Byzantine Architecture: A Representation of Church and State

Here is my final paper:


Throughout the ages, art and architecture have been used to convey a message and to portray certain aspects of culture. Rather than just being something nice to look at, art and architecture provide valuable insights into the lives and ideas of cultures, allowing us to glance into the thoughts of those who have gone before us. The architecture and art within early Byzantine churches represents the combining of church and state.

Prior to the recognition of Christianity, religion in Imperial Rome was centered around the worship of gods. Worship was a “civic duty performed according to state ritual” rather than a matter of personal preference or belief.[i] When Christianity was introduced to Rome, early believers faced persecution for refusing to comply with the Imperial religion. Due to this persecution, Christians did not have public meeting places, instead meeting in houses. However, the Imperial perception of Christianity underwent a gradual change. In A.D. 313, the Emperor Constantine openly recognized Christianity with favor and allowed it to have official standing. According to Krautheimer, "The church became an official body closely linked to the Imperial administration and a political power as well. Christian officials were numerous at the court, and the Imperial favor shown to Christianity led large numbers of civil servants and aristocrats to embrace the new religion."[ii]

Because Christianity was now sanctioned by the government, an increasing amount of people began to take part in this religion. Due to the large number of people embracing Christianity, the need arose for larger church buildings. However, authorities did not wish to embrace a secular form of architecture when building their churches. Krautheimer states, "The official and hieratic overtones of the church and the dignity of her Imperial patrons demanded an architectural vocabulary corresponding to the highest class of public buildings, palaces, and temples."[iii] The architecture of the churches needed to be distinct, created in a new form that could be recognizable to the general populace as being "Christian." According to Krautheimer, "For both practical and ideological reasons it was impossible that this new Christian architecture should evolve from the religious architecture of pagan antiquity. Christianity obviously saw in paganism and all its works the very opposite of its own intentions."[iv] In other words, Christians felt it necessary to have their own unique form of architecture. They did not want their buildings to look like a typical pagan temple but rather to reflect the beliefs and opinions of Christianity. Early Byzantine architecture adopted the form of the domed basilica. Historically, domes in Roman architecture were only used over circular or polygonal structures, but Byzantine architecture used domes over square structures through the use of "pendentives."[v] Pendentives are "curved spherical triangles which rise from the tops of the supporting piers to provide the transition from the area of the crossing, or the walls of a chapel, to the drum or the dome."[vi] To Byzantine Christians, the dome contained more than merely aesthetic value. It was the climax of the building, completing the edifice set apart for God. The dome also contained symbolic value. According to Hamilton, “As a symbol of the vault of heaven, it was the fitting canopy for the place of worship, where in the centre of the dome Christ was most rightly portrayed blessing his followers from on high.”[vii] Thus, the buildings were deliberately fashioned in such a way as to represent the authority and superiority of Christ. Rather than adopting any one existing architectural style, the architects of Byzantine churches adopted various characteristics from other structures and combined them to create a unique form still recognizable today as churches.

The architecture of Byzantine churches followed a cross-in-square design. The cross-in-square "describes the shape of a church in which a centrally planned cross form is enclosed within a rectangle."[viii] Fletcher points out that "in the Byzantine style the exterior closely corresponds with the interior."[ix] The basic plans of the churches followed the same form. Byzantine churches all had a central space which was covered by a dome on pendentives. Churches followed a cross-in-square design with the basic shape being a cross and angles filling it in to become an enclosed square. Byzantine churches give a vertical impression, gradually drawing the eye upward toward the central culminating dome.[x] This impression also contains a symbolic meaning. The eye being drawn upward represents looking towards Christ. The dome was seen as the grand finale of the building, with the eye ultimately stopping at that highest point. Likewise, as people look upward seeking answers, they should ultimately find Christ, the culmination of God’s plan of reconciliation for humanity.

The architecture of Byzantine churches also represents the liturgy of the day. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the majority of the service is hidden from the people. The square plan of Byzantine churches was highly conducive for this type of service. The iconostasis, a screen that extended across the end of the church, cut off the sanctuary from most of the people.[xi] The priest would emerge from the iconostasis and pass among the congregation carrying incense. Because of the square plan of the church, it was not necessary to forfeit the breadth and length of the building.

An additional characteristic of the Eastern Church was its sense of community. This communal idea is represented in the architecture of Byzantine churches by the “unbroken lines of the external walls and the compact nature of the edifice” which cause a structural harmony.[xii] The concord of the architectural structure represents the unity to be displayed among the members of the church.

Another important feature of Byzantine churches is the rich mosaics within the buildings. The mosaics of the church San Vitale in Ravenna illustrate the close relationship between government and religion. A mosaic of Christ appears on the semi-dome of the main apse. Christ is seated upon the earth with an angel on both sides and the four rivers of Paradise pouring out under the globe. On the left he is presenting St. Vitale with the crown of martyrdom. On the right stands Bishop Ecclesius, representing the church. Two mosaics were later added on the side walls. That on the left is of the Emporor Justinian and his court. On the right is the Empress Theodora and her court. In these mosaics, both the Emperor and Empress are making offerings. The appearance of the Emperor and Empress within the church goes to show the close connection between church and state. The fact that the Emperor and Empress are portrayed making offerings in the church shows their dedication to the church. Also, their generous donations to the church represent the power the Emperor wielded over the church. The church was not merely religious in nature but also closely associated with the politics of the day.
Another church that portrays the close connection between church and state is the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. According to Murray, He imperial entrance was at the far south end, and as the emperor entered he faced a mosaic of the Donations, showing the Virgin receiving the city from Constantine and the church from Justinian.”[xiii] Again, the art work within the church is showing the direct connection between church and state, providing the Emperor with not only political but spiritual authority. Also in the Hagia Sophia is a mosaic of Empress Zoe and her husband, Constantine IX Monomachus, around Christ. The mosaic provides a memorial of the gifts they gave the church. The Empress holds a list of donations and the Emperor grasps a bag of gold. Another mosaic represents the Virgin and Child between Emperor John II and Comnenus and his wife Irene. They are in the same pose as the Empress Zoe in the mosaic opposite them. Imperial portraits within churches served as a way to glorify the Emperor’s wealth and power while also demonstrating his piety. According to Marie-Jose Mondzain:

Byzantine iconography creates a repetitive and plastic world, where the mirror is the invisible quiddity of being, not represented because not representable. What is shown puts in place the visible formula of that which will ensure the stability of an empire. The icon is an apparatus…of the institutional presence.[xiv]

Images were a powerful tool in the hand of the Emperor as well as the ecclesiastical authorities. In a society in which the average citizen could not read, the mosaics within churches served not only as art but as a teaching tool, reinforcing theological truths as well as reflecting the power of the Emperor in religion. As Stewart states:

The various surfaces were used to provide a series of pictures of Biblical incidents and characters to teach and assist the illiterate, and to overawe the spectator with the splendor and richness of their design and execution. The arrangement of the decoration, and all details of design, had to conform to a standard pattern laid down by the ecclesiastical authority.[xv]

Essentially, the people who lived in the Byzantine era learned through the pictures on the walls. Thus, the church and Empire were able to indoctrinate the masses through the art portrayed within churches. By adding images of the Imperial family to those of Christ and the Virgin, the people would have seen the piety displayed by the Emperor and would thus be encouraged to follow in his example.

In the Byzantine era, the art and architecture of churches went beyond providing an aesthetically pleasing building but rather portrayed both theological and Empirical meaning. Not only did the churches represent the beauty and splendor of Christ, but they also represented the piety and authority of the Emperor. Through observing these early churches, we can clearly see the co-existence of church and Empire and how the two were so closely related.


[i] Richard Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc, 1967), 1.
[ii] Richard Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc, 1967), 17.
[iii] Richard Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc 1967), 18-19.
[iv] Richard Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc, 1967), 19.
[v] Sir Bannister Fletcher, A History of Architecture On the Comparative Method (London: Batsford, 1959), 241.
[vi] Peter and Linda Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 581.
[vii] J. Arnott Hamilton, Byzantine Architecture and Decoration (London: Batsford, 1956), 28.
[viii] Peter and Linda Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 125.
[ix] Sir Bannister Fletcher, A History of Architecture On the Comparative Method (London: Batsford, 1959), 241.
[x] Sir Bannister Fletcher, A History of Architecture On the Comparative Method (London: Batsford, 1959), 256.
[xi] J. Arnott Hamilton, Byzantine Architecture and Decoration (London: Batsford, 1956), 29.
[xii] J. Arnott Hamilton, Byzantine Architecture and Decoration (London: Batsford, 1956), 29.
[xiii] Peter and Linda Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 499.

[xiv] Marie-Jose Mondzain, “Iconic Space and the Rule of Lands,” Hypatia, no. 15 (Fall 2000): 58.
[xv] Cecil Stewart, Early Christian Byzantine and Romanesque Architecture, Simpson’s History of Architectural Development Volume 2 (London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1954), 54-55.