Flat .
Oversize - IVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME LIBRARY
NA
5620
S9
A74
1870
TWO MEMOIRS
ON
SAINT PETERS CHAIR
PRESERVED AT ROME
BY
ABTHUR ASHPITEL, ESQ., F.S.A.
AND
ALEXANDER NESBITT, ESQ., F.S.A.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY NICHOLS AND SONS, 25, PARLIAMENT STREET,
AND SOLD AT THE APARTMENTS OE THE SOCIETY OE ANTIQUARIES
IN SOMERSET HOUSE.
M.DCCC.LXX.
TWO MEMOIRS
ON
SAINT PETERS CHAIR
PRESERVED AT ROME
BY
ARTHUR ASHPITEL, ESQ., F.S.A.
ANI)
ALEXANDER NESBITT, ESQ., F.S.A.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY NICHOLS AND SONS, 25, PARLIAMENT STREET,
AND SOLD AT THE APARTMENTS OE THE SOCIETY OE ANTIQUARIES
IN SOMERSET HOUSE.
M.DCCC.LXX.
Notice of a Drawing in the Mogul Library at Windsor, represent¬
ing the Chair of St. Peter at Eome. By Arthur
Ashpitel, Esq., FN. A.
Great interest lias long been felt in the celebrated Chair of St. Peter, traditionally
said to have been given to that apostle when in Rome by the Senator Pndens, whose
daughters Sta. Pudenziana and Sta. Prassede hold distinguished places in the Roman
Martyrology. It will be remembered that a very active controversy arose on the subject
of this chair between Lady Morgan and Cardinal Wiseman, originating in a statement
published by the former as long ago as 1821, 011 the authority of Baron Denon. The
learned Baron is reported to have stated that the chair bore on it the formula of the
Mahomedan profession of faith inscribed in Arabic characters. I need hardly, however,
enter into the merits of this controversy, which could have readily been settled by an
examination of the relic itself.
To examine, however, the chair itself is no light matter. Those who are acquainted
with the magnificent church of St. Peter at Rome will remember the splendid bronze
chair which is at the further end of the church, at the end of what we should call the
choir, but which is there described as the Tribune. This is one of most gorgeous
specimens of art to be found in the building, and is in truth the shrine of the famous
chair. It is the work of Bernini, and is entirely of gilt bronze, and rests 011 a pedestal
of black and white French marble, on which are placed four bases of Sicilian jasper. On
these stand four gigantic statues of the great doctors of the Greek and Latin churches,
St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, and St. Clirysostoiii. The first of these is
nearly 18 feet in height, the others a little less. Each of the figures supports one of the
legs of a magnificent chair, about 16 feet in height, the back of which is adorned with a
bas-relief of Our Lord confiding the care of his sheep to St. Peter. Above is an assembly
of innumerable angels disposed in groups round a circle, in the midst of which is set a
panel of stained glass representing the Holy Dove surrounded by rays. The spaces
between the legs of the chair are filled in with plates of glass, so as to form a sort of
chamber for the reception of the ancient chair, the lowest part of the chamber being
about 30 feet from the fioor. The total height of the bronze chair is 100 feet from the
floor, and the weight of metal employed was, according to Eontana, 219,000 Roman
pounds, or nearly 75 tons English. This remarkable work is said to have cost 171,000
Roman scudi, which in our present money would represent about Al00,000. It was
erected in the pontificate of Alexander VII., from 1655 to 1667.
The inaccessible position of the relic, and the great veneration in which it is held,
have always surrounded the ancient chair of St. Peter with a good deal of mystery, not a
b
[ 2 ]
little increased by tlie reported account of Baron Denon. It was therefore with no
little gratification that I discovered a document of considerable importance respecting the
chair in the Royal Library at Windsor. That library is being rearranged and remodelled
by the exertions of one of our Fellows, Mr. B. B. Woodward. In turning over some
papers a number of drawings were discovered which attracted the attention of the Prmce
Consort. They are chiefly architectural, or illustrations of the archaeology of Rome, and
include drawings of Oddi, Bartoli, and Carlo Fontana. From some of the volumes having
on them the insignia of the Albano family, to which belonged Pope Clement XI. and from
many of the reports among the papers being addressed to that pontiff, it is probable that
they formed part of a purchase made from the Albano family by George III. Everything,
at any rate, about them stamps them as untampered with and genuine.
Among the architectural drawings is one which forms the subject of this notice, and
of which a fac-simile is given in Plate I.1 From the report accompanying the drawing
it appears to represent the chair of St. Peter, and to have been made by the architect
Carlo Fontana, who had been commanded by Clement XI. to report on the then state of
the chair. His Royal Highness the Prince Consort has most obligingly consented to
the drawing being exhibited to the Society, and has permitted me to make a fac-simile of
it for publication.
The drawing is executed in water-colour, and was probably not made on the spot,
but produced from a slight pencil sketch, which is preserved with it. On it are various
letters of the alphabet and Arabic numerals referred to in the report, which is in the
following words :
jRelazione, o JDisegno del Cauallier Carlo Fontana2 data ä N. Sigre Fapa demente XI., delta Catedra, ouero sedia
antica, di San Fietro, cioe Vanno 1705.
La Catedra ouero Sedia di S. Pietro primo Papa, clie risiede hora dentro il fanioso ornamento di bronzo dorato,
situato nel gran Tempio Yatieano, e longa nella fronte del Seditore di C a D palmi quattro, compreso tutto il legno,
1 By inadvertence tlie letters of reference in the plate have been modernised ; in other respects it is a fac-simile
of the original drawing.
2 Carlo Pontana was born in 1631 in Bruciato, in the district of Como, in North Italy. Who his father and
mother were does not seem well known, but it is probable that he was some connection of the descendants of the
famous Domenico Pontana and his brother Giovanni. Prom Bruciato he came to Borne, and studied under
Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini.
The following are his principal works :—
I. The chapel called Ginetti in the church of Sant' Andrea della Yalle.
II. Part of the Cibo chapel at the Madonna del Popolo.
ill. The cupola, high altar, and ornaments at the Madonna dei Miracoli.
iv. The church of the nuns of Santa Marta.
v. The fagade of the church of Beata Bita and San Marcello del Corso.
vi. The tomb of Queen Christina of Sweden at St. Peter's.
vii. Palazzo Grimani a Strada Bosella.
viii. Palazzo Bolognetti.
ix. The fountain of Santa Maria in Trastevere.
x. The fountain in the piazza di San Pietro, towards the Porta Cavalleggieri.
xi. The repair of the church of the Spirito Santo dei Napolitani.
xii. The theatre of Tordinona.
xiii. By order of Innocent XII., San Michele a Bipa, the chapel of the Baptism at San Pietro, the com¬
pletion of the Palazzo di Montecitorio.
xiv. Under Clement XI., the Granari a Termini, the portico of Santa Maria in Trastevere, the basin of the
Pontana Paolina.
xv. The restoration of the Casino of the Vatican.
xvi. The library Della Minerva.
xvii. The cupola of the Cathedral at Montefiascone.
xvin. Palace and villa at Prascati for Monsignor Visconti.
Besides these, he sent to Pulda a model for the cathedral, and other models to Vienna for the imperial stabies.
Milizia adds that in the greater part of these works Pontana has exhibited a licentious and corrupt style.
PL. I.
< therefore wjth no
tiuice respecting the
1-t'd UU(l remodelled
turning over ^
«'Hon of the Prince
ol°gy of Rome, and
tlle vo'"mes having
lemcM XI. and from
'>'t is probable that
?e HI- I.ven thirjg,
c.
ot this notice, and
)a nying the drawing
wie by the architect
on the then state of
igingly consented to
make a lac-simile of
made on the spot,
On it are various
ort, which is in the
lella Catedra, ouero sedia
lamento di bronzo dorato,
o, compreso tutto il legno,
r respects it is a fac-simile
talv. "Who his father and
•I
of the descendants of the
Rome, and studied under
a at San Pietro, theC0ID'
♦ocfovere,
the basin of the
, for the imperial s*
3 and corrupt style.
3
J"
<r
Stornh '& Kramer chromolith.
Facsimile of the drawing of S1 Peter's Chair by Carlo Fontana
m the Royal Library at Windsor
\
L.GruiiBr dir.
[ 3 ]
e di vano nelli braccioli palmi duo c tre quarti, alta del posamento A sino alia trauersa del seditore B palmi due e
due terzi, e di larghezza ne i fianclii de i braccioli nel vano, cioe da D a A, palmi due e un quarto, e la spagliera,
o sia appoggiatore, e alta dalla trauersa B sino all' altra E palmi due e once una, et il frontespizio dalla detta trauersa
E sino alia cima E e alta palmo uno e once tre, la detta spagliera da Gr a H e longa palmi quattro, corrispondente alia
fronte del seditore.
La detta catedra e composta di legname di cerqua segnata No. I. goffamente lauorata, con riporti nel seditore e
spagliera d'alcuni fregi d 'auorio larghi due dita, intagliati di fogliame non di buon disegno, intrecciate con alcuni
Caproni, uve, e flgurette, come una specie d'ornamenti baccanali, e di esso fregio ne mancano molti pezzi, come ne
addita il disegno.
La spagliera, overo appoggiatore, come sopra uiene ornata con quattro arclii, e pilastri, tre de' quali ne mancano,
e di sotto vi e il medemo ornato.
La fronte del seditore e serrata con una tavola di noce ordinaria, segnata No. 3.
La detta catedra ha quattro riporti ne i cantoni, segnati No. 2, di legno di pino tutto lacero, e quasi cariati, come
si uede da C, G, H, e D.
A causa dell' antichita del legno di cerqua si crede, che si rilassasse ouero si slogasse dal suo essere, providdero
l'antichi come si crede del rinforzo dei detti legni di pino cantonali con un cingolo di ferro segnato No. 6, che
circuisce tutta la sedia, e di sotto con un altro cingolo di ferro segnato No. 7, che la circuisce da basso con l'altre
No. 8 uicino a terra, che abbracciano li fianehi della spagliera.
Nella distanza del frontale e spagliera ui sono palmi due e un quarto di vano, che con li risalti assegnano palmi
due e mezzo per la situazione del cuscino sostenuto d'alcuni pezzi di corame, come redine delle briglie de caualli,
rozzamente inchiodati, e detto cuscino e di tela sottile, nobile, tessuta d' alcune cose, che malamente si riconos-
cono, il qual cuscino e a suo douere pieno, che situato sopra le redine non alza piu che un quarto sopra la trauersa,
come si uede alia linea punteggiata No. 5 segnata di giallo.
Yi sono nel frontespizio tre sfori, uno maggiore e due minore, con alcune piaghe o incaui nel legno; si crede che
fussero luoghi di qualche ornamento riportato; e nella parte superiore del frontespizio ui sono due sfranghe di ferro,
che abbracciano di dietro la spagliera segnata No. 9.
II disegno si e fatto con le precise misure, etiam le parti minute del palmo d' architetto, e ridotto nella
proporzione con la scaletta de palmi segnata nel proprio disegno.
Note. Owing to the lamented death of the accomplished author of this paper, and
the great amount of additional information which has been obtained since the paper was
read, it has been thought desirable to publish only those portions of Mr. Ashpitel's
remarks that relate to Fontana s Report, as the author no doubt would have wished to
modify his general observations on the history of the chair to suit the altered state of
the question. This is the less to he regretted as Mr. Nesbitt has been in a position
to enter more fully than Mr. Ashpitel could have done into the art and history of the
relic.
Eontana entered into a calculation of tbe whole cost of St. Peter's from its commencement to the year 1694. The
result was 46,852,000 scudi. In this calculation is not included the expense of models, demolition of walls, and the
campanile of Bernini. Eontana's calculation was not based upon the registers, which are incomplete, but upon the
measurement of the building, which, according to him, amounted to 111,122,000 cubic palms. This calculation owes
its origin to the report which arose that the cupola of St. Peter's was unsafe. Pope Innocent XI. accordingly
took an opinion of all the greatest architects, and charged Eontana with a description of the Temple of the Vatican
for present and future use. The opinion of these men quieted the fears of the people as to the insecurity of the
building, but in 1742 the report again spread, and eventually eight circles of iron were braced around the cupola.
This was completed in 1747.
Carlo Eontana had two grandsons, one of whom, Girolamo, who died when young, built the fagade of the
cathedral at Erascati, as well as a fountain in the same place. Amongst his pupils are mentioned Carlo Bizzaccheri,
who altered the Palazzo Negroni, and built the palace of San Luigi dei Erancesi. Alessandro Specchi, another pupil,
built the Palazzo de Carolis, now dei Gesuiti, the porto di ftipetta, and the portico di San Paolo.
Eor mention of Carlo Eontana consult "Vite dei Celebri Arcliitetti" [by Milizia], p. 389, et seq.; Milizia,
Dizionario delle Belle Arte, Bologna, 1828, ii. 31; Milizia, Memorie degli Arcliitetti, Bassano, 1785, ii. 216, et seq.;
Gwilt, Encyclopcedia of Architecture, London, 1867, p. 157, sec. 365.
■
.
.
Copies from Drawings preserved in the Sacristy of St. Peter's at
Pome, representing the Chair of St. Peter : with Obser¬
vations by Alexander Nesbitt, Esq.,
The "Cathedra Petri/' or episcopal chair of St. Peter, is an object to which tradition,
supported by papal authority, has attached great sanctity; hut as until the year 1866 it
had been for more than two centuries almost entirely secluded from human eyes, its form
and character were known to very few excepting those who had seen the rare books in
which it is figured or described, or who had examined the drawings of it which are to
be seen in the Sacristy of the Vatican Basilica.
The exhibition, therefore, by Mr. Ashpitel, by permission of His Royal Highness
the late Prince Consort, at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries, on the 11th of April,
1861, of a drawing of this chair preserved in the Royal Library at Windsor, excited
much attention and interest, and it was considered desirable that an engraving copied
from this drawing should be published in the Vetusta Monumentci; as, however, this
drawing, though in many respects valuable, has no pretensions to the character of an
exact or careful delineation of the chair, more accurate representations were required in
order that the subject should be fully illustrated, and the Director of the Society,
A. W. Franks, Esq., procured from Rome careful tracings of the above mentioned
drawings in the Sacristy of St. Peter's.
On the occasion of the centenary celebration of the Martyrdom of St. Peter in 1866,
the chair was brought out from the repository, in which it has long been inclosed—a sort
of closet in the wall of the apse or tribunal of St. Peter's1—and placed over the altar in
one of the chapels of that church. While there it was carefully examined by two dis¬
tinguished Roman archaeologists, the Cavaliere G. B. De Rossi, and the Padre Raffaele
Garrucci of the Collegio Romano, both Honorary Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries.
The former of these has published in the Bulletino di Archeologia Cristiana for May and
June, 1867, a very instructive paper on the cathedra, in which he embodies the result
of his personal examination; and Padre Garrucci has stated in letters addressed to W.
M. Wylie, Esq., F.S.A., what he has been able to observe, and the conclusions which he
deduces from his observations. In Appendix I. that part of Cavaliere De Rossi's paper
which describes the chair is printed; Appendix II. is an extract from Padre Garrucci's
letters. The chair was also photographed, and a woodcut from one of these photo¬
graphs is given on the next page hut one.2 These photographs should of course furnish
1 It would seem tliat it was at one time inclosed in the great bronze chair ('see ante, p. 1), hut the writer was
assured, on very good authority, that of late years it has been kept in the repository mentioned in the text.
3 Tor permission to use this cut, engraved originally for Borna Sotterranea, London, 1869, the Society of
Antiquaries is indebted to the Lev. J. S. Northcote, D.D., one of the learned editors of that work.
[ 6 ]
the most trustworthy representation of the chair in its entirety, but difficulties of
manipulation, arising from the situation in which the chair was placed, have prevented
the details from being rendered with the clearness and distinctness which is to he
desired, and in some cases these details have been subsequently clumsily and incorrectly
supplied. We have now therefore much information on which we can rely as to
the real character of this remarkable object; to complete our knowledge we only
require accurate representations of the more important parts of the hands of carved
ivory with which the chair is decorated, which bands may be safely assumed to be co-eval
with it. The publication of this memoir has been delayed in the hope that such repre¬
sentations might be procured ; but, as it has been found that there is no present probability
that such will be the case, it has been judged better to delay no longer.
It is proposed in this communication—first, to furnish so much description of the
chair and of the ivory carvings as may be required, and to comment on and compare
them with other objects of similar character: secondly, to give such notices of its history
as may he collected from ancient or modern writers, or from documents : thirdly, to
inquire what would appear to be its real origin and date : and lastly, (in Appendices, &c.)
to notice some matters relating to it which ought not to be altogether passed over.
It may be well here to state that the drawings in the Sacristy of St. Peter's were made
in the year 1784 by Signor S. A. Scardovelli; that at Windsor by the Cavaliere Carlo
Fontana, evidently with a view to accompany and explain the report on the chair, which
will be found printed at the end of Mr. Ashpitel's paper immediately preceding the
present notice.
Any detailed description of the chair is of course unnecessary, as the plates will
furnish a correct idea of its form. According to the scale attached to the elevation in
Scardovelli's drawings, which may be assumed to be in Roman architectural palms
of 8*79 English inches, the chair measures in height to the top of the pediment
6p- 5|onc = 4 feet 8*75 inches; in width across the front 3p- 11011C,= 2 feet 10*4 inches;
in depth from front to back 3p = 2 feet 2*37 inches; and in height from the ground to
the top of the bar which supported the seat 2p- llonc = 2 feet 1*64 inch.1 The seat is
wanting, but it was probably inserted in the rabbet or groove in the bar at the back,
and then dropped on the projecting piece of the bar at the front. Fontana, as will have
been seen from his report, printed with Mr. Ashpitel's paper, states that the cushion
was sustained by strips of leather roughly nailed on; but this was probably not the pri¬
mitive arrangement. The bars as well of the sides as of the front and hack, and the
other set of bars near the ground, are all moulded internally into two hollows, the
reason for which decoration is not obvious.
The chair is composed of wood, into which bands of carved ivory have been inserted,
and plates or tablets of ivory are affixed to the front below the seat. The various
authorities who have given accounts of it do not agree as to the nature of the wood of
which the various parts are composed. Cavaliere Fontana, in the report attached
to his drawing, says that it is of oak (cerqua), and that the pieces attached to it
are of pine. Padre Garrucci (Appendix II.) says that the interior parts of the chair are
of a wood " which, as is said, is acacia," while the external pieces are of oak; and Cavaliere
De Rossi (Appendix I.) describes the former portions to be of a " blackish wood of acacia "
and the latter to he of yellowish oak. All three agree in saying that the rings are
fixed into the oaken portions, and that these are wormeaten, decayed, and much damaged
by the cutting off of fragments to serve as relics. The drawings and descriptions make
it quite clear that the oaken parts are additions to the chair. Carlo Fontana calls the
1 These dimensions, it will be seen, do not quite agree with those given by Tontana in his report.
ur are
aliere
• »»
acia
rs are
naged
make
Is the
5 rcaU ieL
A
k
caiiemam lbbneam blddie mnätam fwtificffam
FRANCIS CI
e alb it i
ID
ianonicu
rami
altar
S- A. ScardeveJ.iL S ■ cl- i7Q4A
simm a maj®m1u9 inter antipjas et ve ne rar* leliipias assmvatam
O rp
D
fa fabrica oeconomus et a secretis delinbandam
[ 7 ]
angle pieces " quattro riporti;" Padre Garrucci distinguishes between them and the
sedia interna; and Cavaliere De Rossi says that the " sedia " is inclosed and hound
within the " armatura " or framework of oak, the last writer adding that some of the
pieces of this " armatura" have been supplied by others of the same material as the
" sedia" itself, i.e. acacia.
The brown irregular pieces of wood shown in Fontana's drawing (Plate I.), are
no doubt intended to represent this " armatura." In the Plate given by Phoebeus {Be
Identitote Cathedra, Sfc.) they are indistinctly shown as rough planks, but in Scardovelli's
large drawings they are not shown at all, being no doubt considered by him merely in
the light of rough work added to strengthen the chair and keep it together. It will be
observed that in Fontana's drawing the capitals of the little pilasters in the back are
represented as if rude imitations of Ionic, but the photographs show that Scardovelli's
drawing (Plate II.) represents them with greater fidelity as composed of two discs.
I shall have occasion hereafter to refer to this peculiar feature. The oval openings in the
pediment are shown in Scardovelli's sectional drawing (Plate III.) as bevelled on each
side, and the photographs confirm this ; in the perspective drawing they are not so repre¬
sented, but this must be attributed to some carelessness of the draughtsman or copyist.
Chair of St. Peter (from a Photograph).
There is an absence of ornament, and a simplicity amounting almost to rudeness, in
the architectural details, which does not harmonize with the ivory carvings, and leads to
the supposition that much of the now unornamented surface was once, like the Coro¬
nation Chair in Westminster Abbey, covered with superficial raised decoration and
painted and gilt.
The carvings in ivory which decorate the chair remain to be considered, and these, it
is obvious, belong to two classes—the tablets which cover the front below the place for
the seat, and the narrow bands which ornament the upright and the transverse pieces of
the front and the anterior part of the hack. Those of the first class, viz., the tablets, are
not co-original with the chair, having no doubt been removed from some other object
which they once decorated; they are here placed, some upside down, and nearly all so as
not to correspond one with another, their height and length and the patterns of the
ornamental borders which surround them not coinciding. The study of these will
therefore give little, if any, aid in the investigation of the history of the chair; but, as
they are works of considerable curiosity and interest, a detailed account of them is given
in Appendix III. It may be sufficient here to say that they are no doubt Byzantine, and
probably date from the eleventh century.
The bands of ornament which are inserted in the upright and transverse pieces of
the front, and in the anterior part of the back, are far more important as assisting us
[ 8 ]
in forming a judgment as to the date and place of fabrication of tlie cathedra; for it
is obviously probable, indeed almost certain, that they and tlie chair are of one and
the same date. Unfortunately the small scale of the drawings and photographs makes
it impossible to speak very decidedly either as to their subjects or their style ; all have
rich and elegant scrolls of foliage, inclosing in their folds figures of men fighting, or
mounted on horses, or on sea monsters, of centaurs, birds, &c., with the exception of a
portion of the hand placed horizontally below the pediment, which consists of foliage
only. This, no doubt, is the piece which Padre Garrucci speaks of as being a resto¬
ration, and of inferior execution. Other portions, it will be seen, are now not in their
original positions.
These hands are described by Padre Garrucci as " traf orate a sottosquadro," pierced
and undercut, and the work, he says, is such as might he expected to be produced by an
excellent artist of the ninth century copying from ancient models.
The most remarkable part of these bands is certainly that which forms the centre of
the horizontal line at the base of the pediment. Here is a half-length figure clothed in a
cloak fastened on the right shoulder, and wearing an open crown which has ornaments in
the form of a fleur-de-lis, rising from its circlet; this crowned figure holds in the right
hand a globe, in the left the fragment of a sceptre. The chin is shaven, but moustacliios
on the upper lip are visible. The whole, says Padre Garrucci, hears a striking
resemblance to the figure of Charles the Bald as depicted in the beginning of the famous
'c Bibbia di S. Paolo." (See d'Agincourt, Hist, de VArt par ses Monuments. Peinture, pi.
xl.) On either side of this figure are two winged figures like the classical impersonations
of Victory; two of these offer to the central figure crowns, and the other two palm
branches ; beyond these are pairs of combatants, in whom Padre Garrucci sees the
guards of the Emperor killing his enemies. The highest divisions of the sides of the
pediment contain half-length figures, which may be those of Apostles, Prophets, or Saints;
that on the left has the right hand raised in the attitude of allocution. In the other divi¬
sions of these sides will be found centaurs, a man killing a bear, one riding on a sea¬
horse, a seated figure with a snake twisting round his arm, and others whose occupations
it is not easy to make out. In the upright bands at the back are for the most part
single figures of men, sometimes armed with darts or arrows, and a lion and a gryphon.
The centre of the band running below the seat of the chair is filled by a grotesque
mask, from which the foliage springs. In the folds of this are centaurs armed with bows
and arrows and other weapons which they hold in threatening attitudes, grotesque
monsters, half men and half birds, and men on horseback. Snakes twist themselves
round the foliage, and are held or struck at by the men or the centaurs These last, it
will be seen, are represented in the medieval manner, with two, not four legs. In the
upright band, on the right of the front, most of the divisions are occupied by centaurs,
some of whom are armed with a sword and a small round shield; hut there are also
birds, a lion, and men riding on sea-horses. In the band on the left are figures of men
riding on various beasts, a lion, a camel, and an animal probably intended for a dragon;
in this band there is also a grotesque mask. Two of the spaces between the arches of
the hack have decorations of the same style, and the fronts of the little piers which
support the arches are ornamented by (no doubt) strips of ivory, with a pattern of small
squares. Such is the character of the decoration which we may consider to he original;
the question, To what period of art can it be supposed to belong? will be hereafter
considered.
We will now proceed to inquire what information documents or passages in ancient
writers afford us of the early history of this venerable relic.
[ 9 ]
The notices of this chair which can be gathered from historical or documentary
sources are fewer than might be expected, but some are of considerable importance; they
have been carefully collected by Plioebeus in the work entitled Be Identitate Cathedrce in
qua Sanctus Petrus Roma primum sedit et de Antiquitate et Prcestantia Solemnitatis Cathe¬
drce Romana Bissertatio. Roma, mdclxyi ; and Cavaliere De Rossi, in the memoir referred
to above, has commented on and added to them. From these writers, and from Cancel-
lieri, Be Secretariis Basilicce Vaticance, what follows has been epitomized. Plioebeus begins
his chain of evidence by quoting the passage of Tertullian s treatise, Be Prascriptionibus
adversus Hereticos, which will be noticed presently; but Cavaliere De Rossi prefers
first to cite Ennodius, Bishop of Pavia, a writer of the earlier part of the sixth century,
and to trace the line of testimony upwards to Tertullian. He therefore begins his catena
of evidence by quoting from the treatise by Ennodius, entitled Libellus apologeticus pro
Synodo (p. 356, Paris ed. 1611), the following passage, "Ecce nunc ad gestatoriam
sellam apostolicae confessionis uda mittunt limina candidates; et uberibus gaudio
exactore fletibus collata Dei beneficio dona geminantur." In this passage the author
doubtless meant to refer to the confirmation bestowed by the Bishop of Rome on the
neophytes after baptism. De Rossi then proceeds to connect this mention of a
pontifical chair in the baptistery of the Vatican with the inscription placed on the font
or piscina which was constructed in that building by Pope Damasus, in the second half
of the fourth century, one verse of which runs thus—" Una Petri sedes unum verumque
lavacrum " (Gruter, Inscript. p. 1163, 10), by the help of inscriptions preserved in the
collection of Roman epigraphs in a MS. at Verdun, parts of which are as follows :—
Istic insontes cselesti flumine lotas
Pastoris summi dextera signat oves
and
Roborat hie animos divino fonte lavacrum,
Et dum membra madent, mens solidatur aquis.
Auxit apostolicae geminatum sedis honorem :—
Christus et ad coelos hunc dedit esse viam.
This last, he says, was inscribed on the entrance to the "fonte," by which he probably
means the baptistery. To these he adds, the "elogio sepolcrale " of Pope Siricius, the
successor of Damasus (Gruter, I.e., p. 1171, 16), "Fonte sacro magnus meruit sedere
sacerdos," concluding, on apparently good grounds, that in the fourth century a pontifical
chair known as the " Sedes Petri" or " Sedes Apostolica " actually stood in the baptistery
of the Vatican.
To prove that this chair was at that time reputed to be the chair in which St. Peter
had actually sat, he brings forward the words of Optatus of Milevi, who, when writing
against the Donatists, who had set up at Rome a bishop of their own sect, Macrobius, uses
these expressions: " Denique si Macrobio dicatur, uhi illic sedeat, numquid potest dicere
in Cathedra Petri ? quam nescio si vel oculis novit, et ad cujus memoriam non accedit
quasi schismaticus." (.Be Schismate Bonatistarum, lib. ii. c. iv.)
He then refers to the anonymous poem against Marcion which has been printed as an
appendix to the works of Tertullian, and adduces arguments to show that the poem may
he deemed to be the work of the third century ; towards the end of the third book of this
poem, at the commencement of an enumeration of the Bishops of Rome, occur the
lines,
Hac Cathedra Petrus qua sederat ipse, locatum
Maxima Roma Linum primum considere jussit.
He then adverts to the passage in the 52nd epistle of Cyprian, in which, when writing
d
[ 10 ]
of the bishopric of Rome, vacant by reason of the martyrdom of St. Fabian, he says,
" Cum locus Fahiani, id est locus Petri, et gradus cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret"—sug¬
gesting that the writer had in view the real chair, and not merely the episcopal office and
succession. The well-known passage in the treatise of Tertullian, De Preescriptionibus
adversus Hereticos, is the next link in the chain; in this (cap. xxxvi.) the writer, so far as
quoted by De Rossi, uses the following words : " Percurre ecclesias apostolicas apud quas
ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident, si Italiae adjaces habes liomarn; "
and De Rossi, assuming that Tertullian meant to assert the existence in the " Ecclesiae
Apostolicee" of the material chairs which had once been occupied by the Apostles who had
founded those churches, argues, that, as Tertullian would appear to have been in Rome in
the latter years of the second century, a cathedra existed in Rome about a.d. 200, which
tradition asserted to have been the seat from whence St. Peter taught. The correctness
of these inferences will be discussed in a later part of this memoir.
From the sixth to the eleventh century little or nothing is to be met with which can
be asserted with certainty to refer to this chair, but it may be that Anastasius, when he
speaks of Pope Sergius II. (844-847) as being installed in the " apostolica heati Petri
sacratissima sedes,"1 meant to refer either to this chair or to another of which a notice
will be found in Appendix V.
There is good ground (Plioebeus, p. lvii.) for supposing that from the eleventh century
until the period of the secession to Avignon this chair was occupied by the Popes on
certain solemn festivals, and especially on the occasion of their entlironization at the
Vatican after their election. It appears to have been kept usually in the chapel of St.
Adrian, in the right transept of St. Peter's, where Pope Adrian I. (772-795) is said
(Phoebeus, p. xlix. ; Cancellieri, p. 1254) to have caused a marble repository, highly
ornamented, to be made to receive it. According to the authority quoted by
Cancellieri, Maphoeus Vegius, who wrote about a.d. 1447, this repository or "locus"
was in the altar or altar inclosure (in ipso altario).
It however does not appear to have been invariably kept there, for notices are found
of its being in the Chapel of St. Anna, and in that of SS. Lambertus and Servatius. It
is said to have been exposed to a conflagration in the time of one of the Alexanders, hut
the authorities differ as to whether this occurrence took place during the papacy of
Alexander II. (1061-1073), or that of Alexander IV. (1254-1261.) The chair at any
rate is said to have escaped uninjured.
In 1279, Pope Nicholas III. made rules as to payments to be made to the Canons
" portantibus ad altare et reportantibus Cathedram S. Petri." (Phoebeus, p. lviii.)
Pope Sixtus IV. in 1481, covered the chair with a magnificent piece of stuff of gold
and silk, it being at that time preserved in a tabernaculum in the Chapel of SS. Servatius
and Lambertus. (Cancellieri, p. 1245.) It was afterwards kept in the Sacristy of the
Vatican, but by Pope Alexander VII. placed, according to the same author, within the
bronze chair which occupies the apse of St. Peter's, hut more probably in a sort of
closet in the wall; in this last place it has remained with scarcely any interruption until
1 The writer would seem to refer to a chair, hut sedes was certainly used in the dark ages to express a church,
the seat of a bishop ; thus in the inscription in mosaic in the cathedral of Parenzo in Istria we find the word clearly
so used circa A.D. 522.
" TJt vidit subito lapsuram pondere sedem
Providus et fidei fervens ardore sacerdus (sic)
Euplirasius sancta precessit mente ruinam
Labentes melius sedituras deruit sedes
Pundamenta locans erexit culmina templi."
Heider und Eitelberger, Mittelalt. Kunstdenk, des Oesterreich. Kaiserstaates, vol. i. p. 106.
the present
made by &
has been a*
occupation
The qu<
such facts f
this object
A very
ill-founded
Cardinal V
bestowed b
the "Fauteu
framed as to
form the otl
in ordinary
those of tl
sculpture, a
chair with a
The sella ye
monument r
the time to
construction
than a chair
bath, during
behind, and
exist in var
chairs, by P
*
Achilleo, an
are supposec
Arti Crist.
have been s<
ot Maximiai
the exceptioi
The Catli
with a high
the sixth ce:
eminent di<:i
(originally a
V
ou it is place
wound. ^Ci;
Wnna, ma,
shown as sitti
m which the
' hie back h m
' hie recogr
«th cither a low
0 disc at j[a
sPparentlr win».
J* Lord
"■ore in the 5
[ 11 ]
the present day. The drawing and survey made by Fontana in 1705, and the drawings
made by Scardovelli in 1784, prove that on those two occasions it was made visible. It
has been asserted that it was brought out from its repository when the French were in
occupation of Rome (in 1808 ?), but this is denied. (See Appendix VI.)
The question which must now he considered is, What judgment must we, in view of
such facts and such historical testimonies, form as to the age and original destination of
this object ?
A very slight acquaintance with the art of the classical period will show how
ill-founded is the supposition which has been entertained by some writers (among them
Cardinal Wiseman), that the Cathedra Petri was the curule chair of the Senator Pudens,
bestowed by him upon St. Peter. Monsieur Lenormant has shown in his memoir on
the "Fauteuil de Dagobert " [Melanges Archeologiques, i. 165), that the curule chair was so
framed as to fold up like many modern garden chairs. Nor does it at all resemble in
form the other classes of chairs in use among the Romans of the Imperial period: those
in ordinary domestic use, as may be seen by existing examples in museums (especially in
those of the Vatican and of Naples), and by many representations in painting and
sculpture, assumed many forms, often closely resembling those of a modern four-legged
chair with a curved back. They were often of bronze, though generally no doubt of wood.
The sella gestatoria, although its precise form has not been made known to us by any
monument as yet described, would appear from the mention made of it by writers of
the time to have been a covered chair somewhat like a sedan, and doubtless of a light
construction. The bisellium, a seat of honourable distinction, was rather a large stool
than a chair, having neither back nor arms. The settee balneares, chairs for use in the
bath, during the Imperial period, were usually of marble, of moderate size, rounded
behind, and with a low straight back finishing with a curved outline. Several such
exist in various basilicas at Rome, having been employed as cathedrce, or episcopal
chairs, by Popes of the earlier centuries, as e.g. in S. Stefano Rotondo,1 SS. Nereo ed
Achilleo, and others. The chairs in the catacombs hewn in the living rock, which
are supposed to have served as cathedrce, have very much the same form. [v. Mon. delle
Arti Crist. Prim, by Padre Marchi, xvii. xxxvi. &c.) This type appears indeed to
have been somewhat generally adopted as that suitable for a cathedra. The ivory chair
of Maximianus, Archbishop of Ravenna, in the first half of the sixth century, is, with
the exception of its having a much higher back, nearly of this form.
The Cathedra Petri evidently belongs to no one of these classes, but to that of chairs
with a high back but no arms, a form, which it would appear was, at least as early as
the sixth century,2 considered to be most appropriate for a throne or seat of super-
eminent dignity. In the mosaics of the dome of Sta. Maria in Cosmedin, at Ravenna,
(originally a baptistery,) which date from the year 553, such a chair is represented, and
on it is placed a jewelled cross as an emblem of Christ, while the Twelve Apostles stand
around. (Ciampini, Vet. Mon. iii. tab. xxiii.) In the mosaics of S. Apollinare Nuovo at
Ravenna, made about a.D. 570, the blessed Virgin Mary, carrying the infant Saviour, is
shown as sitting on a similar throne. (Ciamp. t. ii. tab. xxvii.) In two carvings in ivory
in which the Massacre of the Innocents is represented, Herod presides at the slaughter,
1 The back has in this instance been cut away, but traces of it may be easily distinguished.
2 The recognised form of a throne at a still earlier period would seem to have been a somewhat wide seat,
with either a low back or none at all. In the earlier examples it closely approaches the bisellium in form, as on the
silver disc at Madrid, on which Tlieodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius are represented on seats without arms and
apparently "without backs. In the mosaic (fourth century) in the apse of Sta. Pudenziana at Pome the throne on
which our Lord sits appears to have a low straight back, and in the mosaic on the triumphal arch of Sta. Maria
Maggiore in the same city the infant Saviour is placed on a wide seat with low sides and back.
[ 12 ]
seated on a tlirone of like form, with the exception that the back is straight instead of
being formed into a pediment. Both these carvings are probably of Byzantine origin,
and anterior to the period of the iconoclastic Emperors; according to M. Labarte, both
may be assigned to the sixth century. Good engravings of them are given in the work
of that writer. (.Histoire des Arts Industriels, &c. &c. Album, t. i. p. v. vi.) The latter,
which decorated the cover of an Evangeliarium belonging to the Cathedral of Milan,
is among the carvings in ivory of which casts have been published by the Arundel
Society.
In the mosaics of several churches built at Borne by Pope Paschal I. (a.D. 817-824),
as Sta. Maria in Domnica, Sta. Prassede, and Sta. Cecilia, like thrones, similarly
occupied, will be seen. (Ciampini, t. ii. tab. xliv. xlvi. li.)
In still later times, as the eleventh and following centuries, representations of such
thrones are frequent, especially in Byzantine works of art, as in the beautiful ivory
triptych in the Museo Cristiano in the Vatican (Gori, Thes. Vet. Dipt. tab. xxiv.),
which is probably of the eleventh century. In the engravings in d'Agincourt's great
work (Peinture, pi. lxxxv. ci. cvi. cvii.) are examples in paintings either of the By¬
zantine or the Italo-Byzantine schools, dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
A very curious instance of the use of this form of seat as a throne may be found
in the same work (.Peinture, pi. lxvi.), in which illuminations from a Latin manu¬
script of the twelfth century are figured. The subject of the manuscript is a poem in
honour of the Countess Matilda : this lady and her ancestors are depicted as sitting on
such thrones, while bishops and other persons of inferior dignity sit on chairs without
backs.
The back of the Cathedra Petri, it will be seen, finishes with a pediment; none of
the thrones above-mentioned do so, with the exception of some of those in the
manuscript last referred to. The backs of most of the others end with a horizontal,
but sometimes with a curved, outline. Neither is the arcaded arrangement of the back
and sides commonly met with, but it is to be found in the drawing of a chair and of
a cradle in a Greek MS. of the twelfth century in the Vatican Library. (d'Agincourt,
Peinture, pi. lxix.) The chair, in this instance, differs from the Cathedra Petri, and has
arms, but the arcades are very similar. A like arcade, though on a very small scale, is
very often seen in the Byzantine ivory carvings of the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
particularly as an ornament to the footstools placed under the feet of the chief personage
represented.
Not very many examples are to be found of episcopal chairs, or catliedrce, of an early
date, made to be used as such. That in the cathedral of Parenzo, in Istria, which there
seems no good reason for assigning to a later date than the sixth century, is perhaps one
of the earliest now existing. It occupies the centre of the wall of the apse, with a bench
on each side for the clergy, and is composed of slabs of marble, forming an elevated
seat with a back and sides. (An engraving of it will be found in Heider und Eitelberger's
Mittelalterliche Kunstdenkmale des Oesterreichischen Kaiser Staates, vol. i. p. 105.) Of not
very unlike form is the cathedra in Sta. Cecilia at Borne, also composed of slabs of marble,
which was probably placed there by Pope Paschal I. when he rebuilt the church, (a.d.
817-824.) The marble coronation chair in the Minster at Aachen closely resembles this
last, and is believed to have been placed there by Charles the Great.
The chair of St. Mark at Venice, brought thither from Alexandria, is, no doubt, of a
very early date, perhaps as early as the sixth or seventh century. It is cut from a single
block of marble, and has a high hack and arms. It has, however, many peculiarities,
both of form and of ornament.
.01
oii-s
SI)OS(
It will» I think'
is more prop^'8
ahvarsfiirny*'11 «'
0f persons of the '
utmost richness w
0 or voluniin
conveniently di
y'or does this
chair in which a di
weight, the perpend
unsuitable for such
facilitate its transpo
above, it would ap
Popes during the
manv instances, in
jedes, and that tli(
chair so denominate'
If, then, it be ad
hut a throne, an in
orkinallv made 1
The subjects re
executed, evidently
V
question. The abse
Imperial effigy, of t
chase, which have
destined for the use,
in the supposition tl
Bald when lie sliewe
occasion of his coron
It this opinion b
regard it with that i
have believed that it
highly significant iu
history, the alliance
who assumed the ju
°ccupation by the c
Me bishop claim
As has been air
^ral character and
ia works of an. a.u»
lhh character i
m ret«
s rece
« » " true c
« the mos
i^fcutitmus,,
1 The distinction i
the Pope Wo
i* ^»uon ,n ;
^ «■»*. tti. ' ,
""vd m u
fjusdoa aims'i
«»ords: "IX
rest
T"™
.t
[ 13 ]
It will, I think, appear from what has been stated above, that the Cathedra Petri
is more properly a throne than an episcopal cathedra} The latter, it would seem, were
always furnished with raised sides, or arms; but thrones, being intended for the reception
of persons of the highest dignity, on occasions of great solemnity, when dresses of the
utmost richness would be worn, were constructed without raised sides, in order that the
stiff or voluminous embroidered robes of the dignitaries who occupied them might be
conveniently disposed and fully seen.
Nor does this chair appear well adapted for a sedes gestatoria, that is to say, a
chair in which a distinguished person should be carried in procession. Its solidity and
weight, the perpendicular back, and want of sides, or of a footboard, would all make it
unsuitable for such a use. The rings may possibly have been attached in order to
facilitate its transport from one part of the church to another, for, as has been stated
above, it would appear by the authorities quoted by Plioebeus (p. 1. et seqq.) that the
Popes during the period between a.D. 800 and the secession to Avignon were, in
many instances, installed in a chair known as the " Apostolica beati Petri sacratissima
sedes," and that they, when present at, or officiating in, certain services, occupied the
chair so denominated.
If, then, it be admitted that the object with which we are concerned is not a cathedra,
hut a throne, an interesting question remains, viz., for what personage was this throne
originally made ?
The subjects represented on the ivory bands, and the style in which these are
executed, evidently supply the information which will best enable us to answer this
question. The absence of any religious or ecclesiastical symbol, and the presence of the
Imperial effigy, of the attendant satellites, and of subjects connected with war and the
chase, which have been already mentioned, obviously make it probable that it was
destined for the use, not of a bishop but of an emperor, and there seems no improbability
in the supposition that it was made for (or presented to) and occupied by Charles the
Bald when he shewed himself in Borne with all the insignia of Imperial dignity on the
occasion of his coronation there in 875.
If this opinion be well founded, it must be felt that this chair, although we cannot
regard it with that interest and veneration which would have attached to it if we could
have believed that it had been occupied by St. Peter, is still in its existence at Borne a
highly significant memorial, as recalling one of the most important events in modern
history, the alliance between the bishops of Borne and the lords of the Western world,
who assumed the proud title and position of Boman emperors; and, in its subsequent
occupation by the churchman, a true symbol of the position attained when the once
humble bishop claimed to be above emperors and kings.
As has been already observed, the nearest approach to this chair, as regards its
general character and architectural (so to speak) disposition and decoration, has been found
in works of art referable to the school of Byzantium, or to that of some of its off-shoots ;
this character is recognized by both Padre Garrucci and Cavaliere de Bossi, the latter
calling it a " true chair of Byzantine style." The examples adduced above which
resemble it the most closely have, it is true, been chiefly found in a somewhat later
period; hut it must be remembered that the Byzantine school of art exhibits little ten-
1 The distinction between the cathedra and the throne is clearly marked in the service used in the consecration
of the Pope (when he is already a Bishop); before he is placed in the Papal seat (for which purpose, as I shall
presently show, this chair would seem to have been at one time used) the senior of the Cardinal Bishops offers a
prayer in these words: " Deus qui Apostolum tuum Petrum inter cseteros apostolos primatum tenere voluisti . . .
;: . .. . . respice qusesumus propicius hunc famulum tuum N. quem de humili cathedra violenter sublimatum in
thronum ejusdem apostolorum principis sublimamus. (Marcellus, ltituum Eccles. &c. libri tres, pag. xv. Yen. 1516).
e
[ 14 ]
dency to change, and we have but very few examples of the eighth or ninth century with
which we can make comparison. If the series of such monuments weie moie complete,
we might probably find many other instances of like thrones.
An instance of the use of two discs for capitals, such as appears in those of the small
pilasters at the back of this chair, will be found in the mosaics of the church of St.
George at Thessalonica, a work probably of the fifth century. (See 1 exier and lullen,
Byzantine Architecture, pi. xxx.)
That it should have been impossible to obtain drawings on a large scale 01 casts of
any portion of the carved bands is the more to be regretted as an accurate knowledge
of their character of design and manner of execution would have been a valuable
addition to the history of the progress of art in the ninth century, and would have
thrown light on the interesting question, whether this throne was the work of an
Italian or of a Byzantine artist. We should naturally look to the photographs as sup¬
plying the want of large and careful drawings, but these were made under circumstances
so unfavourable that in the negative there was great want of accurate definition, and this
in some, if not in all, cases would seem to have been supplied in a very clumsy and inaccu¬
rate manner by hand. The drawings by Scardovelli, therefore (Plates II. and III.),
no doubt, furnish us with the most accurate representations at present attainable. Even,
however, with the imperfect means of information before us, it may be worth while to
make some comparison between this and other works of the same period, accompanying
it with a few observations on the history of art in Western and in Eastern Europe.
In and after the time of Constantine, art in Italy, and especially in Rome,
would appear to have declined with extreme rapidity; the sculptures which can hardly
be said to decorate the arch of that Emperor, bad in style as they are, are soon outdone
in badness, and most of the ivory diptychs of the Western Consuls of the fifth and
sixth centuries may not unfairly he called barbarous; the diptych now at Monza, on
which King David and Pope Gregory the Great are represented, and which is probably
of the age of the latter personage, exhibits a still lower decline in art; the utter
feebleness of design is matched by the wretched execution. Examples of any attempt,
however humble, at art or even decoration in sculpture which can he attributed to a
purely Western source in the seventh or eighth centuries are scarcely to be found ;l hut
in the beginning of the ninth we have at Rome some unquestionably authentic examples
of the state of the art of marble cutting for decorative purposes, specially in the doorway
of the chapel of St. Zeno, attached to the church of Sta. Prassede; here, however, as in
other contemporaneous works at Rome, the artist has not attempted anything higher than
interlacing patterns of knotwork (precisely like those found oil very early crosses and
tombstones in this country), very feebly and irregularly executed. A nearly contempora¬
neous attempt at a representation of the human figure now lying in the Coliseum at
Rome (engraved in the Archceoloyia, vol. xl. pi. xiv. fig. 4) is utterly barbarous. The
ivory diptych preserved in the Christian Museum in the Vatican, and known as the
" diptychon Rambonense," from the convent to which it belonged, which dates from the
ninth century (v. Gori, Thes. Vet. Dipt. vol. iii. pi. 22), exhibits a like style of ornament,
and almost equally wretched drawing and execution.
The famous " Bibhia di San Paolo," presented by Charles the Bald to the church of
S. Paolo fuor-le-mura at Rome, shows for the most part ornaments of the same nature
as the contemporary sculpture, made up of knot and plaited work. There are it is true
some bands of foliage copied either from antique sculpture or earlier manuscripts, but
it would seen, not
„hieb shows SUCl
evince.
The history <
{usurious and ju
Persia and India
probably attribute
minute ornament
later times, «'ben
characteristics.
Byzantine art toll
peat periods ot i
and Rome with
[Appeudis 1111,
altogether lo>t tin
An examinati
a.D. 517, will sh
their fellow craft
the giving of dip
it becomes difhci
of which can Ik*
can leave 110 don
in Constantinople
If the ivory
Justinian, was ma
close connection
chair, although n
good deal of vigo
^hen thereto
unlikely that niai;
t
probably largely
more in Germany
• '
That during o:
considerable emu
-Je tablets prescr>
there, who died a
intermixed with
figures, seem how
the Cathedra /
0Qe of the immir
master, and in T
tutud, an art in
a certain proticii
comparing works
kttw material J,
1 Two fronts of altars in the church of S. Stefano in Bologna may be attributed with probability to the time of
King Luitprand (a.d. 712—'741). They bear carvings of a lion and other animals in a most barbarous style.
[ 15 ]
it would seem nothing either in the drawing of the figures or of the ornamental horders
which shows such artistic ability as the ivory carvings of the chair would appear to
evince.
The history of art at Byzantium was different. There art was fostered by a
luxurious and wealthy Court and nobility, and never fell so low as in Italy. The art of
Persia and India had doubtless an influence on that of the Imperial City, and we may
probably attribute to an Eastern origin that delicate manipulation and tendency to
minute ornament which mark Byzantine works even in an early period, and which in
later times, when the classical traditions had been almost lost, became its distinguishing
characteristics. Until the period of the iconoclast Emperor, Leo the Isaurian (a.b. 717),
Byzantine art followed, with no doubt gradually diminishing power, the traditions of the
great periods of art kept alive by the multitude of works of the best artists of Greece
and Rome with which the city was filled, and, as I shall have occasion to notice
(Appendix III.), even in the eleventh and twelfth centuries those influences had not
altogether lost their power.
An examination of the diptychs of the Eastern Consuls, as of Anastatius, Consul
a.d. 517, will show how much superior the ivory carvers of Constantinople were to
their fellow craftsmen of Rome in the sixth century, and, although from the time that
the giving of diptychs by the consuls ceased to he practised, until a much later period,
it becomes difficult to cite examples of ivory carving of Byzantine origin the dates
of which can he well authenticated, the evidence of MSS., of coins, and of buildings,
can leave no doubt but that art was in a far better state between a.d. 400 and a.D. 800
in Constantinople than in Rome.
If the ivory cathedra of Archbishop Maximianus of Ravenna, a contemporary of
Justinian, was made in that city, the fact may, with all probability, be attributed to the
close connection between the Exarchate and the Imperial city. The carvings on that
chair, although roughly executed, are by no means without power, and in fact show a
good deal of vigour and expression.
When therefore the iconoclastic persecution raged at Constantinople it is not at all
unlikely that many artists of considerable power found their way to Rome, and they
probably largely contributed to that revival of art which took place in Italy, and still
more in Germany, under the influence of the Carlovingian emperors.
That during or shortly after the period of Charles the Bald Western artists attained
considerable eminence in the art of ivory carving is shown, among other examples, by
the tablets preserved in the library of St. Gall ascribed to Tuotilo, a monk of the convent
there, who died a.d. 912. These1 exhibit scrolls of considerable elegance and freedom,
intermixed with figures of men and animals. These last, and particularly the human
figures, seem however to evince less artistic ability than the corresponding representations
on the Cathedra Petri. It may however easily be that these last were executed by
one of the immigrants from Constantinople ; so that we have here the work of the
master, and in Tuotilo's that of the disciple. Carving in ivory is, it must he borne in
mind, an art in which from the nature of the material it is far less difficult to attain
a certain proficiency than in that of sculpture in marble; we accordingly, when
comparing works of the same period in marble and in ivory, often find that those in the
latter material show much greater mastery and even better art. Ivory moreover has,
whenever procurable, been largely used as a material for minor ornamental purposes, and
a school, or at least a guild, of workers in ivory probably always existed in Rome. We
*•
1 One is engraved by Otte, Sandbuch der Kunst-Archäologie, p. 185.
[ 16 ]
can easily understand tliat any member of sucli a guild gifted by nature with unusual
feeling for what is beautiful would be tempted to imitate those remains of ancient
sculpture which must then, as now, have abounded in Rome, and can believe that such
imitation might occasionally have been attempted with a considerable amount of success.
No sufficient reason against the supposition that this throne was not made in Rome, hut
brought from the East, appears however to exist. Its admittedly Byzantine form and
structural ornamentation, and the probability that Byzantine artists were concerned in
the carving of its decorations, are in favour of its Eastern origin; a tradition indeed
existed that it was properly the cathedra of Antiocli, and was brought from thence. (See
Appendix IV.) The free flowing style of the scrolls of foliage, it is true, differs in some
degree from the neatness and stiffness which characterize the Byzantine work of the
post-iconoclastic period; but on the cathedra of Ravenna of the sixth century bands of
scrolls of foliage inclosing animal figures are to be found, and bands of free flowing
foliage are to be seen on the reliquary of the Holy Cross at Cortona (if we may trust
the plate given by Gori, Thes. Vet. Dipt. vol. iii. plate xviii.), which probably dates
from the time of the Emperor Nicepliorus Phocas, a.d. 963-969.
The fact that in the Imperial bust which appears in the centre of the back an intended
portrait of Charles the Bald is recognised cannot be admitted to prove that the carving
must have been made in Italy, for it is quite conceivable that a sufficiently accurate like¬
ness of the Emperor should have been sent to the city where the throne was constructed.
In Constantinople in the same century the art of painting was cultivated with sufficient
success to allow of individual portraiture ; of this the effigy of Basil the Macedonian, a.d.
867-886 (engraved from a no doubt contemporary manuscript in the library of St. Mark
at Venice, by d'Agincourt, Peinture, pi. lxvii., and by Labarte, Hist, des Arts Industriels,
Album, pi. lxxxv.) in which there is obviously an attempt, probably not an unsuccessful
one, at portraiture, is a sufficient proof.
One point which has an important bearing on the question of origin, and must
therefore not be passed over, is that of the material of which the chair is composed.
This is asserted by Cavaliere De Rossi to be "a blackish (nerastro) wood, acacia. " %
acacia, De Rossi probably means the mimosa nilotica or some other species of the same
family, for the tree usually called acacia in England and on the continent of Europe is a
native of America, the rohinia pseudo-acacia. The wood of the mimosa nilotica and
that of some allied species is hard and dark, and, being almost the only hard wood
obtainable in Egypt, is much used there for all purposes for which strength is
required. But it is difficult to see why it should have been brought into Italy, a country
abounding in the oak, the olive, and the walnut, and the fact that it is the material
(if it be really so) would seem to concur with the other circumstances stated above in
pointing to some Eastern city as the place where the chair was constructed.
It is of course evident that if the ninth century be the real date of the Cathedra Petri,
the allusions which may have been made at an earlier time to such a monument can have
no reference to that now existing; those of later date, which have been already quoted, no
doubt have. Cavaliere De Rossi has, however, suggested that, though the chair proper
be of the ninth century, the pieces of oak external to it maybe relics of the earlier chair;
and he might have supported this hypothesis by bringing forward mention of the plunder
of the Vatican basilica by the Saracens in a.d. 846, when the earlier chair was probably
stripped of whatever rich decorations it may have had, and broken to pieces amid the
wreck and devastation of the church.
It is easy to believe that the fragments, which, being but wood, would not have been
carried off as plunder, and as tlieic is no record that fire was set to the building are not
likely to '*;'c
such were the «*'
Eniperor1,11,1
should have been a
In oppltl0" (l
„oanprance, so
chair- but' « the «
existing chair, ' ■'/•
the pediment, hut
so correspond with
pieces must have I)
adopt Cavaliere 1><
origin of these ph,(
Delhi Basilica d' •
"alcuni legui/ son
was girt. Fontana
to strengthen the v
and not the pieces,
has left them out
decree supports (a1
the" annatura, u
as the chair, i.e. nc;
than the " armatun
Whatever ho\u
on Cavaliere Dc Ko:
Pain seem to be
betöre the reader;
Phcebeus and De R
has deemed it lx*>t
his chain of autlioi
the order of date, u
When the win
"Percurre eeele>ia
president, apud qua
sentantes taeieni ui
e$ a Macedonia hal
Ephesum, si autcm
It is clear from
chair ot St. Peter at
chairs of the A post 1
Ephesus. The im
pressed by the k
till probably be iu
c passage as alle
^"presses himself:
pnncipales ccclesin
Wis pnvsidohu
V uroditicatic
should be
[ 17 ]
likely to have been burnt, would liave been gathered up and reverently preserved. If
such were the case, what more likely than that, in a later age, when the throne of the
Emperor had been converted into the cathedra of the Bishop, these venerated fragments
should have been attached to it?
In opposition to this hypothesis, it must however be stated—1st, that the pieces have
no appearance, so far as can be judged from the photographs, of having constituted a
chair, but, on the contrary, seem just such as would be added to strengthen an already
existing chair, e.g. there is a large upright piece at the back, very useful as supporting
tlie pediment, but quite out of place for any other purpose. 2ndly, that the pieces
so correspond with those of the throne, that we must suppose that one of the two sets of
pieces must have been made to fit tlie other, an evidently improbable supposition, if we
adopt Cavaliere De Rossi's views; and 3rdly, that it is clear that no tradition as to the
origin of these pieces of oak existed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, for Torrigio
[Bella Basilica di S. Pietro, cap. 21, as quoted by Phcebeus, p. lxviii.) speaks of them as
"alcuni legni," some pieces of wood, with which and bands of iron, he says, the chair
was girt. Fontana speaks of tliem as " riporti," pieces fastened on, doubtless in order
to strengthen the weak fabric. Phoebeus also, the historian of the chair, considers it,
and not the pieces, to be the genuine Cathedra Petri; and Scardovelli in his drawings
has left them out altogether. One fact should however be referred to, which in some
degree supports Cavaliere De Rossi's hypothesis, viz.: that he states that some pieces of
the " armatura," which were wanting, have been supplied by pieces of the same wood
as the chair, i.e. acacia. This goes some way to show that the chair is more modern
than the " armatura," but of course may be explained in various and obvious ways.
Whatever however may be the true history of these pieces of oak, some observations
on Cavaliere De Rossi's citations of authorities bearing on the early history of the Cathedra
Petri seem to be required in order that the whole subject should be fairly placed
before tlie reader; and the first notices which require consideration are those cited by
Plioebeus and De Rossi from Tertullian and Optatus. Although the Cavaliere De Rossi
has deemed it best to take bis point of departure from the sixth century, and to carry
his chain of authorities upwards, it may perhaps be more convenient to take them in
the order of date, and to begin with Tertullian, the earliest authority adduced by him.
When the whole passage cited is examined, it will be seen that it runs thus—
" Percurre ecclesias apostolicas apud quas ipsse adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis
president, apud quas ipsee authenticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et repre-
sentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proxime est tibi Acliaia, habes Corintlium, si non longe
es a Macedonia babes Pliilippos, habes Tbessalonicenses, si potes in Asiam tendere habes
Ephesum, si autem Italiae adjaces habes Romam." [Be Prescript, cap. xxxvi.)
It is clear from this that if Tertullian meant to assert the existence of the material
chair of St. Peter at Rome, he also meant to assert the same material existence of the
chairs of the Apostles who founded the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, Tliessalonica, and
Epliesus. The improbability that he did so is sufficiently obvious, and tlie opinion
expressed by the learned Rigault in his note on the passage, or a modification of it,
will probably be adopted by most. Rigault, after stating that some have interpreted
the passage as alleging the existence of material cathedrae in the several churches, thus
expresses himself: " Sed verius mea quidem sententia fuerit catliedras apostolorum dici
principales ecclesias, ab ipsis videlicet apostolis constitutas, quae adhuc setate Tertulliani
suis locis prsesidebant tanquam aliarum matrices."
The modification of this opinion, which may, perhaps, be preferred, is, that by
cathedra should be understood the episcopal function, dignity, and office, or, as
/
[ 18 ]
L'Aubespine, Bishop of Orleans, when commenting on like passages m the treatise of
Optatus of Mile vi, Be Schismate Bonatistarum (lib. ii. cap. 2), expresses it, " Potestas
clavium et missio; " or as Du Pin, in a note on lib. i. c. x. of the same treatise, puts it,
" Cathedra seu sedes episcopalis est auctoritas suprema regendse plebis vi saceidotii.
The cathedra would be the natural and appropriate symbol of the function; the woid
throne is in everyday use in a like sense. That cathedra was habitually used in this
sense by Optatus is clear, for in lib. i. c. x. of the treatise above-named, he speaks of
the bishopric of Carthage as the " cathedra Petri vel Cypriani, and says that the
Donatist Bishop sat in the cathedra of Majorinus, which had no origin before the time of
Majorinus, and in lib. ii. c. ii., speaking of the church Catholic, he says that it had
five endowments [dotes), the first of which was the cathedra, the second the angelus
(or annulus),1 and goes on to argue that the only cathedra was that of Peter, denies to
the other Apostles separate [singulce) cathedrae, blaming as a schismatic and sinner him
who should set up another cathedra against the special and peculiar [singularem) cathedra
of the head of all the Apostles. He continues, cap. iii., " Ergo Cathedram unicam quae
est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus." After this follows the passage in which the
succession of the Bishops of Rome is stated down to St. Siricius, then Pope, the latter
part of which is quoted by De Rossi. It is evident that Optatus here speaks, not of any
material chair, but of the episcopal office.
The sounder conclusion would therefore appear to be that neither Tertullian nor
Optatus meant to assert the existence of a material cathedra Petri, and nothing seems
to be proved by the passages quoted from Tertullian and Optatus which really bears
upon the matter in hand. The passages quoted from the anonymous poem against
Marcion, and from St. Cyprian, when read by the light thrown on them by the passages
which I have quoted from Tertullian and Optatus, will, I think, be deemed equally
inconclusive. The inscriptions placed by Pope Damasus (366-384), and his successor,
Siricius (384-398), in the baptistery of the Vatican will probably be deemed sufficient
evidence that, in their time, an episcopal chair known as the sedes Petri, or sedes
apostolica, stood there, but it is evident that such expressions were not at that time
meant to imply that the chair was the identical chair in which St. Peter himself had sat.
The testimony of Ennodius clearly proves that in the sixth century a sedes gestatoria
was in the same place, but nothing beyond this.
With the utmost respect for the opinion of so distinguished an archaeologist as
Cavaliere De Rossi, it seems inevitable that we must come to the conclusion that no cogent
evidence has as yet been brought forward to prove that even as late as the sixth century
any chair existed in Rome which was reputed to be the identical cathedra occupied by
St. Peter. It is very easy to understand how the chair occupied by the Bishop of Rome,
being spoken of as the Cathedra Petri in the same manner as we constantly speak of the
throne of Charles the Great, of Alfred, or of any other distinguished ruler, came in the
darker ages to be supposed to be the real material chair in which the Apostle had sat.
This process would have been facilitated if the suggestion made by Cavaliere De Rossi,
that the rough pieces attached to the exterior of the chair are in reality fragments of the
earlier sella gestatoria, be well founded.
1 The others, according to Du Pin, were " spiritus, fons, sigillum."
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX I.
EXTRACTS EROM A DISSERTATION BY CAYALIERE G. B. DE ROSSI, HON. E.S.A.
IN HIS BULLETINO DI AECHEOLOGIA CKISTIANA, 1867.
Descrizione della Catedra Vaticana.
Tutti sanno la favoletta divulgata da lady Morgan, la quale die' occasione all' egregio scritto del Wiseman
elegantemente volto nella nostra favella dall' Eminentissimo Cardinale de Luca. Di quella menzogna fa oggi
giustizia il monumento ; ed ognuno pub vedere se esso b una scdia Orientale con l'araba epigrafe della professione di
fede maomettana. Un' altra osservazione pero b di molto maggiore importanza. Era noto la catedra vaticana avere
incrostature di avorii intarsiati d' oro ; nelle quali sono effigiate le imprese d' Ercole. II Ecbco dubito, che quelle
incrostature fossero d'eta posteriore: il Wiseman, non avendo potuto esaminare il monumento, credette meglio
accettare, che sieno primitive e contemporanee dell' apostolica eta. Su questa base svolgendo le congetture del
Eebeo osservo, che i prischi fedeli non rare volte adoperarono monumenti d' arte pagana e di pagane immagini
adorni; che s. Pietro facilmente trovo quella sedia nella casa di Pudente il senatore, le curuli senatorie solendo
essere eburnee; che ai tempi appunto di Claudio comincib l'uso delle seile gestatorie, e di questa specie b la
vaticana; che in fine la squisitezza degli intagli bene s'addice al secolo floridissimo d' Augusto e dei primi Cesari.
Cosi ragionava il dotto Wiseman per congettura e sulle relazioni del Eebeo, non avendo egli potuto esaminare il
seggio medesimo. La vista del quale e Pesame, che mi b stato concesso di fame, mi hanno indotto in altra sentenza.
La sedia c composta di legni e di parti diverse.1 I quattro piedi a foggia di pilastri quadrati, le aste orizzontali, che
legano quei piedi, e le due äste del dossale sono di quercia giallastra, corrosa dal tempo e solcata dalla mano dell'
uomo per trarne schegge e reliquie. In questi pilastri sono infissi gli anelli per rendere gestatorici la sedia, quale in
fatti Ennodio la cliiama. Niun ornato d'avorio copre coteste parti. Lo spazio pero tra i due piedi anteriori della
sedia, le due simili facce laterali, ed il dossale hanno un ornato e fortezza d'altro legno nerastro, d'acacia, poco tocco
da mani avide di scheggiarlo in reliquie. Questo c un primo indizio, che ci fa distinguere la diversa origine ed eta
delle parti intagliate in legni diversi; le piu antiche corrose dal tempo e dal pio desiderio di averne qualche parti-
cella, le secondo piu integre. Decisivo poi e l'indizio fornito dallo stile architettonico. Le facce laterali, oggi
distrutte, rappresentavano archi sorretti da pilastri sormontati da goffi capitelli; il dossale e effigiato a timpano
triangolare sopra un portico d'archi simile ai predetti. Cotesta arcliitettura e dello stile dei secoli cristiani; e niun
archeologo classico potra attribuirla ai tempi di Claudio. Gli ornati poi di avorio sono di due specie: liste con
rabeschi, che corrono lungo i margini della faccia principale del dossale e del timpano; e lastre compartite in
quadretti, che coprono tutto il telaio tra i due piedi anteriori. Le liste sono intagliate a rilievo ; le lastre a graffito
con laminette di oro dentro gli incavi. I rabeschi a rilievo sono grevi, e mi sembrano lavoro piu recente del secolo
quinto; le imprese d'Ercole e le immagini di varii mostri graffite le stimo piu antiche, certamente pero di tempo
assai posteriore al secolo di Augusto. Questo b il frutto raccolto da un primo esame assai breve e fatto in condizioni
difficili ed incommode. Dopo tornato alio studio del monumento, potrö parlarne con piu diligente precisione. Cio
nulla ostante le seconde cure non muteranno sostanzialmcnte le osservazioni accennate, e sulle quali m'accingo a
ragionare.
Queste osservazioni appianano le difficolta del credere la catedra oggi venerata nel Yaticano identica con quella,
che in tanto onore quivi tennero i prischi fedeli e i romani pontefici dei primi secoli. Circa l'architettura e l'arte del
dossale e degli altri ornamenti di cotesta sedia gli archeologi non consentiranno ad attribuirle ai tempi di s. Pietro,
nb ad una curule senatoria dei tempi di Claudio. Or bene appunto quegli ornamenti sono in materia diversa da
quella delle parti piu vctuste, dalle quali principalmente furono tolte le particelle ricordate anche noil' indice compi-
lato da Nicola Signorili ai tempi di Martino Y. Quivi nel catalogo delle reliquie serbate in s. Lorenzo in Damaso b
1 II disegno divulgatone dal Torrigio e ripetuto poi dai Bollandisti (Acta SS. T. v. Junii, p. 457), e quello del Febeo ripetuto dal Wiseman danno
Un* idea suflicente dell' aspetto generale della catedra nella forma, che ora essa ha. Ma delle parti diverse, di che essa e composta, da quei disegni non si
ha indizio veruno. Gli archi ornamentali delle facce laterali delineati dal Torrigio e dal Febeo ora piü non esistono, ma se ne vedono gli incastri.
[ 20 ]
segnato : de Cathedra s. Fetid} Le profane immagini poi delle imprese d'Ercole ottimamente s'addicono ad
avorii incrostati nei secoli cristiani per adornare il sacro nionnmento. Imperocche e notissimo, clie le sculture profane
tolte dai dittici e da ogni maniera di snppellettili antiche fino dal piu alto medio evo, furono tenute in sommo pregio,
e adoperate come materia preziosa a coprire evangeliarii, reliquiarii ed altri sacri arnesi, senza fare caso veruno delle
immagini sopra quegli avorii effigiate. Non cosi nei primi tre secoli, quando ferveva la lotta tra il paganesimo ed il
cristianesimo. Kelle romane catacombe osserviamo, sui marmi quivi adoperati, essere state sovente cancellate ed
abolite collo scalpello le sculture ritraenti immagini del ciclo idolatrico, al quale spetta Ercole ed il suo mito. Laonde
mi sarebbe sembrato alquanto strano, clie in una catedra si veneranda fossero stati lasciati intatti e visibili i graffiti
delle erculee imprese. Ora cessa ogni meraviglia o stranezza, considerando clie quelle eburnee lastre non coprono il
legno piu antico; anzi alcune tra esse sono collocate a rovescio e presentano le immagini capovolte.
Cotesta scdia per non interrotto, pubblico e solenne culto nella vaticana basilica e in possesso del titolo della
catedra famosa, che nei primi secoli fu pegno e segno visibile dell' apostolica origine della chiesa romana dedotta da
Pietro. L'intronizzazione, clie su quella catedra per molti secoli si fece d' ogni nuovo pontefi.ee, e la festa annua
del 22 di Eebbrajo, nella quale il pontefice su quella catedra sedeva, dimostrano quanto irragionevole e storicamentc
improbabile sarebbe il supporre, che una nuova sedia sia stata sostituita all'antica, ed abbia usurpato il titolo di
quella, che Damaso pose nei battistero. D'altra parte Ennodio testifica, che la sedia apostolica conservata in quel
damasiano edificio era una sella gestatoria; percio non catedra di pietra, ma di legno e portatile a spalla per
travicelli intromessi in anelli infissi nelle aste laterali. Tale e appunto la sedia, clie il Yaticano anch' oggi conserva ;
non nelle parti, i cui ornati all' eta di Ennodio medesimo sembrano posteriori, ma nelle semplici e povere aste d'altro
legno tutto corroso. Queste osservazioni congiunte alle storiche testimonianze sopra recitate a clii non abbia l'animo
preoccupato da opinione contraria sembreranno assai gravi e persuasive. (Bulletino, Sfc. Anno 5, p. 36.)
Appendice alia descrizione della Catedra Vaticana.
Dopo stampato il precedente ragionamento ho potuto esaminare con ogni cura e da ogni lato la catedra vaticana.
Per agevolare l'intelligenza dell'esame fatto sarebbe opportuno un disegno; ma la pubblicazione di questi fogli, che c
gia ritardata, non mi permette di attendere il tempo necessario a prepararne la delineazione. Mi contentero
adunque delle seguenti avvertenze. Le parti della catedra intagliate in legno d'acacia e adornate di liste eburnee
sculte a rilievo costituiscono tutto l'interno di essa e sono una vera sedia di stile bizantino. Le lastre d'avorio, sullo
quali sono incavate le figure delle erculee imprese, coprono il telaio anteriore e non furono fatte per esso, ma ad esso
applicate. Le liste scolpite a rilievi sono adattate e proprie ad ogni membro dell'architettura della sedia ; e non le
posso stimare piu antiche e adoperate prima ad altro uso. Nei rabeschi di quelle sculturine sono effigiati com-
battimenti di animali, di centauri, di uomini; e nei mezzo della fascia orizzontale del timpano, nei luogo ciob piu
degno e centrale, b ritratto il busto d'un imperatore coronato stringente colla destra lo scettro, che b rotto, colla
sinistra il globo ; ha sul volto i soli mustacci senza barba : forse c un Carlo magno o uno dei primi successori di lui.
Due angeli, uno per parte, gli offrono ciascuno una corona; altri due angeli seguono nella stessa guisa portanti
ciascuno una palma. L'arte delle sculture eburnee e dei rabeschi mi sembra benissimo convenire all' eta del
rinnovato impero occidentale. Questa sedia e stretta e chiusa dentro l'armatura di quercia assai corrosa, che b
composta dei quattro pilastri, ossia dei piedi anteriori, dei posteriori coi sostegni del dossale e delle aste orizzontali
che legano quegli assi. Alcune delle äste di quercia mancano e sono state sostituite da altre di acacia; del
medesimo legno, cioe, nei quale b tagliata la sedia interiore. Ai pilastri di quercia sono infissi gli anelli di ferro,
che rendevano gestatoria la sedia. Ognuno intende rimanere fermo quanto sopra ho disputato, le testimonianze
istoriche certificanti, clie fino dai secoli piu remoti la catedra di s. Pietro nei Yaticano fu visibile a tutti e in
solenni modi da ogni pontefice adoperata, non poter essere applicate alle parti interne della sedia tagliate in acacia
e adorne di avorii, ma solo alle esterne e disadorne; alle quali altresi conviene la descrizione fattane da Ennodio
nelle due parole sella gestatoria. {Ibid. p. 47.)
APPENDIX II.
EXTRACT EROM A LETTER WRITTEN IN NOYEMBER, 1867, BY PADRE RAEEAELE GARRUCCI,
HON. E.S.A., TO W. M. WYLIE, ESQ., E.S.A.2
II signore Professor Westwood mi aveva dimandato in una postilla qualche notizia intorno agli avorii della
Cattedra di S. Pietro. . . . Tornato adunque in Roma attendeva il momento di poterla studiare a mio agio.
L'opportunita mi si presentb per l'esposizione che se ne fece in Chiesa nell' occasione della festa di S. Pietro. Otteni
adunque il favore di recarmi quando la Chiesa era chiusa, cioc di sera, e vi andai con un mio compagno il qnale avca
amicizia col Canonico Archivista del Capitolo. Y'era adunque presente il predetto Canonico con alcuni sacrestani,
1 V. Marini, Papiri, p. 380.
2 A translation of this letter was laid before the Society of Antiquaries of London on December 12th, 1867. See Proc. Soc. Antiq. 2 S. iv. 40.
[ 21 ]
c un piccol numero di Zuavi pontifici i quali erano incaricati di vegliare la notte a guardia di quella. II mio compagno
scriveva tutto ciö clie io diceva, ed io mi sono ancora cavato alcune impronte colla carta di stagno, il che mi riusci
appena per la estrema difficolta di posto in che era la Cattedra.
Due sono le qualita di lavoro di questi avorii, imperocche alcuni sono lastre intagliate, altri sono strisce cavate
a sottosquadro. Le prime, cioö le lastre, son collocate tutte insieme adunite sul frontale della faccia anteriore della
sedia; le strisce sono adattate nel resto, ma ai laterali non vi ha avorii. Bisogna pero distinguere nella sedia due
sorte di legname; 1 esterno che b quercia e forma i quatro piedi e qualclie traverse che Ii congiunge, e l'interno che
e, dicono, di acacia, e che serve di armatura ai predetti pezzi di quercia che da essa interna sedia si sostengono, e ne
sono supplite le traverse ove mancano. A questa sedia, che diremo interna, appartengono gli archi piantati sulle
colonne, il frontoncino col timpano intagliato a giorno. Su questa sedia sono gli avorii, e non sopra i pezzi di quercia.
Per contrario dai pezzi di quercia pendono i quatro anelli di ferro, che nelle sedie gestatorie, quale fu questa, servono
a introdurvi le sbarre onde levarsele in collo.
Comincio adunque a descrivere le lastre di avorio che sono poste insieme sopra la faccia anteriore della sedia.
Queste rappresentano le dodici fatiche di Ercole in oltre tanti quadretti, e sei animali fantastici in sei tavolette, in
tutto 18 quadretti; ma bisogna notare che una sola volta si vedono uniti in una sola lastra due quadretti, e questa e
in consequenza il doppio piu. longa delle altre. L'ordine con che sono poste i quadretti e questo, ed avverto che le
tavolette 6 e 11 sono collocate a rovescio:—
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ercole
combatte
l'idra.
Ercole
raggiugne
il cervo.
Ercole
porta
il cignale.
Ercole
prende
il toro.
Ercole
soffoca
il leone.
•adras ip apoa
UI 0}uaiuq
auuop
IP ^S3L
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Ercole
purga le
stalle
di Augia.
Ercole
prende
i cavalli
di Diomede.
Ercole
strascina
il Cerbero.
Ercole
ha tratto il
cinto
all' Amazone
Ippolita.
•apipyupg
Bll3P HI33311
q3 a^aas
aI03J3
Ercole
lutta con
Anteo.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Testa di
Elefante
desinente
in coda di
serpe.
Scorpione.
Testa di
Lepre
desinente in
coda di serpe.
Tritone che
esce
fuori da una
conchiglia
turbo con
due pesci.
•apuadsg
oqap luiod
i apus.id
3IOM3[
Testa di
Uccello a
lungo becco
desinente in
pistrice.
I numeri dinotano le tavolette che sono diciasette perche la tavolette 11 e il doppio piu ed ha due rappresentanze
come ho detto. Tutte queste tavolette sono di una medesima mano, ed appartennero, a quanto pare, ad un medesimo
mobile, donde furono tolte per ornare, a guisa di frontale, la parte anteriore della sedia. II modo come sono scolpite
e il cosi detto " alia damaschina;" perocchä i contorni delle figure sono segnati con sottil solco, e quei piani di esse
che vogliono coprirsi di lamina d'oro sono abbassati quanto richiedeva la grossezza della lamina, che e quanto
un ordinario foglio de carta. Quest' oro oggi manca quasi per tutto. II lavoro mi sembra dell' undecimo secolo
incirca.
Ma quella che io diro mia scoperta riguarda le strisce di avorio traforate a sottosquadro. Imperocche nel mezzo
di una d'esse, ed e quella propriamente che orna la corda del frontoncino, vidi un busto con corona gigliata tenente
nella destra un globo, e nella sinistra un frammento di uno scettro. Queste figura ha il mento raso e vestito di peli
il solo labro superiore. II suo aspetto e quale ci rappresenta Carlo il Calvo sopra una notissima pagina della Bibbia
da lui donata a S. Paolo fuori delle Mura e che si conserva tuttora in quella sacrestia. Egli b vero che in quel primo
momento in che mi avvidi del busto, gridai di vedere Carlo Magno,1 ma dipoi ho considerato che le imagini di
Carlo Magno oltre ai mustacci hanno anche la barba, e cosi vedesi rappresentato nei due Musaici contemporanei di
Leone III., dico nel Triclinio, e in S. Susanna, editi da Nicolo Alemanni (de Lateran, pariet. tav. i. e ix.)
L'imagine imperiale & nel mezzo, e verso di essa muovono quattro vittorie alate, e due di esse recano a lui
corone, due recano palme. In seguito e rappresentata una pugna nella quale i Palatini dell' imperatore ammazzano
dei nemici. Sulle altre strisce sono cavati, egualmente a sottosquadro, dei groteschi, i quali vedonsi esser
copiati dall' antico, ma in quella maniera nella quale poteonsi fare da un artista anche eccellente del secol nono.
Vi ho scorto ancora una striscia che mi e sembrata di restauro ed e di un lavoro inferiore. Un' altra striscia e
stato rimessa ma capovolta. Io li descriverei a minuto se avessi davanti un disegno : ma finora non 1 lio, e ne anche
ho potuto avere ancora una copia della fotografia che so essersi fatta prima che la Cattedra fosse riposta nella stanzina
oscura a molti palmi del suolo, ove si puo solo salire coll ajuto di una scala a piroli, il che non e agevole, e bisogna
anche aver ottenuto che si apra il predetto stanzino che e sempre chiuso a chiavi.
1 Nella prima descrizione che della Cattedra da il De Bossi {Bull. Arch, anno 1867, No. 3) non si parla di questo busto. La mia spiegazione fu data
nella ottava dopo la festa di S. Pietro davanti alle persone che ho sopra nominate. Nella seconda descrizione si legge " forse e un Carlo Magno, o uno dei
primi successori di lui." Io non mi arresto a Luigi il Buono ne a Lotario, ma a Carlo il Calvo, e senza ambage.
9
[ 22 ]
M'importava perö far sapere che si io prima non ho puhlicato per le stampe la mia scoperta, cio fu perclie io
sperai sempre d'accompagnarla coi disegni, tanto degli avorii che dei musaici e delle pergamene,—e cio 11011 mi e
riuscito finora. Del resto ero io sempre sicuro di poter dimostrare coi testimoni qual fu il mio sentimento al primo
vedere la Cattedra, allorche gridai che gli avorii non erano anteriori all' epoca di Carlo Magno.
Porgo qui poche parole intorno alia Cattedra. Egli b evidente che d'ora in poi non si dovra piu pensare a seile
curule, ne all' epoca de Pudente senatore. Nulladimeno resta vero, verissimo, che con questa sedia di Carlo il Calvo
assistono uniti gli avanzi della vera sedia gestatoria che tutta l'antichita senza interruzione alcuna ha riconosciuta
e venerata per la Cattedra di S. Pietro. Intorno a cio legasi il De Rossi, che meglio di tutti, e con ricerche nuove
e di molta istruzione, l'ha dimostrato nel Bulletino (TArcheologia Cristiana.
APPENDIX III.
ON THE IVORY TABLETS ATTACHED TO THE CHAIR OE ST. PETER.
The tablets in question will he seen to be eighteen in all, of which twelve are carved with the Labours of
Hercules and six with figures of constellations.
As these tablets are now placed, they represent, in the first row : 1, the defeat of the Hydra; 2, the taking the
Arcadian stag ; 3, the carrying off of the Erymanthian boar; 4, the catching of the Cretan bull; 5, the strangling
of the Nemean lion. In the second row: 1, the cleansing of the Augean stables; 2, the seizure of the mares of
Diomedes; 8, the dragging away of Cerberus from Hades; 4, the killing of Hippolyte the Queen of the Amazons ;
5, the taking of the golden apples of the Hesperides; 6, the fight with Antaeus; and on the fifth tablet of the third
row the killing of the Stymphalian birds. The sixth tablet of the first row contains a figure which according to
Padre Garrucci exhibits the head of a woman and the tail of a serpent; the drawing seems to show a sea-monster.
In the third row the first tablet represents a grotesque animal with the head of an elephant and a twisted tail, the
the second a scorpion, the third an animal with the head and fore-legs of a hare, the fourth a triton issuing from a
huge turbinated shell and holding a fish in each hand, and the sixth a fantastic animal having, according to Padre
Garrucci, the head of a bird with a long beak, and ending in a long tail.
As has been said above, it is probable that these figures are intended for constellations, the spots upon them
standing no doubt for the stars of which they are composed. In only one instance, however, does the number of
these spots agree with the proper number of the stars; in that instance, the third panel of the third row, there arc
seven spots corresponding with the seven stars in the constellation Lepus. One other, the scorpion, is too plainly
represented to admit of any doubt, but it is difficult to identify the rest. The triton in the fourth panel of the
third row may perhaps stand for Eridanus, often personified as a river-god; while the figure in the sixth panel of
the same row bears a rough resemblance to the figure representing Cetus in the manuscript of Aratus, published in
the Archseologia vol. xxvi. and to that of the whale swallowing Jonah in many works of art of the earlier centuries,
e.g. a marble sarcophagus from the catacombs at Rome (d'Agincourt, Sculpture, pi. v.). Of the other two, that in
the sixth panel of the first row may perhaps stand for Hydrus the water-serpent, and that in the first panel of the
third row either for the Southern fish ('Iytfu? z/otzo?) or for the Dolphin.
It is difficult to account for the sclectionhf these constellations, but it will be observed that all (if we suppose
the last-mentioned to represent the Southern fish) belong to the Southern hemisphere.
Padre Garrucci has remarked that the panels containing the killing of the Stymphalian birds and the gathering
of the apples of the Hesperides are of one piece of ivory;1 there must therefore have been two rows of panels
containing each six of the labours of Hercules; and, as the four panels containing the seizure of the mares of
Diomedes, the abduction of Cerberus, the figure of Scorpio and that of Lepus are evidently in their original
connexion, it seems certain that in the primitive arrangement of these panels there were two rows of the Labours
of Hercules and one of Constellations. It is perhaps scarcely worth while to form conjectures as to the nature of the
object from which these carvings were taken; they may perhaps have covered one side of a coffer which would have
been about 29| inches long by 18§ high. The panels would appear to measure about 3£ inches square within their
exterior border.
These exterior borders are represented in the drawing as if the ornament upon them was produced either by
simple incised lines or by a shallow depression.
Of these ornaments there are five or six different patterns; as the panels are now placed these patterns do not
correspond, but it will be seen that they would do so if the panels were placed as follows :—
Hercules Hercules Hercules Hercules Hercules Hercules
and the Lion. and the Hydra. and the Boar. and the Stag. and the Bull. and the Birds.
Hercules Hercules Hercules Hercules Hercules Hercules
in the Stables and Antaeus. and the Mares and Cerberus. and Hippolyte. in the Garden
of Augeus. ' of Diomedes. 0f the Hesperides.
Pisces. Hydrus. Scorpio. Lepus. Eridanus. Cetus.
This arrangement would place the labours of Hercules in an order not very different from that which they
usually occupy. The fetching of the oxen of Geryones, generally reckoned as the tenth labour, is here omitted,
and the killing of Antseus is inserted instead.
[ 23 ]
Padre Garrucci, it will be seen, states that these tablets are " intagliate," and contrasts this method of execution
with that of the hands of foliage, which last he says are hollowed " a sottosquadro," i. e. undercut. He afterwards
says that the manner in which they are sculptured is the so-called " alia damaschina," which he explains by stating,
that a fine line marks the outlines of the figures and that the flat surface of the tablet is so hollowed as to
receive a leaf of gold of the thickness of a sheet of paper. Little of this gold, he says, remains. The figures are
therefore, it would appear, not in relief at all, but merely made out by incised lines. The " sottil solco " of which
he speaks is probably indicated in the drawing by the dotted lines surrounding most of the figures of the
constellations.
Padre Garrucci has stated, that in his opinion these figures date from about the eleventh century, an opinion
in which most competent judges will probably agree. They evidently belong to the same school of art as
certain caskets and detached pieces of ivory, which are to be found in museums and in the sacristies of some
continental churches, all of which are characterized by certain peculiarities and mannerisms. Among these are
an exaggerated slenderness of limb, a marked prominence of the knee joints, and a way of rendering the hair by a
mass of small knobs. The subjects are generally taken from some mythological story, and some work of classical
art, has in many cases, evidently been copied by the ivory carver, but the story is often misunderstood and misre¬
presented, and the movement of the figures copied with so much exaggeration, as often to become ridiculous;
animals are generally represented with great truth and spirit, and in very natural attitudes. The execution is usually
remarkably neat and sharp, and the state of preservation of the ivory very good.
Examples of this school are, a casket in the treasury of the Cathedral of Volterra, on which the Labours of
Hercules are sculptured; one in possession of Mr. Carrand, with pairs of combatants and wrestlers; a detached piece
in the Museo Correr at Venice, on which is Bacchus, in a car, drawn by panthers; a piece at Goodrich Court, on
which is the bringing up of Achilles by Chiron the Centaur: but the finest which I have seen is the casket obtained
by Mr. John Webb from the Collegiate Church of Veroli, near Borne, now in the South Kensington Museum; on
this Europa is represented as about to land, but with the addition that she .is pelted with stones by a group of men.
Bacchus in a low car drawn by panthers, Bellerophon with Pegasus, and several other subjects are also represented.
That these are of Byzantine origin is proved by several circumstances, among them the fact that the same borders of
rosettes are often found on caskets with mythological subjects, and on those where the subjects are Biblical or
legendary and executed in the well known Byzantine manner. In one instance, a casket in the sacristy of the
Cathedral of Lyons, these rosettes are replaced by human heads, some of which bear the characteristic Byzantine
headdress with long pendants. On a few pieces some figures are to be found in the dry severe manner which
characterizes Byzantine art when used for religious purposes, while others are in a natural quasi-antique style ; one
example of this is a tablet in the British Museum, in part of which Christ in glory is represented in the usual stiff
style, while on one side is a group of boys with somewhat excessive action, and the peculiarities of style which I
have described. Another example is the tablet now in the Museum at Berlin (engraved in Gori, Thes. Dipt. Antiq.
t. iii. App. by Passeri, p. ix.), on which Christ attended by angels is represented in the usual Byzantine style, while
below this group are the forty saints (01 AIT Ol TE22APAKONTA) in very natural attitudes, and represented
with much truth and skill.
Examples of Byzantine sculpture in marble characterized by the same peculiarities may be found, particularly
at St. Mark's in Venice, where bas-reliefs representing St. Theodore and other saints are placed over the piers of
the west front. In the same position is a bas-relief of Hercules carrying the Erymanthian boar, which I am much
disposed to believe to be also a Byzantine work.
It appears therefore that, while either, positive enactment or a sense of what was fitting prescribed that sacred
personages should be represented in the stiff attitudes and the dry manner which so strongly characterise the
religious art of Byzantium, a totally different treatment was employed in the representation of mythological subjects
for secular purposes, and in a few instances the two styles came into juxtaposition. That mythological subjects
should have been selected by Byzantine artists is not surprising, when we remember the profusion of antique
works of art which existed at Byzantium until its capture by the Crusaders.
To fix the date of such carvings Avith certainty is not easy, for few Byzantine ivory carvings bear inscriptions
or represent historical persons. There is, however, good ground for the belief that the peculiar Byzantine style Avas
not developed until after the iconoclastic period; when in the ninth century artists were again tolerated and encour¬
aged art had as it were to be re-created, the old traditions having been lost, and it does not appear that it was
until the eleventh century that the new style attained its greatest perfection. Some carvings in ivory which exhibit
much of the characteristic Byzantine stiffness, with far greater incorrectness of drawing and modelling, may be
reasonably assigned to the ninth or tenth centuries, the period Avlien the older art Avas lost, and the later style not
yet matured; examples of this peculiar phase of art are the Baising of Lazarus in the British Museum (Gori, Thes.
Vet. Dipt. t. iii. tab. xiii.) and several pieces in the Brera at Milan, on one of which the legend of St. Anianus is
represented.
The fine ivory carving in the Biblioth&que Imperiale at Paris, on Avhicli are represented the Emperor Bomanus
Diogenes and his wife Eudocia, enables us to judge of the condition of this branch of art in Byzantium in the
eleventh century, and this would appear to have been also the culminating period of Byzantine art in general, in
enamelling, in illumination of MSS. and perhaps in mosaic. In the tenth and eleventh centuries the old classical
myths had among the people doubtless become much altered and added to, as we know to have been the case in
Italy during the dark and middle ages. This may account for the strauge variations of classical stories which I
have alluded to as being occasionally found on these caskets. This branch of our subject may, it is to be feared,
be thought to have been treated at too great length; but, as some writers have been disposed to consider the existence
[ 24 ]
of these classical subjects on this chair as a proof of its very early date, it is important to show that such an opinion
does not rest on any secure foundation. This phase of Byzantine art is moreover curious and interesting in itself,
and has hitherto been overlooked, many well informed antiquaries having been disposed to consider such carvings as
really belonging to the classical period.1 It does not appear when these tablets were affixed to the chair, but it was
before the sixteenth century, as Novidius, who wrote between 1512 and 1550, alludes to them in the 2nd book of
his work, entitled Fast. Sacr. lib. xii. (Plioebeus, p. 70). At the time when Pontana made his survey of the chair,
they were covered by a piece of walnut wood fastened over tliem, or else had been taken off and preserved elsewhere.
APPENDIX IV.
That the chair in question was the cathedra occupied by St. Peter, not at Borne, but at Antioch, is positively
stated by the author of a book entitled Mirabilia Romce, cited by Plioebeus (p. lxv.) as printed by Marcellus Silber
at Borne, in 1511, and this opinion has been adopted by Bocca Bishop of Tagaste, Ambrosius Novidius, Torrigio,
and others. No authority earlier than that of this treatise De Mirabilibus Romce is, however, known to exist
for the assertion, and it is discredited by Phoebeus. (p. lxxv.) That the chair has unquestionably a Byzantine
character may lend some little support to the opinion; but, if we admit that it is correct, we must conclude that
Padre Garrucci and the Cavaliere Be Bossi are mistaken in their recognition of a Carlovingian Emperor in the
Imperial effigy, and that the chair is really the cathedra of a bishop, and not, as I have endeavoured to show, the
throne of an emperor. The opinion may have gained currency from the fact stated by Cavaliere Be Bossi {Bull, di
Archeologia Crist. Ann. v., No. 3, p. 10) that the martyrologies of as early a date as the eighth century mark the
22nd of Eebruary as the feast of the " Cathedra Petri in Antiochia," or " apud Antiochiam," or " qua sedit apud
Antiochiam," and that on that day the chair was carried by the canons of St. Peter's to the high altar, as is proved
by a, bull of Nicholas III. of the year 1279.
APPENDIX V.
The belief that, besides the chair at the Vatican, another also attributed to St. Peter was preserved at Borne, has
been shown by Cavaliere Be Bossi, in the paper already referred to, to be a very probable one. One of the ampullae
sent by Gregory the Great to Queen Theodolinda bears the contemporary inscription, " Oleo de sede ubi prius sedit
sanctus Petrus," and the same words are found in the papyrus containing a list of the relics which accompanied
them. These relics are, however, in the list disposed in topographical groups, and this inscription does not find
place among those relating to the Vatican, as e.g. the oil from the sepulchre of St. Peter, but with those of the
cemeteries of the Via Salaria Nuova. Here was the catacomb known as the " Coemeterium Ostrianum," mentioned
in very early documents as " ubi Petrus baptizabat," "ad nymphasS. Petri," or " fontis S. Petri," on account of the
existence of a spring or reservoir in which St. Peter was believed to have administered baptism. In this catacomb
Bosio {Rom. Sott. p. 438) discovered a vault, having a large apse richly decorated with stucco and inscriptions in
red letters, which were unfortunately illegible. Here Be Bossi believes the chair to have stood with the lamp
burning before it, from whence the oil was taken. The existence of this second chair may explain why in the
most ancient lists of festivals on the 18th January is to be read " dedicatio cathedrae S. Petri Apostoli qua primum
Bomse sedit."
APPENDIX VI.
The story that on the chair there exists an Arabic inscription containing the Mahometan profession of faith
has obtained so much currency that it cannot be passed over sub silentio.
As told by Lady Morgan {Italy, i. 283), it is that Benon was stated to have narrated that when the Erench
occupied Borne (meaning probably in 1808) the chair was examined, and the inscription upon it deciphered.
Cardinal Wiseman wrote, in refutation of this story, a pamphlet which seems to have been originally printed at
Borne in 1833, and was afterwards reprinted in the third volume of his collected essays. In this he states that during
the Erench occupation the seals of the repository were never broken, and the foundation of the story is thus at once
cut away. He then proceeds to argue that the chair may very probably have been the curule chair of the Senator
Pudens, but, as the materials with which he had to work were only those afforded by the writings of Phoebeus,
Torrigio, Cancellieri, and others, to state his argument would be but to repeat much of what has been already
quoted from those sources in this memoir.
He suggests, what is indeed highly probable, that the origin of the story is the fact that in the church of St.
Pietro in Castello, at Venice, is a marble cathedra, on the back of which the Mahometan formula of belief is really
sculptured. This portion of the cathedra is, however, believed to have been formed from a tombstone originally
erected in memory of a follower of Mahomet.
1 i may add, as an additional proof of their real date, that the state of preservation of the examples of works of this class which the writer
has examined (upwards of twenty) is far superior to that of any carvings in ivory dating from the first three or four centuries of the Christian era.
DATE DUE
INTERUBf
ARV|OAN
MAP fl ^
}nn l
l¥l n f\ u j
LUU4
GAYLORD #3522PI Printed in USA
W—HWi m
ZIP S89 8L-0 0000 0
'
j
■
.
■