February, 1903.] 



KNOWLEDGE, 



29 



this to be a very superficial view of the question, as it is 

 hardly likely that the orientation of such a shrine could 

 have ever been subordinated to that of some disjointed 

 pavilions. In their excellent work, published in 1894, 

 Messrs. Letbaby and Swainson show a much clearer grasp 

 of the problem. " The axis of the church," they say, 

 " seems to point somewhere between 30° and 35° south of 

 east, where there is a considerable sea prospect and a low 

 horizon. This direction, either by accident or intention, 

 must agree very closely with sunrise at the winter solstice." 

 They further call attention to the fact that " Justinian's 

 church was opened at Christmas."* These pregnant 

 remarks lead to a solution of the difficulty. But for this 

 it is necessary to bear in mind : — 



(a) That IProcopius lays stress on the fact that " the 



original form of the church was more disappointing than 

 the present one. Evidently, the early Byzantines attached 

 no great importance to the exterior view of their churches. 

 Outer pomp had to be entirely subordinated to the 

 requirements of inner harmony. All they seemed to have 

 cared for was to have roofs of easy access ; and it was 

 doubtless to this end that steep outside curves were 

 assiduously discarded. At the same time, the combination 

 of both outer and inner splendour in the self-same building 

 IS a question which tbe mediseval Greek architects did not 

 attempt to decide. Nor has the problem received a satis- 

 factory solution since their time. 



The mortar which covers the brick walls of St. Sophia 

 is doubtless less attractive than the fine naked stone walls 

 of other churches. But while rain and the molecular 



Fig. 3. — The South Elevation of the Great Church. Epoch : 1300 A.n. 



face of the church was directed towards the rising sun, in 

 order to have the sacred mysteries performed in honour 

 of God " ; 



(6) That 33|° south of east is the azimuth of the sun 

 having entirely risen above the Bithynian Mountains at 

 Christmas ; and 



((■) That the church was dedicated to the Second Person 

 of the Trinity, the anniversary of whose birthday occurred 

 very near the winter solstice. 



The idea of the 33 1° is thus rendei'ed unmistakably 

 clear : The sanctuary was to face the sun just ri.-<vii on the 

 birthday of Christ, to ichom it was dedicated. 



Outer Appearance. — Owing to the unrivalled audacity of 

 its construction, as well as to the formidable thrust of its 

 dome, St. Sophia could never have been a really graceful 

 building ou the outside. It is even to be feared that, 

 through the still greater flatness of the first cupola, the 



S. Sophia, Constantinople, p. Vi 



work of heat and frost tend, in the long run, to decay any 

 stone exj>osed to their action, the mortar, if only carefully 

 repaired, plays the part of a barb against the disintegration 

 of the active structure beyond. That is whv the walls 

 of St. Sophia are still young, though nearly fourteen 

 centuries old ; and if they failed on some points, it is to 

 other causes, not to exposure, that the failure ought to be 

 attributed. 



A large cross stood at the top of the dome. Indeed, 

 this axiomatic truth would not have been mentioned here 

 were it not to have been questioned by Messrs. Lethaby 

 and Swainson. " Salzenberg," they say, "assumes from 

 Paulus, that ' the dome was surmounted by a cross ' ; the 

 cross was of mosaic inside."* The authors have been led 

 into error by a misinterpretation of the following verse 

 from the Sileutiary's poem : — 



75. . . . Axporarijs tt 



7tl. Sraupov vvip KHpo^rj^ kpuo-ivTOKLV i'ypa^i ''■*X'"!> 



* S. Sophia, footnote to p. 160. 



