Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

‘the age of justinian’ 903
imperial rather than aristocratic statement. 40 A feature of the architectural
ornament of these churches was its distinctly non-classical appearance
both in style and in the choice of motives; some of the inspiration for palmettes
and other such ornaments has been traced to eastern, particularly
Persian, models.
The widespread popularity of the centrally-planned church was a feature
of the Byzantine world rather than the west, and, by the later periods, it had
become the standard plan for the majority of buildings. The solution followed
for the decoration of this type of architecture has in the case of St
Sophia generally mystified modern commentators. While Justinian and his
planners might have been expected in this commissioned masterpiece to
have set out to match the luxuriance of the architecture and its sculptural
ornamentation with spectacular figurative mosaics, the actual mosaic programme
has been in these terms a surprise. The circumstantial evidence of
archaeology (and probably the texts) is that the Justinianic phase was
entirely devoid of monumental figurative mosaics. 41 The surprise is that the
emperor who was connected with complex iconography on the façade of
the Bronze Gate of the Great Palace or in Ravenna or Sinai was satisfied
in St Sophia with a mosaic vault decoration which was limited to the sign
of the cross, endlessly repeated, or to more neutral patterns and designs.
The church which from the moment of its construction symbolized
Byzantium was originally devoid of figurative mosaics – all the present
panels represent piecemeal additions from the periods after iconoclasm.
Whether apse, dome, vaults or narthex, it is safe to conclude that the main
decoration was the cross. While this scheme is strangely evocative of the
Islamic mosque’s equal rejection in later centuries of portraits and narrative,
yet the decision is a powerful one visually. Just as the building is permeated
with light – and this is the point that Procopius was the first to
emphasize – so the decoration of crosses fills the building with the aura of
Christianity, the endlessly repeated sign of the life-giving cross. In this
respect, the vast spaces and architectural complexities of the church are
unified by the one repeated motive. Although conceptual and other explanations
are offered in the literature for the lack of figures on the walls – it
has been described as ‘an architect’s church’ or it is suggested that time was
too short too allow for a full decoration or it is postulated that it represented
an incipient iconoclasm on the part of the emperor or his
Monophysite wife, and so on – yet perhaps all this speculation is uncalled
for. For the viewer in the church, these mosaics offered a highly successful
visual, mesmeric effect. This is a case where we can hardly know the intentions
of the period, but where we can at least be sensitive to the visual
effects of the decision. We can also see by hindsight that St Sophia excelled
40 Harrison (1989). 41 Mango (1962); and Cameron, Corippus.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008