were used in the erection and decoration of the new places of worship, the importation and sale of decorative materials, such as rare marbles, did not in the least decline. The laws contained in the Theodosian Code go to show that the imperial government encouraged this branch of trade and industry. The mode of ornamentation by means of coloured marbles was carried to a greater extent than ever before. The quarries opened by the Romans were carefully preserved, and the workmen employed in them, governed by imperial decrees issued especially for their guidance.

But all these precious materials were generally reserved for decorative purposes. Brick was preferred in the construction of churches; it lent itself best to all the caprices of the architect; and as the interiors were always lined with marbles and mosaics, or decorated with paintings, brick walls were the most suitable for the reception of these kinds of ornamentation.

The forms of the bricks varied infinitely in Byzantine times; but the form that was the most frequently used was that of the Roman brick, termed plinthos. These bricks were made of tempered clay pressed into moulds by the feet of the workmen: we frequently see upon their surface the prints of the feet of men and children. Moulds were used for the pieces forming cornices and mouldings. The shafts of columns were built of circular bricks, which, if the column was not above a foot in diameter, were divided into two semicircular parts; if, however, the column was of considerable size, the bricks took the form of segments. The Byzantine brick, like the Roman, was about an inch and a half in thickness, and was always laid upon a bed of mortar half an inch thick.

Bricks were generally marked with a stamp which indicated their destination. Those for churches had a cross and monograms; in the church of St. Sojdiia they have entire inscriptions. This custom of stamping, which dates from the time of the Assyrians and Babylonians, was common in all succeeding ages. The bricks of a portico at Ostia have the legend: Be Olearia ; showing that the oil-market was situated there. Ciampini 1 gives representations of many sigus copied from those of the ancient churches of Rome. The churches of Thessalonica have similar symbols, all of a religious character. We do not so often find the name of the maker upon Byzantine as we do on Roman bricks. It is not surprising that the Byzantines took great pains with the fabrication of their brick, when we consider that it was employed in their military as Avell as in their ecclesiastical and domestic architecture. The walls of Constantinople and of Nicma are built of it. It was thought that brick walls were best able to withstand the effect of the battering-ram in attacks. Generally the core of the wall was of concrete.

The manner in which the hricks were arranged contributed greatly to the decoration of buildings. They were laid not always horizontally, but sometimes obliquely, sometimes arranged in the form of the meander fret, sometimes in the chevron, or herring-bone pattern, and manv other forms of similar design, giving great richness and variety to the fagades. Interesting examples of this are to be seen in the absides of the church of Eski Djouma, at Thessalonica, and in the walls of Nicma, which present an infinite number of combinations.

The manufacture of roof-tiles remained much the same as in the earliest times. The Byzantines generally made use of tiles two Greek feet in length hy one foot in breadth; they were placed alongside one another, and the joints covered with a hollowed tile; the ridges were decorated with ornamental ridge-tiles, and the eaves enriched by ornaments which modern architects improperly term antefixee. These ornaments were invented by a sculptor, Dibutades, who was the first to enrich the ends of the tiles with masks. This mode of decoration he called prolyper

The universal use of brickwork made the Byzantines pay great attention to the composition of their mortar. It was so well made that it remains at the present day as hard as that in

De jEdjiciis a Constantino Magno constructis.

« Pliny, book xxxv. ch. 12. Dibutadis inventum est .

h

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

the best buildings of ancient Rome. The lime was always well chosen, and the sand free from foreign particles. Like the Roman mortar, it was composed of one-third rich chalk, one-third sand, and one-third brick-dust. These proportions varied little in different countries; but where pozzuolana was abundant, it was used in preference. Where large masses of concrete were employed to form the foundations and cores of the walls, the courses of concrete were laid by means of larger wooden boxes, open at top and bottom, in which, in the case of walls, the bricks of the facing were first adjusted, and then the cement thrown in a body, and pressed down by means of a rammer; afterwards, when the cement was properly set, the plank sides and transverse supports were removed. The holes left upon the removal of the cross-pieces are frequently to be observed in the walls of ancient buildings.

When concrete was used, the facing only was of brick. The walls were of great thickness, generally more than three feet; otherwise they would have been wanting in solidity.

The mode of constructing in concrete inherited from the Romans was not applied solely for cores of walls, but was employed in vaults, bridges, and aqueducts. In the latter the surface of the concrete was covered with a bed of powdered charcoal mixed witli lime, and with a coating of very fine cement polished by means of an application of oil. The whole together constituted a mass impenetrable to water, which has resisted the attacks of time.

Cisterns, in the construction of which the Byzantines surpassed the Romans, were all formed in this manner. The vaults of these cisterns were either simply arched, or had domes with pendentives almost always made of masses of concrete, which had the advantage of being lighter than stone for the purpose. From cisterns, the mode of vaulting in concrete alone, was applied to houses. Porous stone, but especially pumice-stone, was occasionally used; sometimes the domes were constructed of pottery; for instance, in St. Vitale, at Ravenna, where the dome is formed with urns and amphorae placed side by side, and grouted with mortar. An example of this was found at Rome: the Circus of Caracalla was vaulted with earthen vessels similarly arranged, forming a light yet solid system of vaulting.

The Byzantines attached so much importance to the manufacture of their mortar, that they invented many stories relating to its use in celebrated buildings.

Codinus mentions that the mortar for the church of St. Sophia, at Constantinople, was mixed with barley-water. The history of the bricks of the cupola, which were brought from Rhodes, and which were so light that they floated on the surface of water, seems to be equally apocrvplial: observations made in the present day have not confirmed this tradition.

The formula for tho composition of mortar was the same amongst the Byzantines as amongst the Romans. The sand was always taken from the banks ot rivers, and not from the sea-sliore. In hydraulic works the sand was omitted. The bricks were laid on the bed of mortar after being damped. This is proved by the fact that the rough surface of the brick is always visible on the bed of cement. The joints were always carefully pointed, so as to leave a projecting fillet. The imposts upon which the arching was carried were generally of stone. The Byzantines also borrowed from the Arabs a kind ot mortar which is still used at Constantinople, and is known under the name of kliorasan. It is of a brown colour, and is composed of hydraulic lime and of fine sand, and is very similar in its qualities to Portland cement. It was by employing this mortar that the Byzantines were enabled to form so many domes at such a slight cost.

THE ORIGIN OF BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

THE ORIGIN OF BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

HE terra Byzantine cannot properly be applied to any style that preceded the foundation of Constantinople; yet, after the reign of Diocletian, Roman art underwent great changes. The principles upon which the temples were constructed had fallen into disuse. The dome began to be introduced into sacred architecture; and if we may form a conjecture from the temples still existing in Syria, and in the Hauran, at Djerash and Bozrah, we may conclude that this feature was derived from the East. The temple of Jupiter, built by Diocletian, at Salona, has nothing in common with the temples of more ancient times. In it the ancient principles are modified, more perhaps in the arrangement of the plan than in the architectural details. Diocletian, who had erected at Nicomedia many frail edifices which were overturned by earthquakes, caused a palace to be built at Salona rather on the plan of the residences of the princes of the East than of those of the Caesars. Its vast inclosurc embraced temples, baths, and halls of reception, as did the palace of Persepolis. This palace became the model for those which the Byzantine emperors erected on the borders of the Bosphorus, which consisted of an assemblage of various edifices, instead of being a single royal residence. The oriental princes — the Seljouks, and also the Turks their successors'—preserved in their mansions the same arrangement, which was produced as much by the exigencies of the climate as by the security afforded by it to the inhabitants. In addition to the palaces of Byzantium, of which historians have left us so many descriptions, w r e may mention the palace of Sultan Mourad at Broussa, that at Adrianople built by Selim, and also that of Tchahar-Bagh at Ispahan. In all these we recognize the same type, which was adopted by the potentates of the East rather than by those of the West.