Cohen 1

Tom CohenDecember 4, 2014HUM 5106

Hagia Sophia: Domus Dei and the Numinous Dome in Istanbul

This essay will investigate why the Hagia Sophia continues to be revered as

one of the most important structures in the world. However, the Hagia Sophia defies

definition to any single school of inquiry because it has survived fifteen centuries

and two religions. Therefore, this work is only an investigation into the Hagia

Sophia’s meaning as a sacred structure and architectural masterpiece. The Hagia

Sophia is a sacred building not only because it was built on an unprecedented scale

and exists in the capital city of two empires, but also because of what its innovative

dome and space symbolize. Additionally, the Hagia Sophia became more important

with time because of how subsequent architects were inspired by and copied the

space to build future churches and mosques. This paper will determine the impor-

tance of Hagia Sophia as a religious and architectural symbol. The first part of this

paper will provide a quick, historical survey of the building including work done both

by ancient and modern writers and how the two compare. The second part will seek

to comprehend the numinous quality of the dome in general and Hagia Sophia

specifically. Finally, it is imperative to demonstrate the lasting impact Hagia Sophia

has had on subsequent architects of sacred space.

Any inquiry into Hagia Sophia, or any other structure, must first address his-

tory and form before inquiring into its essence and impact. Hagia Sophia, Greek Ἁγία

Σοφία for ‘Holy Wisdom, was designed and built to be the greatest basilica in Chris-

tendom. After the Nike Riots of 532 C.E. destroyed the previous basilica in Con-

stantinople, Emperor Justinian sought to create the greatest basilica in the Roman

Empire. He charged Hagia Sophia’s two main architects, Anthemios of Tralles and

Cohen 2

Isidore of Miletus to create a structure worthy of the capital of the Roman Empire.

The architects, who were primarily mathematicians, made use of new architectural

concepts in order to build what the Emperor Justinian wanted. In order to create the

largest interior space possible they designed an enormous dome and supported it

using a relatively new construction method called pendentives.1 Hagia Sophia

makes use of four, triangular, pendentives which allow for the weight of the dome

to transition to a square supporting superstructure below without massive pillars or

columns interrupting the internal space. Earlier Roman structures built their domes

upon circular, or octagonal, drums in order to support their hemispherical domes.

Pendentives, on the other hand, allow for a square foundation. According to Victoria

Hammond, editor and author of Visions of Heaven: The Dome in European Architec-

ture, “The basilica’s [Hagia Sophia’s] other great innovation was the spaciousness

and great height of its interior, which allowed light to be experienced as divine radi-

ance.”2 The size, positioning, and shape of the dome are all important because of

the effect that their magnitude has upon witnesses. The dome is supported on four

sides by two parallel walls and two parallel semi-domes. As Hammond states the

semi-domes increase the strength and size of the internal space thereby increasing

its effect.

The dimensions of the extant structure shows Hagia Sophia’s near square

shape: Length 269 feet, Width 240 feet. The cupola of the current dome hovers 180

feet above the mosaic floor. The structure and first dome, which partially collapsed

in 557, were completed in 537. The second dome, designed with structural ribs and

a greater arc than the previous dome, was designed by the nephew of one of the

original architects, Isidore the Younger.3 1 Taylor 702 Hammond 1653 Taylor 68

Cohen 3

Isidore the Younger was faced with fixing several issues that had caused the

original dome to collapse. First, during the original construction, the bricklayers had

heedlessly applied more mortar than brick. Additionally, in the rush to complete the

dome, they had not waited for a layer of mortar to set before applying the next

level of bricks. This caused structural problems that were only exacerbated by a

dome that was too shallow. When a dome’s arc is round enough the weight and

force of the structure descends down into the supporting piers. However, the origi-

nal dome’s arc was too shallow, thereby, pushing outward and forced the already

weakened walls to give. To fix these problems Isidore the Younger increased the

height of the dome, which increased the arc and depth, and added forty ribs to pro-

vide support. Before these improvements, however, he was forced to rebuild much

of the walls and semi-domes in order to make the new dome longer lasting than the

first.4

This history of the two generations of architects are known both by contem-

porary Byzantine authors and through twentieth century architectural surveys. The

several Byzantine writers whose work is still extant describes the construction of the

first and second domes including but not limited to: Procopius’ De aedificiis, Paul the

Silentiary’s Ekphrasis, and the historian Agathias. These authors, and many other

non-contemporaries, describe Hagia Sophia in poetic and stylistic ways in order to

better render the beauty, aesthetic, and effect of the dome.

Ancient sources, both contemporaries of the building of Hagia Sophia and

later descendants, vary in their comprehension and description of Hagia Sophia and

the dome. Ruth Webb’s “The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor, and

Motion in Ekphraseis of Church Buildings” focuses on Byzantine descriptions of Ha-

gia Sophia and how they vary in their descriptions but are consistent in their use of 4 Mainstone 40

Cohen 4

metaphor and literary description. Webb wants to understand how “it is possible to

represent a material object in an immaterial, intelligible medium such as lan-

guage?”5 When a poet, historian, or writer attempts to capture the essence of Hagia

Sophia they record their subjective understanding of their objective sense percep-

tions. According to Webb, ekphraesis (Greek for “speak out”) was the strategy em-

ployed in an innovative way by Byzantine sources in order to capture the beauty of

Hagia Sophia and other sacred spaces. A literary account that attempts ekphraesis

renders the subjective experience of the witness in prose or verse and better re-

veals the beauty and impact of a structure. As shown in this description by a ninth

century patriarch of Constantinople named Photios:

It is as if one were stepping into heaven itself with no one standing in the way at any point; one is illuminated and struck by the various beauties that shine forth like stars all around. Then everything else seems to be in ecstasy and the church itself seems to whirl around.6

When we describe something sacred we project our own ideas onto it. We use these

ideas and literary tropes to represent static objects. For example, a metaphor of

whirling heavens to describe how Hagia Sophia looms weightlessly above the

viewer. Or, how flowing water can describe the rippling mosaics of Hagia Sophia’s

floor. These literary projections narrate intended actions and events. According to

Webb, these projections’ purpose is to capture the original design and subsequent

re-imaginings of the architects. engineers, and artists. The form of Hagia Sophia it-

self, and other Roman/Byzantine churches, are symbolic of Christian beliefs, impe-

rial power, and God’s glory. Hagia Sophia and other Byzantine churches are symbols

in themselves.

The very idea of the church as a house of the uncircumscribable [sic] divinity is equal in its paradox to the incarnation itself. The earliest extant church ekphrasis, Eusebios’s Panegyric of the Church at Tyre, insists on this symbolic

5 Webb 596 Webb 68

Cohen 5

function, treating the church first as a building but then as a symbol of the living temple… [and] tangible proof of the triumph of Christianity… of impe-rial power and patronage, themes that are particularly evident in Paul the Silentiary, Prokopios, and Constantine Rhodios.7

The power of a sacred space is represented through metaphor and other literary

techniques. As Webb shows, the sacred space itself is representational of religious

beliefs and cosmological understandings. On the other hand, these symbolic de-

scriptions are limited in that they lack objectivity which leads us to twentieth cen-

tury catalogers of Hagia Sophia who use objective and mathematical understand-

ings to further their comprehension.

In the twentieth century many architectural engineers objectively measured

Hagia Sophia and inspected how it was designed, executed, and built. These archi-

tectural engineers and historians include Rabun Taylor, Rowland Mainstone, An-

thony Cutler, William MacDonald, and Robert Van Nice. Every subsequent architec-

tural survey of Hagia Sophia cites Robert Van Nice’s work because he was the first

Westerner given access to the newly secularized Hagia Sophia in the 1930s. Van

Nice’s structural analysis was subsequently published in the 1960s. The current

structure and dome, as envisioned by Isidore the Younger, described in the follow-

ing passaged from Rabun Taylor uses Byzantine feet8:

Of a broad, rectangular basilican plan, Hagia Sophia is oriented roughly on an east-west axis. The crown of the present dome, which is just over 100 Byzan-tine feet in diameter, hangs 178.3 feet above the floor. Four main piers made mostly of limestone and greenstone ashlars, define the corners of the central 100-foot square of floor that lies beneath the dome. They rise 74.17 feet and are spanned by four thick semicircular arches of brick, which are bound to-gether by brick pendentives. These culminate at 133 feet in a somewhat de-formed circle of flat marble blocks upon which the dome rests… The main east and west arches serve as the terminations of the two main semi-domes which, being roughly full quarter spheres, have slightly smaller surface radius

7 Webb 668 1 Byzantine foot is equal to 1.024 English feet. Taylor page 76 Footnote 5.

Cohen 6

than the main dome. The semi-domes extend the name to nearly its full length, and are each supported by the main piers and two secondary piers.9

In addition to its usefulness, this objective description of Hagia Sophia is beautiful in

that it relates a physical structure through its fundamental, mathematical, concepts.

The aesthetic qualities of a geometric design are what most concern the twentieth

century work on Hagia Sophia. Due to the association of beauty, harmony, and

mathematics, an objective description of Hagia Sophia reveals certain beauty about

its design. This is true of many structures built in Ancient Rome and Late Antique

Constantinople, for example. As Anthony Cutler wrote in the 1950s, “the essential

and manifest characteristic of early Byzantine architecture, the disciplinary relation-

ship between mathematics and structural mechanics.”10 For example, the design of

Hagia Sophia makes use of pendentives as an aesthetic choice that creates har-

mony and symmetry. According to Butler, the pendentive is a geometric solution to

an engineering problem that simultaneously creates aesthetic affect.

The [pendentives] concave triangle is, in essence, an inversion of the capi-tal's convex form. Seen in geometric terms, it appears that the shapes en-closed by the main arches of Hagia Sophia correspond directly to the splayed sides of its capitals, while the pendentives' form answers directly to that of the capitals’ chamfered angles.11

This interplay of geometry and beauty characterizes Byzantine understanding and

engineering genius. The dome’s design symbolizes something immense and beauti-

ful. However, the concept of the dome itself is much older and is a synthesis of both

poetic and geometric descriptions. In fact, each objective, twentieth century, de-

scriber of Hagia Sophia admits their description is limited. Therefore, a description

of the effects of a dome in general, and Hagia Sophia specifically, has on a witness

is necessary for this paper.

9 Taylor 6610 Cutler 2811 Cutler 31

Cohen 7

The dome of Hagia Sophia crowns and dominates the structure itself. There-

fore it is imperative to comprehend what a dome is what it signifies. The dome is an

ancient form that today has come to mean a hemispherical structure. The original

definition of dome comes from the Latin Domus or “home.” E. Baldwin Smith, in his

The Dome: A Study in the History of Ideas, gives a historical survey into the concept

of the dome and what it signifies.

To the naive eye of men uninterested in construction, the dome, it must be realized, was first of all a shape and then an idea. As a shape (which ante-dated the beginnings of masonry construction), was the memorable feature of an ancient, ancestral house.12

According to Smith, the early dome would have been any elevated or pitched roof

used for shelter. Nascent domes, according to Smith and Hammond, imitated the

shape of the sky and people would decorate their home’s ceilings with stars to fur-

ther this imitation. There is physical evidence for these sacred spaces as far back as

Ancient Egyptian tombs.13 Then as the dome spread throughout the Mediterranean,

the worship of one’s ancestors, and gods, became associated with one’s ancestral

home and ancestral burial tomb. In fact, Smith states that Hagia Sophia’s continuity

with the sacred and the past goes further in that the use of pendentives and curved

lines mimic the origin of the dome as a home. The earliest homes and shelters, of

migratory peoples, would have been tents and before that even, the open sky. Here

Smith writes about Hagia Sophia’s dome’s visual effect on a witness and parallel to

the home:

See the pendentives, made by the circular impost of the dome and the four arches, which this age considered to be the four sides of the earth, a curved shape that resembles a four-sided tent pegged down at the corners; and then through the opening in the top of this apparent covering he will see beyond a

12 Smith 513 Hammond 162

Cohen 8

heavenly dome, which appears suspended from above because of the halo of light that shines in from the clerestory windows.14

Smith details that the symbolic meaning of Late-Roman and Byzantine domes finds

continuity in the Near-East particularly in the historical meaning already mentioned

and the meaning of its developing shape. These great, sacred, structures are influ-

enced by the past, by the world, and by their cosmological or religious understand-

ings. These religious understandings are represented by metaphorical interpreta-

tions of the cosmos. These Roman, and therefore Byzantine, understandings as

symbolized by the shape of the dome are listed here by Smith:

By the late Roman Empire, when the dome was acquiring so much distinction as a symbol of celestial greatness and imperial immortality, its ideology was further enriched by the popular ideas already associated with similar shapes, such as the tholos, mundus, heroon, sacred baetyl, omphalos, divine helmet, umbrella, cosmic egg, and pine cone, also by the interests of the Orphic cults in a celestial cosmogony and a heavenly salvation, and by the introduction of ancient Indian beliefs regarding the cosmic significance of the dome.15

Of these similar shapes, most accessible within our survey are the mentions of

mundus (world), omphalos (navel), and the Orphic cults. All three of these directly

imply the sacred and supernatural in the Mediterranean world. First, the dome as

mundus represents the world and universe and how it supports and sustains human

life as a gift from God. Second, the dome as omphalos represents the connection of

the world and humankind. The navel of the world is an ancient archetype that sym-

bolizes on the innate connection between the universe and humanity. Finally, asso-

ciation of the Christian dome and Orphic cults is easily accepted because Christian-

ity finds precedent Orpheus’ descent into the afterlife and subsequent return to the

world. Hagia Sophia then, designed as a Christian basilica, ineluctably demonstrates

continuity with, at least, these three sacred shapes and symbols. Additionally, the

dome’s use in ancient tombs strengthens its connection to the sacred and supernat-14 Smith 8915 Smith 7

Cohen 9

ural because of how the dead are venerated. Therefore, Smith’s point about the

dome is a “shape and then an idea” shows how the dome developed from a home or

shelter to a place of worship to symbolizing the sacred itself.

In Late-Antiquity, the hemispherical dome began to be developed through the

contributions to geometry by the Greeks and Romans.16 This hemispherical shape

began to be used in early Christian martyria. The union of geometric shapes and sa-

cred burial is important in the study of the dome is twofold. First, geometry consti-

tuted a connection to the sacred for the Greeks because they believed that mathe-

matics was the eternal language of the universe. Second, the martyria of Early-

Christian martyrs became places of worship. The burial of martyrs (witnesses) cre-

ates a sacred place because of the martyr’s dedication and intimacy to God. The

hemispherical dome, therefore, marries the numinous qualities of mathematics for

the pagan Greeks with the numinous qualities of martyrdom for the Christians. The

dome of Hagia Sophia represents the fulfillment of this union.

To further our understanding of sacred space, what is it about the dome in

general and Hagia Sophia specifically that creates a sense of the holy? Victoria

Hammond’s work Visions of Heaven: The Dome in European Architecture seeks to

comprehend why a dome operates as it does in religious architecture. For Ham-

mond, it is not merely a person’s objective sense perception of the dome, or of the

physical components that support it, but also the subjective interpretation of the

phenomena of witnessing a dome. The use of geometric lines and curves leads the

eyes upward while the massiveness of the structure overwhelms the senses and

creates a spiritual effect. She writes here about the type of hemispherical dome

found above Hagia Sophia:

16 Smith 8

Cohen 10

These are special and protected spaces that glow with a carefully orches-trated light. As we look up into a dome, we feel elevated, uplifted; we have, in a sense, stepped out of the flow of secular time and—for a moment— into eternity. Domes present an image of geometric clarity, each is a structured as a boldly symmetrical design around a central oculus or focal point. The ef-fect of this is at once spiritual and rational.17

Hammond here comprehends the dome’s synthesis of geometry and heaven. When

an individual stands in the middle of an open field the sky, or heavens, above them

surround on every side. If the ground is flat it bisects the sky evenly creating a

hemispherical shape. This is the same shape of the dome. To continue the above

quote:

The dome’s symmetry presents a image of unity, totality, and resolution. This design has no beginning or end; we perceive—with God-like clarity—every-thing at once. We are given, in essence, a divine vision of the cosmos. Appro-priately, this insistent geometry stands as a symbol of thought itself—of the capacity to construct and to perceive flawless coherence in disparate pieces and parts. The bold geometry of these domes is important to their power: be-ginning with the ancient Greeks, geometry and logic have been closely al-lied.18

The hemispherical dome, while simultaneously partaking in the sacred continuity of

previous dome, imitates heaven. Hagia Sophia’s dome imitates, captures, and sym-

bolizes God’s transcendent omnipotence. Hagia Sophia, and other churches, act as

a House of God (Domus Dei).

Other twentieth century writers comprehend this necessary synthesis of ge-

ometry and the numinous including Rabun Taylor and William MacDonald. MacDon-

ald, took the newly published results of Van Nice and sought to comprehend the

geometric beauty as a metaphor for aesthetic sacred space. It is the space created

by the mastery of geometry and engineering that mimics, for the Byzantines, God

as harmonious and beautiful, immense and intimate, and dynamic and static.

17 Hammond 1118 Hammond 11

Cohen 11

The architecture of curves and interior spaces builds up logically and harmo-niously to a climax; the eye is not arrested, but rather is guided across its surfaces. The observer is constantly aware of the dome that dominates the entire design. This is the function of the building as a mimesis of celestial or-der, the effect is accomplished by subordinating the major working members of the structure and by a superlative welding of design to use.19

Here we see the union of mathematical purity and constructional reality in Hagia

Sophia. The Byzantines attempted to recreate the beauty and reality of God using

both their mathematical and poetic understandings of the universe.

Each modern author read in this study writes about both the genius of the ar-

chitects and their use of innovative techniques. The daring genius of the architects

made use of pendentives and tympana on a scale not previously envisioned. Their

use of innovative techniques include a brick aggregate that is lighter and more plas-

tic than solid stone or concrete allowed for the dome to create an internal space not

surpassed in Western Europe for one thousand years.20 Additionally, after the fall of

Constantinople in 1453, the genius of Hagia Sophia’s architects continued to domi-

nate the conquering Ottomans who made use of the designs for their own holy

buildings and sacred spaces. The Ottomans conquered the city, but the artistic cul-

ture of the Byzantines, in a way, conquered the Ottomans. Hagia Sophia, under or-

ders from Mehmed the Conquerer, was converted into a mosque within days of the

conquest preserving the Byzantine architectural legacy in a new form and era. Vic-

toria Hammond suggests that Islam, like Christianity, venerates the hemispherical

dome as a symbol of heaven because even before the fall of Constantinople various

mosques were designed with this “famous pumpkin shape dome.”21

The most famous Ottoman architect, Sinan, was directly influenced by Hagia

Sophia and other Byzantine structures. Working in the time of Suleyman the Mag-

19 MacDonald 2320 MacDonald 2521 hammond 169

Cohen 12

nificent, Sinan designed numerous imperial mosques and other structures with the

same hemispherical dome supported pendentives upon parallel semi-domes and

walls. A layout and design certainly inspired by Hagia Sophia. Hammond suggests

Sinan’s greatest work, the Suleymaniye Mosque completed in 1557, maintains a

continuity with Hagia Sophia while simultaneously synthesizing it with the then con-

temporary Renaissance architectural innovations occurring in Italy.22 John Freely, in

his Istanbul: The Imperial City, writes about the parallel between the ages of Jus-

tinian and Suleyman and juxtaposes their colossal imperial construction projects.

Suleyman’s enduring memorial in Istanbul is the Suleymaniye, just as that of Justinian is Haghia [sic] Sophia, two magnificent edifices erected a thousand years apart in time, both visible in the same view of the city’s majestic sky-line above the Golden Horn.23

Later Ottoman mosques were equally influenced by Hagia Sophia. The Blue Mosque,

for example, preserves a layout inspired by Hagia Sophia that builds upon its inno-

vations of pendentives and semi-domes to create internal space. Additionally, Is-

lam’s use of geometric shapes and patterns, as opposed to Orthodox’s use of icons,

also finds continuity in Greco-Roman-Byzantine’s use of geometry in sacred archi-

tecture as mentioned previously. In fact, the very same Sinan who built the Suley-

maniye also worked to repair and the millennium old Hagia Sophia during the reign

of Selim II.

Robert Mark and Ahmet Cakmak’s Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to

the Present, is the veritable source of how influential Hagia Sophia has been

throughout the centuries. However, an interesting fact mentioned was that the

dome’s mosaics were not covered up by the iconoclastic Ottomans until the early

seventeenth century. Here from the article “The Life of an Imperial Monument,” in

Mark and Cakmak’s edited works, written by Gurlu Necipoglu:

22 Hammond 17223 Freely 569

Cohen 13

It was then (1607-1609) that many of Hagia Sophia’s figural mosaics, includ-ing the Pantokrator on the dome, which Cyril Mango brilliantly demonstrated to have remained in view throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, disappeared under paint.24

In addition to the impact Hagia Sophia has had on Ottoman architecture, it also in-

spired and influenced Greek and Russian Orthodox architecture for centuries. Victo-

ria Hammond, in particular, suggests that Russian Orthodox basilicas in Moscow and

Kiev were directly inspired by early Muscovite contact with Constantinople in the

tenth century.25

Despite the finality of the transition from Byzantine to Ottoman with the re-

moval of the Christian icons Hagia Sophia continued in its function as a sacred

space as mosque called Ayasofya. Even today Hagia Sophia maintains its position

as sacred space despite its current position as a secular museum because how it in-

spires, what it symbolizes, and the effects it creates in witnesses. The original archi-

tects’ vision of a structure as the synthesis of religion and mathematics determines

the impact it has on eyewitnesses. And in return, it is the impact it Hagia Sophia has

on eye witnesses that determines its position as a sacred space. Additionally, as

each author read for this paper suggest, Hagia Sophia’s continuing impact on the ar-

chitecture of sacred space affirms its place in history as one of the greatest reli-

gious and architectural undertakings of all time. It’s scale, symbolism, and transcen-

dence of the material demonstrate what Justinian said when it was completed in

537, “O, Solomon, I have outdone thee!”26

24 Cakmak 21225 Hammond 16826 MacDonald 27

Cohen 14

Bibliography

Cutler, Anthony. “Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 25, no. 1 (Autumn, 1966): 27-35.

MacDonald, William. “Design and Technology in Hagia Sophia.” Perspecta 4 (1957): 20-27.

Mainstone, Rowland. “Justinian's Church of St. Sophia, Istanbul: Recent Stud-ies of Its Construction and First Partial Reconstruction.” Architectural History 12 (1969): 39-49.

Mark, Robert, and Ahmet Çakmak, eds. Hagia Sophia from the Age of Jus-tinian to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Smith, Baldwin Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology. Vol. 25, The Dome: a Study in the History of Ideas. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978.

Stephenson, David, and Keith F. Davi. Visions of Heaven: The Dome in Euro-pean Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005.

Cohen 15

Taylor, Rabun. “A Literary and Structural Analysis of the First Dome On Jus-tinian's Hagia Sophia, Constantinople.” Journal of the Society of Archi-tectural Historians 55, no. 1 (March 1996): 66-78.

Van Nice, R.L. “The Structure of St. Sophia.” Architectural Forum 63 (1963): 23-49.

Webb, Ruth. “The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor, and Mo-tion in 'Ekphraesis' of Church Buildings.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53 (1999): 59-74.