Henderson 1

Worlds Apart, Yet Connected Under One Dome

Lori Henderson

Art 105

Dr. Rosi Prieto

3/19/16
 Henderson 2

Its an understatement, when I say the Pantheon and the Hagia Sophia successfully reflected

and revitalized the cultural practices of their time. In my research paper I will discuss the reign of

Emperor Hadrian and Emperor Justinian, and emphasize the roles they played in the architectural

process/design/construction of their buildings. I will also elaborate on the significance of the

domes implemented in their structures, as well as discuss the importance of the building itself.

Additionally, I will explore the influence of the structures visual aesthetics (sun, reflective light,

and etc.) and how it may be interpreted by its viewers (symbolically and strategically).

Moreover, Ill also examine the environmental factors that these two structures endured over the

course of history (elaborate on reconstruction attempts and discuss the damage the

foundation/buildings suffered). I will investigate the mathematical configuration of the dome,

and describe the integral structures mathematical design, analyze what each part was used for,

and lastly reexamine their purpose/function. The research paper will not be focused on trying to

compare these two distinctly different buildings together. Rather, the writers intent will be

geared towards highlighting their similarities, discuss what makes them unique, how they were

interpreted, and examine the history that coincides with it.

Reign of Emperor Hadrian

Due to Emperor Trajans untimely death, in the year of 117, it became Hadrians

responsibility to assume his position as Emperor over ancient Rome.1 Prior to the construction of

the Pantheon, Emperor Hadrian had no desire to place one foot in Rome. According to further

research, Hadrian will spend over two decades traveling/touring his newly acclaimed empire2.

1
Christiane, L. Joost-Gaugier, The Iconography of Sacred Space: A Suggested reading of the Meaning of the Roman
Pantheon. N.A.; IRSA S.C., 1998, 25.
2
Indra Kagis McEwen, Hadrians Rhetoric 1: The Pantheon. N.A; The President and Fellows of Harvard College,
1993, 56.
 Henderson 3

Before Hadrian was placed into the position as emperor of Rome, he served under Trajan as a

skilled speaker and writer; surviving documents can serve as evidence to support the notion that

his role as both an orator/writer for Emperor Trajan was influential.3 McEwen suggests that

Hadrian traveled along his empire for years without residing in Rome so that he could affirm to

his citizens his right to reign, create imperial geographic borders, and assert his imperial

authority.4 This is further emphasized by Hadrians actions. Evaluating Hadrians determination

in resurrecting both the Pantheon Agrippa (that underwent multiple reconstructions) and the

Pantheon (implied through visual symbolism) reflects the concept of the imperial divine right to

rule. Emperor Hadrian went through extraordinary lengths to emphasize his right to rule (which

will be explained a little later on in this paper). Through analyzing the significance of the

Pantheon Agrippa, readers should be able to relate this to how the structure of the Agrippa

reflects Hadrians strategically placed architectural design.

Hadrians Pantheon Agrippa

Before the establishment of the Pantheon as we know of today, there was the Agrippa

Pantheon (maintained and rebuilt by Emperor Hadrian).5 Due to unforeseen environmental

factors, the Pantheon Agrippa will be rebuilt two times before its final destruction during

Trajans reign.6 Hadrian wanted to honor Augustus through the implementation of the

reconstruction of the Pantheon Agrippa, but would soon be rejected by Augustus; on the grounds

that the structure and design went against Roman customs of what would be accepted as a temple

(in terms of the new orientation plan, added a forecourt, installed reliefs depicting roman elite

3
McEwen, 59
4
Ibid, 64
5
Joost-Gaugier, 24.
6
McEwen, 57
 Henderson 4

customs, incorporated an intermediate block with reliefs, and connected the rotunda with the

porch).7 Hadrians reconstruction of Agrippa violates Roman tradition in his attempt to honor

more than one god (dedicating the building to all the gods) per structure. 8How Hadrian rebuilt

the Pantheon Agrippa was significant, because it could no longer be classified as a temple or a

sacred building; according to Roman tradition and standards. 9 Hadrian undertook the challenge

of rebuilding the Pantheon Agrippa for the sole purpose of reaffirming his right to rule as an

emperor.10 However, fate wouldnt be to kind to the Pantheon Agrippa once more. Legend goes

that the gods were displeased with the intentional design of the Agrippa Pantheon (its sole intent

to glorify the celestial right to rule of the emperors, rather than the Gods), and as punishment it

was struck down by lightning and destroyed through fire.11 Even with this symbolic set back, this

didnt stop Hadrian from rising from the ashes. For his next political and social feat, Hadrian will

undergo the process of making a new Pantheon. One that will embody everything he wishes to

propagate through the visual manipulation of aesthetics found within the infrastructure.

Hadrians Pantheon

After the destruction of the Pantheon Agrippa, Emperor Hadrian financed the construction of

a new Pantheon. The one thats currently seen present to this day. In fact, Emperor Hadrian will

end up commissioning architect Apollodorus of Damascus, a man whose knowledge of both

astronomy and astrology is reflected in his construction of the Pantheon.12 What made this

Pantheon different to the Pantheon Agrippa is the fact that it consists of a pronaos, granite

7
McEwen, 56-58.
8
Ibid, 57.
9
Ibid, 57.
10
Ibid, 60.
11
Ibid, 59-60.
12
Miguel Carlos & Fernandez-Cabo, Analysis of Different Hypothesis about the Geometric Pattern of the
Pantheons Coffered Dome. Madrid Spain; Nexus NetwJ, 2013, 533.
 Henderson 5

columns, and a building with a circular posterior structure (the drum) that would in effect help

support the ceiling of the infrastructure (dome/oculus).13 According to a collection of studies,

scholars agree that the Pantheons rotunda is sectioned off into sixteen divisions that may, in

fact, symbolize the Etruscan sky.14 This fascination of the celestial lighting and correlation with

the sky is further emphasized with the implementation of the dome. The visual effects it would

have on its viewer is undeniable. This is further suggested with the help of the oculus. The

oculus brings in light directly from the ceiling of the dome and depending on the season and time

of day would highlight certain aspects of the building itself. Light and Hadrians

respect/admiration of astronomy and Pythagorean formula is suggested throughout the complex

of the Pantheon. Furthermore, McEwen suggests that Hadrian condensed the symbolic

interpretation of the Etruscan sky through the implementation of the circular presence of the

rotunda.15

The Pantheons Dome

In terms of geometric analysis of the Pantheons Dome, Miguel Carlos and Fernandez-Cabo

look into solving & identifying strategies of how the interior of the dome would be constructed

through coffering, and solving potential problems that architects and designers would have faced

when designing the dome (mathematically and visually).16 Carlos and Cabos resolve towards

the Pantheons coffering was strategized through the first-ever 3D replica of the Pantheons

dome. 17 Most significantly, Carlos and Cabo took into consideration the errors that could happen

13
Robert Hannah and Guilio Magli, The Role of the Sun in the Pantheons Design and Meaning. New Zeland;
Numen,2011, 487.
14
McEwen, 61.
15
McEwen, 63.
16
Miguel Carlos & Fernandez-Cabo, Analyisis of Different Hypotheses about the Geometric Pattern of the
Pantheons Coffered Dome. Madrid, Spain, Nexus Netw J 15, 2013, 527.
17
Carlos and Cabo, 527.
 Henderson 6

prior, during, and following the final stages of the construction of the dome (such as calculation

errors, equipment errors, and environmental errors affecting the establishment).18 Carlos and

Cabo provide an insight to the notion that the Pantheon might have been created by different

architects other than Apollodorus; given the fact that the concrete structure has an architectural

flaw that would not have happened if there wasnt a different architect involved on the structure

(3 brick arches that is responsible for providing support to the stress of the drum exhibits

architectural evidence of being re-edited/tampered with, because it would interfere with the

coffered ceilings).19 Through undergoing this in-depth analysis of the function of the dome, and

identifying the mathematical calculations that would be needed to solve geometric/visual

inaccuracies of the interior of the dome, Carlos and Cabo recognized that planar geometry was

the answer to their problem on how coffered ceiling would be implemented (their solution would

involve spherical trigonometry).20

Symbolism and iconography found in the Pantheon

There is many aesthetics that hint that the Pantheon was made to suit Emperor Hadrians

needs and desires to re-affirm his status/ right to rule. The rotunda of the Pantheon, a circular

enclosed room supporting a dome, can be seen as a strategic visual tool to assert Hadrians

power as emperor. McEwens article analyzing the iconography of the Pantheon, provides

evidence suggesting that Hadrian would use the rotunda and the visual alignment of the southern

apse as a place (facing north, which is in the direction of the sun and sky gods) to serve as a

cultural context to any Roman forgoer who would immediately identify the orientation of the

18
Ibid, 530
19
Ibid, 533.
20
Ibid. 537-538.
 Henderson 7

building to correlate with the direction of the Gods.21 This association of the sun and the sky god

is an intentional aesthetic to a Roman belief system of celestial gods. The orientation plan is

significant, because its direction faces north instead of south.22 This intentional manipulation of

the direction of the sun, and its relationship with the Pantheons viewers is a huge symbolic

factor to be considered. The cultural respect for the Roman sky god, and the illuminations in

which the sun would impact this structure coincides with the values and cultural practices of that

day. Hadrians belief system and symbolic emphasis of the implementation of the sun is cleverly

devised to assert his right to rule as is a customary practice found in most imperial art

works/architectures.

Robert Hannah & Giulio Magli, proposed an interesting idea supporting the notion that the

Pantheon was oriented and designed like a sundial (Hannah and Magli assert that the Pantheon

wasnt used as an astronomer observatory. Instead, they find evidence in the visual

aesthetics/architecture/design/ and background information on Emperor Hadrian to support their

proposed interpretation of the Pantheon). 23 Hannah & Giulio also discuss Cassius Dios

interpretation of the dome, and his opinion stating that the dome served as a visual association

with the heavens.24 Once more, Hanna & Giulio looked at buildings surrounding the Pantheon

(built and commissioned by Hadrian) and how they symbolically interplayed with the Pantheon

based on the upcoming solstices, the sun, and astronomical events. 25 This is significant because

by using other buildings to correlate a common theme (the cosmic order of the divine right to

rule) Hadrian can assert his power and authority to his people through visual and philosophical

21
McEwen, 62.
22
Hannah, 490.
23
Hannah,486.
24
Ibid, 489.
25
Ibid, 489.
 Henderson 8

themes/aesthetics. This implementation of the sun, sky, and celestial divinity is a constant theme

found throughout the complexes in which the emperor had surmounted. Additionally, Hannah

and Giulio documented the suns direct relationship with the oculus during the

summer/autumn/winter solstices at midday, and relate their documentation to support their

proposition of the implication of strategical intent to cause specific illumination effects within

the Pantheon. 26 Hannah and Giulio have tied buildings such as Neros Domus Aurea, Ara Pacis,

Hadrians Mausoleum, and the Villa at Tivoli with similarities found within the Pantheon; in

order to emphasize the symbolic association of the Sun as well as the implementation of

astronomy found within Hadrians structures.27 Theres no denying the visual implications that

the sun would have on the interpretation of the building. Hadrians strategy of building off of the

roman belief system/astronomy was a tool used to strategically maneuver his citizens trust and

faith in the emperor as a ruler.

This is further suggested in Joost-Gaugiers study on the Iconography of the Pantheon, who

took into consideration the symbolic formula implemented within the interior and exterior of the

Pantheon. Joost-Gaugier strongly supported the notion that Hadrian installed thematic elements

to assert his right to rule through the correlation of the Pythagoreans symbolic use/arrangement

of numbers. 28 Upon further analysis of the Pantheons dome, Joost-Gaugier would also discover

that the oculus would highlight specific zodiac segments of the sky in accordance to Hadrians

horoscope (most significantly Emperor Hadrians birthday).29 Although it is not proven, it was

also suggested that emperor might have sought Nichomachus (skilled in the area of mathematics,

geometry, and astrology) for the Pythagoreans formula that would potentially be used in the

26
Ibid, 492-497.
27
Ibid, 498-510
28
Joost-Gaugier, 30-31.
29
Ibid, 35.
 Henderson 9

construction of the Pantheon.30 The role that the sun and sky played in relation with the Pantheon

is undeniable. Theres just too much evidence to support the idea that Hadrian used the Roman

belief system of divine rule granted by the Gods (most specifically the Sun God). This cultural

context, in itself, is prevalent throughout the entire architectural design and involvement in the

construction of the infrastructure.

Emperor Justinian during the Byzantine Empire

Emperor Justinians reign was a time where history and documentation was beginning to

show its importance once again. The assigning of a personal scribe/historian (Procopius) became

imperative to document Justinians ventures, architectural feats, and governance as a ruler.31

Prior to Justinians acclimation to power, he served as a Palace Guard, and would eventually

work his way up in station. 32During the early sixth century, Justinian will supersede his uncle

Emperor Justin, and usher in a new era (the Byzantine era).33 Emperor Justinians reign as ruler

was filled with conflict (wars, uprisings, financial ruin, and a plague that would severely reduce

the population).34 In J.A.S Evans accounting of Procopius & Justinians relationship, Evans

will address a sense of tension building towards each other.35 In terms of laws and governance,

Justinian will be seen as a key contributor in instilling Corpus Juris Civilis (codes of law that can

still be seen to this day). 36

Justinians Hagia Sophia

30
Ibid, 32.
31
J. A. S. Evans, Justinian And The Historian Procopius. N.A; Cambridge University Press, 1970, 218.
32
Evans, 218.
33
Ibid, 218.
34
Ibid, 223.
35
Ibid, 219.
36
Rupley Zachary, Augustus, Justinian, and the Artistic Transformation of the Roman Emperor. n.a.; ProQuest
LLC,2009, 1-146.
 Henderson 10

The Hagia Sophia stands as a testament to the culture practices valued during the Byzantine

era. Most significantly, Justinians authoritative presence in the construction process of the

building is substantial. According to Anthony Cutler, Justinian expected perfection of the highest

quality out of his architects; most of which had surpassed most emperors standards during the

2nd century.37 Emperor Justinian challenged the limitations of a central dome and sought a

resolution to its structural limitations.38 Constructed within a six year time frame, Anthemius and

Isidorus implemented an innovative strategy of barrowing the Roman basilica, and combining it

with a drum (in order to support a central dome) to produce a central plan.39 Due to

environmental issues, such as earthquakes, the original dome of the Hagia Sophia will be

destroyed. It was then left to Isidorus the Younger to come up with a new architectural design

that would insure that modifications to the arches, pendentives, and dome structure would be

implemented to prevent a future collapse.40 Since the collapse of the original dome, which stood

at 20 feet, Emperor Justinian would order his architects to raise the dome higher than its original

elevation (this would require solving structural flaws that would potentially weaken the dome).41

Cakmak, Taylor and Durukai, discover that the original dome was more stable than the

present dome, so its hard for them to understand how the original dome could falter (however,

information on the original dome has been lost so answers will be minute).42 According to data

collected, the reconstructed dome was straighter, had more of a curve, and more symmetrical

than the initial dome.43 Reflecting on the historical accounts of Isidorius, Cakmak, Taylor and

37
Anthony Cutler, Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople
38
Ahmet S. Cakmak, Rabun M. Taylor & Eser Durukai, The Structural configuration of the first dome of Justinians
Hagia Sophia (A.D. 537-558): An investigation based on structural and literary analysis. N.A.;
39
Cakmak, Taylor &Durukai, 693.
40
Ibid,694.
41
Ibid, 695.
42
Ibid, 696.
43
Ibid, 697.
 Henderson 11

Durukai ascertain the notion that Isidorius didnt seek to change the height or use of windows,

but to improve/correct the instability of the dome; this led to a single ribbed structure, &

windows located between the ribs (to help maintain the rest of the dome and minimalize hoop

stress). 44 History serves as a testament of time. Cakmak, Taylor and Durukai suggest that future

collapses of the Hagia Sophia dome is inevitable.45

Architects of the dome

Could the time frame in which the Hagia Sophia was constructed be a reason to why the

original dome failed? William Emmerson & Robert L. Van Nice analyzed the structural flaws of

the construction of the first dome, assessed the influence the environment would have on the

structure, looked into the materials that were used, and undertook the process of understanding

the architectural structure of the dome as a whole. According to Emmerson and Robert, they

suggest that because of the fast construction of the Hagia Sophia that it would lead to the

potential demise of the original dome (Anthemius and Isidorus neglected the structural flaws in

the original construction of the building/dome as a way to compensate for the time restrictions).46

Anthemius and Isidorus were put in charge of the construction of the dome, but it would be

Isidorus the Younger who would be in charge of rebuilding the dome after its destruction by an

earthquake.47 Emmerson & Van Nice discover that the failure of the first dome was partly

environmental, but its initial weakness would be traced back to the structural support (four

44
Ibid, 697.
45
Ibid, 698.
46
Emmerson, William. Van Nice, Robert L. THE COLLAPSE OF THE FIRST DOME. n.a.; Archaeological Institute of
America, 1951, 96.
47
Emmerson & Van Nice, 96.
 Henderson 12

arches and the buttresses placement which failed to counter the weight of the piers) of the

dome.48

According to Rabun Taylor, Procopius (historian who documented the construction of the

Hagia Sophia) accounts to the fact that Anthemius and Isidorus constructed the first dome

without windows.49 The present dome, reconstructed by Isidorus the Younger, was made from

brick, mortar, and followed with forty arched windows.50 Additionally, Rowland Mainstone

suggests what led to the failure of the initial infrastructure was the inadequate buttresses

implemented within the piers of the Hagia Sophia.51 Procopius is seen as a key figure whose

documentation of the Hagia Sophia has been used as a tool for many scholars thorough

understanding of the architectural relevance of the structure, and provided insight on the

establishment of the domes (past and present). 52 Most significantly, the Hagia Sophia is

composed of several domes (one was used as the central dome and the other four were

implemented in the arms of the building).53 The quantity and quality of the domes constructed

within the Hagia Sophia serves to attest to the technological advancements achieved since

Emperor Hadrians reign. Most significantly, the Hagia Sophia was able to extend further than

what the Pantheon was capable of.

Influence of light & sound

In terms of the visual and auditory relationship between the spectator and the building,

Bissera V. Pentcheva discusses the implementation of aural architecture that was strategically

48
Ibid, 99-100.
49
Taylor, Rabun. A Literary and Structural Analysis of the First Dome on Justinians Hagia Sophia. n.a; University
of California Press, 1996, 66.
50
Taylor, 68.
51
Ibid, 69.
52
Ibid, 69.
53
Ibid. 72.
 Henderson 13

designed to create a multisensory experience.54 Through analyzing the Byzantine texts,

Pentcheva is able to determine what she perceives to be the main message of the Hagia Sophia;

this includes examining how the interior looked physically, and relating it to how it could

potentially be interpreted by the viewers psychological response to polymorphy. 55 Pentcheva,

discusses how performative Byzantine art can be depicted through the visual and auditory senses

(as seen through the light reflecting off the gold tesserae, the changing colors of the floor, and

analyzing the acoustics through the use of sound/music/ &chant).56 Pentcheva analyzes the

significance of Pauls ekphrasis, and explains how a textual ekphrasis (that is representing a

religious building) doesnt just serve as a textual documentation, but also serves to inspire the

readers connection into a spiritual/heavenly outer body realm of creative

imagination/association.57 This interplay of symbolic association through the physical and

spiritual realm is all made possible through the correlation of visual, rhetorical, and auditory

symbolism.

Further investigation, prompted by Danish researchers in 2003, of the dome and its shell-like

design led researchers to analyze the acoustics of the Hagia Sophia.58 Conducting such an

experiment/research would only further enhance the metaphysical correlation of the influence of

sound. Christoffer Weitze and his colleges will discover that by experimenting with sound

frequencies (through computer software) that sound seems to centralize and reverberate directly

beneath the dome.59 Could this be a coincidence? The experiment conducted by the Danish

researchers inspired Pentcheva to look into new technology and methods that would help

54
Bissera V. Pentcheva, Hagia Sophia and Multisensory Aesthetic. N.a.; The University of Chicago Press, 2011,93.
55
Pentcheva, 93.
56
Ibid, 95.
57
Ibid, 96.
58
Ibid, 101.
59
Ibid, 102.
 Henderson 14

ascertain the understanding of the acoustics role in the Hagia Sophia (recording four balloons

popping within and around the dome, having actual chanters interacting/singing within the Hagia

Sophia & applying the same strategies at a church whose structure is similar to the Hagia Sophia)

through undergoing documentation of several physical experiences rather than just rely on a

computer analysis of the structure.60 Through the implementation of a spectrogram (whose

purpose was to recorded and measure the Impulse Response of both the balloons popping and the

chanters singing) it supported the Danish researchers idea that sound resonates and reverberates

beneath the central focus of the dome. 61 To further support this idea of strategic acoustics,

Pentcheva relies on the background history of Anthemius and Isidorus (their skill in mathematics

and personal interests) that suggests that they possessed the knowledge and skill to create an

intentionally resonating interior.62 Lastly, Pentcheva discusses how analyzing the role light and

sound interacts within the Hagia Sophia is relevant in traditional Byzantine aesthetics.

Iconography of the mosaics within the Hagia Sophia

Theres more to the Hagia Sophia than meets the eye. According to Louis Demos, as a

spectator enters the basilica of the Hagia Sophia the first imagery that comes into view would be

a mosaic depicting Emperors Constantine and Justinian bestowing donations to the Virgin Mary

and Child (niche in the southeast vestibule hall).63 This is significant because you see the

religious influence that Byzantine art would have on it rulers. Most significantly, the materials,

design, clothing, colors, symbols, and lighting implemented all reflect the cultural practices

found within byzantine artworks & mosaics. Following the visual procession to the right of Jesus

60
Ibid, 102-103.
61
Ibid, 103.
62
Ibid, 104.
63
Demos Louis. Seeing Salvation: The Mosaic in the SouthWest Vestibule of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul.n.a.; ProQuest
LLC, 2013, 6.
 Henderson 15

will be a mosaic depicting Emperor Justinian; offering a replica of the Hagia Sophia to Christ

and Mary (this practice is often interpreted as an act of humility from the emperor). 64 On further

analysis of the relationship of Justinians mosaic, in correlation to the Virgin and Child, Demos

notes that Justinians posture reflects his admiration of the Virgin Mary.65 Demos associates

Justinians posture (how both the Virgin Mary and Justinians gaze seem to meet each others

glances) to allude to Justinians past history of dedicating several extravagant churches in honor

of the Virgin Mary (symbolically representing the action of Mary acknowledging Justinian, for

all eternity, his attempts to honor her). 66 Additionally, Demos elaborates on the significance of

the loros worn by the emperors (because its worn by the emperor it is symbolically associated

with the cave of Christs resurrection).67 In effect, Demos associates the symbolic interpretation

of the loros to reflect Justinians embodiment of Christs burial in correlation to the tomb Christ

was buried in, and the upcoming days leading to his resurrection.68

Final Thoughts

The Pantheon and the Hagia Sophia are two structures that reflect the social practices and

customs of their rulers. Emperor Hadrian devised a structure that embodies and challenges

cultural norms of the ancient Roman era. Hadrian renovated the initial purpose of a temple to

serve his greater purpose (to acclaim his right to rule). Through implementing visual aesthetics

(such as the sun, orientation plan, iconography, Pythagorean formula, astrology, cultural

practices/belief systems, mathematics, buildings built under Hadrian in relation to the Pantheon,

the oculus/ dome and symbolism) Emperor Hadrian was able to convey a deeper meaning of

64
Demos, 9-10.
65
Ibid, 57.
66
Ibid, 57.
67
Ibid,108.
68
Ibid, 109.
 Henderson 16

celestial right to rule, granted by the Gods, to his citizens. Hadrians involvement in relation to

the construction of the Pantheon and the Pantheon Aggrippa is fairly similar to the Byzantine

emperor Justinian. They are both rulers who challenged and defied the impossible (construction

of the domes) and physically sought to commemorate their right to reign (through mosaics for

Justinian & the oculus which astronomically aligns to Hadrians birthday and significant events

in relation to Hadrian).

Unlike Hadrian, whose strategic manipulation of architectural design of the Pantheon was a

blatant statement to his citizens, Emperor Justinians strategy took a far more subtle approach in

terms of aesthetic and architectural design. Emperor Justinian is a pivotal character in the

development of the Hagia Sophia. Most significantly his implementation of iconography, aural

architecture (use of light & sound), mosaics, advanced architectural design of the domes, and

rich materials were used to subtly reflect Justinians authority and humility as a serving emperor.

Rather than continuously acclaiming his right to rule he let his structure serve as a religious tool.

Rather than associating himself above and equal to the Gods Justinian, through the

implementation of the mosaics, was used to present himself as a servant to the faith (Mary,

Christ and God). This was a logical tactic since his reign involved numerous conflicts (such as

the plague, revolts and etc.) but also reflects the cultural practices of the Byzantine era.

Both buildings faced an unmeasurable amount of environmental stress and destruction, but

their survival serves as a testament of their ability to adapt to their setting. Given the fact that

both domes were used as a symbolic inference to the Gods and the heavens, the architects for

both buildings took into account the physical and emotional relationship that must interplay to

have a profound effect on their viewers. This understanding of mathematics, and

 Henderson 17

dispersing/balancing weight allowed architects such as Appollodorus of Damascus, Anthemius,

Isidorus and Isidorus the Younger the ability to overcome these structural challenges.

Lastly, the influence in which light would have on both buildings is remarkably

outstanding. Both emperors ensured that the manipulation of the belief systems during that time

(Roman and Byzantine) were engrained into the very grain work in which the building was

constructed, and yet still emphasized a significant correlation with the sun in both structures

(Hagia Sophias & The Pantheons dome). Reflective light, orientation plan, and the way the sun

would highlight certain aspects of the building is significant. Without this attention and respect

to these minute details the impact it would have on its viewers it could have very well resulted in

a less spiritually impacting architecture. All of these attributes (mathematical, history,

culture/belief systems, light and sun and etc) all play pivotal roles in the final product of these

two buildings. Although these two structures were constructed under two different time periods

and locations they reflect a unifying element and thats found within the thematic principles and

manipulation of the belief systems and customs of that day. Though these empires were worlds

apart, they were connected under one dome (theoretically speaking).

 Henderson 18

Bibliography

Carlos, Miguel. Cabo, Fernandez. Analysis of Different Hypotheses about the Geometric

Pattern of the Pantheons Coffered Dome. Nexus Netw 15, no.3 (2013):527-547

Cakmak, Ahmet. Taylor, Rabun & Durukai, Eser. The structural configuration of the first dome

of Justinians Hagia Sophia (A.D. 537-558): An investigation based on structural and

literary analysis. n.a 29, no.4 (2009):693-698

Cutler, Anthony. Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. The Journal of

Aesthetics and Art Criticism 25, no.1 (1966): 27-35

Demos, Louis. Seeing Salvation: The mosaic in the Southwest Vestibule of Hagia Sophia

Istanbul. ProQuest LLC (2013): 1-257

Emerson, William. Van Nice, Robert L. HAGIA SOPHIA: THE COLLAPSE OF THE FIRST

DOME. Archaeological Institute of America 4, no. 2 (1951): 94-103

Evans, J.A.S. Justinian and the Historian Procopius. Cambridge University Press 17, no.2

(1970): 218-223
 Henderson 19

Gaugier, Joost. The Iconography of Sacred Space: A Suggested Reading of the Meaning of

the Roman Pantheon. Artibus et Historiae 19, no. 38 (1998): 21-42

Hannah, Robert. Magli, Giulio. The Role of the Sun in the Pantheons Design and Meaning.

Numen 58, (2011): 486-513

McEwen, Indra K. Hadrians Rhetoric 1: The Pantheon. Anthropology and Aesthetics, no. 24

(1993): 55-66

Pentcheva, Bissera V. Hagia Sophia and Multisensory Aesthetics.Gesta 50, no.2 (2011): 93-

111

Rupley, Zachary. Augustus, Justinian and the Artistic Transformation of the Roman Empire.

ProQuest LLC (2009): 1-146

Taylor, Rabun. A Literary and Structural Analysis of the First Dome on Justinians Hagia

Sophia, Constantinople. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 55, no.1

(1996): 66-78