Bk IX. Ch. IV. NEO-BYZANTINE STYLE. 455 Returning to the capital, we find one other remarkable peculiarity of the Neo-Byzantine style in the attempt to allow the external sur- face of an ordinary tunnel-vault to retain its form without any ridgo wliatever. It can hardly be doubted that this is artistically a mistake. With domes it was early felt to be so, and consequently we always find a flower or pinnacle in iron, or some such ornament, marking the centre. In this the Saracenic architects were especially successful — all their domes jiossess a central ornament sufficient to relieve them, and generally of the most beautiful proportions. With the extrados of a cn-cular vault, however, it is even worse than with a dome. A roof is felt to be a contrivance to keep off the rain. It may be more or less sloping, according to the materials of which it is constructed ; but to make one part of each ridge sloping, and the central portion flat, is a discord that offends the eye, besides looking weak and unmeaning. A jiointed arch would avoid the evil, but a reverse or ogee curve is perhaps the most pleasing. In the Neo-Byzantine age, however, between the 8th and the 12th centuries, the eye seems to liave got accustomed to it. It is common in the East, especially at Constantinople and at Venice. In St. Mark's and elsewhere it l)ecame so familiar a form that it was copied and continued by the Renaissance architects even to the end of the 16th century. One of the best illustrations of these peculiarities is the church of Mone tes Koras at Constantinople, now converted into a mosque and called Kahira .Jamissi. Tiie older part of it seems to beloni; to the 11th century, the side-aisles to the 12th, and though small it illustrates the style per- fectly. The porch consists of five arches covered with an intersecting vault, isible both externally and internally. The last two bays are covered with cupolas Avhich still retain their mosaics internally, and those of singular beauty and brilliancy, though, owing to the constructive defects of the inter- mediate parts, the wet has leaked through, and the mosaics have mostly peeled off. Externally the front is ornamented with courses of stones of different colors, and even in its ruined state is effective and picturesque. Its principal interest is that it shows what was the matrix of the contemporary chr.rch of St. Mark at Venice. Subsequent additions have much modified the external appearance of St. Mark, but there can be very li'ttle doubt that originally 899. Cluiroh of Mon6 tes Koras. No scale. (From Lenoir.)
