In this same reign the Ostrogoths were driven out of Italy by Narses, one of Justinian's generals, and the Western empire again brought under the rule of one sovereign, which circumstance led to a further introduction westward of Byzantine architecture. Its progress, however, seems to have been more limited than might have been expected, fi-, with the exception of some of the principal cities where the viceroys held their court, we see but few instances of its adoption. We have already alluded to Ravenna, which was the seat of the principal exarchate, and have now only to refer to the eases of Ancona and Venice, in the former of which is found the church of S. Ciriaco, and in the latter that of S. Mark, though the existence of this style in the latter city is perhaps attributable rather to the mercantile intercourse of the Venetians with the East, than to the authority of the emperor over the western shores of the Adriatic. We have now quoted all the principal examples of this style that have been discovered in the West, at least on the one side the Alps; we make this reservation, for hope, quoting Fleury, says that the style crossed the Alps, and is to be seen in the old city of Atlas, on the Mediterra nean, in the church of S. Cesarius, an erection of the sixth century ; he further states that it eventually reached as far north as Paris. Be this as it may, however, putting all the examples together, it is certain that they number much lower than would naturally be expected ; a fact not easily to be accounted for, were it not for one circumstance, the rivalry that existed between the eastern and western churches. As early as the second century, a serious division arose between them respecting the time of celebrating Easter, which proceeded to such an extent, that Victor, bishop of Rome, separated his opponents from his communion. The Roman church, owing to its connection with the metropolis of the empire, as well as from other causes, had obtained an early distinction, which, in process of time, became invidious from the pertinacity with which it was claimed, and the encroachments which it gave rise to under individual bishops. When, however, Constantine removed his court to Byzantium, the see of Constantinople rose suddenly to dig nity and power, and showed itself a formidable rival to that of Rome, and a serious hindrance to its usurpations ; thus originated a determined jealousy between the two churches, which was manifested by the constant differences which occurred between them, of which there were no less than in little more than a century and a half, one of twenty five years' duration, and which led eventually to the final separation in the eleventh century. It is to this rivalry we attribute the paucity of examples in this style of architecture to be met with in the Western empire; an opinion confirmed by Mr. Gaily Knight, who, alluding to the subject of our article, says, " This plan became a favourite in the East, and was adhered to in those parts with the greater tenacity, in consequence of the schism which subsequently took place between the pope of Rome and the patriarch of Constan tinople. There was to he a diffbrence in every thing. The Greeks insisted upon the square form of their own inven tions ; whilst all the nations which continued to acknowledge the supremacy of the pope, continued to employ the long form, which was persevered in at Rome." A reviewer of the work from which this extract is made, remarks, " Mr. Knight's observations with regard to the antagonism of the eastern and the western churches, are entirely correct. Except when favoured by peculiar political relations, it is remarkable how little influence was exerted in Italy by Byzantine art. Ravenna and Venice are almost the only localities where we may trace any decided imitation of the type of Constantinople." There is one passage in this extract which we would de sire to qualify, for although Byzantine architecture, as a style, does not seem to have been employed to any extent in the West, still it cannot be said that it possessed no influence in that quarter. That many of its features were imitated in succeeding styles cannot be doubted ; its principal charac teristics are evident in most of the Lombardic churches, and in the other styles which prevailed in Western Christendom. The Greek church was seldom copied entire; but its different parts were adopted in buildings otherwise of a different cha racter; for instance, in some cases the Greek dome appears iu conjunction with the Latin cross ; in others, the Greek plan alone is imitated ; in others again, both appear toge ther; so that were it not for some peculiarity of arrange ment or detail, it would be difficult to decide to which style the building might belong. This kind of influence was ex
erted not only in Italy, but throughout the whole of Western Europe.
In A. D. 5S6, the Lombards made their appearance in Italy, and from that time dates the downfall of the previous styles of art, and the introduction of that mode which is entitled, after their designation, Lombardic; not that this may be strictly said to be a new style, but rather a modifi cation of those already existing ; still its characteristics are so marked as readily to distinguish it from its predecessors. After this period we see little more of Byzantine architecture beyond the locality where it first originated ; in the East it seems to have held out until the invasion of the Ottomans.
The distinguishing characteristic of Byzantine architecture is the dome, a feature which distinguishes it at once from all preceding styles, and no less surely, though perhaps less readily, from its successors ; in the one case by its mere presence, in the other by its peculiar form. The adaptation of the sphere throughout the building, may be said to be the mark of the style, for it is used not only in the case of the principal dome, but in a modified form as the covering of the building in every part where it can possibly be applied, as instanced in the conchs over the apsides or extremities of the aisles. We might perhaps speak more generally, and lay down the circle as the standard figure of construction, for it appears every where, in plan, in section, and in eleva tion, or, as Hope says, " Arches rising over arches, and cupolas over cupolas, we may say, that all which in the temples of Athens had been straight, and angular, and square, in the churches of Constantinople became curved and rounded, concave within and convex without." The plan of the build ings was generally that of a cross inscribed in a square, hav ing each of the arins of an equal length, and not greatly prolonged. At the angles of the square formed at the inter section of the cross were situate four piers, supporting as many arches, whose spandrils converged so as to unite in the form of a circle towards their summit, which again sup ported the crowning dome. The four arms of the cross terminated in apsides of semicircular plan, and were likewise covered with semi-cupolas, closing over the arches which supported the central dome. The principal entrance was preceded by a porch, and this again by an atrium or open quadrangle, which is seldom omitted in the Eastern churches. The church of S. Sophia is said to have had four distinct nartheces besides the atrium. The domes in this style are generally flat or depressed, of a vertical section less than a semicircle, that of S. Sophia, is noted as having been remarkably low ; the materials of their construction were always of a light description, frequently hollow jars of a somewhat cylindrical form, fitting one in the other, and made of earthenware or some light substance. The thrust of the dome was most usually- resisted by pendentives or brackets springing from the angles of walls, which were square, and carried up to support the base of the dome ; but this method was not universally adopted, for in the Church of S. Vitale at Ravenna, the dome is supported by a series of small arches ; in this case, however, the plan of the walls is not square, but octagon.
The minor points of distinction are to be found in the details, of which the following are the most remarkable. The heads of apertures are for the most part of a semicircular form, sometimes however of a larger, sometimes of a lesser segment; not nnfrequently at a late period, stilted arches are used, that is, semicircular arches having the lower extremities continued downwards perpendicularly ;—this method seems to have been adopted for the sake of preserving the same level when arches of different spans were employed. Besides these forms, pointed arches are occasionally met with, also apertures having triangular or pedimental heads. Another peculiarity is the frequent employment of a series of successive arches. The only remaining distinction which we shall notice has reference to the capitals of the columns, which are square, tapering blocks of the form of truncated pyramids having the apex downwards ; they are little better than plain blocks, their only ornamentation consisting of foliation in low relief, or a sort of basket-work which is peculiar to this style of architecture. Nothing further need be said respecting its characteristics, the dome of itself is almost a sufficient feature to stamp the character of the type.