182 



KNOWLEDGE 



[August, 1903. 



cross was artfully carved out of metal and set up ou the 

 outside." Paulus evidently did not like to think of 

 the Cross as plastered up against (Iffi) the crown of 

 the vault, though of course this was physically the case. 

 His j)lirase seems to imply that he thought of it " as 

 thougli it were suspended from heaven," to use the words 

 of Procopius. Hence the employment of vTre'p— the Cross 

 seemed not to be fastened upon the ceiling of the dome, 

 but to be hanging over it. 



In conclusion, I disclaim altogether any " desire to 

 deprive mediaeval G-reek Churches of their outer cross," 

 but I denied, and still deny, that the Silentiary mentions 

 such a cross. And I am surprised that a writer who 

 understands cypa<^€ to mean " artfully carved out of 

 metal " should accuse my interpretation of artificiality. 



F. C. BURKITT. 



Elterholm, Cambridge. 



P.S. — Since writing the above I Lave read Mr. Anto- 

 niadi's remarks on p. 102. The line from the Silentiary 

 to which he refers (ii., 294) is aWoOi it y^pic-roit KOTiypa^e 

 furjTepa Tiyvi^. This refers not to a statue but to a picture 

 of some kind, whether in incised metal or enamel or 

 mosaic, or it may have been a wooden panel covered with 

 metal plates. What I have denied, and still deny, is that 

 ypdi^SLV (or Karaypa^uv) can be used for a detached 

 object such as a standing cross or a statue. Or to put it 

 into English, I deny that " to engrave " can ever mean 

 " to set up." 



The whole later scheme of decoration is fully treated by 

 Lethaby and Swainson, as the extracts I have quoted 

 sufliciently show, and I would refer readers of Knowledge 

 once more to their book. — F. C. Buekitt. 



[The reply to the various points raised by Mr. Burkitt 

 is easy and obvious. In the first place he says that my 

 quotation from the Silentiary (p. 91) does "not state that 

 the crown of the dome was adorned with a picture of 

 Christ." But in this he is mistaken, as the poet speaks, 

 in his description of the dome, of " a circle," of " mosaic," 

 and of " the Saviour of the World " ; and as the cupola of 

 St. Sophia has only one circle, the one formed by the ribs 

 at the crown, any allusion to " a circle" and "mosaic" in 

 the dome must necessarily refer to the crown. Then Mr. 

 Burkitt asks us to lielieve that these words " in a circle," 

 "mosaic," and "Saviour of the World," may have applied to 

 a cross. This is a gratuitous supposition, and, considering 

 that there is no mention whatever of a cross here, its 

 conception has no counterpart in the world of fact, and 

 cannot deserve serious attention. 



Again, the quotation that " there was originally no 

 storied scheme of imagery " in St. Sophia is opposed to 

 evidence, as in the church of San Vitale. in Raveuua, built 

 by Justinian, we find mosaic images of Christ, the Lamb, 

 of angels, of Justinian and Theodora, and of a crowd of 

 saints and apostles in great profusion. And if a provincial 

 church was so richly endowed with eikons, is it not illogical 

 to assume that the synchronous great central cathedral 

 had no mosaic images whatsoever? 



The evidence of the mausoleum of Galla Placidia has no 

 bearing on the discussion, as there cannot be any com- 

 parison between the arrangements of a mere tomb and 

 those of a great cathedral. Also, the attempt to preclude 

 the Silentiary from describing any outer object of the 

 church is contradicted by facts, since the poet describes 

 in detail the open atrium, which, at variance with Mr. 

 Burkitt's belief, formed an integral part of St. Sophia on 

 the outside. 



Mr. Burkitt says further that I have " failed to bring 

 forward any passage in which the verb ypd^eiv is used of 

 sculpture," when ou p. 102 of the May numter of 



Knowledge I have shown the poet to connect the form 

 i'ypa'^s with its subject Xnoro'pos, stone-borer, or sculptor! 



On p. 30 I remarked that the expression " above the 

 highest summit " could evidently never apply to an inner 

 cross — a difiiculty which Mr. Burkitt never overcame. 

 The late Mr. Swainson got rid of the obnoxious adverb, or 

 preposition, by altering its meaning into at, but Mr. Burkitt 

 has tried to reconcile it with an inner eross, the result 

 being that he located his cross in the very thickness ot 

 the bricks (p. 84). This check did not discourage him, 

 however, since he now ventures to conceive the accurate 

 Silentiary to have meant that the cross floated above the 

 position where it was depicted, although it is fair to add 

 that Mr. Burkitt at once acknowledges the physical 

 impossibility of his own assumption. 



I am glad to see Mr. Burkitt admitting at last that 

 ypd^av originally meant " to scratch, to incise " ; and yet 

 it is noteworthy that he triumphantly makes me mean 

 that " a cross was scratched a,t the top," prudently avoiding 

 to say that it was "incised," as the latter verb settles 

 immediately this baseless discussion. 



With regard to the last sentence of his letter, I support 

 my interpretation of the words Te^vrj iypa^s ^ravpov \nesp 

 ax^oruTijs K0pu4>^?, 'art incised or carved a cross above the 

 most culminating summit," since the English verb to carve 

 is etymologically akin to the Greek ypa<^ei.v, and because 

 ypa^eiv was, according to the Silentiary, a function of the 

 sculptor (p. 102). 



On p. 84, Mr. Burkitt said that I brought " no evidence 

 in support " of my " contention " that St. Sophia had a 

 cross on the dome, like St. Paul's, asking me to convince 

 him that there was such a cross. Now, considering that 

 the need of conviction implies disbelief, Mr. Bvu-kitt 

 evidently deprived St. Sophia, and all Greek churches, of 

 their outer cross. This was straining facts too much. 

 Realising the gravity of such a situation, he now boldly 

 refutes his primaeval argument by disclaiming " altogether 

 any ' desire to deprive mediaeval Greek churches of their 

 outer cross.' " 



In short, my claim that the inner crown of the dome 

 had a Justinian image of Christ becomes a fact, since it is 

 confirmed by ocular witnesses at the time (p. 102), and 

 this carries, of course, the cross outside ; whereas Mr. 

 Burkitt's mosaic cross, unseen by anybody, and resting on 

 no facts, could naturally never step outside the bounds of 

 sulijectivity, throughout the present discussion. — E. M. 

 Antoniadi.] 



[In reply to his P.S., I thank Mr. Burkitt for having 

 granted that ypd^siv meant to incise ; and as that verb, in 

 English, means not only to cut superficiaJhj, but also to cut 

 rigid off, we reach a demonstration of the fact that lypx^i 

 was perfectly applicable to the solid cross of the dome. 



The kindred verb ycLpdmruv, to incise, is also used 

 (p. 102) by the poet to say that a wall was cut off at a 

 definite height. — E. M. Antoniadi.] 



"COMETS AND THEIR TAILS AND THE 

 GEGENSCHEIN." 



TO THE EDITORS OF KNOWLEDGE. 



SiKs^ — I must protest against the assumption made in a 

 review of the above work, in your issue for June, that my 

 work constitutes a revival of Tycho Brahc's theory. 



The refractive and consequent concentrative influences 

 of the atmosphere of comets has not (previously to my 

 work) been recorded. Even if any thinker had advanced 

 similar views to mine, does this render the arguments I 

 use any the less weighty or deserving of attention ? 



The writer of this review mentions a comet of 1823 and 

 1851. I can recall no comet of the former year, and 



