( ARCfllTrCTV! IN ITALY i (•Rori WW .SIX' ;: LLIVf:: NTH THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES n ^{t ©fUS til ^ ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY I Si ^ I ^N ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY FROM THE SIXTH TO THE ELEVENTH CENTURY If^istovical anb Critical IRescavcbcs BV RAFFAELE CATTANEO TRANSLATED BV THE CONTESSA ISABEL CURl IS-CHOLMELEY IN BERMANI ILLUSTRATED T. FISHER UNWIN M DCCC XCVI AU rif/lits rpgerved, Art Library HI'S PREFACE. ROM the time that 1 lirst set myself in my youth, ten years ago, to study the written history of Art, I was deeply impressed l)y the enormous lacuna or lagoon that 1 found hetween the sixth and eleventh centuries in Italy, and by the diversity of opinion on the subject of that obscure and barbarous period and tlie Art that it produced. Led by a natural inclination to study the most obscure and recondite questions, I was impelled to devote myself to that field of research, and endeavour, if possible, to throw new light on the subject. Without that ingenuous boldness which youth gives, my project would undoubtedly have ended in smoke as soon as I was able to recognise its presumption ; on the contrary, the desire to prosecute it took deep root, and grew into a strong passion. My other studies, my limited resources at that time, were not of a nature to help me in so arduous a task ; yet my ideal remained ever present with me, leading me on, without respite, to increase my little store of knowledge, driving, nay sometimes dragging me, half passive, to search greedily among manuscripts to copy designs, to purchase required photographs. At last came propitious opportunities and the means of frequently leaving my home to travel, to study near my monuments, to touch them with my own hands ! A large field for observation and comparison then opened up to me, and some personal discoveries, and the too-frequent blunders which I met with in certain writers, gave me confidence and courage, and I began to reason for myself. 11^85:^1 I could not if I would narrate the slow metamorphosis that the old notions derived from hooks underwent in my brain. Ideas, In^iotheses, old and new arguments, faced each other for the first time and did not agree. Very seldom did wisdom and prudence temper their excesses and induce them to calm discus- sion which might end in fraternal harmony, for mostly they insulted one another and violently squabbled in their contest for the crown : tlie old ones proiid of their venerable age and authoritative paternity, the others haughty and strong in their freshness of youth. It was a see-saw of alternate \ictories and losses; but very often the ancients were compelled to go limping out of the field amid the jeers of their prepotent rivals. Yet even these last could not always win the esteem and sympathy of their com- panions ; so that they also sometimes came to fisticuft's, accusing one another of being systematic, vague, prejudiced, or pedantic, severe and full of affectation ; and hence, among these also, sacrifices, humiliations, or exile. And harmony could never have followed if criticism and facts had not come before me which settled the question, and shed light where all had been thick darkness. But this help did not come as quickly as I would have wished ; and thus even two years ago my researches and con- clusions were far from being complete, and of that I became conscious precisely when the Cavaliere Ongania proposed that I should undertake to write the architectonic history of the Basilica of S. Mark at Venice for his sumj^tuous publication on that wonderful monument. By revealing itself to me in all its importance, the Basilica impressed me with a clear idea of the difliculty of my work ; by degrees, as I continued to examine it with increasing patience and loving care, I discovered how many features it contained undisclosed, obscure and incomprehensible to my sight ; how large a part it occupied in the history of Art in the barbarous ages, and how much study it must claim from one who fain would be its interpreter. Vainly I called the results of my past studies to my aid in unveiling the mystery of its con- struction and transformations ; but I Avas not discouragorl liv this. Love for the delightful Basilica upheld me, strengthened the old passion in me, and in that did I find impulse and vigour enough for the perfecting of those studies which I now present to the reader. I hasten to pul)lish them before the appearance of my work on S. Mark, because, in default of knowing the general re- sults of my researches, the reader would l^e in danger of ]iot understanding sufficiently the importance of the Basilica, and the language I adopt in describing its various parts. The pul)lication on S. Mark's Church has therefore hastened that of the present work, and that must be my excuse with the lienevolent reader if. instead of finding the old lagoon quite filled up, he sees that it is only transformed into an archi- pelago. Nevertheless, I flatter myself that the green islands 1 have been able to evoke from it may be large, numerous, and near enough together to be easily reunited. Publishek's Note. — In preparing this translation the expression " Italian- Byzantine " lias invariably been used instead of "Italo-Byzantine." Proper names have been anglicised at discretion : in several instances the Latin form has been substituted for the Italian. Of the equivalents of '■ Ambrogio," "Ambrose" and " Aml)roise," the latter has been chosen. CONTENTS. Introduction . . . . . .17 I. Latin-B.vkb.\i;iax Aiichitectuiie dui;ing the Lomb.u;d Iiule 28 TI. Second Influence of Byzantine Art on Italian Art — Byzantine-Baebarian Style . . . .78 III. Italian Architecture from the End of the Eighth TO the Eleventh Century — Italian-Byzantine Style 166 IV. xArchitectuee in the Lagoons of Venetia, from the Be- ginning OF THE Ninth Century to the Year 976 . 275 V. Architecture in the Lagoons and in Venetia, from the Year 976 to the Middle of the Eleventh Century 314 Appendix ....... 345 Index of the Monuments Uescrlbed or Mentioned in THIS Volume, and of the Cities or Places where they may be found ..... 349 Index of the Monuments Sti.died in this Volume according to their Class and ChkonoloctV . . 357 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Frontispiece. — Parapet of the Cathedral of Torcello. 1. Ambo of SS. John and Paul at Ravenna — a.d. 597 . . .28 2. Fragment of Ambo at the Rasponi Palace at Ravenna . . 30 3. Sarcophagus at S. Apollinaris, near Ravenna . . . .31 4. Sarcophagus of the Archbishop, S. Felix, at S. Apollinaris, near Ravenna — a.d. 725 . . . . . . .34 5. Sarcophagus of an unknown person at S. Apollinaris, near Ravenna . 35 6. Plan of S. Stephen l^otunda, Rome— A.D. 468-482 . . .37 7. Capitals of the ancient Ciborium of S. Clement, Rome — a.d. 514- 523 . . . . . . . . .39 S. Parapet and little Pilaster of S. Clement, Rome — a.d. 514-523 . 42 U. Plan of 8. Laurence-beyond-the-Walls at Rome . . .47 10. Capital of the Galleries of S. Laurence, Rome — a.d. 578-590 . 53 11. Slab of Marble at S. John's, Monza — Beginning of the Vllth Century . . . . . . . .59 12. Plan of the Cathedral and Baptistery of Grado — A.D. 571-586 . 61 13. Capital and Open-work of Window, Cathedral of Grado — A.D. 571- 586 . . . . . . . . .65 14. Plan of S. Maria of Grado— a.d. 571-586 . . . .66 15. Crown of a Pilaster at S. Maria of Grado — a.d. 571-586 . . 69 16. Sarcophagus at the Chiirch of BS. John and Paul at Venice . . 71 17. Sarcophagus at the Museum of the Ducal Palace at Venice . . 72 18. Balustrade of the Galleries of S. Mark at Venice — Vllth Century 83 19. Exterior Bas-relief of Athenian Cathedral — Vllth Century . . 85 20. Parapet existing in Ravenna — Vlth Century . . . .86 21. Heading of a Door at Moudjeleia, Syria — Vllth Century . . 86 *22. Cymatium of a Door at Serdjilla, Syria- Vllth Centmy . . 88 *23. Cymatium of the Door of a Church at Behoih, Syria — Vllth Century ........ 88 *24. Sculptures at a Castle near Safa, Syria — Vllth Century . . 89 25. Bas-rehef in the Exterior of the Cathedral at Athens . . .90 26. Altar of S. Montan at Orleansville, Algeria — Vllth Century . . 91 27. Details of the Porch of Cimitile — Beginning of the Vlllth Century . 93 28. Details of the Choir-screen at Cimitile — Beginning of the VIITth Century . . . . . . . .94 29. Ciborium of S. George's of Valpolicella — a.d. 712 . 98 ».' 12 FIO. TAfiK. 30. Plan of the Church of S. George of Valpolicella- Vlllth and Xth Centuries (?) ....... 101 31. Baptistery of CaHsto at Cividale— a.d. 737 . . . . 103 *32. Capital of Baptistery at Cividale— a.d. 737 . . . . 104 *33 & *34. Archivolts of the Baptistery at Cividale— a.d. 737 . . 105 *35. Fragments of the Balustrades of the Baptistery at Cividale — a.d. 737 . . . . . . .106 *36. Balustrade of Sigualdo in the Baptistery at Cividale— a.d. 762-776 . 107 *37. Altar of Ratchis at Cividale (posterior part)— a.d. 744-749 . . 109 38. Parapet of S. Maria-in-Valle at Cividale— a.d. 762-776 . . 114 39. Marble Door-leaves at S. Maria-in-Valle— a.d. 762-776 . . 115 40. Fronton of S. Maria— a.d. 762-776 . . . . .116 41. Capitals of the Vlllth Century . . . . . 117 42. Parapet found at S. Augustine at Venice — Vlllth Century . .119 43. Windov^ near the Frescada Bridge at Venice — Vlllth Century . 120 44. Baptismal Font at the Museum at Venice — Vllth or Vlllth Century 122 45. Principal Side of a Sarcophagus in the Cathedral of Murano — Vlllth Century . . . . . .123 46. Fragments of an Ambo at the Cathedral of Grado — Vlllth Century 124 47. Capital at the Museum of Verona — Vlllth Century . . . 12.3 48. Plan of S. Teuteria at Verona— Vlllth and Xllth Centuries . 126 49. Little Pilaster of Monselice and Fragments at the Bocchi Museum at Adria— Vlllth Century . . . . . .127 50. Arch of Ciborium in the Pieve di Bagnacavallo — Vlllth Century . 129 51. Aich of Ciborium in the Parish Church of Bagnacavallo — Vlllth Century . . . . . . . .130 52. Parapet in the Court of the University of Ferrara — Vlllth Century 132 53. Arch of Ciborium over the Place S. Dominic at Bologna — Vlllth Century ........ 133 *54. Sarcophagus of S. Agricola at S. Stephen of Bologna — Xllth Century 134 *55. Capital of SS. Peter and Paul, near S. Stephen of Bologna — Xllth Century . . . . . . . .135 *56. Abacus of the Church of Aurona, Milan — Vlllth Century . . 140 *57. Pilasters of the Church of Aurona, Milan — Vlllth Century . . 140 58. Small Pilasters in the Church of Aurona, Milan — Vlllth Century . 141 59. Capital of S. Vincent-in-Prato, Milan VIITth Century . . 142 *60. Capital of the Crj'pt in the Rotunda of Brescia -Vlllth Centm-y . 143 *61. Plan of S. Saviour's, Brescia— a.d. 753 ... . 144 62. Capital of S. Saviour's Church, Brescia — a.d. 758 . . . 146 *63. Plan of S. Saviom-'s Crypt— Vlllth and Xllth Centuries . . 147 *64. Decorative Details of S. Saviour, Brescia — Vlllth Century . . 148 65. Decorative Details of S. Saviour, Brescia — Vlllth Century . . 150 66. Fragment possibly belonging to the Ambo of S. Saviour, Brescia — Vlllth Century . . .151 (57. Other Details of S. Saviour, Jirescia — Vlllth Century . . 152 13 Kill. PASK (ja. Little Window of S. Saviour, Brescia — Vlllth Ceiitnry 15'2 *69. Tomb of Tlieodota, Pavia— Vlllth Century . " . .153 *70. Exterior Wall of S. Maria delle Caccie, Pavia— Vlllth Century . 154 71. Fragment of Parget found at Libarna — Vlllth Century . . 155 72. Tomb at the Baptistery of Albenga — Fragments of Vlllth Century 156 73. Capital at the Museum of Perugia — Vlllth Century . . 157 74. Balustrade existing in the Belfry of the Cathedral of Spoleto — Vlllth Century . . . . .159 75. Bas-relief at the Pinacoteca Comunale, Spoleto — Vlllth Century . 159 76. Capital in the Fieramosca Palace, Capua — Vlllth Century . 161 77. Capital in the Museum at Capua — Vlllth Century . . . 161 78. Bas-relief in the Museum at Capua — A'lIIth Century . IG'2 79. Capital in the Cloister of S. Sophia at Jjenevento — Vlllth Century 163 80. Plan of the Church of S. Maria-in-Cosmedin, Kome — a.d. 772-795 171 173 174 175 175 176 178 180 181 182 183 184 184 186 187 187 189 190 190 191 193 194 194 81. Capital of S. Maria-in-Cosmedin, Kome — a.d. 772-795 82. Fragment of Architrave of S. Maria-in-Cosmedin, Kome — a.d 772-795 ....... 83. Capital of the Church of S. Saba, Eome— End of the Vlllth Century ....... 84. Capital of the Portico of S. Laurence-in-Lucina, Eome — a.d. 772 795. 85. Mouth of the Well in the Lateran Cloister, Rome — End of the Vlllth Century ...... *86. Archivolt of the Ciborium discovered at Porto, Rome — a.d. 795-816 87. Plan of the Church of S. Praxedis, Rome— a.d. 817-824 . 88. Plan of the Chapel of S. Zenone at S. Praxedis, Rome — a.d. 817- 824. ....... 89. Base of Column in the Chapel of S. Zenone, Rome — a.d. 817-824 90. Plan of the Church of S. Maria-in-Domnica, Rome — a.d. 817-824 91. Capital of S. Maria-in-Domnica, Rome — a.d. 817-824 92. Parapet of the Church of S. Sabina, Rome — a.d. 824-827 . 93. (ft) Parapet of S. Maria of Trastevere, Rome — a.d. 827 (b) Parapet of S. Maria of Trastevere, Rome — a.d. 827 (c) Other Parapets of S. Maria of Trastevere — a.d. 827 94. Details of the Door of S. Clement on the Coehus, Rome — IXth Centm'y ....... 95. Parapet of S. Agnes-beyond-the- Walls, Rome — End of the Vlllth Century ....... 96. Fragment of Cross in the Roman Forum — IXth Century . 97. Mouth of a Well at the Ofdce of the Minister of Agriculture Rome— End of the Vlllth Century 98. Bas-relief from the Cloister of S. Laurence-beyond-the- Walls, Rome —A.D. 1024-1033 . . ." . 99. Fragment of Parapet in the Museum of Capua — IXth Century 100. Plan of the Church of S. Michael, Capua— Xth Century (?) 14 PIG. I'A'il'' 101. Capitals from S. Michael, Capua— Xth Century (?) . . 195 102. Parapet found at S. Maria of the Angels, Assisi — IXth Century . 197 103. Sarcophagus of the Archbishop Gratiosus in S. Apoliinaris, near Ravenna— A. D. 788 ...... '200 104. Ciborium of S. Elucadio in S. Apoliinaris, near Ravenna — a.d. 806-816 ........ 202 105. Side of a Sarcophagus in S. ApoUinaris, near Ravenna — Vlth and IXth Centuries . . . . . . .203 106. Cusped Archivolt in S. Apoliinaris, near Ravenna — IXth Century . 204 107. Capital from the old Cathedral of Verona— a.d. 780 . . 206 108. Parapet of S. Peter's of Villanova— End of the Vllltli Century . 208 109. Capital of the Crypt of the Cathedral of Treviso — IXth Century . 209 110. Fragment of Baptismal Fonts at Pola — IXth Century . . 214 *111. Ai'ch of the Ciborium of the Cathedral of Cattaro — IXth Century . 217 *112. Plan of the Crypt of the Rotunda of Brescia— End of the Vlllth Century ........ 219 *113. Capital of the Crypt of the Rotunda of Brescia — End of the Vlllth Century . . . . . . .220 *114. Parapets of the old Church of S. Abbondio— IXth Century . 221 *115. Altar-front of the old Church of S. Abbondio— IXth Century . 222 *116. Epitaph of Ansperto, Archbishop of Milan .... 223 117. Fragments of Doorpost in the chief Entrance of S. Ambroise, Milan— IXth Century . . , . . .230 118. Plan of S. Ambroise of Milan as it was in the IXth Century . 233 119. Parapet of S. Ambroise of Milan — IXth Century . . . 236 120. Archbishop's Chair in S. Ambroise of Milan — IXth Century . 237 121. Details of the Heading of the Apsis and the Presbytery in 8. Ambroise of Milan — IXth Century .... 239 122. Capital of the Ciborium of S. Ambroise, Milan — IXth Century . 245 123. Apsides of the Church of S. Vincent-in-Prato, Milan — IXth Century . . . . . . . .250 124. Capital of the Naves of S. Vincent-in-Prato, Milan — IXth Century ........ 251 125. Plan of the Church and of the Belfry of S. Satyrus, Milan— a.d. 879 254 126. Capitals of the Church of S. Satyrus, Milan— a.d. 879 . . 255 127. Belfry of S. Satyrus, Milan— a.d. 879 ... . 256 128. Plan of the Church and Baptistery of AUiate— a.d. 8h1 . . 257 *129. Capitals of the Crypt of Alliate— a.d. 881 . . . . 258 *130. External Wall of the chief Apsis of Alliate— a.d. 881 . . 259 *131. External Wall of the Baptistery of Alliate— a.d. 881 . . 259 *132. Plans and Elevations of the Baptistery of Biella— IXth and Xth Centuries ........ 261 133. Plan of the Ancient Church of S. Eustace at Milan — IXth or Xth Century ....... 266 134. Plan of the Church of SS. Felix and Fortunatus, near Vicenza . 268 FIU. PAGE 135. Capital of S. Felix, near Vicenza — a.d. 985 .... 269 136. Plan of the Apsides of S. Stephen (inferior stage) — Xth Century (?) 271 137. Frieze and Capital of the Balustrades of the Cathedral at Grade . 283 138. Fragment of Ai-chivolt of the Ciborium of S. Maria at Grado — A.D. 814-818 ....... 284 139. Cymatimn, formerly above the Door of S. Mark of the Partecipazi —A.D. 829 . . . . . . . .288 140. Parapet of S. Mark of the Partecipazi, existing in the Gallery above the Altar of S. James — a.d. 829 .... 289 141. Parapet of S. Mark of the Partecipazi, existing along the little Ambo Staircase — a.d. 829 ..... 290 142. Sculptm-e existing formerly in the Vault of S. Mark — a.d. 829 . 290 143. Lacunar of the Tomb of S. Mark in the Crypt— a.d. 829 . . 291 144. Parapet of S. Mark of the Partecipazi, existing in the South Transept— A.D. 829 ..... . 291 145. Cornice in the Chm-ch of S. Mark of the Partecipazi . . 293 146. Bas-relief existing in the Baptistery of S. Mark of the Partecipazi —A.D. 829 . . . . . . . .294 147. Parapet existing at Constantinople — IXth Century (after Salzemberg) ....... 295 *148, *149, *150. Parapets in the Church of the Mother of God at Constantinople — IXth Centmy (after Pulgher) . . . 296 *151. Parapet in the Church of the Mother of God at Constantinople — IXth Century (after Pulgher) ..... 297 152. Jamb of a Door found at Athens — IXth Century (after Castellazzi) 298 153. Parapet found at Athens — IXth Century (after Castellazzi) . 299 154. Well-kirb belonging to M. le Chevaher Guggenheim, Venice — End of the Vlllth Century (?) ..... 305 155. Well-kirb formerly at Venice — Second half of the IXth Century . 306 156. Plan of the Cathedral of Torcello at the present time . . 308 157. Parapet of the Cathedral of Torcello — a.d. 874 . . . 310 158. Little Arcades forming the Base of the Choir of S. Mark's — a.d. 976 318 159. Parapet of S. Mark, made by order of Pietro Orseolo I. — a.d. 976 . 321 160. Eeproduction in 1467 of a Well-ring sculptured about a.d. 1000 . 328 161. Capital from the Naves of the Cathedral of Torcello— a.d. 1008 . 330 162. Capital from the Naves of the Cathedral of Torcello— a.d. 1008 . 331 163. Parapet of the Cathedral of Torcello— a.d. 1008 . . .332 164. Parapet of the Cathedi-al of Torcello— A.D. 1008 . . .333 165. Parapet of the Cathedral of Torcello— a.d. 1008 . . .335 166. Frieze of the Cathedral of Torcello— a.d. 1008 . . .337 167. Sarcophagus in a Cloister of the Convent of S. Antonio (S. Anthony) at Padua — Parapet sculptured about the year 1000 . . 339 168. Capital of the Crypt of the Cathedral of Aquileia— a.d. 1019-1025 . 341 169. Capital of the Atrium of the Cathedral of Aquileia— a.d. 1019-1025 342 * ERRATA. PACE 102 215 . . 142, 150 2tiS . . for Agliate read Alliate. Crose Desiderio Fortnnat Lokanava 242 , Xazaro 351 „ Nazaire 44, til, 179-84 „ Praxc.la ;i2 , Vitus (58 „ Vita Croce. Desiderins. Fortnnatns. Kokanaya. Nazario. Nazario. Praxedis. Viialr. INTRODUCTION. WILL not revert to the times of the Romans and the first ages of Christianity, which are ah'eady sufficiently Ivuown ; enough, too, is Ivuonn, tlianks to the studies of foreigners, about the worlds of Proto-Byzantine art * of tlie fifth and sixth centuries, botli in the East and in the West, and I need not trouble myself about these, except when constrained tc do so for the sake of later monuments ; but I must attentively examine the successive centuries —centuries of decadence hitherto left in obscurity. For precisely on account of their decadence and the scarcity of their remaining monuments, they were generally left out by all writers on Art — an omission doubly blamable since it left the chain of historic Art still broken, much to the confusion of the studious, and hindered the recovery of the knot to which successive links might be attached. It is true that there have been a few wi'iters who made a study of the monuments of those dark ages, such as Cordero, Eicci, Hiibsch, Dartein, Selvatico, Garrucci, Mothes, and Rohault de Fleury,t but their views were too narrow, their work was limited to one fixed region or one particular class of Avorks, or they contented themselves with glancing over the ''- Far from siding with tliose who deny the existence of ;i Byzantine style, I so thoroughly affirm it that I find it necessary to divide it into three distinct periods (for this I shall give plain reasonsin the course of this vohime), and to call these periods by three distinct names — Proto-Byzantine, Barbarian-Byzantine, and Keo- Byzantine. + See Appendix. 2 ,7 i8 whole in too rapid and superficial a manner, so that all these partial studies, even when reunited, are far from offering the student even a dubious light on the subject. And yet, although some of the above-named writers sometimes so nearly ap- proached the truth that it would seem as if they ought to have discovered it, because none of them knew how to shake off previous prejudices and trust to an artistic comparison of the monuments themselves (always the most sure guide in such researches), rather than hold faith in documents that too frequently prove fallacious, they all miserably missed the road and gained no profit for their pains. Among all those writers there is, however, one to whom students owe more gratitude than to the rest, because lie it was who first began to overthrow the preconceived opinions about the history of the monuments of the Lombard period, which had already gained ground. As it is known, great errors were current among archae- ologists and cultivators of Art-history about the origins of Lombard or Roman architecture and the period in which it prevailed, till Count Cordero de San Quintino gave to the light (in 1829) his interesting study on Italian architecture during the domination of the Lombards.* Ill able to endure the wide lagoon that conscientious researches nuist have shown them to exist between the re- maining monuments of the sixth century and those of the eleventh, and on the other hand being unable to account for the disappearance of nearly all the rest, they agreed to date from the Lombard ages all the monuments of Romanic style that they found in the places Avhere chronicles, inscriptions, or popular tradition attributed them in that wretched time. It follows that, observing an immense difterence of style, technique and ornament, between the Latin and Byzantine monuments of the sixth century and those believed by them to be of the seventh, and not the gradually progressive development Avhicli is wont to accompany periods of transition, they arrived at the * " Dell'italiana Architettuia duiaiite la dominazione longobardica," Brescia, 1829. 19 false hypothesis that the iiiaiiiier of building and bavbarous ornamentation, of which S. Michael of Pavia is an example (of Avhicli specimens abound in the regions once subject to the Lombards), were introduced by the Lombards themselves into Italy. AA'ell, Cordero rose up to say that they had all fallen into a gross blunder, and gave as final conclusion to his long discourse, " that the Lombards, being still barbarians when they descended into Italy, could not have had architects or an architecture of their own ; and if old chroniclers tell us that such and such churches were erected during their domination, there is no reason to believe blindly that the church we look upon is the same construction then recorded ; that, from the half of the sixth till the half of the eighth century, no other architecture was used in Italy except the Latin architecture of the preceding fourth and fifth centuries — a style which was, however, spoiled by the unskilfulness of the builders." This was a just conclusion, but not one accej^ted by all, and even in our days we often hear it repeated by persons well known to fame, such as Eusldn* for example, that S. Michael of Padua dates from the seventh century. Nevertheless, such persistence in error cannot draw down much weight of blame on those who remain in it, if we only consider that, although the * " The Stones of Venice," vol. i. p. 360. Among the rhapsodies indulged in by Euskin in this work of transcendental testheticism, even more than of art and of history, not least is his dream about the supposed antiquity of the Lombard style, its origin and its relation with Lombardic civihsation. In reviewing the Lombard edifices, and chiefly S. Michael of Pavia, he avers that "the Arabian feverishness infects even the Lombard in the south, showing itself, however, in endless invention, with a refreshing firmness and order dii-ecting the whole of it. The excitement is gi-eatest in the earliest times, most of all shown in S. Michele of Pavia ; and I am strongly disposed to connect much of its pecuhar manifestations with the Lombard's habits of eating and drinking, especially his carnivorousness. The Lombard of early times seems to have been exactly what a tiger would be, if you coidd give him love of a joke, vigorous imagination, strong sense of justice, fear of hell, knowledge of northern mythology, a stone den, and a mallet and chisel : fancy him pacing up and down in the said den to digest his dinner, and striking on the wall, with a new fancy in his head, at every turn, and you have the Lombardic sculptor. As civihsation increases the supply of vegetables and shortens that of wild beasts, the excitement diminishes ; it is still strong in the thirteenth century at Lyons and Eouen ; it dies away gi-adually in the later Gothic, and is quite extinct in the fifteenth century." 20 conclusions of Covdero were most just, yet he knew not how to corroborate them by documents of indubitable authenticity. In fact, Cordero wove his reasoning not out of careful researches and artistic considerations, but simply out of historical discus- sions ; and, although the reader of his pages may be led by him to exclude constructions of Romanic style from the Lombard epoch, yet he would deceive himself greatly if he imagined he could learn in those pages what sort of architecture was really used in Italy during that stormy period, or what were its characteristics. It is true that he points out to us certain constructions proved, so he says, by irrefutable documents to have been erected in the time of the Lombards, but a well- informed critic can accept only one of them, and as to that one even, what artistic documents could Cordero add to the historical ones, already of themselves somewhat problematic and insufficient to demonstrate that it belonged to the epoch to which he attributed it ? It is clear that Cordero' s study, however precious and de- sirable it may have been, was only an embryo study, failing to solve definitely the problems which it raised. Yet, who would believe it ? From 1829 till this present time, no one, no Italian, and fortunately no foreigner, made up his mind to continue and make perfect the work of the Count of San Quintino. One must not forget, it is true, that Selvatico, Dartein, and Garrucci, have placed in fuller view some con- structions or sculptures evidently belonging to that historic period ; but of what use was that whilst, for lack of necessary comparison or through carelessness of criticism, they studied to so little purpose that they confused with authentic Lombard monuments other monuments which, without doubt, belong to later centuries and to the Romanic style ? Who does not see that while they did homage to Cordero's assertion in one way, they denied it in another, heaping confusion on what was already .confused ? No doubt then that, while we accept Cordero's wise con.T; elusions, we must go back to the beginning of the road so ill- trodden by him and others, to draw from it facts that admit of 21 no question and firmly establish a system wliicli has wavered so long. Without further delay I set myself to the work, and in order to render such a study essentially serviceal)le to the history of Art, I shall follow chronological order, as far as the nature of the monuments to be examined will permit. Moreover, I am persuaded that a treatise on Art, however restricted, unless furnished with appropriate drawings, only half realises its intentions ; for we might compare its eficct on the reader to that which we experience Avhen gazing on a city at night in the dim lamplight. That is why I have deemed it not only useful, but necessary, frequently to join the images * of the monuments to their descriptions, and the reflections made upon them, especially in the cases of those not hitherto described. I hope to obtain in this manner a double result : to render my words clearer, and to furnish the proof of my statements. * For the sake of justice, and that I may escape tlie charge of adorning myself with peacock's phinies, I frankly confess that several of the drawings that decorate the present publication are taken from the works of Yogiie, Dartein, Garrucci Jackson, Salzenilierg, Pulgher and Eohault de Fleury. They are marked with an asterisk. Chapter I. LATIN-BARBARIAN ARCHITECTURE DUEING THE LOMBARD RULE. IT is impossible for one to examine Italian monuments from the seventh to the eleventh century without being instantly impressed by the extraordinary decadence to which he hnds all Art reduced and spontaneously asking himself what can have been the causes of it. It is chiefly attributed to the destructive Lombard conquest, and I myself do not refuse to believe that this conquest im- mensely contril)uted to the decadence. On the other hand, considering that, had this been the only cause, its sad efl'ects would have been traceable only in those regions of Italy which were subjugated by the ferocious invaders, and one would not see the same, not to say still greater, corruption in those regions which, while they suff'ered indirectly by this invasion, were never victims of it, I am forced to examine whether other calamities of no less weight were not added to that of the barbarian scourge to produce such ruin of Art throughout all Italy. And we have little trouble in finding out these calamities in history, which is often reticent in recording periods of peace and joyfulness but never silent when it has to remind us of the pains and miseries of nations. Thus we read that, about the year 566, a furious plague 23 afflicted all Italy and almost depopulated it.* Especially did it make havoc in Liguria (which in those times also included half Lombardy and all Piedmont), and S. Gregory the Great attests that it also desolated Kome. Such was the loss of life that, in the words of an ancient writer, only dogs were met in the streets of certain cities, and the country was in many places uninhabited, so that the animals wandered here and there without masters, and there was no one to reap corn or gather grapes. Then in 568 the Lombards fell upon the unhappy land, and the next year there was a terrible dearth to whose effects, togetber with the plague alluded to above, Paola Diacono attributes the rapid advance of those barbarians, who thus found Italy worn out and helpless. Afterwards, in 590, the whole peninsula was fearfully stricken with a pestilence among the oxen, and many people died of dysen- tery and smallpox. And, as if all these miseries were to be held as nothing, behold in 589 a terrible flood of waters, that in all the mountainous regions of Italy overturned and displaced the soil of the hills and so swelled up the streams in the plains that they were for the most part submerged. Whole villages were destroyed, many roads were rendered useless, and there was great loss of men and cattle. At Rome the Tiber, risen to an enormous height, did all manner of damage ; in a like manner the Adige left Verona buried in great part and half ruined, rooting up and overthrowing its very walls in many places ; and two months afterwards a furious con- flagration reduced to ashes all that had escaped from tbe ruin made by the river. After these scourges came a terrible train of plagues and famines, which deprived of life an innumerable multitude of people. Nor did misfortune end then, but till past the end of that century did not cease to strike the wretched Italians. The plague returned thrice, and \\as succeeded without inter- ruption by the scourges of drought, dearth, icy cold, burning wind, and even mice and locusts that in certain regions de- * Muratori, " Annali d'ltalia." 25 vonred the harvests of grain, the herhs of the fields, and the leaves of the trees. Cast down by so many and so heavy misfortunes, from whence could the weakened Italians hope for help, speedily to raise and restore them ? From those Lombards wlio had begun their reign with massacres, conflagrations, and destruc- tion, and had made their way by robbing towns, despoiling churches, and cutting the throats of the priests ? From those Lombards who, under the government of Clefis and that of the Dukes, made it their great study to murder the rich or drive them into exile, in order to confiscate their goods ? From those Lombards who, ever ready to break the bounds of their own kingdom, to gorge themselves with pillage and cruelty by preying on the surrounding countries, had provoked the rage and the sanguinary vengeance of the Greeks, the Franks, and the Slaves to the harm of the unhappy penin- sula '? Allien one remembers that the bankless waters of the Adige, after the rupture described above, kept the vast plains from the Euganean hills to the ancient Po for more than two centuries in a perennial state of inundation, and that the Lombards, out of hatred to the Greeks who possessed the Lagoons, never cared to gather the flood into a new and durable bed, it may easily be understood that it would have been madness on the part of the Italians to hope for help and restoration from those barbarians. Look now at Art and consider, that if long peace and general comfort were always requisite to insure its prosperity it must needs have all but perished in this period of invasions, wars, and calamities. Art in Italy had so much decayed during the barbaric invasions of the fifth century, that Theodoric, notwithstanding his regal encouragement, could only obtain from it very poor productions, as is proved by the monuments erected by him in Eavenna and not a few of the same st3de of which we find evident traces in several cities, both in northern and southern Italy. But the influence of Byzantine art, which with the Greek conquests preceded and followed the fall of the Gothic reign, though it bore in itself the 26 germs of fresh decadence, without doubt availed to raise slightly the level of Latin art so that in the middle of the sixth century it was far removed from the barbarism into which it was to be plunged soon afterwards. Now it is pre- cisely to this second half of the sixth century that I assign the cause and the beginning of that long decadence, or rather lethargy, of Art which, having lasted through all the period of the Lombard domination, survived it till the end of the ninth century, and, in some regions, till the tenth, and even the first half of the eleventh century, as I shall prove here- after. The repeated plagues and famines had certainly slain or jiut to flight the few artists of worth that Italy would fain have cherished for theii' rareness ; but, even had they all lived through so much ruin, who could have found the means to enable them to subsist by exercising their talent ? Before occupying herself with Art, Italy had to busy herself with recovering from wounds so many and so deep, and it was much if she could emi:»loy labourers to raise up her ruined houses and mend as best might be what men and streams had spoilt — works from which Art was necessarily excluded. Therefore, when the pious Teodolinda persuaded Agilulfo to reconstruct or restore several churches destroyed or damaged in the invasions of his predecessors. Art, at least in Lombardy, had slumbered for nearly half a century. Since the new artificers, called on to decorate these edifices with sculpture and painting, had had no chance of forming them- selves in any school whatever, or indeed of exercising their mind and hand in any way, they must have felt like children with the chisel or brush in their hands, and no other guide than the remaining samples of the most recent Byzantine or Latin works — and like children they operated. But here it would be well to try and explain another fact ; that is to say. how it happened that Byzantine art, which had somewhat raised Italian art in the first half of the sixth century, was not helpful to it in the second, although the emperors of the East still possessed some of our provinces and Greek art would not so soon have decayed as the Latin. To my thinking the answer is not diflicult. It was not compassion nor magnanimit}- towards the wretched Itahans that urged Justinian to conquer the peninsula, but simply ambition and insatiable thirst for the gold that he well knew how to wring from his subjects ; and if we find him spend- ing handsome sums to erect or complete sumptuous monuments in Italy, he did so not to succour the tottering Italian art, nor to embellish our cities, but only loudly to proclaim his powerful and fascinating opulence and greatness and high sovereignty. But after Tustinian the power of the empire from day to day declined. His weak successors, partly from want of energy, partly on account of their continual molestation by tlie Persian Sassanidi, or by the barbarians of the North, or by internal dis- cord, knew not how to hold ground against the impetuous hordes of the Lombards, and they remained firm only in Sicily, in the Esarchate of Ravenna, in Rome, and a few other cities. There- fore it was no longer a time when emperors could have recourse to the prestige of pompous monuments to sustain in Italy their already fallen renown. Nor was it a time in which Greek artists could be tempted to transport their tents to Italy, since the only spontaneous motive that can induce an artist to abandon his own soil is the hope of finding more abundant or more remunerative work elsewhere than his own country afi'ords him. At this epoch the thought of Italy would more than ever dissuade him from emigration, because Italy was then a synonym for "land accursed and desolated"; Italians for miserable, impoverished slaves, and their rulers for ignorant, avaricious, cruel barbarians, destructive of the very elements of civilisation. That the miserable Italian art was left to itself durinc: the whole seventh century by the Byzantines, is evidently proved by the fact that even in Ravenna, which remained till the year 752 in subjection to the Greeks, who held an Esarch in that town. Art submitted rapidly to the decadence, as in the other towns of Italy. Ravenna. — No edifice of the end of the sixth century, nor of the tAvo succeeding ones, remains to us in Ravenna ; but, to attest how Art there fell from abyss to abyss, sufficient, though not many, works of sculpture (the most potent auxiliary of the art of architecture) remain to us. 28 The last work of certain date that belongs to the sixth century is a parapet in the church of SS. John and Paul, which, as an incised inscription on it tells us, was ordered by Adeodato, chief of the imperial guards in the time of the Arch- bishop Mariniano (596-606), and precisely in the year 597. It is composed of a slab of marble, curvilinear and slightly trilobate, whose convexity forms about the quar- ter of a circle, flanked by two narrow recti- lineal wings. The ornamenta- tion, like the whole, is almost copied from the ¥, ambo of the k cathedral con- structed in the first half of the century by Archbishop Ag- nello, and con- sists of little squares sym- metrically dis- tributed over the whole surface of the parapet and separated by crossed fillets, by striated fasces, and rosettes. Within these squares are sculptures representing symbolic animals ranged in zones— lambs, stags, peacocks, doves, and fish. The highest Fig. 1. — Ambo of SS. John and Paul at Ravenna — a.d. 597. 29 squares of the wings arc larger tlian the rest, and enclose the figures of the titular saints of the Church. The whole is terniinatod hy a cornice of little leaves and olive moulding. In truth, even if the inscription did not proclaim the date, one might yet read at once on the wretched sculptures of this ambo the sixty years that divide it from that of the cathedral. In this latter the various figures, though flattened, have free and often elegant contours, and every animal is depicted in a form easily understood at first sight : in the ambo of SS. John and Paul, on the contrary, it is useless to seek for form and design. We distinguish the lamb from the stag only because the latter has branching horns, and the dove from the peacock because the head of this last bears a little tuft : eyes, wings, and feathers are made conspicuous by rude furrows, and the rosettes, leaves, and olives of the Avretched cornice are also coarse. And what shall we say of the two figures ? They do not quite come up to the horrible caricatures of the eighth century, but that fact ought not to deprive us of the right of stigmatising them as mere grotesques. At Kavenna something still worse is to be seen in a frag- ment of another ambo existing in the Palace Rasponi, similar to that of the cathedral, and, indeed, in its decorations and squares approaching it more nearly than that of SS. John and Paul, though its sculptures clearly point to the seventh century. The animals are about as meritorious as those of tlie preceding ambo, but the figure of the saint is notably inferior, though of less squat proportions. It is a plain surface brought into relief by means of lowering the rest a few millimetres, and furrowed in its length and breadth by hard, awkward lines meant for drapery ; in fact, we here have a figure inferior to those of the eighth century. Yet, as Ave once before observed, while in Rome the passion for figurative sculpture w^as vivid even in the fifth century, so that the greater part of the sarcophagi thei'e are covered with splendid and numerous reliefs, representing the scenes of the Old and New Testament, in Ravenna, on the contrary, it seems that such a passion was not felt, and the few sarcophagi there, 30 M dating from the fifth and following century, have only a few figures, always isolated, often in niches, and very seldom equalling those of Eome. This shyness about human rei^resentation in sculpture was not derived from the limited skill of the arti- ficers, but only to the immediate Greek infiuence to which Eavenna Avas subject in those ages. The Greek Christians were as little favourable to sculjDture of figures as were the first Fathers of the Church ; on the contrary, they neglected it, substituting for it decorations drawn from the vegetable kingdom, with capricious ornaments and Christian symbols, all representations that 'S^i^s | gave them greater opportunity to cover the fT^'lPf J marbles with splendour of intaglio and abandon ^l. j|t^i themselves to the caprice of Oriental fantasy. )p^i^x?Oj To this sort of sculpture they soon felt I'^^ffi specially attracted, and it Avas very early intro- duced even in Eavenna, where the monograms of Christ, lambs, peacocks, doves, palms, crosses, or vine-branches are seen to cover the niajoiity of the fronts of sarcophagi, the parapets and ambos of churches, and generally the caj)itals of columns. But if in the sixth century the figure began to be neglected through partiality for symbolism and rich ornamentation, in the seventh it was necessarily abandoned, thanks to the absolute unskilfulness of the sculptors. The ambo of SS. John and John and Paul is the last sculptured work i^T^^l^va of the Lombard era by Italian hands, and of i^£:^-]^M| certain date, in which the human figure appears. j^s^---^ Let us next examine a sarcojihagus of some person unknown in S. Apollinaris-in-Classe, the sculptures of which, with the exception of two little pillars at the extremities of the front and of the small arches of the flanks added in the ninth century, fully accord with the end of the sixth century or the beginning 31 of the seventh. The front view gives us, under a meagre cornice, a cross enclosed by a crown of olives with awkward ribbons Fig. 3. — Sarcophagus at S. Apolliuaris, near Ravenna. ending in leaves and flanked by two poor sheep and the same number of palms. Three monograms of Jesus Christ surrounded by crowns of olive are seen on the cover, whose sides bear a cross between leaves and a vase with pomegranates. The worthless- ness of these wretched sculptures may be easily guessed at by the reader while looking at the faithful reproduction here ofl'ered to him. But truly, if we are to believe Cavalcaselle,* and Garrucci t and Bayet | who follow him, this seventh century offers us two splendid samples of sculpture, both with figures and other decorations which must confuse all tlie order of progressive decadence presented by other monuments. But let the reader be neither startled nor deceived. The above-named authors contented themselves with only reading the legend engi'aved on these two works, and did not consider whether it agreed with the style of tliem or disagreed, as it does in fact. I allude to * " Storia della Pittura in Italia," vol. i., Fironiie, Le ilouuier, 1875. I " Storia dell' Arte Christiana," Prato. I " L'Art Byzantin," Paris, .\. Quantin. tlie sarcoiiliagus of Isaac, Esarcli of the city (who died in 648), deposited near the church of S. Vitus ; and to another in S. Apollinaris-in-Classe, where repose the remains of the Arch- bishop Theodore, who died in 688 — facts attested by the legends sculptured on the respective lids. But there is so wide a difference between simply giving the name of the entombed, and certifying that the tomb was sculptured specially for him, that Ave may be permitted the suspicion that those sarcophagi were work of earlier centuries, perhaps abandoned for a long time, and here at last again made use of. Such a fact is by no means singular ; on the contrary, in Rome, and other localities, Ave find various pagan sarcophagi richly sculjjtured, and sometimes with indecent subjects, made to serve as a place of deposit for tlio bodies of conspicuous Christian personages; and after the eleventh century it was usual — we have three examples here in Venice — to place the dead in tombs of the preceding Christian centuries. No Avonder, therefore, that at Ravenna in the seventh century sarcophagi sculptured anteriorly should have been made use of; on the contrary, the great lack of skill in the artists of that age, Avho Avere unable to produce anything even mediocre, excuses this recurrence to preceding centuries in order to do honoui- to the memory of the illustrious dead, Avliile the dispassionate examination of both the tombs in question concurs to give every appearance of likelihood to such fact. The sarcoj^hagus of the Esarcli shoAvs us sculptured in front the Magian kings in Phrygian caps, advancing Avith their gifts toAvards Mary, avIio offers the child Jesus to their adoration, the miraculous star shining over her head. On one of the sides Ave see Daniel among the lions, on the other Jesus raising Lazarus, Avho, SAvathed like the Egyptian mummies, stands straight up on the edge of the sepulchre. The figures haxe just proportions and, although mutilated in many jdaces, yet sIioav freedom of move- ment, intelligence in drapery, and boldness of chisel. Thus, far from being a possible fruit of the seAenth century, these groups so much resemble the very antique paintings in the catacombs of Rome, that Ave are induced to attribute them to the fifth century rather than to the sixth. The only part that might be 33 of Isaac's time is the coarse, heavy, and uinuloriiecT arched Ud ou which Susanna,, widow of the Esarch, has willed to record the acts of her hushand and her own name.* We cannot say as much of the lid of Theodore's sepulchre, since hoth parts are without doubt syncliroiiieal and evidently of the style of the sixth century when most flourishing. The front is adorned by the monogram called " Constantine " between the Alpha and Omega, and this monogram, enclosed in olive-crowns, is thrice repeated on the convexity of the covercle. On its sides we see two great peacocks of elegant design and workmanship, and behind these two vine-branches, rich in grapes and leaves, of graceful form and very delicate intaglio ; underneath are roses and doves. A less expert but still contemporary hand is manifested by the sides, whose decoration consists of crosses, vases, plants, and heads of lions, t What a difference between the sculpture of these two sarco- phagi and the gross work of the ambos of SS. John and Paul and the Easponi Palace I But Garrucci and Cavalcaselle did not stop here, but, seeing that these two tombs, attributed by them to the seventh century, are closed with vaulted coverings, drew therefrom argument for two utterly erroneous assertions : one, that this form of lid only came into use in that century : the second, that other sepulchres of the cathedral ought to be attributed to the same century, because they, too, have arched covercles. Having proved the first error into which these illustrious writers had fallen, no further proof is required against the two consequent ones ; nevertheless, for the sake of greater clearness in the argument, and to convince those who might still be in doubt. I ^\ill say, in the lirst place, that the use of sepulchres with arched lids began in the tifth century, and of this there is an example in one of those attached to the Mau- soleum of Galla Placidia ; in the second place, that the two sarcophagi of S. Eeginald and of S. Baraziano in the cathedral, rich in figures and splendid ornaments, should be considered among the finest examples of tombs of the first half of the sixth * See the design in the work of Ganucci or in that of Bayet. t See Garrucci, " L'aa'te Cristiana." 3 34 ce]itury in Ravenna. Those errors were rather a stumbling- block to Cavalcaselle, who had to confess that, though painting in the seventh century in and out of Eome was beyond measure decadent, sculpture in Ravenna inexj)licably maintained itself in a sufficient degree of perfection. Sculpture in Ravenna in the seventh century must have sunk to such a depth that it could not rise up again without help. There being no works assignable to the rest of that century, we pass to the succeeding one, and there meet another sarcophagus of S. Apollinaris-in-Classe, which, according to its w '' ^ " " I III M il ^ 1 iiiniiiii m i i i iH iii '^ iii ' ijiu[ | i ii mjjp iil^ ; f i w i ,i ii.iiiii 4ii i i w »ii miM i iu i ' iiiii i;T^7Si i.| Ti;^ *^ i ~'»i i njiiii ri] iMm™i )i .ii - Fig. 4. — Sarcojjhagus of the Archbishop, S. Pehx, at S. ApoUiiiaris, near Kaveuiia — a.d. 725. synchronical inscription, encloses the bones of the Archbishop Felix, deceased about 725. It is one of the most miserable Avorks of sculpture ever made, looking as though the artificer had been ignorant even of square, compass, and lead, and therefore certainly of all essential art. The tomb is closed with a double sloping lid like a roof, it has crosses and circles ; the front is terminated on one side by a colonette, on the other by a little fluted pilaster ; then follow two candelabri with lighted candles, then two little arches from which hang crowns, then two sheep, that look like horses, with a cross over each, and in tlie 35 centre a frontisi^iece supported l)y little demi-columns, under which is the monogram of Christ. What, then, can one say of another sarcophagus of some person unknown in the same basilica, Avhicli, excepting the covercle, which seems to me a sketch of the sixth century, evidently belongs to the first half of the eighth century ? The two little sheep carrying the cross (one knows not how) are such horrors that to find anything like them, one must go back to the most barbarous epochs anterior to all civilisation. In the basilica of S. Apollinaris-in-Classc there are other i. - \ I J.I :l- Fig. 5. — Sarcophagus of an unknown person at S. Apollinaris, near Ravenna. tombs of the eighth and ninth centuries, but as these bear the influence of a style quite different from the indigenous one, we will leave them on one side for the present, limiting ourselves to considering how, in Eavenna in the seventh and the first half of the next century, Art fell from bad to worse, following the pattern of preceding centuries, with a variation only caused by the excessive incapacity of the artificers. To demonstrate that Art was fallen not only in Eavenna, but throughout Italy, it is enough to examine a few works scattered 36 here and there, to Avhich the date of the seventh century only can he assigned. Home. — Here it is well to give evidence of a fact which has never been fully made known by others, and to many will seem almost strange, namely, that Proto-Byzantine art penetrated as far as Rome. And though it did not there leave samples of that daringly new and theatrical style of which we find examples in Eavenna and Milan, yet it made itself clearly known and suc- ceeded in grafting some of its elements on Latin architecture, so that even in the seventh century they were still evident, as we may see in several of the basilicas of the city. The most ancient examples uf the influence of the Byzantine style in Rome may be seen in the church of S. Stephen on the Celio, erected by the Pontiff S. Simplicio between 468 and 482. It is a vast rotunda formed by two concentric rows of columns encircled by walls. Some archaeologists, surprised by the singular form of this church, suspected that it was once a pagan edifice, of which advan- tage had been taken to make a church. Some called it a temple, some a market-place, some a basilica, a slaughter-house, and even an arsenal. All these conjectures were mere dreams, because the building shows in its every part * the style of the sixth century, during which it was consecrated to Christian worship. We are ignorant of the motives that could have induced the constructors of this church to abandon the ichnography of the basilica and adopt that only in use for baptisteries ; we only know that just at that time another round church, in certain particulars similar to S. Stephen, was built in Perugia, and that, since that epoch, several others were made. For which reason * With the exception of the little apsis added hy Tlicodove I. between a.d. 642 and G49 (where the antique entrance used to be), the transversal wall of the centre, supported by great columns and pilasters, constructed, it appears, by Adrian I., the present small external portico, and the double piercing of the upper windows. The church in the fifteenth century was reduced to smaller proportions by suppressing the exterior nave, about which Francesco di Giorgio di Martino, a contcniporary, left his written opinion: " less embellished than spoilt by Papa Nichola." ^7 we may, I tliiiik, conjecture that only love of novelty incited tliis introduction of forms till then never used. But besides its ichnograpliic originality, this Eotunda pre- FiG. G.--Plan of S. Stephen Rotmicla, Eome -a.d. 4G8-482. sents nothing that can point to an architectonic progress. That marvellous system of arches, of vaults, and cupolas that tlion began to make its way in the East, especially in circular con- structions, was not followed or oven essayed in S. Stephen ; it exacted too much constructive science, too much practice, too much time and expense, to allow the poor Pvoman artificers of that time to make use of it, and they contented themselves with the placid and natural charm that the eye receives from the regular gyration of cohunns, happy to be able to follow their own old, easy and profitable way of working witli materials 38 picked up here and there. So that S. Stephen ma}' he defined as a basilica with fine gyrating naves forming two half-circles so faced as to make one rotunda. The only detail which betrays the Byzantine influence is the large circumference of the columns, which is interrupted by eight pilasters form- ing as many groups as was sometimes the manner of the Greeks. I may add that the arches do not immediately rest on the capitals but on the abaci or " pnlvini " — a characteristic of the Byzantine style, which, since the first half of the fifth century, had appeared in Ravenna in the church of S. John the Evan- gelist and in the Baptistery Ursiano, and continued to be used in Italy in the sixth and following centuries.' The profile of the abaci of S. Stephen is that of a gola of timid projection, limited below and above by two listels. Those resting on the minor Ionic columns t are i)lain, and those of the Corinthian that mark the ancient axis of the church, are adorned by a cross. This rotunda seems to have displayed a truly Oriental luxury in its mosaic decorations, but specially in the incrusta- tions of marble on the walls which, according to the Florentine Giovanni Rucellai, who saw it in 1450, were resplendent with porphyry, serpentine stones, mother-of-pearl, bunches of grapes, and other beauteous things (" gentilezze "),t owed, as we learn from an inscription now lost, to Pope Giovanni I. (523-536). These decorations are analogous to those of S. Vitale of Ravenna and of the Cathedral of Parenzo, Byzantine construc- tions of the same century. But if the abaci of the Rotunda of S. Stephen only serve to attest the, perhaps not immediate, influence of the Byzantine style, there are works in other churches that indisputably * Similar " pnlvini " also snpport the arches of S. Angelo of Perngia, a contem- porary of S. Stephen of Eome. t All the Ionic capitals of this church, Hke the cornice over the columns of the smaller circle, are rough work of the time when it was erected ; some are only sketched out : a manifest proof that in that time it was i;sual to add the decorations on the spot, as was done in later times. [ See the interesting and erudite pamphlet of C. De Rossi called the " La Basilica di S. Stefano Eotondo." Eome : 1886. 39 manifest the presence of the Greek artists. The restoration in 1858 of the church of S. Clement on the Celio, famous because it caused the discovery of the true ancient basilica somewhat vaster than the actual church and situated under it, was not less famous for having brought to light a good length of architrave bearing the following inscription : " Altare tibi Deus Salvo Hormisda Papa Mercurius presbyter cum sociis of (fert). Hav- ing read this, the arch;eologist at once remembered two antique columns that decorate the monument to Cardinal Venerio of Becanati existing in the same church, one of which bears on its capital this other inscription : " + MERCURIUS PS SCE Fig. 7. — Capitals of the ancient Ciliorinm of S. Clement, Eome — a.d. 51-1-523. E. S DNI," and came to the well-founded conclusion that the said columns and architrave must have formed part of the ciborium of the antique basilica erected during the time of Pope Hormisda (514-523) by that priest Giovanni called Mercurius, who was afterwards Poj)e Giovanni II. Well, tliose two columns arabesqued with reliefs like ivy twining round them, are without doubt Roman, but the capitals above them present the Byzantine style in its purest originality, because they are made like baskets, decorated with meanders in open-work, and with crosses and doves under their abacus. It is plain that such conceits could only issue from Greek chisels. But that is not all. This bappy discovery guided De Rossi to another not less important : it led him to the just suspicion 40 that many of the sculptured slabs composing the chancel of the choiv of the actual basilica, which bear the monogram of a Giovanni, and which had till then been attributed to the eighth Pope of that name, who reigned in the ninth century, belong to the same Giovanni called Mercurius, who constructed the above- named ciborium.* And T>e Rossi's suspicion can only change to certainty when we attentively observe that those parapets and many of their " pilastrini," vnth the exception of the additions made in the twelfth century, when they were taken from the lower to be placed in the upper church, far from presenting the style of decoration of the ninth century, clearly present that of the sixth, as it was in use in the East and in many cities of Italy.f Such are those crosses in squares and those very elegant garlands enclosing monograms and bound by floating ribbons ending in leaves of ivy and in crosses, numerous examples of which are preserved at Jerusalem, Byzantium, Thessalonica, not to speak of Pola, Parenzo, Grade, the islands of the lagoons, Eavenna, Rimini, Bologna, and all those islands where Greek influence had been powerful. Of conspicuous 13yzantine character are also certain other parapets covered with woven work like matting and perforated, and certain little pilasters with leaves and j)omegranates which in no way resemble the subjects employed in Roman decorations. We should also hold the precious sculptures of the old church of S. Clement in high consideration, because these parapets, though partly mutilated, are the least incomplete type that remains to us of the chancels of the sixth century, and the architrave with the two columns mentioned above is the most ancient remnant known of an altar-ciborium. It is a pity that we know not whether, besides that mean architrave, there was some frieze or tympanum, as Rohault de Fleury I supposes, or whether there was only a cornice. But however it might have been completed, it never could have been com- * Selvatico and all the writers on Italian art continue to repeat the old error just as if De Rossi had not published his beautiful discovery. + De Rossi, " Bullettino," 1869. J "La Messe." 41 posed of various pyramidal orders of columns terminating with an octagonal roof or frontispiece such as may be seen in several churches of Rome and about Naples. Selvatico,* at Lenoir's t suggestion, would have us to believe it was. In fact, the kind of ciborium which he points out to us in S. George at Velabro, in S. Crisogono, in S. Laurence-beyond- the- Walls, and in the upper church of S. Clement, does not date, as he rashly asserted, from the sixth or seventh centuries, but only from the twelfth or the following century. Other churclies in Rome offer us indubitable traces of the purest Byzantine style. One of these is the old church of S. Maria in Cosmedin, whicli, founded by S. Damaso in 880, seems to have been restored by Belisarius in 536.]: This tradition is sus- tained by the fact that, annexed to this church, there was, in the sixth century, a diaconia under the name of Schola Graca estab- lished there by the Greeks living in Rome, and further finds express confirmation in certain sculptures of a character abso- lutely Byzantine, which we will now examine, and which were not passed over in the rebuildings of the eighth century. The " Liber pontificalis " recounts that this church, before being rebuilt by Adrian I., was of very small dimensions ; and that was enough for Cresoimbeni § and Rohault de Fleury to think fit to consider the present crypt (a real basilica with three little naves, a little transept, and walls with niches) as the area, and even as a part of the construction of the church in the sixth century. But such a conjecture is combated — first, by the too scanty dimensions of the construction (m. 8.00 by 3. CO) ; next, evident traces of the eighth century found therein ; and lastly, by the impossibility, consequent on the narrowness of the place, to imagine it adorned, as the church of S. Damaso was without doubt, by marbles and large columns, of which there remains one capital in the superior edifice. This is the capital of the fifth column on the left, of that Byzantine composite * " Le arti del disegno in Italia." t In Gailhabaud's work, " Monuments anciens et modernes." I See 0. Mothes' work, already mentioned. 5 " L'istoria dclla basilica di Santa Maria in Cosmedin di Roma," 1717. 42 whicli was so familiar to tlie Greeks in the fifth and sixth centuries. What renders the style most characteristic is the wide chalice form, and especially the minute thorny intaglio of Fig. 8.— Parapet and little Pilaster of S. Clement, Eomc— a.d. 514-523. the acanthus leaves, ohtained with much lahour of drilling. One sees similar capitals not only in the churches of Greece, hut also in those of Istria, the Gulf of Venice, iiavenna, and other cities of Italy where the Byzantine influence was felt. And my assertion as to the Greek origin of this capital is validly supported by seeing it used in the edifices of Constanti- nople * from the fifth century, and the fact that it only appeared in Italy in the sixth. But it is not only that capital that reminds one of the For example, in the church of S. John the Evangelist, still existing. 43 Greek S. Maria in Cosmedin of the sixth century, hut also a fragment of a parapet which now serves as a " predella " at the altar of the crypt. It was adorned by foliage inscribed with squares placed angularly and framed by thin mouldings, the whole being executed in that rather hard but elegant style which characterises the chancels of S. Clement's. Four other parapets of the same style, with scantlings, discs, crosses, flowered squares, &c., closed the two extreme inter-columns of the presbytery until 1712, when they were thrown into a courtyard, where they were still to be seen in the time of Crescimbeni, who gives dramngs of them. Traces of Proto-Byzantine style also remain in the basilica of S. Saba, which rises solitarily on the summit of a hill near the Aventine — traces which, in my opinion, validly establish the date, hitherto uncertain,* of its first foundation, assigning to it the first half of the sixth century. The errors given out by Selvatico about this church are such as not to be tolerated even from the lips of a street cicerone. Starting with the assumption that the Greeks (that is to say the Basilian monks) were its probable founders, and therefore that the greater part of it, or at least its primitive part, should be Greek, he assigned to the sixth century the vestibule that precedes the courtyard of the church ; declared unhesitatingly the Byzantine origin of the artist who painted two figures of saints beneath it ; alleged that the back of the high altar was analogous to the Greek iconostasi, and formed of antique fragments, and noticed as a somewhat rare decoration in churches of Latin origin certain " detached arcades of the interior walls." Now all this is false. The vestibule, with * At the back of the confessional there exists an inscription bearing the name of a Pope Gregory, supposed to be Gregory the Great of the sixth century, and also supposed to allude to the period of the foundation of the church. But Oderici (see " Gasparis Aloysii Oderici Dissertationes ed Adnotationes "), observing the square C of the inscription belongs to the eighth centurj' at least, and not the sixth or seventh, judged that it referred to one of the two Gregories who succeeded each other in the first half of the eighth century. But even Oderici had not aimed rightly ; he did not observe that several A's, entirely Eoman in character, could not be of earlier period than 1187, or, still better, 1227-1^11 ; and my conjecture becomes a very likely one when we remember that the church itself was embellished in neo-Latin style by Eoman marble-workers in the first half of the thirteenth century. 44 its columns, consoles, and niarquetries, is work of the twelfth or following century ; its pictures are uncouth work of the last century ; the architectural fond of the chief altar is late worlc of the sixteenth or seventeenth century; it has no antique fragments, and was never made to remind one of the iconoiyzantine style of the same manner as that of S. Maria in Cosmedin. The interesting basilica of S. Praxeda on the Esquilino can also show some Byzantine works of the sixth century. The most important is the architrave of the principal door that gives on to the public road, richly sculptured with the leaves of the wild acanthus, with roses and pomegranates, reminding one of friezes of the same kind and of the same period at Jerusalem and in the churches of Central Syria. The same chisel may be recognised on the socles and bases of the interior columns of the chapel of S. Zenone within the same basilica, excepting in tliose decorations that refer to the Roman epoch, or were added, as we shall see, in the ninth century, when that chapel was constructed. To the sixth century and to Greek chisels one must also ascribe the two 45 Ionic capitals at the entrance of the same chapel and the little cornice that runs behind it. The fact that the capitals are sculptured even on the sides adhering to the wall, and that the mutilated cornice is nmch longer than was required for the door, is a proof of these works being anterior to the ninth century ; add to this the style of their sculptures, akin to those of S. Clement on Mount Coelio. At Eome the Greek chisels of the sixth century did not exercise themselves only in sacred buildings, since there exists a remarkable secular monuuient in which their stjde is discernible. It is the solid bridge over the Aniene on the Via Salaria, at a short distance from the city, and, according to a long inscrii^tion, was constructed in the year 565, under the Emperor Justinian, by the eunuch Narsete, after the Aictory over the Goths — the old bridge having been destroyed by the " most wicked" Totila. The Byzantine style of the sixth century appears con- spicuously in the parapets of the quays, which, like the parapets of the contemporaneous churches, are adorned with meagre squares enclosing imbrications, or rhombs, sometimes plain, sometimes filled, and accompanied by crosses, stars, or girandole roses. The slabs alternate Avitli pilastrini, quadrated with mixed lines enclosing imbrications, and alwavs crowned either by a species of square cupola or by patene presenting concentric circles, stars, or crosses. Among the ruins of Central Syria one finds absolutely similar ones, precisely because they are of the same family and epoch. \Yorks of sculpture that show the Byzantine manner are also the doors carved in nut-wood of S. Sabina on the Aventine. A tradition — we do not know if it be well founded or not — speaks of it as executed in the time of Innocent III. (1198- 1'216), but artistic examination is far from confirming this fancy. If Cavalcaselle, who thinks he sees in it an antique mode of working, timidly contents himself with suspecting that they were made before the eleventh century, I venture to assign to them the fifth century or the first half of the sixth. 46 We have seen how the sarcopbagi at Ravenna of the Esarch Isaac and the Archbishop Theodore confused the opinions of Cavalcaselle about the worth of Italian sculpture in the seventh century, how he declared it to be more free from imperfections because free from the exigencies of chiaroscuro and colour to which the art of i^ainting is always subject. But we who have seen what was really done in sculpture at Ravenna in the seventh century, and the miserable things made in Italy up to the eleventh, must conclude, in spite of his opinion, that neither painting nor mosaic work fell so low in that time as sculpture. What most confirms my opinion within the doors of S. Sabina, is the ornamentation with mouldings cut into spindles and baguets, which finely frames the various figurative compositions. The baguets especially, formed by winding vine- branches, adorned with leaves and grapes and noble and elegant open-work, remind one of similar things in the capitals, sarco- phagi, and throne of S. Maximilan of Ravenna.* Till now we have seen the Byzantine style peeping out in Rome through simple bits of decoration, but now we see it ajipears more freely even in certain organic portions of two sacred edifices of the same city. One is S. Laurence-beyond- the-Walls. It was erected in the time of Constantine almost on the same level as the catacombs, for which reason it was necessary to cut down the hill that enclosed it. It bore the basilical form, covered a not very extensive area, and was decorated by ten great Corinthian, channelled columns of violet marble, without doubt taken from older edifices. Eight of them served to divide the lateral naves, and two rose in front of the apsis. The basilica was then turned towards the east, but it would be a mistake to think that it opened towards the sunrise, because the hill which surrounds and overshadows it even now by a height of three metres (which must have been greater at that time) could not permit it. The natural entrances of the * Unfortunately, while the figures are almost all the originals, the ornaments have lately been remade. The patterns of the old ones, which had perished in course of time, have, however, been followed. i^ ■^1 I 47 basilica at that time were towards the west, and there were only two of them lateral to the apsis and corre- si)onding to the two minor naves, to which it w'as necessary to descend by steps. And from this side also, by a singular ano- maly, the false facade of this church pre- sented itself, pro- bably decorated by a columned portico. So remained the church till the ponti- ficate of Sextus III. (432-440), who (this portico being de- stroyed) backed on the basilica of Con- stantino another and larger basilica, build- ing it on the same plane as the street and turning it to the west, so that the apsis of each church turned its back to the apsis of the other, just like the great niches of the famous temple of Yenus at Rome ; and one could only arrive at the old inferior — ^ klJ ti b=J (id bii Fig. 9.— Plan of S. Laurence-beyond-the- Walls at Rome. 48 basilica by traversing the new one of Sextus III , which was also dedicated to the Virgin, and contradistinguished by the topo- graphists of the seventh century by the name of nutjor. It had three naves and sixteen columns of different diameter and C[uality, because derived from ancient ruins. This is the real origin of the second basilica of S. Laurence, whose foundation, till not many years ago, was erroneously attributed to Adrian I. or to Honorius III. (1216-1-227). The latter onl}^ restored the two basilicas, destroyed the two con- tiguous apsides, and, prolonging the sistina by six columns, made of the two edifices one vast basilica, raising the ground of that of Constantine so that it might serve as presbytery. We owe this happy discovery to the above-named and praised De Eossi, Avho, according to his custom, did not lail to have it printed at once in his " Bullettino d'Archeologia Cristiann," so that the studious might know of it ; but the studious are few in Italy, and not only the guides, but also the recent publications of Selvatico, Chirtani, and others, continued to repeat the old rank error. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that except the mere stems of the columns with their respective bases, and perhaps some space of the wall, nothing remains of the church of Sextus III. Honorius III., after i)rolonging its naves, had sculptured all the Ionic capitals of the twenty-two columns and the four autre of the caps, besides the modillioned cornices which he had lightened by relieving arches with stilted feet, that still appear under the lateral naves. And it is easy to persuade oneself that those Ionic cajutals belong to the time of Honorius rather than to antique pagan construction, as is commonly thought, when one observes that, while they all dis^day the same chisel and present the same design, yet at the same time tliey perfectly adapt themselves to all the stems of the columns, though these are of very varied dimensions, the difference between the larger and lesser ones being not less than forty centimetres. The profile of these capitals is of the same date and character as those of the porticos of SS. John and Paul and of S. George in Velabro, works of the thirteenth century (which are also 49 Ionic), and even the beautiful portico before the basilica of S. Laurence, indubitably the work of Honorius III. Here, then, we have a church almost entire, endowed with splendid accessories, with mosaic pavement, with ambos, pulpit, ciborium, and tombs, which we ought to value as the principal monument in Eome built in that beautiful style, true Renaissance, pro- duced by the conjunction of Arab-Sicilian art with Lombard- Tuscan, improperly called Cosmatesco,* and which I prefer to contradistinguish by the name of neo-Latin. But when Honorius III. united the two basilicas, the inferior one had somewhat changed. An inscription in mosaic legible on the apsis, destroyed on this occasion, praised the Pontiff Pelagio 11. (578-590), who, cutting away the hill Avhich threatened to crush the old basilica, had amplified it and given it more light. De Eossi is of opinion that the enlargement made by Pelagio Avas effected by prolonging the naves and the apsis — a prolongation which seems countersigned by the two columns that are shorter than the others, and have capitals with victories or trophies rather composite than Corinthian. I accept this conjecture, which is additionally supported by the fact that the cubic pedestals underneath these two short columns present mouldings and rosettes which accord well with the sixth century ; but, besides that, I believe that the church was also enlarged towards the east, and precisely at the extremities of that transversal nave, or " narteci," which, closing the church in a straight line, now serves for its background. An accurate and * I find this term unfitting for several reasons. First, I cannot comprehend why a family of artists in which only one, and not the first, bore the name of Cosimo should be called " dei Cosmati," when the gi'andfather, Lorenzo, and the father, Jacopo, had worked in the saim style long before Cosimo was born. In the second place, even accepting the term for a moment, I do not find it just or reasonable to honour with the right to give its name to a certain style of work, a family of artists who, although they had treated that style in a praiseworthy manner for a century and a half, yet was not the only artistic family that Rome could reckon, nor the most ancient, nor the most illustrious, since they had no hand, as inscriptions plainly show, in the older and more important works of that style, such as the ciborium of S. Laurence-beyond-the-Walls, the famous cloisters of the Lateran and of S. Paul, and most probably not even in the other parts of the Basilica of S. Laurence, which, judging by similarity of form, one should rather ascribe to that Giovanni di Guide who worked in S, Maria-in-Castello at Corueto in 1209, 30 intimate examination recently brought by me to bear on those walls, whose design seeihed to me independent of the rest of the work, made me withdraw from the idea that they could ever have formed jsart of the primitive basilica and persuaded me that, if not the work of Pelagio, he certainly profited by them to complete that extremity and so enlarge the basilica. It was an important matter for Pelagio to regulate the church on this side so that the galleries placed above the naves might have a useful and easy support. And here comes a question not yet resolved, namely, whether the use of the galleries, or " matronei," was common to the Christian basilicas of both the East and West, and which adopted it first. The fact that the primitive great Constan- tinian basilicas of Rome had no galleries, as also that the greater number of the oldest churches in Rome neither had nor have them, would seem to support the opinion of those who think that they were an entirely Oriental introduction. In fact, in the East, the galleries began to appear in the fourth century (see, for example, the basilica of the Calvario, erected by Constantine and fully described by Eusebius). Many basilicas of the fifth century in Syria and Greece also have them, and almost all of the Oriental churches of the succeeding centuries ; thus, as it seems that, in the West, churches with galleries form an exception, and in the East churches without them are excep- tional, it logically follows that we ought to believe that those galleries are nothing but a custom introduced by the Eastern Church ; and that, if they have appeared in any Latin church, it is only owing to the efficacious Byzantine influence repeatedly exercised on the West. Such a conjecture would, it seems to me, assume every aspect of truth were we able to i^rove that the two lai'gest basilicas in Rome which have galleries, date, like the church of S. Vitale, from the sixth or following century, and bear indubitable marks of the Byzantine school. This I will endeavour to j^rove. The great columns of the lower basilica of S. Laurence do not support arches, but architraves with friezes and cornices, which, far from being sculptured on purpose for the church, 5' present an assemblage of fragments gathered from the broken materials of old Rome and here put together as best might be. But of this came an entablature of rich but barbarous taste, where mouldings of varied profiles are made to join together, and cornices once intended to run vertically are now placed in horizontal })osition. It is difficult to believe that, in the first half of the fourth centur}', one of the most venerated sanctuaries of the city should have been built in such an awkward way, especially since the pagan edifices, being generally, at that time, whole and well preserved, did not offer the same temj^tation to thieving archi- tects and constructors as when they began to fall into ruins. Again, seeing the same work, made out of tlfbris, go on without indication of later additions even in the part prolonged by Pelagio, I am more than ever persuaded that the entablature in question must be referred to the restorations made by that Pontiff". In fact, by its awkwardness it accuses the poverty and coarseness of that epoch, and makes us think sadly of the consequent abandonment and decay of the marvellous structures of Rome, which began to change the city into a mass of ruins. Now why did the architects of Pelagio give themselves the trouble to put together all these fragments of cornices instead of putting arches between one column and the other, as was then generally done ? What motive could induce them to embrace such an imperfect and, for them, arduous task, and abandon another Avhich was easier, more natural, certainly more beauti- ful ? In my opinion the reason was simply this — that, intending to build galleries over the naves, they foresaw that these would become too elevated if they developed arches over the already very high inferior columns. They calculated, moreover, that the want of proportion between the higher and lower series would have seemed too evident. The entablature having thus been established at the time of the restorations made by Pelagio, and there being no other reason for the superposition of the galleries, it clearly follows that then only were they constructed. Nor are these the only arguments that support me in this b- opinion ; the strongest exist in the architecture of those galleries. They are formed of channelled columns, of Greek marbles, and Corinthian columns, all taken from various pagan edifices, notwithstanding that the stems of the columns are all of the same height and diameter ; between the stems the parapets are fixed, now of Serravezza marble, but once of porphyry, stolen by that egregious thief, Napoleon I. Over the same columns we have not, as below, entablature, but arches. These, however, are not planted directly on the capitals, as was the practice in the fourth century, but on a species of cushion, or abacus, in the form of a bracket which we so often see used in Byzantine constructions, and of which we have in S. Stephen's the most ancient example that remains in Kome. This architectonic member, of which the Orientals were the inventors, while it offered to the feet of the arches a base corresponding to the thickness of the wall that they supported, allowed the support underneath to be much narrower and more slender without danger to the real solidity of the edifice. But better remains ; in the smallest side of the gallery, opposite the triumphal arch, as if they had wished to utilise two short columns of very precious green porphyry, they put under them two cubic socles which recall in their whole form that of the two large lower columns. Tbeir faces are adorned by crosses among roses and between the Alpha and Omega, and their sides by a vase with leafage and doves : reproductions after the Greek style, like those of the sixth century, to be seen in the churches of Ravenna. Finally, the two capitals of these columns are not antique Corinthians like the others, but were evidently made for the basilica in a style of sculpture entirely Byzantine, like many of Eavenna, of Parenzo, and of Venice. We do not know if all the A^'alls of the basilica were covered with mosaic by Pelagio II. Certainly the destroyed apsis was, and the frontal arch that is still preserved, though partly spoiled by restorations. Among the various figures of saints, that Pope is also portrayed with the model of the church in his hands ; and that he was thus rejDresented is a sign that 53 ^'R^ lie had made such reforms and innovations in the basilica that he might almost be considered as its second founder. The plan of the old church of S. Laurence is develojied in another basilica of the same city — S. Agnes-beyond-the-Walls. The basilica of S. Agnes, which so much resembles tliat of S. Laurence, had a history almost parallel with it. It also was erected out of the city, and on the level of the catacombs. It seems to rise from the bowels of the earth, and to get to it it is necessary to descend many stairs. Like S. Laurence, it was built in the time of Constantine; and, therefore, prob- ably was similarly constructed ; but it is certain that, in the beginning of the seventh century, it was already so spoiled by age that Honorious I. (626- 640), as soon as he assumed the Pontifi- cate, had to think of reconstructing it. The restorations that it suffered since then do not seem to have removed from it the impression received in the seventh century. It is composed of three longitudinal and one transversal nave that precedes the others. Over the naves are galleries on three sides, and naves and galleries are formed of Corinthian columns bearing arches ; one may call it a reproduction, beautiful and corrected, of the S. Laurence of Pelagio II. In S. Agnes, how- ever, it is useless to seek anything among the capitals or the bases gf:i;:ijjj. ! Fig. 10. — Capital of the Galleries of S. Laurence, Kome— A.D. 578-590. 54 contemporaneous with the period of rebuilding that might give one some idea of the skill of the Koman sculptors of that day. AVith the exception of a few stiff and inexpressive little cornices, some naked and square abaci, adopted because they were neces- sary, over the little columns of the galleries, and of what belongs to later additions, all the marbles of this church appear to be remnants of pagan constructions. The apsis j)reserves the mosaics of the time of Honorius I., and here also, as in S. Laurence, the Pope who rebuilt the church has been represented holding a model of it in his hands. S. Laurence and S. Agnes were perhaps the first examples of churches with galleries which Rome possessed ; and if up to that time she had done without them, for what reason did she then adopt them ? For tiesthetic reasons ? At first one would feel inclined to say yes ; but afterwards, taking notice of the curious fact that each of the only two churches of Rome that had gal- leries presents the peculiarity of being planted very low down in the bosom of the earth, the suspicion occurs to me that only through their being rendered damp and unhealthy in the course of time, was recourse had to the galleries, which could be freely frequented by the faithful without danger to their health. And perhaps the transformations and raising of S. Laurence, effected by Honorius III., were called for from similar motives ; and, in these days, since Pius IX. restored the antique level in the lower floor of the basilica, it is dangerous, notwithstanding the wide space outside, to remain there long. To the same Honorius I. the lihcr [wntificalls assigns the restoration of the church of the Four Crowned Saints, which had been erected by the Pontiff' S. Leo the Great (440-4G1) on a vast superficies, with three naves divided by twenty-six columns and preceded by a square portico. The actual church, reduced to small proportions, and with galleries inside, must not for that reason be supposed the same as that of the seventh century, but the one Pasquale II. reconstructed in 1117 after the horrible incendiarism of Robert Guiscardo.* * The Basilica of S. Cecilia in Trastevere, reconstructed about this period, showed galleries that were preserved till the last ceutury. That proves that iu Eome, as in 55 Another restoration of the seventh century was that of the church of S. George at Velabro made by Pope Leo II. (682-684). The interior with three naves formed hy antique columns and capitals of various diameters and fashions may rightly he attributed to that miserable epoch, because the wretched technique of the construction of its arches and the barbarous mode in Avhich capitals and abaci of rude and badly balanced forms are united, mark exactly the time of the most profound artistic decadence which reigned in Italy between the middle of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth. The liher pontijicalis points to several other works of some importance executed in Rome in the seventh century, but the subsequent restorations that happened to those edifices, and above all their rebuilding in times nearer to us, have caused us to lose all traces of them. Yet the almost entire absence of edifices of that time in the rest of the peninsula ought to make us content to possess the two that Rome ofters us : the very few contemporary traces found in other Italian cities consist only of miserable ruins, fragments of sculptiire, or in arid descriptions of lost monuments. Now, leaving the valley of the Tiber to go back to that of the Po, we hear half-way on a voice that calls us to Lucca to admire two conspicuous monuments. It is the voice of Cordero, delighted, amidst the extreme penury of edifices preserved from the liombards' time, to read on old parchments of that city that the church of S. Frediano was erected by King Bertari in 686, and that that of S. Michael in Foro was rebuilt by Teut- prando and Gumpranda in 764. He then rapidly glanced over these churches and, finding them built according to the old severe basilical rules, and noting especially that in S. Frediano various columns of the naves and many of the capitals were evidently taken from antique Roman constructions, he judged them, without any further examination, to be the actual churches erected by the above-named personages, and jn'oposed them as several places iu and out of Italy, the custom of constructiug galleries in the Byzan- tine style in churches was revived after the commencement of the eleventh centuiy. 56 types of the sacred edifices used in Italy in tlie period of tlie Lombard domination. Full of this flattering declaration I went to see them myself, but at first entrance experienced the greatest disillusion. With the exception of those few Roman marbles that had perhaps served also for constructions of the seventh and eighth century, everything — arches, cornices, windows, sculptures, even the very walls — showed themselves to be Tuscan- Lombard style, later than the tenth century. I found also to my satisfaction that the learned liidolfi * had observed the error of Cordero, and stated clearly that the actual S. Frediano is but a re-edification by the Prior Rotone in 1112, and that S. Michael consequently must be held to be a work of the same century. Therefore one must not accept even the conjecture that in these rebuildings the ichnography of the pre-existent basilicas was followed. We know this by the fact that certain excava- tions made about ten years ago in S. Frediano, demonstrated that the church of the seventh century arose from a plan quite difterent to the present. Selvatico, justly trusting Ridolfi, disputed mth Cordero the Lombard origin of these two basilicas, but did not also reject the similar assertion of the same writer in reference to the old Palatine gate at Turin that bears the name of Palazzo delle Torri. It is a double gate flanked by two polygonal towers, and, like our well-known gate of Verona and those of Autun and Treves, is surmounted by two small ranges of arcades adorned by little pillars and cornices. The bricks are made of excellent clay, united with a little chalk, very well baked and very large,- measuring 44 cent, by 29 — a fact that, together with the style of the edifice, at once shows it to be a purely Roman fabric of the third or fourth century. Cordero instead endeavours to demonstrate that this gate must be a Lombard work, but his long pages do not in the least succeed in proving this. That in the time of the Lombards and Carlovingians it was the custom of princes to live near or * Guida di Lucca. 57 on the gates of the city, especially if those gates were large and well armed, it seems we ought to believe, on the faith of many documents quoted by Cordero himself; but from the fact of this gate having been one of these habitations, its construction by the inhabitants is by no means to be necessarily deduced. As Ave must now turn our investigations towards Upper Italy, our thoughts run straight to the only important centre of popu- lation and industry that existed in the Lombard time, that is to say Pavia, Avhich, by those barbarians, was made the capital of their own kingdom. But that city fell so often under the pick- axe of its conquerors, and was so often made a prey to the flames, that we seek in vain in it one single stone, much less a building out of the many which the Lombard kings erected there at the end of the sixth century, and in the following one. Of the royal palace there is not one stone left upon another, and the same may be said of the basilicas erected in the seventh century, not excepting that of S. Michael, of which I must say something later on. MoNZA. — But the Avorst of it is that a similar dearth of monuments of that time is to be deplored throughout all Lombardy, Avhatever may be said by certain Avriters, according to whom some buildings erected by Queen Teodolinda are still standing. And because these gross errors, instead of being dissipated, reappear in new array in recent publications, like that of Motlies,* it is worth the trouble of halting here for a moment to consider, at least, the most famous of those edifices, namely, the church that Teodolinda erected at Monza, close to her palace, t in honour of S. John the Baj)tist — a church that, becoming afterwards a celebrated sanctuary, immortalised the name of the pious queen. Whoever tried to reconstruct this antique and bygone edifice in his own imagination would reason- ably imagine a Latin basilica divided into naves, separated by old marble columns, terminating in the usual apsis, &c., but if we are to believe what Mabillon I tells us, the church of Teodolinda * Work already cited, f See " Paolo Diacouo." t " Diarium Italicum." 58 must Lave had quite another form, and woukl be still in great part visible in the existing cathedral of Monza. He afhrms that the ancient church presented the perfect figure of an equilateral cross, and that the octagon terminated at the first colonnade of the present naves, on which, he adds, still repose the remains of the old facade. He says that the altar occupied the centre of the cross, and that an atrium or quadri-portico preceded the church. In difierent words, Ricci, Motlies, and others re^^eat the same thing. It is useless to waste more breath about it ; all these authors have thought fit to refer to the time of Teodolinda those parts of the cathedral that really belong to its total re- building in the twelfth century, as one sees by its capitals. It is one of those many errors that we meet with in the history of Art of this period, and which I will not cease to combat till I have proscribed them all, as maintaining confusion and darkness. The above-named writers do not stop at the interior of the church, but also consider as work of the time of Teodolinda the tympan with bas-reliefs wbich we see over the greater door of the facade principal, and which represents in two zones, one over the other, the baptism of the Saviour and Teodolinda who, accompanied by her children and her husband Agilulfo, oflers to the Baptist the diadem of the cross. Frisi * and Ferrario,t among old Avriters, also believed this, and among the modern ones Selvatico and Melani,]; but in evident error, because those figures display nothing of the style of that epoch, and present instead all the characteristics of the time when the church was rebuilt, namely, of the twelfth or following century. This my opinion is founded on a careful examination of the miserable sculpture of Ravenna, the centre of the Esarch's dominions, executed in precisely those years in which Teodo- linda erected her church, and is further supported when one considers that on that tympan the queen and her husband are * " Memorie storiche di Mouza e sua Corte." \ " II costume antico e moderno." I Selvatico, work already cited ; Melani, " Scultura Italiana " (Manual! Iloepli). 59 represented with the crown on their heads, wliile from what we Ivuow, the Lombard kings did not wear one. The only sculpture that might have proceeded from the chisels which Teodolinda had at her disposal, is a slab of marble incrusted in the Avail of the facade by the side of the magnificent porch, showing the monogram of Jesus Christ enclosed in a circle, flanked by two crosses, from each of which hang attached to little chains the a and the /2, symbols (according to Mons. Barbier de Montault ) of the Trinity. These sculp- igi.^: FiG. 11. — Slab of Marble at S. John's, Monza — Beginning of the Vllth Century. tures in bas-relief, hard and coarse, childishly enriched by a multitude of drilled holes, bear testimony to the miserable condition to which the calamities before alluded to had reduced Italian art at the beginning of the seventh century. Many are the sacred edifices of Lombardy and other countries f that, according to popular tradition, owed their origin ■■'■ " Inventaires de la Basiliquo royale de Monza." \ I was much surprised to read that Eicci, rejecting the tradition that ascribes the foundation of the baptistery of Florence to Thcodoric, should so easily accept the one attributing it to Teodolinda. He props up his conjecture by noticing certain imperfections in the internal columns ; but it is easy to see that the author has caught a monstrous crab. But quite recently the Arch. Aristide Nardiui-Despotti- Mospignoti, wrote in the Florentine periodical, Arte e Storia (June 15, 1888), that, according to his judgment, S. John, nearly as it now appears, is not a pagan edifice, as Villaui believed it to be, nor of the Lombard era, but a church belonging to primi- 6o to the legendary queen ; but time has not spared us even one : an undoubted proof either of their infirm structure or extreme artistic imperfection, which forced succeeding generations to pull them down and substitute better fabrics in their place. Gkado. — The Italian region to which with some profit we will now direct our researches is Venetia, where we find three edifices of the second half of the sixth century ; two churches, and a baptistery of the once famous city of Grado. Secundus, Archbishop of Aquileia, had taken refuge here, bear- ing with him the treasures of his church, when he found himself menaced by the terrible scourge of the Huns (a.d. 452), after which Niceta, his successor, returned to the desolated metro- poUs, restored modestly some of the least damaged edifices, and recalled the fugitives still living. Later on, the approach of the Goths (a.d. 480) constrained the Archbishop Marcellino to take refuge in Grado — a seat that several of his successors preferred to Aquileia. But after Friuli had been invaded by the Lombards (a.d. 568) and the archbishop Paulin had been obliged to retake the road to which misfortune had guided him, his successor, the Patriarch Elia, with the consent of the Pope, made Grado his fixed residence, and proclaimed it a metropolitan city. It is said that in a.d. 456 Niceta had here erected a church dedicated to S. Euphemia, which, being a century afterwards embellished by Elia, was chosen by him for the cathedral. But whoever examines this church attentively will be persuaded that with the exception, perhaps, of a few tive Christian architecture, built at the end of the fourth century or at the beginning of the fifth ! It would have been better that he should have supported this gratuitous assertion with the convincing proofs that he says he possesses, and without which no one to-day can believe him. But as I am persuaded that he is quite without such proofs, I do not fear to affirm that the interior and, in great part, the exterior of the beautiful church of S. John, in my opinion, cannot be of earlier date than the second half of the eleventh century, nor do I feel inclined to concede that the bare skeleton of the walls of the octagon could be referred to the fifth or sixth century, seeing that the size of the edifice is too far removed from the by no means colossal designs of the times of Galla Placidia and Teodolinda. I will give my reason in my " Architectonic History of the Basilica of S. Mark at Venice." 6i coarse Corinthian capitals of a style still Roman, which may be assigned to the fifth century, all, both the framework and such details as are not the fruit of later reparations, show the sixth century. One must believe, then, that the work of Elia (a.d. 576-580) was an entire re- fabrication of the church of Niceta, which could neither be so vast nor so rich, since that arch- bishop built it in the anguish of exile and with the firm in- tention, afterwards effected, to return to Aquileia. And the mosaic inscrip- tion which we read on the fine pavement of the church sjieaks clearly, attributing to no other than Elia the glory of having raised this basilica ; and, as every one knows, that pavement is a precious work of the sixth century. This church is 46 metres long, and is composed of an exterior atrium and three separate naves divided by twenty columns of marble, several of which are of batio and others of cipollino, Greek marble, or coralline breccia. Like all Greek and Italian basilicas of the sixth century, the central nave only is terminated by an apsis which, like Byzantine ones and J - Fig. 12.— Plan of the Cathedi'al and Baptistery of Grado— A.D. 571-586. 62 those of Eavenna, is curvilinear in the interior and polygonal outside. There remain no more traces of the mosaic and marble decorations that no doubt made this apsis not inferior to the splendid one of the cathedral of Parenzo, since the mosaic pave- ments of both churches show the same character and equal magnificence. But in compensation the Grado pavement is in great part preserved, and considering the i)eriod in which it was made and the rarity of such Avorks, it is the most precious thing of the kind that we can see. Its design of varied and always elegant motives, partakes both of the Roman and Byzantine schools. It is comj)osed of little bits of white, red, yellow, and black marble, like the works in mosaic on the walls ; for the use of incrustations of little slabs carved into various geometrical figures, of oj^us scctile, of which we have such beautiful samples in Venice and its islands, and at Pisa, Rome, and Palermo, came from Greece much later, and only in the ninth century appeared in Italy. Before this epoch, if pavements were made in mosaic they were always, like this of Grado, in opus vermiculatum. ; in several cities considerable remains of them are to be seen. What renders this of Grado still more f)recious ai"e the many inscriptions, also in mosaic, that it presents, which record the names of those that con- tributed Avith money towards its fabrication and the number of square feet of work proportionated to their respective offerings. Nor was this a speciality of the basilica of Grado, as we find it again in the remains of the church of S. Felix of Aquileia, in the few fragments of the pavement of the cathedral of Parenzo, in those recently discovered of the old cathedral of Verona, and in the remains of the ancient cathedral of Brescia. The custom, however strange, and certainly not very conform- able to the evangelical humility, must have been usual, and perhaps was so simply because it was profitable, if one reflects that in all times there have been some of the faithful whose liberality was more influenced by pride than piety. Before the apsis is the choir, raised by three low steps that perhaps were at the first only two higher ones ; in the central nave it extends to the last column but two ; in the lateral naves 63 to the penultimate ones only. It must have been closed with parapets, of which one sees the remains in the pavement of the apsis and in a courtyard behind the churc^h, and, like those of the Greek churches and of S. C;lement's at Rome, it was adorned with crosses, wreaths, and ribbons. This raising of the choir must be held contemporaneous with the edification of the church, being evidently premeditated by the prudent architect. 'J'his we infer from the fact that the bases of all the columns do not immediately I'epose on the pavement, l)ut on a cubic socle corresponding exactly to the elevation of the choir, so that those within the balustrades may not be too low. Similar socles are seen to have been used in several Italian basilicas of the same century, and we therefore deduce that they were the result of a like prudence, and that those churches, especially if bearing the Byzantine character, had choirs slightly raised, though this is in discord with the Oriental rite wdiich did not admit of any raising whatever. That in the sixth century, contrary to some opinions, very high choirs were sometimes used, is witnessed by S. Apollinaris-in-Classe, near Ravenna, which was raised by twelve steps, as is proved by the confession underneath, synchronical with the basilica. Any artist entering this cathedral foi' the first time will be struck with a very strange circumstance : while the twenty capitals of the columns show vaiious forms and diverse styles, all have on each face of their abacus an elegant rose or a sun- flower ; but if he looks sharply at them he will not be long in observing that it is nothing but a simple imposition of stucco — work apparently of the last century, when it was thought fit to mend with the same material certain chipped foliage or broken leaves and even entire capitals, with what taste the reader may imagine for himself. Enough to say that to one Corinthian capital volutes of a composite order were added, and those newly disguised are of the most awkward rococo in the world. But with the exception of these " sgorbs," the capitals clearly fall into two distinct classes, one anterior to the sixth century, and probably used by Elia to save time and expense, the other contemporaneous with the building of tbe edifice by Elia. 64 In the first class we have Corinthian and composite antiques in the Greek and Latin style ; some of them very coarse and resembling those of S. John the Baptist at Ravenna built in the fifth century by Galla Placidia. One is bell-shaped with lily-leaves issuing from a lower circle of acanthus-leaves, like two of the capitals of S. Mark at Venice, one at Constantinople, and those of the celebrated Tower of the Winds at Athens. The seven capitals of the second class are all of one design and from one chisel, comi^osite, savouring of the Byzantine, with thorny acanthus-leaves of minute intaglio obtained by much use of the drill ; in fact, such as we see in the Greek churches at Parenzo, Eavenna, Rome, and elseAvhere. These capitals, the parapets, the pavement, the ichnography of the church, and other particulars show clearly that the constructors of this basilica were Greeks, probably called here on purpose by the Patriarch Elia, who was himself a Greek. Where our cathedral somewhat differs from the Byzantine style is in having its arches planted on the capitals of the columns without the help of either high or low plinths. From these arches spring the high walls sustaining the bare-beamed roof, under which were numerous arched windows of medium size of which we see the traces externally, and which perhaps at one time were closed irafori in marble like the one Avhich now lies behind the church. Those windows now appear flanked by truncated stones on which blind arclies must originally have rested, as in S. Apollinaris-in-Classe at Ravenna, in which basilica the two graduated console-formed projections of the walls, under the lower extremities of the frontons, find their counteiparts. The atrium of the church had originally five arcades, the two lateral ones supported by piedroits, that of the centre being planted on two columns, one of which is now replaced by a terra-cotta pilaster. The only remaining one is of precious proconneso ; it has no capital, but only an abacus of medium height. The three doors are rectangular ; they have quite bare posts, and, above the architrave of the central one is a blind arch after the Greek fashion. 65 The cainpiiiiile ( belfry) wus built much later, to the flctriment of the atrium. Selvatico says it is of cylijidrical fdim. ainl tleolares it therelbre to be one of the oldest in Venetia ; which is totally false. The campanile of Grado is square, and Selvatico evidently confounded it with that of the cathedral of Caorle ! Yet they are miles apart. ^:^!\:r^-- Mi. ■ "'.ft i-'' ' ■'/ i ■ ,.. .'Ur^V' •'■i./ I "';■,■ "'.'■■.•■ '. ■',■■. ".■ Ik Fig. 13. — Capital and Opcn-woik of \Yi)Klow, C'athcch'al of Gvado — A.n. 571-JS6. Near the cathedral, but separated from it, rises the Baptistery, which, although now reduced to its mere mural bones, neverthe- less clearly belongs to the epoch of the neighbouring basilica. It is an octagon of about V2 metres in diameter supporting a cupola a spicdii, and covered with an octahedron roof. It has only one door, and on the opposite side to this opens a low. deep apsis curved within and polygonal without, like that of tlic dome. Nothing remains of tlir })avement, the font, or the decorations, 5 66 to give one an idea of what tlie edifice may liave Leen when first l)iiilt. A few steps from the cathedral rises the church of S. Maria, which is certainly its contemporary, because it shows in its essence the same character and style of building and ornamenta- tion. It is 20 metres long, has no atrium, and is divided by ten columns into three naves of which the central one alone terminates in the apsis. The most conspicuous originalities presented by this church arc its two chambers by the side of the apsis corresponding to modern sacristies, to which access is given by two doors pierced in the walls at the end of the lateral naves. There is no doubt of the synchronism of this part with the rest of the chui'ch, because the walls show no signs of any addi- tions, and the mosaic pavement does not stop at the doors of these cells, but continues and covers them with tlie same splendoui' and with a design tliat adapts itself perfectly to the irregularity of the curve of the apsis \\a\\. Tbese two cells will be lield by many as a singularity of our church, it being commonly be- lieved that till towards the end of the IMiddle Ages all churches were unprovided with special rooms to l)e used as sacristies, and that the ends of the lateral naves or their apsides supplied their place. That this frequently ]ia]>pened. many antique churches with- out trace of sacristies bear witness, and S. Paul of Nola witnesses to it when he writes that in his new basilica he had disposed to the right and left two apsidioles in place of them to hold the book and objects of the sacred ministry. But that does not Imc. 11. rian of S. 'Maiia of f4rado — A.D. 571-5b0. 67 abolisli tlio fact tlmt. in tlio i^Toatcv iiuinlifi- of tlie cliiiriln's of tlu' rai'ly (•(■iitiii'ics. tlici'c were veal saciisties joined to the rest of tlie chnvcli. Imt alwaxs distinct from tlie naves. In large basilicas it seems that the sacristies were found near the vestihnh', at the entrance of tlie cliurcli Tlie sacristv of the old church of S. Peter in the Vatican had the form of a small basilica with apsis, chapels, and colnnins. and was joined to the entrance-portico.* At S. John Lateran, on the contrary, the oratory of S. Thomas served for sacristy, and at S. Pi'ax- eda that of S. Zenone. In the East the churches witiiout sacristies reaHy form an exception. It is enough to open the very valuable \\orlv of Vogiie t to convince oneself that, in the fifth and sixth centuries, in Centviil Syria, at any rate, sacristies were an integral part of all churches. Of whatever form the latter may be, we always see two rectangular rooms invariably situated at the side of the apsis, with their entrance in the end of the lateral naves, and often connnunicating directly with the apsis itself. It is a remarkable fact that in the greater number of those churches only one of these rooms communicate with the nave l»y means of a door, while the other is almost a ])i-()longation of it, because instead of a door a wide arcade opens into it. It is very i)robable that the closed room served to contain the sacerdotal vestments, the precious accessories, and the sacicd \ases. whence the names of rci-cplnmiiit. rrsliar'niiii. sn-rrtniiniii. sHcniridiu or Hncri^im, and in (ireek (/((znplii/laciKiii. ixisloplioihini. (liaconiciiiii : and that the open room served simply to receive the obldtd — that is to say, the oiierings of the faithful ; and the Greeks called it pmllia-h (TTpoBi'^m^). Among the Syrian churches cited by A'ogiie there aic two whose plan identically reproduces that of the little church of Grado ; and this, in my mind, is a new excellent proof that only Greek artists had a hand in the construction of these basilicas. But S. Maria of Grado is not the only Italian church wliich preserves the ancient sacristies. S. John the Evangelist, at ''■■ Pioliault ill' I'lciiiy, worlc alrcatly citod. t " L'ArchiteeUne civile et religeuse de la Syiie CfntiaK," 68 Ravenna, the famous S. Vita of the same city, and S. Apollinaris- in-Classe, have them to this day, and all their characteristics show that they are contemporary with this church. In the first they are rectangular, round in the second, and almost square with a little apsis in the third. Similarly the cathedral of Ravenna of the fourth century, before it was I'ebuilt in modern style, had at the end of its four minor naves the same numlier of rectangular rooms, as we can see from authentic designs. The basilica of S. ^laria Formosa at Pola, erected in 540, of which some ruins remain, had two circular sacristies with large niches around them, and in the cathedral of Parenzo certain cells adjoining it and still existing seem to have served for sacristies. To return to our church at Grado, its choir is raised b)^ two high steps that occupy the last two hays of the apsis, and must have been girt with chancels of whose balusters we still see traces in several square holes, and of whose parapets some fragments remain in the pavement of tlic choir itself, and bear fraternal likeness to those of the cathe- dral. One of them presents a quadrilobe bound by ribbons, like certain otliers at S. Demetrius of Thessalonioa. Here and there the pavements of the na\es sliow remnants of mosaics of the same design as that of the cathedral, and, like the latter, ornamented with the usual inscriptions. The columns present the same varieties of marble as those in the cathedi'al, and the capitals are still more varied. Thei-e are some of Byzantine composite of minute intaglio, one Corinthian of the same style, and tAvo basketed, with delicate ornamentation, exactly like some of those in the Greek churches at Ravenna and Istria, but unfortunately much mutilated, and therefore restored in stucco ; for here, too, Ave have the fatal intervention of the siiicchiiio, though more sparing in its sunflowers. Other capitals are either Ionic-Roman with angular volutes, or form- less restorations of the centuries later than the sixth. It is to be noted that some of them have the abacus as high as those of Ravenna, and some as low as those of the eleventh ceuturv. 69 The rows of pilasters adlieroiit to the apsis form a species of cimam witli the moiiograiii of Jesus Christ inscribed in a circle surrounded with foliage. These churches of Grado, though the most ancient that Venice has preserved,* escaped the misfortune common to all their sisters, even the younger ones of the cities of the plain ; that is to say, they were not sunk lower, or rather the plane of the street around them was not considerably raised — a circumstance perhaps owing to the foresight of the constructors iu erecting them on a higher plane (and in fact S. Maria is elevated by three or four "steps), but most probably this city is not founded on the soft mud of the lagoons, but on the high, solid downs between them and the sea. Oh, that Venetia had preserved for us edilices of the seventh century as Grado kept those of the sixth ! We are obliged instead to content our- selves with a few miserable ruins, and unimi^ortant sculptures characteristic of the style of the seventh century. It is probable that Art in the Venetian cities, especially those near the sea, suHV-rud the same troubles that it sutl'ered at Ravenna, and con- sequently the same (U'cidence ; because the fact of having partly escaped from the Lombard scourge in 568 certainly did not save it from other cataclysms and nuiladies of which 1 have before spoken, to which the rest of lt;i]}' was subject, specially towards the end of the sixth century. Venice. — It would be well and useful to be able to point out some Avork of that period belonging to this region ; and I think I shall not go far from the tmth in showing you three works of sculpture in Venice which seem to me indubitably to refer to ■■ Not reckoning the miserable remains of the ancient baptistery of A(iuileia, certainly of the fourth century. Hi. mMm. Fiu, 15. — Crown of a Pilaster at S, Muria of Grado — A,u. 571-566, 70 those caliiniitous times, and were {leiluips })icked up anioug the tiamiiii;' ruins of uiih;n)pv Altino, destroyed hy the Lombards ill 641. The oklest of these scuilptures is a front of a sarcophagus in the atrium of the basilica of S. Mark, and which was utilised in the thirteenth century to decorate the urn of Doge Marino Morosini (who died in 1253). It presents two zones sculptured Avitli hgures : in the higher zone the Saviour is represented in the midst of His apostles ; in the lower one the Virgin is depicted among male and female saints alternating with censers. The frame of the compositions is a band adorned with a cross from which issue vine-branches with grapes, leaves, and birds. These ornaments remind one much of the Byzantine style at Ihivenna in the sixth century : but the figures, though in sutti- cient relief, are so dwarfed and deformed that even the worst of the sarcophagi at Ravenna does not equal them in badness. But, altliough admitting that Venetian sculptors in those times were more incompetent to rejii'oduce iigures than those of Baveiina, it is not reasonable to hold u]) this ugly work as an example of the sculpture of Altino in the sixth century, but only as a wretched example of. the second half of this century. Perhaps some one might hold a different opinion to mine re- garding the origin of this sculpture, deeming it more likely to have been taken from Greece or Bavenna : Imt I would have him observe that these little figures in their unadorned costume, and their lack of symmetry are too far removed from the Oriental iiiaiiiu'V. On the contrary, they bear the Latin stamp. Moreover, the custom of subdividing the subject represented into zones does not ai)pear in any of the sarcophagi of Bavenna, in which there exclusivelv obtains the custom of isolatinsj" the iiuures under niches, or arraiming them all in a single line. If this sculpture shows a very marked artistic decadence, another sai'cophagus manifests the absolute fall of Art. It is the sarcophagus in which, in the twelfth century, the doges (xiacomo and Lorenzo Tiepolo were dt'posited. It may be seen under an archivolt of the front of the church of ISS. John and Paul. It rocalls in the ot^cinhlc the ordinarv sarcopliagi of the Payaiis: that is to say. it is of ohloiii;' foviii. is closed with a kind of douhle lid, and tinislicd at the angles with large ante- fixes, on which Avere sculptured the anus of the doges. On the front is the inscription (which has supplanted one more ancient), framed hy meagre mouldings and llanl-ced hy two angels bearing censers, holding the place of tin- old Pagan genii. On the front side of the covercle, which is divided into three parts, is sculp- tured (in the centre) the cross with the two doves underneath, and (on the sides) two smaller crosses i^lanted on globes. Oiu.' notices most the coarseness of the work when looking at the two figures of the angels. There is still something of roundness in their heads, but the bodies are squat and scraggy, like the saints we saw on the ambos of Ivavenna of the same date, not to mention that the lines have lost all idea of truth and taste, being simply like waves of the sea. The angles of the sarcophagi are K ^^1 Kf in:7.J:iT'..=srii- ' >i'r.i ■■•.,[^'-:- [il'rHfVP\"^:;i'aii',^':-ic rifDiv u.. -iriri Ty^'H!*HI5•'-j . nv" ,/.a,itivi> ■■v,"il';tip'i'IOSf-Df!IIT r'ATHIfl-POST-M/MTreSTOAi , '.Ki'JpjT ri'Rii;tToi;-;'mMcep.';-L-rtVRfMTivsisTP!i('s ' i-r riOhR'w'-Rtvsiciir; rriGtNTi sTKrvGc-f-'.ocK'rc5 "-=■■''- -P"M(IT-UF-J'/'P1.^'0S . mtlC S\'BDITA CCKMT Cf.;-'.T~ 'W'-Si'ilsjWOi' '^i mn : iJJ'^BtiK^ii/.s-y'^'Trf^ff.ivfAiOBnT. ' o ' 'III -m Fig. 16. — Sarcophagus at llio Church of SS. -John and Paul at Venice. ornamented by two octagonal pilasters with ca])itals. with a very ]dain shell. The form of these ]ulasters reminds us of another sar- copliagus existing in the Aieliteological Miiseiini of the Ducal Pahice, and which in its design and execution, and also in the cliaracters of the inscription, points to the seventh century. AVe owe the preservation of this tomb also to the custom connnon in past centuries of using anti(iue sarcophagi to deposit new dead, for in the sixteenth century a Soranzo was entombed in this one, as Ave know by the higher seal that closes the tomb.' I have vainly attempted to read the names of the two who \\ ere first interred there ; time has nearly corroded the letters ; Avhile underneath one reads without nuicli trouble, " HyVNC SEDEMYIYI SIBI POSVE (runt) VNO ANIMO LA.I30- llANTES SINE VLLA QVAEKELLA." However, it would not nuich help us to know whether their mimes were Peter or Paul ; but we are glad to know by the inscription that the two there l)uried, prol)ably brothers, knowing how to work in sculpture, Avith one accord set to work to make i'or themselves this sarcophagus. The inscription is suiTouiuled by a square cornice, and ilanked by two little arches supported by small half-columns followed by .M "nflSviiK ...Ujoil^ ^g?i)SiSt^g^- -.-" - --^^----^ -■^_-^, .■.-T-.-^-':— -^a:a|=..:p-j:^.;:,^.jpfe»L»,ua'-«:i:'fe^fe£W i''iG. 17. — Sarcophagus at the Museimi of the Ducal Palace at Yeuiee. angular pilasters. The extreme coarseness of this w ork appears more conspicuously from the negligence Avith Avliich the vertical lines Avere traced. To tell the truth, they are all sloping. One * It was in the church of S. Paul, vulj;aily called S. Polo. 73 would tliiiik tli.it these good artisans, like those of the sarco- phagus of S. Felix ill fS. Apolliuaris-iii-Classe of luiveiiua, did not know the use of square or lead; yet to conlirni what they liad expressed in the epigraph, and almost as if in mockery of themselves, they thougl't tit to sculpture an axe under the two little arches, as well as the square rule and lead which they handled so unskilfully ToKCELLO. — If I could acccpt all Selvatico's ()|)inions, far from troubling myself in researches resulting in little fruit, I would at once present my readers with a multitude of works of sculpture of the sixth and seventh centuries, collected hy the Venetian islanders from the ruins of Altino. Oderzo, or Con- cordia, and then employed to ornament their new churches and habitations. J>ut because I know that this worthy man, while discoursing of the Art of those centuries was always w orking in the dark, and also because the result of my studies in nowise accords with his opinions, I willingly renounce such riches, and hold tliem in reserve to adorn a nnich later period (till now ill- used, ill-seen, and misunderstood), and meantime I shall avenge the noble Venetian-Byzantine art. This remark also refers to entire edifices, and especially to the cathedral as we see it at Torcello, which Selvatico, sword in hand, with marked passion attirmed to be throughout the same as that which was erected bv the fugiti\es from xMtino after 041, thus shutting his eves against the historic records that declare that it was three times rebuilt. When I again speak of this i)recious basilica it will be seen that only deficiency of severe study, and of necessary com- parisons, led Selvatico and his followers* into such a false track. In the meantime I hasten to declare that though I also am of opinion that this church was originally built in the basilica! form, I cannot concede to ydvatico that its first ichnography was altogether preserved in its later ivbuildings, since I jierceive that the present minor naves terminate in two apsides, Avhich was not customary in Italy before the end of the eighth century, as we shall see further on. This well-founded " Eusldn, JNIothus, ;uk1 Rohault tic Floury also cn-oneously coiisiikTuil tlio cathedral of Torcello as an almost intact monument of the sevuiitli century. 74 conjectnve assumes ;ill the ai)peavance of trutli if we only examine the plan fsec Chapter IV.) and the elevation of tlie chnvch. We see that the two little chapels tevniinated l»y the apsidioles have been added later, and unskilfully charged on the central apsis. This observation leads ns to recognise in that central apsis the only true remains of the church of the seventli century, because we shall see that the little chapels iianu^d above, witli the })resent perimetric walls of the basilica, the semi-annular crypt and corresponding apsis and presbyterial stairs, were indisputably constructed in 864. We have still more proof from the little windows of the crypt, evidently cut in the old wall, and from the projections of the same which we tind inserted later without respect to the recurrence of the terra- cotta bricks. The " Cronaca Altinate" tells us that this church was rich, lolty, and well-lighted. That shows that the miserable fissures of the tenebrous Lombard churches were not yet the mode, but large, wide windows were liked, copious light being considered a principal quality much to be valued. The same chronicle then mentions the pavement of the church, in the midst of which had been made a wheel of most beautiful work, without doubt in mosaic, which had aroused so much admiration that the sur- rounding neighbourhood took the name of (Jclla J! -»^ c3 6 91 rosettes, and especially that large band placed under the fronton, into which are cat the little arches of the central double door ("bifora"). Here we ought to recognise, no less than in the Syrian remains, the same timid chisel, the same method of ornamentation, the 5^-K^, g;iniii;i|imiiiiiii /o here replaced by crude, gross furrows, and from the inelegant, childish, and barbarous distribution of the ornaments, that make the work the rudest specimen of this style remaining in Italy. Only the supposition that Orso intended merely to sketch out his design on the marble with those furrows, and had ■■' The fragmentary awkwardness of its supports has much in comiuon with tliose of the church of Aghate, near Monza, built in 881. 101 no time to tinisli it, being perhaps prevented IVom doing s(» \>y death, could remove the obstacles which oppose this attribution. The style of those " frescoes " is at any rate Byzantine in every particular : cordons, olive-branches, crosses, hexagonal Fig. 31. -Baptisterj- of Calisto at Cividalc — a.d. 737. roses, foliage, fans, circles, and again crosses. One also sees on it a vase flanked by two doves and grotesque figures of people praying. CiviDAT-E. — But where the most numerous and best pre- served, if not the best, works of this style are to be found, in Italy is at Cividale, in Friuli. Since about 630 the Patriarchs of Aquileia resided in I04 Cormons ; but Calisto, disdaining that humble little place in 737, transferred his seat to Cividale, which, besides being a larger and richer city, was also the fixed residence of the Duke of Friuli. There Calisto built, amongst other things, the baptismal font which still exists, having been removed to the cathedral in the seventeenth century from the neighbouring baptistery now destroyed. It is of octagonal form and intended for the rite of immersion. It is encircled by a parapet likewise octagonal, open on two sides, on Avhich are raised eight slim little columns bearing the same number of semicircular archivolts, not sur- mounted by a cornice, but only by a band, on which is carved the inscription attesting that this tegurio was erected and adorned by Calisto in the reign of Luitprand. One of the original archivolts is wanting, and is replaced by another, quite plain, with a modern inscription ; one of the vases of the columns j^resents four leaves at the angles of the plinth, which indicates a restoration perhaps of the thirteenth century. Nor can the basement be sup- posed to be the true one, since it is in part made up of fragments of parapets that from their dimensions never could have belonged to it. But from the columns upwards there is no doubt that it is authentic work of the time of Calisto. The little columns have attic bases, smooth stems, high and expanded cajii- tals, all of the usual measure and form, of a composite ^vitll two rows of leaves *Fig. 32.— Capital of Baptistery without ovoli with large volutes and '^' Cividale— a.d. 737. large roses in the centre. The leaves are of two kinds, some carved like thorny acanthus, re- minding one of the Byzantine capitals of the sixth century ; others show a sawlike contour, a new kind for Italy, but familiar in buildings of the sixth century in Syria, where, in the conventional language of Byzantine art, it possibly stood Figs. 33 & 34. — Archivolts of the Baptistery at Cividale— A.D. 737. I05 for palm-leaves. Al- though the chisel is somewhat timid, yet. on the whole, I am far from defining them barbarous, as does Selvatico. .[ find them very ele- gant. Without doubt they are the best capitals that Greek artificers of the eighth century have left us in Italy. The archivolts above are also elegant, adorned by olive- moulding, vine- branches proceeding from vases, and little curls with palm- leaves. Every angle of the octagon among the arches is adorned with intaglio of circles interwoven with rich bead-work, but the part under the inscription ex- hibits a row of ovoli of meagre form and ineffective. In the little archivolts, and over them, among a profusion of branches, of palms, of roses fuU blown, I Ob or in the girandole fashion, we see animals of rude design chiselled inexi^ertly. The doves, peacocks, and stags, drinking at the fount, are connected with the symbolism of the first Christian ages ; but those winged griffins, the two lions that are about to bite the two rabbits, and those two great fishes menacing two small ones, are entirely new representations in Western churches (though in that time they must have been in great vogue in Oriental ones), and only in the eleventh century * Fig. 35. — Fragments of the Balustrades of the Baptistery at Civiclale — a.d. 737. did they become familinr to all the sacred buildings in Europe. Tbe baptistery of Cividale merits, therefore, special considera- tion, for it oft'ers one of the lirst examples in Italy of these representations of animals, which afterwards became the most conspicuous species of sculptured ornamentation of the Romanic style. The base, as I have said, is in part composed of fragments of parapets of the same style as the archivolts, and therefore most probably by the same artificers. In the interior is I07 a little pilaster made to serve for a cornice. Its decoration consists of a vine-branch with double row of curls of unfortunate design. On the exterior, at the left, two fragments of high parapets compose one of the sides of the base. The other * Fig. 36. — Balustrade of Sigualdo in the Baptistery at Cividale — a.d. 762-776. presents two squares enclosing two rude symbols of Evangelists furnished with inscriptions, and, lower down, a complicated band with curvilinear knot-work of channelled ribbons which the artificers meant for osiers. The other fragment of a parapet offers an elegant wheel formed of open lilies and some curhug palm -leaves. The first section on the right of the parapet consists only of one entire piece of marble adorned with bas-reliefs. The angles are occupied by four circles, whose borders are adorned by Avreaths of little leaves and enclose the symbols of the Evangelists, of a still more barbarous design than the pre- ceding ones and from an equally clumsy chisel. Each figure io8 holds a tablet, on which is carved an inscription relative to its symbolism. The central part of the parapet is divided into two zones. In the upper one there is a cross adorned with braid- ings, between two palms (below) and two roses (above), and flanked by two candelabra shaped like many-ringed columns with bases and small capitals. This rei^resentation, which had appeared as early as the sixth century on monuments of Byzan- tine style at Eome and Ravenna, and now reappeared in Italy through the same Byzantine influence, we shall see repeated for a long time in Italian works of the ninth and tenth centuries. The inferior zone of the parapet represents a tve'e whose upper boughs terminate in hons' heads; below, there are two winged griflins, and over them two doves holding bunches of grapes in their beaks. In this quite Oriental composition, which reminds us of those we saw on the facade of the cathedral of Athens, Selvatico saw a reflection of the cloudy doctrines brought across the Alps by the Lombards ! This stone bears the following carved inscription : — + HOC TIBI RESTITVIT SICVALD BAPTESTA lOHANNES. So Sigualdo, Patriarch of Aquileia, whose See dated from 762 to 776, had this parapet sculptured in substitution for one that was ruined. That it ever belonged to the baptistery no one can be sure of. These poor artificers who, notwithstanding the imperfections of their chisel, often knew how to work in ornaments "with sufficient grace, but in representing animals fell into an abyss of unskilfulness, must have avoided, one would think, like the pest, any occasion for representing the human figure, which, more than that of animals, require solid artistic culture and a free hand ; yet they did not, since we see in Cividale itself, in the church of S. Martin, an altar of their making, covered on three sides by figures Avitli sacred subjects. The inscription that encircles it says that it was ordered by King Piatchis (744-749), the son of Pemone, Duke of Friuli. The reader may imagine what sort of thing could issue from such hands. If the coarse- 109 ness of the times did not justify the presence of these wretched things, one would think they were gross caricatures ; they are such horrors that they can only he compared to those ftrjorbi that the uneducated children of the populace often trace upon * Fig. 37. — Altar of Eatcliis at Cividale (posterior part) — a.d. 744-749. the walls of our houses, especially if newly painted and white- washed. Truly, if all the sacred images that the eighth century offered to the veneration of the faithful had heen of this stani]), one would almost find even the fury of the iconoclasts reasonable. On the front of the altar Jesus Christ is represented in the ^^^ ^ act of benediction. A seraph with six wings is on each side of'^icVuL Him. Observe a peculiarity of these wings. They are dowered with a great number of human eyes, certainly in order to follow scrupulously the descriptions made by Ezekiel and S. John. This singularity, unique in Italy, must have been common in Greece, as we can still see at Constantinople in the interior of I lO the ancient church of S. Irene, a capital that seems to date from the eleventh century, having four seraphim under the nngles of the ahacus with their wings similarly spotted with eyes. Four palm-hranches borne by as many angels enclose in an oval the Saviour and the seraphim. One side of the altar repre- sents the visitation of S. Elizabeth ; the other the adoration of ^Ir V l-*c_."t'. the Magi; and at the back are two great jewelled crosses of an if ^ojioo'7 entirely Greek character. Each face of the altar is framed by plaits, cordons, spindles, or by several bands formed by the letters SS uniting at their heads like chain-work. Palms, roses, and lilies, are copiously used. But another monument waits for us in Cividale where, for nearly twenty years, writers on Art are wont to guide Art-students to comfort and recreate themselves with the sight of some fine stucchi. It is the little church of S. Maria-in-Valle, of which a chronicle written in 15:) 8 would have us believe that it is the same as that which was adorned by Pertrude, wife of the Duke of Friuli in the time of the Patriarch Sigualdo. It tells us that Pertrude, having founded a monastery there, deposited relics of saints in costly cases in that little church, and built a most beautiful choir surrounded by several marble tablets and by columns also of marble supporting the vault. It also mentions the majestic door of the church adorned internally by a vine, and above by six images of saints. All that we can see even now, so that the work of Pertrude remains to us perfectly and wonderfully preserved. Lenoir was the first to make this church known to us through the work of Gailhabaud, who blindly bowed to the chronicle and gave us this little church for an example of decoration and sculpture of the eighth century. Dartein and Selvatico confirmed his conclusion, but not without some doubts, and they were followed by Cavallucci * Bayet f and many others. But it is sufficient to glance at the date of that chronicle to make us cautious in giving faith to such oi3inions; and, if we Manuale di Storia della Scultura," Loescher, 1884, t " L'Art Byzantin," Pavis, Quantiii. Ill proceed to cxniniiie tlie monument in a diligent and dis- passionate \vay, they must be at last altogether rejected. It is composed of a scpiaro cell of solid masonry, covered by a solid vault of crosier pattern, and followed by a little 2)i'esbytery subdivided into ihree small chapels by some columns supporting architraves, on which curve three vaults whose arches are slightly raised. The first two columns, because they serve to support the wall ab(jve, are larger than the others ; their capitals, though not as elegant as those of the baptistery of Calisto, remind one of their style. The choir is closed by a chancel formed by two slabs of marble with a simple fillet, and by two slender little pilasters supporting a little wooden cornice whose capitals still more resemble the accurate chiselling of those of the aliove- mentioned baptistery. There is one door surmounted by a blind arch which is repeated on the two lateral walls ; and blind arches in curved ^\indows also decorate the outer flanks of the little church. A rich and elegant decoration in stucco covers the internal front of the edifice, and consists of two demi- columns (which have now almost disappeared) supjjorting a, light archivolt of vine-branches, spindles, and roses curving over the entrance ; of a band of interlaced SS that runs over the architrave ; of two cornices in rosework ; of a window embellished ^\'ith little columns and a rich archivolt, and finally of six statues in high relief representing saints in vestments rich in ornaments and pearls, of a character absolutely Byzantine. In face of the infantile and barbarous figures of the baptistery of Calisto and the altar of Ratchis, how can we attribute to the same epoch, in the same city, these six statues which, though some^vhat too long and wooden, and leaving something to be desired in the drapery, are nevertheless as superior to the others as the sun is to the moon ? That elegant archivolt of proportions so just, ond of an effect so lovely, so enchanting that any artist might be proud of having imagined it, is it not the most beautiful thing of the kind that exists in the world ? These were the first and most spontaneous considerations that made me doubt the authenticity of the chronicle ; but there is more yet. The beautiful decoration in stucco, now limited to the sole internal I 12 facade, must originally have been repeated on all the other walls and even under the little chapels, as is evidently shown by the existence of remnants here and there. Now, why is it that the chronicler who describes the work of Pertrude, mentions only the wall which is still preserved ? If, as he asserts, he really drew it from authentic sources, why did not his description also include the things now lost ? Selvatico, sustaining the veracity of that chronicle, says we must not think that the chronicler of that monastery was only guided by the foolish vanity of making the little church appear very antique. This time the critic is really too indulgent ! Of these foolish vanities the history of Art has many specimens, and Selvatico himself often fell into them unawares ; but who is unable to see that here vanity was not so much in question as the ignorance of the chronicler, in whose time there was not even a faintly dawning twilight of critical history of Art, especially medieval Art ? Indeed one may swear that no one then would have dreamt of doubting the pretended antiquity of that church. I never could understand how the aforesaid worthy historians of the edifice under discussion, although tormented by the doubts that leak out of their pages * had not the courage once for all to emancipate themselves from that mendacious chronicle. But note the power of analogy ! Notwithstanding that everything here gave them cause for doubting it, that chronicle was not repudiated, because the capitals resembled those of Calisto's baptistery. That is why they have taken the whole for the part. I, on the contrary, would have picked out the part and left the rest. In fact, it is not only the stucco decoration that in my opinion cannot be attributed to the eighth century, but the whole ensemble of the edifice. As far as I am concerned the present church is only a refabrication of that adorned by Pertrude, perhaps in the same place and on the same foun- dations, but with a very difierent design, worked out about the * The only one who did not limit himself to mere doubt, but curtly refused to believe that the statues mentioned above belong to the eighth century, was the excellent Professor Melani in his httle volume on the " Scultura Italiana " (Hcepli). But he held back at the figures, continuing to regard and point out the beautiful ornaments as examples of architectonic decoration of the eighth century. 113 year 1100. In the eleventh or twelfth century that solid vault of crosier pattern was built ; they were then capable of building it, and it is not necessary, as Dartein and Selvatico wish, to revert to the Pioman ei^och in witnessing the technical inexperience of artificers of the seventh and eighth centuries. In the eleventh or twelfth century those blind external and internal arches found their place, and especially those vaults with arches raised on, and projecting from, great brackets spring- ing from the capitals — a mode that in Venice, in Italy, and even in Greece was not familiar to architects before the tenth century. But as there is nothing in this fabric that belongs to the Lombard style and, on the contrary, the Neo-Byzantine style is evident in every part of it, we must needs believe it to be the work of some Greek artist, who required simple forms and bare walls as a field for the splendid stucco decorations that he wished to lavish upon them. By all who have any know- ledge of mediaeval Art, the Greek hand has been recognised in these works. Those graceful motives of ornamentation, that beauty of form and elegance of conceit, those tall figures with beautiful small heads and Oriental vestures, while they retain all the imiH'ession of Grecian art, do not find their counterparts in any other authentically Italian work. In only one other part of Italy have I seen similar things. I refer to certain bas-reliefs in stucco that adorn the ciborium of the high altar, or adorned the presbytery of S. Ambroise of Milan ; and why we ought to consider them as Greek and contemporaneous with the stuccoes of Cividale we shall see in the following chapter. Some of the champions of the chronicle referred to tried to explain the great superiority of these reliefs in stucco to those in marble on the altar of Eatchis, not so much by supposing greater power in the artist, as by insisting on the facility offered by the material he employed, more docile to inspiration and more susceptible to skill. But this idea is erroneous, because, ordinarily, just the reverse occurs ; that is to say, works in stucco always turn out rougher tlian works in marble of the same epoch, so much so that the e^e cannot easily miss the fact. And I firmly hold that the man who adorned 8 114 S. Maria-in-Va]le in certain particulars — as, for example, in the capitals — would have been a much finer and more fortunate worker if he had had to do with hard stone. But whatever one ma}^ think of the epoch of those figures and those orna- ments, this is certain — that they breathe forth the renaissance of Byzantine art in the tenth century. Before then sculpture sinned rather by heaviness than lightness ; afterwards just the reverse was the case ; and those saints seem copied from some of those many bas-reliefs in ivory, that were then produced by thousands in Greece, and circulated through the whole world. But here is the most eloquent proof that neither the stucco decorations nor the existing edifice can be attributed to the ¥ i^'^kV :\^.^K Tig. 38.— rai-apct of S. l\rariii-ln-A'allc at CIvidalc-A.D. 702- 77G. eighth century. In the Avail of the facade of the little church (the same that holds the figures and. the archivolts) one saw, some years ago, eei'tain slabs of marble in fragments adorned by ornamental bas-reliefs, set there not for decoration, but simply to economise other material. One of them was even used as the tablet of a window over the door (now walled), and it was necessary to chip away its corners in order to remove it. More of these stones were found scattered here and there in the contiguous cloister, and together with the first were, by a happy 115 thought, adapted to the walls of the atriiim of the church. Well, it is here that I find chiselling of Sigualdo's time, and here alone may Ave see the remnants of Pertrude's work. One of tliesc slabs, of a rectangular form, is adorned above and below with two borders of folia-'C of various de- t.*^^iA Signs that remind one of the little pilaster seen by us in the interior of the baptistery of Calisto ; the central space is divided into three compartments, one occupied by a wheel Avitli rays, another by a girandole-wheel, the third by slender leaves, probably intended for lilies. Two bands of vine-branches sej)arate these compart- ments, and spindles and cords are used everywhere. No doubt this was a para- pet meant to form part of the chancel of the Sanc- tuary, and its companion must have been that other, of identical design and mea- sure, of which mutilated renniants are to be found in the pavement of the little presbytery. When measured, they are found to corre- spond perfectly with the dimensions of the simple modern ones, substituted in the restoration. A sarcophagus lying in the presbytery and, according to popular tradition, enclosing the ashes of the pious duchess, is formed by two slabs of orna- mented marble of rectangular form, one of whose smaller sides, somewhat inclined in each slab, terminates at the summit iji a Fig. 39.— Marhk' Door-lcavos at S. Maria- in-Yallu — a.d. 762-77G. ii6 smooth pineapple. These slabs are neither more nor less than the marble doors of the antique chancel ; their decoration con- sists below of two little arcades, with a palm-tree or a vine, and above of little squares, sometimes fUlcd up by roses, and always framed by braids or twists of leafage and birds. Fig. 40.— Fronton of S. Maria— a.d. 7C2-776. Not less interesting are three other slabs of marble, taking the form of a fronton. The smaller one, with rather steep inclination, seems an unfinished work, and offers an embarrassed design in circles, with palms and braidings. Perhaps it once decorated the entrance of the little church. The other two, of equal dimensions and better jiroportions, are identical in their framings, and varied only in their tympanum ; the hori- zontal bands are adorned by tine gyres with rosettes of con- spicuously Greek pattern ; and the inclined bands show SS fronting each other and bound together,* and are terminated by rampant leaves. One tympanum shows the usual decorations of rectangles and wheels rich in roses, lilies and palms, and in one corner a cock ; the other a great wheel, with knot-work flanked by a bull and a lion, followed by two little animals of the same '■' These ornaments evidently served as models for the v^'orker in stucco of the twelfth century, who copied them several times in his decorations. 1 1 species. These are figures worthy of tliose in the l)aptistery. Tlieso two frontons united to other horizontal ornaments, of \Yhich ahuiidaut fragmenls remain, perhaps served, supported ^rA^/OCV^: )MM fc-~3 pM l-'M &^m^ TRltsn ^~ TOPXELLO ^it,^ m^is^^m MIUNO ^^^ Fig. 41.— Capitals of the Vlllth Century. hy small columns, to cover, like a ciborium, the altar of the little church. I cannot imagine any other place for them. Several other fragments in the same style, friezes, parapets, and a disc which was perhaps the table of a round monostyle altar, are gathered together on these walls. In the interior also, besides the two little capitals on the pilasters of the chancel and the before-mentioned fragments, the little column with a capital (see Fig. 41j and ornamented pedestal that, in the centre, serves to bear the reading-desk, shows seventh -century work, in addition to the two great capitals that now lie upside down in the presbytery, and serve as pole-bearers. Their accui'ate work reminds me of those of the baptistery much more than the others that support the vaults of the present chapels, which, perhaps, may be an imitative work of the time when the church was rebuilt. ii8 The consideration that all these marbles of the eighth century could nut have been placed in the little modern church without demolishing it, joined to the i-easons which I have already adduced, will, I trust, persuade the studious that the present edilice, with its stuccoes, has nothing in common with that of the eighth century. The baptistery, the altar, and tlie decorations of S. l\[aria-in- Valle, were not the only works produced in Cividale at that time, as it is known that the Patriarch Calisto also caused the cathedral to be enlarged. He must certainly have employed those Greek artificers who had worked in the baptistery, and j)erhaps some fragments of this belonged to it. Moreover, in the museum of the same city, a fragment of an arch of a ciborium is to be seen with bas-reliefs and inscriptions of the identical style of the baptistery, and some other bits in the same style as that of S. Maria-in-Valle. One can also observe certain very rongli capitals, that, presenting much analogy with those of the ciborium of S. George of Yalpolicella, evidently belong to the same epoch. The conceit of the cube with the cut corners is there clearly seen, and the artist has often given it the semblance of leafage. Guided by these things, we shall recognise similar ones in several other places. Trieste. — We see two slight colnimns in the cathedral of Trieste of more slender proportions, but of analogous taste, employed as best might be in a restoration of the eleventh century, but evidently belonging to the eighth. In the lower ]jart they have a row of coarse leaves, here each cut in three ditlerent directions ; higher up is the usual cutting of the corners, and on the front a channelled convexity with meagre honeysuckle ornaments supporting the abacus. PoLA. — Of the same kind, but wrought by a coarser and less correct hand, is a little capital in the museum of Pola, and also another somewhat different but of the same style. Treviso. — The museum of Treviso has a rectangular basin, adorned with fine, large, and original leaves of wild acanthus, that shows the style of the eighth century, and so does a I lO little broken column with capital, that seems to belong to the same family as the above-desciibecl. ToiiCELLo. — Several are to be seen in the museum of Fig. 42.— Parapet found at S. Augustine at Venice— Vlllth Century. Torcello ; they are for the most part Corinthian, with smootli leaves. One only, much mutilated, shows leaves with intaglio, I 20 -f{liiiCiatal'II&.Jt!>a'*.Ji'tetiil and much resembles others that we shall see in the museum of Brescia. There is also a fragment of a little pilaster, remains of some chancel, with hraidecl circles containing giran- dole-stars, roses, or crosses. It is surrounded by a curious band, with little leaves turned face-to- face and curved. Venice. — A similar little pilaster I also saw in Signer Dorigo's depot of marbles ; it was strengthened by a graceful band, with leaves which alternated in curvilinear meanders. I also saw there a frag- ment of a parapet with a band and mixtilinear braid- ings, and a circle formed of laurel-leaves, enclosing the symbol of the evangelist S. Luke, very similar to that of the baptistery of Cividale. A considerable fragment of a parapet, in the style of the pilastrini described above, was discovered among the debris of the church of S. Augustine ; and if Signor Bertoja had not judiciously taken its photograph, we should not know anything about it, because, like an infinity of other Venetian sculptures, it un- fortunately passed to foreign parts, and we know not where it has found an asylum. It is admirable for the two elegant bands, with circles and leaves, or the letters SS flowered and interknotted ; but above all for the singular decoration of the centre, precious because it teaches us that a similar ornament, with which we shall often meet in Italian works of the ninth centur}', was inspired by Greek works of the eighth. And, guiding ourselves by the later works above-named, we may infer that the square inscribed in the circle contained in its '-'■■' ^iff?fe&^ Fig. 43. — Window near the Frescacla Eiidge at Venice — Vlllth Century. I 21 turn a smaller circle, bound with the larger one by braiding and enclosing rosework. Leaves, rough but characteristic of many sculptures of that time, fill up the spaces. A gracious and interesting Greek work of the eighth century, perhaps brought from terra firma, was recently bought in Venice by the Sig. Cav. Guggenheim, who had the happy idea of placing it near his habitation, not far from S. Thomas. It is a little marble window, seventy centimetres high, pierced by various orders ol small arches, placed one above the other, or divided by three circular apertures, while lilies and braids enrich its little imposts. But the thing in it that ought specially to hold our attention, is the large arch that termi- nates it, which is not semicircular but trefoil, and for that reason is the most ancient of this sort that I know in Italy. This shows us once more that only Greeks could have been the authors of these sculptures of the eighth century existing in Italy ; because the conceit of the trefoil arch, without doubt of Indian origin and very early date, could only have been introduced by those Greeks who had intimate connections with those distant countries. This example, however, remained unfruitful here, and a mere decorative caprice ; and more than four centuries were to pass before that kind of arch, again imported from the East, should become in Italy also a common and organic element of architecture. The museum of Venice possesses a sculpture of Greek style of the eighth century, brought from terra Jirma ; it is part of a curious and elegant archivolt, projecting not by moulding, but from a convexity finely arabesqued with elegant foliage, small leaves, and rampant fillets. We also see a similar archivolt in the museum of Brescia. In the same museum of Venice there is a hexagonal baptismal basin, brought, doubtless, from Dalmatia, which remained for ages in a courtyard of the convent of the Bedeemer at the Giudecca. The principal side is adorned by a crested cross rich in braidings ; and on every side but one it has demi-columns with spiral channellings, with rough capitals supporting a little cornice with spindles, and a large band 122 whereon a long descriiition is engraved. The latter tells us that the basin was caused to be made by a jniest named Giovanni, in the time of Duke ^Vissasclavo. The arclueologists were much puzzled to determine where and when that duke lived, but as the sculptures on that basin were mute, they could not know what time and name to fix on. However, as it shows the style of the seventh century, we can accept as nearest the truth the hy- po thesis of Kukuljeric of Zagabria (see "Corriereltali- ano," Viennn, No. 50, dated 1854), who saw in Wissasclavo a Voiseslavo, a Servian, who lived about 7bO. MURANO. The cities of the lagoons, richer and more prosperous than any other, were not likely to have been the last, even in the eighth century, to invite Greek artists to adorn them with works of art. Among the most sure testimonies to the presence of a style in a certain country are, without doubt, its tombs, which, owing to their size and to the respect paid to the dead, are not very easy to transport here and there. Now among the various sarcophagi brought to the light through some excavations made in 1867 in the place where the antique cemetery ot the cathedral of Murano once existed, one was found, whose front presents bas-reliefs evidently of Greek style of the eighth century. In the centre there is a cross, mtli a rose flanked by great circles, with elegant and varied rosework, rayed or c ^ Fig. 44. -Baptismal Font at the Museum at Venice — Vllth or Vlllth Century. 1^3 giranfloled, or lilies like those of S. Maria of Cividalo. Over it runs a simple twist, only interrupted by the cross. It is kept in the cathedral itself. Concordia. — In the atriuia of the very ancient baptistery of Concordia, among varied works of the ninth century there is FxG. 45. — ri'iiicipal Side of a Sarcophagus in the C.ith-Jral of ■Murano — Vlllth Ceuturv. one of the eighth, a fragment that by its convexity shows itself to have been the front of an ambo. From what remains of it one may divine the elegant and ingenious design of the whole, which was a circle formed by braidings knotted crosswise to the border squared by the same braidings. The circle, perhaps, once enclosed the Lamb and the triangles, which surround it, the symbols of the Evangelists. The only one remaining is that of S. Luke. Grado. — If the patriarchs of Aquileia desii'ed to avail themselves of Greek artificers to adorn their new residence in tlie best way that their times jiermitted, their neighbours, the patriarchs of Grado, would not have liked to be behind them in this respect. And, in fact, in a courtyard, behind the precious cathedral already known to us, there exist, set in a wall enriched with sculptures of various epochs, two considerable fragments of convex parapets, without doubt belonging to an ambo of the eighth century. One would think it must have been an invariable rule in those times that the figure of a cross should aft'ord the sole basis for the decoration of pulpit fronts, for on all those we have seen and are still to see the supe)ficies of each parapet is subdivided into four squares by two bauds that cross one another; and thus it is also with the t>\o sides of 124 the ambo of Grado. In both it seems that the upper squares were occupied by the monogram of Christ, made wheel-fashion, formed in the centre by a rosette, rayed or girandolcd, and Fig. 40.- — Fragments of an Ambo at the Cathedral of Grado— Vlllth Centmy. inscribed in a circle that developes little volutes or knots. The lower compartments of one side were covered by a multitude of little squiires ; those of the other by a peacock pecking a leaf, between vine-suckers and branches of conventional form, where imitation of similar works of the sixth century is openly dis- played. It is easy to imagine how favours would be heaped upon the squad of Greek artists by the wealthy Lombards and the most conspicuous Italian personages ; for these artists, compared with the native ones, must have seemed extremely skilful. The fact that we find traces of their handiwoi'k, not only in the most considerable cities of that time, but also in little 12 = Fig. 47. — Capital at the Museum of Verona — Vlllth Century. towns and boroughs, shows clearly tiiat they were not left in idleness. Veroxa. — Before leaving the " Veneto " let me remcmher a mutilated caj^ital of simple Corinthian form, existing in Verona, in the apsis of S. Stephen, and bearing on the front a cross placed between a and SI ; and, in the museum of the same city, a fragment of a parapet and the capital of ademi-column. In the first, which, notwithstanding its most incorrect design, shows a certain delicacy of treat- ment, the interwreathings of little semicircular arches making pointed ones, are notable. In the capital, wherein occurs, as in so many of the same period, the conceit of the cuhe cut away at the corners, a medallion enclosing a human head (perhaps the least deformed figure that remains to us among these works) attracts our attention ; for in it, instead of rough furrows and scratchings, we find an attempt at modelling. A building, the greater part, if not the whole, of which belongs to this epoch is the little church of SS. Tosca and Teuteria, at Verona, Avhicli rises behind the parish church of the Holy Apostles, and was consecrated, as Biancolini affirms,* in 751, by Bishop S. Annone. The present edifice, to which descent is made by eight stairs, shows high antiquity. The plan of it is nearly square ; from one of the sides juts out an apsis, while in the middle rise four pilasters sup- porting full-centred arcades, over which rises a sort of square cupola, covered by cross-vaults and lighted by little windows. Walls, pilasters, and vaults are covered with parget ; there is not one cornice, not one bit of sculpture, not even a moulding. The very low floor, the nudity and poverty of the * Biancolini, " Le Chiese di Verona," 1748. 126 iircliitecture, and a certain disoidcr in its organism would induce us to think that it belonged to the eighth century ; but it will be well to recollect that disorder in construction, lather than bearing witness to remote antiquity and rude ages, is the fruit of resto- rations heaped one on the other in the same fabric ; and, in fact, this is the case with our little church. Certainly the man who raised the four pilasters and curved the arcades of the centre must have ^^ ^9" ^M" had the idea of WM Sl H[ a church in the shape of a Greek cross with equal arms. Now why is the trace of the perimetral walls, pj^ 48.— Plan of S, Teuteria at Verona— Ylllth and rectangular instead Xiith Century. of square, and wdiy does the end of the apsis enlarge itself much more than the central arcades, producing a sort of abnormal and em- barrassed vault in the space that precedes it, and, therefore, on the one corresponding to it '? Without doubt, because the perimetral wall and the apsis Avere built before the erection of the central pilasters. When this radical transformation occurred is nearly indicated by the Neo-Byzantine character of the present edifice, and it is also indicated by what Biancolini himself says, namely, that after the bodies of the two martyred saints were found, in lltiU, the church was newly consc- 127 crated by the Eisliop Ognibene. Therefore either the restoration gave occasion to the discovery oi- the discovery occasioned the restoration. Tlie old church of the eightli century was then a simple little basilica divided ";-:iK lirvg '■'k pi mm %.'Li into tlnee naves by columns or pilasters, reproducing nei- ther more nor less than the old common Latin manner. YicENZA. — In the mu- seum of Vicenza one may see a florid capital in Greek style of the eighth century (unfortunately very much out of condition), and a fragment of a pai-apet with part of a cross finely covered l)y a net and flanked by boughs, leaves, and bunches of grapes. Another fragment of the same style exists in the ground floor of the Palazzo Orgian. It is the half of a fronton similar to those of S. Maria-in-Yalle of Cividale. A good part of the cross in the middle still remains, adorned ^nth braiding and little volutes at the ends of the arms. a wretched lamb bearing a little cross, doves, roses of various kinds, and braids. MoxsELicE. — A little pilaster, which must have formed part of the chancel of a presbyteiy of the eighth century, is preserved in Monselice, near the Municipio. In its superior part avc find the remains of the base of the colonnette that served to su]iport -d Fig. 49. — Little Pilaster of Monselice and Fragments at the Museum Bocchi iit Adria — Vlllth Century. I2S the veils of the sanctuary ; in its sides it shows the encasements of the parapets ; and in front, within a simple square, two twisted cordons that serve as stems for a great many leaves (see Fig. 49). Adria. — In Adria, moreover, in the interesting Museo Bocchi, we recognise our style in a fragment of terracotta with bas- reliefs representing circles, leaves, and stars of various sorts ; and again in a Ioav little pilaster adorned with circling braids issuing from a rude vase and enriched with common conventional leaves (palm-leaves, we may supj)ose), formed of convexities bordered by listels. You may see some traces of these at Cividale and Grado, and it is well to remember them, because we shall see them very much used by Italian artificers in the ninth century. In the church of the Sepulchre of the same city there is an octagonal baptismal font furnished with a long inscription, where a Bishop Bono is mentioned, who, it seems, lived in the eighth century, but we Avill not stop to observe it, as it is absolutely bare of decoration. Bavenna. — The reader will expect that in our present re- searches, Ravenna, which, until 752, was the seat of the Greek Esarch, and therefore in continual relations with Byzantium, must demand a long study. Quite the contrary. Perhaps the abundance and the splendour of the sacred monuments, in which that city must have been so rich at that time, caused it not to feel the want of new ones, for no Greek eighth-century work may be seen here except a fragment of parapet with braidings, crosses, and rosettes, existing in the Baptistery Ursiano, and two little bas-reliefs added to the front of a Roman sarcophagus, which are preserved in the museum of the archbishop. The latter consist of a plain cross between two meagre palms, and two intertwined circles enclosing two roses. Bagnacavallo. — A few miles from Ravenna and a kilo- metre from Bagnacavallo there is an ancient basilica dedicated to S. Peter, which Ave shall have to remember more than once in the following chapters. It possesses considerable remains of the ciborium of an altar, consisting of two headings of arches and of one capital. One of these bears a sculptured inscription. --^^1 I A. ■^i 1. ^!i^- ^ I .V k I2S the veils of the eanctiiary ; in its sides it shows the encasements of the parapets ; and in front, within a simple square, two twisted cordons that serve as stems for a great many leaves (see Fig. 49). Adria. — In Adria, moreover, in the interesting Museo Bocchi, we recognise our style in a fragment of terracotta with has- reliefs representing circles, leaves, and stars of various sorts ; and again in a low little pilaster adorned with circling braids issuing from a rude vase and enriched with common conventional leaves (palm-leaves, we may suppose), formed of convexities bordered by listels. You may see some traces of these at Cividale and Grado, and it is well to remember them, because Ave shall see them very much used by Italian artificers in the ninth century. In the church of the Sepulchre of the same city there is an octagonal baptismal font furnished with a long inscription, where a Bishop Bono is mentioned, who, it seems, lived in the eighth century, but we will not stop to observe it, as it is absolutely bare of decoration. Bavenna. — The reader will expect that in our present re- searches, Eavenna, which, until 752, was the seat of the Greek Esarch, and therefore in continual relations with Byzantium, must demand a long study. Quite the contrary. Perhaps the abundance and the splendour of the sacred monuments, in which that city must have been so rich at that time, caused it not to feel the want of new ones, for no Greek eighth-century work may be seen here except a fragment of parapet with braidings, crosses, and rosettes, existing in the Baptistery Ursiano, and two little bas-reliefs added to the front of a Boman sarcophagus, which are preserved in the museum of the archbishop. The latter consist of a plain cross between two meagre palms and two intertwined circles enclosing two roses. Bagnacavallo. — A few miles from Bavenna and a kilo- metre from Bagnacavallo there is an ancient basilica dedicated to S. Peter, which we shall have to remember more than once in the following chapters. It possesses considerable remains of the ciborium of an altar, consisting of two headings of arches and of one capital. One of these bears a sculptured inscription. 129 according to whicli the ciboriuui was ordered to Le made by a priest Giovanni, under the See of the Bishop Deiisdedit. But in those times to what diocese did Bagnacavallo belong ? to ■which of the many bishops of that name, and to what city did the inscription refer? In such obscurity it was natural that those who spoke of the matter, not knowing how to gather from the style of the monument its real epoch, should assign it to the sixth century and a bishop of Voghenza ; or the seventh century and the Pope Deusdedit ; or the ninth century and a bishop of Faenza; or the ninth century and an archbishop of luivenna: or the end of the tenth century and a bishop of Imoln. Kohault de Fleury, who better than the rest was able to give an opinion at least approaching the real epoch of these works of the barbarous ages, assigns the ciborium to the ninth century. But Fleury, notwithstanding his patient re- fccarches, did not know hoAv to seize the many and conspicuous jDeDOHiSD)ejbgiP€TRlAP05T0Lf;€MPORiBV:S^|i Fig. 50. — AilIi of Ciborium iu thu Pieve di Bagnacavallo — Vllltli Century. characteristics that distinguish the works of the eiirhth from the ninth centuries, and therefore, as we shall lind again and again, he had no scruple in decorating the ninth century with works which belonged to the preceding one. Thus, unawares, he lett his wuik unjuovidcd ^vitl) niununieiits of the eighth 130 century, and especially vvitli altar ciboria, so tliat to make up for the loss as best he might, he sends his reader to the Fig. 51. — Arch of Ciboriiun in the Parish Church of Bagnacavallo -Vlllth Century. baptistery of Cividale, though that sort of construction of the eighth century is still represented in Italy by many samples, as we have seen and shall see. But, to return to our ciborium, although it had not escaped his observation that none of the dates of bishops of that name (Deusdedit) of the ninth century coincided with the tenor of the epigraph, yet, desiring at any cost that the bishop of Faenza (who ruled between 826 and 830) should be the man alluded to, he sought to justify his predilection by the specious supposition that the inscription refers to gifts gathered in the time of that bishop. But his artifice does not deprive this ciborium of the authentic Greek stamp of the eighth century, and, when Ave consider that in the series of bishops of Voghenza there is a lacuna from 686 to 772, it is logical to conclude that Bishop Deusdedit belonged to that See and to that inteiTal, and that the village of Bagnacavallo was then subject to him. In the heading of that inscription a simple braid, followed by a cordon from which spring the usual ramj)aut caulicules limited by a row of beads between two listels, curves so as to form an archivolt. TJie spaces over the arches are partly occupied by a palm and a rose-tree, in which the stem is remarkable for being represented by a channelled ribbon like those that compose the usual braidings. We shall often see this conventional manner imitated in the following century, and maintained in Italy till the twelfth century, having become a characteristic of Lombard art. The other heading in the ornamentation of the archivolt copies the preceding one, with the addition of a half-circle of intertwisted vine-branches, enclosing bunches of grapes and leaves. A cross between roses, and lambs, doves, peacocks, fishes, circles, and triangles, complete the rich but barbarous composition. The only capital that remains of it (now a vase for holy water, poorly ornamented with a timid cordon, rude roses, crosses, and chalices) is worth observation for the ensemble, which reproduces in mass the Byzantine capitals of the sixth century, the form resembling a truncated pyramid turned up- side down and rounded underneath. Feeraea. — If the ciborium of Bagnacavallo has in part filled up the gap in the series of bishops of Voghenza in the eighth century, another work of the same century will serve to the same eflect. There are in the courtyard of the university of Ferrara two convex parajjets of an ambo derived from Vog- henza, furnished with inscrij^tions in Avhicli allusion is made to a bishop named George, Avithout doubt of that city. Here several Georges were brought into the field, but fortunately Fleury this time, perhaps more for the sake of that same gap than with regai'd to the style of the ambo, halted as we do at the eighth century. , Each side of the ambo is enriched by four squares framed by cordings and bands ; the whole covered with vine-branches, lilies, plants, and peacocks. Rude, meagre things you may think them, yet they are expressed with a sort of clever- ness and ingenuous grace. The bunches of grapes are notable for being roughly and conventionallv surrounded bv IV a listel — a mode which we shall find in favour with Italian sculptors of the ninth century. Besides the amho one may see in the same courtyard in Ferrara a j^arapet that, showing the same manner of work, may be presumed to come also from Voghenza. It is certainly work of the eighth century, and among the most uncouth and harbiaous ihut a Greek chisel ever pro- duced. It shows a bare tree with two lions at its foot, then two doves, then two pea- cocks, and over all two serpents ; a com- position full of attrac- tion because it is one of the first essays of those bizarre yet obscure re- presentations of ani- mal s , which the Byzantines loved to repeat so often in the following centuries, and which reached their apogee with the balustrades and decorative forms of the tenth and eleventh centuries that we shall see in Venice. MoDENA. — Important remains of ambos and parapets of the style of the eighth century are preserved in a courtyard near the cathedral of Modena. Fleury, as usual, held them to be works of the ninth century, but the Greek chisel of the eighth is shown in their smallest details. The curvilinear amljo-parapets are, like their synchronical brothers, corniced and divided by bands into four regular compartments. In one of the sides the cross, formed in the centre, is adorned by goodly circles of leaves, and the border by simple braids. The squares are occupied either by palms with Avild acan- thus-leaves or by groups of branches. Similar ornaments Fig. 52. — Parapet in the Court of the University of Ferrara — Vllltli Century. 133 must pvobaldy liave embcllisliod tlie so[uarcs ol' tlio other nniLo- parapet, framed instead by cordings and complicated braidings. Of a third parapet, which perhaps belonged to the ambo at which the epistle was I'ecited, there remains a fragment with braidings, palms, and legs, perhaps of a peacock. Bands rich in braids and inscriptions, or tine foliage like those of S. Maria-in-Valle at Cividale, may be seen also among parapets more or less broken up, but noticeable for the novelty and sometimes for the elegance of their decorations. They are arcades of braidings alternated witli sticks Iteai-ing lilies, and tilled up by palms, roses, and roughly-\\orked birds, great braided and corded circles enclosing a cross richly beaded, and little arches placed one over another like scales. The latter may be compared to certain Eoman ones, or se^eral Byzantine ones of the tiftli or sixth centur}-, wliich are gracefully enriched by lilies. Fig. 5.3.— Arch of Ciborium over the Place S. Dominic at Bologna— Ylllth Century. Bologna. — Bologna also preserves some Greek work of the eighth century. The most important is an arch of a ciborium that one sees on the piazza of S. Dominic, applied to the tomb of the Foscherari, and which Fleury, of course, assigns to the ninth century. It is decorated by an elegant archivolt composed of beautiful foliage, like those of Modena and Civi- 134 dale, among spindles and cordons, a cross on the edge, and a running pattern, that are true and uncorrupted models from the antique. Over the archivolt runs a sort of cornice with spindles, semi-rosettes, lilies, and listels, while the remaining intervals over the arch are occupied by two very coarse peacocks. At S. Stephen's, in Bologna, where there is a marble basin BEATIS5IMUM MARTIREM ACRICOLAM HlC RIQUIESCIT IN DEI NOMINE * Fig. 54. — Sarcophagus of S. Agricola at S. Steiohen of Bologna — Xllth Century. (catino) with a long inscription — a not very regal gift from King Luitprand to that church, in the contiguous ancient basilica of SS. Peter and Paul, once the cathedral, one may also observe the sarcophagus of a S. Agricola which at first sight recalls the work of the century we are studying. It represents a very barbarian figure of an angel enclosed in a wreath of nondescript leaves and flanked by a stag and a lion amid palms and volatiles in curious and impos- sible positions. But all this is framed by a reversed gola cut into trilobes in the Eoman style, and on three sides by bands rich in ornament which, although savouring slightly of the Byzantine, yet appear so characteristic of the Roman style that we must believe that they, like all the other sculp- tures ot the sarcophagus, belong to the twelfth century in which the church was rebuilt, instead of to the eighth, as Dar- tein opined, still less to the sixth as was supposed by Fleury. Such are especially those half-leaves projecting alternately from '33 the viglit and iVoiii the left, leaving a zigzag space between them— a motive much used in the centuries succeeding the tenth, especially in painting on glass and on walls. If I were constrained by valid reasons to assign this motive to the eighth century, from seeing it repeated on the heading of a capital in the same chuich close by it, I should not, hoAvever, draw from it the too rash deduction that Dartein did (followed, as usual, by Selvatico), namely, that the capital ought to be ascribed to the same cen- tury. So slight an analogy is not enough to bring us to such conclusions. The sar- cophagus, if we accept those few bands of a Roman cha- racter, might, through the timidity of its sculpture and the rigidity of its forms, pass even for a work of the eighth century. It certainly does not present any con- spicuous sign of novelty ; but this criticism does not apply to the capital, in which, even if you despoil it of all its ornaments, there remains a structure that of itself announces a notable change of style. I have neither the courage nor the necessity to invite Dartein to study the Romanic art of the twelfth century, because he knows it perfectly ; but I would invite him to reflect a little on the monuments that we have already studied and on many that we are now about to study, because the fact that they had for the most part escaped his researches was the reason that the learned man seems not to have been able to form for himself a just idea of the character of the eighth-century Art, of what those poor Fig. 55.— Capital of SS. Peter and Paul, near S. Stephen of Bologna — Xllth Century. ' J 6 artificers could do, and what tlicy could not do. It is sufficient to throw a rapid glance over the capitals of that century repro- duced in this work to persuade oneself that they have not the slightest point of contact with this of SS. Peter and Paul ; while those, Avhose eyes are accustomed to the Lomhard style of the twelfth century, will find that this capital, chiefly on account of its broad and low ensemble without sensible projec- tions, bears all the impress of that time. But perhaps some of my readers, to whom the present question may appear a trifle to be passed over, will think that I treasure up the slightest error of that illustrious writer for the mere vain glory of demonstrating it. It is not true ; but, even if it were, my censures could not avail to lessen his great merits and well-acquired fame. Yet I beg the kind reader to believe that the question of that simple capital, though it may appear frivolous, is really of great importance ; and this I will now briefly demonstrate. Without doubt the arguments by wdiich Cordero attempted to persuade us that the old monuments of Romanic style have nothing to do with those that w^ere erected during the Lombard domination were highly valuable ; and, in fact, the researches, the discoveries, and the studies of which these pages are the result, confirm his assertion and make us clearly comprehend the difference between the nature of the architecture of the seventh and eighth centuries and that of S. Michael of Pavia and of S. Ambroise of Milan. But if, through too much credulity or lightmindedness, we accept, on the faith of any chronicler or after superficial observations of our own, this or that monument as the fruit of those miserable times, even if it make manifest a character and value much superior to, and radically different from, those of the really authentic monuments of that poor epoch, we shall prepare a nicely greased descent, down which the unwary will continually slide into those rank errors from which the above-praised Cordero, not without toil, endeavoured to rescue them. And Avho, in fact, could be astonished if one fine day one of the many sheep that swear in ccrha incujisiri, finding himself in 137 the cliurcli of SS. Peter and Paul, should take the trouble to continue the weak reasoning of Davtein and should say : " This capital is then of the eighth century. Good ; but why not the opj^osite capital also ? Truly there is some slight difference in the details, but the proportions are the same, the measurements are the same, the style is the same, the cliisel is the same. Who can doubt that they are brothers ? " On the contrary, nothing would be more likely than that the sheep, proud of his discovery and continuing his arch.eological walk through the seven churches, should find new analogies and new comparisons in several other capitals of the same school ; the more so since, in the Herculean labour of swimming against a stream of four centuries, he would find a comforting angel in the guardian of the church, who, prompted by I know not what professor of the city, calls those capitals Byzantine. And if he made a staircase of details to arrive at a whole, he would not be long in discover- ing that, since those capitals were evidently made for the arches they support, the latter belong to the same epoch. In fact, by force of comparisons and deductions, he would end by per- suading himself that there is no obstacle to believing with Agincourt, Hope, and such disciples as remain to them, that the oldest constructions of the Romanic style may very well be attributed to the Lombard era. And do not think that these breakneck tumbles are confined to my imagination, for there is no matter of study in which they succeed more frequently or hugely, even with wise and judicious people, than in the history of Art ; and among a hundred in- stances we have a stupendous one in the deliriuni of P. Gravina about the age of the celebrated mediieval churches of Sicily. I am not wrong, then, to be severely cautious in attributing this or that monument to the period Ave are studying, unless we find indisputable liistorical or artistical proofs. Milan. — From my manner of writing, the reader will have seen that I combat the opinion that the Romanic style was cultivated or even originated during the Lombard domina- tion; yet many do not think with me. On the contrary, latterly Dartein, and after him Selvatico, announce triumphantly T3S the discovery of a monument which ouglit to aftbrd irrefragable proof that Romanic art had ah'eady passed its infancy during the reign of Liiitprand. The monument consists of the ruins of the church of Aurona in Mihm, discovered in 1809 in exca- vating for the foundations of the new Savings' Bank. Among many fragments they found brackets, little pilasters, friezes, and several capitals of varied forms and dimensions, all richly decorated with ornaments and figures. Those that most attract the eye are two great monoliths, each having the form of four capitals grafted into one another in the form of a cross, and evidently made to crown two balustrades of quadrilobate section — that is to say, two groups of four columns. The idea, the form, and the details obviously show the developed Romanic style, because, from those grouped pilasters, one may imagine the arches Avhicli surmounted them, and even the characteristic crosier vaults. But to what time did those ruins belong '? I yield the pen for a moment to Selvatico, that he may let us know the origin of that church. " The most accredited chronicles of Milan relate that one Theodore, archbishop of that city, who died in 739, was con- tinually persecuted by the king of the Lombards, Ariperto, who, being his relative, feared that the pious priest had the deliberate intention of reigning in his stead. The rage of the ferocious king against the good archbishop was carried so far that at last the latter was ousted from the See that he had governed with as much meekness as wisdom, Ariperto treated Teoderada the mother, and Aurona the sister, of Theodore still worse, for he cut off the nose and the ears of both. " As soon, however, as death relieved the world of the crowned monster and the sceptre of Italy was given to the benign Luitprand, who (it seems) was brother to the perse- cuted archbishop, the latter was replaced in his See to the great delight of the Milanese, who appreciated his doctrine and virtue. His unhappy sister rejoined him and founded a sumptuous convent of Benedictines, annexing to it a church. " When Theodore died, he was, so say Galvano Flamma and other chroniclers, buried in the aforesaid convent." '39 Such is the story : now for its consequences. One of those two crossed capitals bears carved on its abacus an inscription that says : — "HIC KEQVIESCIT + DOMINVS THEODORVS ARCHEP. QVI INIVSTE FVIT DAMN AT VS." " See," cry Dartein and Selvatico, " here is the lost sepulchre of Theodore, and the narrative of the injustice that he suffered is conQrnied. Here, therefore, are the authentic remains of Aurona's church." Indeed ! Have you really found the sepulchre of Theodore ? But how can a simple capital be a sepulchre ? In what part of it was the sepulchre scooped out, since it is one unbroken mass? And, if the excavation had taken place, could there have been room there for more than a child a few weeks old ? It is hard to believe that these natural and spontaneous questions were not j)ut to themselves by these eminent authors. Depend upon it they were put, but rather than abandon their com- placency in having at last found what they call the first step of transition from the Barbarous-Latin to the true Lombard style, they sought to deceive themselves and, at any cost, to find their arguments reasonable. But who cannot see that that inscription can be nothing but a simple sign of the existence of the sepulchre of Theodore in that church or under that capital, and that in that hie one was meant to understand in hac ecdesia, or in hoc loco ? And if all this allows of no denial, who in the world can maintain that that inscription dates with the capital from the eighth century ? Thus the grave and irrefragable argument, on which those writers grounded their conclusions, is reduced to nothing. Mongeri, for some time at least, was far more prudent than them. He did not allow himself to be deceived by the inscriptions, but opined that those remnants belonged to the time of the rebuilding of the church in 1099 and not to its first erection. However, later on the bad example perverted Mongeri also, for in one of his last publications he presents those capitals as works of the eighth century ; but even supposing he had not allowed 140 himself to be borne away on the cuiront, still liis judgment would not have been correct ; for if it is true that a great part of those sculptures, and specially the two larger capitals, bear the clearest stamp of the Lombard style of the end of the eleventh century, it is no less true that the rest (that is to say some forty pieces of sculpture) are obviously the real remains of the churcli of the eighth century. It is among those remnants that may be seen the finest and most elegant decorations that Gi'eek chisels of the eighth century produced in Italy. They for the most part consist in little pilasters or bands that must have belonged to the chancels of the church, richly adorned by spindles, beads, leaves, chalices, lilies of very varied sorts or ivy-branches, sculptured with such grace and freedom that they would not be out of place among our Renaissance decorations. Let us mention in particular two isolated pillars, about two * Fig. Sfi. — Abacus of the Cluirch of Auvona, iNIilan — Vlllth Century. * Fig. 57.— Pilasters of the Church of Aurona, Milan— Vlllth Century. metres thirty-eight centimetres high and twenty-two centimetres broad. They are splendidly arabesqued with little leaves, cordons, gyres, braidings, and elegant roses. Another angular pillar is sculptured with vine-branches, grapes, and leaves. Another and smaller one shows that it had received inserted ornaments of polychrome marbles. Of parapets there remains but one frag- ment, with part of a little ai'chivolt surmounted by a rose. 141 flanked by a bird's nest with tlie mother-bird close by. At the side and at the top are remains of inscrij^tions in relieved letters. Two little mutilated capitals of columns show a not very happy imitation of the Corinthian manner. Two others, on the con- much larger, in all probability, were abaci of Similar, though not so high, to those used in the tilth and sixth centuries, they are richly covered with crosses or doves flanked by elegant gyres with grape-bunches and braids. All these precious sculptures may now be admired in the museum of Lirera at Milan, mixed up without order with the llomanic ones of the same church. That these last were frequently imitations of the earlier works was perhaps the reason why they wei-e held to be of the same date ; but now that we know how to distinguish the two epochs, it would be well that the directors of that archasoloirical museum should think of fragments into arranged. archaeological dividing the two groups numerous rationallv Fig. 58. --Small Pilasters in the Church of Auroiui, Milan — Vlllth Centurv. In the same museum we may see a colonnette in fragments joined to a capital that shows the roughest manner of the eighth century as much as those at tlie Cividale Museum. AVithout doubt they are the work of Italian pupils of the Greeks (see Fig. 41). The Milanese historian Toire and Castiglioni recorded that the church of S. Vincent-in-Prato at Milan was founded in 780 by Desiderio, the last Idng of the Lombards. Count Mella, in his studies of basilica, declares that statement to be false, seeing that the Lombard domination ceased in 774. But though one must not accept tradition blindly, it is not to be disposed of suunnarilv without valid reasons. In fact, tliat date niiijht Le 14: the light one if Ave consider that the grave political circumstance of the fall of the Lombards might have delayed by some years the foundation of that church, for the erection of which Desiderio had perhaps disbursed some money. But to Mella, who at all cost would have it that that basilica belonged to an epoch anterior to the Lombard times, it was of great importance to clear away all obstacles interfering with his theory. We shall show in the following chapter that this church be- longs to an epoch somewhat posterior to the Lombards, but Ave do not deny that it might have had a forerunner, thanks to Desiderio, in a more modest edifice ; the less so since we recognise the style of the eighth century in one of the capitals of the naves. It has good proportions and grossly imitates the Corinthian style, showing palm-leaves instead of acanthus ; and higher up roses and crosses between meagre caulicules supporting a light abacus. It is much spoiled. Bergamo. — In the Sozzi Museum in Bergamo one may see three sculptured fragments in the Greek style of the eighth century, of which the largest presents a braid limited by cords and framed by foliage formed of curled vine-twigs. Brescia. — The deep crypt of S. Filastrio in the Rotonda or old cathedral of Brescia, oflers us a long series of capitals of every description in a singular chronological progression, for, besides those which are evidently coeval with the construction of Fig. 59. — Capital oi S. Vincent-in-Prato, Milan— Vlllth Century. '43 the crypt towards the end of the eighth century, several others belonging to older Christian or pagan constructions were added to spare expense. Two of the latter (which were certainly not sculptured for the j^ilasters that support them, being made for columns, and therefore anterior to the construction of the crypt) plainly show that they belong to that class of simple and meagre Greek capitals of the eighth century, of which we have the j)rototype at S. George of Valpolicella. They are of rather clumsy form. The leaves around them, though rough, are rendered with, sufficient clearness ; the corner cuttings are smooth, the volutes not deformed, the abacus of good pro- portions. In the beginning of these pages, I told you how Cordero thought to strengthen his opinions about the continuity of the Latin style in Italy during the whole liombard period, by indicating a few structures which were proved, according to his notion by irrefragable documents, to have been erected at that time. Now he restricted himself to four examples : the churches of S. Frediano and of S. Michael at Lucca, the Torn Palace at Turin, and the church of S. Saviour at Brescia. The examples are few, but they might have been enough if the supposed irrefragable documents with which Cordero endowed them had not burst like a soap-bubble under a conscientious and disimpassioned examination. We have, in fact, seen above how the two churches of Lucca and the gate of Turin belong to quite another epoch than those of the Lomljards ; so it only remains to us to see if we can find Cordero in the right at least as regards S. Sa^dour's of Brescia. Reduced to this point the affair becomes so slight that it is worth our while to spend a * Fig. 60.— Capital of the Crypt in the Eotunda of Brescia — Vlllth Centm-y. 144 m m little ink about it, for, if Conlcro be wrong liere also, Ids whole castle of conjecture tumbles into atoms. Let us first see what the documents have to say. An ancient ritual of the monastery begins thus : '" Aitno ah iitcanuitioiie 1)1 CCCCCCCLIII iiicho- ation fait inoiKi^fcriiDii iioatrum. . . . Posted consecratiim j'uit per Domhinm Fapain ciini suis cardinalibti^ proul in veil it ur in chronieis satis autenticis in dicta iiostro vionasterio. . . ." Tlie historic memoirs and the diplomas assure us that this monastery was founded by the Lombard Desiderio, conjointly Avith Ansa his wife, before he ascended the throne and therefore duiing the reign of Astolfo. These notices, as every one may see, have quite the appear- ance of being authentic, and we ought the more readily to accept them since no contradiction is involved in them. We read, in fact, in Anastasius, that in 753 Pope Stephen 111. traversed Lombardy to betake himself to the court of Astolfo. But what gives us something to think about is that in those documents the monastery alone is spoken of and nothing said about the church annexed to it. If before then no church had existed there, it would be reasonable to believe that the word monastery included the church ; but, knowing that in Mi * Fig. 61.— Plan of S. Saviour's, Bvuscia— A.r>. 7o.3. 145 the vevy place where S. Saviour's now staiuls, the church of SS. Michael and Peter already existed since the sixth century, and that a few Byzantine ca})itals still remain of it, how can our doubt be called unfounded ? The documents being found, I will not say uncertain, but absolutely negative, it appears that an artistic examination of the monument ouglit to settle tlie (piestion ; and it does settle it. But if such a doubt had been exposed to Cordero, how Avould he have been able to clear it away ? Would he have known how to separate, in that church, the sculpture belonging to its first construction from those that refer to the rebuilding by Desiderio ? I permit myself to doubt it, both because he makes no sign of such dunlism (judging all of them to be of the eighth century), and because his studies about the monuments of that age were too imperfect and too confused. It is only througli the medium of the light thrown on the subject by the capitals of Valpolicella, and similar capitals, that, seeing others like them, if not in design certainly in character and chiselling, on some columns in the church of S. Sa^dour, we can accept Cordero's opinion, and give to the word monastery, used in the document, the widest interpretation. This church is of primitive basilical form, divided into three naves by two rows of columns, now reduced to six on each side, because an anterior portion of the church was thrown down when the superior part of S. Julia was constructed. The stems of the columns are of various diameters, height, and (piality. Among the capitals those which must have served for the pre- existent church are conspicuous, and displny the style of the first half of the sixth century. Some of them resemble the Corin- thian ones sculptured for the churches erected by Theodoric in Bavenna ; others, more ornamented, show the influence of tlie richest Byzantine manner. But those that must be ascribed to the time of Desiderio are very poor things. If in the capital of Valpolicella one sees a miserable reminiscence of the Corinthian, in those of S. Saviour such a resemblance is clearly conspicuous. The leaves, how ever, are hard and smooth, tlie canlicules meagre, the abacus rigid. 10 146 In some of these cai^ltals the central superior leaf is sapi^ressed on every side to give place to a cross.* Above the capitals some lall-ciirved arches spring imme- diately. There are no abaci, no piedroits, and no moulding, even if originally they had been ornamented in stucco. Nothing now remains of the superior part of the church, of the windows, and of the roof; but one can well imagine the form of the one and the bare beams of the other from the primitive simplicity of what still exists. In the end of the central nave there was once a deep apsis of which one still sees the fundamental wall in the crypt below. This crypt is a great subter- ranean place which extends below the naves for the space of two intercolumns on each side, and is divided into two parts very different from one another in organism and style. One corresponds to the naves, but without at all raising their pavement, and consists of a little forest of columns supporting crosier- vaults , the other corresponds to the apsis, and is high enough to cause the floor above to be raised by several steps. It is formed by brick pilasters supporting arches adorned with stuccoes, and little stone pilasters with capitals. Both serve as the base of a covering of large thin slabs of stone which composed the pave- ment of the apsis above. Five little windows, made in the higher part of the apsis walls, gave it light. To what age did this crypt belong ? Probably to two different epochs. The first part is certainly work of the end of the twelfth century, as one may see from its beautiful and varied capitals, which Cordero first, and afterwards Labus and Fig. 62.— Capital of S. Saviour's Church, Brescia— A. D. 75.3. * Dartein gives us a drawing of one of these capitals with a cross, but wrongly interpreted the mutilated lower part, supposing it to have had only one row of leaves, while, if one carefully exanaiues it, the remains of a lower row are evident. 147 * Fig. G3.— rian of S. Saviour's Crypt— Vlllth and Xllth Centuries. GaiTucci, erroneously attributetl to the eighth century. As for the second part, if we observe its organism, we sliall see some- thing embarrassed and primitive that suggests, as it were, the first essays of one who found himself before a problem that he knew not how to solve ; and if we examine the deco- rative particulars — that is to say, the capitals and stuccoes — we tind them stamped mth the cha- racter of the Byzantine style of the thirteenth century (see Fig. 64). Must one, then, con- clude that this portion ot the crypt is contemporaneous with the construction of the church — dating, that is to say, from the middle of the eighth century ? Many will refuse to be persuaded that crypts were not in use anterior to the eleventh centuiy ; but I do not, because I know that even the eighth century, let alone the ninth, will give us new and more perfect examples of crypts raised higher than the floor of the church and Avhich consequently raised the presbytery floor with them. These I shall therefore prefer to call presbyterial crypts, as did Dall' Acqua Giusti.* Such crypts, as every one knows, became after- wards one of the most salient characteristics of the Eomanic churches. They had, in fact, nothing in common with those little subterranean places which, in the ancient Christian basilicas of Rome, opened under the ciborium of the high- altar, and are called co}ifess'ujH>i. But, as every rule has its exception, the coitfcsdomi of the * The Cav. Antonio Dall' Acqua Giusti is Professor of .\rt History in the Eoyal Institution of the Fine Arts at Venice ; and I, who was his disciple, owe to him much gi-atitude not only for his teaching, but for awakening in me the warmest love and passion for those studies. 1 48 first six centuries soinetiines present the elevation and almost the dimensions of a real presbyterial crypt ; and that is notice- able in those low countries in which the marshy soil does not permit of dry subterraneous places. Thus it was in Ravenna, where the cathedral and the church of IS. Peter Major (now P-- "S' lir-T W^w! -■ - \V.-VV/V'.^fr tr^r *■ Fig. G1.— Dccoi-cativc Details of S. Saviour, Brescia— Vlllth Century. S. Francis) appear to be pro\ided with crypts corresponding to the apsides which (by the style of the greater part of the capitals, and especially of the mosaic pavements that may still be traced) evince lifth or sixth-century work. These remain isolated examples, however, and nothing more than unusually high and ample confessions. The confessions certainly served as receptacles for the precious mortal remains of saints and martyrs, and therefore were only required by churches \\hich possessed such relics. 149 Tli.-it S. Saviour of Bi'oscia \v,is one of these we gather fi-om a dii^loma of Adelchi, son of Desiderio, who recommends himself to the intercession, " De supra scriptorum cojpani (jiia in ipso ^((iicto ceiiohio hitmata qiiiescniit." * All this seems to me to confirm the opinion that the church 2)0ssessed a crypt as earty as the eighth century, and that the above-mentioned portion remains of it. I say portion, because it must \\'ithout doubt have been larger than that small space, if it were only for the stairs that were to lead to it. But in all probability it occupied the site of the modern one, as I gather from the fact that, in the anterior crypt, the innnediate supports of the two great columns of the nave consisted in channelled blocks of marlde of the same nature as the columns themselves, and therefore evidently of the same date ; since, as iiny one may see, unless they had designed a ciypt. the con- structors would not have thought of placing them underneath. The crypt of S. Saviour, which originally was perhaps entirely similar to the apsidal portion that remains, was there- fore with every probability the first, or among the first, examples of true presbyterial crypts. Certainly it is the most ancient that I know. We ought to hold this basilica of Brescia in great considera- tion, especially when we reflect that several decorative fragments of the eighth century, belonging to the Lombard period, are to be seen there, because if one should ask for a sufficiently preserved construction which represents an idea in itself, nnd reveals the technique or style of that epoch, this alone can be pointed out. At any rate, it ^nll be difficult to discover another. If such a church stood in Tuscany or Eome. where the basilical style was always the one preferred by architects, even in the centuries that succeeded the tenth, we might certainly conclude that, during the dominion of the Loml^ards, the Latin style was still the only one followed in the whole of Italy; but, the church of S. Saviour being situated in that Lombardy which, when the Piomanic style prevailed, was the first to banish fur ever the old Latin manner, we may logically * Dartein ; work cited above. ISO assert, even with this single example, that the barsilical system, with very few exceptions, was the only one used in Italy lor sacred edilices durintr ,.«s:=T5Si.-iaL.v^.A this obscure period, specially when we shall see it in the ninth centnry con- tinued in the same ■ country, and even at Milan, when it is commonly believed to have been in dis- use. But the precious- ness of the church of S. Saviour does not end here ; it has copiously furnished the contiguous Chris- tian Museum with splendid works of sculpture, remains of the rich accessories, with which Desiderio provided it sumptu- ously by the hands of the usual Greek artists. If the sculptures of the church of Au- rona are delicate and elegant, those of S. Saviour are not in- ferior to them. Here also we have squares gracefully covered by geometric ornaments and spindles ; colon- nettes, some octagonal, some cylindrical, arabesqued like 1?I3. 65. — Decorative Details of S. Saviour, Erescia — Vlllth Century. damask, with ornnments of every kind ; capitals of vanous dimensions, some of them very fine and elegant, others rather gros3, but always rich; a square cap-profiled abacus, with intaglio of palm-leaves ; several headings of capitals with double brackets to sustain architraves ; many horizontal bands which might have been architraves adorned with little arches mounted one over the other and enriched with beads or inter- wreathing of vine-branches. All these fragments mav have belonged to chancels of the choir ; but, amid them, the ambo Fig. 6G.— Fragment possibly belonging to the Ambo of S. Saviour, Brescia — Vlllth Century. must have been resplendent with rich elegance. If, among the samples of ambos of the eighth century that we have hitherto seen, we have only found convex parapets of the higher central part, these remains of S. Saviour offer us instead the flanks or parapets of the little staircase that led to the ambo. Such are, according to my judgment, two slabs of marble (one reduced to a little frngment) of the figure of a scalene triangle, framed by a band with complicated and minute rush braidings which enclose, among a profusion of elegant and well-distributed gyres, a superb peacock. ^52 Here wc slionld salute as lie deserves the artist who sculp- tured tlieui,l)e('ausehe is -without doubt the best of all ^\ ho \vor]\ed dnrino- that jieriod in Italy, and eertaiiiiy not unwoi'thy even to fij:>ure among tlie worthiest artists of the sixth century — if, indeed, the sixth century could produce a peacock of form so elegant, in a field as beautifully orna- mented as this of S. Saviour. Its proportions are regu- lar, the movement just and natural, tlic design very fine, the chisel accurate : aiul seen among those graceful gyres it looks like a magnificent Oriental carpet. It is the cJirf-d'avrrr of the eighth centui-y. Several other im- portant remnants are derived from S. Saviour's. Notable for the elegance of its ornaments is a curious and pretty Fig. C7. — Otliei' Details of S. Saviour, Biescia — VIII th Century. • • ■■-,-■ .. .... — ^^-...^ -^ Fig, G8.— Little Window of S. Saviour, Brescia— Vlllth Century. :i.t little coiivi X avcliivolt, wiy like tlioso \\v saw in llic mnsoum at Venice ; a slal) of marble with a beaded cross amongst roses, palms, and tresses, and lastly a very important stone hollowed by two little arches supported by colonnettes, with archivolts, capitals, and headings rich in ornaments and having a band below with large and cnrious caps. It was most probably the base of the altar turned towards the people, and the two little windows, furnished with an iron gi'ating, and communicating A\itli the ciypt, pi'obably rendei'cd visible the tombs of the saints deposited there, exactly as on certain confessions of clmrches in Rome. Pavia. — As we find these Greek artificers working in cities of minor importance, and sometimes even in \illages, it is easy SPIENDfTi^-X DlA5ACLi£^ j ssonv5D!cie^ y^DlLYBR^M£>^ I lACYNCTAfi>| "= Fig. 69.— Tomb of Theodota, Pavia— Vlllth Century. to imagine how much more they must have worked in the capital of the Lombard kingdom, Pavia ; but of the many Avorks that they doubtless left there very few remain to be recorded, and they are some fronts of sarcophagi, more or less ovna- 154 mentcfl, existing in the ronitynrd of the IMalaspina Palace. Those that enclose the ashes of Teodota (that yictini of the brutality of King Canibevto, who it appears died a nun in 720) * take precedence of all others. Here the connection with the sculptures of Cividale comes out most vividly. An elegant band with intertwined circles, alternately large and small, aiul filled up with rose-work, or leaves and bunches of grapes of a certain fineness and originality, forms a frame to the representations on the sides of the sarco- phagus. In the one we see tAvo roughly carved peacocks drink- ing at a vase, among roses, lilies, and braidings ; in the other two Avinged lions of less barbarous design, with bodies that terminate in dragons' tails, placed beside a fantastic tree, very like those we saw sculp- — — -,-__^_^ tured on the parapet '^^r^ ^"^^^ of Sigualdo in the bap- tistery of Cividale. The most notable difference is in the two heads issuing from the vine- branches. They are lions' heads at Cividale, but here griftins ; but at any rate either ani- mal or the other is reproduced on both monuments. One of the sides of the sarco- phagus shows, enclosed in a contour of gyres, a lamb bearing the cross. Besides these remains and the above-indicated stones, ornamented in some parts, one sees under the same portico a band and a fragment, perhaps a bit of a parapet, decorated with circles, roses, and crosses. * Muratori, " Anuali d'ltalia." \ ■ ~ i^i - -■ Tig. 70. — Exterior Wall of S. Maria delle Caccie, Pavia — Vlllth Century. 155 If the seventh century has not bequeathed to us any edifice in Pavia, ahiiost the same must be said of the ei^litli century, because time and circumstances did not spare even one. I said almosit, however, because if not an entire edifice, at least a portion remains to us, and of one not devoid of interest. It is a lateral wall in terracotta, of the church of S. Maria, fork portdiii, now delle eaccie, a basilica whose foundation is, by the greater part of the historians of Pavia, attributed to the Princess Epifania, daughter of King Eatchis (744-749). Dartein made this wall known to the public, but it was held of little account because, wlien confronted with the remains of the church of Aurona, it could not show any progress towards Lombard architecture. I, on the contrary, value it much, exactly because, while showing no introduction of new forms, it once more confirms what our researches have hitherto demonstrated, at the same time that, manifesting a return to the Byzantine forms of the sixth century, it ackno\Aiedges the hand of Greek artificers. Such are the blind arches of the lateral naves supported by bands whicli frame externally the windows of the lateral naves, corresponding to the internal arcades, as in the cathedral of Grade, in S. Apollinaris beyond the walls of Eavenna, and in so many churches of that city and of Greece that belong to the sixth or to the fifth century. LiBARXA. — A trace of the Greek stylo of the eighth century is also found in the little colony of Libarna, on the Apennines, north of Genoa. It is a fragment of parget Avith stucco bas-reliefs, already Fig. 71.— Fragment of Par- noted bv Cordero, wlio assigucd it to vtttI?"p^ "* Libarna- ^j^^ ^j^-^.^j ceuturv. Its Spirals connect it \ Illth Centuiy. i i " ,. r -r> specially with the fragments ot ijergamo, and its crosses witli those of Torcello and Eavenna. Albexga. — Within the very old baptistery of Albenga (known through a little monograph by the much-lamented Commendatore Edoardo Arborio Mella di Vercelli), by the two sides of the large rectangular niche, at the end of which 156 was tlio ovio-inal entvfinco, now Llockcd up, ono sees two tomhs on the ground disposed under arches like the ground-arches of the cataconihs. They are decorated by slabs of marble V ^.^- ■¥ .',' ' '«MiUi<>:'/Af2j^ii \y>'i:i LJi j-rj' & ;L _. -"'■■■ ■-^JL..f^^:^^;\\Y Ji A'Ai •' .JA'^'V"'- Fig. 72. — Tomb at the Baptistery of Albenga — Fragments of Vlllth Century. sculptured with ornamental bas-reliefs, which to the above- praised Mella appeared to be of Roman manner, but which I must class among the Greek works of the eighth century. The variety and multiplicity of the pieces, and the fact that tliey are not adapted to the dimensions of the sepulchres or to the forms of the ground-ai'ches, clearly show that we ha\e here a fragmentary work, made up from remains of a presbyterial balustrade, of a ciborium, of windows, and other works of the eighth century. The most considerable piece is a rectangular parapet framed with cordons and the usual braided withes, adorned by circles linked together and divided by lilies and crosses, filled in with large roses of various kinds, or by bunches of grapes and leaves. 157 Mixtiliiiear brairlings are noticeable on the other slabs, as well as certain decorations of interwoven SS that remind one of those at Cividale. The mouth of the tomb is closed on one side by a fragment which has on it a beaded Greek cross, on a pole flanked by rayed or girandoled roses, and enclosed between cordons and braids. On the other side is a bit of an arched slab with a cross formed of simple braidings, and bored into circular holes, which show it to have belonged to a window. The arch of the tomb on the left, the only ornamented one, shows an archivolt, perhaps of a ciborium, with rampant cauli- cules, large roses and sj)irals, and below a semicircular lunette, which seems to be made for the archivolt, and which is the only thing of this sort and of this style that I have met with hitherto. It is a band with little spirals, and its field is adorned by a palm among unconnected decorations of withes and mixtilinear braids. OsiMO. — There is much analogy between the band that frames the fronts of the sarcophagus of Teodota at Pavia and that framing the epitaph on the tomb of a bishop of Osiuio. which runs thus: " IHIC REQVIESCIT IN PACE— VITALIANVS SERVYS XPI EPC." We know that this Vitalianus was at the Roman council in 743, and it appears that he died during the pontificate of Adrian I. (77"2-795). On this baud we see a vase with handles, irom which issue vine-branches with grapes, leaves, and withes. Above there is a Greek cross in a circle, and here and there rosettes. Peuugia. — An extremely remarkable monument of the eighth century is in the celebrated museum of Perugia. It is an altar with its ciborium in a com- plete and well-preserved state. It comes from a church of S. Prospero, and is formed of four columns bearing as many arches, crowned by an eight-sided roof that ends in a pine-shaped flower. Ro- hault de Fleury, as usual, erroneously judged this work to be fruit of the ninth centurv. Fig. 73.— Capital at the Museum of Peiugia — Vlllth Cciiuiiy. 158 The altar is absolutely witliout decorations ; but, by way of compensation, the archivolts of the ciborium are variously and profusely arabesqued with very elegant ornaments, braids, palm- leaves, roses, wild acanthus, among stars, doves, peacocks, fans, and other caprices. These archivolts, without doubt, merit a place among the most beautiful things that the Greek artificers of the eighth century have given to Italy. Where, however, their chisel fails considerably is in the capitals of the columns, which are here, as is almost always the case, defective. It would seem that these poor artists, who were often skilful in finely decorating a plain surface, lost all their cunning and showed all their inefficiency when it was necessary to model in full relief. In the same museum there is a little capital of this epoch, much coarser than those of the ciborium, with very hard palm- leaves, which are scarcely better than the worst that we have seen in Upper Italy. Spoleto. — Spoleto was a city that was held in high con- sideration at this epoch, and retained its prosperity for a long time, because the Lombards had made it the capital of one of their duchies. I therefore visited it in the hope of finding some work that might aid me in my present study ; and, in fact, I found there two sculptures that appear to belong to the eighth century. One consists of a rectangular slab of marble used as material in the construction of the bellry of the cathedral, together with many other Eoman or mediaeval sculptures. It is subdivided by braids and spindles into four squares, occupied below with palms similar to those of the ambo of Modena, and above by large roses and groups of lilies, as at Cividale, Murano, and other places. The other sculpture (derived from the church of the Apostles) is kept in the atrium of the Pinacoteca Comunale, and is decorated with three small arches, supported by little pilasters, composing one of the most barbarous bits of archi- tecture that have ever been seen. There are no bases, no capitals, but mere superposed steps, pyramidal in form below 159 and inverted above ; arches falsely poised, with no memhmtnre, hut simple listels awkwardly enriched with little circles, sc^uares, meanders, teeth of saws, and especially by innumerable little drilled holes. The human figures and the animals carved on this stone present fewer im- perfections, and, though very barbarous, are, however, less so than the horrible ones of Cividale. Of the three arches only two retain images of saints, dressed in togne and long tunics, and whose heads are surrounded with concave aureoles in strong relief. As at Cividale, some of the features are traced on a flat surface f^' about two centimetres higher than their Fig. 74.— Balustrade existing in background, Outlined by furroAvs in the the Belfry of the Cathedral ^^^^^ ^f ^^le drapery aud extremities, and of Spoleto — vlllth Century. , , . „ -it , by a depression of some millimetres. There is an ingenuous attempt at truth in the drapery, which looks ridiculous, and a certain pretence of indicating the nude which it covers One would think the author was a painter, or f " ■• - \ i> * r'/F p Fig. 75. — Bas-relief at the Pinacoteca Comunale, Spoleto — Vlllth Century. rather that he was trying with his decrepit and dying art to copy the forms of some picture or mosaic of Byzantine style.* * Far more than for the sake of these wretched works of the eighth century Spoleto ought to be known to architects and Art-historiaus for having a Christian i6o Nakni. — In the environs of Narni, in a cliurcli at S. Oreste, is an old altar cliietly formed of fragments of parapets of the eighth centnr}'. It exhibits braidings both curvilinear and mixtihnear ; rather rugged spirals of leaves ; a Greek cross with caulicules and plaits between four roses ; a frieze of little arches filled with crosses, lilies, or palms : but what most attracts the attention is an elegant wheel enclosing a square and con- nected by means of plaits with a smaller interior circle ; it resembles that broken Avlieel, which, as we have seen, \^ as dis- covered amongst the ruins of S. Augustine at Venice. Rome. — At Rome, as at Ravenna and at Pavia, I could find very few Greek works of the eighth century, and even those are not of a striking character. Nevertheless Selvatico, after studying the baptistery of Cividale, observed that the same rugged style appeared in numerous works of sculpture scattered here and there among the Roman basilicas ; but he had con- sidered the execution more than the style, and therefore, in spite of Rohault de Fleury's assertion to the contrary, he inouuinent of the highest importance, the fa9ade of the very old basilica of S. Saviour, now the church of the Campo- Santo. It dates from the sixth century, and is entirely preserved with the exception of the portico, which was perhaps added after- wards, and part of the fittings. The style of the three doors and tlie three windows is decadent lionianic, but is not without majesty and elegance. To reassure the doubtful and convince the unbelieving the friezes of the three doors bear a cross in the centre, from which is developed a rich decoration of spirals, flowers, and rosettes. It is, in fact, a construction of such value to the historian of Romanic-Christian architecture that not even Eome or the East can show another like it. And yet, though situated on the side of a hill exposed to the gaze of everybody, I blush to say that the first to discover its unknown but immense importance was a foreigner — Hiibsch ! But I am still more ashamed to confess that from 1871 — in which year De Eossi, in his " BuUettiuo," s^jokeof the wonderful discovery — to this present day, no professor, none of our own writers on Art-history, has said one word about this unique monument. That fact implies that in Italy little is printed, less is read, and nothing is studied. Those who have not the opportunity to go to Spoleto and admire the precious monument, should at least look at it as delineated in the work of Hiibsch, or in that of Mothes, or in the " BuUettiuo " already cited, where important information about the excavations made in that church may also be found. But the reader must not believe, with De Eossi, that various other doors and facades of churches at or near Spoleto are coeval with S. Saviour's ; because, with the sole excejjtion of a frieze on the tympan of the temple of Clitunmus, they are neither more nor less than works in imitation of those of the thirteenth century. I know that the learned archaeologist has already repented his error. i6r Fig. 76. —Capital in the Fieramosca Palace, Capua — Vlllth Century, Fig. 77. — Capital in the Museum at Capua — VTITth Century. assigned to the eighth cen- tury works that belong to tlie ninth, and which we shall soon examine. In the Christian museum of the Lateran, at the foot of the great staircase, I found a frieze with spirals, withes and dr}^ leaves, ani- mals and fantastic monsters of rugged forms. In the midst of the staircase that leads to the lapidary galleries, there is a rect- angular slab, with a great Latin cross on it adorned by braids, which from their fineness and the fact that there is a bead in every row, in the manner fre- quently characteristic of the Greeks in the eighth cen- tury, seems to me to be a Greek work of that time. Six other little crosses of various dimensions, some enriched like the larger one by very minute braids, others in low relief and smooth, occupy the lateral spaces between inscriptions in the Armenian language. The Latin inscription at the foot of the cross was without doubt added in the twelfth century. Such are the very few works in Rome 11 l62 which may with some pi'obability he attributed to Greek chisels of the eighth century. Capua. — In the courtyard of the Fieramosca Palace in Capua two capitals of medium size and curious forms are to be seen. Instead of leaves, there are curved bands, or very projecting caulicules, half way up. They are curled in the centre and meet one another at the angles, detached from the bell of the capital. Higher up, other caulicules and roses support the abacus. It seems that, what was to those artificers the in- superable difficulty of carving leaves in relief, made them resort to these \ strange combinations. But there are g pretty boughs carved in slight relief on the smooth sides of the bell ; and cords, braids, or triangles on the caulicules. Two other slim, rugged, but not inelegant capitals are exhibited in the museum of Capua. They are clearly related to the more simple ones of Istria or Venetia. The same museum also contains the least barbarous figure that remains to us of the Greek eighth-century work in Italy. It represents an angel, whose feet are naked, with a concave aureole, and clad in a tunic with a toga richly adorned by gems and pearls. The right hand holds a wand. The pro- portions are free, as in the other figures, but the pose is rigid, the Fig. 78. — Bas-relief in the Museum at Capua — Vlllth Century. 1 6.5 relief iiisignitiraiit, the folds crudely traced. As a whole it is a barbarous Avork. S. AxGELO-iN-FoRMis. — Three kilometers from Capua, on the side of Mount Tifata, rises the old basilica of S. Angelo-in- Forniis, famous esi)cciall3- for its antique pictures, and important to us because it contains a Greek work of the eighth century. It is the pedestal of the holy-water vase, and on two sides is covered with florid and elegant decorations, slightly departing from the style we have hitherto seen, but so strongly reminiscent of it that we ought to class it with the rest. On one of the sides there is a great vase with handles, from which rises a vigorous plant that throws out leaves, flowers, and fruit of all kinds. Two doves perch on the vase and peck. On the other side is carved a great bush of wild acanthus, from which arise spirals in which bunches of grapes are mingled with roses, laurel- leaves, and little birds. Benevento. — I would not omit visiting Benevento, once the celebrated capital of a Lombard duchy ; but my researches only resulted in the discovery of a little capital now employed in the picturesque church of S. Sophia. It has something of the bizarre elegance of those of Capua, and recalls, at the same time, certain motives of its brother capitals in High Italy. "With this capital, I terminate the series of all the Greek works of the eighth century that I was able to dis- cover or become acquainted with in Italy' — a series that might not only be increased but doubled by more patient, extended, and pro- longed researches, since our peninsula is still a country for the most part unexplored by the studious, and may therefore still furnish Art-history with new and pleasant surprises. Never- * I have thought it best to exclude from this series all Greek works of the same period in wood-sculpture, stone-sculpture, or goldsmiths' work existing in Italy, which were executed in Greece or imported from that country after the eighth century. Fig. 70.— Capital in the Cloister of S. Sophia at Benevento — Vlllth Cen- tui-y. 164 tlieless, it seems to me that the number of monuments pointed out by me in this chapter are more than sufficient to demon- strate the rapid diffusion of the Byzantine-Barbarian style of the eighth century through every region of Italy, and the common characteristics of its physiognomy as disi)layed from one end of the country to the other. Indeed, if the limits imposed on me by my programme did not forbid it, I could demonstrate that those Greek artificers wlio, through desire of gain or persecutions or wars, were impelled to leave their own country and seek our shores (even to the extreme west of the Ligurian Riviera), did not stop at the Alps but crossed them and passed into France. It is certain that we can easily recognise the work of their chisels in the very beautiful sarcophagi of the crypt of S. Paul at Jouarre, enclosing the ashes of S. Techilde and S. Aguibert ; in the fragments of another sarcophagus existing in the church of the Minimes at Venasque, where Boece, bishop of Carpentras, was deposited ; in remains of parapets visible in the museum of Aries ; in several friezes inserted in an altar of the cloister of S. Saviour's at Aix, in Provence, and in many other places. In all these sculptures, there is not one motive that does not find a perfect counterpart in the works in Italy that we have now been studying, and therefore they ought to be attributed to the eighth century and not to the ninth, as Fleury has done. Nevertheless, I have reason to believe that Italy is richer than other countries in this manner of work, and perhaps not only richer than France, but even than Greece itself, in which the revolutions of the eighth century, and especially those of later ages, certainly could not have been propitious to Art production and preservation. The remains in Italy suffice to afford us a perfect idea of the ensemble of a church of the aightli century. We have examples of doors and porches, altars and ciboria, confessionals and windows, presbyterial chancels and ambos, fonts and baptismal ciboria, vases for holy water, and tombs. And in all these accessories we often find numerous types, and invariably a variety of forms and details. Take, for example, a progression of capitals of the old •65 Ionic and Corinthian form to those basket-shaped and cubiform Anth cut corners. We pass from the simplest and unadorned to the richest and most delicate ; from smooth columns to arabesqued ones ; from square to octagonal pilasters ; from uncouth ornaments to the most delicate. But what is most surprising is the prodigious and admirable variety and originality of ornamentation, coupled Anth a grace which is entirely Greek, ever evident though often rough. One may say that those artificers, in compensation for the lost perfection of their art, sought to abound in fancy and in richness. Chapter III. ITALIAN ARCHITECTURE FEOM THE END OF Till': YILItji TO THE XIth CENTUEY. ITALIAN-BYZANTINE STYLE. I HAVE said before, that tlie most eloquent proof that the monuments we have liitherto studied are works of emigrant artists consists in tiieir sudden appearance and disappear- ance in the brief time of little more than half a century, leaving Italian art almost in the same barbarous state in which they found it. It must not, however, be believed that this visit of the Greeks to Italy was of no educational value to the natives. It was, on the contrary, of the highest value to them. And though they never arrived at that perception of grace innate in the Greeks, and several centuries had to pass before they at- tained to the production of capitals equal in worth to those of the baptistery of Cividale, or peacocks similar to those of S. Saviour's of Brescia, yet the example given by the Greek works availed, at least, to awaken in our artists the love of richness, profusion, and variety of decoration ; and thus in their new works the rigid poverty of ornament that made the old deformities the more noticeable and disagreeable, at any rate, disappeared. They studied, then, to imitate the Greek sculjitures, but not in such a servile manner as to preclude a conspicuous difference between the works of the two schools. It is true that, far from emulating the Greeks in fecundity of fancy, they did not know how to augment the large measure of ornamental motives inherited from them, but, on the contrary, reduced those motives to so limited a number that they sank into a monotony which their masters had very cleverly contrived to avoid ; but, with all that, their works are distinguished by a certain breadth of composition and touch that may be derived from their very roughness, but that to most spectators probably answers better i66 i67 to the description of arcliitectonic feeling and thought than do the Greek miniitia3. They were i)rudent in ahiiost al\va5's avoiding representa- tions of the human figure, and using even those of animals with the greatest parsimony, as their inexperienced chisels could only produce monstrosities in that genre. Among ornaments they abandoned the confronted SS's and the tied and flowered ones, the champignons, the corridietro, the ivy, the thorny acanthus, the little columns, and the little arabesqued pillars. They rarely made use of the spindles, the interwoven arches, the vine- branches, and it is curious to see how, out of the two ways employed by the Greeks in representing bunches of grapes, our men showed predilection for the most clumsy and conventional way, namely, that of enclosing the grapes in a listel shaped like a heart. Palms, crosses, rayed and girandoled roses, leafy spirals, beads, rampant caulicules, were frequently reproduced ; but the decorations preferred by them were the curvilinear and the mixtilinear braidings, which they applied and developed so freely that we must consider these braidings as the dominant note of the ornamental sculpture of this period. In them they had discovered a free, facile, and appropriate element of decoration, wdiich might assume a certain variety and richness ^^ithout exacting too much from the mind or the chisel of the artificer, in whom a little ingenuity and diligence w^ould be sufficient. And most heartily they gave themselves up to this, being fortunate in their ability to attain to those intricate combinations that force the spectator to follow their capricious labyrinths with curiosity, wdiile they almost craze those who try to copy them. Some have ascribed this genre of ornament to Arab influence, being aware that it forms the base of decoration in Mahomedan buildings. But, if we reflect that the Arabs did not, as far as we know, j)ossess any special architecture of their own in the eighth century,* and that that bizarre fashion, after- * It is usual to point out the Mosque of Omar at Jerusalem, founded in 682, as the most ancient example of pointed arches organically used, and as the oldest example of the Mahomedan style ; but this judgment is absolutely erroneous. 1 68 wards brought to the highest perfection, of adorning with varied and most ingenious interweaving or braiding (ahnost always rectilinear) only began to manifest itself in the East towards the eleventh century, one is induced reasonably to conclude that Arab ait of the eighth century could not have influenced Italian nrt in the least. Besides, we who know where this style of braiding came from, and how much more antique it is than Mahomedanism itself, may firmly maintain that the Maho- medans learned it from the Byzantines, just as they had learnt constructive organism ; from the Sassanide Persians their cupolas and their fantastic jiora, and from the Buddhists and Hindoos the inflected, the trefoil, and the horseshoe arch. In the seventh century and in the beginning of the eighth, before the fresh influence of Greek art, we do not find a true style existing in Italy, nor do the miserable works of that time appear to be everywhere of the same character. But towards the end of the eighth, and in the following century, things Avere very difterent ; because those modes of ornamentation that are seen in Rome, appear also in the Neapolitan province, in the Marches, in Umbria, in Tuscany, at Ravenna, in Lombardy, in Venetia, and even in Istria and Dalmatia where the old traditions have either disappeared or been momentarily forgotten. This uniformity can only be explained by admitting that this new style originated and developed in only one region of Italy whence it was S})read through the peninsula and even elsewhere tbrough the medium of its artists. What country, then, was the cradle of this new style ? Apparently that which otters the most numerous examples of it ; but such a deduction, though reasonable theoretically, does not hold practically in the present case, because the works executed by that system have nearly all vanished, and the fact that more of them exist in one country than in another may be the effect of independent causes ; not to mention that the country now regarded as poorest in a certain All that remains of seventh-century work in the Mosque is clearly of Byzantine style, and all that differs from it, as (for example) the external wall, the interior row of pointed arches with the comers alternately sharpened, and the cupola, must belong to a restoration effected in the ninth century (see Vogiie, " Le Temple de Jerusalem "). 169 class of remains may, by accurate research or accidental dis- covery during a restoration or an excavation, be legarded to-morrow as the richest in the peninsula. Therefore we must seek the support of a more valid argu- ment which, in my opinion, can only lie in the greater longevity of that style in one country t1uin in another, for, like a plant, the style must have taken deeper root in its native soil than in the foreign ground where it had been transplanted. And, coming at once to the application, we soon see that, while that style entirely disappeared in Rome to make room for the Neo- Latiii. in the south for the Arab- Sicilian, in Tuscany for the Latin- Lombard, and in Venetia for the Neo-Byzantine ; in Lombardy, on the contrary, it developed itself more amply and was gradually transformed into the Lombard or Eomanic style in which, among other features, it especially maintained, till the twelfth century, the character of the complicated braidings. In Lombardy, then, which history itself exhibits to us as the most active theatre of the arts in Italy towards the eleventh century, that new system of decoration, which is a reflection of the Greek modes, imported in the eighth century, must have begun. This conjectui'e becomes still more probable when we consider that, as Lombardy was the most vital centre of the Lombard kingdom, the work of the Byzantine artificers must have been most active there in the eighth century, and therefore it was easy for Italians to form themselves in their school. And now let us take another turn in Italy to seek for monuments and remnants of this Italian-Byzantine style, which represents the first faint dawning of the resurrection of Art. EoME. — Rome, in which we could only find a few remains of Greek sculpture of the eighth century, oft'ers us, in compensation, numerous remnants of the works of Lombard artists dating from the end of that century and the following centuries, and even some entire edifices. The pontificates of Adrian I. (772-795) and of Leo HI. (795-816) signalise a period of great constructive, if not artistic, activity These two pontift's, freed by the French arms from every menace of the Lombards, and finding themselves, through I/O the donations of Pepin the Little and Charlemagne, lords of wide and fertile domnins, at once hegan to make the Christian monuments of the eternal city experience the beneficent results of their new power. There was not a church in Rome but was richly adorned by one of those two popes with Tyrian and Alexandrian figured stuffs, or endowed with ciboria, chancels, lamps, statues, vases, &c., all worked in silver or in the purest gold, and often covered with gems — fabulous treasures ! On the other hand, they restored decaying churches and totally rebuilt the ruined ones. But, though the gold of the popes sufficed to complete such magnificent works, the number of Roman workmen was insufficient ; and there remain to us letters of Adrian I., in which, among other things, he asks Charlemagne for work- men {macjii^tros). That does not mean that he asked for artists from France, but from those regions of Italy that, through the fall of the Lombards, had passed into Charlemagne's power; and the monuments permit of our believing that those artists must have been either Lombards or the famous Comacini, who, in that time, must have enjoyed the fame of being the best artists in the peninsula. The most remarkable monument of the time of Adrian I. that remains in Rome is, without doubt, the church of S. Maria- in-Cosmedin. Anastasius (Anastasio), the librarian, says that Adrian found this church of small dimensions snh minis positam . . . maximum momimcntum de tihioiiiio fiifo super earn depcndcm. And as this colossal ruin impeded the enlargement of the church which the pontiff was deliberating, they demolished it by force of hand and fire. Then, the place having been cleared of the debris, Adrian built a fundamcntis the new spacious basilica, tres absides in ea constituens. And, pausing for awhile at this last expression, how is it that the antique documents, probably read by Anastasius, make no mention of this church ? E\ddently because it must have been new ; and, in fact, before this epoch there was no sign of it, nor does there exist in Italy any church, anterior to this epoch, which presents the same arrangement of the ends of the 171 naves. Was this novelty — wliicli was so popular as to become soon quite common — a spontaneous birth of Ital}^ or was it imported by the Greeks in the eighth century ? If one by one we ex- amine all the churches of the fifth and the sixth centuries in Constanti- nople and Thessalonica, or those of Italy erected in the same centuries under the immediate influence of Byzantine taste, we perceive but one apsis alone. But if we pause instead to look at those erected contemporaneously in Central Syria, grand ruins of which still re- main, we shall find in the church of Soueideh, assigned by Vogiie to the fifth century, that the two cells or chapels, lateral to the apsis, curve interiorly in the form of niches, and that, in the great basilica of S. Simon Stylite at Kalat Sem'an, constructed in the 3'ear -500, the bottom of the little naves is built, both inside and outside, in semicircular form. This is, perhaps, the oldest example that we have of the basilica with three apsides ; but it may also be the only one remaining of many others of the same epoch which were destroyed, and which were not without in- fluence even in the adjacent land of Greece. And. thougli we Fig. 80.— Plan of the Chnrch of S. araria-in- Cosmediu, Rome — a.d. 772-795. 172 cannot tell (from ignorance of any still-existing church of the seventh to the ninth century in that region) Avhether the custom had taken root there in that period, yet, seeing it constantly followed in all churches from the end of the ninth century and later, Ave suspect that (even hefore then) it had hegun to be adopted. At any rate, it is very reasonable to believe that the use of the apsis came to Italy from the East. The church of S. Maria-in-Cosmedin is therefore the most ancient example remaining to us in Italy, and perhaps the first that was seen in Rome. In fact, the church, as built by Adrian I., is substantially the same that we see to-day, if Ave except some transformations in the colonnades of the presbytery, in the portico of the facade, and those few, but magnificent, em- bellishments Avhicli were made in the thirteenth century— that is to say, the ciborium, the ambos, the pavement, and the belfry.* Its extension is nearly determined by certain remains of those grand ruins that Adrian caused to be thrown down ; and they consist of several great Corinthian columns, Avhich connect the facial wall, and part of the wall of one side, with a thick wall which forms the opposite angle. To preserve this wall no external projection was given to the three apsides. After the apsides, the most salient jiarticular of our church consists in the supports of the naves, which are formed of groups of three columns, separated by oblong pilasters that have all the appearance of portions of Avail. Some have supposed that they Avere old arcades built later to consolidate the edifice ; but this idea does not hold Avater Avlien Ave consider that their dimensions do not correspond Avith those of the other arcades, and that every group of columns presents different dimensions in the intervals. Those pilasters are therefore originals, and Avere, * Between the writers who judged the fine mediaeval belfries of Eome to be of the sixth or seventh century and those who declared them to be all posterior to the year 1000 Mothes intervened as conciliator, asserting that both parties were at once right and wrong, because, according to his opinion, in all those towers the lower half, with its great blind arches, belonged to the sixth or following century, and the superior part, pierced by little arches supported by columns, to the twelfth or thn-tcenlh. But the good German was here again deceived. With all my research and study in Rome, I could not find a single belfry older than the eleventh century. 173 without doubt, put there to render the construction more solid and to secure more finnly the thick wall above, whose weight had bruised the slight and badly proportioned columns. These columns are, as usual, of various marble and different proportions, some of them channelled, some plain. They have various bnses and very various capitals, the greater part Corinthian or ancient composite ones, of which some may have served in the first church of the sixth century. As we saw in the first chapter, that Byzantine composite cer- tainly belonged to it. There are, how- ever, five that, either wholly or in part, belong to the time of Adrian. They are rough, but not bad, imitations of Romanic composite, with hard, smooth foliage and utterly unadorned volutes and champignon. They recall the simplest modes used by Greek artists in Upper Italy of the same century, and show the first footsteps of the renais- sance of Italian art. Every capital is charged with a large heavy squared plinth, which, like those of S. Agnes- beyond-the-Walls and of S. George at Velabro, has lost every trace of the Byzantine character. I said elsewhere that this church contains a crypt in the form of a little basilica with three naves, in which I have pointed out traces of the style of the eighth century, visible in the capitals of its columns, which are identical with the rude composites of the upper naves. Three other sculptures appear to have belonged to this precious church of Adrian I. ; they are two rough Ionic capitals of the existing porch, and an undoubted fragment of an archi- trave, in the vestibule. It is decorated by rough little arcades in bas-relief,* only interrupted by a square hole for inserting an Fig. 81. -Capital of S. Maria- in-Cosmediu, Rome — a.d. * It is curious that Crescimbeni (op. cited), far from seeing in these arcades a mere motive of decoration, as is the fact, supposed them to represent a portico or aqueduct restored by Adrian. 174 iron l)ar, meant to sustain a lamp or a curtain. It is certainly the woik of Lombard chisels, and of the style that I prefer to Fig. 82. — Fraciment of Architrave of S. Maria-iii-Cosmedin, Rome — .\.d. 772-795. call Italian-Byzantine. The incised inscription assures us that it is of the period of Adrian I. : — " de don IS m ET SCE DI GENETEICIS MAnae temporihuS DONI ADEIANI PAPE EGO GREGORIVS NO ... " Although the old basilica of S. Saba on the Aventine does not appear in the long catalogue of the churches restored by Adrian I., given by Anastasius, yet I permit myself to suppose that it was reconstructed in that period and to consider those colonnades of the naves as its remains. But I am led to this conclusion not only by the fragmentary mixture of marbles and capitals, but by the barbarous execution of some of them which Avere without doubt sculptured expressly for the edifice. As long as the pagan ruins ottered capitals sutticiently well preserved to be used anew, we have seen that the Christian architects of Eome gathered them with care and arranged them as best they might in their churches. But when those ruins had, in falling, buried under their debris all works of art, or so crushed and spoilt them as to render them useless, or (more probable stillj when the mine was exhausted of capitals, whose dimensions could be fitted to edifices of a medium size, such as were the basilicas of that time, the new constructors and restorers were forced to supply work from contemporary chisels. It must have proved a harsh necessity to them. Accustomed, 75 as tliey were, to search comfortably amongst ancient ruins for what was wanted in order to buikl and adorn their churches, they had neglected the necessary training of mind and hand, Avithout which no success in Art can be attained. Now these unskilful stone- workers of the eighth century, bel'ore replacing some deterio- rated capitals in S. Saba, tried to imitate the Ionic forms, but in the most disgraceful way possible, scarcely rough-hewing the marble, not caring to hint at the champignons, the volutes, and the cushions, by intaglio or even with furrows ; so that those capitals have rather the appear- ance of rude masses hardly squared, just as they came from the quarries, than of finished works of sculpture. These capitals are really so barbarous that I should be tempted to assign to them the period of the beginning of the eighth century, if their visible relationship with those of S. Maria-in- Cosmedin, and the presence in S. Saba of rugged sculptures of Italian-Byzantine style, did not persuade me to believe them to be of the time of Adrian I. They may, how- ever, be classed among the oldest works of that style in Rome, and they possibly date back much further than S. Maria-in-Cosmedin. The Italian-Byzantine sculptures of S. Saba are two fi'agments of a parapet fitted Fig. 83. -Capital of the Clnu-cli of S. Saba, Eome — End of the Vlllth Century. tv*i.vii»'„,/.ii-.;-.ii,.,-'v-;^-;. Fig. 84.— Capital of the Portico of S. Laurence-iu-Luciua, Eome — a.d. 772- 795. T76 into the pavement of the left nave, scnlptnred with squares formed of knotted osiers, filled up with g■rape^*, loaves, little palms and roses. A small pilaster, with rough rounds of leaves, after the Byzantine style, now serves for a staircase to one of the doors, that forms a passage from the neighhouring monastery to the kitchen garden ; and, huilt into the north wall of the same one sees two long friezes in the same style with gyres of vine-hranches enclosing rugged animals. -■"■^s^^ ~^i"Ti-jf *i " ""^'"•^^ .^raW* Fig. 85.— Mouth of the Well in the Lateran Cloister, Eome— End of the Vlllth Century. According to Anastasius, the church of S. Laurence-in- Lucina was also rebuilt hy Adrian I., and six columns and two antse still remain of the old external portico. The capitals ol these last imitate in their ensemble the Corinthian forms ; and, although the leaves are rough and plain, like those of S. Maria- in-Cosmedin, yet they are in vigorous, full, and almost exag- gerated relief. The capitals of the six columns, on the contrary, 177 are Ionic, and, though rugged, compare to great advantnge with those of S. Saha. They present a sculptured champignon, and the vohites are ornamented witli many spirals ; here at least the bit of intaglio mitigates the roughness of the chiselling. We read in Anastasius that Adrian I., among many other secular constructions, restored and embellished the antique Patriarchal residence near S, John Lateran, that is to say the Papal residence of that time. In the centre of the lovely cloister of Vassalletto, by the side of the basilica, an antique well, attributed by several to the end of the ninth, and even the tenth century, is to be seen ; but, observing the extreme rough- ness of the work, I should deem it to be of the time of Adrian. It is of cylindrical form, and sculptured on the outside with bas- reliefs divided into two zones by a plait of rushes. In the lower zone, crosses are alternated with palms ; in the higher one meagre arches adorned by rampant leaves, and beneath the little arches are placed little trees, crosses, or birds pecking at grapes. To the same period, and to the same chisels, I incline to attribute two fragments of parapets that exist in the cloister itself; one of them adorned with braidings, the other by a great circle enclosing a species of cross formed by knotted plaits and adorned on the sides by various sorts of leaves, which are unfortunately very roughly done. It is a rough reproduction of the central part of the parapet of S. Augustine at Venice or that of S. Oreste near Narni, Greek works of the first half of the eighth century. Ciampini did not err in asserting that under the reign of Charlemagne hon/.s) DOM lOHI XVIIII PAP^." Capua. — It was natural that the Italian-Byzantine style, \\hich had penetrated Ivome at such an early period and reigned there for more than two centuries, should have reached further south and taken root even in the Neapolitan Provinces until the time when the Neo-Byzantine, Arab, Tuscan, and Lombard styles supplanted it. I have not been able to travel much in that region ; nevertheless, the few monuments I have come across prove to me that the Italian- Byzantine art has been there, and that many examples of it must still i"emain. Capua alone ofters me traces of it in the museum, and in an entire church, which without doubt belongs to the tenth or the second half of the preceding century. In the museum a fragment of a parapet with concentric circles knotted together may be seen, and the ribbons, as we saw at S. George- in-Velabro. in Rome, are covered with smaller braidings. Eoses, Fig. 100.— Plan of the Church of S. Michael, Capua — Xth Century (?). '95 lilies, and other smaller circles enrich the composition somewliut awkwardly. At a short distance from the museum there lises a little church, dedicated to Prince S. Michael (as the people call him) — a church no longer used for divine ser\-ice, hecause of its ^ er\ had condition. It has only one nave, terminated l)y a little presbytery raised by several steps, bounded on the front by two isolated columns bearing semicircular arches, and at the back by an apsis flanked by two great niches. Under the presbytery a crypt opens, made on a similar plan. It is covered by vaults, supported in the centre by a single column. Originally the church must have had an ex- ternal portico sustained b}' tA\o columns, which are now encased in a modern ^\all, for they wished to prolong it at the expense of the atrium. The raised cliuir, the presence of a crypt, and the signs of three apsides, prevent us from thinking that this church might have an earlier date than the middle of the eighth century ; and since \\e kno\\ that Capua was founded in a.d. 85(i, we may reasonably doubt that its origin can be later than tliis date. But if wc \\isli to establish the date A\-itli suthcient precision, we lune the decorative details, and specially certani capitals of the colunnis. We Avill not look at those of the presbytery, as they arc old Corinthians, but we must pause before the column in the crj-pt and the two columns of the facade. The first has some- thing of the form of a Byzantine abacus, but it agrees badly with the round column that bears it, while it appears made for Fig. 101.— Capitals from S. :\lichae Capua — Xtli Ceutuiy (.'). 196 the vaults which it sustains. Its sides are adorned with orna- mental bas-reliefs, with leafage and palm-spirals in the Italian- Byzantine style. The capitals of the facade are of Corinthian form, l)ut of that rude Corinthian which the sculptors of the ninth or tenth century produced. The leaves are not of acanthus, but palm-leaves ; their curls are roughly and conven- tionally striated, like those of the Greek capitals of the eighth centary of S. George of Valpolicella, or the museum of Capua itself. Hough, stiff caulicules and a miserable abacus complete it. These capitals, and especially their leaves, show much analogy -snth similar works of Northern Italy, which belong, as we see, to the second half of the tenth century ; and there- fore I should be led to assign the same date to this precious church of S. Michael of Capua. ToscANELLA. — Returning towards the nortli we nuist halt at Toscanella, which, in the church of S. Maria Major, otters us several Italian-Byzantine sculptures, that certainly nnist have figured in an older church than the present one, which is a tine basilica of Loml)ard stjde of the twelfth century. Towards the end of the central nave, on the left, rises a grand ambo, sustained by four arcades planted upon columns. Fleury took the "\\iiole thing for a work of the ninth century, and offered it as an example of ambos of that time ; but he Avas evidently in error, because that work, as a wdiole, and in many characteristic details, is a fruit of the twelfth century. This Ave recognise, first, in the form of the ambo, Avhich is entirely llomanic, and therefore later than the year lOUU ; secondly by its capitals, its intermediate cornice, and in particular by that little angular figure surmounted by an eagle supporting the reading- desk. Fleury's error finds, however, some justification in the fact that the ambo is composed for the most part of sculptures that are really in the style of the ninth century. Such are the higher parapets, which nuist originally have belonged to a choir. The arcades below must certainly have formed part of an antique ciborium (perhaps that of the high altar), which is noAv replaced by a much larger one. It is needless to sav that here also evervthing is covered 197 by ricli docorativc sculpture, representing tlie usual niixtiliuear hraidin^s, iuj^euious comhinatious. s})ii-als, ei'osses, roses, and rampant caulicules ; in fact, all those details that we lately observed on the Italian-Byzantine monuments of Iiome. Various other fragments in the same style are dispersed among the churches, principally in the form of altar decorations. Orvikto. — The museum of Orvieto encloses an ornamental parapet in the Italian-Byzantine style, covered with circles of intertwined ^\•ithes, and enclosing crosses, hunches of grapes. twin caulicules, tresses, volatiles, and othci' caprices. Spoleto. — I also saw a fragment of a parapet, scul})tured in interwreathed circles, in the usual Italian-Byzantine style, set in the front of the belfry of the cathedral of Spoleto. where I had already found a Greek bas-relief of the eighth century. Ancoxa. — The Italian-Byzantine style also appears on two fragments of parapets adorned with l)iai(lings, existing in the old crypt of the cathedral of Ancona, and on another fniuiuent outside the church on the north-west side. Fig. 102.— Parapet found at S. :\[ana of the AngcL, .\.r,Msi f Xili ( ^ kiuw. Assist. — Very interesting is a parapet brought to light in the church of S. Maria of the Angels, near Assisi. It offers 198 two arcades supported hy pilasters enclosing two large crosses among palms, braids and birds. Little braidings wind round the arches, descend on the pillars, run along the arms of the crosses, and it is curious to see how they change below and are transformed into palms (see Fig. 102). Fleurv says that between Home and the shores of the Adriatic there was, in the tenth century, a gi'eat affinity of style, chiefly explained by the pontifical dominion over the Marche and the Esarcato. He does not, however, show clearly whether he means to say that Eome in the ninth century exer- cised artistic influence over the Adriatic coasts, or vice versa. But, whichever it be, I believe that not only Rome, but the western shores of the Adriatic, submitted to the direct and exclusive influence of Lomliardy from the first half of the eighth century till beyond the eleventh. Nor can I accept what Fleury adds, namely, that sculptural decoration in Tuscany had a ditterent character in tlie ninth century from that of the surrounding regions. It is an al)so- lutely gratuitous assertion, since he did not attempt to prove it ; noi' could he, I believe, have done so. What motives, in fact, could have caused such isolation in Art in Tuscany '? Towards the eleventh century she took so little part in political events and commerce, and was held in such small account, that there could be no reason for her development of an original x\rt much superior to that cultivated in the rest of Italy. It seems that Fleury could not find monuments of the eleventh century in Tuscany, like those in Rome and elsewhere, and, without doubt, founded his conjecture on their absence. I, on the contrary, deduce therelrom that the unpropitious conditions of that region did not favour the constructive activity and large employment of Italian-Byzantine art, of ^vhich Rome and many other Italian regions could boast. In spite of everything, I firmly believe that if there was any Art in the ninth and tenth centuries in Tuscany, it could only be the Italian-Byzantine one, and of this I can oft'er a proof. Pisa. — In the external walls of the largest apses of the cathedral of Pisa four bands, adorned 1)V ornamental has- 199 reliefs in Italian-Byzantine style, are Imilt. On tlieni appear the accustomed curvilinear or niixtilinear Ijraidiuj^s, more or less complicated, knotted circles, and rosettes of \arions kinds. Ciampini, D'Agincourt, Cordero, and several others, who pointed out the church of the Three Fountains, near Home, as the proof of progress in the arts towards the end of the eighth century, did not fail to guide the student to tlie churcli of tlic Holy Apostles of Florence, to gaze on something niucli l)etter in the shape of that graceful basilica, which, according to tradition, was founded hy Charlemagne himself. A'asari liad already said so in the preface of his "Lives," adding that tliis church shows that, in Tuscany, " some good artificers had remained or reappeared, and that it is such a one that Brunel- leschi did not disdain to use it for a model when he l)uilt the church of the Holy Spirit and that of S. Laurence." That Brunelleschi was inspired hy the church I can well believe ; but I cannot admit that the present edifice is the same as that which arose in the time of Charlemagne. Certainly no one doubts that S. Miniato al Monte is a work of the eleventh century ; well, let all the most minute details of the church of the Hoi}- Apostles be confronted with the analagous ones of S. Miniato, and one must without hesitation conclude that the two graceful edifices belong to the same epoch. I have paused before this' error of Vasari, not because I regard myself as the first to demonstrate it, but only in the hope of convincing, once for all, several doubting minds. Bavenna. — I reconduct the reader to Bavenna among the tombs of the precious basilica of S. Apollinaris-beyond-the- Walls, where there was a grievous example of the monstrosities produced by the miserable Barbarous-Latin art of the beginning of the eighth century, before it felt the beneficent effects of the second Byzantine influence. The sarcophagus of a certain John, archbishop of the city (I believe him to have been the ninth of this name), avIio died A.D. 784, is rough and mean, but not without importance, since it presents some characteristics of the Italian-Byzantine lOO style, and therefore serves to prove how early this style had penetrated into Eavenna and how quickly it was diftused through the various regions of Italy. One recognises the Italian-Byzantine chisel in those crosses mth their curled extremities, after the Greek fashion, and in that horizontal band of the arched covercle formed by simple interweavings of withes. The arch, however, must have belonged first to some pagan tomb ; this is chiefly shown by the reversed moulding that frames the front, which, although very simple, attests a hand so skilful that we cannot believe it to be the same that scul2)tured the crosses and the inscriptions. Another sarcophagus of the same church, where lies the Archbishop Gratiosus, who died in 788, presents a greater pro- fusion of crosses, but the same idea and the same chisel. Fig. 103. — Sarcophagus of the Archbishop Gratiosus in S. ApoUinaris, near Eavenna — a.d. 788. Of the same time must be the front of a sarcoi^hagus existing in the nniseum of the archiepiscopal palace which contained the bodies of the consorts Gregory and Maria. The in- scription is framed in braids and flanked by two crosses with curved extremities. We must now return to S. Apollinaris-in-Classe to see 20I tlie most important (because almost intact) monument of the Italian-B3zantine style of the nijith century that remains to us in Italy. It is the ciborium of the altar of S. Elucadius, which, according to an inscription, a priest called Pietro caused to be sculptured during the See of the Archbishop Valerius (a.d. 80G-816). It must originally have been isolated in a spacious place, and only after many centuries have been transported to the angle of the left nave where we now find it, having lost the bases of its columns and received a cro^^^ling cornice which does not form part of it and ^\hich it miglit have dispensed with. Rohault de Fleury is not of this opinion. According to him the ciborium has always occupied its present place ; but, to comdnce one's self of the contrary, one need only look at the internal sides of the two arcades against the walls all covered with bas-reliefs like the external ones, and ^nth the vertical bands half hidden by the superposition of the marble slal)s. This awkward arrangement is the result of turning those arches towards the inside of the ciborium that they might remain visible instead of being hidden against the walls of tlie nave. The ciborium is formed by four columns supporting as many monolithic archi\olts, whose space is somewhat less than a semicircle. One-third of the columns is striated ^"erticall^^ the other two-thirds spirally, exactly like those found near the church of Aracoeli in Rome and without doubt by the same artificers. Though Home lent no helping hand to show us Italian-Byzantine capitals that had departed from the Corin- thian or Ionic modes, the cil)Oi"ium otters us four which, in their ensemble, remind us much more of the Byzantine basket forms than of Roman ones. They present various decorations of roses, crosses, caulicules, and leaves of wild acanthus and of palm. The four arches are varied like the capitals that support them. On the front side curves a graceful and complicated band of mixtilinear braidings of excellent ett'ect. and in the over-arches wave two branches of the Aine, rich in leaves, and 202 Fig. 104. — Ciborium of S. Elucadius in S. Apollinaris, near Eavenna — a.d. 806-816. 20'5 tlie usual bunches of grapes surrounded liv a list el. Inter- woven bands, more or less complex, compose the other archi- volts. in whose over-arches we see braids, or rudely-carved peacocks drinking from a vase, or doves at the sides of a cross between four rayed or girandoled rosettes. One pretty conceit is a band formed by a branch Anth spirals, each of which forms itself into a cross. In the same church of S. ApoUinaris there is also a sarco- phagus already known to us (see Fig. 3), which appears to be work of the latter part of the sixth century or of the first half of the seventh (of the covercle this may be said posi- tively), but in the ninth or tenth century, per- liaps in order to make it ready for another Itody, this sarcophagus must needs be enriched in front by two coarse little pilasters with leafage, and at the sides by small twin arches enclosing spi- rals with little pilasters ,^ ... and archivolts deco- Fig. 105.— Side of a Sarcophagus in S. ApoUinaris, near rated with bead-WOrk. Eaveuna— YIth and IXth Centuries. \\\x^i mOSt attracts US in it is the form of the little arches, which, instead of being semicircular, are what are called horseshoe arches. It is not necessary to 'see here a caprice of the sculptor, but rather a far-off Arab influence, and the oldest example of such an influence that I have found in Italy. Before leaving the basilica, I will mention an important 204 work in the Ttalirtn-13_vzantine style; it is an arch that perhaps crowned a little ciborium and now serves as an ornament to the door of the belfry. It is the oldest example of a cusped arclii- volt, and is, moreover, ornamented Antli rampant caulicules ; it is the prototyjie of those adornments over cdboria or doors, that in the Lombard style at tirst. and then in the Gothic, were much employed and obtained a p;reat success. Several other fragments of sculpture in Italian-Byzantine style— al)aci of capitals, pilasters, pierced parapets, archivolts. Fig. 106. — Cusped Archivolt in S. Apolliiiaris, near Eavenna — IXth Century. &c. — are to be seen in the churches or in the palaces of Ravenna. Columns similar to those of the ciborium of S. Elucadius stand in the atrium of the basilica of the Holy Spirit, and most probably sustained a ciborium, of the arcades of which two fragments remain in the sacristy of the said church. They show an elegant band with knotted branches from ^^■hich droop palm-leaves. Italian-Byzantine fragments are to be found in the Ursiano Baptistery, in the Easponi Palace, in the Classe Museum, and on the belfry of S. John- the-Evangelist. A sarcophagus named •" delle treccie " (the braided), because adorned with bands of that characteristic 205 decoration, may be seen in tlie ^a^lt of Bmccioforte, near the tomb of Dante. BuDRio. — In tlie museum of Bologna is a reproduction in plaster of a great stational marble cross existing in Budrio, and, like that of S. Petronio, hoisted on to the stem of a column. Its principal facade bears the following inscrij)tion : " + INDI NO KENOVA CEVX TEMPOKIBV BOM YITALE EPSC." Bologna's only bishop of that name held his See from A.D. 789 till 814. Therefore that cross must have been carved in that time, and, in fact, its finely arabesqued decora- tions have all the impress of the Italian-Byzantine style. Yerona. — Canobio, in his story of Yerona (Book Y.), wrote that '"in a.d. 780, in which time Bishop) Lothaire lived, the church of S. Maria Matricolare was not very large," and that the said bishop " rebuilt it ^ntli the help of Bertrada, who Avas the wife of Pei)in and the mother of Charlemagne, and also of the wife of Desiderio and of Charlemagne ; which church in better form was afterwards chosen by Bishop luitoldo (a.d. 802-840) for the cathedral."' This precious notice caused all the historians and archcBologists who AM'ote about Yerona during various centuries to suppose that the modern cathedral in its most anticpie parts — that is to say, the external walls, the apsis, the doors, &:c. — was the same church that Lothaire rebuilt, and that was perhaps finished by Eatoldo, A\ho chose it for a cathedral. Critics some years ago demonstrated the absurdity of that opinion, declaring that to the twelfth century l)elonged what was for so long believed to l)e of the eighth or ninth. In confirmation of this, and to convert the obstinate, L-anie a liap})y discovery made in 1884 in consequence of certain excavations in the picturesque Lombard cloister near the cathedral. At about two metres' depth large pieces of a vermiculated mosaic pavement, beautifully worked in geometrical combinations and Avith leafage, fruits, animals, and inscriptions, were found ; and, with the mosaic, a marble column. Avhich Avas easily placed on its own intact base and crowned with its own capital. Other remnants Avere found, corresponding to this belt of mosaic, in the neighbouring church of S. Helena and in a io6 iiia,H'iiziiio close \)\. To wliat soi't of edifice and to what time could these relics l)eloiig ? The dimensions and subdivisions of the pavement, the nature of the anti(|ue inscriptions (Avhere the names of the faithful who contributed to the work are chronicled), and the jjosition of the column, persuade us that it belonged to a church. And if we look at the style and technique of the said pavement, we must recognise it as similar to and therefore synchronical with those of Parengo, Pola, Grado, Avhich everyone knows belong to the sixth century. This being considered, it is only reasonable to conjecture that these are the remains of the ancient, and by no means large, church of S. Maria Matricolare ; and for me the conjecture becomes certainty Avlien I lift my eyes to the capital of the colunni, which is, without doubt, work of the eighth century, and of that Lothaire who, according to the truthful statement of Canobio, restored the church in 780. It is a capital in the Corinthian manner, with hard, smooth leaves, meagre caulicules, and a very stilf abacus. Take note of the ribbon which curves under the central caulicules. This capital, as the reader can see, has mucli analogy with the Greek ones of S. Saviour's-in-13rescia, and, -without doubt, like those of the same time in H. Maria- in-Cosmedin of Ivome, is one of the first essays in Italian-liyzantine art. Guided by this capital Ave can find in Verona several others, which con- siderably enrich our catalogue. In the little neighbouring chuirli of S. Johii-in-Fonte, an old baptister} of the cathedral, of the twelfth centur;-, in the form of a little basilica Avith three naves, one may see, among synchronical ca})itals of the sixth century, tAvo very similar to that found in the cloister and e\'idently of the same epoch. In the church of S. Stephen, in that apsis Avhere Ave have already found a mutilated capital of Byzantine-Barbarian style, Fki. 107. — Capital from the old cathedral of Verona — a.d. 780. 207 iiiul ill the tidjoiniiig cnpt, we may see not less than thirty capitals of average dimensions so much resembling, both in design and sculpture, those of 8. Maria Matricolare and the baptistery, that it is useless to describe them. This proves that the church of S. Stephen nnist, towards the end of the eighth century, have undergone a thorough restoration, but does not prove that the ajjsis and cr}i)t, in which those capitals were employed, were of that date. The fact that several of them were mutilated so that, being shortened, they might better adapt themsehes to the columns to Avhich they were assigned, is opposed to that idea. As to the apsis, we shall see, towards the end of this chapter, what epoch suits it ; and as for the crypt, we may from this moment declare it to be of the tw'elfth century — that is to say, of the same epoch as the greater part of the present church. I rely principally on the resem- blance between certain of its capitals, really chiselled for the vaults that they support, and the analogous capitals of the crypt of S. John-in-Yalle, a church indubitably of the twelfth century. But S. John-in-Valle is of much more ancient origin ; and though its crypt cannot claim an earlier date than the twelfth century, four of its capitals are evidently much older, presenting the Italian-Byzantine style. In the stiffness of certain leaves, and the ensemble of their form, they repeat those of S. ytephen ; but the caulicules, the central leaf, and the abacus, show a notable improvement. I assign them, therefore, to the ninth century rather than the end of the eighth. A curious capital of a pilaster existing in the crypt of S. Maria-in-Organo, must be nearly contemporary with them. It is a rough Corinthian one with stiff' leaves, but presenting the strange originality of four parallelopipeds, planted on the reverses of the angular leaves and rising to sustain the volutes of the abacus. Four more of the same style as the last, but less simple and more in accordance with the general character of ninth- century capitals, nuiy be seen supporting a sarcophagus in the crypt of S. Zeno-the-Major. They incline to the Corinthian 2o8 style, have smooth, stiff leaves, hut hetween the caulicules show a palm, or a rosette, or a channelled convexity like those so much used in the Greek capitals of the eighth century. These columns, which, perhaps, supported a cihorium. are the only sculptures that remind us of the basilica of S. Zeno erected. according to tradition, hv Veronese domains, hetween S. Bonifacio and Soave, offers us P"^^5r:%:^;'x m its naves and crypt of the -""^^'"-^ twelfth century several capi- tals of columns, so similar in i^,3if;>/ Fig. 108 — Parapet of S. Peter's of Villanova —End of the Vlllth Century. design and chiselling to those of S. Stephen and the other churches that we saw at Yerona, that we must assign them to the same time and the same workmen. This church also offers us a rare thing in Veronese churches, an entire and well-preserved phifeo of the same ei')och which we find inserted in the hack of the high altar. It is adorned above by a frieze and little arches ; below by a cross between bunches of graj^es and roses, with a peacock on each side at the foot, and higher up interwoven rushes. The inelegant incorrectness of the design, the rough- ness of the chisel, and the want of connection in the compo- sition, that seems to imitate the Greek manner, persuade us to attribute this pliitco rather to the end of the eighth century than to the ninth, and the style of the capitals confirms this opinion. Padua. — I only found two miserable fragments of Italian- Byzantine style in Padua with rudely-made animals or crosses, &c., existing in the public museum. The deplorable conditions of the city in the eighth and ninth centuries were certainly not propitious to the prosperity of the Arts ; and here perhaps 20C) is the cause of the ahiiost total absence of hnildin^s and sculptures of that period. Such was not the idea of Dartein, who affirms that he recognised a notahle nionunient of the ninth century in the famous apsis of the church of S. Sophin of I'adua, which foi' liim is only a ])()rtion of a rotunda con- structed in the time of Charlemagne. This conjecture a])pears to me a mistake, as I shall try to prove later on. Treviso. — In the vast crypt of the cathedral of Treviso, constructed in 1140. in Venetian-])yzantine style, we hnd nine capitals of columns flint. l»y their style, iicknowledged the nintli century. They show two rows of leaves : the lo\\('r ones of wild acanthus hroadly chiselled and not of hai-barous form, the ujDper ones a sort of j)alm alternated \\ith caulicules. The museum of Treviso also possesses works of Italian - Byzantine style. The most important is the cylindrical mouth of a well, like those of lionie, hut perhaps derived from Venice. It is decorated A\'ith interwoven hands, flowered spirals, little arches enclosing circles, geometrical comlunations, large I'oses, or certain fan- shaped ornaments of original and not inelegant forms. There are also two fragments of a pilaster, "with cross and ornaments and two short demi-columns, said to have come from an old building in Mogliano. provided with curious capitals, with designs in zigzag, and concave chamferings in ])art hlled u]) A\ith large tongue-shaped lea\es. CiviDALE. — At Cividale also, inside and outside of the cathedral, there are remains of Italian-Byzantine sculpture. The most re- markable piece is a plntco, tliat lies near the baptistery of C'allisto. and seems to invite im- FiG. 109.— Capital of th" ^icdiate comparison between eighth-century Crypt of the Cathedral works and tliose of wliicli it is a specimen. of Treviso-ixth Ceo- that is to Say. niutli-ceutury ones. It is covered with rectangles, formed by the usual withes woven together, and enclosing braids en- little birds or leaves, or a cross with curved extremities. The Italian-Bvzantine stvle was not tardv in reaching U 2IO the ^'elletiall lagoons, but made an even pompous display of its productions there, of which many still remain. But, Avhile in several other Italian regions it could reign Avithout dispute, here, on the contrary, it was confronted by a powerful rival, the Byzantine-Barbarian style returning by Venetian boats to invade this corner of Italy. On account of the special conditions of ninth-century Art in maritime Venice, I have deemed it convenient to devote a separate chapter (the next) to the subject. In the meantime, let me note that the Italian-Byzantine style did not halt at Timavo, hut continued its road along the coasts of Istria and Dalmatia, adorning those cities with monuments, that have in part survived. These I vdW indicate to the reader. Trieste. — Among a few remains of Italian-Byzantine works of the eighth century, the Vinckelmann Museum possesses several Italian-Byzantine sculptures of the ninth century. They are fragments of parapets covered with cruciferous spirals ; a bit of a little pilaster adorned with interwoven rushes ; various friezes sculptured with little arches and half-roses, or Anth braids and caulicules ; and lastly a little column of a chancel ^\ith its capital formed of rough leaves and plain volutes. MuGCiiA A'^ECCHiA. — Tile churcli of S. Maria is a basilica with only one apsis and three naves divided l)y nude pilasters in lieu of columns. The extreme poverty of the forms, the barbarous disorder of the construction, and the absence of any sign of an attempt at organic novelties, would induce one to assign this church to one of the barbarous ages that we are now studying. This seems in part confirmed by the chancels of the presbytery, which are ^^ithout doubt Italian-Byzantine of the ninth or tenth century. Pilasters and phitcl are adorned by large fasces sculp- tured with interwea^dngs of rushes, in the manner then common. Parenzo. — In an angle of the quadriportico of the famous sixth-century cathedral, amongst many sculptures of various periods there collected, is a marble chair ^^"itllout a back, but only flanked by two elbow-rests, high and strangely profiled. The front of them is adorned with a braid of withes and two I I crosses, and the sides with lilies, caulicules, and cordons. It therefore acknowledges the ninth centiir}'. PoLA. — Tlie same century has left reniarkahle works in Pola. The cathedral of this city must liave heen hiiilt in the sixth century, and have rcsemhled tlu^ hasilica of Parenzo and those of Ivavenna. This a2)pears clearly from certain Byzantine ca23itals of its naves, certain remains of mosaic pavement with inscriptions relating to donors, found, during the last repairs, together with several parapets, some with geometrical perfora- tions, some sculptured in has-relief representing the monogram of Jesus Christ among ribl)ons and crosses, or between peacocks, or vine-branches issuing from a vase, or doves with little olive- branches, or lambs by the side of the cross.* Tills church presented in its hinder part one particuhir worth notice. Beyond the apsis it had a rectangular place divided in three parts, comnumicating A\itli one another l)y means of arcades supported by columns. This appendix to the naves of the basilica seems to have been destined lor the recep- tion of the relics of the saints, and atoned in some degree for the lack of a confessional. Its plane was certainly somewhat lower than the basilica, and there \\'as no access to it from the back of the lateral naves. In the present church, which rises on the same foundations as the ancient one, the apsis has vanished, nothing remaining of it but the triumphal arch of Eoman style supported by two isolated columns ; and what, in the l)asilica of the sixth century, was the chapel of the relics, has thei'efore resulted in a veritable prolongation of the naves and the new presbytery. When did the present church arise ? Outside, set in the lateral wall, one sees a slab of marble in the form of a frontispiece, bearing in the midst of it an inscription flanked by two peacocks (not very barbarous work), and surmounted Ity a monogram and two * It is ciu-ious that some of these parapets, similar though they are to tliose of S. Clement of Rome and many other churches of the sixth century, were not taken by Pulgher of Trieste to he anything else than the fronts of conjugal tombs. (See " Relazione ed Illustraziono di alcuni cimeli ritrovati negli scavi del Duomo di Pola," in the "Atti e Memorie della Societa Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria," 1884.) 212 (loves. The style of these sculptures is Italian-Byzantine of the ninth century, and this is confirmed by the inscrip- tion^ which says : " iN • INCARN AT • DNI • DCCCLVII • IND • V • REGE • LVDOWI CO • I M P • AY G • IN • I TALIA • HANDEGIS • HVIVSj^AECCAE • ELEC • DIE • PENTE • CONS • EPS • SED • AN • V." Trusting to this inscription, D'Agincourt, followed by Cordero, attril)uted the existing basilica to Bishop Andegiso, with the date of 857 ; but Kandler* declared this conjecture to be erroneous, observing that the edifice, whose naves are divided by acute arches, cannot date earlier than the fourteenth century. But although he asserts that there does not remain in the cathedral one bit of ornament of the ninth centur}', he still agrees ^^'ith D'Agincourt in admitting that the inscription records the building of the church in 857. Lastly, Cleva,f while he demonstrates that the inscription, being nothing else than the sepulchral stone of Andegiso, has nothing to do with the cathedral, rejects Kandler's opinion, following it only in affirming that " in the cathedral there are neither capitals, nor friezes, nor inscrip- tions wliich may be witli certainty referred to the ninth centui'y." Now, tliis negation of the presence of sculptures of the ninth century is an error which, if pardonable in Kandler, in whose time the catliedral showed only two capitals of the columns of the triumphal arch and a third nmcli smaller, mutilated and turned upside down, now reduced to the Imnible office of bearing a pole, is by no means pardonable in the present time, since, owing to the lowering of the fioor of the presbytery executed in 1884, several capitals and a long series of sculpture, which to intelligent eyes immediately proclaim themselves of ninth-century work, and not of the sixth as Pulgher judged, have been brought to light. The capitals are those of the columns which divide the old chapel of the relics, sculptured, like those of tlie triumphal arch, in that rude Corinthian style with plain leaves and hard caulicules which we saw^ dominant in the Italian-Byzantine constructions of Rome and Verona. The other sculptures are * Kandler, " Istria," 1847. t D. Jean Chan. Cleva, " Notizie storiche del Duomo di Pola," inserted in the " Atti e Memorie," &c., 1884. 213 numerous fragments of arcliivolts, parapets, friezes, and little pilasters reunited to a colonnette — remnants, without doubt, of some barrier l)elonging to a, precinct of cliapel or choir: and a very uncouth winged Hon liolding a book, the synd)ol of S. Mark. Here the style is indeed Italian-Byzantine ; for here are crosses, roses, palms, rampant caulicules, and, al)ove all, the characteristic interweaving of withes. Now, all these sculptures evidently prove that tlie apsis and the chapel behind, if not the entire basilica, were radically restored in the ninth century. Nor would it be too rash to attribute such restoration to that Andegiso who received honourable sepulture in the cathedral itself, of which tlie fronton still remains, sculptured in all probalnlity liy those same artificers who worked inside the church. Besides the cathedral, Pola could have shown the studious a remarkable monument in its ancient baptistery if it had not been destroyed by Austrian vandalism. Kandler, who ^\as in time to see it, has preserved its description. It rose in front of the facade of the cathedral and at some distance, which makes one suppose that it was put in comnmnication with the basilica by a quadriportico. It had the form of a Greek cross, whose central space Avas determined by three arcades on each side supported by columns, Avhicli in some way separated it from the wings. Over the arches rose a square building illuminated by a few windows and, like the Avings, covered with a simple wooden roof. The colunnis were of precious marbles, but had deteriorated ; the bases were Attic, and the capitals after Corinthian fashion, with rude leaves marked only by lines without any intaglio. This descrijition betokens such a simplicity of form and rough poverty of details as to make us suspect that the basilica belonged to the ninth century, and that its capitals were brethren of the very rough ones of the cathedral. And the suspicion almost becomes a certainty when we consider the remains of the co\'er of the baptismal font, of which Kandler writes that it was hexagonal and formed by archivolts of marble sustained l)v columns. One of these archivolts, for the most \ \ 214 part well preserved, presents, according to tlie same writer, a monogram ^\"itli the letters A and E ; but from what remains of it one sees that there \\ere three letters. A N E. Kandler, who had no idea of the style of the nuitli century, judged that the monogram re- ferred to Aiitoiiiits cplscdpii.^, whose See was in the hrst half of the sixth century ; but he is evidently in error, because the archivolts in the beautiful complicated and ingenious in- terwea\ings &'^' with which they covered, acknow- 'l""'^^''^' "'-''•^^"" l"iG. 110. — Fragment of Baptismal Fonts ledge the ninth century. The at Pola— ixth Centm-y. monogram must, therefore, refer to a bishop of that period, perhaps the already mentioned Andegiso — the only name that occurs in the vast gap existing in the series of Polan bishops of the ninth century. Among the Italian-Byzantine remains once appertainuig to the eathedral and bajitistery of Pola, there are also two middle-sized columns, with united capitals, said to have come from the celebrated suburban abbey of S. Maria of Canneto, which has now been destroyed. These capitals attract attention by the strangeness of their forms, which, in their ensemble, very roughly reproduce the Corinthian style, but in detail are adorned by certain incisions like caulicules and certain very original X's. They seem to have served for some ciborium of the ninth century. To the same church belonged a stone on which is sculptured the common representation of an arcade supported by rude columns, which enclose a cross bet^^■een two palms : this slio\\s ninth-century work. The museum of Pola placed within and around the famous temple of Augustus is also rich in sculptures of Italian- Byzantine style. There are capitals of columns of various dimensions and of varied merit, which, however, invariably recall the Corinthian stvle : some with hard and unadorned 1 leaA'es and with barbarous zigzag cuulicules : others well- proportioned and carefully sculptured, with a row of elegant leaves, unfortunately much dilapidated, and having the volutes of the caulicules separated by certain vertical cordons detached from the quick. Besides these capitals there are numerous fragments of fasces, A\ith simple braidings, inscriptions, and caulicules. among which is an angular one with the shell below prettily ornamented l)y checkwoi'k in relief: and hnally a square parapet adorned by circles woven with rigbt lines, and by doves, very similar to one existing in tlie baptistery of Concordia, and therefore probably by the same author. Tlie hue work of Jackson.* recently published, permits us to know several other specimens of our style, scattered through the various cities of Dalmatia. OssEKO. — In the church of Ossero there is an old epis- copal cattedra. or seat, wrought in nuirble. the armpieces of which belong to parapets of Italian-Byzantine style, sculp- tured ^\■ith large and small interwoven circles, enriched by patera^ and roses. Arbe. — The cathedral of Arbe possesses a ciborium of Italian-Byzantine style, which is, perhaps, the best pre- served one remaining to us. It is a little hexagonal chapel, formed by six columns that sustain the same number of archivolts, and covered by a dodecahedral roof capped by a graceful pineapple. From what I am able to judge through the drawings I have seen — since my dc r/.s» researches did not extend beyond Pola — the capitals of the columns seem to me Byzantine ol the sixth centurw and the cornice that runs round the under-side of the roof nu)dern : but the roof aiul the archivolts have all the character of the Italian-Byzantine work of the ninth century. They are variously enriched by fasces with braids of curved and mixed lines and by circles alternating with squares enclosing roses, lilies, or symbolic animals. Nona. — The little church of S. Crose at Nona shoAvs a door- * ■• The Diiluuuiu, Istria, luul Quiinn-ro." 2l6 head of our style, with two zones of ornaments, leafy spirals helow, and ahove interwoven circles containing rosettes. NovEGRADi. — A parapet of Italian-Byzantine style is here preserved, covered with knotted circles, occupied l)y doves pecking at grapes or little leaves. Zara. — Near the cathedral of Zara rises the church of S. Donato, an annular rotunda, with galleries and three apsides, which historians, guided hy an inscription, considered, or at least conjectured, to he of the ninth century. I, liowever, do not helieve this, because its architecture seems to me inspired ■more probably by the Neo-Byzantine style after the tenth century. Nevertheless, in certain of its decorative details, most likely belonging to its tirst construction, we must recognise the Italian-Byzantine style of the ninth century. The most note- worthy is an archivolt made of laces, and gracefully adorned with rampant caulicules. A fragment of a parapet of the same style may be seen in the nniseum of Zara, and presents a portion of a circle, which ought to hold a quadruped. On the side is a peacock, and around a band of leaves and trefoil. Spalatro. — In the baptistery of Spalatro are several sculp- tures that show the style of the ninth or tenth century. Among these is a parapet adorned by a great circle formed of simple plaits and enclosing a pentagonal star among roses and roughly- chiselled birds. Of importance is also a barbarous but graphic bas-relief, which represents a king on his throne with the cross in his right hand, a man's figure standing on his right, and another prostrate in the act of suj^plication. A braided l)and finishes the stone and, still better, marks its style and period. IvAGusA. — At S. Stephen of Bagusa there exists a parapet of Italian-Byzantine style, on the front of which are sculptured two small arches containing crosses, palms, and lilies. Cattaro. — The Italian artificers of the nhith century found their way even as far as Cattaro, a city at the extremity of Dalmatia, and left works of their chisel. Very remarkable is the arch of a ciborium still seen over the door of the sacristy of the cathedral of that city. The fillet of the archivolt, with braids 217 of inixetl lines fvainetl by two spindles, is elegant, and so is the cornice adorned by a zone of lilies and, on the summit, by little interwreathed semi- ^m j-^^""' « c ] r c ul.- a r a r c n e s. Fig. 111. Arch of the Ciboriuui of the Cathedra! of Cattaro — IXth Century. lioughly carved ani- '^^^^^^^^^^^ 9' "^i^ls and more simple fasces complete the decoration of the heading. And no\\ we will carry our researches into Lombardy, where problems difficult of solution and of para- mount importance will meet us. B R E SCI A. — The nu:)st ancient works of the Italiaii-B}zantine style in Lombardy are to be found in the old rotunda of Brescia, or Winter Cathedral, dedicated to the Virgin. In the chronicle of a certain liodolfo, notary of the eleventh century, we read that towards the close of the eighth century Baymond, Count of Brescia, founded an important church in this city : " llniiiio coiner llrix'uie, qiiuiii (ludird quaiii boiuic recordatioiiis Ciiiicnt uom'uui (hicinii M(ir([uanli ct Frodoanii, quorum uiius iiiccpcrat (cdificarc a Juuddiucutis. cf filius pcrfccrrat (jniudviit el rc}('h('rn))i(iiu cintd/is Jxi^iltnuii. it riii luuucni ad (uUutonuui n:r Gniuoiddus ctutiu niiitulcntf. ipse ccpit fuiidair sinidcui JxisUlcniu. . . . sfd uou CDiiiplcnt." This church, built by Baymond. according to the united opinion of the historians, is the vast rotunda that rises by the side of the cathedral. It is composed of a circular enclosure coA'ered by a cupola, supported by piedroits and arcades, surrounded by a little con- centric nave covered with crosier vaults. Over the entrance and close to the drum of the cupola there was a square tower, which fell later on, and of which the traces still remain.* The pillars ■•= The recent work of restoration has given rise to the discovery, in the massive lateral walls of the entrance, of the little staircase which led to the belfry. 2l8 and internal arcades are massive and plain, and the external walls that correspond to the lateral naves are e(j[nallY unadorned. The cupola, on the contrary, is adorned hy slender projections alternated Avitli deep niches, gradually widening, and is crowned with friezes of bricks in zigzag and l)y a pretty cornice with })ensile arches. Now, can we accept this rotunda as a fruit of the eighth century, as Dartein did with many others ? Certainly not ; because although, for the most part, rude and unadorned, it shows too fine a design and too nnich constructive art to be l)ut on an e(|uality in strength of execution and character of conception with the Italian-Byzantine art of the eighth and ninth centuries. It is true that the rotunda of Aix la Chapelle arose toAvards the end of the eighth century, and is by no means inferior in organic worth to the Brescian Botunda, but it is also true that the church of Charlemagne, showing in its details the pure Byzantine and -not the Italian style of that epoch, nmst be reputed the work of (rreek architects, and therefore of artilicers much more able than our own. And if the organic ensemble of the rotunda of Brescia shows us forms that were not visible in the Italian-Byzantine monuments, the same may also be said of its decorative details on the exterior of the cupola, which display the Lombard style of the twelfth century. But, without losing breath by attempting to demonstrate with Avords that the rotunda cannot ha\e been built earlier than the eleventh century, here are the facts which prove it and settle the questions. In the present restoration of the church, one of the pillai's supporting the cupola was found to be in great part composed of antique fragments adopted as simple material of construction, and among these appeared a tombstone dated DCCCXCYII. The rotunda is, then, at least posterior to the ninth century, and I firmly believe it to be posterior to the tenth. If we try to search for the circumstances that caused the rebuilding of the old basilica of Count Raymond, it is easy and reasonable to recognise them in the terrible conflagra- tion that, in 1097, devastated nearly all the city.* * Muratori, " Anniili (I'ltalia." 2 19 But was EayinoncVs cliurcli a rotunda like the iiresent one ? and has nothing been left of it '? There is no document to lead us to suspect that the eighth-century church had a circular form ; nothing to sup- port the opinion of Dartein. who, in order to ex})lain in some way the presence of such a vast and grand con- struction in a century so unfortunate for the Arts, imagined that the hase must have belonged to a pre - existent ro- tunda. The church of the eighth century was very probably of basilical form, like all its con- temporaries in Italy. The only information we have about it treats of the existence therein of a subterranean place or confessional. It is Fig. 112.— Plan of the Ci-j-pt of the Eotunda of Brescia— End of the Vlllth Centm-v. the same chronicler, Eodolfo, who writes : " In luiltis Cotnith (Yilleradi) diam tt'iiipoir Jltiiiiprrtiin cpincopii-^ \ them ; and, seeldng thereupon for another place for them, he finds none better than the superior galleries of the ancient church \\hich, it appears, arose in the fifth century and gave place to the present cathedral. * Fig. 114. — Parapets of the old Church of S. Ablwiulio — IXtli Century. Boito thus indirectly, hut expressly, attributes them to the fifth century. Dartein is not of this opinion, but instead judges, somewhat grotescpiely, that they may he the i)roduce of the sixth, seventh, or eighth century, f as if Art could remain stationary for the long course of three hundred years. Selvatico. on the other hand, comes out of the dilemma with an oratorical suhterfuge, declaring that those fragments are sculptured " in that l>arl)arous Latin style, without special type, to which writers * " Architettura del !Medio Evo in Italia." t Page 316 of work liefore mentioned,. TiaiX PEVOTORVMDEBITASOLVIS' K£ETOPeVA ES OiyVVS V TFAVH ASMEUOftAVOVEfft on Art and architects* give the name of Byzantine, in order not to expose their ignorance of its origin." * Mothes assigned them to the eighth century ; Eohanlt de Fleury to the ninth. I have chosen to quote these exampk^s of judgments regarding a single monument, just to sliow what confusion reigns, even among tlie persons most versed in these studies, when they refer to the art of those ohscure ages. The reader, however, will already have understood that among all these authors the last only, namely Fleury, hit the mark, since those sculptures have all the characteristics of the works of the ninth century. They are for the most part parapets, little pilasters, and friezes of the old choir, all covered with rich ornamentation in has- relief of the Byzantine style, reproducing perfectly all those motives ^\•hich works of the same kind and epoch show to us in Rome and other cities in and out of Italy. Where these sculptures of S. Ahbondio exhibit more ad- vanced study than is revealed hy the others, is in the braiding, the ribbons of which are inter- woven with turnings and knotting so ingeniously complicated as not to be surpassed. Here one finds already formed that sort of interweaving, invariably cur\ilinear, ■\\'hicli after^^■ards prevailed for ages in edifices of the Londiard stvle. Milan. — We may say that we are arrived happily with our researches up to this point, because all the really authentic monuments that we have met with either second the order of general decadence or common progress, nor have we found any obstacle in our road which we found it impossible to overthrow. * " Le arti del disegno in Italia," page 271. Fig. 115. — Altar-front of the old Church of S. Ahbondio — IXth Centui'v. 22 3 Therefore we may affirm that we have seen Italian art in tlic centuries which we have glanced over manifested in a particular manner in each country, and yet uniting in common character- istics. But wliat does all that signify if we now fall in with a monument that threatens to H'ClACETAN5PERTVSNR/t CLARI5SIMVS VRBIS ANTiSIS-VT^VO^PVDOREFIDE AEQVISECTATORTVRBAE PRAELARGVS EGE^JAE EFFECToRVOT.-PPOSITiQTNKX MOENIA50LUCITV5-COM MfSSAEREDDIDlT VRBl ©R^TA -R ESTiT ViT 0) 5T li ef^EBrV QVOTSACRASAEDES QVANTOSVDOREREFECIT Al 1 A WrAS SIVXETWJEFORES T VS (£ 5 ATYROlEVQi^flVQIiXiV T DANSS\ASACfMToPIDAG:NC"Kl2(2 vtmonachos pa5cant Aeternisoctodiebvs A^BR° S I VP SEQ5 ATyR/QR°€N" OBIITANNOlNCARNATiO NlSDNIDCCCLXXXIl SEPTIMOJDVSDEGNDICXV REXITEPISCQPATVSVVM ANNfSXillMEMVDlEBXIl PSVliSAMDREAS PfATiGPT^SMCRE H0ClAViTA51BlCDEC°RViT0PVS throw us quite into confusion "•' This is the celehrated church of S. Ambroise of Milan. Under the right lateral nave, not far froui the en- trance-door, there lies against the wall a plain stone arch, over which a long metrical inscription says that it en- closes the remains of the Archbishop Ansperto (8G8- ' S81 ) ; it exalts the rare vir- » tues of the deceased, and f among other enterprises of I his it records that ■' /itria ricin(i>> sfrii.i/f ct (tiitc foi'cs," which, according to the com- nuni interpretation, would mean that he constructed the neighbouring atria, that is to say, the present passages of the quadriportico of the basilica and the doors of the latter. These passages are formed l)y a series of ample and majestic arcades, supp(n'ted by mixtilinear pillars, on ^\ hirh are planted the cross-vaults that cover them. The capitals present flattened forms and superficial planes carved with a rich bizarre profusion of meanders, leaves, and fantastic animals. The over-arches are cut from slender columns which run up to a pretty cornice with * Fig. 116. — Epitaph of Ansperto, Archbishop of Milan. pensile arches ; the whited stone alternates with the l)vick. In this atrium one must acknowledge that the Lombard or liomanic architecture is manifestly in full flower. But let us see. the logical consequences of its date. It is placed against the fjicade of the basilica, but not so intimately connected ^\ith it as to prevent our suspecting that it was added to it after the facade and the internal naves were already com- pleted. In fact, whoever mounts to the ceilings of the lateral l)orticoes of the atrium sees, at the back of them, the continua- tion of the cornice with the little pensile arches of the lower stage of the facade covered by the porticoes themselves. This fact proves indisputably that the latter are of later date. Nor could the interval of time between one and the other construc- tion have lieen l)rief. to judge by the greater accuracy and pro- gress exhibited by the sculptor of tbe atrium in comparison with those of the church. One must conclude that not less than half a century separates the one from the other. If. then, the atrium was built shortly after the middle of tlie ninth century, it follows that the naves and tlie facade must have belonged either to the lieginning of the same century or the end of the eighth. Guided l)y such reasoning, Dartein thought he did not wander far from the truth in attril)uting the rel)uilding of the three internal naves and the facade to that Arclibisliop Angil- berto (8"24-850) A\ho had already enriched the high altar of the churcli witli the famous and very precious altar-front, and ^\lio, according to tradition, adorned the semi-basin of the apsis with the still existing mosaic. As the apsides, ■witli a small portion of the adjoining naves, show themselves both l)y their style and their low level of construction to be much earlier than the rest of the church, Dartein baptised them work of the eighth cen- tury. Selvatico, as usual, followed him, and '\^•ith them went almost all those who have written, read, or talked of S. Ambroise ; for such, indeed, was practically the view of Ferrario D'Agincourt and Hojie before Dartein. Almost all have acknowledged that, even some of the most angry enemies of the presumed antiquity of the Lombard style ; and no one had dared to write the con- 225 tiarv for fear of being accused of temerity or rashness * ; in fact, by a traly strange circumstance, tliis epitaph of a line, or rather the vulgar interpretation of it, was always an authority before which everyone thought tit to to ])ow. It is solely on that account that people continue to attribute the birth and develop- ment of Lombard architecture to the Lombard domination. For the sake of consistency alone did Dartein boldly attribute to the eiglith century the capital of SS. Peter and Paul of Bologna, the ruins of the church of Aurona, at Milan, and the ^\•hole of the Rotunda, at Brescia. Tliese examples were naturally what were needed to corroborate the assertion of the epitaph. But for me, who have had to despoil myself of all this baggage of auxiliary exami^les, who l)y the conscientious researches which I made before taking up my pen. am able to prove that Italian art until the ninth century was still in its infancy, this epitaph becomes an inevitable rock against which my frail skiff threatens to dash itself to pieces. In fact, the basilica of S. Ambroise is not an edifice of the Byzantine style, or tlie Indian, or the Arab, that one may be allo^^■ed to suppose it to be an importation of foreign artists Hke the baptistery of Cividale. It offers, on the contrary, a style which, while preserving the Roman and Byzantine elements, presents them transformed and overlaid with charac- teristics foreign to either, so as to form a new style. These forms do not kxdv like the timid attempts of an art in process of formation, but. on the contrary, like free and masculine speci- mens of an already perfect art : so much so, indeed, that S. Ambroise may he considered as the most representative type of Lombard architecture. Now, we know that a complete system of architecture cannot be suddenly- evolved at birth, like chickens from eggshells : for no artist, howsoever great he may be, will be capable, at any period, of inventing a new and ' The few writers who refused to beheve that S. .\mbroise dates from the nintli century are, as far as I can recall them, the four following : Cordero, whose work has been cited ; Kugler, " Storia dell' Arte " ; E. von Eitelberger, " Die Kirche des heihgen Ambrosius zu Mailand," Stuttgart, 1860 ; and the celebrated Viollet-le-Duc, " Diction- naire de 1' Architecture francaise au Moyen-age," vol. ix. page 243, note. Their opinions have, however, been but feebly echoed, for they have supplied no evidence in support of them, and such reasons as they adduce do not bear examination lo' 226 complete method of construction. The foregoing applies even more strongly to Lomhard architecture. Having been horn in the midst of profound barbarism it could not expand without great difiiculty, and its numerous qualities, especially the organic ones, nnist have been the fruit of careful but slow observations made in the course of time ; and for this art to arrive, during the former half of the ninth century, to the height of S. Ambroise, would it not be necessary for it to have been already vigorous in the eighth century, or at least to have been born in the beginning of the seventh ? x\nd, if this was truly the case, what might have grown from all the examples which we have erstwhile seen, if it were not the inexplicable extravagances of a retarded art ? Such are the fatal consequences of this epitaph. But before permitting my boat to dash itself to pieces against this perfidious rock, it will at least be conceded that I may examine the nature of the obstacle, and assure myself if it be really so solid that it may not be shaken by wise reasoning, and by the researches which we have already made and those which we propose to make. Let us begin by reviewing this line of the epitaph, to see if the reading and the version generally adopted be open to criticism: "ATEIA VICINAS STRVXIT ET ANTE FOEES." Though no writer who has studied S. Ambroise has given a literal translation of this verse, all have clearly believed that riciiias relates to atria, and especially those like Selvatico, Eomussi,* and Malvezzi,f who have con- cluded that even its doors were the work of Ansperto. But is that the most reasonable and grammatically just interpretation ? I do not think so. Above all, can this aiitr fores be seriously translated by front doors ? And would it not, on the contrary, be more reasonable to translate literally : txforc tlic doors ? In the second place, how can this feminine vicinas agree with atria, which is neuter "? It may be rej^lied that it is not necessary to cavil at faults of grammar, because, in those barbarous centuries, they flowed from every pen like so many graces. Well, let us grant it for an instant, and erase this * Milano ne' siioi ironumenti, 1875. t Le glorie clell' Arte lombarda, 1882, I 227 imi)ortunate S ; but what have we done ? We shall have relieved the verse of a pretended error and have saddled it ^^ itli another not less gross ; for, in erasing this S, we alter the metrical quantity of the verse, which, being a pentameter, exacts that the last syllable of the first hemistich be long, as the iuih of riciitns is, in fact ; whilst the iia of riciim, according to the rules of prosody, would be short. Is it then legitimate to suppose that the author of the epigraph wished to sacrifice grammatical propriety to the exigencies of verse ? This supposition might be admitted if the i-est of this long epigraph contained several other solecisms : but as we fail to find any. it seems logical to suppose that tlu're none in the verse in question. That being settled, it becomes evident that virliia.'i can only relate to fores. Overcoming, then, the strange sensation which this complicated construction produces on our delicate ear — familiar though it be to this language, especially when it is adapted to the rules of prosody — it will be necessary to read this line as follows : Kt atruxif fttria ante riciitas fores. The epitaph does not, then, attribute the doors to Ansperto, but merely names them in order to indicate the place occupied \)\ the vestibules which he had constructed, and adds the word rieiiuis to indicate that the l)asilica itself was referred to, in which the defunct Archbishop was Ituried. But if the vestibules or porticos constructed by Ansperto preceded the doors of the basilica, it follows that they must have surrounded the court, not only of the three anterior sides, but also and especially the fourth along the wall of the church ; that is to say, that which immediately precedes the doors of the naves. Now, in examining the present vestibules of S. Aml)roise, I do not find that they correspond to these additions, for the three anterior wings evidently belong to an epoch very different from that of the AAing of the fond ; and the worst is that the latter seems to be several decades older than the three others. The three anterior \\ings, attributed up to that time to Ansperto, would not precede the doors, but more exactly the facade of the church. This one objection Avould suffice, in my opinion, to arouse a suspicion in all reasonable jninds that the atria of 228 Aiisperto were very different to the existing atria, and bore ;i resemblance to those ancient square porticos, with pillars, of the primitive Christian basilicas, which extended without interrup- tion right I'ound the court-yard, and consequently along the side of the church. This wing — and it was a veritable defect of these same basilicas — never presented an ingenious agreement with the facade of the church, as in the existing church of S. Aml)roise, but seemed detached from it in order to follow the porticos, or presented the wretched aspect of an appendage in bad taste. But it will speedily be objected that I endeavour to maintain my ground, not by serious arguments, but by the subtleties of a literal interpretation. I therefore i^ut my sojihistry on one side for an instant, but at the same time I defy my opponents to prove to me by any solid reasoning that the vestibules of the present S. Ambroise are indeed those of Ansperto. Dartein alone among them all rises to object that it is impossible to suppose that the existing atria are a reconstruction of those of Ansperto, for though they exhibit art more advanced than that of the church, it is not sufficiently advanced art to warrant the belief that they l)elong to a period later than the year one thousand. Now, he continues, it would be unlikely that the porticos of Ansperto were at the end of one hundred years in such a state of decay that the rebuilding of them was absolutely necessary, more especially as no historian has informed us that during the tenth century the church suffered from disaster.* These reasons, as anyone may see, have very little founda- tion ; first, it would have been neither unique nor very strange if this edifice had only lasted a single century, for, whether the structures of the Lombard and Carlovingian ages wanted solidity, or whether the artistic and economic conditions became really better in certain countries in the tenth century, but more commonly in the eleventh and twelfth, the mania, not only for building, but for replacing churches and monasteries, amounted almost to frenzy. An old chronicler of the time f informs us that • Work quoted, p. 73. t Glaber Raoul, a Pi-ench chronicler of the eleventh century, " Vie de saint- Guillaume," 229 tills was done even ^^itll inonnmeiits which, heiiig in perfect condition, were in need of nothing. In the second place, leaving" on one side the question of construction, to come to the essential, which is the artistic question, Avhat arguments can Darteln advance in order to demonstrate to me that in tlic ninth and tenth centuries Lomhard architecture had made such progress as to he ahle to produce the atria of S. Aniln'oise ? No one can he satislied with mere words, facts are wanted ; that is to say, documents authentic as the clhorla of Valpollcella, of Ravenna, of Porto are authentic ; the Ijaptistery of Clvldale, the altar of liatchis, the tomh of Theodosius — monuments, in a Avord, the age of Avhich is affirmed not by a chronicler, nor hy a lapidary inscription out of its place, nor by popular tradition, l)ut by an inscription graven upon the very stone of the monument, which presents the unequivocal characters of contemporaneity. What reply will Darteln make to these exactions ? Will he fix the age of the vestibule after that of the church ? I do not think so, for he will see that in this case the last cannot be established without the support of the first ; that is to say, if the existing atrium cannot be that of Ansperto, how can he reason- ably suppose, and have a profound conviction, that the interior naves are the work of Angilbert ? Will he think to find an excuse in the Lombard ruins of the church of Aurona "? Tliat would be useless trouble, for we have seen that they declare themselves to belong to the close of the eleventh century. If, however, he persists in believing that they were executed during the first half of the eighth century, because they betray an art adult and no way inferior to that of the atria of S. Ambroise. how far must he go back to discover the infancy of the Lombard style ? To the time of the invasion of Alboln perhaps. x\nd if. after the first decade of the eighth century, Lombard art had attained such progress, how could this progress be all at once arrested, and remain stationary and immovable up to the eleventh century ? And why, notwithstanding its numerous attributes, should it remain shut up in Milan like the worm in its cocoon during nu)re than three hundred years, ignored by the other towns of Italv, in which no trace of it is found ? Could it be 230 that these last were sutiiciently tainted with their gross and efi'ete art to prefer it to a new art ten times superior, and to re- ject the latter with a persistence at once tenacious, incomprehen- sible, and thrice-secular ? If I am answered that monuments of entirely Lomhard style raised in Italy before the eleventh century may have all disappeared, or partly subsist without affording l^ssibilities of recognition, " Why, then," I should rejoin, "have the weakest structures survived Avhile the strongest have crumbled away ? Or could our ancestors have been sutiiciently bizarre and wanting in taste to endeavour to preserve only those works wliich least merited conservation, and to inscribe on these only the names of their master-builders and artists, and their respective dates '? " I do not believe that Dartein or his disciples, destitute as they are of the necessary evidence, can opjiose a |: word to these logical objections. It seems to me that they have under- mined three-quarters of the base, large in appearance but hollow in reality, of the redoubted rock. I will now furnish a last and decisive re- futation. If, in the ninth century, Loml)ard architecture flourished at Milan, it would be impossible that there could be any room at the same time for another, greatly inlerioi' and still barbaric, which I am accustomed to call Italian-Byzantine, and of which we have seen numerous and authentic traces all over Italy, as far even asComo — that is to say, almost up to the gates ^ '-' — ---^^^ of Milan. Two schools, different and yio. ii7.-Fragments of Door- even opposite in character, ma}' indeed post in the chief entrance of S. subsist simultaneously in a country Ambroise.Mikn-IXth Century. provided that they attain the same degree of worth, but never 231 when one is infinitely inferior to the other. Men may have different tastes, but never perverted enough to blind them to the point of not rejecting Avith all their heart that which is ugly when they can obtain at the same price that which is really beautiful. Nevertheless, if there came to be discovered in Milan some fragments of the Italian-Byzantine style to attest the presence there of this style in the ninth century, the question would be at last decided in favour of my opinion. Now these fragments exist, and it is not I that have extracted them from the bowels of the earth, nor who have discovered them in some hidden corner of the city, but the}" have l)een, from the ninth century down to our own days, constantly under the eyes and under the hand of all the world, in a place much frequented, much studied, even in the basilica of S. Ambroise ! I will speak further on of the various fragments existing in the church. I am here only concerned Avith those that are found in the vestibule. There are two which are set in the wall beside the architrave of the little door to the right. They present numerous squares formed of simply twined bands deco- rated either with rayed girandole rosettes, vine branches or grape clusters, or crosses at the bent extremities. The other fragments — there are six of them — form, placed one upon the other, the jambs of the principal door ; they are covered with very complicated intertwinings similar to those of S. Abbondio of Como ; one only presents, in twenty-four rectangular squares bound together, lilies and roses of different shapes, crosses, grapes, animals, and even a human figure (a grotesque Hercules with his club preparing to attack the Nemean lion), the first that appears of the ninth century. These marbles cannot be of the same period as the door ; first, they present themselves in several superposed pieces of A\liich two are nnitilated ; aiul next, their sculptures represent an art still in its infancy, much inferior, and therefore anterior, to that not only of the atria, but also of the facade and of the interior naves. These examples appear to me almost sufficient to confound Dartein and his school. However, to prove irrefragably that from the time of Ansperto no architecture was in vogue in 232 Milan except the Italian-Byzantine architecture common then throughout the peninsula, I will draw attention to the hest monuments that one can choose, viz. : the three edifices con- structed hy the ahove-mentioned Ansperto. Let us return to our famous epitaph, and read the verse which follows that which we have discussed: " TVM SANCTO SATYllO TEM- PLVMQVE DOMVMQVE DICAVIT." It was dedicated, that is to say, or constructed, with a church and a house, to the memory of y. Satyrus. Ancient historians Avrite (the rest of the epitaph partially confirms them) that Ansperto arranged, from the year 879, that his houses and gardens should serve for the construction of a church (TEMPLVM) and a hospital (DOMVM), which was one of the first to be erected in Ital}'. Now if, l)efore this date, there existed in this place merely some houses and gardens, it is reasonable to believe that everything whicli one finds there that is not posterior to the ninth century dates back to the work of Ansperto. Such is the ancient little church known ordinarily by the name of the Chapel of the Deposition. As it shows in its ensemble and in its details a style decidedly anterior to that of the atria of S. i\.mbroise, it was natural that Dartein should judge it to be anterior to the century of Ansperto, and exclude it for this reason from the circle of his studies. For my own part, guided by the touchstone of the monuments we have hitherto studied, I am convinced that it is truly the work of the famous Archbishop. I shall demonstrate this point later on, for I Avish to keep as far as possible to the chronological order of my researches. The two other synchronical edifices to which I alluded are the church and the baptistery of the village of Alliate, to the north of Monza, edifices which Milanese historians declare to have been constructed by the Archbishop Ansperto. This detail appears entirely to have escaped Dartein, for he does not mention it, and commits himself to the opinion — entirely opposed to that relating to S. Satyrus — that these constructions of Alliate are posterior to the year 1000. I am certainly not too prone to put my faith in vague popular traditions, still less 233 to Relieve in the B S 5_ fi * .^.I'AWWm^ysi^TSCT te:TOkk>ak..k.>kk^^t>t^^g^ Fig. assumed aiiti(|uity of as many monuments, but on this occasion I must sub- scribe to the tradition and the assumi^tion, for having visited these edifices, I found tliat they entirely conformed to the manner of construction and ornamenta- tion in use in Italy (and espe- cially in Lombardy) in the ninth century, and I have noted Avith the greatest satisfaction unequi- vocal points of resemblance to the synchronical sculptures of S. Satyrus, as I shall prove later on. Such are the proofs which I adduce to demonstrate tliat the present atria of S. Ambroise are not those of Anspei-to, proofs that appear to me sufficient to settle a (question so important in the history of Italian architecture. 'J'his rock apparently so formid- able, sinks, entirely undermined by logic and by facts, if the metaphor be permitted me, into the ocean of errors, dragging with it all the card-castles erected on its l)ase. And, in truth, the municipality of Milan was in too great a hurry to put this stone (which ^^■ill have to be removed ) on the exterior of the cpiadriportico : "ANSPEETO DA BIAS- SONO — AECIYE SCOVO DI MILANO— DAL DCCCLXVIII ERESSE 118.— Plan of S. Ambroise of Milan AL DCCCLXXXI as it was iu the IXth Century. QYEST' xlTIiIO." 234 And now that we have succeeded in breaking these chains, the strongest perhajis of all those which will impede our pro- gress, let us continue tranquilly on our road, trusting in that light which our i)atient and careful researches have hitherto yielded us. We have seen that the pre-judgment hy which the atria of S. Ambroise would be the work of Ansperto had induced Dartein to attribute the three naves to Angilbert, although he was totally unprovided with documents, and though he Avas con- sequently obliged to put the three apsides of the fond nearly as far back as the middle of the eighth century, because they were evidently constructed considerably before the naves. Now wc, who have shaken oft" the yoke of the epitaph, which insisted on our pre-dating the monuments, let us see what ei)och best agrees with these three apsides. Before all, the fact that they are three instead of one prevents one even from suspecting that they can date l)ack to a very remote age, for, as we have seen above, the three apsides of S. Maria-in-Cosmedin, at Home, built by Adrian I. (772-795), are in all probability the first example of this sort seen in the Eternal City, and certainly one of the most ancient in Italy. However, there are other considerations from which we infer that those of S. Ambroise cannot claim more remote antiquity than those of Eome. The three apsides do not bend exactly where the arcades of the naves finish, but between the one and the other we find some yards of Avail evidently of the same period, for they are on the same plan and bound organically and artistically to the apsides. They serve for foundation to an open arch over the central nave, and to two cross-bars over those at the side. Noav, as M. Boito so judi- ciously observes in speaking of S. Abbondio of Como — in " The Christian Basilicas of the First Seven Centuries " — the apsis is always bent (with rare exceptions), either in the Avail of the base of the transversal nave or in the place AA'here the colonnades of the naves abut ; but it is never made to project from the perimeter of the church beyond its natural half-circle, and it never appears to have been extended into the interior, I shall 2.35 venture to say, by lateral walls or by an arch, as in 8. Anibroise. This extension begins to appear about the eleventh century, especially in the churches used by monks, who, being obliged to pass a large part of the day and night over their psalmody in the church, found the need of a place less exposed to the air and less accessible to the gaze of public curiosity than were the open railings of the ancient basilicas. And this invention, of the monks perhaps, was later on regarded as so convenient, that during the eleventh century it was extended equally to churches in which the secular clergy othciated, and finished by becoming common even in the greatest cathedrals, insomuch that it became one of the characteristic features, not only of the Roman churches, but even of all those constructed since the commence- ment of the eleventh century down to our own days. This custom became even a want, insomuch that, as it appeared inconvenient to the clergy to officiate in churches arranged after the ancient manner, the regrettable step of altering them was too often taken, now by changing the interior, and now by destroying the apsis to replace it by a choir. That is exactly what we have to deplore in our own times in connection with the basilica of S. John-Lateran in Rome, Now we know that the Archbishop of Milan, Peter, entrusted the care of the basilica of S. Ambroise to a group of monks in 784, who installed themselves in an adjoining house that became later on a sumptuous monastery. Herein is found the probable justilication of the abnormal lengthening of the apsis, Avhicli Avas certainly one of the earliest examples of such an innovation.* It is precisely because it is one of the first that it shows itself rather timid, if one compares it to the very deep choirs customary after the ninth century — see that of S. Abbondio, Conio — extended without doubt in proportion to the always increasing number of monks. It is not, however, to be supposed that the monks of S. Ambroise undertook the important work of demolish- ing the ancient apsis in order to construct three by lengthening * We shall sec in the next chapter that the most ancient known example of a similar extension is found in the abbatial chm-ch of S. Hilary, in the midst of the lagoons of Venice. 236 the church, as soon as they arrived: first, because the coiifirniation of their new possession was only granted to them live years later ; and next, because the Archbishop, having reserved to himself the property of the basilica, Avith the right of accomplishing the most solemn ceremonies therein, such as the coronation of kings, it was to him alone, and not to the caprice of the religionists, that the right belonged of putting his hand to works of restora- tion, as we have in effect seen done by Ansperto for the ancient atrium of the same church. To Avhat epoch, then, and to which of tlie Archbishops, should Ave attribute the lengthening of the basilica ? In view of the absolute dearth of authentic docu- ments let us try to bring our minds to a conclusive examination, and to an always profitable comparison, of the monuments. From the fact that Ansperto had reconstructed the quadri- portico of our basilica, one may reasonably conclude that by this Avork he had intended to continue and finish the entire restora- tion, and, pos- sibly, the recon- struction of the church Avhich his predecessor had already under- taken but left unfinished. It is not, in fact, reasonable to think that he undertook to re- new the least important, and at that time scarcely accessory, part of the edifice. The fragments of sculptures Avhich Ave have seen in the atrium ; others of the same kind Avhicli to-day compose the altar of the very ancient chapel of S. Satyrus in the basilica (and amongst them, especially, a beautiful parapet covered AAdth ingenious and elegant laceAvork of rushes Avith roses, lilies, and Fig. liy. — I'iinipet of S. Auibioise of Mihui— IXtli Century. 237 grapes ) ; * the episcopal seat which rises in the fond of the apsis, and which the people helieve to be truly that on which S. Ambroise was seated, l)ut which, on the contrary, by the two roughly wrought lions which form its arms and l)y the tresses l)elow them, betrays a work of the ninth century (see Fig. 120) ; the four capitals of the columns of the ciborium of the high- altar, which reveal the same chisel and the same epoch (see Fig. 122), are so many eloquent witnesses that the basilica must have submitted during this century to radical innovations. And in support of this assertion, and at the same time to assure our- selves that the three chapels and the present apsides are the only intact remains of this rebuilding, we are so fortunate as to meet with the church of Alliate (see Fig. 128), with its three chapels and its apsides — i^erfectly iden- tical in their ensemble and leading characteristics with those of S. Ambroise. Simple basilical forms, as the excavations of 1869 have proved, must have characterised its three naves, separated by thir- teen columns on each side.! In seeking, then, for the Archbishop to whom the merit of this great ■n in« » ui-i . nu • • o \ u • f restoration might be at- FiG. 120. — Archbishop s Chair in b. Ambi'oise of _ '^ Milan— ixth Century. tributed, we are stopped, * All the stones which compose this altar are not of the ninth century. Several are modern, imitating the Byzantine style. It is easy to tell that from the colour of the marble and the unsuccessful resemblance of the sculptures. t Apropos of this, see the recent publication of Landriani, entitled, " La Basilica di S. Ambrogio prima della sua trasformazione in chiesa a volte," wherein the author has reproduced some of the superannviated errors which I have here refuted, 238 in spite of ourselves, by the illustrious name of Angilbert (824- 859), for legend, tradition, and an important monument have rendered it for ever inseparable from our basilica. Legend sur- rounds him with marvellous prodigies presumed to have occurred in the church itself, and tradition attributes to him the mosaic of the demi-basin of the aj)sis — a mosaic which certainly could not be a work of to-day. But all that, though the fruit of imagination, tends, notwithstanding, to show us that Angill)ert must have had a considerable share in the history of this church, since he has thus survived in the memory of the people. In 835 he had made them a gift so magnificent that they certainl}- could not forget it. This gift is the celebrated and very precious front of the high-altar,* the pearl of the basilica. And one may reasonably be induced to see, to some extent, in this altar-front the work which Angilbert desired to form the worthy crown of his labours of restoring or entirely rebuilding the basilica. * This altar-front, executed in plates of gold and silver enriched by enamels, pearls, gems, and bas-reliefs, is a magnificent piece of goldsmiths' work, truly admirable for its epoch. And after having seen and admired it as it deserves, we must needs con- clude, first, that goldsmiths' work in those days, perhaps because it was the art most encouraged, was the only art that never fell into total barbarism ; in the second place, that this altar-front must certainly have been the work of no ordinary artist ; and lastly, that it must have come from a Greek workshop, because Greece only, and rarely, could, in those times, produce works of such importance. In fact, the style of the figures and the ornaments is Greek, as one can especially discern in certain paintings on silk that form the internal lining of the back part, and represent ornaments of Byzantine taste, and a chase with a man on horseback, where among various animals and plants we see a dog biting a stag, quite similar in attitude to certain Byzantine sculptures of this ninth or following century, which we shall hereafter see. According to some judgments the artist's iin-Greek name, VVOLYINVS, would contradict this, but all know how little one should rely on the evidence of names, from which, especially if isolated, deductions should either be made with the utmost reserve and caution, or altogether avoided. Italian writers consider him an Italian, and only admit that he had learned art in Greece. Some French writers, on the contrary, would have him to lie of Northern origin, induced thereto by the double VV with which the name, that they always translate Wolvino, begins. But I think they cannot have thoroughly examined the inscriptions on the 2^aUotto itself, where the two V's are not coupled and united, as is commonly supposed, but separated one from the other as much as the remaining letters. Now, as in the Latin alphabet V serves also for U, I think that the second V should be pronounced U like the last V of the termination ; and, therefore, not Wolvinns but Vtiolvimts should be read. ^39 OEIGINS OF LOMBARD ARCHITECTURE. These conclusions are not without importance for us, for the great apsis of tlie basilica of S. Auihroise, instead of presenting, as at the back, a naked wall, shows us a decoration which comes very opportunely to shed liqht ui)on our researches. It was not desired that the gap which, i n a p s i d e s covered exte- riorly with rect- angular van- dykes, is formed between the in- side half-basin and the exterior wall should be hidden or use- less in that of S. Ambroise ; but that it should serve to form a series of deeply vaulted niches on a rectangular plan which, turning under the cornice very near one another, should form a coronal frieze of certain and agreeable effect. Each little vault is sustained by small pillars, and has for archivolt a second little concentric arch, slightly larger, which projects the thickness of a brick, and at the place where its jamb occurs generally rests upon a small console jutting from the little pilaster which separates them. The niches are, by three and three, separated by long and thin vertical projections which sustain the small archivolts to which they correspond, and descend to the ground, thus cutting the wall into five spaces, in three of which windows — large, arched, and simple — are pierced. The extremity of the cornice merely presents a brick tower Fig. 1'21. — Details of the Heading of the Apsis and the Presby- teiT in S. Ambi-oise of ^lilan— IXth Century. 240 jutting at the angle between two liorizontal layers of the same nature. This little cornice also crowns the two walls corre- sponding to the arched roof of the choir ; but in place of being supported b}' superadded niches, it is sustained by a series of small bas-relief arches in double rank, each resting on two small superposed consoles, and supported only at the extremity by thin vertical projections. Here, then, is a case of great importance, for this is cer- tainly one of the most ancient monuments preserved, wherein are exhibited several elements truly characteristic of Romanic architecture which is posterior to it, and of the ogival st}ie at the same time. Such are principally the cornices with pensile arches and long vertical projections ; one and the other of these elements, and very often both of them, are seen constantly in all edifices constructed after the tenth century in Italy and else- where under the powerful influence of the Lombard school. But may we, nevertheless, believe tliat this agreeable and happy species of cornice is an entirely original invention of the Lombard artists of the nintli century ? Truly it is not seldom that an inventor, after having discovered something that is new for him, for his country, or for his epoch, finds presently to his great chagrin that he has been forestalled. Conscience recognises the merit of his discovery, but apart from it, who will believe him '? It may be thus in the case under our consideration. This excellent conception may very well have had its germ in the minds of the Lombard or Comasque builders of the nintli century, knowing no other example of this sort ; but who can lead us to believe that was so while Ave are aAvare that, on the contrary, more than three centuries before them there were not only in the East, but even in Italy, identical works which may have been great teachers to them ? It is certain that several churches built, either towards the end of the fifth century or that following it, in Central Syria, presented ranks of decorative bas-relief arches i:)laced for the most part underneath the cornices, and often on the outside of the apsides. Sometimes their pendant foot is below, curvilinear ; another is supported by a small console in slight relief, and fairly often the small arches 241 avo hollowed shell-wise. We have among many others an example of this in the great basilica of S. Simeon Stylite at Kalat Sem'an. But without going thus far, there are the parish church of Bagnacavallo, and S. Victor of Ravenna, churches of the sixth century, ornamented exteriorly under tlie extremity of the side cornices mtli small brick arches which are alternately pensile and supported by a vertical projection. There are even some churches of the first half of the fifth century, such as the baptistery of S. Ursa and S. Peter- Major (now S. Francis), all at Ravenna, decorated with this characteristic cornice, which, especially in the last of these churches, presenting numerous and quite small arcades, hanging by four and four, supj^orted l)y a vertical projection, has altogether the Loml)ard character.* Now these examples, reproduced nearly in an identical manner on the tribune of S. Ambroise, lead us to think with reason of the remainder that they might have struck the Lombard artists of the ninth century who saw them at Ravenna. Here I find it well to ^■enture an idea which is my own — that is, that Romanic architecture perhaps owes its development, and a portion of its attril)utes, to tlie profit doubtless drawn by the Lomljard artists from their frecjuent journeys across Italy and beyond it, enabling them to see and study ancient Christian and pagan monuments. We have already noted the presence of these Lombard artists by the aid of those numerous debris of Italian-Byzantine art Avhich are found scattered nl)()nt tlu' ])('niiisnl;i and on tlie other side of the Timavo. The arched niches which arc placed under the cornice of the apsis of S. Ambroise also merit special attention. As for the small pendant arches, they have no point of comparison ^Aith buildings anterior to the ninth century, and one may on that account even believe them invented l)y the Lombard builders, " Hiibsch has the merit of having put in evidence this singular cornice of S. Francis of Eavenna. I have been able personally to convince myself de visit of its liigh antiquity. There only remains, however, a very short portion on the southern side towards the apsis. The only difference that one can remark between these small pensile arcades of the fifth and sixth centuries and the Lombards of the ninth to the thirteenth is, that the first have a very large foot, and the second, on the contrary, a very small one resting on a little console very free iu form, 16 242 who perhaps received some vague inspiration from the little holes which were often pierced nearly in the same place "with a view to airing the ceilings. But however that may he, it is certain that these niches hecame one of the special attributes of the Lombard apsides of the ninth and tenth centuries, as we shall see further on ; and they did not stop there, but re- appeared in more graceful form wrought on the baptistery of Novaro, on that of Arsago, on the Rotunda of Brescia, on the apsis of S. Nazaro of Milan, and towards the twelfth century they developed little by little so fully that, the piedroits being detached, they grew into a practicable gallery, as on the chapel of S. Aquilin near S. Lawrence of Milan,* and on the apsis of S. Sophia of Padua (a.d. 1223). Later on, by substituting detached colonnettes for piedroits they gave the perfecting touch to these charming little galleries of most graceful effect, wdiicli, during the twelfth and two following centuries, embellished the apsides, facades, sides, cupolas, baptisteries, and even the campaniles of so many German, Lombard, Tuscan, and Neapolitan churches. I believe I shall confer an obligation on my readers if before leaving S. Ambroise I put in evidence another gross error into which several writers have fallen through having falsely inter- preted the epitaph of Ansj)erto. I msh to speak of the ciborium or l)aldaquin which covers the high-altar of the basilica. It is formed of a cross-vault, of which the four arches are supported by as many columns of porphyry, and surmounted with tympans. Archivolts and tympans are elegantly orna- * If we may believe Hiibsch and Dartein, the small exterior practicable galleries of the Lombard churches had a precedent in an edifice of the sixth or of the fifth century like the chapel of S. Aquihn. But I do not share their opinion, and I do not believe that the whole of this chapel belongs to its original construction. Also that S. Lawrence, which is close by, had submitted to innovations brought about by Lombard artists after the great fire of 1070 ; also, I believe, that under the same circumstances the chapel of S. Aquilin — formerly in my opinion resembling the temple of Minerva Medica of Eome, and several other similar buildings of the fourth or third century, that is to say, having a superior floor behind and pierced with large vaulted windows — was after the fire, and perhaps with the idea of solidifying the cupola, augmented with a practicable gallery. The style of the angular projections indeed seems to confirm this opinion. i 243 mented with decomtions and figures in stucco Ims-relief. The angles are occupied by colonnette trunks supported by eagles, and the border of the tympans is gracefully adorned mth small coping leaves. On the principal facade is figured the iSaviour between the Apostles Peter and Paul ; on that of one of the sides is S. Ambroise between two other saints, without doubt Gervais and Protais, who are presenting two monks to him, of whom one holds in his hand the model of the ciborium, which shows that it cannot be regarded as the work of an archl)isliop, but as that of the monks of S. Ambrose. It cannot, conse- quently, be anterior to the foundation of the convent (a.d. 789). That was enough to make the Milanese historians one after another agree in attributing it to the Abbe Gaudens, placed by Angilbert, in 835, at the head of the monastery ; but one does not see upon what reasons they base their conjecture. However, Dartein has not been afraid to say that, considered from the artistic point of view, it seems very probable, and he has per- mitted himself to stop there, making the remark in its favour that the erection of a precious altar might prompt the construc- tion of a new ciborium worthy to cover so beautiful a work. Dartein has not been, up to this present, contradicted by any Italian, but on the contrary it is understood that Selvatico and his continuator, Chirtani, are of his opinion ; but for my part, I think them grossly mistaken, for many considerations are opposed to their assertion. The ensemble of the ciborium is not opposed to it, for we have already seen at Ravenna a pointed arch of the ninth century ; but what contrast strikingl}' with this age are the details, both organic and decorative : the vault, for it is not a simple intersection like that of the Roman, the Byzantine, and those habitual in the eighth and ninth centuries, but an inter- section with ribs like the Romanic in fashion after the tenth century ; the divers ornamental decorations, for they exhibit by the variety, the originality, and the elegance of their motives, an art far more advanced than that of the ninth century ; but more than all the rest the figures of the tympans, by the costumes of some of them, 1)y the justness of the proportions, by the easi- 244 ness and regularity of the attitudes, the science of the rehef, the freedom of the folds, and the expression of the faces — all qualities which we look for in vain even in the least imperfect authentic Italian bas-relief of the ninth century. The only parts of the ciborium which entirely preserve the cachet of the Italian-Byzantine style, and which can truly he referred to the former half of the ninth century, are, as I have said before, the capitals of the four columns.* The unskilful sculptor evidently proposed to imitate in them the modes of those elegant Byzantine capitals of the sixth century, which represent wicker baskets, from which issue flowers and leaves. However, with his clumsy and childish chisel he was not able to produce more than one thing above mediocrity ; on this account the entwined osiers are shown in crossed lines instead of being * The feet of these four cokimns (beautiful monoHths of porphyry) without doubt come from sumptuous Roman edifices, and their square bases, liigh as pedestals, are the only things which recall the basilica of the fourth century. It has been thought that the abnormal direction of the arch of the ciborium, which is not parallel with that of the basilica, was inspired by the same idea which dominated the liuilding of so many Romanic and Gothic churches, especially in the North, in which the choirs present the same inclination, with the idea of symbolising the inclination of the Saviour as He died upon the cross. But the excavations of 1864 around the altar have made known that this curious inclination dates back to the period of S. Ambroise himself, showing that it existed even in the tombs, and that, in constructing the surrounding barriers, they had already endeavoured to disguise it by a process of gradual modification, till the exterior ones might be brought to fall perpendicularly to the axis of the church. This discovery dissipates the conjecture exposed above, for this strange custom did not see daylight till towards 1100. However, as it is not admissible to suppose that the constructors of the first S. Ambroise had not intended this inclination, I find no other way of explaining it than this : As they had not been able to set the basilica perfectly towards the east, as the litm-gical laws then prescribed, S. Ambroise desired that the altar at least should be on the eastern side, and consequently the tombs which supported it and the ciborium which covered it. (I had the pleasure of noticing that, in his recent work on the Ambrosian basilica, Landriani, in so far as he treats of this originality of the ciborium, thinks exactly as I do.) But, however this may be, it is certain that this inclination has wounded the very sensitive eyes of our modern restorers, who, out of respect for the pedantic and more often than not anti-artistic law of eurythmj', ventured on the difficult, dangerous, and costly task of raising and turning round the heavy canopy in the foolish mania of setting it right. And to-day, when one visits the basilica of S. Ambroise in order to admire or study it, he finds it deprived of that peculiarity which rendered it still more important ; but, by way of compensation, he can drink in at his ease the ineffable harmony which the whole edifice has gained by this easy but exceedingly important change ! ! ! U5 wrought ill relief. From the basket go fortli large and heavy caulicules supported by palm leaves, and separated l)y rosettes. The abacus is formed of a band striated horizontally, and only broken in tlie centre by a square projection with vertical lines. I do not doubt that the superior part of the ancient ciborium was ill perfect harmony with these capitals, composed of four arches garnished with as many slabs of marble and covered with ornamental bas-reliefs, precisely like so many other ciboria of the ninth or eighth century which we have already seen ; and it is not improbable that the mosaic of the half-basin of the apsis (composed perhaps before the ciborium was retouched), repre- senting nearly, in the scene of the sleep of 8. Ambroise officiating, the existing ambo of the basilica, preserves also the physio- gnomy of the ancient ciborium, which would have had exactly four arches crowned with a horizontal cornice and a cupola. But I will not take leave of S. Ambroise -without satisfying the just curiosity of the reader, who will surely ask me : if vou deprive the Fig. l!2-2.— Capital of the . ^, . " r ,i i ' r ^ Cihonum of s. Ambroise, ninth ceiitury of the glory ot having con- Milan -ixth Centuiy. structed the naves and atrium of our basilica, to what age do you then attribute them ? I hasten to answer him, even at the risk of departing from the lines which I proposed to myself in this work. S. Ambroise is the edihce of Lombard architecture wherein, more than anywhere besides, the greater part of the sculpture is redolent of the Italian-Byzantine style of the ninth and tenth centuries ; but this fact must not lead us to believe it anterior to the eleventh century. First, because, more or less, all the buildings of the Lombard style preserve, as I have said else- where, the old manner of ornamenting by means of basket-work ; and next, because S. Ambroise, included in the number of these buildings, presents others altogether new and more highly finished. Its numerous round faces of men and animals, though rude, yet manifest very notable progress in comparison with the horrible attempts of the ninth and tenth centuries, and certain 246 foliaj^e decorations, like certain organic forms, such as the interior galleries, sjDeak plainly of the influence which Neo- Byzantine art exercised for the last time over Italian art towards the end of the tenth century and during the following one. In my opinion, no other church in Italy outside of Venice can furnish hetter material proofs than S. Amhroise of this influence, represented here hy several works which could only have come from the hands of the Greek artists of the eleventh century or the commencement of the twelfth. Such are the mosaics of the half-hasin of the apsis with its bizarre architecture, with its figures wherein appears the manner proper to the Byzantine renaissance : the incrustations of marble and the paintings of the hemicycle and the choir, which are in perfect harmony ^^■ith the ornaments and mosaics. The decorations and membrures in stucco, which adorn this same apsis * all bear a Greek seal ; the famous medallion also in stucco representing the likeness of S. Ambroise ; and lastly, the superior portion of the cil)orium of the high altar. + In all these works, and everyone should recognise it, the Lombard school is completely absent, while, on the contrary, in their ornaments (of which the fineness, moreover, belongs less to the merit of the century wherein they were executed than to the material of which they were made) I are shown all the Byzantine character and grace, especially in the creeping leaves of the tympans of the ciborium, and in those that frame the medallion of S. Ambroise. In looking at the * At the time of the last restorations some traces of paintings which adorned the walls were found, and there remain some of the designs (see Dartein). On the other hand, the stuccoes, which were found in their place in pretty good preservation, were destroyed by our sajiient restorers because, according to their view, they did not harmonise with an apsis of the sixth century ! ! ! t All these stuccoes submitted to chemical analysis gave results almost identical, proving their contemporaneity. t As I have observed in the preceding chapter in speaking of S. Maria-in-Valle de Cividale, the works in stucco are always inferior as to care and skill to those of the same epoch sculptured in marble ; and I add here that as jewellery, the ceramic art, weaving, and arts of the same nature, had subjects of decoration in general quite ditferent from those of architecture, so must it have been with the art of the stucco decorator, for one does not otherwise know how to explain the novelty and the variety of the subjects which we see in the rare stuccoes which remain to us — subjects which arc scarcely ever found in the works in marble of the same period. 247 ii;4Ui-es in l);is-relief mentioned above, one almost l)elieves that he has before him in hirger proportions those covers of the Gospels which the Byzantines enriched with pictures and stories cast in precious metals. If we now set ourselves to discover under what circumstances all these embellishments could have been etiected in the church of S. Anibroise, Ave must consider that the mural paintings of the choir indicated above appear executed after the construction of the crypt, for they finish regularly at the level of the upper floor; and as the crypt, to judge by the style of the arches which remain of it, must have been l)uilt at the same time as the naves, it follows that the embellishments above-named Avere added to the choir when it became necessary to harmonise it with the richness of the new construction. The desire to have mosaics occasioned recourse to Greek artists, and to them also yvere confided the other decorations in marble, stucco, and in painting. All these considerations induce me to believe that the existing naves of S. Anil)roise rose in the second half of the eleventh century, and the atrium towards the commencement of the following one, a little before the new campanile, Avhich, as is well knoAvn, dates from 1129. Therefore, to resume, the most probable histoiy of the restorations etiected on the celebrated basilica is, in my opinion, this : — Archbishop Angilbert lengthened the upper portion from 824 to iS-2U, built the three apsides entirely, and very probably repaired the ancient naves. Archbishop Ansperto, from 8G8 to 881, finished the restoration of the church by reconstructing the quadriportico. In the second half of the eleventh century the three naves and the vestibule were rebuilt, while holding intact the apsides of Angill)ert. They built the crypt, the superior part of the ciborium, and the anibo, and decorated the choir Avith stucco, mosaics, and paintings. In 1129 the second belfry Avas erected, and in 119ti they repaired the damage caused to the edifice by the fall of an arch in the principal nave, restored the damaged ambo, and raised the cupola again.* ■ But if S. Ambroise of Milan can stiD exhil)it a portion of its construction anterior to the eleventh century, the not less celebrated l)asilica, S. Michael of Pavia, 248 The apsis of S. Anibroise of Milan, with its little niches, its vertical projections, and its arched cornices, is the more precious, not only because it becomes an excellent guide to the assignment with certainty to the same century, or that following it, of several other important buildings whose age has been until now an inexplicable enigma, but especially because it teaches us what are the true origins of the Lombard or liomanic style ; origins which archaeologists, led astray b}' prejudice, have not known how to discover, and which Dartein, notwithstanding his immense labours, has declared still wrapt in obscurity. The apsis of S. Ambroise is not, then, a unique specimen of its kind. Milan itself offers four others which go back without any doubt to the ninth or tenth century. These are the apsides of S. Calimero, S. Vincent-in-Prato, S. Eustace, and S. Celso. The architects of the Ambrosian apsis, the oldest of all, so far as one can judge by the vague historical souvenirs of this epoch, had contrived as much as they could A\ith the simple and easy adjustment of long vertical projections to give lightness to the walls and, at the same time, to enrich them at but slight expense. It is for that reason that Ave see two more of them on the apsis of S. Calimero, that is to say six in all, so that tlie wall is divided into seven lields. The upper part of each of these encloses three inches framed by the usual little hanging arches. But the most precious edifice preserved in Milan is neither presents, to my sight, nothing of that kind. Many conjectures have been made in order to determine the divers buildings and restorations to which this church has been submitted in consequence of the disasters from which it suffered in 924 and 1004 ; but here again it is well to remember the old prejudice relating to S. Ambroise, which has deceived so many archaeologists. It is not surprising that they have gone equally astray when speaking of S. Michael of Pavia. Let us leave on one side those who still pretend that the e.xisting church goes back to the seventh century. To those who, like Reynaud or Dartein, will have it that it was built almost entirely in the tenth century, I would say that the artistic progress presented by the sculptures of this church in comparison with those of S. Ambroise, and the visible affinity of the decorations with those of San Pietro in Ciel d'Oro of Pavia, a church that was conse- crated in 1136, bring me to believe that S. Michael of Pavia was built at the beginning of the twelfth century, and perhaps after the famous earthquake that overthrew so many churches in Upper Italy, and thus brought about so many rebuildings. 249 this nor the apsides just mentioned, nor tlie litth' rlmi-cli of 8. ISatyrus, hut an entire and passahly large hasiliea which has been closed to students for nearly a century, and for this reason and because it is hidden away in a sufficiently remote corner of the town, it has remained unknown to nearly all savants ; it is the church of S. Yincent-iit-I'rato. The first who drew public attention to it as a discovery was not this time a foreigner, thank God I but the Count Charles Belgiojoso in 1868.* It was then reproduced with drawings by the lamented Count Edouard Mella in one of those small but valuable monographs Avhich he Avas in habit of puldishing in order to shed light on some obscure and interesting monument of Lombardy or Piedmont — an honourable and useful example which should have many imitators. S. Vincent-in-Prato is, then, a church of basilical form, with three naves, separated by sixteen columns, sui^porting semi- circular arches, covered with open roohng a cuchevetniycs, and terminated by three apsides. One is the entrance door, rigor- ously rectangular, with the architrave lightened by a semi- circular arch. The facade is bare, as are also the other Avails, except the back-wall, which on the exterior tympan is orna- mented witli little projecting creeping arcades, and with a little cross-window closed by a large tabernacle formed of two slim demi-colonnettes of terra cotta and feeble cornices A\ith bricks disposed in zig-zag. Below bends the central apsis, in which may be seen the same vertical projections, small niches, arches, and cornices which we have seen in S. Ambroise, and, Avhat is more, in the same quantity and in the same order. The interior has smooth Avails, in Avhich are numerous broad and high arched AvindoAvs, f that abundantly light the church. There is no artistic work there except the capitals of the columns, which are very varied both in dimensions and in style. They are in great part Eoman and Christian of the first centuries, coming very likely from the ruins of an ancient church. There is, hoAvever, one Avhich, as I said in a preceding chapter, betrays the Byzantine chisel of the eighth century, and several others that doubtless belong to the same period as the church, though '■■ In the Keport of the Lombard Institute. \ M. 2.40 x 1.20. 251 witliout ornaments, and of an original form. But \\itli very little reflection one sees there the ludimentary ensemlde of the capitals of the cihorium of S. Aml)roise, whose physiognomy, full of expression, suggests the style of the ninth century. It is in that place a proof of contemporaneity which hnds confirmation in the evident resem- blance of the apsides of the tAvo l)asilicas. The bottom of the great nave, in the part corresponding to the three last between-columns and to the ajisis, is occupied by a crypt which has its level a little below that of the naves, and on that account goes out considerably, raising the choir by more than two yards. It is formed of numerous cross-vaults, supported by colonnettes of antique piiduction and of very varied forms, including that of the hfth century. Such is the church of S. Vincent, whose liasilical form, simple structure, and capitals, for the most part very ancient, have made Mella. Paravicini,* and almost all the writers who concern themselves with the art, believe that it \\as anterior to the Lombard period, ^nth the exception of the posterior part and the crypts. Dariein. on the contrary, but without speaking freely, seems inclined to believe that it was erected during the Lombard domination of the seventh to the eighth century. But these opinions, notwithstanding the merit and the science of their authors, are in the present case of very slight import, for they rest upon a false idea, according to which the eighth and ninth centuries witnessed the flourishing of Lombard architec- ture, whose churches A^dtli banded pilasters and cross-vaults must necessarily be relegated to the seventh, sixth, or fifth century, those of basilical form suggesting a more ancient art. They made an exception of the apsides ; but, in truth, there is too much unity of construction throughout the edifice for Fig. l'2i. — Capital of the Naves of S. Yincent-in-Prato, Milan — IXth Century. of construction throughout * Guiila artistiea di Milano. seeing 252 therein posterior rebuildiu};', whereas, hy the researches tliat we liave just made, Ave prove that the whole church announces clearly the ninth century. And now it only remains for us to give a glance over the historic recollections that belong thereto. Benvenuto d'Imola, Torre, and Castiglione have written that the church was founded by Desiderius, last king of the Lombards. But this date, which would have attributed a venerable antiquity to the edifice, has not found favour with modern historians, who have judged this church to be worthy of the first Christian centuries ; therefore they have either confined themselves to assigning it to the apsis alone, or have rejected it as a mere fable. I have no reason, on another account, to believe it without founda- tion, for I have recognised in one of the capitals of the naves the Greek style of the time of Desiderius, who may have dedicated to S. Vincent, not the actual basilica, but a chapel of small dimensions. It is precisely because it was small, that it was not suflicient for the Benedictine monastery that was joined to it in 814 ; and here is why we see it replaced by the existing church, which, according to all ajipearance, was the work of the monks of the ninth century. The lists of donations made to the monastery l)y the Archbishop Giselbert, in 833, and of the great riches bequeathed to its fraternity in the wills of Archbishops Scaptoald and Angilbert, and of Garibaldes, Bishop of Bergamo, seem to correspond to the time Avhen the monks had the means of commencing this work. Thus then the historic data and artistic observation confirm one another with marvellous agree- ment, and assure us that this precious basilica, Avhich oAves its conservation almost miraculously to the decadence of the monastery, to its abandonment Avhich folloAved thereupon, and to its situation in a quarter of the city only a feAv years ago still isolated and lonely, goes back in eff"ect to about the middle of the ninth century. Perhaps an objection Avill he made relative to the age of the high presbyterial crypt,* Avhicli has certainly much more the form * The number of August 15, 1888, of the Florentine review. Arte c Storia, contains a note by Professor Paul Tedeschi, which runs thus : "In an article printed in December, 1882, on ' I'Archivio storico Lombardo,' I have tried to show the necessity 253 and character of the Lombard churches than of an old basilica ; but to that I can reply, first, that its capitals do not ofter the least trace of the Lombard style, whilst their grotesf[ue variety harmonises perfectly with the fragmentary mass of those of the superior naves ; and, secondly, that several other basilicas of this century, of which we will speak later on, are also pronded with a synchronical crypt very much raised ; a raising to which quite an important signilicance was attached, as we shall have occasion to explain in speaking of the primitive basilica of S. Mark at Venice. However it may l)e. it is certain that the crypts were constructed for depositing the bodies of saints, and we know, in fact, that towards 859, the church of S. Yincent-in-Prato received the bodies of S. Nicomedes and Quirin. Does this event correspond to the date of its consecration "/ Certainly nothing is endangered by admitting it. Milan itself here offers for our study the little church of S. Satyrus, which, as we have seen, was constructed liy the Arch- bishop Ansperto. Its plan is a scpiare cut l)y a cross, whose centre is determined by four isolated columns, and its extremities, except that of the entrance-door, by small apsides. The spaces between the columns and the angular walls are covered by semi- circular arches and by little cross-vaults, the little arms of the cross by caisson-vaults, and the apsides by semi-basins whose axis is at the height of the mullions of these vaults. The centre is to-day covered with a little modern cupola, which does not permit of our divining what was there originally — probably a simple cross-vault. To-day the exterior wall of this little church of demolishing the elevated choir (of S. Vincent), added later. My weak voice has not been heard, so in this unique specimen of a Romanic basilica, restored at Milan in these latter days, we have the hideous spectacle of a huge barrack and a crypt dating several centuries later." I ask Professor Tedeschi's pardon, but I can only felicitate the Commission of the Monuments of Milan for not having listened to him. It ordained that the old cvypt should be entirely preserved. Before destroying anything it is wise to reflect. Conservation, however excessively indulged in, does not run the often irreparable risk which the mania for destruction brings with it. I should warn the reader, who may be visiting the basilica as it is "restored" to-day, that the ambos on either side of the choir are modern, imitated from the antique. The style of the ninth centm-y has been well reflected in the oi-naments of the parapets, but not in the cornices and capitals. is circular, pierced with several iiiclies, but it can no longer l)e called the original wall ; it is a strengthening revetement added in the fifteenth century, when the edifice was decorated within and Avithont with bricks. In the interior, besides the four isolated columns, there are four smaller ones, of which a row Pig. 125.- Plan of the Church and of the Belfry of S. Satyrus, Milan— .\.D. 879. are enchased in the lateral walls of the altar in order to enrich the little chapel at the end. The capitals are in part Eomanic, in j^art modern (substituted for the old ones during some restorations), and in part are contemporaneous with the con- struction of the edifice. One distinguishes three of them which, by their barbarous richness, their style, and the ensemble of their forms, betray a close relationship with one of those which we shall see in the crypt of the church of Alliate, a construction of the same period. It is a clums}' imitation of the Corinthian ; they have leaves that look as though they were piled up in a species of shell, rough caulicules, crosses with double volutes, aiul the customary shabby abaci. No one would know how to oj^pose me in suggesting that the little church l)elongs to a less remote period, and that the capitals of more ancient buildings have been adapted to it : first, 255 because it otters the cliaracteristics of no arcliitectnve used in Lombardy (Tatinc; from the eleventh century ; secondly, because these three capitals have the air of having been sculptured for l*i.i()V- -. •v.vj™«>,v.».-™^i the shafts which support them, and be- cause the latter are of dmerent (hameters ; that is to say, for the one with large columns and for the two with small columns. One cannot reasonably suppose that the church had been constructed before the ninth century and merely re- stored by Ansperto, for the reasons ex- pressed on page 228 are opposed to it, and, moreover, it does not present the least index of the art of the centuries prior to the ninth. Its plan and its organism, on the contrary, decisively acknowledge tlie Neo-Byzantine style, so that one would not be astonished to see Pig. 126.-Capitais of the ^^ ^^ Athens, at Thessalonica, or at Con- Church of S. Satyrus, Milan stautinople. — A.D. 879. Qj^g jg jjj i\^Q habit of regarding generally as the work of Ansperto the old belfry which rises near the church of S. Satyrus. I do not hesitate to declare that this opinion does not appear to me destitute of foundation, and I accept it willingly. The use of bells can be traced back further than is commonly believed. Fleury has demonstrated, A\ith examples, that in the sixth centurv many churches were already provided with towers and very large bells, and this is confirmed by several bells, for the most ])art cylindrical, at llavenna, A\hich in their structure, in the nature of the materials which compose them, and in the characters of their sculptures, undoubtedly acknowledge the sixth century. History does not, then, in the least oppose the antiquity claimed by the belfry of S. Satyrus, still less does an artistic examination of the bell, of which the great twin doors, and the friezes with little pensile arches, of the greatest sim- plicity, have their equivalent in analogous parts of edihces of 256 the niiitli century. Add to this, that the axis of the phiii of the belfry is perfectly parallel to the axis of the contiguous church, erected by Ansperto, and the fact that the two editices are of the same epoch appears to be confirmed. The belfry of S. Satyrus is, then, very probably the most ancient belfry of artistic character -which remains to us after those of Ravenna, and is the jjrototype of the characteristic Lombard l)elfries, which are invariably square and subdivided into several zones, ornamented with vertical projections of little pensile arches. Alliate. — The ancient basilieal style is also shown outside S. Vincent of Milan, by the church, not less cherished and not less precious, of the village of Alliate, in Brianza. This church, as T have before said, owes its origin to Archbishop Ansperto, who, according to the tradition, erected it in 8(81. It were truly desirable that all traditions of this kind might find, in the monuments to which they relate, a confirmation as complete as that ofl'ered to us by this church of Alliate, which acknowledges the ninth century in every part. It has three naves, separated by columns — here, as in S. Vincent, of a fragmentary cha- racter. But this poor country was not, like Milan, rich in Bomanic capitals, which might, on occasion, be pressed into the service of the church. Moreover, with the exception of a solitary one, dolphin- and shell-shaped, very small and which consequently required a very large abacus, the others are only reverses, bases, or fragments of funereal cippi, invariably raised by means of high abaci. One of the columns actually Fig. 127.— Belfry of S. Satyrus, Milan— A.D. 879. 257 presents a Eomanic inscrii^tion upside down, a proof that it was a miliary column. The last two arcades of the naves, half as large again as the others, were very prol)al)ly opened later, to the detriment of tour arches of less importance, with the object of enlarging the staircase of the choir, which is situated at the side. Fig. 128.— Plan of the Church and Baptisteiy of AUiate— a.d. 881. Arched windows of moderate dimensions open under the roof of the gTeat nave, which presents the usual open overlappings. But where this church exactly reproduces S. Ambroise of Milan is in the three apsides of the fond, preceded by compart- ments, separated by walls, and forming, in the centre, a choir covered with arched vaults, and, laterally, two little chapels -uith cross-vaults. Here also the choir is found to be raised on account of the crypt, and must originally have been much more so, belbre the level of the naves had submitted to the present 17 258 raising. Tlie crvpt, to which access is ol)taine(l In two little doors, Avhicli open in the small side chapel, is divided into three little naves hy colonnettes, supporting little cross-vaults. It is here only that we tind capitals sculptured expressly for the edilice. One of them, of harharic richness, much resemhles those which we have seen in the small synchronical church of S. Satyrus at Milan. All the others, while they acknowledge the ninth century, show a certain leaning towards later Piomanic forms, though their rudimentary execution makes us think of the clumsy workers of the country who, without douht, sculptured them. Outside, let us remark the ]u-in- cipal entrance. It is the only door ornamented in ninth century style with which 1 am acquainted in Lomhardy, ])resenting, like certain doors of the same period to he Ibniid in Rome and the Venetian Isles, the jamhs and arciiitrave ornamented in front, and (on the side) the usual curvilinear interlacings peculiar to the Italian-l>yzantine style. This central dooi', precisely level with the interior naves, required to be slightly raised. 1)ut that has not been done to one of the lateral doors, which has consequently remained closed and hidden away, while preserving intact its rude architrave lianked \\ ith two large square bricks and surmounted by the characteristic semi-circular abutment, as at S. Vincent of Milan. Lastly one notes, on the exterioi'. the central apsis, Avhose windows are larger than those of the naves, and which is ornamented by four long Aertical projections and the inevitable little false niches, \\hich are very rough and distributed without taste. Another edifice which we owe to Ansperto is the baptistery attached to this same church of Alliate, which — strange circum- stance ! — is enneagonal in place of being octagonal, is covered with a cupola, and has an apsis which, issuing from the body Fig. 129. - Capitals of the C'lypt of Alliate— A.D. 881. '59 )f the buildiiiL;. lii/arreh' rovers two sides of it. l^.-icli side is pierced at the to]» hy a ve extends a vaii^e of little m^^^^Wi i^£ i'\' narrow w iiido\\ : alio\e the windows and xei'v slii;iitly jjrojeetiu.n' aicades of feeble impost, and above that, instead of belo^\^ and eoncentric. as we have seen them hitherto, penetrate the little f;ilse niches, which, as in the adjoining' church, are ron^h and considevahly re- moved from one another. We should pause here to consider two facts of decided importance. One is that the windows, Avhich had before l>een made large, begin in this church of Alliate to become more narro^\', ' Fig. 130.— Esteinal Willi of the eiiief and finish in its baptistery by Apsis of Alliute-A.D. ,S81. resembling true loop-holes. 'The other is that they present a double splaying, a natural con- sequence of the narrowing of the window in order to gain a compensation in light for the in- terior. Now, the very narrow windows with the doul)le ol)li(piity were, dating from this epoch, one of the most marked characteristics of Lombard architecture. Archa-- ologists have put themselves to mu(di trouble to discover the motive which could have induced the constructors of churches from the tenth to the twelfth century to al)andon large and luminous windows for these miserable holes, avaricious of the daylight and worthy of a prison. Some have sought in it the intention to render the place a little sombre for the sojourner, and thus to give it a certain air of meditation and nnsterx. Others have Fig. 131 External Wall of tlie Bap- tisteiT of Alliate— .\.D. 881. 2 6o sought a reason in tlie foresight ^^"hich built the church so that, in case of war, it couhl be converted into a fortress capable of resisting the attacks of the enemy. In such a contingency there would be no need of large and dangerous A\indows, but merely of true and useful loopholes. Finally, others have found a reason in the fear to prejudice the real solidity of the edifice by too large openings. This last conjecture is fashionable to-day, but, to my mind, it lacks reasonableness as much as the second ; for it does not appear logical to believe that such fears had begun to manifest themselves at the moment Avhen the constructors abandoned the ancient manner, reputed Aveak, to adopt a very robust system, such as that of the Lombard churches with vaults. Consequently, of the three suppositions, the first appears to me to be the most reasonable and the most probable. During preceding centuries they also sometimes used very narrow windows, but these examples are either isolated exceptions, like S. Agatha and S. Victor at Eavenna, and tlie parish church of Bagnacavallo, or mausoleums like the mausoleum of Galla Placidia or that of Theodoric at liavenna ; and in these last they threw them out, not from a fear of weakening the edifice, but simply because this mysterious daylight added to the character of them. This nearly sepulchral darkness of churches, dating from the beginning of the eleventh century, harmonises, in my opinion, wonderfully with the mysterious and diabolical sculptures of beasts, with the terrible representations of the last Judgment, and with the sombre and fantastic shadows of the subterranean crypts. BiELLA. — To this group of edifices of the ninth century is linked, by resemblance of style, the baptistery of the cathedral of Biella. Its plan is a perfect quadrilobe, on which rise four large half-circular niches. The central square is bounded by four arches supporting a story or gallery of very curious form, for exteriorly it presents an octagon of equal sides, and angles alternatively nearly right and very obtuse, giving in front an angle instead of a side ; and interiorly it presents a square, rounded at tlie amjles bv curved sides, wbicli. as thev ascend. 26l H'row laryvr and lai'^cr until the s(|iiarf is cliaiiifcd iiisciisil)]v into a circle, and becomes the base ui' a hemispheric cupola. The cupola and apsides are covered with a roof inclining to the rectilinear, resting directly on its arches. On the summit of the edifice a small square tower, having a double window, rises, which would seem to be a subsequent addition. Below, the octagon is enlivened by the habitual little niches very close together, and framed by small projecting arches, reproducing by that, even better than those of Alliate, the others of Milan. On each of the sides of the octagon there opens a small balistraria with double sloping. The lower (puidrilubate tloor is equally ornamented below the cornice witli similar niches, but here the little arches in relief are by four and four, supported by long vertical projections which * Fig. 132. — Plans and Elevations of the Baptisteiy of Biella — IXth and Xth Centuries. descend to the base. The Anndows of the apsides are a repro- duction of those above. The door, like that of h). Yincent-in-rrato. 262 is not graceful. It is composed of a stiff rectangle, of wliicli tlie architrave is lightened hy a flying buttress, semi-circular, after the Byzantine manner. Here, therefore, remains the organic essence of the doors of Ivomanic architecture, starting from the first years of the eleventh century, ho\\'e\"er rich they may he in colonnettes and sculptures. In the presence of this baptistery of liiella, c^uite devoid of ornaments and in part of bizarre if not barbaric structure, Ave cannot help praising the tine proportions of the exterior, nor ■withhold the observation that these builders seemed seriously prc-occupied with the difficult study of arches and their effects. On the outside of the apsidal chapel of S. Ambroise, and of the church of Alliate, stands out pilasters in strong relief, wliicli. projecting in })erfect agreement with tlu' interior arches, give liirtb to tlie suspicion tliat wboeverset them there already under- stood the organic value of counter-forts. Now. tbis is a. fact confirmed by tbe baptistery of I>iella, whose exterior angles, reappearing in the middle of the apsides, are occupied by four jirojecting pilasters, not at angles, but straight ; these then are the veritable counter-forts of the interior arches supporting the cupola. These edifices, and some others of the same kind which avc shall see in Venice, are the architectu)-al examples which the ninth century affords us in Upper Italy. ]3ut with the excep- tion of some small structures, sucb as the sacellum of S. Satyrus. and the baptisteries already cited, structures whicli. l)eing of small dimensions, could be at all times easily covered with arches, and cannot represent the i)rogress of architecture, there only remain to us the churches of !S. Vincent of Milan, and of Alliate, representing truly the state of religious architecture in Italv during the eleventh centur\'. Thev show us, clearlv enough, that she still followed the ancient basilical manner, and though she began to depart from it to a certain extent, in the basement chapels for instance, she was still a long way off those discoveries whicli ga\t' birth to the Iiomaic church. This conclusion will, perhaps, discourage the writers on Italian art who, after having i)roclaimed u]) to this time, 263 not witliout -d certain })iid('. that Italy \\a^ the ciadlf of the Ivomauic style, and that she had the honour of teac-hiny t)ther nations in the tenth century, now see themselves under the bitter necessity of confessing that thi^s style, fai' from hcin^ l)oin in the seventh century, and having gi\en duriiiL;' the eighth tlic ])i'oof> of an abundant life, had not. one may say. yet a})peared at the close of tlu' ninth. And. in eti'ect, what are tliese vei'tical projections and cornices with little arches in relief, if not purely decorative and not even original elements of the Romanic church, in face of its true and i^iincipal character- istics such as cross-vaults furnished with nervures. handed pilasters, and vigorous counter-forts, elements which ne have certainly not met with up to this time. Must Italy, then, renounce this honour, and recognise that instead of having formed she has followed other ])eople '.' A\"as the Romanic style l»orn in France or (icrnian}. as a lai'ge nnuiliei' nf writers l)eyond the AIjjs have pretended, and still preteiul '.' And will my writings have the result. deph)rahle for us. of coniirming their conjectures '.' 1 dare Hatter myself that it will not he so, and my hope will not be deceived. In the interval comprised l)etween the building of the basilica of Alliate and the end of the tenth centur^. when, according to Ertoul Glaber. historian of the eleventh century. S. AYilliam. alter having visited Italy, passed into France with a troup of Italian artists, and began to build sumptuous churches there, not less than a century had slipped by. If architecture in Italy at the end of the ninth century had not made great progTess. it had. at all events, taken a good direction, as we have already seen, and as we shall see further on, and we may thereby con- clude that, during the long space of another hundred years, it ma}' have approached perfection more and more, and have arrived towards the beginning of the eleventh century, at least in part, at the precious characteristics above indicated : insomuch that S. AN'illiain could carry among the (ianls. I will not say tlie fruits, but at least the Howers, of the new Romanic style. The limits imposed on me by my strength, and the labour claimed by my work upon S. Mark, have not permitted me to pursue my 264 ivsearchos in Nortlieni Italy upon a scale enabling nio to enumerate here a long list of monuments belonging to this epoch, capable of representing the continuous and progressive develop- ment of Romanic basilical architecture. But the reader may, nevertheless, be assured that I am not taken unawares, and that the few l)ut precious edifices which I propose to point out to him will ans^\"er for the moment the purpose of more alnindant enumeration. The use of arches, the generating principle of Lombard religious architecture, has only been revealed to us, thus far, very feebly and imperfectly by oratories and apsides, by the chapels and crypts of large basilical churches, before the extent of which it seems that the constructors of arches still recoiled. Perhaps the need and the courage to roof large naves with arches was born when the sumptuous marble columns, furnished till then by Eoman ruins and the most ancient basilicas, began to fail, and it became necessary to substitute thick pillars of brick or stone, alone capable of bearing a considerable weight because they were susceptible of any dimensions. To substitute pilasters for colunnis certainly was no novelty, lor, from the sixth century, the abbey of S. Peter at Bagnacavallo, and S. Victor and the Holy Ghost at Eavenna, had been obliged partly to content themselves with modest supports in bricks, and that, doubtless, because among the few Eoman debris of this town the columns liad long been exhausted, insomuch that, in order to build the principal basilicas, importations from the (quarries of the East had been found necessary, as is proved by the uniformity of the materials and the ribs of the summit and the listel of the foot of the columns. MiLAX. — A church in Milan, rebuilt to^^"ards the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the tenth, and Avhich will serve to represent the first transition from monolithic columns to clustered pilasters, is the celebrated basilica of S. Eustace. Of the old building, founded by S. Eustace himself in the sixth century, nothing remains ; for the apsis, which has the air of being the most ancient part of the present edifice, is so similar to those which we have just studied, that we cannot 265 1k> pciiiiitted to (lonlit tlii'ir roiitemporaiieity. Here also arc the same vertical projections, cornices, and little arcades in relief, and the same zone of arches. The rest of the church appears to have been remade during the centuries which followed tlie eleventh, with the exception of the two unornamcnted arcades, the last ones of the naves, supported by pilasters which seem to date hack to the epoch of the apsis to which they are attached. It has been thought that they were formerly isolated, and that they corresponded very nearly to a field similar to that of S. Ambroise and of Alliate ; but in 18GU, after the restoration of their present supports, they brought to light tlie old brick balustrades, at the summit of which they found the original of the jamb of the two other arcades, cut, when the church was redone in the llomanic style. So one can conclude from that, that the naves of the basilica of the tenth century were entirely separated by pilasters in lieu of columns. But this is not the only peculiarity of the old church of S. Eustace. When they were constrained to use ranges of massive pillars the architects thought to prolit by them in addhig to the solidity of the edifice, whose materials were in no way precious. They also resolved to throw across the little naves numerous arcades, which, strengthened by a wall, would become a solid buttress for the liigh walls of the major naves. To this end they projected piedroits from the lateral walls, and others corresponding with the ranges of pilasters, which assumed thereby the form of a T, and above those they caused the said arcades to rest, of which two still exist. A considerable step toAvards tlie Romanic system of cross-vadlts was taken on the dav when thev thought to complete the organic idea of the transversal arches of IS. Eustace by projecting them equally on the great nave, by which proceeding they obtained a reasonable and solid chain round the whole edifice. Hence it came about that, in loading the pilasters of the naves with four distinct cross-arcades, four piedroits requiring to be prepared below, the pilaster, in the ensemble from its base, assumed a cruciform shape. This important advance in Italian-Byzantine architecture has never 266 Fig. 133. — Plan of the ancient Church of S. ]:^ustace at Milan — IXth or Xtli C'cnturv. been regarded as an insigniticant aitenipt, but as an invention so perfect in itself that it was applied \\itli conspienous success to a great number of re- markable churches in the eleventh and twelfth cen- turies. We find it alieady employed in 1013 in S. Miniato of Florence, and if it had so early crossed the Apennines, it is more than logical to suppose that well before this epocli it Avas in use in Higli Italy. YiCENZA. — In su])port of this we have at Mcenza a very precious and totally neglected church : that of SS. Felix and Fortunatus. which i-ises outside the town at a short distance from the railway station, and announces itself by a picturesque fortified belfry.* A historical document teaches us that in the year 1895 Ijishop Raoul, having found it '•omni cultu monastico et divino otticio destitutam ob negligentiam pastorum ct barbaras gentes quae in Italiam nuper irruerunt." recalled to it the ])lack Benedictines and restored it " ad honorem SS. Martyrum Felicis et Fortunati. Viti atque Modesti." This church suft'ered in the course of centuries, restorations, retouch- ings or mutilations until Kill, wlien it was l»arbarously transformed, but not corrupted to the point of retaining no trace of the ancient edifice. The principal door, a mixture of Iiomanic and Neo-Byzantine elements, bears the date of M-C-LXXXIII ; the apsis that of M-C'-LXXIX ; the windows of the crypt that of M-C-LXXXIII : the steeple that of M-('-LX. All these dates, at first sight. })ei-mit of the suspicion tliat the church restored by Eaoul was completely rebuilt in the =•= See " Granile lUustrazione del Lombardo Yeneto : Vicenza e il siio territorio," by J. Cabiauca di F. Lampertico, p. 796. 267 twelfth century; but an attentive examination oftlie edifice soon dissipates this idea, and makes it certain that tlie works wliicli heh)n^' to tiiis century are tlie only ones provided with a date, witli the exception of the crypt and some portions of the walls, and that luioul's work was not a simple reparation of the old church, but an almost total reconstruction. Jt was in tile sixteenth centuiT tliat it suffered the gTeatest damage, when the monks, having wished to fortify the belfry by surrounding the upper story with corbels and battlements, judged it necessary to isolate it. They then took away a part of the little northern na\"e. which, thus contracted, was terminated by a little chapel covered with a cross-vault : they also sacrificed tlie corresponding part of tbe meridional nave in order to utilise the space fo)' an apartment devoted to some useful pui'pose ; they walled in tln' arcades corres])onding to the portion destroyed, and withoul doubt transformed into big columns the pilasters of the ancient church in the part which remained intact. Now this reform has been a fortunate one for us, for it has saved for us — although they are stopped up — six arcades of the ancient naves, with their oiiginal supports, which show us ranges of pillars alternating with columns. Here, then, is a fresh advance tow ards the Loml>ard church, in which the nature of the vaults exacts that the supports of the naves should be alterna- tively strong and light. Towards the meridioiuil nave an intact column is preserved, ami a pilaster on the side of the northern nave. The first door bears an Ionic capital, grossly imitating the richest of the ancient ones l)y means of ornaments in the Italian-13y;^antine style, and crowned by a large abacus, orna- mented Avitli interlacings. The second presents forms which are at once new, and simply Lombard. By that which remains of it Ave may judge that the ground plan was originally cruciform, that is to say, formed of two pilastei's and two columns, the first the length of the longitudinal axis of the nave, the second the length of the transversal axis. Everyone will easily see in this pilaster the most ancient attempt known at grouphig pillars. It teaches us that in the second half of the tenth centurv this 268 characteristic featnvc already in course of sufficient clearness what kind of arches it supported, and if to- day we have no longer those which rested on the demi-colunms traversing the naves, as at 8. Miniato, there nevertheless remain traces of them. But there is more. Pilas- ters and demi-columns (those at least which give on the small naves) are crowned with a common capital which is developed all round in a uniform pattern ; and while hy its rude sculptures it recalls the style of the tenth century, hy its conception and pro- portions it anticipates all tlie similar capitals of the L o m h a r d c h u r c h e s of t li c eleventh aiul twelfth centuries, as for ex- ample some of those in the church of of L()Hil)ard chiu'cli architecture was formation. The structure tells with -•■®s=S?-"---'--- ®5^ ■•■■■■ Fig. 13i.— Plan of the Church of SS. Fehx and Fortunat, near Vicenza.* Aurona of Milan, now destroyed. The foot of the pilaster also merits our attention, for it presents a Lomhard profile as pure as ■■'■ I owe the design of this plan to the obliging kindness of Chevalier Flaminio Auti, of Vicenza. 269 tliiit of S. Aiiil)roisc, and sIioavs at tlio angles of the pliiitli l)olow the demi-columns a sort of buttress in the form of a small loaf, which is an essential characteristic of the Lombard style. In the twelfth century they were transformed into a thousand varied and fantastic ornaments and figures, which the Gothic style inherited later on, and during a short time even that of the Renaissance. S.Felix of Yicenza offers, then, the most ancient kno^^■n example of pilasters alternating with columns, the most ancient specimen of clus- tered pillars, the most ancient capitals of a freely Lombard character, and the most ancient model of bases furnished with buttresses. It is consequently a monument of the hiuhest im- Fig. 135. — Capital of S. Ft-lix, noai- Yicenza — A.n. 985. portance, and the most precious example of transition from the barbaric Italian-Byzantine to the Romanic; style. If one was tempted to believe that that which I attribute to the 3'ear 985, belongs, on the contrary, to the twelfth century, the crypt and exterior of the apsis, work incontestably of that century, afford us several fragments which have been used as old materials, and suggest, evidently, the Italian-Byzantine style, and the same chisel which has sculptured the capitals of the columns and of the pilasters above them. Such are some pieces of small pilasters covered with interlacing, with roses and honey- suckle ornaments which must have belonged to the old choir, and five capitals, of medium dimensions, which are the probable remains of ancient ciboria. The three in the best preservation are of a uniform design, decorated with stiff" volutes and coarse palm-leaves. The Milanese basilica of S. Celso, erected a little before 988 by Archbishop Landolpho, shows us, perhaps, a more pronounced tending towards tlie Ivomauic cliurcli if its naves liad not been 2 70 reconstructed in the twelfth century, ns is seen clearly l»y that Avliich remains of it. The only relic that we have of Landolpho's church is the apsis, which presents on the exterior the same ornaments of small arches in relief, and the same niches that emhellish the apsides of the ninth century. Bnt although the tenth century drew from the organic study of churches the qualities that gave us S. Felix of Yicenza and S. Miniato of Florence, I do not believe that it ever succeeded in roofing them entirely with cross-vaults. No monument anterior to the eleventh century permits us to helieve it, not even those of the first half of the eleventh century, whether in Italy or in France and Germany, although the Lombard style made more ra^^id progress there after the year 1000 than in Loml)ardy. Then, if the exceeding breadth of the grand naves of the basilicas daunted the most skilful builders of arches during the first half of the eleventh century, A\ith much more reason might it frighten the timid workmen of the tenth century. For it was truly the one great obstacle. AVe ha^e the i)roof of this in several churches erected in France during the first ten years of the eleventh century, such as the abbey churches of Cerisy-la-Foret and of Mount 8. Michael, wherein the principal nave was still roofed in timber work, while the lateral naves were covered with sturdy cross- vaults. And this was natural. In the arts risky attempts are ahvays on a small scale ; first because, as several trials are often necessary, it is well that time and expense should be respectively economised, and next in order that, where success is uncertain, the damage may l)e less considerable, and the catastrophe less felt. It is thus that the sculptor proceeds before working in the marble, and it is thus that the architects went to work in the end of the tenth century and in the beginning of that following it. Before extending their system of roofing on a vast scale, they made a trial of it on edifices of small dimensions, or on little naves of large basilicas. That is the highest degree of progress that we can accord to the architectural art of the tenth century, and it seems to me that we are authorised thereto by an important monument in Verona. 271 Ykkoxa. — The cliiu'ch of S. Stt'])li«'ii. luiilt to iill ;i]»pe;irinicc towards the middle of the fifth centiivy. (h'luolished 1)V order of Theodoric and afterwards rel)uilt, was ])rol)ald_v suhjected to complete restoration durinf^' the second half of the eighth century, if the thirt}' capitals of this period which are found there were sculptured expressly for it. We are obliged to recognise in the existing huilding the fruits of two separate periods. To the first, that is to say, in my opinion, to the tenth century, should he attributed the apsis ; to the other, that is to say to the twelfth century, the fa(;ade, the naves, the choir with turriculate cupola, and the ciTpt situated below it. But it is precisely the apsis that is the most original and the most precious part of our thurch, for it is formed of a semi-annular nave, a veri- table perpetuation of the ancient little naves no longer in existence, and, moreover, surmounted with a gallery of e(|ual dimen- sions, which excites the suspicion, otherwise Avell founded, that it formerly extended over the little naves and formed real gal- leries. This very singular nave presents, then, the most ancient example of galleries after those seventh century ones of tS. Agnes-without-the-AValls of Eome. and is the oldest specimen that I know of this kind of hemicycles. as rare in Italian churches as they are common in the French churches, where they are called pomiDiir. and develop themselves in a circular series of chapels constituting one of the special characteristics of the Gothic cathedrals of the North. But the structure of this apsis of S. Stephen, though agree- ably conceived and rich in columns, has. from its proportions, and a disagi'eeable succession of vaults (as many cross- as caisson- shaped I. columns and pilasters, the aspect of a barbarous Fig. 13(j.— Plan of the Aphides of S. Stephen (inferior stage) — Xth Century ('?). 272 inoiiument. The little ornamentation wliicli it jn-esents is formed of Roman fragments and capitals of the eightli century, accumulated without taste, and frequently mutilated in order to fit the stems. This fact excludes the possilulity of the huilding's dating hack to the eighth century ; l)ut, at the same time, its harharism and absolute lack of any architectonic orna- ment of the same epoch, sufficiently demonstrate that it cannot be a fruit of the twelfth or the eleventh century. We are, there- fore, led to assign it to one of the intermediate centuries, and preferably the tenth, on account of its vaults. Moreover, this apsis, though rudimentary and witliout grace, deserves very close attention as being the most ancient essay known to us of naves covered in this manner, and consequently it represents one of the boldest strides towards the Romanic church before the year 1000. The examines which I have hitherto adduced, though few in number, will not. I ho])e, l)e declared insufficient, or witliout dno weight, and will not iail, I think, to establish the fact that, in the eleventh century, the system of vaults, of clustered pillars and buttresses, which the Loml)ard cliui'cli reproduced after the year 1000. ^\"as already approaching its maturity. This conclu- sion, certainly, hardly accords with the opinion of those who have assigned the lurth of Lombard architecture to the seventh or eighth century, but, besides that, it disagrees with another not less erroneous opinion (though absolutely opposed to the former error) ■^"hich has lieen rather prevalent for some time past ; the dogmatic assertion that, from the second to the eleventh century, Art did nothing but decline more and more, and that consefjuently Romanic architecture is entirely posterior to the year 1000. Unfortunately, fashion is a hypocritical and pitiless tyrant, who slowly and noiselessly imposes himself on everything, on all men and (who would believe it !) even on the appi'eciations of the historian. To-day, custom has so far prevailed, as to raise an impassable barrier between the tenth century and that '\\hich came after the year 1000, an epoch when people were awaiting the end of the world, and which has been painted in the most sombre colours as the fatal l)ugbear l)efore which everything, and consequently the arts themselves, nuist have recoiled. ]iut I 2 73 gTeatlv fear that those who speak tlius. measure the terror whidi they attrihute to the generation which lived in the year 10(JU. merely with that which they imagine they would themselves experience under similar conditions. Although one is willing to helieve that the prospect of the approaching end of the world made many people reflect, it \\as not, after all, an article of faith, and we should he wrong to exaggerate the consequences of it. This terril)le shaking up of the Christian populations of the tenth century, which, as several people pretend, should have struck minds with sterility, or have withdrawn them from every terrestrial and artistic pre-occupation. is in no wa}' coniirmed by the study of monuments. Greek art had none the less arrived at a true renaissance, as we shall see later, and, towards the year 1000, far from tailing into decay, it was hastening towards Italy, bearing a new fertilising germ, which resulted in the furtherance of the renaissance. At Venice also, in the tenth century, Art, aided by the Greeks, progressed from day to day so well that, towards the fatal year 1000, there was no town in Italy where it was more advanced, and the century during which they con- structed most churches at Venice was this very tenth century. If one must believe Galliciolli, they l)uilt twenty-nine in the tenth century — two of them even in 995 — so gTeat was the fever of construction notwithstanding the dreaded date. I acknowledge that the Greeks and Venetians, absorl)ed then by an active commerce, and favoured l)y fortune, were much more protected from funereal thoughts of the life beyond the grave than the other Italians, whose political situation was more precarious ; but, however that may be, we can only say that in comparing the Italian artistic productions of the seventh century with those of the tenth, we recognise, in the intermediate period, a continuous progress towards an amelioration full of promise. Also I wiUiugly acquit of levity those who. unduly pre- occupied by these fears, declare that, since the epoch of the Antonines up to the year 1000, Italian art did nothing but decline more and more, and who make of this blessed epoch the last stepping stone of a profound decadence. But those who sustain this theory are sluggards, whom patient and minute ' 18 274 researches weary overniucli, and who seek to hide their ignorance conveniently behind the darkness of this pretended decadence of so many centuries. But, at the first appearance of the eleventh century, it is beautiful to see their eagerness to expand oppressed hearts, to awaken minds from a deep sleep, to cause new blood to circulate, to infuse limbs with unaccustomed vigour, to set spirits on fire with noble thoughts ; in a word, to show forth an instantaneous and marvellous resurrection which embraces the whole Christian Avorld, and raises up immediately a cloud of witnesses in the form of monuments in a style new as the life which circulates on all sides. But the history of Art can be written neither by rhetoric nor poetry, but with facts acquired by the conscientious study of authentic monuments and with the deductions which reason draws from them. I do not follow, at all hazards, those who are possessed with a mania for increasing the age of monuments and assigning Lombard architecture to a remote origin ; but, at the same time, I am not disposed to range myself on the side of those who wrongly pretend that it originated after the year 1000. That edifices where the Lombard style exclusively reigns, even in the least details, may be posterior to the year 1000, I admit, but not that this style was born as though by the enchantment of the joy of having escaped from the end of the world : such prodigies may only be effected in certain imaginations. In fact, if we see this new style appear immediately after the year 1000 in all its brilliancy, it is very reasonable to suppose that it had passed during preceding centuries through the long series of experiences and applications ; for an architecture such as Lombard architecture cannot be formed from one day to another like a decorative caprice. So, wlien the last hour of the year 1000 had struck, Lombard architects must have held in reserve, if not all, at least the principal elements of their art, the fruit of slow but continual studies which were developed in their country during the space of two centuries, and to which the last edifices which we have seen render indisputable testimony, Chapter IY. ARCHITECTURE IN THE LAGOONS OF VENETIA. PROM THE BEGINNING OF THE NINTH CENTUEY TO THE YEAR 976. IT w ould be a "waste of time to look for monuments anterior to the ninth century in Venice. Before the seat of tlie Venetian government was established there it ^\as but a group of detached islands, some near together, the others remote, and some perhaps uninhabited. The largest or principal group of these isles was called Rialto, and was sufficiently populous to merit the Tribunal seat ; but, notwithstanding all, its importance was always mediocre, and certainly below, not only that of Malamocco and Grado, but also of Heraclea, of Jesolo, of Torcello, and even of Murano. Rialto owed to the safety of its position, defended and surrounded l)y \ast lagoons, and to its compact crown of little islands, susceptible of easy enlargement, the insignia and perilous honour of liecoming. towards the year 810, the seat of the government of the Republic. It is certain that it was only from the date of this epoch that the Rialtine islands began to rival their sisters in the importance and splendour of their edifices, for the transfer of the government naturally drew industries and artisans from the abandoned capital. To tell the truth, if we may believe certain writers, these islands had no reason to pride themsehes on their new monuments, for the most part sorry l)uildiiigs oi' wood thatched with straw, whether private houses or public buildings or even churches were in question : but I am not disposed to share that opinion. That ^\ood was unich employed in constructing the more modest habitations 1 c;ni readily believe ; it was a widely-spread custom of the middle ages, and the large fires which then desolated towns compel belief in it. That some churches began by being poor wooden oratoiies may i'T5 276 also be admitted, but not in order to draw the illogical inference that all the dwellings and all the churches of that period were mere ^vl'etched hovels of wood and rushes. To that the numerous stone ruins of these ages, which have been found all over Italy, are opposed : to that good sense is also opposed, for it cannot be admitted that the strongest, most feared, and richest people in Italy would content themselves with contemptible and rude buildings, while the neighbouring islands abounded in edifices which were magnificent foi' that period. But that which is above all opposed to it is the fact that Venice still preserves the traces of divers monuments of the ninth century. It is impossible for us to know whether, before 8lU, Italian- Byzantine art had penetrated the islands of our lagoons, for the town which, better than any other, could have responded to such researches, the unfortunate Malamocco, having been swallowed up by the sea in 1110, and consequently despoiled of all kinds of monuments, does not permit us any investigation of that sort. But one may suppose, if one reflects, that towards the end of the eighth century Italian-Byzantine art had already shown itself in the neighbourhood at Ravenna, and if one studies the numerous works of this kind contained in Venice, some of them by their extreme rudeness seem to belong precisely to the end of the eighth century or to the beginning of the ninth ; but this cannot be affirmed with certainty, for not one of them is marked by a date that dissipates all manner of doubt. Saint Hilary.— Italian-Byzantine art must have been alread}' planted on our shores when the Doges Agnello and Justinian Partecipazi founded, towards