is the _cimborio_, or lantern of the _croisee_.
Flanked by four circular turrets, which are pierced by round-topped
windows and surmounted by Oriental domes that add a stunted, solid
appearance to the whole, the principal cupola rises to the same height
as the previously mentioned turrets. The whole is a marvel of simple
architectural resource within the narrow limits of the round-arched
style. What is more, though this cupola and that of Santiago belong to
the same period, what a world of difference between the two! Seen as
indicated above, the _factura_ of the whole is intensely Oriental
(excepting the addition of the triangular cornices emerging from beneath
the cupola), and, it may be said in parenthesis, exceptionally fine.
Besides, the high walls of the aisles, as compared with the stunted
growth of the _cimborio_, and with the compact and slightly angular form
of the entire building, lend an unrivalled aspect of solidity, strength,
and resistance to the twelfth-century cathedral church, so
intrinsically different from that of Santiago.

The interior is no less peculiar, and particularly so beneath the
lantern of the _croisee_. The latter is composed of more than a dozen
windows, slightly ogival in shape, though from the outside the pillars
of the flanking turrets support round-headed arches; these windows are
separated from each other by simple columns or shafts. Again, what a
difference between this solid and simple _cimborio_ and the marvellous
lantern of the cathedral at Burgos! Two ages, two generations, even two
ideals, are represented in both; the earlier, the stronger, in Zamora;
the later, the more aerial and elaborate, in Burgos.

Another Romanesque characteristic is the approximate height of nave and
aisles. This circumstance examined from within or from without is one of
the causes of the solid appearance of the church; the windows of the
aisles--unimportant, it is true, from an artistic point of view--are
slightly ogival; those of the nave are far more primitive and
round-headed.

The transept, originally of the same length as the width of the church,
was prolonged in the fifteenth century. (On the south side also?... It
is extremely doubtful, as the southern facade previously described is
hardly a fifteenth-century construction; on the other hand, that on the
north side is easily classified as posterior to the general construction
of the building.)

Further, the western end, lacking a facade, is