. tritt . EAS MBH ad 116 Linger a l WAT $ Want 1?WITTUR TE AY wy ki II SU Sultan Ito RU IN D . OM CHIC: SO US Out V. 1,195,770 A AL a A E mu a ' . With alt 1:1 Wel AL-TITLE *** ... 2 . . : , : .. .: . . ** ** .. . T .. .. ... . . . .. . . O .. . .. ... . 2 . i. .). S 4 . . AYKU : S ! 1 SE S . . . T et!! iNT! N OMIN SYS TARIS . .. TE TILTINOLVINT . T. Hii . . 1,92.:: Simu . Seti . ht . .. . + S9 • WA * . . . and *1 44 U RPP ::: 5:14. IHRERII ... O ity.. ... .. L . L . E . T 15 * . KLUX 2. FINE ARTS NB 1287 M7 P9 . * ! : iti!! . : 1 :il Sii 1, . VU .. .1 . . .: . .I . • A ! . . .. SOT T X5UCINOTTI * LeSTSTOFT * . * 2 riitit A SLI ! ! . w ! I. " 1 At . D ' ܙܬ݁ܺܝ . . . . . ** . T . l ' 1 . ^ 17: 12 . . .. .... 1 . . . . . . .* :. . L SI 21. . . Hit: . . : . . : ... .* ! . . KENNIS . . .. . . . . ... O . . ST OOPS!. * MI . ht. L :: We? 2919 ON . . . . . LI n :..? OWN . A . 23 NOS. . . . .. . . . .. . tot 1.-RS SRL A . - Set BRE * 1 12 R ose ini ES 1: KU inimes 4 . . go ) . . 鲁鲁- ​由于其實由計劃書​:ht业​; 看着看着​,在青 ​1 if 鲁能鲁鲁​, 路线 ​事事等重 ​「書卷​」 “是是中毒事 ​.进 ​事有 ​来​”一事​,事事非事事件 ​費者​, 一直有 ​一對鲁鲁鲁事事​, 理路 ​是非子全身都看到​」在是軍事​- 年第 ​一个是重要- ​青年 ​重事事 ​。 重 ​量 ​, , , , , = , = , , = , +,TTV44 = ! 事情也tiviiLr 1 1fit 中華一書是量产车​, 有事不是单单单单學書​」青書一本書事业单曲播平台 ​| 鲁中華​「華華學學生事​- 业自 ​律 ​, 重 ​-- -- - - - - 4 者​: 51 .n,事畢 ​,學費​, 单警 ​音 ​鲁鲁事​。”王宁​- 量单​” 管理 ​鲁律鲁鲁鲁Is 事​是单量​「普普鲁鲁鲁鲁 ​中 ​, , , , -鲁鲁鲁​·肯普华 ​, ” - - - 生 ​- 上一些r.. ,-单单是鲁鲁T- 看 ​鲁鲁​, 鲁鲁鲁事业单号鲁鲁​,鲁鲁中​事件​, - T - 型 ​管卡鲁鲁爭事是會非寻 ​Y - - T 4 ,事事事​:单单自产鲁I - , 事 ​件非普鲁事事事​, 事 ​事单单单单单​。 f事事非事事里有事​,是普普 ​舉重身世華華車車費里​·普鲁鲁鲁車 ​- 學举量由单量​,单单是鲁中學學費​」畢書董事學量​。 If dir中单​”一事​,中华中華學考 ​「對手​」畢書 ​, T - |-鲁鲁鲁一 ​· T , , = - 「自在 ​1. 重量 ​: 一是 ​:『是非​」「華華 ​學 ​」 學者 ​鲁鲁鲁士畢单疊華華華聲帶非常重疊車型 ​·博鲁鲁中一一一一書自學重量​-- 會是一本非一一一事件 ​, “学 ​| F事​, 事事曲車車體重量 ​。”鲁卡鲁鲁兽華 ​”, :11 二零零着 ​學書電董事鲁鲁鲁華是普鲁鲁​·普鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁​。鲁鲁一来了 ​” 、学者鲁鲁兽世是 ​『普鲁鲁鲁鲁書中書書聲曲​。 學費​。書事业上 ​2 ”, 在 ​主 ​裡 ​- , - - 中華E- 生書會 ​- 普普了一一一一一一年​,鲁鲁​, 鲁鲁​-鲁律學畢書​,帶三件事鲁鲁​,鲁一鲁​,鲁鲁​, 鲁鲁鲁鲁​-鲁鲁​,鲁普普鲁鲁鲁 ​--鲁鲁鲁 ​重型是鲁鲁鲁兽​--- - - - - - - - ,鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁 ​- - 。鲁一鲁鲁​,鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁事考書鲁鲁 ​--- 事 ​” 业单 ​; 鲁鲁學生​,鲁鲁鲁體 ​-- 車重型等鲁番 ​-- 青島事鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁 ​·鲁一鲁​,鲁鲁書費雪 ​費重量 ​重量​-事事會鲁建中學學會會一首非出事具本島臺单 ​畢畢學學書單 ​|鲁鲁一鲁鲜事本 ​曾華里華一一一一一擊掌事​/4 臺鲁鲁南新曲串串串串串串串是非非​。 一 ​鲁​,事事 ​, 一生一事鲁鲁鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁事畢事​」是一群单鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁​”字​,,= 中一學重量 ​事事上看主賽​- -非看非事事单是由普鲁​-鲁一鲁在是一个普鲁本​·里 ​重量 ​-書畫事事是 ​---- 得事事​“一带學車​-學車學制學學生事律事書 ​- :一是了​- - --,鲁鲁鲁- ​于 ​一看​,看看中​,鲁鲁鲁鲁一鲁 ​是 ​,着看着当警車書車 ​」,由鲁鲁小學學群 ​學生是由非​== , ,,,,事實理事​,重鲁鲁準是​,看到鲁鲁鲁車電子管着​,畢鲁鲁普鲁鲁​,鲁鲁兽世事里一一一一章事事一串事件非華鲁鲁畫書一直一事​, , 非會看世事业单​, 中非得是​--非非事事​---- 一半中国 ​-鲁鲁​,鲁一鲁​,鲁一鲁 ​學是學举中击事在 ​人 ​本著 ​量更鲁鲁​; fi 想要了售​,善事書車型是目事​,事事​」。鲁鲁鲁兽事单華事事单 ​事事单鲁鲁哥華無非自考 ​鲁鲁會帶上一喜非禮事拳聖 ​|重鲁鲁青曲事實事单单是普普鲁鲁鲁​,是全書畫會春鲁鲁鲁鲁鲁​, ,有三​: |- 鲁一鲁鲁青春​--- /--一帶一律 ​」于是一普普鲁西鲁鲁鲁者 ​---- 鲁 ​我要學​, 一鲁​,鲁鲁​,鲁鲁兽世是非常非常普華​:「學鲁鲁事​, 鲁 ​生書​,並非是普鲁中毕业島島車事 ​- 鲁鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁書車是售​-- 鲁一鲁鲁鲁​,鲁一鲁 ​但是​“鲁​=, 全年业生中​,中小企业​, , "" ----鲁鲁​,鲁鲁​- 鲁事會產生事鲁鲁律事​,鲁鲁鲁和鲁西鲁鲁​,鲁鲁兽 ​重者​,男 ​是王是 ​4 - ,主事者​”, - - - - - - - - - 售 ​中 ​- - - - 星 ​星 ​马里 ​一​-----量自學是學事​-鲁鲁 ​·非主是曾事事書 ​。鲁​-鲁一鲁鲁鲁事書 ​- 華興建青春 ​,1年 ​11: 上事重重​,非爭學鲁鲁f业单量​, 量是事畢事​非爭中​,學會 ​-普鲁鲁鲁兽世e IL-是看着 ​.. . . 」 事业单離畢書​是一部普鲁鲁鲁​, 鲁鲁​,鲁鲁事​| 青春 ​|事 ​|「重量​」一事 ​事事争是事實是鲁鲁鲁建华一事​, 一 ​是 ​學學生學會​普鲁鲁​,鲁鲁一鲁​,鲁鲁​,鲁鲁迪​-单单单单单霍華​-----非事事非事事書​- --非非 ​,畢鲁鲁鲁能单學生​」事件本身手串串变量单事一串串上是一个单中单击 ​“堂​, 畢書中单曲集里是王華​|鲁鲁​,鲁一鲁鲁學會副會善事事學一學費為青 ​1 1 一看就得了​, 事于单一​, 產 ​看看書一律用了普鲁鲁車車鲁​鲁鲁兽​” 生 ​了鲁鲁​, 鲁鲁卡普等世界专用​, 工 ​作事​”, ”鲁鲁鲁特普會特重產等事​:曾非事事查事學生管理​,严重了​,看着一串串串串一串单曲​- 第一讲画14 单 ​11:鲁单单是鲁售单个是鲁鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁信​-重量​-重量鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁事业单量重得鲁鲁​,鲁鲁番 ​- 量子學會​「龍車​「串串串串是鲁​,事事非看非學事實爭對​,畢書​」享譽 ​,事 ​, 學會 ​:::: - 非​,因事前 ​,一 ​串串strid車型上岸​,进一本書​, 了​”,, , ,,=」青春​”-,-,, , 重要事事业单中華學專鲁鲁​·卡車賽事重是非畫學會 ​中華書道 ​學學鲁鲁鲁​·1 1事 ​事 ​鲁鲁兽 ​单击 ​上一鲁鲁l,學會量量產車警車車鲁鲁鲁兽争与事會 ​董事會卡里​-鲁鲁鲁鲁一鲁鲁鲁鲁本書是事事書會量量 ​售1章事事非事書​,書書​- 看中一書僅是一个非​”, 量產一事曲車是普鲁鲁​,单单1事事​,萬事情​,一個是 ​作為事 ​爭 ​得​」學​--- --佛鲁鲁​,鲁鲁​·學畢企事业单​,曹乡中學學費晶串 ​串串量是非事學是學非中學李鲁一样是单单是鲁鲁鲁鲁鲁鲁一鲁事事事書書單車鲁鲁鲁鲁鲁兽事事件是是非非 ​,单单单单量非是非曲曲串串4是鲁卡普普鲁华鲁​,鲁鲁能量11年鲁鲁事警事​」書​」事​」是毒​一書中​,鲁一鲁鲁封 ​,普雷特看 ​了 ​人 ​,是 ​新 ​开 ​1 不 ​「 t: 學車事 ​是​! * ”赴曲 ​'' 「 -- ! ! - - 董事會爭產事业单學年度重管理 ​|- 學費一律平等​」,畢​看事 ​”重量非常普鲁鲁量非牛鼻學​「華​」非事事 ​售量全 ​中中​」一書中​, 部章​--清华学中鲁鲁特鲁鲁带到中學​,對事都會中學​,是一部​「 ! 華電單車​””無聲了​! ! 中 ​學者 ​:鲁鲁 ​, h中里母排骨特单一事一年一部​「學上专TT2T! 鲁鲁​鲁鲁鲁鲁鲁會學 ​1 1, 11事 ​! -華人事工​_ 山由車事 ​其中​,世事​: 半 ​學車​,學會產量 ​重生​,重量 ​重量​;鲁鲁鲁​”“一事一件非事事事中串串串串青青​, 事事 ​----年華華畢書盡鲁鲁​,鲁鲁普普鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁一鲁鲁 ​| 青青世事無事一一鲁 ​4 中學會考​!售中串​,a,,主管事書 ​:: 「是是是是是非非​, 于是常事​,小事化学 ​F 里​,車主​:重生 ​李車重量 ​: 基于世 ​, , , , , , 事事由​, /i4 for 事 ​11 学者​:焦作 ​事事生非​, 里 ​, , 季 ​业 ​产 ​學會 ​| 鲁鲁鲁 ​T * 4", --- .. . 美學者​,得聲學生事半​。看看 ​。 學費產鲁​-鲁 ​鲁鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁畫畫山畫是中華科 ​了一单​,当事国事​,事事 ​事​。 : : : A 11 - : 14 ,- 基 ​學學下野軍事者争上是鲁鲁事 ​看到一串串臺中学​,上學​,是 ​事​,一年了​,一看​, 真是争鲁鲁​,鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁等着掌声​,看着​「非單上看​-单单是車身重量是由車​, 普 ​11:1筆​」 「事 ​」 皇峰鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁一鲁卡普轟重車車鲁鲁一中學​,華普​,學學生事​- - 1.上学​,鲁鲁 ​其​* 書中​, 一 ​在學學生事单鲁事​+唐rt1 - 一番事业 ​重重一是要學​」是書有事 ​是 ​单单是在事件​, 中学生文件 ​事业单 ​学者普鲁士得青山在普鲁​, 鲁鲁​,鲁鲁 ​学学术 ​,鲁事 ​平 ​常 ​”事非事鲁鲁鲁兽变學单中单单单单单单单一世佳青春事平常一青年鲁卡鲁一鲁鲁​, 鲁鲁中学中学举​“重事业部​: 了​,于是一个专业大学鲁事事非得非单单手串一串 ​, “一个是鲁鲁一鲁​鲁鲁本书​。 华鲁鲁事​, 查看本单单 ​- 重重重考書目 ​教學非非中学生中​,普 ​4/4 - 看鲁鲁鲁鲁兽世​,畢學學費車費​: 并非一件事者在事业​:事业单单单单单单单单書等賽事書事 ​14.44 車一車一車事中事事事​,事​! 1 」 青年学者主了一年​,上海 ​十全是鲁普基會事事再生 ​,事事 ​事 ​,學會考中举鲁鲁普鲁鲁鲁l,事事非非​。 主 ​4: 1擊事件​”事​!警車到T T ”事件事​,一對一 ​,事事事​,事事非等112 善事​,事事是​“重事​! 重量曹4年舊事 ​《 114.Thift+ “王者 ​上 ​”, 事主 ​我​: 中華學中華學生事 ​了 ​”, 普普考考生​”“ 。 事事本事 ​一代一年当中​,我無事​,學生也​。」 王 ​*11 , 鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁鲁事非事事非事事都無量學​-學費事一串串串串普魯一普普一一一一看​「普普鲁鲁兽畢畢 ​中學生​-學學會 ​香學會​、 - 11 ” 鲁鲁車串串 ​- 4 -1 当基本上無其事 ​中 ​4 , , - 串 ​作 ​WHAMMUN 者 ​: : * 3. 事實事實事争r, 學生​-學書 ​是重要賽事 ​14 * 本 ​. , 事专业事务所 ​串 ​其格者 ​游戏的 ​輝在律中 ​学校举行​,費事奉 ​基本 ​- 非書 ​车主是事 ​書本单是一个 ​WHE11打法 ​* 的 ​TH议rity ! - 」。 新 ​ath":41 , 1. P || , t·鲁事​:有事业​, 鲁i |- | .. ,畫畫畫本 ​1 '17 : 1 titr 普 ​鲁鲁鲁事 ​書畫​,書​到第 ​」,单单畫書 ​」|香​「事 ​「華美 ​。 非事事中​,由學學車​, , 是在是非非 ​青春是 ​: 1:曹普普普华中午​, 事 ​,事事有 ​. 鲁鲁鲁耶鲁書事轟​事单書畫學會 ​是看學​,「事​”。學鲁鲁 ​非會員育事事 ​事情得到主事事事​, 事事事就 ​」, 自由曲 ​串 ​” 学者 ​|- - 。 1 . | | - 鲁 ​, " } , " = , =, , =, 。鲁鲁鲁中 ​量事​”主 ​事 ​。」 -=,, ,,,,是學非第一學畢書事 ​鲁鲁事畢事​: 重新 ​Life 山村村书的​, ,重量重量​,重量1, 重重重重​, · 中​,董事會​“普 ​重申了​”, 。 理事 ​書 ​7 : 一 ​。 +++- r *** 中 ​」 : 「 事前 ​警 ​學 ​, 4 一事由 ​id, 中中中中中an 是動畫世鲁鲁​,鲁鲁一鲁鲁一鲁學學學會董事重重 ​, : 鲁击下 ​鲁​,鲁鲁事里 ​, 非 ​,单非​, 常 ​非 ​常重​,鲁​学事重重疊​·鲁鲁​,鲁鲁单是鲁鲁鲁鲁​,鲁 ​1- 看看乌鲁鲁​,单事等事鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁曲者普鲁車​,重型​---非 ​- =| -- 11学生​,是一本非 ​書里是严​== : 學學學會 ​| 重量​= | 1- T1 产​,「一中​」? /「「-1」 一 ​-- 非一​:重量是不是非得普普普鲁鲁​,鲁鲁事書 ​# FINE ARTS . :: 14 :: : . . 4. C. . . . * NB 1287 ,M7 P9 THE BRONZE DOORS OF THE ABBEY OF MONTE CASSINO AND OF SAINT PAUL'S ROME . A . .! - satynoskiptir . . . ... . " . ::''. min manata , g . . o . ... '. " . THOMAS JEX PRESTON, JR : ! . .. .. is . MW . i . ; "1iiiiiii XX -;;; . , * . , . 2. . :: . .. . 3 1 : *.' :. .. .. . ON - 9 . PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS. 5 PRINCETON LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFÖRD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1915 . . e . : . . -t .. .. tis . 42 . PA': it SP . * * .- . 29 .. - . - * . . . T - *.1 le dir: 1. 2 t 17 . 1 . .. .. 1 . ! . ... .. . .. € - . I . ! . . .. a . 1. .1 . 1 . . 7 . . . . . . . - . * T - . N ? . . .S' Afv ". lititintiuita ZEB10 mili tintuninni. . IT SCIENTIA ARTES 3 W . . 2. 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . . . .. LIBRARY VERITAS OF THE . . FOR MICHIGAN . .. M UUTMINTIMITIMINNIWINIM INIVERSITY OF MICHI . S ET AIUU U 1 . UP I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII V MW A - TTEBORN . . Y TO TE ED S. . Spencer . NINSULAM.AMCHAP .., M RCU S f BEDAVANVIWWW.WOLUW.UU.W.QUOWDROID ALAN a Illic 11 ZANIME in Wind 16V l Sinul GuinNYNDIDIHOUSULIINI11NDIVIDUTIBETIMITUSANTIUNIISINIYINI I lllllllllllll . ... . . . ) . TO. . Milure T UMU . ' ! L ....... .. . ..... SOUTPUTTIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII thriller llllllllllllllllld . . Out V a. . . 1 .. 125.6 .. ( !. . - SA 2 . . 1 . 1. 1 . A - f. ot . 1. .: R ." U .. " . : . • . SC 20+. . . . ** . A4 + . 2 . 1 a ALY OL * 7 ! . 3. 1 . . 3 . . . 90 . 411 ! . .. . .. ws ! C ... ? . ? ni Sr. . -- > . .. : .. . 9.2 : ." 2 5 * * 1 2. 1. . , 17. AS RIWA . s 4 . . . * 1 . A . tin r 1 . .. * 2.1 20 S ? * 2. ... . . YA . RE . . WA . . at . S 4 - YS 24 Y ** . ... .. . 7 10 * . * . Y 't . . . S + . .. .. **. 5 *** ** 6. * . 7. 1. L . * *** 1 Sri . "r " . . . ! - . . . WP 12. OOH . 1 . * .. . HE . ! . . . . :* Nii 11 . ! . . -- . . si , 1. * :4 . . 1 11. A w * . .. 7. t. .. * 2 * , * . .1 . 2 ** : IT . . . . . 12 A A . M . A Wr 1 23 SE ... . . * . A .. "! . . . A ' . . . IN 1.), . .. . 2 . 1 . . 1 * - ii. . . * S . ,.. UTO , - -:* it. V . RE : . . Y .. r ST LM . * . RA * THE BRONZE DOORS OF THE ABBEY OF MONTE CASSINO AND OF SAINT PAUL'S ROME A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY . BY THOMAS JEX PRESTON, JR. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1915 Fine Arts NB 1287 1417 Р Published October, 1915 Accepted by the Department of Art and Archaeology April, 1910 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PREFACE This thesis, as originally presented in January, 1910, in addition to the studies of the bronze doors at Monte Cassino and Saint Paul's, included also iconographical studies of the Annunciation, Nativity, Baptism, and Crucifixion based on monuments of Christian art until the year 1200. In order to make these studies more complete and comprehensive, as well as to include studies of the other scenes from the Life of Christ which are represented upon the Saint Paul's door, it is intended to publish them separately. It is also expected that studies on the other bronze doors of Italy, a list of which follows in the appendix, will be published with illustrations in the not too remote future. My thanks are due to Don Giuseppe Picenino of Monte Cassino for favors and assistance received during my stay at the Abbey, and to Professor Allan Marquand and Professor Charles R. Morey of Princeton who have kindly read the proof. THOMAS JEX PRESTON, JR. Westland Princeton, New Jersey May 18th, 1915 T THE BRONZE DOORS OF THE ABBEY CHURCH OF MONTE CASSINO The Monastery of Monte Cassino, according to tradition, is built upon the site of an ancient temple dedicated to the year 529 A.D. from the solitudes of Subiaco, where he had fled from the corruption of Rome, and here he founded his monastery. Of the original buildings there remain only a few founda- tion stones and possibly a very few sculptural fragments. In the eighth century the church was rebuilt under one Petronace of Brescia by order of Pope Gregory II. It is noteworthy that a North Italian was called upon to do the rebuilding, and that Roman architects were passed over.2 By this time the Monastery had become so famous throughout Europe that kings, princes, and other potentates presented it with many gifts of gold and lands. It thus came about that the Abbey had many possessions scattered throughout the surrounding districts and adjacent provinces, even as far as Bari. Over these possessions, some of them churches, others farms or rentable property, the Abbey had the authority of a Prince, temporal as well as spiritual, and from them it derived a very considerable revenue. In the year 748 Pope Zachary confirmed the privileges of the Abbey and its rule over its dependencies, and made it subject only to the Holy See at Rome. In this "Privilege”4 the dependencies were specifically mentioned. Of this docu- ment nothing now remains but the leaden seal which is pre- 1 MONUMENTA GERMANIAE HISTORICA, vol. VII, SCRIPTORUM, Chronic. Casinen., I, ch. 4. Hannover 1846. CARAVITA, I Codici e le Arti a Monte Cassino, I, p. 22. Monte Cassino, 1869. * This is significant as it shows less artistic activity in the South. It is entirely probable that such activities in South Italy reached a lower point in the seventh century than at any time within the last two thousand years. In the eighth century a slight revival becomes visible. * Chronic. Casinen., I, ch. 7. CARAVITA, I, p. 24. *TOSTI, Storia di Monte Cassino, I, p. 81. Naples, 1842. served at the Abbey, where are also several copies of the Privilege, the most ancient of which is of the eleventh century. The authenticity of the Privilege it attested by the mention made of it in several very ancient documents ;; the original it- self, although much damaged by time and use, was still in ex- istence in the thirteenth century. Then the Abbot, in view of its frail condition, prevailed upon Pope Gregory to reproduce the entire document in a Bull in favor of the Abbey. This Bull may be seen today in the archives of the Vatican. As early as the latter half of the eighth century the monks of the Abbey had secured from Desiderius, King of the Lombards, a document similar to the one given them by Pope Zachary. A copy of this is still to be seen. Charlemagne, in the year 787 after his Italian campaign, also confirmed to the Abbey its possessions; this was brought about in the following way. On his return from the expedi- tion he had undertaken against the Duke of Benevento, Charleniagne halted at Monte Cassino. Wishing to obtain the good will of the monks and the ecclesiastical party in Italy by granting favors which cost him practically nothing, he specifically confirmed the donations which the Duke Gisulf® had previously made to the Monastery. Before leaving Italy, wishing to give the Monastery new proofs of his favor, he sent to the Abbot Theodemare three documents bearing the title of "Praecepta”, confirming the privileges of the Abbey, and detailing in one of them the list of dependencies which might be held under his approval. Privile dhe order the entire text of The most ancient of these is a Preceptum of Charlemagne. See MURATORI, Antiq. Ital. Med., V, Diss. 69, p. 837. Milan, 1761. • This Bull gives the entire text of the Privilege of Pope Zachary of 748. The order of Gregory is short and prefaces the text of the Privilege. The document may be seen in the Vatican archives under Regestr. Gregor., IX, num., XXXI, fol. 76. Even before this confirmation given by the Lombard Desiderius, the monks of Monte Cassino had secured a similar privilege from King Ratchis who, in 756, sent from Pavia a confirmation of the Privilege of Pope Zachary. See Regest. Petri Diaconi, num. 101, fol. 42. For further concerning Ratchis, see Chronologio Bresciano Antich. Longob. Milan., I, p. 80, Diss. I, No. 50. 8 About 732 A. D. according to Leo of Ostia. The Duke confirmed his gifts in three Diplomas. The originals do not exist but they are referred to in later imperial and papal documents. After the campaign was over, Charlemagne, in 787, gave the Prae- After the death of Charlemagne the Abbey had no powerful protector. Owing to the enormous increase in its wealth it became a tempting prey to the Saracens, who, toward the middle of the ninth century, laid it in ruins, taking away whatever of value they could remove; this included the precious gifts of such princes as Carloman, Pepin, Charlemagne, as well as others of lesser rank and, according to the Chronicle,10 amounted to a hundred pounds of gold, eight hundred and sixty-five pounds of silver, and not a few thousand gold coins. So complete was the ruin that the monks were compelled to abandon it as a place of residence. It was not until the next century that they began to return. The Abbey was then suffi- ciently rebuilt to make it habitable, but no large and complete scheme comprehending its entire restoration was planned. This was not undertaken until the latter half of the following century, when, in 1066, the great Abbot Desiderius planned and executed an extensive restoration of the old monastery, as well as adding thereto new buildings, which has made him famous since that time. His is the greatest name in the long line of Abbots. To him and his work the Cardinal Leo of Ostia, who was an eye witness of the great changes made at Monte Cassino, consecrates the third volume of his Chronicle. 11 The complex political relations existing among the Italian states in the early part of the eleventh century, were rendered still more difficult by the appearance of the Normans in South Italy. The relations between the Emperors and Popes, both personally and politically, were becoming continually more strained. The historically dramatic scene at Canossa occurred in 1077. The Church was constantly reaching out for increased temporal dominion and prerogative; doing all in its power to strengthen itself within and without for the great struggle through which it was passing, the conflict with the Emperors of the North. Within the Church itself this was a period of faction, schism, cepta to Monte Cassino. These amounted virtually to repetitions of the Privileges of Pope Zachary and King Desiderius in confirming the titles of the dependencies of the Abbey and its rule over them. These documents are given in the Vatican Archives, Regest. Petri Diaconi, num. 102, fol. 44; ibid., num. 103, fol. 44, ibid., num. 109, fol. 48. It is in the second of these that the list of dependencies is detailed. They are reproduced by TOSTI, op. cit., I, P. 93. 10 Chronic. Casinen., I, ch. 26. 11 Mon. GERM. Hist., Vol. VII. SCRIPT. Auctore Leone. 1 and the setting up of anti-popes, but with the great Hildebrand upon the throne of Saint Peter as Pope Grégory VII, the papacy was in strong hands. Cardinal Leo of Ostia and Desiderius, Abbot of Monte Cassino, belonged to that party which was trying to arrest the tide of spiritual decay which to them seemed to be sweeping into the Church. It was the beginning of the intellectual renaissance in Italy. Their party stood for the establishment and extension of the papal authority and dogma at all points. Whatever tended toward these ends was by no means to be neglected; therefore the physical re- habilitation of the famous Abbey of which Desiderius was the head, being one of the most prominent centres of ecclesias- tical learning and authority in the world, seemed no small step toward the accomplishment of these ends. Its authority was to be made even greater by the completeness of its build- ings and the magnificence of their decoration, that they might be a worthy exponent, not only of the party in power, but of the founder of the Abbey and of the Benedictine Order, Saint Benedict himself, of whose remains the Monastery was the custodian. Desiderius then, rebuilt the Abbey in a becoming manner Benedict and the position it occupied at the head of the papal world as the home of the greatest of Orders. Many descrip- tions of this newer Monastery have been given, and many references to it have been made in the history of the art of Italy of this time. There is no doubt its magnificence was appreciated and commented upon by its contemporaries. We are told by the Poet-Archibishop Alfanus12 of Salerno that "So magnificent was the basilica of Desiderius there was nothing in the Occident which might worthily compare with it, and that it rivalled the glories of the Temple of Solomon”. Desiderius about March first 1066,13 and completed by the year 1071. In the same year it was dedicated by Pope Alexander II 14 in the presence of Hildebrand, St. Peter Damianus and forty-six bishops, together with the princes of Benevento, Capua, Salerno, Naples, Sorrento, and many other places. Accounts given of this dedication make it 12 UGHELLI, Italia Sacra, Anec. X, p. 59. 13 MURATORI, Rer. Ital. Script., V, p. 77. 14 BARONIUS, Annales Ecclesiastici, XVII, p. 309, An. 1971. a very grand function. Its solemn and ceremonial character would seem to indicate that nothing important had been left undone in the matter of the buildings or their furnishings. We may certainly presume that the church proper was com- plete in every respect. The completeness of the church in its appointments is a matter which becomes important to the argument, later on, and is therefore emphasized here. The basilica was built in the usual Roman style 15 and appears to have been constructed by native workmen under the personal supervision of the Abbot; but for the decoration he ignored Roman and Italian workmen and imported master artists from Constantinople. These, with the aid of young monks and novices whom they were to instruct, adorned the new church. This we learn from the text of the Chronicle16 of Leo of Ostia. In seeking Byzantine aid, Desiderius appears to have done what Italy always did before the twelfth century when any special art work was desired. The mosaic workers of medi- aeval Italy were either Greeks or followers of the Greek tradi- tion. This was the case throughout the early ages between the fifth and ninth century. The mosaics at San Marco at Rome, the last of the period, show even a stronger Byzantine influence than some of the earlier ones. The great mosaics of Venice, Monreale, and Palermo may be mentioned as additional proof of this. Even the very centre of the region in which the Renaissance had its earliest and deepest root, Florence, has upon the cupola of its Baptisteryl? great mosaic pictures by Byzantine workers who were looked upon as masters in that art. Writers who have dealt with the question of painting in Italy have been at a loss to explain the gap between the mosaics of the Florentine Baptistery and the works of Cimabue, 15 A description of the church is given in Chron. Casinen., III, ch. 28. This is elaborated by GATTOLA, Historia Abbatiae Cassinensis, Venice 1723 18 Chronic. Casinen., III, ch. 27, p. 718. This has been very often quoted and referred to. Around it has arisen a considerable amount of discussion on the Byzantine question in Italy. Interesting presen- tations of each side may be found in the Jhb. k. Preuss. Kunstanım. for 1893 and 1894. F. X. KRAUS contributes an article on Die Wandgemälde von St. Angelo in Formis, and E. DOBBERT. replies in a paper entitled Zur Byzantinischen Frage. Since then there has been 17 CLAUSSE, Basiliques et Mosaïques, II, p. 219. Paris, 1893. Giotto, and Pietro Cavallini. Some have sought the explana- tion in a possibly forgotten and unrecorded school of Roman artists whose works have not been preserved. This may be the case; but a far more probable reason for the sudden activity of painting in Italy in the thirteenth century may be found in the emigration of Byzantine painters, forced out of Constantinople by reason of the unsettled conditions there due to the presence of the Crusaders, who in 1204 began an occupation of many decades. The Crusaders were by no means patrons or protectors of art. As the native nobility at Constantinople were not in position to encourage artists as formerly, what more natural than that these artists should seek employment in Italy where a brighter future seemed likely? Duccio may have been one of this class. Byzantine art was always more or less concerned with painting, and the remains of early thirteenth century painting in Italy show a Byzantine in- fluence which indicates, not simply that which may have filtered over from Byzantium, but the direct teaching, if not actually the work, of Byzantines. In painting, therefore, as in all other work of decorative art between the fifth and thirteenth centuries, the Italians were the willing pupils of their Byzantine masters. 18 At any rate, Desiderius sent to Constantinople for masters to direct the decoration of his church. Afccording to the Chronicle19 they were skilled in the working of gold, silver, bronze, iron, glass, wood, stucco, and marble; and in these they gave instruction to the young men at the Abbey. Early in the history of the reconstruction of his basilica, Desiderius had occasion to visit the neighboring city of Amalfi, then a great entrepôt for the commerce of the East. The exact reason for this visit and its exact date are uncertain, but the latter becomes important in connection with the history of the Bronze Doors of the Abbey. Leo of Ostia 20 places 18 Note in support of this the fourteenth century mosaics of Kahrie- djami at Constantinople, and the frescoes at Chiesa San Sepolcro, Barletta, and the Chiesa del Casole at Brindisi. 19 Chronic. Casinen., III, ch. 27, p. 718. 20 Ibid., III, p. 711. Modern writers are not all agreed as to the date owing to the various readings of the texts of the Chronicle. SCHNAASE places the date in 1062; BERTAUX, who refers to the occasion, says 1066, but gives to the Door at Monte Cassino the date of 1070, which is that of the doors in the basilica of Saint Paul's at IO 0 the date of the visit in the year 1067, and gives as the reason for it that the Abbot journeyed thither for the purpose of pur- chasing silk as a present to the Emperor Henry IV, who was then about to set out on a journey to Italy. It is not recorded that the Emperor made the trip in 1067; but in the previous year, that is in 1066, he had planned to go into Italy, then changed his mind and relinquished his plan21 after all arrange- ments had been made. It was probably because of this expected trip in 1066 that the Abbot bought the silk of which Leo speaks. It is perhaps not unlikely that the chronicler confused the years in his Chronicle. In the year 1066 then, when Desiderius went to Amalfi, he saw for the first time the new and splendid bronze doors which had recently been placed at the entrance to the Cathedral church of Saint Andrew in that city, by the munificence of a certain noble of Amalfi, Pantaleone22 by name. The Chron- icle of Leo records in a sentence the delight of Desiderius at seeing the doors. He says,23 “Videns autem tunc portas aereas episcopii Amalfitani, cum valde placuissent oculis ejus" Desiderius thereupon expressed a wish to have a pair of similar doors for the new church at Monte Cassino which he was then beginning to reconstruct. It has already been established that this was not begun until 1066, and it is not therefore probable that the idea for a similar door occurred to Desiderius before he saw the one at Amalfi. The date of these doors is not recorded in contemporary chronicles but it is thought to be about 1065. Pantaleone, the donor of the Amalfi doors, was at this Rome. Cf. BERTAUX, L'Art dans l Italie Méridionale, p. 405; also MARCEL REYMOND, La Sculpture Florentine, I, p. 31. 21 MEYER VON KRONAU, Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV und Heinrich V, I, pp. 546-550. Leipzig, 1890. CHALANDRON, Histoire de la Domination Normande en Italie et en Sicile, I, P. 221. Paris, 1907. 22 For attempts at reconstructing the Pantaleone family tree, see STREHLKE in Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Archaeologie und Kunst, 1859, and SCHULZ, Denkmaeler der Kunst des Mittelalters in Unteritalien, II, p. 242. Dresden, 1860. Since the time of the foregoing, an urn in the Monastery of Farfa has been described by FALOCI-PULIGNANI in Archivio Storico per le Marche e per Umbria. The urn bears an inscription showing it to be the gift of Mauro, and details a list of his children. This monument was not known to STREHLKE and SCHULZ. 23 Chronic. Casinen., III, ch. 18, P. 711, lines 33-35. II 1 time the consul of Amalfi resident at Constantinople.24 He was of noble and wealthy family and took upon himself the expense of the doors which he caused to be made in Constan- tinople, and set up in his native town.25 He was the first of his family to present such doors to an Italian church; later others of his family gave bronze doors to Monte Cassino, Atrani, Saint Paul's at Rome, and to Monte Sant'Angelo in Gargano. In the year 1066 Pantaleone seems no longer to have been alive. We find a record in the Ms. Chronicle of the Minore Trionfante 26 where he is spoken of as a deceased person for the repose of whose soul a gift of four hundred "tari” has been made to the church of Santa Trofimena at Minori; and again in a document in the archives of Santa Trinità at Amalfi27 we find Pantaleone referred to as follows- "Ego quidem Maurus filius quodam Panteleonis de Mauro de Maurone Comite”. We may therefore conclude that al- though Pantaleone himself may have promised a pair of doors to Desiderius he was not able to order them, and that the duty devolved upon Mauro his son. At any rate an inscription upon the doors at Monte Cassino tells us that Mauro the son of Pantaleone ordered the doors at his own expense and in the year 1066 from Constantinople.28 The records say that Desiderius sent the measurements for the doors to Constantinople, but that when they arrived at Monte Cassino they were found too small for the place intended for them.29 This would indicate either that an error had been made or that Desiderius had made the door opening in the façade larger than was originally intended. The fact that the doors are spoken of as being too small would also indicate 24 HEYD, Geschichte des Levanthandels in Mittelalters, trans. by FURCY- RAYNAUD, I, p. 252. Paris, 1886. Also BINDI, Monumenti Storici ed Artistici degli Abruzzi, p. 441, note 2. Naples, 1889. The opinions expressed by this author must be received with caution. He follows the tradition current at Rome, that Pantaleone was a Roman Consul. This tradition is to be found in many of the Guide Books on Rome issued about the beginning of the seventeenth century, and from that time forward. For example: SEVERANO, Le Sette Chiese di Roma; MAINARDI, Roma Sacra, etc. 25 This we learn from an inscription upon the doors. Cf. SCHULZ, op. cit., II, p. 247. ** Page 61 of the Chronicle. 27 Ms. No. 151. 28 According to the inscription given in note 36. 29 Chronic. Casinen., III, D. 711, line 35. 12 that the walls of the new basilica were well up and the roof on. In any case, the doors had to be made larger. How this was done or by whom we are not told. The silence of the record on this point makes it impossible for us to know whether additional material was sent from Constantinople, or whether the work was done by the skilled imported workmen who by that time were employed in the Abbey. The latter assumption seems the more probable. This uncertainty however raises a question which must be considered when taking up the argument on the evidence which the doors themselves furnish. Caravita30 says that one of the valves of the doors was lost at sea in transportation, and hazards the suggestion that the other may have been remade at Amalfi. Neither for the state- ment nor for the suggestion is there any foundation whatever in the original records either of Leo or the Abbey. Had one of the valves been lost it is more than probable the fact would have been recorded in connection with the enlargement of the doors; furthermore, the materials originally sent from Constantinople consisted of loose pieces of bronze of no great size or weight, so that the doors could be packed in small compass, and the chances of a part being lost at sea would be very small. As to what the doors were like when they were finally put in place at the entrance to the basilica at Monte Cassino, their general design, the arrangement and decoration of their panels, we know absolutely nothing from contemporary writers. It would seem, however, that we might reasonably expect them to resemble to a considerable extent the other bronze doors from Constantinople which came into Italy during the latter half of the same century. As they were made to please the Abbot who had seen the Amalfi Doors, we might expect their resemblance would be closest to these. Before we consider the doors in detail it is necessary to refer to other bronze doors which the Abbey possessed at a somewhat later time. There were two pairs of these. In con- nection with some work done by Desiderius upon the church of San Martino, then within the confines of the Monastery and near the basilica, Petrus Diaconus31 states the following: 30 CARAVITA, op. cit., I, p. 194, gives this as a tradition. CLAUSSE, Les Origines Bénédictines, Paris, 1899, presents the statement as a fact. 51 Chronic. Casinen., III, ch. 34. Desiderius did not remain Abbot of Monte Cassino to finish the church of San Martino. In 1086 he 13 "Fecit et portas aereas in ingressu eiusdem ecclesiae,” accord- ing to which we may understand that a second pair of bronze doors is meant in addition to the one at the entrance to the basilica. Again from the record of the same writer32 referring to the abbacy of Oderisius, the successor of Desderius he says: "Abbas Oderisius portas haereas pulcherrimas in ingressu hujus nostrae ecclesiae fieri jussit.” We are not told to what “hujus nostrae ecclesiae” refers; the plans of the Abbey in- cluded several churches, and the one for which these doors were made must remain a matter of conjecture. It could hardly mean to replace the doors at the entrance to the bas- ilica, the gift of Mauro, which were new less than sixty years before. It might, however, mean a new pair of doors for one of the side entrances of the façade. There is a tradition among the monks of the Monastery that originally all three openings on the façade were closed by bronze doors. This may arise from the fact that the records speak of three pairs of bronze doors, reference to which has just been made. In any case we find the Abbey possessing three within the space of sixty years. One was the gift of Mauro; a second the gift of Desiderius; the third made for Oderisius. In connection with the last the Chronicle specially refers to their beauty; in what this consisted, we are left to imagine. At the present time the Abbey has but one pair of bronze doors. This closes the prin- cipal entrance to the basilica, and it has gener ally been referred to as being from Constantinople.33 Considering the length of time elapsed since the gift of Mauro, and the vicissitudes through which the Abbey has passed, before definitely accepting this conclusion we may well pause to ask whether or not this be really the door given by Mauro in 1066 to Desiderius. We will first examine the doors in detail, and with the aid of the information which they themselves give us proceed to an argument as to their authorship. Of documen- tary evidence as to the origins of the three pairs of doors we know of none beyond that to which reference has already been assumed the papel tiara under the title of Victor III. PLATINA, Storie delle Vite de' Pontifici, II, p. 289, Venice, 1761, in a note, gives a picturesque recital of the manner in which he came to be elected Pope. The church of San Martino was finished by his successor Oderisius, and dedicated in 1090. 3.2 Chronic. Casinen., IV, ch. 80, Auctore Petro. 03 See the works of SCHULZ, SCHNAASE, SALAZARO, BINDI, and BERTAUX. 14 made. Of documentary evidence between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries, there is but little; this, however, will be given. It is to the doors themselves we must look in the main for their history. At the present the principal doors consist of two wooden valves upon the outer surface of which are fasten- ed a series of forty panels of bronze; these are secured to the wood by means of small nails intended to be hidden by the small ogee mouldings of the frame. The upper thirty-six panels are inscribed with names of churches, lands, etc., formerly the dependencies of the Abbey; below these are two panels bearing dedicatory inscriptions, each of which is flanked by a cross in relief, an below these again two other panels bare of any ornament or inscription. The two valves close an opening about five feet seven inches wide by ten feet eleven inches high. Classified as to size, we find three varieties of panels. 1. The upper thirty-six, eighteen to each valve, measure on their exposed surfaces about 38 centimetres high, by 20 to 21 cm. wide. 2. Two oblong panels, each of which is placed directly underneath the group of eighteen just spoken of, are between 71 to 72 cm. long, and about 457/2 cm. high. They consist of three separate pieces of bronze; the middle piece in each panel bears an inscription, which is flanked on either side by a plate upon which is a bronze cross in relief. The arms of the cross are equal and they are above a sort of standard similar to the crosses which appear upon the doors at Amalfi.34 The crosses are held to the doors by four large spikes, one through each arm of the cross, and are thus made ornamental as well as useful. The two panels thus formed are framed about with the same ogee used in the upper panels. The two middle pieces of bronze, bearing inscriptions, will be referred to as "panels A” in order to distinguish them from the series of thirty-six above, which also bear inscriptions. The dimen- sions of panels A are noticeably different from that of the other series, being 457/2 cm. high by 301/2 cm. wide. Particular attention is asked to this variation in size as it becomes im- portant in the argument. 3. In the third class we place the two remaining panels, lowest of all upon the doors, one to each valve. Except 34 SCHULZ., op. cit., Atlas, pl. 85, no. F VII. 15 for the ornamental border, these are the full width of each valve, and are 24 cm. high. Each one is composed of two narrow strips of bronze nailed through the face upon the doors, and framed about with a moulding somewhat wider than the ogees which are used above. Outside the ogee is a. flat band of bronze 77/2 cm. wide. The whole panel thus arranged occupies the entire width of the valve, 84 cm., or about two feet nine inches. It is important here to note that around the series of the upper eighteen panels and the oblong panel below on each valve, there is a small bronze moulding about 572 cm.. wide, framing the panels of classes one and two by themselves. Classified as to decoration we find the panels fall into three groups. Those bearing inscriptions; the class A panels flanked by crosses; and those without inscriptions or decoration. The panels which bear inscriptions will now be considered. briefly. In these the letters have all been made by engraving the surface of the bronze with a sharp instrument. In some cases the incised channels have been filled with an alloy of silver, and in others they have been left unfilled. To the former class belong the upper eighteen panels on the left hand valve, the first panel on the upper left hand corner of the right valve, and the panel directly underneath it, twenty in all. These panels will be called "panels B”, in contradis- tinction to those already denominated "panels A”. Panels. A resemble panels B in so far as the technique is concerned; the channels in them have been filled with alloy, but in a man- ner somewhat different from that which obtains in panels B. In the A panels the alloy is so inserted that the resulting surface is smooth; in passing the finger over the work there is no joint noticeable. The alloy in class B is put in so that this surface, while not higher than that of the surrounding bronze at the middle, is lower than this level at the edges, making its surface slightly convex. This causes a small chan- nel to follow the edges of the alloy so that a good tracing of each letter may be made by passing the point of a pencil around the edge as it easily follows the groove where the alloy joins the bronze. With panels A this method of obtaining re- productions is impossible. The sixteen remaining panels of the upper part of the right hand valve have the channels un- filled with alloy. They bear no evidence whatever of having held alloy at any time. These will be referred to as "panels C.” 16 To recapitulate therefore, we have defined three classes of panels : Class A, the panels of dedication, with smooth surfaced alloy; class B panels with convex surfaced alloy; and class C, in the channels of which there is no alloy. Proceeding now with the examination of class A panels, we find one upon each valve, placed with a relief cross on either side of it, four crosses in all. The difference in dimen- sion between these panels and those of class B has already been noted, and a paragraph of the doors Rate I will show them plus that of the bronze batten alongside. The inscriptions upon these panels give us information in detail concerning the gift of Mauro to the Abbey of Monte Cassino. They are as follows: I. On the left valve. 2. On the right valve. HOCSTUDIISMAURIMU HOCFECITMAUR NUSCONSISTITOPUSCLI OFILIUSPANTA GENTISMELFIGENERENI LEONISDECOMI TENTISORIGINISARCE TEMAURONEAD QUIDECUSETGENERISHAC LAUDEMDNIET EFFERTLAUDELABORIS SALBATORISNRI QUASIMULAUXILIICON IHUXPIABCUIUS SPESMANEATBENEDICTI INCARNATIONE ACSIBICAELESTESTES ANNOMILLESIMSE EXHOCCOMMUTET XAGESIMOSEXTO 36 HONORES 35 The inscription on the right valve distinctly states that the doors were given in 1066. If a comparison of these two panels be made with similar ones on the doors at Atrani and Amalfi which came from Constantinople at approximately the same time, and were likewise gifts of the same Pantaleone family, it will be found that the work is similar in character and that Hoc studiis Mauri munus consistit opuscli, Gentis Melfigene renitentis originis arce, Qui decus et generis hac effert laude laboris ; Qua simul auxilii conspes maneat Benedicti Ac sibi caelestes ex 'hoc commutet honores. - In the original the last syllable of the word caelestes is repeated; which might indicate that the engraver worked from a copy and made an error, perhaps not knowing Latin. Hoc fecit Mauro filius Pantaleonis De comite Maurone ad laudem domini et salbatoris Nostri Jesu Christi ab cuius incarnatione Anno milesimo sexagesimo sexto. I 95 30 the alloy is inserted in the same manner. In fact this appears to have been the customary way in which the Byzantines inserted the alloy; we find it done in this way on all the Byzantine doors, not only in the inscriptions, but in the fig- ured scenes as well. In view of the resemblance both in letter forms and technique which panels A bear to other Byzantine work, and in view of the record of the Chronicle con- cerning the gift of Mauro, it would seem as if these panels might certainly be accepted as forming a part of the original door of 1066. The argument will be based upon this assumption. If the letters in class A panels be compared with those of B and C their character will be found to differ in many important respects. First of all in their proportion. Those in class A are much more slender; with the same average width of letter stem, about three millimetres, they have an average height of about 25 mm. in the inscription on the left valve, and 30 mm, on the right valve, as against a height of from 20 to 22 mm. in B and C classes. Secondly, in regard to the .character of the channelling of the incisions. Those in class A are much more irregular, with smaller proportion of straight lines in them, more attempt at finial ornament, having in many cases, the stem of the letter swelled out into a small round ball as an ornament, which occurs but rarely in the other classes. It will be seen also that the letters are less square in appearance, and many of the stems have an outward curve, beginning with the little ball, which is gradual until just before the end of the stem is reached when it suddenly expands, bell-like, and then terminates quickly. This bell- like end of the letter stem is a common characteristic of the letters in class B, but the outward curve is lacking in the stem. If now individual letters of the A panels be compared with the same letters in the B panels we will find them very different. Take for example the letter E which lends itself to a characteristic treatment, the difference is so marked as to require no further comment. They are plainly of different work, the same man did not make both. Take again the matter of punctuation. In the class A panels there is no punctuation; we do indeed find an ornament at the end of the inscription on the left hand valve, but this cannot be construed into a mark of punctuation. It means only that the engraver had finished his work. In the B and C panels, 18 BESSON SURE XOXOTOROR SIASELOR SIVU AS SENSO LETECH DIMISGRILAN SASVIESTA UNSARGIANG OS WERS RE DEER SETTESIRES VECVČIBRIN ASMARADAS VIS SNYCOIATU VALENTIN SPAN CBATINIS SLIVSSEN TOR SPARNASEISUR E RSERICO GELBREDSTICE INSVA DOS CELEBRA Dista BV RRADAS WA LOVATORA DES TERUS SVISNO ZANECA SARAES SEMARTES Norse PSORIIVS STASINSLEI V SDEM ZASIREGAL S KOR FRECCESS STRERT EVS SMAR CO BLO WYST USED ROSSE 54 HTC VARE OCORVITS3 LEVERZ NOS IMODIO TECCLES RVMQVAI RSIOHIS DE TVOMILI CERCANJA CAO UVOD 5BVSA KUS PLATE I THE BRONZE DOORS AT MONTE CASSINO on the other hand, the punctuation is rather carefully attended to. In addition we find the words in these panels well sep- arated, and not run together as on the class A panels. Not only do the class A panels differ in general workman- ship from the others which bear inscriptions, but also in the quality of the materials, the bronze and silver, used. The silver alloy is of a different admixture, so that it is of darker hue. This same difference is true of the bronze itself. That this is not due to greater exposure to the weather is proved by the fact that the adjoining panels which bear the relief crosses are of the same hue as the panels of classes B and C. If the patina be rubbed off and the surfaces of the various panels be exposed, those of class A will be found still to be darker. In other words the bronze is different; it is not the same metal. In view therefore of the differences existing between the panels of class A and those of B and C, in the manner of in- serting the inlay, in the character of the inlay itself, in letter forms, punctuation, and arrangement of words, and lastly in the very composition of the bronze, differences as radical as could possibly exist, we may conclude without reasonable doubt, that the workshop which made panels A did not make those of B and C. Whether the latter even came from Con- stantinople will be taken up later. Coming now to the examination of the twenty panels which compose class B, we find the silver alloy upon them all in- serted in a common manner. The character of the letters also is of the same general type; those however, in the first three panels, counting vertically from the upper left hand cor- ner bear a somewhat closer resemblance to the letters of class A than do the remainder of the set, but these three are more like their fellows than like those of class A. Among the other seventeen, the departure from the general type is not wide. It is confined mainly to the use of ligatures like Đ for DE, A for AN, Æ for AE etc. Some differences in the manner of abbreviation are also observable. We find, for example, for SANCTUS in some places SCS, while in others simply S; for CUM OMNIBUS PERTINENTIS SUIS the abbreviation CV OIB PTSS SUIS; in other places PERTINENTIS appears as PERTIN, sometimes in the full form PERTINENTIIS, and the OIB changes to OIBVS. In the punctuation marks we find considerable variety among the panels composing class B; this is so evident 19 and distinctive that it does not seem necessary to do more than call attention to it. The bronze used throughout in this series of panels is the same in quality and color. It is of a ruddy copper tone. The diameter of the letter stems is about 3 mm., their height varies from 23 to 28 mm., averaging about 25 mm. In concluding, we find that a minute examination of the class B panels discloses the fact that although the forms of the letters are of the same general type, yet sufficient variation exists among them to warrant the belief they are the work of the same school but of different hands. There is a per- fectly apparent individuality about them which reveals itself when they are scrutinized closely; and yet there is a sufficient similarity among them in general style and workmanship, which together with the identity of materials common to all, causes us to believe they were the work of one school and of the same period.. · It now remains to consider the panels of class C; those which bear inscriptions, but in the channels of which no alloy has been placed. These are the only ones which so far seem to have given archaeologists any concern. When any dif- ferences have been noted, writers have generally contented themselves by ascribing them to the Abbot Oderisius; in this they follow Dom Erasmo Gattola, in his great work on Monte Cassino, who says these panels were added by Oderisius, and gives as his authority the passage in the Chronicle of Petrus Diaconus,87 already referred to. He interprets it to mean an addition to the doors of Desiderius. In this he is followed by Schulz38 who says we must not take it too literally, and that what Petrus Diaconus meant was not that whole new doors had been made, but probably the addition. If this be the case, we may well ask why the doors of Desiderius should have needed an addition so soon? The opinion of Schulz has been followed by Caravita, Tosti, and Clausse. The latter39 goes so far as to say the addition was made under the direction of the Abbot Oderisius by Roger of Amalfi who made at least a part of the bronze doors of the Mausoleum of Bohemund at Canosa in IIII. The work at Monte Cassino shows none of the characteristics of the skilled artist who has left us the 37 Chronic. Casinen., IV, ch. 80, Auctore Petro. 38 SCHULZ, op. cit., II, p. 1'16. 80 CLAUSSE, Les Origines Bénédictines. . 20 precious monument at Canosa, nor does it correspond, more- over, with the description of the Chronicle which specifically refers to its beauty. Bertaux,40 in his work on Southern Italy, says that the lists of the dependencies41 which now appear upon the doors were undoubtedly sent by Desiderius to Constantinople, and there engraved as we see them now; Clausse says that the class B panels were added by Oderisius42 in 1113. In one point all these writers agree: that the panels were an addition. I believe it can be shown that they cannot have been an addition to the doors of Desiderius and may not even be the work of the Abbot Oderisius. The bronze composing them is very different in composition from that in panels B, which was reddish and rather light in color; this, on the contrary, is quite dark and of a greenish hue. We find at once a marked difference in the style of the lettering; not only are the channels without alloy, but the letter forms are very different from those in panels B. This is so noticeable that further comment seems unnecessary. The lines across the ends of such letters as I and T, the round- limbed S etc., will be noticed immediately. There is nothing whatever in the letters of the other panels like them. In the matter of punctuation, but one mark is used; a kind of tri- angular period. Abbreviations are also less general than in class B; CVM and PERTINENTIIS being often given in full. The mark denoting the abbreviation is placed over the word and is a straight line with a short mark across each end, so that it resembles the letter I lying on its side. In the class B panels, this assumes a variety of shapes, generally composed of varia- tion of one or more concave curves placed parallel to each other and united at the ends. These are not found in the panels of class C. This difference in the abbreviation and the sign denoting it causes us to suspect, quite as much as the difference in the letter forms, that this series of panels 40 BERTAUX, op. cit., p. 405. 41 Cf. MONTFAUCON, Diarium Italicum, Paris, 1702. MABILLON, Museum Italicum, I, Casinum et Sublacus ; GATTOLA, Historia Abbatiae Casinensis; GATTOLA, Accessiones Abbatiae Casinensis; and CLAUSSE op. cit., who credulously quotes the Commentary of HOEFTEN to the effect that in the eleventh century the Abbey was the ruler of 2 principalities, 20 counties, 440 towns and villages, 250 castles, 22 seaports, and 1662 churches or chapels ! 42 CLAUSSE, Les Origines Bénédictines, bases this on the opinion ex- pressed by SCHULZ who gives the same date. 21 is of considerably later work than those of class B. It is however, for the moment, quite sufficient to point out the very marked difference between the two classes. The panels of class C also show more differences as com- pared with each other, than do the preceding series which are much more homogeneous in style. It is not at all likely that they are all of the same handiwork. A workman who made the panels in class C beginning “IN DALMATIA"43 would hardly do those beginning “IN CIVITATE FIRMANA” and “Cv OIB PTINE”. The task of separating either this or the preceding series of panels into groups and assigning them to X, Y, or Z, would serve no present purpose. It is quite enough to show that marked differences exist between the two series, and that within the same series having the same general characteristics, such differences exist as make it very improb- able that the panels of that series were the work of any one man. A striking confirmation of this fact is seen in two panels of class C which bear the same list of names, given in the same order, but with slightly different spelling and letter form. It is not to be believed that the same man would do both panels intending to use them upon the same doors. It would seem as if sufficient evidence had been adduced from the examination of the monument itself, noting the dif- ferences in the character of workmanship, letter forms, materials, etc., which exist in the three series of panels, to establish beyond reasonable doubt the fact that they represent three distinct periods and classes of workers. In this respect the Bronze Doors of the Abbey of Monte Cassino differ from all Byzantine doors of which we have any knowledge. Nowhere else do we find any such diversity of work as is here presented, and I conclude that if we accept the panels of class A, those with the dedication referring to the gift of Mauro, as forming part of the original doors sent from Constantinople, we must deny that honor to panels B and C for the reasons already brought forward. We shall find, also, that other reasons exist for such a view. Before coming to the additional reasons we may take up Y 48 These panels would be numbers 27, 24, and 28 if we numbered the thirty-six on the upper part of the doors, beginning with the one at the upper left hand corner, downward, and across the doors from left to right. They are numbers VII, IV, and VIII, in the list of the inscriptions as given by TOSTI, op. cit., I, p. 407. 22 the documentary evidence as to the condition of the doors. We have already referred to the original records in the early Chronicles. After these, the first reference to the doors I have been able to find is that made by a monk of the Abbey, one Marco Antonio or Alessandro in a Chronicle44 of the events of the Abbey. Since the earliest times it has been the custom for one of the monks to record the events of the Monastery in manuscript form in books provided for the purpose, and a long series of them is now in the archives of the Abbey. The above mentioned monk chronicled in Latin from the years 1504 to 1535. He gives a list of the dependencies of the Abbey which we see to-day upon the doors, and states that they were to be found on the doors in his time. He gives the number of panels then existing as thirty-eight, but in an order slightly different from that in which we now find them; indicating a rearrangement since that time. Another monk, Dom Petrucci Placido, whose chronicle45 ends in 1580, also gives the number of panels as thirty-eight. In 1610 another monk, Onorato de Medici,46 writing in Italian, records eighteen panels of bronze upon the doors. Gattola 47 the great historian of the Abbey, in 1710, just a hundred years after Onorato, says the panels numbered thirty-eight, as the chroniclers previous to Onorato had stated. We can- not therefore reconcile the statement of Onorato with the other writers, and must conclude he was unintentionally in error, and that the thirty-eight panels existed then as before and after. As noted before, the doors hold to-day forty panels. The number as given by Gattola and others, thirty-eight, omits the plain panels, one at the bottom of each valve; these must therefore be additions since the time of Gattola in 1710, the more so in view of other interesting information this historian gives us concerning the condition of the door at that period. He states that the divisions between the panels were of bronze, those running vertically being somewhat smaller than the horizontal ones, while the outside border was entirely * This manuscript is pasted inside the back cover of the Chronicles of the Abbey from 1505 to 1.544, and bears the date of 11535. 45 Basilica autem ipsa tres januas habet in qua media triginta octo lamina aerea sunt affixa, ubi literis argentis sunt sculpita oppida, ville, ecclesie, monasterii fuerunt, quorum vix pauca hodie possedentur. 40 Page 567 of his Chronicle. 47 GATTOLA, Accessiones, p. 172. . 23 of wood. About this time the Abbey was reconstructed to such an extent, that afterward a re-dedication was deemed necessary, and actually occurred April 22nd, 1727. Pope Benedict XIII officiated in person. A marble48 in the church records this dedication as well as the two others to which reference has already been made. It is to this construction that we owe the baroque character of the work we now find in the basilica and its surroundings at Monte Cassino. It is therefore probable that the doors were included in the restoration, the unequal divisions between the panels being removed, the two lower panels, one on each valve, added, the wooden border replaced by one of bronze, and the doors in effect as we now see it. The thirty-eight panels referred to by the Chroniclers are undoubtedly those above the two lowest panels. We have now examined all the surface except the four crosses in relief adjacent to panels A, and the bronze on which they are set. These are so similar to the crosses upon the doors at Amalfi, Atrani, Salerno, and Venice, that we might accept them perhaps as forming a part of the original door of Mauro did we consider only their style; but the bronze of which they are made and that on which they are placed, is not that of panels A. On the other hand, it is the same as that of panels B, and we must therefore conclude it belongs to them. It is altogether unlikely that two varieties of bronze would be used in Constantinople for the doors. We must refuse, therefore, to accept these crosses as forming a part of it. It would be instructive, did the materials exist at Monte Cassino, to institute a comparison between the panels and the bars or mouldings which separate them as to proportional width. These unfortunately do not exist. We cannot receive the present bars as to material, proportion, or design as the originals. The mediaeval workmen in 1066 did not use mould- ings with an ogee profile such as we find here. These were undoubtedly made in the early eighteenth century before the re-dedication of 1727. The doors at Amalfi have separating bars between the panels within a fraction as wide as the panels themselves. In the doors at Atrani the proportions are as three for the bars to seven for the panels. At Salerno as nine and one-half to thirteen; and these general ratios 48 Published by CARAVITA, op. cit., III, p. 451. - 24 hold good for other Byzantine doors. These proportions would alone cause us to view the Byzantine origin of the doors at Monte Cassino with suspicion. There remain therefore the panels to the number of thirty- eight which we can safely accept as anterior to the year 1535; of these, only the panels of class A can we accept as forming part of the original doors, the work of a Byzantine atelier. We have already stated that we did not credit the theory advanced by Gattola, followed by Schulz and others, as to the addition of sixteen panels made by Oderisius to the doors of Desiderius. The query then suggests itself as to how the presence of panels B and C upon the doors is to be explained ? To answer this, a reference to the history of the Monastery before 1350 is necessary. We learn that in the year 1349, on September ninth, there occurred such an earthquake—to use the exact words of the historian49_"as caused the total ruin of the famous basilica of Desiderius and of the Monastery." These lay in ruins until Bishop Angelo da Sora, between 1357 and 1365, under- took to raise the walls of a new church. It is probable that the bronze doors, placed as they were in immediate connec- tion with the walls, would receive the most severe injuries from the falling stone, and we cannot believe they escaped their share of the destruction which overtook the unfortunte abbey at this time. It is also probable that much of the bronze work in them was irreparably ruined. The doors of Mauro being in the heavier walls of the great basilica, perhaps suf- fered most of all. If the doors of Oderisius were in this church also, very likely they suffered also. The doors made by Desiderius for the lesser church of San Martino, may have fared somewhat better. It now remains to be asked whether the present pair of doors contains remains of these other doors? Before replying, we must consider what the three pairs of doors originally may have been like, and also if any of the work we now see possibly be- longed to one of them. We will begin with the doors of Mauro; as stated before, we know nothing of what they were 40 Ibid., I, p. 335. BERTAUX, op. cit., note 2, referring to this event gives the date incorrectly as 1370. The Bull of Urban V to which he refers, basing his reference on GATTOLA, Accessiones, II, p. 520, only sanctions reconstruction of the Basilica; the date of this was 1370 and marks approximately the completion of the work of Bishop de Sora. 25 like beyond the fact that the Amalfi doors pleased Desiderius and he wanted a similar pair. The Amalfi doors are ornamented in the middle by four panels incised with figures of Christ, the Virgin, Saint Peter, and Saint Andrew. These panels are sur- rounded by others bearing a monotonous series of crosses in relief. The really beautiful part of the doors is the figures. My own idea is that Mauro gave to the Abbey of Monte Cas- sino a pair of doors entirely of figures or figured scenes, ex- cept for the panels bearing the inscriptions. Bearing in mind that the Abbey, to which the gift was made, was at that time the most splendid and prominent ecclesiastical establishment in the world, the gift of doors composed either of inscriptions or crosses would not have been satisfactory to Desiderius, nor worthy of the Monastery. A few years later, a member of the same family gave a pair of doors to Saint Paul's at Rome composed wholly of figured scenes. May we not therefore suppose that Monte Cassino had one equally magnificent ? However, history and tradition are silent on this point. On the present doors none of the panels show any visible marks of contusions received, or any evidence of having been dam- aged, bent, or straightened. How the doors were enlarged on account of being originally too small for their place, we do not know: A border of relief crosses may have been added out of bronze already in stock at the Abbey. It is possible this may account for the presence of the four crosses, as well as for another similar one which stands upon a column in the cloister to-day. The doors of Desiderius are an easier problem. These, I think, may have been composed of inscriptions, a part of which are now on the doors in the panels of class B, made by monks who were studying under the Byzantine masters then at the Abbey; indeed the first three panels of the series may have been made by the masters themselves. These doors may also have had crosses upon them; if so, the crosses we now see may have originally belonged to the doors of Desiderius. The greater number of panels now remaining of the doors of Desiderius, if such they are, can be accounted for by the pos- sibility of its having received less damage because of its being set in a lighter wall. The doors of Oderisius present the most difficulty in view of the fact that Petrus Diaconus especially refers to their beauty. In the light of this we are not justified in identifying the panels of class C as a part of them. In fact I cannot see that there is anything on the doors as they now exist which we can attribute to the later doors of Oderisius. Their design must remain entirely a matter of conjecture. It is very possible that after the earthquake of 1349 the monks gathered from the remains of the San Martino doors the inscriptions and completed the list from the records of the Abbey; these, with the dedicatory panels from the doors of Mauro, and the four crosses, formed the doors as Gattola and the other chroniclers saw them. The supposition that the panels of class C were made and added after the earthquake of 1349 is most probable, in view of the character of the letters and of the abbreviations. The task of attempting to reconstruct even one of the doors from the scanty materials which exist is a too difficult one, interesting as the attempt might be. Finally, after minute and repeated examination of the monument as we see it to-day, we conclude that the present doors at Monte Cassino, aside from the two panels of class A bearing the dedicatory inscriptions, contain nothing of the original doors which issued from the workshop at Constantinople, at the expense of Mauro of Amalfi, for the honor of the Church of Saint Benedict. THE BRONZE DOORS OF THE BASILICA OF ST. PAUL'S AT ROME I The Basilica of Saint Paul's at Rome, in common with the churches at Amalfi, Atrani, Monte Cassino, and Monte Sant Angelo, through the munificence of the Pantaleonel family of Amalfi, in the year 1070 A.D., became the possessor of a pair of bronze valves which closed the principal entrance in the western front of the church. At this time Hildebrand, afterward Pope Gregory VII, was Abbot of Saint Paul's. Baronius recordsể that in 1070 he made a journey to Constantinople, in which city these or not the visit of Hildebrand to the Imperial city was under- taken in connection with the doors, we do not know. It is fair, however, to presume, that he must have devoted some time and attention to the regal gift which was to be one of the glories of his church, and he doubtless had much to do with the details which appeared upon its surface. All the Byzantine doors which came into Italy during the latter half of the eleventh century were made in substantially the same manner. Comparatively small and light pieces of bronze, the surface of which bore a decoration of some kind, the thickness of which bronze hardly exceeded four milli- meters, or a quarter of an inch, were spiked upon a solid backing of wood, generally oak, and then were framed about by bronze bands which overlapped the edges of the panels in order to conceal their fastenings. The bands were held to the wooden backing by means of round-headed bronze bolts 1 PANVINIUS, De Praecipuis Romae, p. 73 states the door was made at the expense of Hildebrand. This error is repeated by SEVERANO, Le Sette Chiese di Roma, p. 394. NIBBY, Roma nel Anno MDCCCXXXVII, Parte Moderna, I, p. 578 claims Pantaleone as a Roman Consul in Constantinople. He also says that Saint Paul's originally had three bronze doors in its western façade, the middle one of which was from Constantinople. BARONIUS, Annales Ecclesiastici, Anno MLXX. 28 placed in regular order and thus made more or less a decora- tive feature. Where these bands, or framings, came together upon the door vertically, the joint was covered by an orna- mented bar, half an octagon in profile, which ran vertically between each set of frames. These bars were likewise fastened to the wood by bolts of the same pattern as those used on the frames. This in brief, is the method of construction used on the doors of Saint Paul's. In size they exceeded any of the other doors given by Pan- taleone or his family, being sixteen feet six inches high, by eleven feet and three inches wide. They contained fifty-four oblong upright panels, ornamented with scenes from the Life of Christ, figures of the Prophets, Apostles, etc. When new they were perhaps the most splendid doors in Italy, owing to their size and the variety of their decoration. They were the work of Staurachios of Scio, as we are told from an inscription once upon them. It will thus be seen that we are dealing with the largest, and with the exception of the Pala d'Oro at Venice, the most important work in metal of Byzantine origin which remains to us. Of changes or restorations made in the doors between the time it was set up and the year 1823, we know nothing posi- tively more than a tradition that it was restored during the pontificate of Alexander IV, who was Pope from 1254 to 1261, at which time the doors had been in place nearly two hundred years. This tradition is repeated from time to time incidentally by writers who refer to it. For the use of pilgrims visiting Rome in the eighteenth century, a series of Guide Books3 were written, none of which can claim exactness of information. The writers do not trouble to give the authority upon which they base their statements. It is from these that we get the information concerning the tradition of the thirteenth century repairs to the door. In the year 1823 the Basilica of Saint Paul's suffered a disastrous fire which destroyed the nave, as far as the transept, and ruined forever the bronze doors. They are now, in their ruined condition, set up in a room adjacent to the sacristy of the church, between the cloisters and the Via Ostiensis. This room is being gradually converted into a small museum for the exposition of objects of interest belonging to the church. 8 SEVERANO, op. cit., p. 396. Cf. also MAINARDI, Roma Sacra, p. 451. 29 The doors were published by Ciampini« in 1690, but with so little exactness that his illustration gives only a very general idea of them. Almost no details are given, and apart from the arrangement of the panels, some of their subjects, and the proportions of the door, the illustration is worth but little. They were again published by Seroux D’Agincourts in 1823. It is important to note in connection with this publica- tion of the doors, that the drawings upon which the engravings are based were made in the year 1783 ;9 and, as the author states, "with great exactness and extreme personal labor and fatigue.” His detailed drawings are superior to those of Ciampini, but also inexact in details which at the time no doubt he considered as of minor importance. He presents only the general features, and often omits, or misrepresents, details which to a student are of the greatest value. Moreover, in the enlargements of the panels, which he publishes in sets of nine, his engravings have the very great disadvantage of being reversed from the originals. at Saint Paul's, upon any copy of the work of D’Agincourt. It would seem as if the plates at least must have been issued before that date as they were seen by an Italian, Nicola Paul's. It bears the title La Basilica di San Paolo and upon the title page is the date MDCCCXV. Nicolai had seen the plates of D’Agincourt which were made in 1783, and in comparing them with the doors, had noted their shortcomings. He determined to include in his book a similar set of en- gravings which should surpass the French author in exactness of detail. In this he succeeded. The plates from which these engravings were made are now the property of the Basilica. Wherever the panels now upon the doors are compared with the plates of Nicolai, the latter are found to be correct. It is only fair to the painstaking industry of Nicolai to say that we are compelled to depend upon him for such details of the door as existed in his time, which the door in its present ruined condition does not furnish. VI * CIAMPINI, Vetera Monimenta, I, ch. 4. Romae, 1690. * SEROUX D’AGINCOURT, Histoire de l'Art par les Monuments, vol. IV. Paris, 1823. * Ibid., II, p. 48, note b. NICOLAI, La Basilica di San Paolo, Rome, 1815. 30 We will consider, first, briefly, the subjects depicted upon the panels of the door, then the technique employed, next the condition and arrangement of the panels, and finally some details of its construction. The panels are fifty-four in number; they are disposed upon the doors in nine rows of six panels each. Each panel shows an exposed surface about 264 millimeters wide by 400 mm. high, or 1038 by 1534 inches. All bore either pictorial illustra- tions or inscriptions. One series of twelve were devoted to Scenes from the Life of Christ. In chronological order they are: Annunciation, Nativity, Presentation in the Temple, Bap- tism, Transfiguration, Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Cruci- fixion, Deposition from the Cross, Christ in Hades, Incredulity of Saint Thomas, Ascension, and Pentecost. Twelve other panels are occupied with the single figures of the eleven apos- tles,8 Thomas, Philip, James, Simon, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Peter, Andrew, and Bartholomew, and the twelfth panel showing Christ with Saint Paul. A third set of twelve panels is taken up with the representation of the death of each of these persons, except Christ, whose Crucifixion is pictured in the first series. A fourth series of twelve represent Old Testament Prophets who foretold the coming of Christ. They are Moses, David, Isaiah, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elijah, Elias, Jonah, Habakkuk, and Sophonias, whom we know as Zephaniah. To these forty-eight panels were added two bearing inscriptions, two with crosses, and two with eagles with outstretched wings—fifty-four in all. The panels as given by Nicolai do not appear to have been arranged quite as we might expect in view of their subjects. Those devoted to the Life of Christ were placed together in the upper left hand corner, three wide by four deep. The twelve bearing the Old Testament Prophets, except Moses, were placed in the lower right hand corner; Moses, crowded out by the Eagle, was put above the four nearest the middle of the doors which brings him in the middle row of panels considered horizontally. In this middle row, beginning from s I call them the eleven apostles for convenience. On the Door the figures of Saints Luke and Mark replaced those of James the Less and Thaddeus, which are omitted. Cf. lists given Matt. x, 2, Mark III, 16, Luke VI-14. When the word apostles is used in this it will be understood to refer to the persons represented upon the Door, and not to the correct list as given by the Evangelists. 31 1 the left, were an ornamental Cross, an inscription, the Death of Saint Paul, Moses, a second inscription, and lastly another ornamental Cross. The two Eagles were placed one in each lower corner. This leaves the twelve panels of the Apostles, and the eleven panels showing their deaths (the death of Saint Paul already being in the middle row), for the two remaining spaces on the doors. One might reason- ably expect that for each series of representations a special field upon the door would have been selected, and that a panel showing an Apostle would have been placed adjacent to that depicting his death. As Ciampini, D'Agincourt, and Nicolai show the doors, this sequence seems to be more a matter of accident than design, and we cannot accept any theory of the arrangement of the panels which would lead us to suppose that in a work of this magnitude the matter of arrangement was not made the subject of the most careful thought. The plate showing the entire doors (Pl. II) discloses that the Apostles Philip, Mark, Peter, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, and Andrew are placed with the panels which show the manner of their death. The remaining five pairs are more or less widely separated. The rectangular spaces on the doors with an arrangement such as Nicolai shows would prevent a logical placing of these panels. We cannot think that originally they were placed in this manner. The twelve panels depicting the Life of Christ, the principal ones on the doors, contain- ing the most detail and being the most beautiful and important, would certainly have been placed where they could best be seen, and not ten or fifteen feet above the ground. We have no means of knowing whether the fifty-four panels as given in the engraving are the same as those originally sent from Constantinople. We do not know that in the thirteenth century repairs of Pope Alexander II it was found necessary to replace any of them; those which still exist appear to be all of the same materials and workmanship. Assuming the original panels to be as we know them to have been in 1815 a better arrangement would be the following, or something similar to it: beginning with the top row at the left, across the doors, then downward; First row, six Apostles; Second row, their deaths; Third row, other six Apostles; Fourth row, their deaths; Fifth row, an eagle, an inscrip- tion, a cross, another cross, an inscription, an eagle; Sixth "NICOLAI, op. cit., pl. XI. 32 FT . yn W IO y R11 0 #Y Voit TOR PASS VMS * . * 25 il sol PS VM ASCO OC) SI * O meio CUN V cos > TEHEH 1001 14. COTT Dico NIN' S ka 00 :11 R A 1 42 orvossos car M 4 ! RUS A STU . e out W - ONYOKONI Mall o colo Ca . ang I CLOUDSBE BEDELSE LIDELSL2 DELLLLLL neococoooneo UA Iohall . . 1: Age SS EU ZO G IKO Die ROL 11 Kota O O TA CACC - WN L TANOW ACY LACNURVIVOR 10. TV ozor Sale NYA 02 DVD zadas ANDAO nya 1 . . PLATE II THE BRONZE Doors at St. Pauls', ROME o Brnors Y 17 OO mm hlm.14 MOTORE SYY XX1 V OOO © Zo TO) VO Ull! 181clips While misrinwirusi لولاه دار 14 xolinus © HANNO rein! Mannindi nimi ., den. 4*virtinis . 1 . WNA) 1A IA V WA 12 SAYY KAN COT / 1 - . ROHO CANYES YO hetta AC LLO Yo! DIN vilik V ( > Y ya DOY. f 7 . IV. VAS 0 0 0 1 o 0 0 0 v 0 0 C 0 0 10 . row, six scenes from the Life of Christ; Seventh row, other six of the same; Eighth row, six Old Testament Prophets; Ninth row, other six of the same. Some such arrangement as this would appear to be that which the artists had in mind when designing the doors, with six panels in a row and twelve scenes to a set. A possible objection to it is that it does not give good opportunity of viewing at close range the panels which depict the deaths of the Apostles. This is true, but they would be exhibited better than are the scenes of the Life of Christ as they are at present. It has also the advantage of varying the lines of decoration across the doors, thus avoiding the monotony, which might otherwise exist, or the confusion resulting from such an arrangement as the plate of Nicolai indicates. We would then have first a row of figures under arches, next a row of scenes, then another row of single figures followed by another row of scenes; the middle row would be that bearing the eagles, crosses and inscriptions, then the two most interesting rows of the Life of Christ, followed by two rows of single figures under arches. It appears very probable that some such logical order was followed by Staurachios in setting up the doors. If so, the arrangement in 1815 could not have been the original order. The doors themselves show that considerable repairs had been made upon them and therefore a re-arrangement of the panels is neither impossible nor improbable. At the middle of each of the decorated bars which separate the panels vertically we find a rectangular tablet having a cross incised upon its surface. On the central bar Nicolai shows the tablet upside down; it could not have been originally thus. An examination of the ornamentation on the three bars to the left as compared with the two on the right will disclose the differences of design. We do not know that these bars were originally ornamented in the same way, but we may infer it.10 The design upon the two bars to the right is not Byzantine, but Roman, and is similar to the Cosmati motifs of the thirteenth century. It has nothing in common with the Byzantine types of ornament on the other three bars, in the spandrils of the arches over the single figures, or with analogous ornament on the Byzantine doors at Monte Sant' Angelo, Salerno, and Venice. Again, it will be noted that the 10 CIAMPINI shows this right side up and the crosses on all the others of the same design. half octagon form of the bar ceases near the top of the doors and a square-edged casting of bronze is added to finish it, flaring out at the top to about half again its diameter at the base. Upon these capitals a design was drawn which in two cases differs from the others. The argument that these are restorations may apply here as well as to the bars, except that the work upon these capitals is may be copies. Bases, similar to the capitals, were undoubt- edly on the lower ends of the bars. Nicolai shows the bars as not all running to the ground—the first three to the left and the last to the right stopping considerably short of it, and does not show any of the flaring end-pieces as bases in place. Since his time, the door has been again restored, at least in part. A photograph11 of the present actual con- dition of the doors shows all but one of the bars in place to the bottom of the doors, together with the bases. Now the bars seem to have suffered from the effects of the fire while the bases appear to be quite new. We must therefore conclude they are recent additions. After the pieces of the doors were collected from the fire and kept in boxes for many years, they were finally brought out and assembled. We find, notwithstanding the guidance of D’Agincourt and Nicolai, the monks assembled them in a haphazard order and so they stand to-day. Nicolai gives a plate of the entire doors, then, for convenience of study, he divides the doors into six zones, corresponding to the six vertical divisions, number one being the left hand row. Of each of these zones he gives an enlarged plate, be- ginning his consideration with the lowest panel and proceeding upward. Following this method,12 except that we number the panels consecutively, beginning with the lowest left hand corner we find the arrangement as follows: 1 The Eagle, 2 Saint John Theologos, 3 Death of Saint Andrew, 4 Christ and Saint Paul, 5 A Cross, 6 The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, 7 The Crucifixion, 8 The Baptism, 9 The Annunciation; these composed the first zone. The second zone consisted of 10 The Death of Saint Thomas, II Death of Saint Bartholo- mew, 12 Saint Andrew, 13 Death of Saint Peter, 14 An In- scription, 15 The Ascension, 16 The Deposition from the 1 MOSCIONI, photo, 6730. 12 This numbering of the panels will be adhered to throughout. 34 Cross, 17 The Transfiguration, 18 The Nativity. The third zone: 19 Saint Thomas, 20. Saint Bartholomew, 21 Death of Saint John, 22 Saint Peter, 23 Death of Saint Paul, 24 The Pentecost, 25 Christ in Hades, 26 Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, 27 The Presentation in the Temple. The fourth zone: 28 Habakkuk, 29 Elijah, 30 Jeremiah, 31 David, 32 Moses, 33 Saint Luke, 34 Death of Saint Matthew, 35 Saint James, 36 Death of Saint Philip. The fifth zone: 37 Sophonias, 38 Elisha, 39 Ezekiel, 40 Isaiah, 41 An Inscrip- tion, 42 Death of Saint Mark, 43. Saint Matthew, 44 Death of Saint Simon, 45 Saint Philip. Sixth zone: 46 The Eagle, 47 Jonah, 48 Daniel, 49 Hezekiah, 50 A Cross, 51 Saint Mark, 52 Death of Saint Luke, 53 Saint Simon, 54 Death of Saint James. The drawing of Ciampini shows panels 10 and 19 reversed. This is probably due to an error of the engraver. To-day panel 45 holds Saint Simon, panel 53 Elijah, panel 43 Saint Philip, panel 33 Saint John, panel 51 Saint Thomas, panel 22 Sophonias, panel 31 Hezekiah, panel 49 Ezekiel, panel 12 Saint Mark, panel 30 Jonah, panel 29 Daniel, panel 20 Saint Matthew, panel 29 Saint Peter, panel 38 Saint Bar- tholomew, panel 28 David. At present vacant are 48, 2, 47, 19, and all but a small portion of number 37. We find therefore that there are fifteen panels out of their places as given by Nicolai; moreover they all depict single figures. Now there are only twenty-three panels on the entire doors which show single figures, and if in the nineteenth century errors are made to the extent of fifteen out of a possible twenty-three, what may we expect of a thirteenth or fifteenth century-re-arrange- ment consequent upon a restoration ? We will now pass to a brief consideration of the technique of the work. The bronze used in the panels, as well as in six millimeters, or from three sixteenths to one quarter of an inch. The panels were smoothed on the face, while the back was left somewhat rough. The desired design was then traced upon the surface, and along the lines so traced channels were cut about three millimeters wide and the same in depth. Into these channels a metallic cement or amalgam, sometimes silver, was placed, which was softened by heat before using, thus making it easier to work. After the channels were filled and the work had cooled off, the plate was buffed smooth and brilliant. The inlay used on 35 the Saint Paul panels was for the most part of silver. Nic- olai,13 in his examination of the doors, speaks of colored inlay being used in some places, and to-day some of this re- mains, especially the reds and blues. We also know that upon the bronze doors at Monte Sant Angelo and Salerno, both of them approximately of the same date, colored inlays were used in places. When representing nude portions of the body, it was the Byzantine custom to use, for these parts, plates of silver which were set into the bronze, and upon these plates to draw in fine black lines the lineaments of the face, the fingers, and the feet. The origin of decoration by incised lines is lost in the mists of antiquity. As far as we have any records of pictorial art we find line drawings. On a material softer than the instru- ment used to make the lines, the latter become incised. It is the art first used by children as with a sharpened stick they draw upon the ground or sand. Prehistoric peoples scratched their drawings upon rocks, and decorated their domestic utensils by means of incised lines. It is but a step to fill up the incisions thus made with a different color, and so at once obtain added boldness and decorative effect. Numerous examples of the early use of incised lines can be found in any of the great museums of art. A few of such instances cited here may not be without interest. The Nimroud Gallery in the British Museum contains some Phoenician plaques of ivory ranging in date from 850 to 700 B.C. which are decorated from Cyprus, Crete and Etruria, dated about the sixth century B.C., thus incised. The decoration of Etruscan bronze mirrors and of early Greek vases in this manner is too well known to require more than a passing reference. But before the date of any of the Greek vases which have come down to us, the Greeks were adepts in the use of inlaying silver on bronze. The Shield of Achilles was a work of silver inlay, made even before the time of Homer when art had hardly yet become Grecian; so also was the work upon the famous Daggers of Mycenae. Another interesting example of sixth century B.C. Greek work, silver inlay on bronze, may be seen in the Antiquarium at Berlin; in Room 2, a Greek bronze plate shows a sphinx inlaid in silver. The Italians soon acquired the 13 NICOLAI, op. cit., p. 287. 14 CESNOLA, Cyprus, pl. 19. same practice; in the same Museum at Berlin there is a helmet- top of bronze bearing as the principal design a series of male figures on horseback, inlaid in silver. This object was found in the Po near Cremona and is dated as of the sixth or fifth century B.C. The Museo delle Terme at Rome contains, among the objects found in the tombs at Castel Trosino, near Ascoli Piceno, some bronze fragments upon which an open- work design of a basket pattern appears inlaid in silver; also some bronze bars found at Ostia on which are inlaid in silver rosettes in a Greek diaper pattern. The Museum of the Conservatori in the same city has a chair of Roman work; the frame is of bronze and is magnificently decorated with inlays of silver in both geometrical and arabesque patterns, as well as with human figures which are repre- sented in a garden among trees, foliage, fruit, etc., all of good style and charmingly executed; in addition to the silver inlay, other metals of various colors are introduced making the whole combination remarkable for graceful form and color. The National Museum at Naples contains a number of similar works taken from the excavations at Pompeii, show- ing bronze inlaid with silver and copper on such objects as swords, scabbards, basins, pedestals etc.15 The celebrated Chest of Cypselos which stood in the opisthodomos of the Heraeum at Olympia was of cedar, a work of about the sixth century B.C. It was decorated with a series of figures wrought partly in ivory and cedar, and also in gold. These were probably in relief. The ivory was used as an inlay for the nude portions of the female figures in exactly the same manner as the Byzantines used silver in connection with incised figures upon bronze, centuries after. The art of inlay has always been much used by the Asiatics. The expertness of the Chinese, Japanese, and the natives of India, the Arabians, Persians and the Moors is too well known to be dwelt upon. Applied to sword-making, the art as practiced at Damascus in the middle ages gave that city a unique position in the history of metal working. The Byzantines, then, came naturally to the art of inlay. The figures drawn upon the doors of Saint Paul's are of the thin and elongated style familiar to the student of Byzantine art, and resemble other work of this period. For the most part, the draperies are in somewhat stiff lines, with as few 16 Catalogue, No. 70.995, No. 115.732, No. 70.989, No. 72.900, etc. . 37 curves indicated as the pose of the figures will allow. The single figures all stand facing the spectator and are monoton- ously alike in attitude. They are allowed only a few variations of gesture, and these quite elementary. Sometimes the right hand is extended free from the body and an upward gesture is given to it; at other times it is placed either in front of the breast, or assists, as in the case of the prophets, in holding the scroll which the left hand contains. The left hand does not generally project from the outline of the body; in the case of the apostles it is employed in holding a closed book or scroll, while with the prophets the scroll is opened and upon it is traced a few lines from the writings of the individual who holds it. All the single figures are placed under arches, the faces of which are decorated with the simplest rectangular ornament, while the spandrils hold a simple arabesque. The arches rest upon columns on either side, which in turn are placed upon a stylobate of three steps. The present condition of the doors is that of a sad and mournful wreck as compared with their original beauty. A photographie of it gives a better idea of it than can any written description. All of the bronze is damaged by fire. Thirty- three of the panels are still entire, and three are gone al- together; the remaining eighteen are lacking in parts as follows:17 No. 3, small strips out of upper right hand side; No. Io, upper third zone; No. 19, nothing remains but a small oblong piece in lower left hand corner; No. 21, upper third gone; No. 22, lower half gone; No. 24, large piece out of upper right hand side ;18 No. 28, all gone except a piece about, six inches square in the upper left hand corner; No. 29, jagged corner and lower fifth gone; No. 30, lower half gone; No. 31, triangular piece from upper left hand corner; No. 32, small triangular piece from lower left hand corner; No. 34, small piece from lower left hand corner; No. 36, piece from the bottom; No. 37, all gone except a piece about six inches square in upper left hand corner; No. 38, triangular hole in lower left hand section; No. 41, triangular piece out of lower left hand corner; No. 49, lower quarter gone; No. 53, two small holes near centre. 16 MOSCIONI, photos. 6730 and 6732. in the Museo Kircheriano at Rome. 38 L If we now re-arrange the panels in the position which they occupied in the time of Nicolai, before the conflagration, we will obtain a better idea as to the portions of the doors which suffered most. It will be seen that the lower part suffered greater damage than the upper, and it is at once evident that the greatest damage was received by the small pairs of doors which opened in the middle of the greater pair.19 Appar- ently the fire originated inside the Basilica. When it reached the door, the small doors must have been open and therefore were directly subjected to the flames. The wooden backing of the doors was doubtless consumed and the bronze panels, heated from the back, were brought close to the point of fusion. Traces of the silver alloy are still to be seen in them; in some of the channels it has been melted out entirely; in others it has expanded beyond its original limits and run together in the lower part of the channels. Here and there drops of melted silver are still to be seen upon the surfaces of some of the panels, which are themselves pitted and scored by the intense heat. In cooling, they varied from black, greenish black, and dark blue, to a coppery red, and in some cases to yellow. The panel depicting the Crucifixion is yellow, with black lines taking the place of the silver inlay. The panel of the Ascension in its upper part is bright red with dark mottles, while the inscriptions upon it are of a greenish black. The panel of the Nativity is of a dirty yellow color. The small silver plates which were used for the nude portions of the figures, are of course all gone. When the doors were new, they were probably of a reddish bronze, almost a copper color, and must have presented a very splendid ap- pearance with the colored and silver inlay outlined against the polished red of the shining bronze. Some of the details of construction may now be briefly considered. The general arrangement of panels, the framing, and the vertical bars have been already discussed. Plate XI of Nicolai shows the entire doors; a transverse bar runs across between the two outside rows of the panels, six rows up from the ground; this appears in the plate as without or- nament. 20 Immediately underneath it the twenty-four panels, 19 The construction of these two small valves will be better under- stood by referring to the plates of D’AGINCOURT or NICOLAI, and by the explanation which is given later in this chapter. 20 Probably a restoration. 39 twelve on each side of the middle line, were so hinged to the other part of the doors that they could be opened as a sep- arate pair of valves, thus obviating the necessity of opening and closing the two larger valves. The transverse bar above the smaller valves served as a moulding against which they could close, and also to cover the joint or break in the surface of the large door. The small valves, like the larger pair, opened inward. As previously stated, the indications are that they were open at the time of the fire. The large valves swung upon tenons, or dowels, of bronze which ex- tended vertically from the upper and lower exterior angles of the doors, and worked in holes made to receive them in the threshold and soffit of the lintel. This was the ancient way of hanging doors and continued throughout the mediaeval period. All of the bronze doors, large or small, which are still in place are hung in this manner. D’Agincourt, in his engraving of the door, shows two of the four bronze tenons upon which the door was hung. Across the lower edge of the door a wearing strip of bronze was attached by means of nails driven through circular discs of metal to increase the holding surface. Nicolai shows them in plate XI. The frames which surrounded the panels appear to have been made when possible in one piece; naturally in the four middle rows of panels, owing to the break caused by the small pair of valves, the frames were in two sections. These frames resemble ladders in which the rungs are the same in size as the uprights. On either side of the vertical separating bars these ladders show an exposed surface of about 95 millimeters, or 334 inches, from the bar to the edge toward the panel where it fell away to the panel, the surface of which was from 28 to 30 mm., or 1% to 11/4 inches, below the level of the frames. The width of the horizontal and of the vertical portions of the frames is the same. In the middle of the frames, both vertically and horizontally, a series of round- headed bolts was driven through to the wood underneath for the purpose of holding them in place, at the same time they were made something of a decorative feature. From the earliest time bronze plates have been attached to wooden doors by nails, the heads of which were used decoratively. As illustrations of this we find in the British Museum remains of the bronze gates of Balawat, Assyrian work of the ninth century B.C.; in the Louvre at Paris a plate 3 40 of bronze which formed a part of a door of the Palace of Artaxerxes Mnemon at Susa; while in the Antiquarium at Berlin there is a Grecian urn of marble and a terra cotta from Priene which show illustrations of bronze doors thus decorated with nail heads. Of actual existing examples upon antique bronze doors from the Roman time, that of the great door of the Lateran at Rome may be cited; here the nail heads are of two kinds and have been conventionalized into something resembling an acorn. The bronze nails which are at present arranged upon the wooden door of Santa Pudentiana at Rome may be the remnants of an original door of bronze. Sculptures illustrating this point may also be found in the marble urn in the Museo Profano of the Lateran,21 as well as upon two of the great bas-reliefs at the turn of the stairs in the Museo dei Conservatori at Rome, depicting events in the life of Marcus Aurelius; one of these reliefs shows the Emperor riding in his chariot past a temple, the doors of which are of bronze thus ornamented, while the other relief, illustrating a sacrifice, shows a temple having three bronze doors similarly decorated. Beside these, two sarcophagi in the Campo Santo at Pisa show bronze doors where the nails are arranged in the same maner. Instances of this treatment of the nails might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but enough examples have been cited to show that it was common. As a final example, however, which is one of the most interest- feet six inches in height, which is now in the British Museum, placed between the Greek and Egyptian rooms. It appears to be of about the fifth century and came from Syria; it is carved to simulate bronze, with two sunken panels in each valve, around which on the frames, the bolt heads are carved on the surface of the stone. The bolt heads upon the doors at Saint Paul's are about 47 mm. in diameter, and stand out above the surface of the bronze to the height of 28 mm. They are placed so that every alternate one is opposite the middle of a panel, and are spaced vertically about 26 centimeters, or 10 to 12 inches, from centre to centre; they are separated horizontally about 20 cm., or 8 inches. The vertical bars separating the frames, covered a width 21 Room 4, Catalogue No., 350. AI. of about 80 mm., or 37/8 inches, on the surface of the doors, and were in section that of an octagon cut in half in the middle of its opposite sides. The upper facet is 35 mm. wide and stood above the surface of the frames 37 mm., or 17/2 inches. The top of the bolts on these bars stood above the surface of the panels about 62 mm., or 21/2 inches. Elsewhere it has been stated that the frames appear to have been made in one piece for each set of panels which they contain. We have no means of knowing whether or not this was the case when they came from Constantinople. Those upon the doors at Amalfi were made in small sections, each of which resemble the letter H, and placed vertically so that there was a joint on the side of every panel at which a bolt was driven to fasten them to the wood below, and also served to hold the edges together. On the other hand, how- ever, the doors at Monte Sant'Angelo had their frames cast in the same manner as Nicolai shows those at Saint Paul's. The flaring ends of the vertical bars are separately made and do not show the semi-octagonal form of the bars, but are cubical. They are a 'feature common to other Byzantine doors of the eleventh century. The care which Nicolai took in making his drawings may be seen by comparing them with those of D’Agincourt. This care is further exhibited in noting the cracks which run through the wearing strip at the bottom of the door and on the frame surfaces contiguous to the second and third panels from the left on the lower row as shown on his plate XI. Beside these he shows extra bolts put in the frames of the right hand valve directly above the third row of panels, counting from below, upwards. These probably mean restorations. Materials do not exist which enable us to ascertain with certainty how the bronze doors at Saint Paul's, as Nicolai saw them, corresponded with their original condition. As they stood at the western end of the church, under a wide portico, they were not greatly affected by the weather. The western entrance was also the one least used, most of the worshippers coming into the church by means of the north transept which was nearer the road; the wear from this source, therefore, was much reduced. Experience shows that the wooden backing of such doors as the one under consideration, needs renewing in periods varying from three to four hundred years. At such times the frames, bars and bolts, may have been renewed 42 in part. Such restorations as these however, would preserve the original spirit of the work as a whole, even if lacking something in detail. The important part of the doors, the incised panels, depicting the apostles, the prophets, and the scenes from the Life of Christ, are undoubtedly those which came from the hands of Staurachios at Constantinople to ornament the church of the great Apostle to the Western World. II With the exception of the two panels depicting the Eagles, every panel upon the doors of Saint Paul's bears an inscrip- tion of some kind. These are for the most part in Greek, often abbreviated, and made in capital letters of mediaeval style. The letters are placed together without much attempt at separation or punctuation. In every case they are placed near the top of the panel. Those upon the panels portraying the Life of Christ and the Martyrdoms of the Apostles are in parallel lines. Those devoted to the single figures are generally in two parts placed either side of the head, and are to be read downwards. In addition to the inscriptions which give the meaning of the panel, the Prophets have also an additional one upon a book or scroll held by the figure: The text of this is a short sentence from his writings. These are usually in Latin, but upon the scrolls of Elijah, Hezekiah, and Sophonias (com- monly known as Zephaniah), they are in Greek, much abbre- viated. The two main inscriptions, each of which occupies an entire panel, are in Latin. Beside the inscriptions upon the panels the doors contained three others. These were upon the frames of the panels and upon the lower part of the doors. They are shown by Nicolai in plate XI. One was in Latin, one in Greek, and the third in Syriac; the latter a translation of the one in Greek.218 Why the inscriptions upon the scrolls of the prophets 1 210 Since the above was written an article by Professor A. L. Froth- ingham has appeared in The American Journal of Archaeology (for 1914, page 484), which maintains that Staurachios was not the artist who made the doors, but simply the man who cast them, and that the name of the artist appeared upon the doors in the Syriac inscription, a part of which was illegible when D’Agincourt made his engravings in 1783. should not have been all in one language is not clear, nor why Elijah, Hezekiah, and Sophonias should have been singled out for those in Greek. At that period, however, it was a custom much in vogue to use Greek in connection with the vernacular in Italy. It is quite apparent that the two main inscriptions were prepared in Italy, probably by Hildebrand who was then Abbot of Saint Paul's, and for- warded or taken by him to Constantinople, for we know he made a visit to that City in 1070,22 the year the doors were made. The inscriptions are made in the same manner as the figures upon the panels, that is by incised lines filled with silver alloy. The panels will be briefly described and the inscriptions upon them given. They will be taken up consecutively begin- ning with the left hand zone, reading upward in every case.23 1. The Eagle. No inscription. 2. Saint John the Theologian. O A(YLOS) IW OEOAOro'. The abbreviation of the name of the Apostle will be noted. The Greeks were fond of giving to this apostle the title Theologos and he is often thus denominated. 3. The Martyrdom of Saint Andrew. The saint hangs between the bifurcated limbs of a tree to which his arms are fastened. Standing on a platform, one executioner nails his left hand to the tree, while another kneeling man drives a spike through the feet. There is no background shown. In this panel Staurachios follows the Greek legend on the subject.24 We read in the Greek Monologium,25 “From thence he went to Patras, a city of Achaia in the Peleponnesus, and there was crucified by the Proconsul Egeatus”. In another passage in the Menologium24 is written “The third is 22 Baronius op. cit., Ann. 1070. * In comparing the panels with the plates of Nicolai, note that he reverses Zones II and III, and also IV and V. 24 This however contradicts the legend that Andrew was crucified upon a cross. Cf. Bonnet in Anal. Bolland., XIII, D. 367. The apocryphal Gospel of The Holy Apostle Andrew in reference to this event states : “And they lifted him up on the cross; and having stretched his body across with ropes, they only bound his feet but did not sever his joints, having received this order from the Proconsul Aegeates, for he wished him to be in distress while hanging, and in the night time as he was suspended, to be eaten up alive by dogs”. 25 Menologium Graecum of Basil II. (Cod. Vat. Gr. 1613), In die 30 Novemb. A work of approximately the same time as the doors. 20 In die 30 Jun. 44 Andrew—who was crucified between the limbs of) a tree.” The Breviarium Romanum27 simply says “Andrew went to Patras and was condemned by the Proconsul Egius to be crucified”, not indicating in what manner. The Golden Legend28 adds that the body was subsequently carried to Con- stantinople.29 The inscription on the panel gives the record con- tained in both the Greek and Roman sources and is written O A(YLOS) ANAPEAC EN NATPA CTAT PWOHC TEA- HOTTE. The last two words might better have been written CTATPWOEIC TEAEIOTTAI. It signifies “Saint Andrew dies crucified at Patras." 4. Christ and Saint Paul, together with the donor of the doors, Pantaleone, who is portrayed prostrate at the feet of Christ, who is blessing him. Pantaleone is here given the great honor of being represented with the Saviour and the patron saint of the great Basilica to which his doors were given. His attitude of adoration is not an uncommon one in art when living people are depicted in connection with saints. 30 Staurachios has been content to indicate the two standing figures by their names only, IC-XC, and ( A (ylos) IIAT- AOC, while above the figure of the donor is the following inscription, to which Saint Paul points as he looks at Christ: PANTALEON STRATUS VENIAM MIEHI REATUS. 31 5. A Cross bearing the abbreviation IC-XC.. In Byzantine art the cross was always intended as a symbol of Christ. 27 Lect. in die 30 Novemb. 28 Legenda Aurea, by JACOBUS DE VORAGINE, A.D. 1275. Translated by William Caxton in 1470. Reprint J. M. Dent & Co., London, 1900. Cf. vol. II, p. 105. 20 At the present time the Cathedral of Saint Andrew at Amalfi claims to have the body. The records of the church say it was brought from Constantinople in 1208. The eastern tradition on this point is that Justinian caused the ashes of Saint Andrew, together with those of Luke and Timothy, to be placed in the same silver urn. Cf. Vita S. Lucae 12 ap. MIGNE P. 115, I'140. At Amalfi, how- ever, the body of Saint Andrew is still exhibited. 30 Cf. The mosaic in the narthex of Hagia Sophia showing Justinian at the feet of Christ; also the Menologium Graecum showing Basil II thus; also the mosaic in La Martorana, Palermo, showing the Admiral at the feet of the Virgin; also Ms. Cod. Vat. Regin. Graec., I, f. 3 where two noblemen thus venerate Saint Nicholas. 81 “I, miserable Pantaleone, prostrate myself and ask for pardon.” Below the arms of the cross an ornament similar in spirit to those at Amalfi and Monte Cassino.32 6. The Incredulity of Saint Thomas.33 Christ stands on the second of a series of three steps. Five apostles to his right, and six to his left, the foremost of whom, Thomas, is about to thrust his finger into the print of the wound in the side of the Saviour in order that he may be convinced of His resurrection. The representation follows the idea given in Saint John's Gospel,34 "Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst.” The inscription on the panel reads TON OTPON KEKAHOMENON but might better be written TWN OTPWN KEKAEICMENWN. 7. The Crucifixion. In mediaeval times this scene was rendered in two ways, either devotionally,35 or historically.36 A devotional representation limited itself to the figures of Christ, the Virgin, and Saint John, and did not attempt to indicate the realities of the event. When it was given his- torically, we find the addition of the thieves, soldiers, and executioners, or some of them, together with other accessories. Staurachios has given a devotional Crucifixion. It shows Christ on a cross, a perizonium about his loins, his feet sep- arated and resting upon a suppedaneum. The lower end of the cross, held in place by two wedges,37 stands in a mound of earth. In the lower part of the mound is a cavity. 38 The Virgin stands on the right of Christ, and Saint John to the left; behind each of them, on the side of the picture, a house is shown, indicating that the event occurred in an inhabited place. Above the head of the Crucified is an inscription bearing 32 Cf. SCHULZ, op. cit., Atlas, pl. LXXXV. * Cf. also an ampulla at Monza; Diptych at Aix la Chapelle; the Codex Egberti at Treves; Ms. 2196 at Bib. Nat. Paris; mosaic at St. Luke in Phocis. 34. Ch. xx, 26. 35 Cf. Ms. Harl. 1810, British Museum; also Cod. VI, 55 in the church of St. Peter at Salzburg; also Cod. lat. 4456 in Staatsbib. at Munich; also Sacramentary of Lorsch at Chantilly. *Cf. Codex Wysheradensis at Prague; Ms. Graec. 74 at Bib. Nat., Paris; also Ms. 382 at Laon; also Codex Egberti at Treves. 37 Cf. the ampulla at Monza published by GARRUCCI, vol. VI, pl. 434, also a fresco at S. M. Antiqua at Rome; also the ivories, cat. No. 16 and No. 19 in the Berlin Museum; also the Fulda Ms. at Göttingen. 39 Cf. The enamelled reliquary in the Stroganoff Collection; the Adal- beron ivory at Metz; a fresco at Daphni; an ivory in the Cluny Museum at Paris; and the Pala d'Oro at Venice. simply IC-XC. On either side of this is a ministering angel. The title of this panel is H CTATPWCIC. 8. The Baptism. According to the ancient custom, Christ is standing nude in the water.39 To the left upon a rocky bank, clad in a long robe, Saint John the Baptist,40 in the act of baptizing. On the right bank, two angels hold the clothes of the Saviour. All the figures are nimbed. At the top is the divine Hand, from which issue two rays to the head of Christ. Half way down appears the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. In the foreground to the left is seen the River God.41 To the right is a cross on a column which is placed upon a stylobate of three steps. The Baptism of Our Lord was celebrated on Jan- uary sixth, in connection with the festival of the Epiphany. The inscription reads H BAITCHC instead of BAIITIZIE. 9. The Annunciation. In this scene, mediaeval art represented the Virgin either as sitting or standing ;42 it is to the latter class that our scene belongs. The Virgin is standing at the door of her house. She has evidently just arisen to receive the announcement of the celestial messenger, who is portrayed walking toward her, and with the right hand giving her a benediction. His left holds a rod. Both figures are nimbed. The inscription reads O XEPAITHCMOC +XEPAI KEXAPITOMENH O KC META COT. It would better have been written 0 XAIPE- TICMOC XAIPE KEXAPITWMENH O KC META LOT, and may be rendered “The Salutation. Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee.” 10. The Martyrdom of Saint Thomas. The Saint is shown standing to the right; to the left are three men, each of whom thrusts a lance into his side. This follows the tradition as contained in the Greek Menologium under date of October sixth, “The Saint was conducted to a hill and thrust by lances so that he died”; and also in the General Commemoration of 39 See De Singular. Cleric., 14 in Cypriani opera, ed. HARTEL, III, 189; also Cyrill. hierosol. Cateches., XX, 2, ap. Migne, p. 33. 1080. 40 In early representations the Baptist wore a short garment. As time went on, it became longer. In the Menologium Graecum it entirely covers him. 41 Cf. the mosaic in the Orthodox Baptistery and the Throne of Max- imianus at Ravenna; the Byzantine diptych at Milan Cathedral; the Bernwardssaüle in Hildesheim, and Ms. 550 in Bib. Nat., at Paris. 42 DIDRON, Christian Iconography, Appendix II, The Byzantine Guide 47 the Apostles, June thirtieth, “Thomas Didymus was killed by the Indians with lances”. No mention is made of the number of the executioners. In the apocryphal Consunimation of Thomas the Apostle we read, "He (the king) delivered him up to four soldiers, and to one of the chief officers, and ordered them to take him up into the mountain and spear him; ... and when he (Thomas) had prayed, he said to the soldiers: Come and finish the work of him that sent you. And the four struck him at once, and killed him”. 13 The inscription reads 0 A(Ylos) WMAC AOXI TIIO HNAIA TEAHOTTE, instead of O A(ylos) OWMAC AOTXH TIIO INAIA TEAEIOTTAI,which we may translate "Saint Thomas dies by a lance in India”. II. The Martyrdom of Saint Bartholomew. The artist has shown this as occurring in an inhabited place. The Saint is hung on a cross, the arm of which is very short and above his head. His feet, separated, rest upon a suppedanaeum, and a man to the left, appears to be tying the ankles with a rope. The Saint is clad in a perizonium. The lower end of the cross stands in a mound of earth, and, like the cross in the scene of the Crucifixion, is held in place by wedges, here three in number. On either side of the picture is a house capped by a small cross. From the General Com- memoration of the Apostles44 we learn "The eighth apostle was Bartholomew, the crucified”; and the Menologium45 says "The Saint being condemned to the cross, died gloriously at Abarnopoli”. 46 The inscription gives the title O A(ylos) RA. POOAOMEO KPEMACOEIC EIII CTATPOT TEAEIOT- TAI, which may be translated “Saint Bartholomew dies hanged upon a cross". 12. Saint Andrew. O AFIOC ANAPEAC. 18 The Breviariuin Romanum, Lect. in die 21 Decemb., refers to the death of Saint Thomas as follows: "Condemnatus, telisque confossus Caliminae Apostolatus honorem martyrii corona decoravit." 44 In die 30 Jun. 46 In die II Jun. 10 The Breviarium Romanum, Lect. in die 24 seu 25 August, says, "Ut is vivo Bartholomeo pellem crudeliter detrahi jusserit ac caput abscindi, quo in martyrio animam Deo reddidit." The apocryphal Martyrdom of the Holy and Glorious Apostle Bartholomew says of the event, “The king ordered the holy apostle Bartholomew to be beaten with rods; and after having been thus scourged, to be beheaded”. 48 13. The Crucifixion of Saint Peter. Peter, garbed in a perizonium, is fastened to a cross, head downward. To the left, a man with a rope is pulling the feet up in order that they may be nailed to the suppedanaeum, or to the up- right of the cross. To the right we see a second executioner, with upraised arms, about to drive the nails. There are no other accessories. The crucifixion of Saint Peter is a con- stant tradition in both the Greek and Latin Churches. Of it the Menologium47 says "And finally both (i.e. Saints Peter and Paul), being in Rome, by Nero were made to suffer for Jesus Christ; Peter being crucified head downward”; and again in the General Commemoration of the Apostles, we read, "Peter—crucified head downward”. This is in accord- ance with the apocryphal Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul which says “Then having reversed the cross, they nailed his feet up”. The inscription is written 0 A (rylos) IIET- PO' TIO NEPONO' CTATPOOHC TEAHOTTE, 48 or "Saint Peter dies crucified by Nero”. 14. We have on this panel, an inscription in Latin, TV QUOQUE QUI SACRI SUCCEDIS LIMINA TEMPLI HAS PER QUAS INTRAS STUDIOSIVS INSPICE PORTAS ET SIC INGRESSVS DOMINO FER CVM PRECE FLETVS VT DEVS HVIC REQVIEM C(ON) CEDAT HABERE PERENNEM IMPETRET HOC ILLI SIMVL INTERCESSIO PAVLI QVEM QVIA DILEXIT DECORAVIT MVNERE TALI Which may be rendered: “Thou likewise, who approachest the threshold of this holy temple, gaze very earnestly upon these gates through which thou enterest, and having thus passed in, entreat the Lord with tears that God may vouch- safe the donor to have eternal rest. And may the intercession of Paul obtain this for him also whom he honored with this gift because he loved him.” 15. The Ascension. In the upper part of the picture, 47 In die 29 Jun. 48 Instead of NEPUNOC CΤΑΥΡΩΘΕΙΟ ΤΕΔΕΙΟΥΤΑΙ. 49 Christ is seated on a throne upheld by two angels, one on either side. With his right hand he gives a benediction to his followers who are on the ground below, looking upward, with gestures of astonishment. The Virgin is standing in the middle of the crowd, with an angel on either side of her. Behind this group, the twelve apostles are arranged, six on each side. Saint Luke's Gospel is the only one which, except in a general way, speaks of the Ascension. It does not say who were present, but from the context, we gather only the eleven apostles. 49 Likewise, the Acts of the Apostles give us no details concerning it. The spectators are referred to as "they”, but adds that after Our Lord had disappeared “Two men stood by them in white raiment”.50 This gives authority for the introduction of the two angels in the scene as portrayed. The inscription is H ANA HYHC, for ANAAHYIC or "The Ascension”. 16. The Deposition from the Cross. Except for the left hand of the Crucified, the body is quite free from the cross. A man stands upon a ladder, pincers in hand, and is with- drawing the nails which still hold the hand. Behind the body, another man is standing, partially supporting it, and also lifting it down. The Virgin, erect, is kissing the right hand. Another female figure, probably Mary Magdalene, bends over to kiss the feet. As in the Crucifixion, above are two minister- ing angels, and at the foot of the cross, wedges, here to the number of three. The inscription is H AIIOKAOHAOCIC, or “The Deposition". On the titulus of the cross is: IC-XC. 17. The Transfiguration. This shows Christ in a mandorla, standing on a mount. From His body radiate six double rays to the edges of the mandorla. On either side of him stand Moses and Elijah. In the lower part of the picture are Peter, James, and John. One of them, to the left, stands erect, the second kneeling prostrate, and the last kneeling on one knee as if in the act of arising. The inscription is H METAMOPQOCIC. 18. The Nativity. As is customary in Byzantine art, the birth of Our Lord is here represented as occurring in a cave, 51 49 Cf. LUKE, XXIV, 23; also the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which says, ch. XIV, there were eleven. 50 Acts I, 10. 61 The apocryphal Gospel of Pseudo-Matthewe, ch. XVIII and XIX speaks of the case in a desert. Cf. also DIDRON, op. cit., II, p. 299. 50 1 in the side of a hill. The Virgin is lying on a mattress, her head toward the right, partially supporting herself on her left elbow, her right hand stretched out toward a small lamb. Behind her, on a manger, apparently of masonry, lies the infant Christ wrapped in swaddling clothes, with head also to the right. Over him, the heads of the adoring Ox and Ass. Below to the left, with his back turned to the Virgin, Saint Joseph is sitting in a disconsolate attitude, his head resting on his right hand. Further to the right two midwives, one seated, and about to wash the newly born in a basin, into which the other woman, who stands, is pouring water from a jar. Above the hill in which the cave is situated, is a choir of four angels, one of whom announces to the shepherds, here two in number, the birth of their Lord. Quite at the top of the picture the Star of Bethlehem sheds its rays down upon the infant Redeemer. The desert character of the region is indicated by the rocks and sparse vegetation. This, and the placing the scene in a cave instead of in a stable is in accordance with the account given in apocryphal sources. The inscription is H XT TENNICIC. MAC. 20: Saint Bartholomew. 0ATIO' RAPOOAOMEO', instead of BAPOOAOMAIOC. 21. Death of Saint John the Theologian. This panel shows the Evangelist being deposited in a sarcophagus by two of his followers, one of whom stands at his head, the other arrang- ing his feet. Behind, a weeping man. The cover of the sarcophagus lies in front on the ground. In the upper part of the panel the title reads Η METACTACIC ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ IW TOT OE0Aror, implying the translation of the Saint. This is in accordance with the Greek tradition that Saint John did not die, but was transported to some place, where he remains until the end of the world. The apocryphal Acts of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, says in this connection “And they dug. And when the young men had finished the trench . . . he standing in the depth of the trench, gazing toward heaven, glorified God. . . . And when they went on the morrow, they did not find him, but his sandals and a fountain welling up”. The Greek Menologium, in illustrating the scene, portrays the Saint as standing in a grave which his disciples have dug, four men on each side. 1 Tradition says there were but seven men who dug his grave. The Menologium52 however says of the occurrence “The Saint went to the designated place and he dug a deep ditch in the form of a cross, and, having prayed, saying “Peace be with you, brothers,” he placed himself in the ditch. The disciples then covered him up and departed. And when they went back again to see him, they did not find him”. The Golden Legend53 relates the event somewhat differently. It says that a pit was dug before the altar in the church at Ephesus, and that the Saint went down into it, before all the people; while he was praying “A great light came upon him so that none might see him, and when this light and brightness was gone and departed there was nothing found in the pit or grave but manna, which came springing from under upward as a well or fountain". The same story is told more clearly in the General Commemoration of the Apostles54 which says, “... John, who was buried alive, was transported”. In these legends, the Greeks were openly at variance with the Latin tradition as given in the Breviarium Romanum55 which declares that the Saint died of old age. In the representation upon the door, the artist followed the Latin rather than the Greek legend in portraying the event; we see no signs of a ditch or grave dug, and the disciples covering him up; we see instead the dead saint being placed in a tomb, notwithstanding the title which says that Saint John was translated. 22. Saint Peter. O ATIO’IIETPO'. 23. The Martyrdom of Saint Paul. The Saint is bending over, almost on one knee. Around his neck a halter, held by a youth who stands to the right. The executioner, behind him, strikes off his head with a short sword. The head of the Saint is long and slender, and the beard is long which is in accordance with the tradition in representing Paul. Here are shown but two executioners taking part in the decapitation of the Saint; tradition says there were three. 56 62 In die 26 Septem. 63 Op. cit., II, p. 174. 6* In die 30 Jun. 55 Lect. in die 27 Decemb. "Et confeotus senio sexagesimo octavo post passionem Domini anno mortuus, juxta eandem urbem sepultus est.” 58 Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, see The Story of Perpetua. Cf. also Golden Legend, IV, p. 32. 52 The inscription here is given O (Aylos) IIATAOC EN POMI TEAHOTTE, or "Saint Paul dies in Rome”, which accords with the tradition of both the Greek and Latin Churches. 24. The Pentecost. On the panel the word is divided into two parts and is written H IIENTIKOCTH. The twelve are seated in a semicircle. Saints Paul and Peter are in the mid- dle at the top. From above, rays, in which tongues of fire are indicated, descend upon their heads. Within the semicircle is an arch, under which are three standing figures. The middle one is arrayed as a king and apparently holds a scroll in his hand.57 On each side of him is a man who holds a lance. Over the head of these three persons is the word OTATAOCE apparently a contraction of the two words QTAAN TAWCCAI by which is meant “The Tongues of Peoples.” 25. Christ in Hades. This is inscribed H ANACTACIC. We see a large figure of Christ who tramples under foot broken bars, bolts, locks, etc., signifying that he has broken the bonds of death and hell. In his left hand he holds a double-armed cross,58 with the right he grasps the hand of a man, Adam, behind whom is Eve. To the right are three men, two of whom wear a nimbus. In the background are mountains; this is probably an attempt to represent the scene as occurring in a cave59 underneath the mountains in accordance with the Byzantine tradition. The apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus gives an interesting version of the descent of Christ into Hell, and appears to be the basis for many representations of this scene. 26. The Triumphal Entry of Christ into Jerusalem. H RAIOVOPOC, that is H BAIOQOPOC “The Carrying of Palms”. Seated sideways on an ass,60 Christ rides toward 67 Cf. Joel, ch. II, 28. Also DIDRON, op. cit., II, p. 321 and the note on P. 322. The person represented under the arch is the prophet Joel, crowned as a king, and he holds the twelve scrolls upon a sheet. The scrolls indicate the twelve different languages of the earth, one for each apostle. Sometimes an old man, typifying the World, was placed under the arch with the twelve rolls in his hand. For representations see Ms. Harl., 1810 and Ms. Eg. 1139, British Museum; Ms. Graec. 510, Bib. Nat. at Paris; an ivory, cat. No. 24 at the Berlin Museum; and Ms. Graec. 541, Bib. Nat. at Paris. 68 SMITH, Dict. Chr. Antiq., I, p. 497. London, 1908. 69 DIDRON, op. cit., II, p. 319. 0 Cf. STRZYGOWSKY, Die Etschmiadzin Evangeliar (Byz. Denk. I), p. 38; also Munoz, Codex Rossanensis, 'p. 4, note. 53 esi... the City, the walls, gates, and towers of which are to the right. Within the city is also a column on which is a statue. The welcoming crowd is represented by two men issuing from the city gates. They are acclaiming the Saviour, with upraised hands. Between them and Christ we see a youth who is about to spread a garment under the feet of the ass. Behind the Redeemer are three men walking. Only Christ wears a nimbus. In the background is a hill surmounted by walls. Between this hill and Jerusalem, immediately adjoining the city gates, we see a tree. When the door was new, this tree apparently held a figure of Zaccheus. An interesting feature of this panel is that Christ makes the Greek benediction with the right hand, while with the left he gives that of the Latin church. Thus it was possible to avoid giving offence to the Romans, while the Greek tradition is still preserved. 61 27. The Presentation in the Temple.62 H TIIAIIANTI instead of TIIAIIANTH. Mary has the infant Christ in her arms and is about to give him to Simeon, who stands, arms cov- ered with a cloth, ready to receive him. The infant stretches his hands toward Simeon as if wanting to be taken. Anna stands to the right, behind Simeon; she raises her right hand in To the extreme left Joseph walks behind the Virgin. In his hands, covered with a cloth, he holds two doves for the offer- ing. There is a low table, on which a book rests, placed between the Virgin and Simeon. All the figures are nimbed. In the resting on four columns. From the vault of the tabernacle, a small bell is suspended.63 The apex of the tabernacle is sur- mounted by a cross. On each side of the picture, flanking the plain wall, we see a house. 28. The Prophet Habakkuk. O IIPO (TMS), APAKOTM. Upon his scroll we find DS A LIBANO VENIET ET SCS DE MONTE, 61 In the early days of the Church the strife between the adherents of St. Paul and those of St. Peter was fierce and long. RENAN, in his Oxford Lectures under the Hibbert Foundation, gives an interest- ing account of it. 62 Cf. 'DIDRON, op. cit., II, p. 300. CIAMPINI calls this scene the “Cir- cumcision.” Had the artist intended to represent this he would have written the title IIEPITOMH. 63 In mediaeval times this was a sign of a ſestal occasion. or, “Dominus a Libano veniet et Sanctus de monte.”64 In the Vulgate, instead of A LIBANO, the text reads AB AUSTRO, while in the Septuagint, which the English Bible follows, we have TEMAN. 29. The Prophet Elijah. O IIPO (útns) HAHAC, for HAIAC. Upon his scroll we find an inscription in Greek, very much abbreviated. ΓΝω ΠΑ Ο ΛΑΟ OTIC CIMO- MOC KC O O O HA KA EIW ART, doubtless intended for INWTWCAN IIAC AAOC OTTOC OTI CT EI KTPIOC O @ICPAHA KAI ENW AOTAOC Cor. It is taken from the First Book of Kings,65 and alludes to the trial of fire between Elijah and the prophets of Baal. It may be translated "Let all the people know that Thou art the Lord God of Israel, and that I am Thy servant”. 30. The Prophet Jeremiah. O IIPOQ (úrns) IEPEMIEAC. Upon his scroll is the following: HIC DS NR ET N IMPUTARITVR ALIVS, for HIC DOMINUS NOSTER ET NON IMPUTABITVR ALIUS. "Here is our Lord and none other shall be blamed”. 31. The Prophet David. O IIPOD (ørns) AAA. The latter word is an abbreviation for AATIA. We find the same con- traction in connection with the figure of David upon the Pala d' Oro at Venice, a work of about the same period as our doors. In the panel, it is noteworthy that although David is called a prophet, the artist is careful to give him the insignia of royalty, a crown, and royal garments. Upon the scroll which he carries we read AVDI FILIA ET VIDE ET INCLINA AVREM TVAM, for "Hearken, o daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear”.66 32. The Prophet Moses. O IIPOD (utns) MWTCIC, for MWTCHC. Upon his scroll we find VIDEVITIS VITA VRA PENDEN for VIDEBITIS VITAM VESTRAM PENDENTEM, which we may translate “And you shall see your life hanging. . . .” which probably refers to the curing of the Israelites by looking at the brazen serpent which Moses had hung upon a pole.67 33. Saint Luke. O ATIO’AOTAOKAC, for AOTKAC. 34. The Death of Saint Matthew. The inscription says simply O KTMHCIC TOT Arior' MATOEOT, for H KOIMHCIC TOT ATIOT MATOAIOT, or "The Burial of 64 Habakkuk, III, 3. 85 Ch. XVIII, v. 36. 66 Ps. XLV, 10. 67 Numbers, ch. XXI. Cf. also Deut. XXVIII, 66. 55 Saint Matthew". The panel shows the dead saint who has just been placed into a sarcophagus. He is wrapped in swad- dling grave clothes. A man to the right is lifting the cover of the sarcophagus from the ground. To the left, another man is arranging the shoulders of the deceased. Behind, a third at- tendant swings a censer. This representation does not concern itself with the manner in which the Saint met his death; we are shown only his burial. The apocryphal Acts and Martyr- dom of Saint Matthew the Apostle tells us "He was pinned down to the ground by long nails driven through his hands and feet, and then fire applied to him; but when the fire had burned out, the body of the Apostle was lying as if asleep, and his robe and tunic unstained by the fire”. The Golden Legendes states that Matthew was slain by a sword, while the Greek Menolo- giun269 says "He died after having baptised many into the faith of Christ”. The General Commemoration of the Apostles?o relates, however, that he was stoned to death. In the portrayal of the burial of Saint Matthew, the Menologium places the incense swinger at the head of the sarcophagus, while of the other two men, bowed with grief, one gazes into the face of the dead saint, and the other gently arranges his feet.71 35. Saint James. O ATIO’IAKORO' for IA KWBOC. 36. The Martyrdom of Saint Philip. The inscription on this panel says O A(ylos) QHAHIITOC KATA KE AAHC CTATPOOHC TEAIOTTE, the latter part of which would be better if written ΣΤΑΥΡΩΘΕΙΟ ΤΕΛΕΙΟΥΤΑΙ. This may be rendered "Saint Philip head downward, dies by Crucifixion”. The panel shows us the Saint, clad in a perizonium, affixed, head down, to a wall of masonry. We are shown no attending executioners nor followers. All accessories are omitted. This method of representing the death of Philip is in consonance with the Greek 68 Op. cit., V, p. 153. In die 17 Novemb. 70 In die 30 Jun. ** The Breviarium Romanum, Lect. in die I Maii, refers to him thus: "Rege mortuo, Hirtaeus ejus successor ... Matthaeum ... ad altare mysterium celebrantem jussit occidi”. SMITH, Dict. of the Bible, p. 616, “Heracleon, the disciple of Valen- tinus, describes him as dying a natural death, which Clement of Alex- andria, Origen, and Tertullian seem to accept; the tradition that he died a martyr, be it true or false, came in afterward”. 56 tradition of the period as given in the Menologium,72 which says “And Saint Philip dies by being fastened to a wall, head downward”. In the same Ms., under the General Com- memoration of the Apostles,73 it repeats “And Saint Philip was fastened by the Greeks to a wall”, but here it does not say “head downward”. The Golden Legend?4 intimates that he dies, crucified, but in the same manner as Christ. It says "And after this the paynims took him and held him, and fastened him to the cross like unto his master, and so he yielded up his soul and died”. The apocryphal Acts of Philip relates the event as taking place, with the Saint crucified head downward, but upon a cross.75 37. The Prophet Sophonias. O IIPOD (úrns) C000- NIAC. We find upon his scroll EXPECTA ME IN DIE RESURREC- TION. This prophet is more commonly known as Zephaniah, and the text quoted is taken from his prophecy.76 Sophonias seems to have been held in much esteem during the mediaeval times, and is more or less frequently represented. He is por- trayed in a stained glass window in the Cathedral at Bourges, in a statue upon the façade at Amiens, as well as in one in the interior of Rheims. In the latter instance he is shown as having a lantern in his hand.77 38. The Prophet Elisha. O IIPOD (úrns) EAICAIE. Upon his scroll is written terW AIIO CTOMATOC TVIC- TOT EEHAECN, “I came from the mouth of the Most High."78 39. The Prophet Ezekiel. O IIPOO(útns) HEZEKIHA, instead of IEZEKIHA. Upon this scroll we find INDUXIT ME P VIAM PORTE BOREALIS, taken from his prophecy, which reads, “Then brought he me the way of the north gate”,79 the appropriateness of which upon the doors is not very apparent, except that a gate is mentioned. 40. The Prophet Isaiah. O IIPOO(ýtns) ICAHAC (HC- AIAC). We find engraved upon his scroll ECCE VIRGO N UTE, 12 In die 14 Novemb. 78 In die 30 Jun. 74 Op. cit., III, p. 1157. 75 Cf. Acta Phillippi, 125, ed. BONNET, P. 55. Also with illustration in Ms. Graec. 510, Bib. Nat. at Paris. 76 Zephaniah, III, 8. ** Ibid, I, 12. “I will search Jerusalem with candles.”. 78 Lamentations, III, 38. . *° Ezekiel, XLIV, 4. CT probably for ECCE VIRGO IN UTERO HABEBIT, a quotation taken from the Gospel according to Saint Matthew,80 and not directly from Isaiah,31 as we might expect. Commonly we find the text given to this prophet is ECCE VIRGO CONCIPIET. 41. This panel is entirely occupied with an inscription in Latin, inviting the Apostle Paul to intercede with Our Lord on behalf of Pantaleone, the donor of the doors. ĪPAVLE BEATE PRECES DNO NE FVNDERE CESSES CONSVLE MALFIGENO P(RO) PANTALEONE ROGANDO DVCTVS AMORE TVI QVI PORTAS HAS TIBI STRUXIT ERGO SIBI PER TE RESERETVR JANVA VITAE SVPPLEX ERGO PETIT DOMINO QVI SEMP(ER) ADESTIS HVIC PRECIBVS VESTRIS DS ANNVAT ESSE QUOD ESTIS A free rendering of this would be “O blessed Paul, the praying Pantaleone, Amalfitan Consul, inspired by love for thee, that thou mayest not cease to pour forth prayers to the Lord in his behalf, has caused this door to be built for thee; so shalt thou open the door of life for him. He therefore supplicatingly begs that because of thy prayers, thou who art continually with him, Our Lord may grant that where thou art, he may be.” 42. The Death of Saint Mark. The inscription upon this panel reads 0 A(ylos) MAPKO'O ETANTEAIECTHC EN AAEEANAPIA TEAHOTTE translated "Saint Mark the Evangelist dies in Alexandria”. The artist depicts the saint as partly upon the ground, one executioner about to strike, while another binds his feet with a rope. The Menologiums2 does not describe the manner of the death of Mark further than to say “Led from prison, he dies praying to God”, but it portrays the event showing Mark standing with hands tied behind him, bent over to receive a blow from the sword of the executioner, about to be given. The Breviariuin Romanum | 0 201 $0 Matt., I, 23. 81 Isaiah, VII, 14. 82 In die 10 Maii. Oce also makes no mention whatever of the death of Saint Mark. The Golden Legend83 gives an account of his death as follows: “They assembled all and put a cord about his neck, and after, drew him throughout the city. . . . And the blood ran upon the stones, and his flesh was torn piecemeal that it lay upon the pavement. . . . After this they put him in prison. . . . And on the morn they put the cord about his neck and drew him like as they had done before, and when they had drawn, he thanked God and said: Into thy hands Lord, I commend my spirit, and he, thus saying, died”. The artist, and the Greek Menologium, therefore, in depicting the Saint as slain by the sword, have followed a common tradition which is not known to us, and which a rather careful search has not disclosed. 43. Saint Matthew. O ATIO’MATOAIO'. 44. The Death of Saint Simon. The inscription reads O A(ylos) CIMWN O ZHAOTHC CTATPWOHC TEA- HOTTE, instead of 0 A (rycos) CIMWN O ZHAWTHC CTATPWOEIC TEACIOTTAI, and may be translated, "Saint Simon the Zealot dies by crucifixion”. He is shown as being crucified upon a cross, his feet upon a sup- pedaneum, to which a kneeling man is nailing them. Around his loins, a perizonium. On either side of the scene, a house built of masonry in courses. The cross is placed into a mound of earth, and has three wedges at its base. In thus represent- ing the death of Simon, the artist follows the Greek tradition. In the Menologiung84 we read: “Arrived in Great Britain, nailed to a cross, Saint Simon rendered his spirit to God." The Breviarium Romanum85 affirms “Together with Judas and Thaddeus, Saint Simon illustrated the name of Christ with a glorious martyrdom". The Golden Legends6 likewise states that Simon was crucified upon a cross, but places the event as having taken place in Babylonia. 45. Saint Philip. O A(ylos) QHAHIIIO', instead of QIAIIIIIOC. 46. The Eagle. The presence of this bird in two of the panels may be a compliment to Rome, as the Eagle was used 83 Op. cit., III, p. 134. 84 In die 10 Maii. 85 Lect. in die 28 Octob. "Glorioso martyrio ... Christi nomen illustrarunt”. so Op. cit., VI, .p. 80. 59 NY upon Roman Standards. The Eagle was also part of the insignia of Constantinople. It is also said to have formed a part of the armorial bearing of Pope Alexander IV, and may have been placed there by his orders, or as a compliment to him, if he restored the doors. The bronze in these two panels, however, appears to be of the same general quality as that used in the other panels of the door. 47. The Prophet Jonah. O IIPOO (ÝTOS) IONAC, for IW- NAC. On the scroll of this figure is written CLAMAVI DE TRIBVLATIONE, which refers to the time when Jonah, being in the belly of the whale, says, “I cried by reason of mine afflic- tion unto the Lord”. 87 48. The Prophet Daniel. O IIPOO (GTNS) AANIHA. Upon his scroll we read.CONSTITVET BS CELI REGNVM QUOD ERIT IN AETERNVM, which is intended for CONSTITVET BEATIS COELI REGNVM QVOD ERIT IN AETERNVM. This refers to the prophecies of Daniel88 in which he says "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed”. 49. The Prophet Hezekiah. O IIPOQýrns) HEZEKIAC. Here, as in the case of David, the figure is called a prophet, but is given the regal attributes; the dress of both figures being that which the Greeks had learned from the Persians. On the beautiful eleventh century ivory plaque in the Louvre, which represents Christ crowning the Emperor Romanus, and his wife, Eudoxia, the garments of the royal personages are similar to that worn by Hezekiah in this panel. Here, the prophet is denominated HEZEKIAC for EZEKIAC, while upon his scroll we find a part of the invocation to God made at the time when he was assailed by the Assyrians, “Thou only art the Lord Most High above all Kingdoms”. 89 The Greek is +CT MONOC KE TYHCTOC EIII IIACAIC TAIC RACIAEIAI for CT EI O BEOC MONOC ENII IIACAIC TAIC BACIAEIAIC THC THC. 50. The Cross with the abbreviations IC-XC for IHCOTC XPICTOC, Jesus Christ. 51. Saint Mark. O ATIO' MAPKO'. 52. The Death of Saint Luke. The Saint is lying in a sarcophagus behind which three men are weeping; a fourth 87 Jonah, II, 2. * Daniel, II, 44. Sº II Kings XIX, v. 15. 11 i - 60 man stands near the head, and swings a censer. Under the sarcophagus, the cover lies upon the ground. Like other representations of this class, the panel gives no indication of where the scene is laid. There are no accessories beyond those given. According to tradition, Saint Luke died a peaceful death. This is indicated by the title of the panel O A(los) AOYKAC EN IPHNI TEAEOTTE for O A (ylos) AOTKAC EN EIPHNH TEAEIOTTAI, or "Saint Luke dies in peace'. Concerning Luke, the legend as we find it in the Menologiumso says, “These things being done, in peace he gave his soul to God”. The Ms. under the same date shows a picture of the event. Luke is portrayed upon his bed of death, which is arcaded around the sides as if of masonry. One attendant stands directly at the head, and swings a censer, while two others arrange his knees and feet. In the background rises a church with four domes visible. The Breviarium Romanum makes no mention of the death of this Saint. 53. Saint Simon. O ATIO’CHMWN, for LIMWN. 54. The Death of Saint James. He is shown as kneeling, his hands bound behind him. An executioner stands behind him to the left, about to plunge a knife into his throat. To the right a man stands erect, with his left hand extended toward James, and carrying a rope or cloth in his right. This is supposed to be Herod, who commanded the executioner to kill the saint. This accords with the inscription which reads : O A(los) IAKORWC MAXEPA TIIO HPOAOT TE- AIOTTAI, for 0 A (los) IAKWBOC MAXAIPA TIIO HPWAOT TEACIOTTAI, or "Saint James dies of the sword of Herod”, which follows the current Greek tradition as we find it expressed in the Menologium91 which says that the event occurred in the City of Caesarea in Palestine, and shows a picture of it. Here the executioner seizes the Saint by the hair of the head, and has already accomplished the deed. The Breviarium Romanum92 adds that it was Herod Agrippa who condemned the Saint to death. Clement of Alexandria says he was beheaded, and this tradition is preserved by Euse- bius. According to Hegesippus, however, he was thrown down sv In die 18 Octob. "1 In die 15 Novemb. "2 Lect. in die 25 Jul. from the Temple, then stoned, and his brains dashed out by a fuller's club.93 In addition to the inscriptions contained in the panels of the doors, already given, there were in 1815 two others. These were placed upon the frames of the panels. One was in zone II between panels 12 and 13, and the other was in zone V between panels 38 and 39. The first of these inscriptions was in two languages, Greek and probably Syriac: According to Nicolai, it reads, with the abbreviations filled out, as follows: + ΕΚΑΜΨΘΗ ΧΕΙΡΙ ΕΜΟΥ CΤΑΥΡΑΚΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ XY- ΤΟΥ ΟΙ ΑΝΑΓINOCKONTEC ΕΥΧΕCΘΕ ΚΑΙ ΥΠΕΡ EMOT, which may be translated “This work is done by my hand, Staurachios, the metal caster; you who read, pray also for me”. The Syriac inscription has been read "Staurachios of Scione worked on this door for the glory of God. All who read ought to pray for him”. A careful search on the frames of the door in their present ruined condition, has failed to reveal a trace, either of this inscription, or the one in zone V, and we are compelled to depend entirely on Nicolai and D’Agin- court for the correctness with which they are rendered. It is quite probable, however, that in a work of the magnitude of the door the artist would place some such inscription upon it as the one given. The inscription in zone V is in Latin, and presents a somewhat different problem. It reads: ANNO MILLESIMO SEPTVAGESIMO AB INCARNATIONE DNI TEMPORIBVS DNI ALEXANDRI SANCTISSIMI PP QVARTI ET DNI ILDEPRAN- -DI VENERABILI MONACHI ET ARCHDIACONI CONSTRUCTE SVNT PORTE ISTE IN REGIA VRBE CONP ADIVVANTE DNO PANTALEONE CONSVLI QVI ILLE FIERI IVSSIT This inscription says, briefly, that the doors were made in the year 1070 at the time of Pope Alexander IV and the Monk and Arch-Deacon Hildebrand, in the City of Constan- tinople, by order of Pantaleone. Now Alexander occupied the Papal throne between 1254 and 1261, over a hundred and fifty years after the time of Pantaleone and Hildebrand, and 93 Cf. SMITH, Dict. of the Bible, p. 427. 62 much discussion has taken place over the anachronism. Baronius, who may not have seen the door, contents him- self with saying that Alexander II was intended instead of Alexander IV; the doors having been made in the reign of the first named pontiff. Baronius94 virtually puts the blame upon Staurachios. It will be noted that after the name of Alexander the roman numerals, IV, are not used, but the word QVARTI is spelled in full. Is this an error which is likely to have been made by the artist of the doors, and if made, would it have been allowed to remain by Alexander II or Hildebrand? Both of these must have often seen the door, to say nothing of thousands of pilgrims and worshippers. The inscription' must either have been placed there by the artist, and allowed to remain uncorrected, or otherwise be a subsequent addition. Ugonius,95 in referring to it, says: “Not only is the name of Alexander IV upon the door, but also below, his arms, (the Eagle), for he was of the noble house of Conti. I do not know how to reconcile this disagreement, if not by say- ing that Alexander IV restored the door”. This however, would be ascribing to the Pope, or those having in charge the work, an ignorance and carelessness we may not attribute to them. If there was sufficient interest in the door to cause it to be restored, we may be certain the interest would extend to the point of a correct inscription; for we cannot believe that the monks of the Abbey at that period would permit such an anachronism, when Pope Alexander IV was still on the throne and Hildebrand and Pantaleone had been in their graves for a century and a half. Severano96 repeats the view of Ugonius. Other writers have held that it was a palpable imposture placed upon the door some time posterior to the thirteenth century. It may be that no such deception was intended, but that at some later date than the time of Alex- ander IV, the door needing repairs, the inscription was added. It is possible that an error was made confusing Pope Alexander II, under whom the door was made, with Pope Alexander IV, who repaired it. All of the persons being then dead, and the correct stating of the facts then not so 94 Op. cit. Ann. 1070. 35 UGONIUS, Historia Stationun Romae, p. 235. 08 SEVERANO, Le Sette Chiese di Ronza, p. 396. 16 important, many of the monks themselves perhaps not know- irig any better, the inscription was allowed to stand. The question as to why the inscription should have been allowed upon the door at all, is a difficult one. The reply which most readily suggests itself is, that it may have been engraved in addition to the large inscription, to impress the history of the door upon those who examined it. The idea that it may have been placed there in the time of either Hilde- brand, or Pope Alexander IV, is untenable.97 of Cf. PAUL SCHEFFER-BOICHORST, Historische Studien, Heft XXXII, D. 158, Berlin 1903, who refers to this inscription in an interesting way. APPENDIX BRONZE DOORS IN ITALY OF THE CLASSICAL MEDIAEVAL AND RENAISSANCE PERIODS. AMALFI CATHEDRAL 1. Main entrance. Made in Constantinople about 1065. ATRANI CHURCH OF SAN SALVATORE 2. Main entrance. Made in Constantinople in 1087. BENEVENTO CATHEDRAL 3. Main entrance. 1150-1200. CANOSA MAUSOLEUM OF BOHEMUND 4. Work of Rogerius of Melfi- or Amalfi. Early XII. century. FLORENCE BAPTISTERY 5. First door. Work of Andrea Pisano, 1130. 6. Second door. Work of Lorenzo Ghiberti, 1403-1424. 7. Third door. Work of Lorenzo Ghiberti, 1425-1452. CATHEDRAL 8. Entrance to Sacristy. Work of Luca della Robbia and Michelozzo, 1446-1467. CHURCH OF SAN LORENZO 9-10. In Sacristy. Two doors, work of Donatello, 1440- 1443. LORETO CHURCH OF THE SANTA CASA II-13. West front. Three doors executed by Antonio Calcagni, Girolamo Lombardi and his three sons, Pietro, Paolo, and Giacomo, and Tiburzio Vergelli, 1590-1610. IN THE SANTA CASA proper. 14-17. Four doors, executed by Girolamo Solari, Ludovico and Tiburzio Vergelli, and Antonio Calcagni, 1568- 1576. MONREALE CATHEDRAL 18. Main entrance. Work of Bonannus, late XII century. 19. Side entrance. Work of Barisanus of Trani, 1186- I 190. 65 MONTE CASSINO ABBEY CHURCH 20. Main entrance. XI and XII centuries. MONTE SANT ANGELO GROTTO CHURCH OF SAN MICHELE 21. Main entrance. Made in Constantinople in 1076. NAPLES CASTELNUOVO 27. others, 1462-1468. CATHEDRAL 23. Cappella Carafa, work of Tommaso Sumalvito, ..:;1503. PALERMO CAPPELLA PALATINA 24-25. Entrance to Sacristy, two doors, XII century. PISA CATHEDRAL 26. Entrance to south transept. Work of Bonannus of Pisa, late XII century. West front. Main entrance. Work of Giovanni Caccini, Pietro Francavilla, Gaspare Mola, and Angelo Serani. 28. Entrance to north aisle. Work of Ansi Tedesco, Pietro Tacca, Giovanni Catesi, Pietro Francavilla, and Francesco della Bella. 29. Entrance to south aisle. Work of Gregorio Pagani, Pietro Francavilla, and Gaspare Mola. The general design for the three latter doors was made by Rafaello Pagni, and the work executed about 1600. RAVELLO CATHEDRAL 30. Main entrance. Work of Barisanus of Trani, 1179. ROME 31. Church of SS. Cosma and Damiano. Formerly in the Heroön Romuli. Executed by order of Maxen- tius, 306-312. LATERAN BAPTISTERY 32. Cappella San Giovanni Battista. Made under Pope Hilarius, 461-468. 33. Cappella San Giovanni Evangelista. Work of Uberto and his brother Pietro, of Piacenza, 1196. LATERAN BASILICA 34. Main entrance. Formerly in the Curia, or Senate- house date uncertain, possibly first or second century. 35. Work of Uberto and Pietro of Piacenza, 1196. 66 PANTHEON 36. Main entrance. Made probably in the XVI century. CAPPELLA SANCTA SANCTORUM 37. Side entrance. Date uncertain, possibly of classical origin. 38. In the altar of the Oratory. Made in the time of Innocent III, 1198-1216. BASILICA OF SAN PAOLO FUORI LE MURA 39. On view in Museum, formerly at main entrance. Cast in Constantinople by Staurachios in 1070. CHURCH OF SAN PIETRO IN VINCOLI 40. Door of the reliquary containing the chains of Saint Peter. Made by Caradosso, 1477. BASILICA OF SAN PIETRO IN VATICANO 41. Main entrance. Work of Antonio Averlino il Fil- arete, 1445. VATICAN PALACE 42. Entrance to the Scala Regia, executed in 1619. SALERNO CATHEDRAL 43. Main entrance. Made in Constantinople, 1099. SAN CLEMENTE A CASAURIA. (Abruzzi) 44. Main entrance of Abbey church. End of XII century. CATHEDRAL 45-46. Passage between north aisle and the Libreria. Two doors, the work of Antonius Ormanni, 1497. 47. Entrance to the Cappella del Voto, 1680. TRANI CATHEDRAL 48. Main entrance. Work of Barisanus of Trani, 1160. TROJA CATHEDRAL -49. Main entrance. Work of Oderisius Berardus, 1119. 50. Side entrance. Made in 1127. VENICE CATHEDRAL OF SAN MARCO 51-55. Five doors to the narthex. One of these is not at present arranged to open. Their date is uncer- tain. The central door is perhaps of the XII or XIV century; and the others somewhat later. 56. Entrance to the south aisle from atrium. Probably of the X or XI century, and made in Constantinople. 57. Entrance to the nave from atrium; probably early XII century. 58-59. Entrance to the north aisle and to the north tran- sept from atrium. The date of these two doors is uncertain, but probahly that of the early renaissance. 60-61. In the Cappella Zeno. The doors, work of Pietro Campanato and others, XVI century. 67 62. :: In the Baptistery, a door of uncertain date. 63. In the Cappella San Isidoro, a door of uncertain date. 64. In the Presbytery. Work of Jacopo Sansovino, 1546-1566. VERONA CHURCH OF SAN ZENO 65. Main entrance. Executed in the XI and XII cen- turies. SMALL DOORS (SPORTELLI) ORENCE 66. National Museum. Vicenzo Danti. 67. Church of S. Egidio. Donatello. PADUA 68. Altar in San Antonio. Donatello. 69. Presbytery. Carlo Mazza. PERUGIA 70. Altar in San Paolo. Style of Mino da Fiesole. PRATO 71. Capella della Cintola. Tommaso di Bartolomeo. ROME 72. San Pierto, Confessio. Bernini. SIENA 73. Baptistery, Font. Giovanni di Turino. VENICE 74. Academy. Donatello. San Marco, altar, north transept. Tullio Lom- bardo. 76. Loggetta, at foot of Campanile. Antonio Gaj. 75. San ; OUTSIDE OF ITALY LONDON 77. British Museum, formerly at Fiesole. Ferucci. To renew the charge, book must be brought to the desk. TAS TO . - . DO NOT RETURN BOOKS ON SUNDAY DATE DUE SILA . 3 . OEU o s Pas mu mara a mbili na maana aliment upertation AN . carlin P . * - masomo ya samoon.am. .. ... . " . . e . sowie einen toimit ... io. unc PA ) . kivet Masini la ? 7. 2.siolnet . - - S, JA - - - MAY 1-3.1975 ITI .. " boere indonesia . . pas . JUN 15-1991- Wik We membnowe ..--. Tremolo que todo ... . Oriboomwort: M em *56.-) ::: MAR 13.8 1983. i m . .-7.9. . . . 2 .. . Alles IN : Pin . . . . . 8. 7 . 15 . PY! AS AR15 Form 7079a 5-53 5M S A . . . . . ra . . .. RSS ! WO . 3.2 . . . . . .- 与作用 ​F ** 一 ​号 ​“ . ” - - - -- 台 ​- - - - -- - - ft - : : - -- Air 」 ", - #4 - - -- P "" . "" "" . .- pi - "" -- : ... PH " - . " + ", - : , ", : " : .. *-*- :** : - 台 ​i it #一 ​. .. 中 ​- * - ' t l4Hr -" + " 7世​''' " . illi cr. 1 ht- “ * . … 1 - * * . : . 4 :4 . ”、 中华 ​. “中中 ​* 1 ”。于 ​- - ** , - A - - - - . " ... : . ... . . . . . … …. . - 1 + . - .. . t .. * * * . * * * . " : "{ l : irst, it . 'y' . -f t业申d t " -r tr .., . . . f' " righe r .. . - .: ,一下​, --: " 4 . , . f . = r | i- 中 ​' “ . , ,”中单T , , , . 身 ​.....ii443 .**... 程中 ​: .. 」 " “ 人 ​, ” “ .. . . " , 上 ​“ 于 ​, 出 ​. 」 + :. + + + + . 单击​“A, , ,11-1事 ​.* IP 中​, : . . . . . '', 产业​, :. . " , 生 ​了 ​..... .l": " ", ". . . 1 | 中 ​. "titi . . : :::華​( "Ter :::: : . -14 .. , . . -- 」 .. ” 一步一步 ​u ,, ….. . . . 注 ​HA , 年 ​。 品需求 ​, 是 ​! 中药 ​七​: * 中事了​! :: · 計 ​, , * . ** , 1 , :* . * : , t : * ” . .. ** . 务 ​, 4 * ' * 'r . f 中 ​" i : . . :: :..... : 一 ​: . · , F11 . “ . . ” .. " 14: “是​。 ,高中生 ​: : : * 4 14章​: 15, : … *本P4 “ . , . r ::: " 5 : : 4 . . 1 h 」 " . 前 ​, * ” * "t, ,, : * : tr . 的​, { 事 ​-.. · 多 ​, · ", ; “ r * 1 本 ​. 1 . .. . .. : ** ! fi ': ; ... + ' ', + . ,, ... . || **、: .Li ., it , 在中 ​*f. * L 1. * 「 ; . y -- 11, | + , { . 1 单 ​十 ​- ht “ - - . . ** 青青 ​*. s.. f. # + . ... : : i , 1. # : :: - 中​. 、 : ” . ; . 计 ​. ' '. ::: 中 ​- l ; A、 " l. “ 音 ​.. : . 車​, *.. . . - T Fw: fr , 中 ​. : ” : “. ·一​: *了​,。 . : 。 . rt, (3 . ... * : {: 出 ​i. , 年 ​在一 ​.:: . . 下一 ​; : : “ . . : * :: it .* * * :、. . - - . . .… … … 人 ​: '.. : . . ... } . . . : . 1 NINI III. LIT 111 III JUIN LILIT 1 INT LI TITULLI 1 11 E JUL LI TIL 1 UL II IN . III III NI TIT LUL UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 3 9015 01681 1732 1 11 LIIT II HII 1 LI III III THI JU III TULUI . II 11 . - . 1. 71, . . .. - ... . ! I . 1. ! . " - .. : rir - '. : .. - - - . 4 ) RI? . ► mer . ! . . . . ... '. 11 .. III. - . . • - - - - - . . . . . . + . . . : .. . . + + + + . + . + . + + + * . X . . * . * : : . . + 1. . . - . . . " . . E . . - . . .1 fa.... . 1 . 1 * L * * + . + ht . + - +#1S.HT . . . . . * . * . ' . T . 20 . 4 . : . . . + - - - + 1 - dri It . + ! + . . ** . . - .. - . . . ..1 . . .. . I. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . : : *+ --+ F T . . *11 . - . ISAYAS *. . . . - -- - + + - + + -- - + - + + - + - - + - + - + * + * + + . . . 1 1 - - • ATH 'Nini . . . . " + y " . + + + + + - + - . .-.. * - - . - - - . y 4 + - + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + ++ + .* ET . + Y L + . P ET . + + . - + * ! + IV + . + + + + + . + + + + + + + . + . + N O + N T * + * * + + + * - + # . * . . ** - * . * * * * - . - . * . - . . +-- *. . . * * . + . - . . + + * . . . * . . . . . + . + . . ! # . . {ti. + . . + Y . . * i . . . +++ * * - * * . . . . . . * * * . * . ++ - - .- t - Tr - + 7 T + + + . . . +NA + .. I R O + - V E R + F . ++. MT . # . . . . . . 4.- 3 . S * + + . - S + + + 1 + +- + + . - - . - - - - - - ... + + 7 + + L - V - * - : : . 「. 4 . " " "" , . . Fi, 1 : 一 ​r t.1 : 1 / Jr.r 青 ​' . " : , . "ite if the 1* . : : . * * . 1 . : - - - .. i "" . 4: ** * f1 -*- * 主 ​“鲁事 ​- "; . . - . 14.dll ** sit 4.本行 ​- 14-11 : freil- - -- . 17.1 赴​:1.rt- 11 Thrif' - 一方​.4本非非 ​a 再争中 ​" ,严重​,串串 ​* Tif": - J. 1. tty in: 1. " # " * : - - "" /-- *-**- fli** 鲁​,鲁鲁- ​/4,114中1y #tr ---PHfy-P11 . 1 F -TFTP 「 #. 本書是一 ​*. rth y 學​" = P->E , 'h ; *-* Frui.it * - 鲁Pref '+* 14 , *-* 西甲​- L 串串中1-iii:: "f14里​! . I- ' ” ” 世上 ​r, f " al It ; 基 ​; Hi, … ., • afferry, 单 ​學 ​-19ELF,生lf.i 生 ​會 ​- 华中 ​- 書中自带 ​"u ": " , “* * ** * r4 : { erferry - * * - - - - - - - 年度​: 1411f - 香​」 人生当头 ​- 本書​- 4# 年 ​4 1ff44 ” 年 ​" 替 ​平 ​-- , - -- 本書 ​| 4k" tars, * | - - ·中try-主主 ​- - +" = " **上十一串串​- 中华 ​- + -+单 ​曲​, 卡鲁 ​鲁 ​事由​:非非中字下​”。“里4.41售中 ​- - 1 , 手串 ​¥ 11:11 ##自重生了 ​事​: 11 - 香 ​It'中中中中中中中中 ​春生十生 ​. 是 ​上身中 ​14:41中 ​年 ​.4 - 士事争中​-4941F4,1,11ff - 查中中中中1 16:董事​: # 1 444-41464 144*1. 1萬 ​l h ** -- 4 : ” “ ” 1 手 ​, ” - - - --华中 ​售屋​!” , . - 其一​: 三事​: t94 - -4 14: itle :: : 1* - 一 ​"# = 生产​= 单 ​是一產​, 三 ​:要事事 ​xf11年中华中​+ - - } - - -非 ​善r 。 海419441/ 14 111 1 ..Fr-firs thr - 星 ​** 上 ​中共企事​; , * :单 ​114}; t! 114 1 - ITX1和i-1 p1 -- 作业​。 :: 4.textenia # t***4 44-4y + + ; + LIFE. 444.414 + + + ++ :: traish 于 ​上是一番了事​? - "查是本中 ​。 由 ​江 ​中 ​, 4 #HKF 中一學生事务中產生 ​非事业单曲串4+Lil 中非重工 ​一半​,一半中學​--中华人 ​學生中​, 是 ​“一带一 ​1事事​, 一件单中​。 : #单曲 ​4,44 1.44 重量 ​1941年香​! !! 人 ​24 主管​: 14学生在 ​·1 事 ​事書 ​# : 44 “. 本报 ​高些​。 : 事事有利于书中自 ​1154 tforth 到 ​” 中 ​」 广中中中中中 ​- - 功于中 ​12 在手中 ​中中中中 ​# 車11 - 14:排華事​# - 重 ​-14 年才在中 ​F11:14 . 自帶​「I: 此 ​. - 一个人​, , . 等 ​. 中文平等​” 是 ​的是 ​, ,, 17. , --en- 4 . 4 量身 ​=.. 售 ​里 ​华社 ​中 ​-- 11 事 ​「世 ​, 主要 ​- 1 主 ​是 ​: “ 这些事 ​车 ​一事​。 我 ​; - * 4 - 在中学 ​- * 号 ​- 1 - *1 量 ​小史 ​4播 ​作響​, 学生上看 ​= , 事实上 ​其 ​“ " 一中街一中学 ​, 4 「 ¥ 可 ​* 生在 ​, 出 ​* 中中1 关注4, tis 中華書​。 1.”其实​, * “十三​…. 非正常工作​;事中事事 ​學生中​,有山作者 ​1. 上 ​- 上一下​, 本 ​HIE : : : 更是 ​*11 : 44:11ptt业生在日本 ​- * 事事​; 第二 ​proUNNY 一 ​**, 到了一本書是一本書 ​我国是一头中特 ​MAIL/ 型升到了 ​事業 ​律 ​- - shi- 4是一量事 ​善事 ​世事​」 -一堂 ​F鲁鲁 ​查學者 ​..-卡鲁一中一 ​, 年11 " = = “若是第一步​:上学​, 一 ​查 ​得學 ​个单身羊r. 會會員 ​二十一世纪​,d4“学上学 ​。 , 」 - - 是 ​, 青 ​“ 中中 ​中 ​中​:争ri , 中出 ​学生建立 ​體​,事​。鲁 ​年11 鲁一鲁 ​|理学中是非争者中 ​鲁一鲁鲁兽争建​「非 ​是学校文本 ​, “仁者 ​- 本 ​子 ​FE,事事會事​。? ,一是看看 ​, 。 里​,,一些学車鲁一​,連工作 ​車 ​,佳名普鲁一鲁 ​也不是第一人 ​一中学化学与分​中小學生中出 ​-AAF- 學會​, 北事业单學​-普普 ​中​,世事中​, 单身上學到了一二事中事单​!-中青年 ​事事事​, 事事业 ​中学​-in中的事情 ​(11里有 ​,当 ​ますが​、 ,自由自在曲目​,鲁鲁一鲁​,鲁鲁普 ​上任1人 ​事 ​, , 「非正手​「 上車​」 一事 ​“''非事事​, 事實事實事实上是是是非非​, 南非世學會常一样坐在鲁特种兽刺青​,非事事非事事者有 ​,事事 ​,中车 ​| 重事 ​事 ​本無 ​意 ​, 青在 ​作者​: 事鲁鲁d -- 中 ​导 ​一中​。 ,青青草​-中畢量 ​”,書1擇​,量 ​體​」帶學畢量事非非​“ 有鲁事非事事會由華書畫學會理事會事单单单单单是學非一华​”非新事​」本事​”争一哥華爭一學青了​那是一套​!」看 ​「 一事 ​,鲁鲁 ​三一學畢m th: 4:非常单畫 ​自學自傳 ​,事事中事​,一个​'T '世界第一座​「 奪 ​出​! 中学中学生中学生中考群里有个中学生生世世etty 4 ·,是一普普 ​中 ​」,是​「 第 ​十一了事​,事事中​,主要看重​“是是是是单单是 ​书本身其中的TFT,注重学年学 ​生中​- 在他手中中中中中中T-MITH TH17学年 ​! - 华​-佛事增j * AP普華 ​| 事 ​了 ​业導 ​,由中 ​1115 年 ​者​: 业 ​制作​,基本是同事帶上車非常棒的事业单中非事事中事件中​,一排 ​事情是普車​,在車無事管单萬多晶手下当事时​時事​,骨是事事 ​」中国曲曲能畢​| Fa司 ​雪中市 ​1 -国产華哥​」事事看到​#4 ,口中一直声​」掌​! F = 1! 青e'单单是作​基​」動學中一中单再​+ ., - 」,「 1,44事​,事事​,哲基 ​一中​」「 4 TY Trif, 中华上身 ​" di-1] E 11 中轉車直​'t 1F ', ' 事 ​- , 是 ​- 非 ​等​,T型上 ​- ! 我是学場​! 中​,世事中事情 ​,事事事争 ​了 ​一个兽背書一事中事件​事事非是事實​,每个单单单单单是在事奉行車車音串​·世中是曲是事情​,一直到鲁中華 ​」是由产清​學聯事中事由是 ​- 事事PPE一半单身可单单单是一种奉上連串事判售中学中学备11: Tiff: 单身情​,事事全車​+清单​,单非​,单非​,在单单单单单样本 ​#fit :意华rt 1”事​:一是鲁中华車​,對車​***** 中国学生​! - tilipt事事​, 事事略 ​:一到多事情非同一学科中华4 PF ,"P":事​,事事业rf中​。, 一个整体的重要事事单个事ity 中古 ​ji If y對學生的事中事會​」,事實​,非单单单单单一共普普鲁 ​中 ​国音堂​.争主导产​:青​! #手​- 普普​,“群青​:「學申請者也 ​一是本書是 ​能在 ​一学一直是一劑量華种产量产了​! 十鲁半 ​青島市​, i, 書是學會理事會幹事學學會學書會 ​中華普​, 華基督串​”,事事學學青華學士​""出​,与中學​,是​.t下車​, 是手中​! 中學學會 ​「是 ​。」 學4 董事會主 ​「 學性​”里去了​,牛排得非軍事 ​時事奉 ​青青子 ​| 斗争​,自是​,在中国​,单击事​! | TT 44 學費事事件串串串串自律争斗争​, 是 ​料事事争​” 中毒事事重于带​单单单单声卡​,十一​,主​,中學了​,学生学普一生事业单 ​, 一事​,準​;部举學畢鲁由本是单单单单是​“” “ 一事情事​,主持人​「 在學生​,學生找到了工作 ​,,, "i… 目​,事是一事​:「事中事件管串串行車車型背f: 中 ​介事地學者峰會​」 ,1 中国科学普鲁鲁​,鲁唱​申单​; 事事中​,单身動車学生到非洲鲁鲁​,鲁鲁兽争中北部自 ​一一一一一一一一 ​鲁举鲁​;; 非晶華重鲁鲁鲁鲁​..一看 ​春​”青年​”:事事​,一事​,不管是单单单FF 平考得上是​「”,,, - 車主 ​?! :車事件​,单 ​一事​,, 有 ​"事實​」 单单单单世事中事​!畢書等事中事一​,Ai 年1-1-4年中华 ​軍事事學群 ​r - 華 ​,事事 ​,:*事 ​中学 ​;事 ​非事中學​:學 ​- 鲁中青年事事件41 ,有一半​, 对 ​上 ​鲁鲁基本 ​量非是事者​”单身青一单​”,售产业单一本書學會青年​」本 ​- 彝​· 臺中年轟轟​「書畫作售量更是目斗争单量小學鲁番自导式是​,学生考事件​, 事奉學 ​F1 雷声青曲 ​学生事 ​」 中學 ​4:14 加為是有事​,作者​: 鲁 ​”了​! 中學 ​- 看一看會電子書着普普鲁型 ​- 」 , 事业上市​,,,,,, 並非事事學堂中青​”三者 ​IMATT4于当事 ​,年产量​: , -特鲁是一本非出于非是H!牛車​,1車中​_Pt”,。 --” ” , ” 线作主 ​”, ”中 ​, 11-14:4 事 ​11=1;=., T'事​,于 ​」 |- 事中​, 1岸一中 ​年​,鲁​“得​+ 主角​,車​.中事​,事事​」.. 11 4 , 並非 ​:当 ​事中和事业单​“鲁特作用​增量​」等 ​:學者一律r #一戰中基事业中学​,事事申料理单科普鲁​”!一書得書有得到科学​,中学董事​。」, 事 ​洲 ​情世事的 ​AF -- - 事 ​了 ​,“ 是是非非 ​”;青青 ​:!!!有一件事情​,非要争斗​;'等事看清中學生會 ​學是學​,單​,更出事​,由主甲​: 年年​;4单​+节里​,曲声​;当 ​「雪聖事​。", 争斗兽争青学​,本事事件事 ​:::,:*青​.”:事事事​,事事件​, 事中​,争产事​,事事​,非爭和平轉再轉鲁特普鲁鲁兽 ​i畢書​, - 星島非島​:" , "a” 一事​"。 」,自中學學生事业和重量​。車峰高量 ​平平會重鲁鲁等等​,非善非善學者具 ​wbr」, 會中學​,華平貴​。”“群馬一帶量​, 单 ​单是举重量​/體事實學​」一事​,本書對警​摩​」出 ​了事​",是電得一看​,草​,野兽 ​争​,一舉主生产​, 可是事事事​单单是一種 ​「情書 ​」, 引导 ​学 ​生 ​「型TP,, ,,,”1 ”售香港 ​事奉​--書畫​,書​!: : 青春​,曾事件​”看到​, 鲁鲁​,鲁鲁一鲁​霍普鲁鲁華華​」 看 ​-单单单单单由考 ​。中 ​華學學會​- 學 ​會​! F爭帶書和Insio 會​」 ,由學者一些更善事學會​- -- 一上車​,至11 三星​! 鲁鲁鲁一鲁 ​: 事實是​,鲁事​」產學是學非考量​,畢e華華​”“ 「 事 ​青青一个一​”,鲁鲁​,鲁鲁卡車​/普里 ​看看中 ​鲁鲁舊事重鲁鲁​,鲁鲁带情事 ​鲁 ​一帶​, 鞋帶車考量鬥爭學學生事业单也是母​/青山華車有事​,看看第一學年普牛率​,鲁鲁​,鲁南一一一一一串串學會​, 霍華​:一是​“毒​!"帶出春一中​”鲁 ​) = " F1 鲁鲁兽幸单量畫書計鲁鲁鲁​,到華管理​, 一是普普​, 華美學者 ​":"],,, -FF14-11- ,,看看是自由體育 ​鲁鲁鲁鲁鲁兽争壁垒​,A4普雷事​」 13 一量 ​量 ​单鲁鲁在學學产量一量是一首​, 11 ” 等 ​事 ​, 單​, 畫里會帶一鲁鲁​,鲁 ​鲁鲁​, 鲁鲁鲁 ​|- 鲁​, 鲁鲁兽 ​争 ​" li争 ​,書​, 書 ​香事書套​/書體​, 是集​!「中華4 星pl ------非排 ​華 ​事的人​」,,, ,有​” ” 非 ​事事書爭​| 单身于 ​. ..,普上​」,且​, 是​"量​,帶有主​」-「考生 ​= " 里了 ​,鲁一鲁​,事事看了 ​, , , , 鲁鲁兽争与华是更重華為P聞 ​學生會指导​,一年下車​,再​1. 對學生​,一上學的事件​。 -- ”, 星 ​看看书​学着​“}鲁巴鲁​。三是严 ​” ,是 ​非非看看 ​,是李 ​· 1 P备學​/學 ​,華​-----青青草了事​,事事重重​/ 重 ​量 ​, 一声声​」戰鬥重量​: 1., 事情是事實​。 」學生产​,学​,鲁鲁​,"f争在世上學​,是普卡​」 一是普普到中 ​, , 事事件是中學​+自有产量是普​”在是​: 单单单是单单单单是在于其量學争中争世​- 单曲 ​- 鲁 ​中是非争中​,普車4 生 ​于广工作​,多位一样​, 一建​“一事一一一一一一上看 ​青二事业 ​《秦中​。 … 本事者 ​畢書1.1"事事非事售 ​,本事不是其他一身​-高中​、中山 ​車身型重 ​”“ 里子畢青春拳學會考中學會 ​- 」 車 ​型 ​學 ​生产中 ​PLSE #L'” 型中中中中中中​」「他學中是一种多年 ​2.T 鲁車​」遭警事中事事非事事​,看到一打非 ​非​"1章​: iP' 部 ​9 ,。」普鲁吉普 ​查查事是老本 ​由​- | 體型 ​考量音事工事 ​看鲁鲁​”! 會 ​, h一下得了手背 ​上​” ” 是​,中 ​事實上​,自動控一十七中学董事會 ​共中上是一个单了事件事​」! - 普車 ​- 一个非常特 ​4. 一 ​一一 ​一一一找了其中一中 ​- 等 ​。 ,事事中再单单是在普鲁当事主管 ​重后 ​事 ​一 ​導 ​i H - - - - - - - - -- - 考生手中争斗中击中​, 为全面建全产业中学​: :中华中中中 ​ r" 目是一个2.4 一声一声 ​* * ' 对于 ​, 11 - 14 情 ​21 - -- - - 年​, 是一 ​。 使 ​但是一年一 ​, 小學作 ​, , __ */ 「中 ​看​, ” : _ 。 , : . - - - Tif - “三 ​第 ​TAIL. 「 - - 了​! h (17) - +A . IP: ht - 于是 ​** 一个 ​| -- 11 * , , 十一​" 一 ​1 . . T 「 其中一 ​htt . ht 中 ​= 中 ​TH ALL、 III , 1. 1 中 ​14 41 " 。 7 , 4 , 11 中一 ​_ _ III : 1 十月 ​A 任 ​重量 ​, 等 ​ht, * LL 中 ​上 ​- 一 ​- 1- LE ” 区 ​( 出的是​, 上 ​十 ​本書​,是 ​i A: 善 ​平 ​。 上一章 ​ntv wk 主管 ​一下​。 ** - 14: 文中 ​「 , - JF L 上 ​- ALL 14 一 ​。 1. 1 , I . that - . ” * 在上 ​一 ​, 重生 ​11... 上 ​L1 : , 。 中 ​十一 ​: --- 了 ​- , , | 在 ​产 ​其 ​-中 ​年​, - 、 事 ​. 小S 一 ​- - - 及 ​地街 ​” 1 - pr 1 A t - - - 一 ​US --- * rm 」 - - , : 。 -- 1 「 - - . } ! 广 ​. { . 了​。 - - - - - * * - * ( 十二 ​* , 事 ​ITT - - 11月 ​* 合影​。 fi - - - L 1 } , V it , - . T - i , | A 重 ​。 上 ​1. 十一 ​1 + 是要 ​产 ​{ : - + - 等 ​收 ​72 LIF . 里了 ​111人​, 一是在 ​1 。 . , T_ 1 . 4 1 一 ​產生​, - 141 11 . 七 ​LIA . 一 ​小古 ​、 注 ​- ) * # 的窝 ​T: * 1 1号 ​L | 1 n、 T 畫 ​rrrt天 ​. 世 ​十字 ​* -- * ** 1 * 1 上 ​1 - 1 了 ​, 。 II HT 众女星 ​. INT 一个单 ​Aki 中售​.. . ATA . SHI | . “} 一步 ​· : 一个 ​7K7K? 5 ALLA | ft 1名 ​4 { 十 ​" , L -- 中文 ​- | 中心 ​青 ​、 TA 生​, : : : LL 一 ​