Talk:History of Roman and Byzantine domes

Category of GA
In promoting this article to GA I am following the nominator's lead in classing it as a History GA, but I wonder if it might not more suitably be classed under "Art and architecture".  Tim riley  talk    07:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert of Overview section sentence "The ancient term "Byzantine" (Greek: Βυζαντινός), ..."
I reverted this edit because it conflates two different things and uses two sources together to make a point that neither make separately, which is a form of forbidden synthesis. The reverted sentence was:"The ancient term "Byzantine" (Greek: Βυζαντινός), meaning 'an inhabitant of the Byzantine Empire' was re-purposed to refer to a "Byzantine Empire" in 1557 by historian Hieronymus Wolf and became popular in the 19th century.[15][16]" The first source (reference 15, "The Names of Constantinople", which can be read here) says on page 348:
 * "Βυζάντιον was used in the middle ages to designate the Byzantine Empire, κατὰ συνεκδοχήν; this may have been due to the fact that the name Βυζάντιος was felt as an ethnikon (cf. ή Βυζαντίων, sc. πόλις, and the family name Βυζάντιος), so that Βυζάντιον κόλις appeared in elliptic form Βυζάντιον. Analogous are the cases when Constantine Porphyrogenitus calls himself αύτοκράτωρ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, and Fulîn (from Πόλιν) meant the Byzantine Empire for the Chinese.6 And Βυζάντινός meant 'an inhabitant of the Byzantine Empire'; cf. Μυτιληναϊος as indicating (1) an inhabitant of the town of Mytilene, (2) an inhabitant of the island of Mytilene (= Lesbos)."

The second source (reference 16, "Historical Dictionary of Byzantium", which can be read here) says on page 2:
 * "The term "Byzantine" was invented in 1557 by Hieronymus Wolf (1516-1580), a humanist who wanted a term that differentiated medieval Greek authors from ancient Greek authors. Thus, his 1557 collection of medieval Greek authors was published with the title Corpus Historiae Byzantinae. However, "Byzantine" did not become immediately established, for when Louis Cousin published the first history of the Byzantine Empire in 1672-1674, he entitled his work Histoire de Constantinople. A century later, in the Age of Reason, Lebeau's Histoire du Bas-Empire (27 volumes published from 1757 to 1786) used "Bas-Empire" ("Lower Empire"), referring to the Roman Empire in its period of decadence. "Byzantium" and "Byzantine Empire" became more widespread in England and elsewhere in Europe and America only in the second half of the 19th century."

In neither source does it say that Hieronymus Wolf re-purposed "Byzantine" or "Βυζαντινός" from meaning an inhabitant of the empire to refer to the empire itself. The original version of the sentence is much closer to its reference ("Historical Dictionary of Byzantium"): "The term "Byzantine Empire", invented in 1557 by historian Hieronymus Wolf, became popular in the 19th century and is used to refer to the medieval eastern Roman Empire with its capital at Constantinople, the former town of Byzantion." It also agrees with the primary articles on the topics, where any new consensus on this issue should first be established before being implemented here, since you will find editors there more knowledgeable on the issue. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Nomenclature and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium#Name. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am an editor more knowledgeable on the issue. The sentences "The term "Byzantine" was invented in 1557 by Hieronymus Wolf (1516-1580), a humanist who wanted a term that differentiated medieval Greek authors from ancient Greek authors. Thus, his 1557 collection of medieval Greek authors was published with the title Corpus Historiae Byzantinae" misrepresents the subject by omission, a misrepresentation not in the book quoted because therein the sentence is preceded by another two that make it clear that Rosser intends that "Byzantine" here means exclusively the usage of Byzantine in "Byzantine Empire" - "... with "Byzantium" and "Byzantine Empire," terms unknown to Geoffrey Villehardouin and his fellow knights. How did these terms originate?". It is manifestly false that "Byzantine" or "Byzantium" as words were invented in the 16th century. Rosser is talking only about the compartmentalizing of the later eastern Roman empire as "Byzantine Empire" in opposition to just "Roman Empire" or earlier mediaeval Latin names like "Kingdom of the Greeks" or "Empire of Constantinople". Elsewhere in the book, he says: "The term "Byzantium" is a creation of Hieronymus Wolf" another statement that, without qualification, is highly misleading. As anyone with the most basic understanding of ancient history knows, "Byzantium" is simply the Latin name for the city on the Bosphorus. Omission of the fact that both "Byzantine" and "Byzantium" are both ancient words long predating Wolf utterly misrepresents the facts and is not at all encyclopaedic. I propose reference to, or near-quotation of, without qualification, Rosser in this context be removed and replaced with a more nuanced treatment of the subject. GPinkerton (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For instance the wording of the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium is better suited to the purpose of the article and explaining why "Byzantine" is used in discussions of late Roman or Constantinopolitan architecture. It says: Byzantium as a term for the state was introduced into scholarship only in the 16th C. by Hieronymus Wolf (1516–80). This does not require out-of-context repetition of Rosser's "invention" terminology, which, as represented in the article's text, is grossly misleading. GPinkerton (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now done this. GPinkerton (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have online access to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, so I will take your word on the excerpt. Can you please add a page number to the reference? AmateurEditor (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does this article need any discussion of the term "Byzantine" at all? This is an article about architecture. We don't need to export and re-debate the naming issues about this empire in every secondary article that refers to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The contentious statement by Rosser need not be repeated here; a note on the discrepant terminology of Roman and Byzantine is all that's required. GPinkerton (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is still important to explain, since it is so common for people to think that the Byzantine Empire was a distinct entity from the Roman Empire (because otherwise, why would it have a different name?). There was an argument not too long ago about whether we should include the Byzantine emperors in the List of Roman emperors article for that reason. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But that's quite off-topic to this article. We just refer to the Byzantine Empire in correct terms where we need to (with the "its medieval continuation" wording in the lead sentence, which echos that in the main Byzantine Empire lead), and then by referring to just a "Byzantine period" later on, which doesn't imply anything about a separate entity at all. This is entirely enough. Also, the existing passage was horribly disruptive to the flow of content of that section. You had a whole sequence of statements about the development of architectural elements there, which is what this article is actually supposed to be about, after all. And then, totally out of the blue, you get a sentence whose topic is "The nomenclature of 'Byzantium'"; then, before you actually explain why that topic is relevant to this article, you veer off into intricacies about when it was introduced and when it became popular and what it refers to, plus lots of parentheses about etymologies and native transcriptions and whatnot, including even a link to what a "polis" is. How is a reader supposed to make any sense out of that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed the link to lead away from the empire/period/whatever altogether and directly to "Byzantine Architecture". I'm just happy the Wolf claim is gone. GPinkerton (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

While we're here.....
On wikipedia, the lead is an overview, hence there is no need for an overview section. The material in this section is more specific and should be construction or architecture or somesuch, as overview is a generic and misleading term to call it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The intent was to have a section for all the sourced statements that were too general to fit neatly in the chronological sections tied to a specific century. "Overview" seemed general enough to fit (that it was generic seemed to be a plus to me), but I see your point about the role of the lede being an overview or summary of the article. Maybe "Generalizations" or something similar would work? AmateurEditor (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The Octagon
You might be interesting in [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25067136 Kleinbauer, W. Eugene. “Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome: The Patronage of Emperor Constantius II and Architectural Invention.” Gesta, vol. 45, no. 2, 2006, pp. 125–145], especially page 127ff., where it says: "Until thirty years ago the scholarly consensus was that the Great Church served as an imperial palace church on or in close proximity to the grounds of the imperial palace of the city. For example, Richard Krautheimer ..." and "However, in 1972 Friedrich Deichmann convincingly demonstrated that it was not located in or near the imperial palace and that it actually functioned as the cathedral of Antioch rather than a palace church. As we will see, its dedication to Christ corresponds to the dedication of the Lateran cathedral in Rome and other episcopal churches in the fourth century." GPinkerton (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely interested, thanks! AmateurEditor (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Kleinbauer paper, it has the following associated endnote: "29. Deichmann, "Oktagon," 40-56. Deichmann's identification was ultimately accepted by Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4th ed., 76 and n. 22 on 465. ..."
 * Looking at pages 76-77 of Krautheimer's book, it says the following: "The Golden Octagon has been called a martyrium. But there is no evidence that it ever sheltered an important relic. From the outset it seems to have been the cathedral of Antioch jointly with the previous see of the bishop in an older church. However, the location of the Octagon adjoining the palace precinct; the person of its imperial founder; and its dedication to the divine force uniting both Church and Empire, suggest that in contemporary eyes it was both the cathedral and coterminally the church linked to the palace where the Emperor, God's counterpart on earth, would attend public services jointly with his subjects. Thus the Antioch Octagon would seem to be the ancestor of a group of churches, similar in shape, funtion, and location, as built by Justinian and in later times, from H. Sergios and Bakchos and the H. Sophia to Charlemagne's chapel at Aix-la-Chapelle: all octagonal in plan, composed of centre room, ambulatory, and a gallery level, and all close to the ruler's palace. Given the probable identity of function and resemblance in plan, a direct link between Justinian's H. Sophia and Constantine's Antioch church does not seem improbable."
 * Krautheimer's endnote 22 on page 465 says the following: "F.W. Deichmann, B.Z., LXV (1972), 40 ff., has come forth with a sharp critique of my views regarding the links of the Golden Octagon and of other octaconch and tetraconch churches to the nearby palaces. Mr. Deichmann is justified regarding the function of the Golden Octagon as cathedral from the outset, and I have correspondingly changed my text as against previous editions of this volume. However, this does not preclude the Octagon's having stood in a special relation to the emperor and the nearby palace. The features that set off both Antioch and the H. Sophia in Constantinople against ordinary cathedrals require, after all, an explanation: the physical closeness of palace and church; the function of the latter as both bishop's cathedral and the emperor's church, where he attends public service; and the double shell central plan, rare as it is generally in Early Christian church building except in just these churches which are closely linked to palace and emperor or to the bishop's palace. To call them palace churches leads, I admit, to confusion with churches or chapels located inside the palace and reserved for the devotions of ruler and court under exclusion of the public. I shall call these palatine churches or chapels, in contrast to what I'd still like to term a 'palace church'."
 * The wikipedia article, "Fourth century" section, includes these sentences, sourced mostly to Krautheimer: "The octagonal "Domus Aurea", or "Golden Octagon", built by Emperor Constantine in 327 at the imperial palace of Antioch likewise had a domical roof, presumably of wood and covered with gilded lead.[83][84] It was dedicated two years after the Council of Nicea to "Harmony, the divine power that unites Universe, Church, and Empire". It may have been both the cathedral of Antioch as well as the court church of Constantine, and the precedent for the later octagonal plan churches near palaces of Saints Sergius and Bacchus and Hagia Sophia by Justinian and Aachen Cathedral by Charlemagne.[85]"
 * This was mentioned in the lede as "Constantine's octagonal palace church in Antioch may have been the precedent for similar buildings for centuries afterward."
 * It was changed to "Constantine's octagonal cathedral in Antioch may have been the precedent for similar buildings for centuries afterward." with the edit summary "Not a palatine chapel but the city's main church".
 * I then edited it to be "Constantine's octagonal church in Antioch may have been the precedent for similar buildings for centuries afterward." However, looking again at the source material, I think it was better as it was, with "Constantine's octagonal palace church...", since there is a distinction being made between "palatine chapels" and "palace churches" and the lede text and body text are accurate to the source and the Kleinbauer article seems to mischaracterize Krautheimer's updated stance. AmateurEditor (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So after all this what are we left with? Deichmann and Kleinbauer say it has nothing to do with any palace. Krautheimer admits it was not connected with a palace but retains the terms "palace church" because he'd "still like to". Excavations reveal no trace of an octagonal church anywhere near the palace. Deichmann, Kleinbauer, Krautheimer all agree the octagon was the Antiochene cathedral and built as such. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity says: "Once Constantine had eliminated Licinius in 324, Eustathius the bishop began the construction of the octaganal cathedral known as the Golden Octagon which was consecrated on the feast of the Epiphany (6 January) 341 in the presence of the Emperor Constantius II (337–61), and at the opening of the Dedication Council called to resolve the Arian controversy." and again "Libanius, however, as a pagan, never speaks of such Christian monuments as the octagonal cathedral built by Constantine." No trace of mention of a "palace church". Resounding consensus the thing was a cathedral. Consensus Constantine was not around to begin the building, so the notion it was established for his personal convenience is not correct. If the church is to be referred to in passing, it is as the cathedral all the scholars agree it was. Old Krautheimer's wrong-proven pet theory under the neologism "palace church" has not been sustainable for a half-century, and doesn't get a mention in the standard reference work for Late Antiquity, showing it has indeed not been sustained. GPinkerton (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity also says "Other churches were also octagonal, including the lost Golden Octagon, probably the cathedral, built by Constantine at Antioch, and S. Vitale at Ravenna, for which Agnellus uses the term basilica. Some octagonal churches (e.g. Ss. Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople), were associated with imperial palaces, but by no means all." Evidently there remains a lot of uncertainty around the building, so let's not jump to conclusions about any consensus. I can live with things as they are now. Can you? AmateurEditor (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nearly: I made a change: it was "a" precedent. The Anastasis rotunda, the Antioch Octagon, and Constantine's mausoleum were all under construction at the same time and all were built as churches of one kind or another. Add to that the Mausoleum of Helena ... GPinkerton (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Pumpkins and Pumpkin domes
" Hadrian was an amateur architect and it was apparently domes of Hadrian's like these that Trajan's architect, Apollodorus of Damascus, derisively called "pumpkins" prior to Hadrian becoming emperor. According to Dio Cassius, the memory of this insult contributed to Hadrian as emperor having Apollodorus exiled and killed.[64] "

Hi! Sorry to bother you all, I came here because I've been taking a roman history course for university and the bit about Apollodorus referencing to the segmented domes as "pumpkins" came up, which rang a few bells in my head and raised a number of questions I've not been able to resolve, but have led me to wonder whether this anecdote is somehow suspect.

Pumpkins, to the best of my knowledge, were solely indigenous to the Americas at this point in history, as was the genus Cucurbita as a whole. The genus Lagenaria is present in the old world, but only one species is widely cultivated, which is the Calabash. The Calabash, for its part, does not much resemble a "pumpkin dome", at least to me, so I can't help but wonder if this is a poor translation of something else?

Sorry if this violates wikipedia protocols or policy, I've never done this before. --Margatroidwitch (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Margatroidwitch You're right that he certainly didn't mean pumpkins as in Jack-o-Lanterns. Here's the Loeb text in English (go to paragraph 4). The word in Greek is ἐπεποίητο, e)pepoi/hto. Here's the Logeion entry for that. Or so I think, anyway. Can't say I'm any good at Ancient Greek. The corresponding Latin is "pepo". -- asilvering (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @asilvering I don't know ancient Greek at all, so if you're merely bad at it, you're leagues better than I am! I suppose it's just the conflation of "pumpkin" and "gourd" that confuses me here. It seems like in most English dialects, "pumpkin" refers to either Cucurbita pepo specifically, or Cucurbita more generally, rather than any sort of gourd found in the the old world. I may just be sleep deprived and obsessive, considering it is now midnight. As an aside, before I pass out, your first link seems to be broken. Have a nice day or night wherever you are! Margatroidwitch (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Margatroidwitch Oh, no, I really don't know Ancient Greek at all. That's just "knowing which reference works to check" at work there! As for "pumpkin", you might be surprised. Wikipedia's article Pumpkin has this to say: "The term pumpkin has no agreed upon botanical or scientific meaning." Look at Kabocha for a good example of where this linguistic mess-up affects both translation languages. And of course the Latin "pepo" was used for the scientific name Curcurbita pepo, despite pre-dating the Columbian Exchange. This confusion has hundreds of years of history. And I hate it. Perhaps you now hate it too. Welcome to the club. Friends don't let friends translate gourds as "pumpkin". -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)