represents the form of art which followed the
classical, after the transitional interval of the early Christian period.
It reached maturity under Justinian (527-565), declined and revived with
the fortunes of the empire, and attained a second culmination from the 10th
to the 12th centuries. Continuing in existence throughout the later middle
ages, it is hardly yet extinct in the lands of the Greek Church. It had
enormous influence over the art of Europe and the East during the early
middle ages, not only through the distribution of minor works from
Constantinople but by the reputation of its architecture and painting.
Several buildings in Italy are truly Byzantine. It is difficult to set a
time for the origin of the style. When Constantine founded new Rome the art
was still classical, although it had even then gathered up many of the
elements which were to transform its aspect. Just two hundred years later
some of the most characteristic works of this style of art were being
produced, such [v.04 p.0907] as the churches of St Sergius, the Holy Wisdom
(St Sophia), and the Holy Apostles at Constantinople, and San Vitale at
Ravenna. We may best set an arbitrary point for the demarcation of the new
style midway between these two dates, with the practical separation of the
eastern and western empires.

The style may be said to have arisen from the orientalization of Roman art,
and itself largely contributed to the formation of the Saracenic or
Mahommedan styles. As Choisy well says, "The history of art in the Roman
epoch presents two currents, one with its source in Rome, the other in
Hellenic Asia. When Rome fell the Orient returned to itself and to the
freedom of exploring new ways. There was now a new form of society, the
Christian civilization, and, in art, an original type of architecture, the
Byzantine." It has hardly been sufficiently emphasized how closely the art
was identified with the outward expression of the Christian church; in
fact, the Christian element in late classical art is the chief root of the
new style, and it was the moral and intellectual criticism that was brought
to bear on the old material, which really marked off Byzantine art from
being merely a late form of classic.

Hardly any distinction can be set up in the material contents of the art;
it was at least for a period only simplified and sweetened, and it is this
freshening which prepared the way for future development. It must be
confessed, ho