Byzantine Art. Charles Bayet

et

      Byzantine Art

      © Parkstone Press International, New York, USA

      © Confidential Concepts, Worldwide, USA

      Introduction

      Arch of Constantine, 312–315.

      Marble, 21 × 25.7 × 7.4 m.

      Rome.

      Byzantine art has been alternately strongly attacked and strongly advocated. For many years, critics’ only references to the movement produced the most unflattering epithets. The word itself, Byzantine, which refers to both painting and politics, used to arouse immediate ire in the elite artistic circles of the nineteenth century. It had become established that this term was used to refer to a type of art that had created nothing but unsightly, unpleasing works and which, condemned to stagnation from its very conception, had neither progressed nor changed.

      Later on, those who attempted to defend the unappreciated era often did its reputation harm with their excessive zeal. Before it had even been clearly defined what was to be understood by the term “Byzantine”, these overly active panegyrists claimed to recognise its influence in nearly every country and on every monument in the West. Losing its contemptuous nuance, the term “Byzantine” was becoming very vague and, above all, very elastic. Everyone believed himself to have the right to use it according to his own fancy. The term thus accompanied half of the works of the Middle Ages; as for the others, experts strained to recognise at the very least the influence of the Greek masters. In this way, other works were assimilated under the Byzantine banner and declared its vassals.

      These invasions of style provoked some resistance. In France, Italy, and Germany, art historians affirm that, before even the twelfth or thirteenth century, the West had produced its own local schools whose existence must not be forgotten. This reaction to the older civilisation’s artistic style was quite strong, at times excessive. In Italy, one encountered scholars who refused to see Byzantine influence anywhere. Some, unfamiliar with the history and monuments of the East, even claimed that the artistic principles that developed in the Mediterranean during the fourth century were actually bequeathed to the Byzantine Empire by the Italians.

      One point is worth noting: detractors and apologists have often followed the same method. Before speaking of the relationship between Byzantine art and other styles, many do not take the pains to study it in its Context and in its works. Perhaps it would have been better to reject the word “Byzantine”, which is not precise and which was exploited to such a degree, and rather to discuss neo-Hellenistic art or Greek art of the Middle Ages; however it seems useless to go against convention, words take on the value, above all, by the meaning given them.

      I. Early Byzantine Art (306–843)

      Bust of Arcadius Wearing the Imperial Diadem, early fifth century. Marble.

      Archaeological Museum, Istanbul.

      A. The Birth of a New Style (306–527)

      At the beginning of the fourth century, under the reign of Constantine, a great revolution transpired in Christian history; in the wake of persecution, Christianity suddenly found itself in imperial favor. This development exerted a profound influence on the development of Christian art. It blossomed openly in new and richer forms. Churches were erected everywhere. “In each city,” wrote the contemporary ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, “celebrations take place for the consecration of churches and newly constructed oratories. On this occasion, the bishops assemble, pilgrims come rushing in from distant lands; one sees the sudden outpouring of affection from man to his fellow man.” Constantine himself was the driving force behind this movement and, in order to increase the number of holy structures, put the riches of the State at the disposal of the Christians.

      The transformation of ancient Byzantium into Constantinople is a milestone in history. A consequence of this change was the division of the former Roman Empire into two parts, which were fated to meet different ends. Constantinople became the axis of a brilliant civilisation, where eastern influences were mixed with Hellenism. From this viewpoint, its geographic situation is indeed enviable: Constantinople was connected with both Europe and Asia; its vessels could harbour within its vast and secure port, keeping the city in continuous contact on one side with the regions of the Black Sea and on the other, with all the peoples of the Mediterranean. Thence came the immense influence that the city exerted during the Middle Ages, as well as its splendour and wealth.

      It was in 324 that Constantine chose Byzantium. In Antiquity, certain religious rites were followed to found a city. In the well-known story, Romulus traced the first outline of Rome with the blade of a plow. A fourth century historian recounts that Constantine himself also traced the outline of the new capital with the point of his lance. He said that he was following the indications of an angel, who was walking in front of him. Work on the city was accelerated to such a degree that, according to one chronicler, the consecration supposedly took place only nine months later. It is true that a city can be consecrated, just as with a church, long before termination. The ceremonial consecration date for Constantinople is recorded: it took place on the eleventh of May, 330. The circumstances surrounding this event are indicative of the role assigned to Constantinople by the emperor: it was to be a Christian capital, and he entrusted the blessing of his city to the bishops. In addition, “he ordered by law,” writes the historian Socrates Scholasticus, “that she would be called the second Rome. This law was carved on a marble table placed in the Strategeion, near the equestrian statue of the emperor.”

      Christ in Majesty Giving a Blessing, fourth century. Opus sectile.

      Ostia Museum, Ostia, Italy.

      In planning the new capital, Constantine was preoccupied with imitating Rome. Like Rome, Constantinople had seven hills and was divided into fourteen regions; there was even a Capitoline Hill. The main Forum, known as the Augustaeum, remained famous throughout the entire Middle Ages. It may have predated Constantine, who was content simply to embellish it. A portico dominated all four sides, and statues were placed underneath. Among these was a group representing Constantine and his mother, Helena, standing to either side of the cross. This archetype has remained traditional in the East and can still be found reproduced on frescos and engravings.

      The period extending from Constantine to Justinian was a formative age for Byzantine art. Christian architecture was the progeny of Greco-roman architecture but in certain regions of the East, especially in Syria, it had already undergone drastic changes, made more complex by foreign elements. Today, it can be experienced through the ruins of Palmyra and Baalbek by the layout, the appearance of the principal lines, and the decoration. These constructions have an original appearance; what is especially remarkable is the tendency to substitute curves for straight lines, archways for shouldered flat arches. The new trend spread rapidly. Already at the beginning of the fourth century, there was a palace in Dalmatia that had roots in this Asiatic architecture, that of Diocletian who had resided in Asia during his entire reign and then retired to Solin after abdicating.

      The Byzantine Empire, such as it were after the death of Theodosius, must have exerted its new influence with a certain degree of force, as the Asian provinces were bringing their prosperity and the luster of their civilisation to the European provinces, and it was there that Hellenistic thought proved to be more active and creative. Even during the time of Constantine, Christian architects in Asia seem to have already proven to be more innovative. If circular churches were found in the West, in the East they seem to have been of a bolder design: the church in Antioch was especially astonishing to people of the time. This type of structure is no longer seen in the ancient Byzantine Empire, save as one well preserved monument, and it is true that it is not found in Asia at all save in Thessaloniki: it is a vast rotunda, measuring 24 metres in diameter. Within the thickness of the walls, seven vaulted chapels are housed; an eighth, situated on the axis of the main door, is farther inward and forms a long apse of 19.37 metres, which stands apart within the walls. This church had probably served previously as the mausoleum of the emperor