Robert Mark

Hagia Sophia: From the Age of Justinian to the Present

With its vast scale, immense cost, extraordinary speed of erection, and stunning interior space, the creation of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul between 532-537 is unparalleled in premodern, Western architecture. As such, the achievement begs answers to three important questions: the nature of the theoretical and material resources available to the early designers to achieve this great building; the behaviour over the centuries of its much modified structure under the action of environmental loadings; the ability of the present-day structure to withstand a major earthquake. In this volume, scholars and professionals from different disciplines exchange ideas and new information pertaining to the historical background, physical environment, design, and the state of the Hagia Sophia building structure over time.

The Cathedral and the Bridge: Structure and Symbol

When Montgomery Schuyler wrote in 1883 what was perhaps the first critical essay on a work of modern engineering as a work of art (the Brooklyn Bridge), he recognized the cultural similarity between the Gothic cathedrals of the 13th century and the long-span bridges of his own era.1 Just as the cathedrals symbolized the medieval world of stone, so did the bridges of the Industrial Revolution symbolize the new technological world of metal. Yet, while most educated persons of the 20th century will know something of medieval cathedrals and perceive such knowledge as essential to a liberal education, few are familiar with the great modern structures or would accord them a central place in higher learning. Here, we seek to explore two reasons for this cultural neglect. One is related to a misconception about the cathedral itself and the other to a mistaken belief that a deeper understanding of modern engineering is both inaccessible to the non-engineer and without intrinsic cultural value. Our aim is to show how historical study from an engineering perspective can correct such misunderstanding while making the technical questions intelligible to the general public.

In Response to "Another View of 'The Cathedral and the Bridge'"

We appreciate Professor Condits thoughtful critique. No historian has done more to increase our understanding of American buildings. But in the critique he has raised many issues not pertinent to our paper and thereby so misinterprets some of its ideas that we believe it essential to restate our major themes before replying directly to those of his criticisms which do apply. Our goal was to draw a parallel between the Gothic cathedrals as the finest structures of the 12th and 13th centuries and modern bridges of metal and concrete as among the best structures of the 19th and 20th centuries. We argued that, while most educated people today would know about the cathedrals, they would not be as well informed about the modern bridges. This neglect, we observed, arises from a commonly held view that the cathedral represents only aesthetic and religious expression, while the bridge is without comparable cultural value. And this viewpoint is reinforced by the belief that the engineering of all of these works is too scientific to be understood by the nonspecialist. Concerning first the cathedral, we emphasized that its primary function was indeed religious and aesthetic, especially directed toward the creation of interior light; but we stressed how modern scholarship has begun to provide insights into the economic basis of its construction and to reveal the process of medieval building design. The desire for religious and aesthetic expression is first in the same sense that a safe and economical crossing is the first desire for a bridge. But in realizing the form of the cathedral, cost and safety became crucial factors. To leave out such central issues leads to an unbalanced and distorted view