pes a bea eran Oe STG $ ade toe ewan eee ee a ne patra ene been ee et OSE ad croc map ape ea a nee ee eran 2 oes eee een ee nn se danbne eee neara pee (ea gee ne ee nena eal Sd ee ee el [PLE PASE STORIE PL I TS SSE EO Se pe a a he ne ae pe een etl} one ote mo = Ore ee ee a oe ee De ee a ae ae a ae an ee nt aT An Fearne apm aa ap apne cape naan emanate ae a Ae me pte br shi Hi Sle Sn Die Mile Ga aay t-te aloes ae a ne Gp a ana Seed howe ase aps tRlpe iee ton oe Re a oe = ates edb anerioe pe De pe ope te ne Oe pep gee ge ee ee Nee Gee oem ee ee pe ae ee PO SORE ee Da THs a Re ee eA aE we an OH On Oe Gee he ee he ses 59 — bss ee pow Ea rise sews osha su stetarat Sr eae eo BT OL SL DRT RIGS weg penal awe eeu ee S82 Or OS oe nn 9 9a oe ae ene eee Ong eel ge eon eee ye = oop ae gi bb peed eb erp eb Ore eee a edhe eetteent atin nane see te aetna fate ee as SEEL ES SS ail at aCe pL aL OLD Ot PL Te Ae OL OS SLES SL aL a Se eat St OtS NEG Sela e ag tae SORE DUP pM eT BL OTH OTIS TO we Bap ace [Teed ine PP tS 5 Cel Re bd wn oD HS ett FTt oe PLE FB OE Cored be gn bce desea at area et et aba aioe Me ta ptaneet cian platen par a pan wa eee ere ee SET eiplate tele sae. = gai or ee ae Oo eee On Bo eee ae ee Pe NIRS i ted poe ee ee ate ees ea ee ee se SNR ROE BOP ORO BOD De Se Ne rar oe es Sap ens ye ee te ee Be ee eee Sel ere teen yi eee ae ee — Soe e lecmiace cw aeerets ae. ae en ee ee a ee ee psd pear Boe Ps ere ree neon . me tn Farosers false elees 9 ee eee ee re ree See ree > + tie a I aan 2 Pe * casa apa at es Spe ate ee Re PIRI F ELE P ETE) LAF CAFR BUSTED pte eae te Pe te tee nnn eae BT er se ae caeaare a ac ae aes. = eatpeteenea 1 BS a ee as pata rere peat SSS try eee seen eee Tae nin eae he Che ne oe ee bee sek Sohne Os Sp ter aoe ae cred Seat seat ates Seca eee Seats ee eee SES Soins cae ae eee De oe eS SS me CAT hk hole ae See ae ee Se ap ee ge PETS te Se renee ees ewe ToS a ee ee oe een er ee 3. Nee nee A Ye Ae Ne Ne oe Ne Ne eee me are z ee a a errr a eee te me eo tesa ree ise je Se eater erase toe Sirioee: - er Sy REG RSS DS TRE BE BIND PD SS TS a ee ee ee ee Fs ae ee ee tee ete artn teers Se nee = eee ee eh es ane Fa tee asthe or aeiewcsene ome TSerkpta ete be fee cane ne oe ee ree ee aS — - Tate te be hae bee em Sl5 4-5 St te ee oe DO a en ete UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT. URBANA-CHAMPAIGN BOOKS 1 ACKS . CENTRAL CIRCULATION BOOKSTACKS The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its renewal or its return to the library from which it was borrowed on or before the Latest Date stamped below. You may be charged a minimum fee of $75.00 for each lost book. Theft, mutliation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. TO RENEW CALL TELEPHONE CENTER, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN MAY 04 i908 APR 11 1996 FFB 2 7 2008 ay AM ek & P4333 ‘ 9 hed When renewing by phone, write new due date below previous due date. L162 ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE INGE A LY, Ricci, Romanesque I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/romanesquearchitOOricc ————— ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE IN TFrALY By CORRADO RICCI With 350 illustrations NEW YORK, BRENTANO’S, INC. ag 4) 4 al j iT ® F ‘ ‘ 6; i td Noa? 7 ae ;: 5 : ee: al en ee es bs a wor ~~ = Fk& digx 7 & ie ry p 159 ‘s +e, At = ng * ‘ 1 ee q ‘ ¥ : ae a \ pea ° ras a ee, ota er t y P 4 * e oa j 4, < BFF vay i a -_ , . s » s ane aS 4 rane ji% are re © eee os) i : = - ili ; ; a t se * ' . > fe 4 ae * + —— eee ae Me *, ' = ot A = j t + Fe - a ‘ 7 =~ Sr at i i 7 ‘ c. i " / iw - - sd . 5% seg i oF ¢ ,> 4 = 7 = > = > f Ps i i t o ‘ : + | * * La} 3 * val a | - ral : * , i = . = a > A ae é = >» Lets ne oot WY fg >? ~ ‘ teF, : Ue ie Arti Grafiche Bergamo Bari. Lower window-frame from the Cathedral apse (end of 12th cent.) ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY \ \ ] e are continually told by compilers of architectural manuals that Romanesque architecture begins with the year 1000, and that from this date forth there was a complete revulsion both in ideas and construction. It is perfectly true that in the year 1000 there was a power- ful revival in art. It underwent a more rapid and impor- tant development, and gained strength, greatness and richness to an extent never experienced since the 6th century, and, as a matter of fact, this development is connected with the whole of social and political life of the period. In spite of being forced to limit our obser- vations to a small number of monuments as compared with those that have perished, we are not able to re- cognize this complete renewal as synchronizing with the year 1000, any more than we are able to separate the art of this period from that of previous centuries. For us, Romanesque architecture begins with the end of the 8+, or if one prefers, with the end of the 9t» cen- tury, when changed customs of cult made new architec- tural forms necessary ; as for instance the campanile, the spacious crypt (from which the apse steps ascend) and the pontile. Further more, tombs are admitted into the interior of the churches. Narthex or loggia rise in front of the doorway, and along the side of the church the cloisters with their cells. Thus, since the year 1000 new causes create different forms of expression. They intro- duce a more intensive development of the vaults and supports, and lead to new possibilities in artistic con- struction which are soon varied by the revival of sculp- tural art. Nevertheless, Romanesque construction origi- nates in Italy in this period. Both interior and exterior are enriched by new constructional additions, and henceforth differentiate from the Byzantine style. The latter attained to its highest and most florid deve- lopment in Justinian’s time, and then declined during the Exarchate and the rule of the Langobards. Itis now more than a century ago that Arcisse de Cau- mont introduced the term Romanesque for the art of western Europe after 814, the date of Charlemagne’s death. This term seemed suitable, and: is increasingly preferred to others which may be derived from the innumerable groups and sub-groups, whether we analyse single monuments, special regional features, the con- tinuation of older forms, or particular sets of influence. It would create fresh difficulties for the already laborious study of architecture if one were to coin new designa- tions for all the finest shades of artistic expression. But we may state that there is no prominent edifice which has not its own special features. And if we were to go as far as to consider the investigation of the exceptions as more important than that of the types, it would be tantamount to discussing the appearance of a tree from the point of view of the size and colour of the single leaves and fruit being different. It is impossible to deny the derivation of Romanes- que architecture from the Roman. This does not exclude a certain amount of oriental influence. For the rest, the expression Romanesque is just as suitable for this art as for those languages derived from Latin or Roman which are fused with other dialects and idioms. The essential point is that Rome is the chief source of this art and these languages. Hence we have excluded from our illustrations all reproductions of monuments the general impression of which is more or less classical or Romanesque, but yet at the same time conforms to an art of other periods, or other conceptions. Who would fail to note the Romanesque in the lower parts of St. Mark’s in Venice, and the Gothic in the upper? And yet it is considered on the whole as By- zantine, or rather, still Byzantine in style, which in Venice actually skipped the Romanesque in order to develop into Gothic. This interpretation of St. Mark’s is due to the number of Byzantine parts, the multicoloured mar- bles, to the gorgeous facade and close relationship with many local edifices. For this reason it is not dealt with in this volume. Nor is the so-called Norman art that flourished so luxuriantly in Sicily and part of southern Italy, although, together with the Romanesque develop- ment, it evolved in connection with the classic form of the basilica. It is, as a matter of fact, an Arabo-Byzantine art. Its chief elements are at the same time Arabic and Byzantine: Arabic in the greater parts of architec- tural and ornamental motifs, Byzantine in the mosaic work which is considered to be the production of Greek or oriental artists. This interpretation of Norman art can only be accepted if it is applied to the political period in which it chiefly dominated in Italy; for Normandy never produced anything similar. Her art was related to the French Romanesque. We have endeavoured to reproduce the most beau- tiful examples in which Romanesque art developed accord- ing to its natural elements, in spite of employing Byzantine or Norman forms of expression, or importing French and German traits. We have also reproduced such examples of architecture in which individual forms and methods of construction are already evident, and which attain to full development in later periods. All examples will not be found to be included, but perhaps the most singular and those which have the most to tell us. Owing to their large number it would be impossible to reproduce in this volume all the monu- ments and decorative marbles of Italy from the 8th to the 11th century. And it is necessary to banish the legend that there are only a few; the contrary is the fact, but art histories only deal with a limited number. There are edifices which have been wrongly attri- buted to the 5th or 6th century, and which are never- theless Romanesque, such as S. Claudio on the Chienti, and others. There are also some edifices of which impor- tant parts have been coated over with a cement face and hidden under scroll-work or other ornamentations of the 17*» and 18th centuries and which have now been brought to light. And there are finally others, scattered about in deserted and remote districts, which have not hitherto been visited and are concealed from the student. We must therefore admit that the history of architec- ture in Italy from the 8th to 11th century is generally based on limited and incomplete material, that there are VI consequently gaps and resulting errors. Beyond this, little attention has been paid to old drawings which some- times supply valuable material for art history. Thus it has been stated that the pulvinar over capitals first appears in the basilica of Giovanni Evangelista in Ra- venna built by Galla Placidia. An example was revealed in some drawings of the basilica Ursiana in Ravenna, unluckily pulled down in the 18t» century, and it is not possible to state which was the earliest. It is therefore better to refrain from forming an inde- pendent opinion as to the origin or priority of certain forms, as they doubtlessly often pass through a period of development in which they sometimes remain practically latent. Does one perhaps suppose that the history of the pointed arch in Italy is clear? It is not. It is already met with here before the transition of the Romanesque style to the Gothic, and Bologna supplies such examples dating 1109—1119. What has been established is, that in Italy the Roman tradition outlasted the Byzantine and Romanesque, ap- pears in the Gothic and is finally absorbed in the Renaissance, and that it always resists foreign influence. If it accepts such, it is usually in decoration, and then only with modifications and adaptations to the local conceptions. * * % One point of view of extraordinary, and in fact of essential, import is the difference between construction and decoration, especially during the first century of Christianity, because it is also of importance for the spread of Byzantine art in Italy. The mediaeval archi- tects built in the Roman style because they had the example of innumerable Roman buildings of greatly varying form and technical vigour. They did not think of going east or west in order to see what had been erected there under the influence of Rome when they could always find magnificent basilicas and central struc- tures in all parts of Italy. Distant countries may influence decoration with ma- terial that is easily moved from one place to another, such as fabrics, embroidery, ivory, intaglios, metals and jewelry. Thus, for instance, in the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna everything is Roman with the ex- ception of some mosaic paintings imitating oriental fabrics; so too is everything Roman in the Mausoleum of Theodoric, with the exception of an ornamental band of decoration which imitates the work of northern gold- smiths; and in Nicola Pisano’s sculptures Roman influence is sometimes set aside by that of French ivories. Even if architects came to Italy from the East, it is always necessary to ascertain how much they introduced from their native country and how much they were influenced by their new home. Doubtlessly the circular ambulatory of Byzantine churches originated in Santa Costanza in Ravenna. Baptistery of the Arians (after Gerola) ‘ome; and San Vitale owes its whole appearance, archi- cecture and technique to the baptistery of Neon and that of the Arians, the groundplan of which was recently ex- cavated and has proved a perfect revelation, and with its large niches led to the development of the apse ambula- tory. Again later, predilection for the East gives Roman- esque art numerous monsters that were unknown to early Christian art, or were rejected by it, as only real ani- mals were depicted for symbols. These monsters were — represented as climbing on portals, altar canopies, capi- tals, walls, cornices and font mouldings. But they do not hail from the East. The powerful radiating influence of Etruscan art also transmitted them to mediaeval artists. Of this we have proof positive in stucco reliefs of the Abbey of San Pietro on the hills above Civate (Pro- vince of Como), as well as in a mosaic pavement of Aosta, Cathedral and on the pulpit of S. Ambrogio in Milan. On a portal of Genoa Cathedral Romanesque sculptors carved an Etruscan chimera with a goat’s head on its back and a serpent for a tail; a figure that was quite well known in the Middle Ages and resembling another excavated near Arezzo in 1553. Nor is it pos- sible to deny the Etruscan origin of the lions support- ing Romanesque porticos, or of pictures of fighting dragons and griffins as seen in the arms of Volterra. Nay, we Shall discover many more such connections between Etruscan and mediaeval art when they are more tho- roughly studied. = x h x If we turn our attention to the fact that the main fea- tures of Romanesque reform of the churches begin in the 8th and 9th centuries, we shall notice at once that one reason why this has not been recognized is because Vil of the strange misconception that the apse crypts and the campaniles which were built contiguous to the chur- ches of the 5th and 6t' centuries were erected at the same period as these churches. In spite of the importance of this subject it is not necessary, using Ravenna as an illu- stration, to explain, by examining the buildings with the assistance of documents, the reasons for this miscon- ception which has been firmly rooted since 1878. We should only lose time by a controversy carried on with all the disadvantages of historical criteria, whereas this fact will naturally be recognized one day, and also convert the most obstinate. Before the 9th century there were no real crypts in the churches, but only simple tombs under the altars for the bodies of the saints. Those persons belonging to the church who wished to be buried within its walls were laid to rest under the pavement. Magnificent proofs of this custom have recently been brought to light by ex- cavations in S. Sebastiano and S. Cyriaco in Mezzo Cammino near Rome. Not even the bodies of the popes, archbishops, or the heads of states and princes were allowed to be buried in tombs which were raised above the pavement of the church. If they were buried in the church, part of the soil was removed and only a slab of porphyry let into the pavement marked the spot. If they were placed in sarcophagi, they remained outside the church building in the narthex or cloisters. On the other hand the imperial families, or the grandees of the court, were in the habit of erecting their mausoleums near the church, and yet in these they were often laid in the ground as in the Mausoleum of Honorius in Rome -and that of Galla Placidia in Ravenna. The first tomb of a pope, which was removed in 688 from the vestibule of St. Peter’s into the interior of the church, was that of Leo the Great. But it was only in the 8th to the 9th centuries that the custom was introduced to erect tombs to the popes, cardinals and bishops in the church interior, and to exhume the remains of di- stinguished persons who had been buried for centuries, | Aversa. Cathedral Choir (after Rivoira) S. Apollinare in Classe, near Ravenna, Crypt (Ricci) enclose them in new sarcophagi and place them in the church. If, therefore we find bodies of the 5th or 6th cen- turies in carved sarcophagi of the 8th, 9th and 10t cen- turies, this is a proof that the sarcophagi do not date from the time of interment but to that of the excavation. Before devoting our attention to the crypts we should like to remind our readers that from the 9t» century it became the general custom to erect tombs in the interior of the churches. Henceforth they contribute greatly to their peculiar features and gradually attain to such magnificence that they fill high walls, the chapels, and later on the interior of the apses (as for instance the mausoleums of Robert of Anjou and King Ladislaus in Naples). The line of development is from the tomb under the altar to the crypt destined to receive the bodies of the saints. In conformity with the ancient oriental custom the crypt was a semi-circular ambulatory. In Romanes- que edifices it formed an ambulatory running along the apse wall from which an entrance was gained to an open “cella” in the main axis of the apse. This type is met with in several places, particularly in Rome and Ra- venna, the two chief seats of ancient Christian art. It appears that it begins in Rome in the 8» century. That of S. Crisogono may be traced back to the years 731—741. Such crypts are found in S. Cecilia (817—824), in S. Marco (827—844), and in S. Prassede (9t» century). In Ravenna the same ground-plan is found in S. Apollinare Nuovo dating from the 8thand 9th centuries, and in S. Apollinare in Classe (12th century). On the whole, these burial places are only an extension of the tombs, and were not yet columned crypts. The latter were at first under the apse, later they were extended under the choir. Some of them were pushed to extra- ordinary dimensions beneath the transept. Formerly the opinion obtained that the Confessio or crypt of the Rotonda or Duomo .Vecchio of Brescia was of the 8th century, and therefore the oldest type, but now it is regarded as a 10th or even 11th century construction. On the other hand one still insists on dating the crypt of San Salvatore, at least that part situated under the apse, as belonging to the second half of the 8'» century. However the case may be, it is certain that already in the following century crypts of this type have been constructed in various parts of Italy: in S. Zaccaria and S. Marco, Venice; in S. Vincenzo in Prato, Milan; in the Parish Church, Agliate; in S. Michele, Capua, etc. Later on the crypts increased considerably, bot in size and height, till they were supported by a forest of columns, as for instance in Verona, Pavia, Ancona, Offida, Tos- canella, Trani, Bari, Otranto, and, not to mention others, the crypts in the Province of Emilia amongst whica Pia- cenza Cathedral has one carried by one hundred columns. In the Gothic period their number gradually deceas- ed, and finally they were rare. In the Romaneque period they added a new picturesque motif to the inteior of the churches, especially was this the case with the pontile and choir steps since the 9th century. It is Ae: ee a fp} |" Parma. Cathedral (after Dartein) VIII that the steps were necessary in order to avoid placing the confession too far below the level of the ground, particularly in damp districts, and this elevating of the pavement in the choir or apse (sometimes not more than one or two steps) resulted in magnificent perspective effects: sometimes the steps extend along the whole width of the nave, sometimes there are similar steps which are, however, reduced to half their width by two screens ornamented with sculptured pierced parapets; sometimes they are found on both sides of the nave with a wall in the middle pierced by small openings (“‘fenestrellae confessionis”’) to permit of a view into the choir; then again there are two staircases confined to the aisles in order to leave room for a richly decorated pontile like that of Modena. * * * Not long ago art historians maintained that the cam- panile dated back as early as the 6th century, and that the oldest were in Verona, Ravenna, Rome and Milan. To-day we know that no campanile is older than the 9th century (we are not discussing the towers erected for defensive purposes). The campaniles of Verona were in fact built after the year 1000. The oldest (S. Lorenzo, S. Fermo, the Cathedral, etc.) all date from the 11th century, and that of S. Zeno, which was commenced in 1045, was only completed in 1178. Milan has perhaps but two that are earlier than the 11th century, that of S. Satiro, which is said to date from 879, and the ““Monks’ Tower” of S. Ambrogio (9th or 10% cent.). Between the 11 and 13th centuries a great number were erected in Rome. They are of brick interposed with ceramic ornaments and fragments of porphyry and serpentine. These campaniles are square, tall and finely proportioned. Their substructures form a special feature, the super- structures are divided by marble or brick (denticulated) string courses into different stages; sometimes as many as seven. On each stage, and on all sides, there are either two-light or three-light windows, or pairs of one or two-light windows. But also those who finally admit that the campaniles do not generally date earlier than the 9th century want to exclude those of Ravenna and attribute them definitely to the 6» century. Without going into details we shall draw attention to everything that leads us to the conclusion that none of them were built earlier than the second half of the 9t» century. 1. In the ancient and original plan of a church a definite unalterable position was given to each part. Why should this rule not have been adhered to for the campaniles, if they were contemporaneous with the adjacent church? However, the Ravenna campaniles are not submitted to a fixed rule. Sometimes they are on the right and sometimes on the left; detached or attached to the church. Occasionally they rise from the atrium, or from the nave. As a rule we find them in the most IX fitting place after the necessity arose to join them to older edifices. 2. The building material of the campaniles is different from that of the adjacent churches, and contains frag- ments of 7th, 8th and 9th century sculptures. 3. In order to make place for the campaniles it was sometimes necessary to demolish parts of the church, to fill up archways and pull down walls. All this would not have been done if the campanile and church had been built at the same time. And as those parts which were sacrificed always belonged to the churches, it is clear that they were built first. 4. Among the mosaic paintings of S. Apollinare Nuovo (6th century) we find a view of Classe and one of Ra- venna, and in that of Ravenna several churches are de- picted. Now in such panoramic views the towers would have been conspicuous. But there is not a single one to be seen. Nor are there any on the model of S. Vitale which the Archbishop Ecclesius (521—534) offers to the titular saint of his church. 5. In the Ravenna documents of the year 1000, of which large numbers exist both in the Ravenna archives and elsewhere, no mention is made of either a crypt or a campanile. Should in this case the ommission be merely fortuitous, surely this cannot apply to the “Liber Pontificalis” of the Ravenna churches written in the first half of the 9th century by Andrea Agnello. If such a diligent, exact and copious author, who describes Ra- venna edifices in all their details, does not even mention a crypt or campanile, it must prove that they did not exist at his time. They were not such unimportant or negligible structures as to have been passed over by an ecclesiastical writer who even considered the works com- pleted by individual archbishops as worthy of notice. The campaniles of Ravenna have two different shapes: square and circular. The square ones of S. Giovanni Evangelista and of S. Pier Maggiore (afterwards S. Fran- cesco) are considered to be the oldest. In addition to this I am convinced that the earliest campaniles there must be ascribed to the Benedictine monks who took pos- session of the church of S. Giovanni in 893. Therefore the first campanile of Ravenna (S. Giovanni) would date from the end of the 9th century. The peculiar manner of laying and bonding the brick- work — narrow bricks and broad layers of mortar (a later and poor copy of the jointing employed by the Romans and Justinian) — shows that the campaniles of S. Pier Maggiore and S. Giovanni were erected at the same time. The circular form is later, and to my thinking derived from the square form. When the Benedictines wanted to add a campanile to the church of S. Vitale (which had been taken over by them in 910) they raised one of the flanking towers of the narthex which contained the winding staircase to the women’s gallery and which were not higher than the vaults of the gallery itself. From this iy 5 of bees MET HI L | See Whe | . ee ee ee, ee | 5 S. Apollinare in Classe near Ravenna (after Ricci) a peculiarly graceful form was accidentally evolved which appealed to the public taste and was thus imitated. The same Benedictines built the other extremely beautiful campanile of S. Apollinare Nuovo which was taken over by them in 973. Later on the number of circular towers in Ravenna was increased to nine and served as models for others in Romagna (Saiano, Fabriago, Parish Churches of Quinto). Whereas the Lombards clung to the square form and introduced it into districts as remote as Lan- guedoc and Catalonia, the circular form obtaining in Ravenna was imitated in the Marches (S. Claudio on the Chienti, the so-called Towers of Belisarius in Fano, and in Cerreto d’Esi), in Venetia (Caorle, Tessera, Verona), in Piedmont (S. Damiano in Asti and Castell’ Albero) and spread over the frontiers to Gaul and Germany. X It is perhaps not impossible that the first plan of the Pisa campanile originated in Ravenna, where there were already some towers crowned with a double arcade, each of which had five three-light openings, and which form two nearly continuous galleries. We must not fail to mention that the abaci placed immediately over the columns of the two and three-light windows developed into the cushion-capital. For the rest, our statements about the Romanesque origin of the campaniles are borne out by the history of the bells. ,,.The name bell (‘campana’)” writes Augusto Gaudenzi “is certainly derived from the name of the Campanian bronze which was preferred to all others for founding bells’, and he then continues, “just as the small bells were called ‘nolae’ by Roman authors because they were made of bronze from Nola, and as this name was always employed in the following centuries for a small bell, it is quite possible that the legend arose, unsupport- ed by any of the older writers, that Bishop S. Paolino of Nola (409—431) invented bells.” — that they were used in the East since the 6t* century. But it is not easy to discover at what date they attained their present dimensions, and when they were first hung in suitable edifices. It would also appear that for some time no distinction of name was made between a large or small bell, hence ‘campana’ meant either. The best-known report of the hanging of a bell is that of John XIII. (965 to 972). But let us beware of the popular belief that before this period the bells were not hung in belfries, And we no more know the date when big bells were introduced that we know when little ones were.’’—‘‘Their use was long unknown in the East, for the librarian Anastasius, when translating the acts of the 24 Nicene Council into Latin, makes the following marginal note in the 4th Chapter in which is said that when the body of St. Anastasius was approaching the populace of Cae- sarea:*) ,surgentes et sacra ligna percutientes congre- gaverunt semetipsos in venerabilissimo templo, nota in “It is quite certain margine: orientales ligna pro campanis percutiunt’. Ac- cording to the Venetian historians the Orientals only became acquainted with these instruments in the year 865 when Orso Papino sent one to the Emperor Michael. In spite of this, according to the accounts of Canon Albertus of Aix-la-Chapelle there were no bells in Je- rusalem before Godfrey of Bouillon’s time. And James of Vitry (who died in 1240) reports that in the Orient only the Maronites and Latini used bells.’ Therefore the historical notices about them synchronize with the time when campaniles were erected in which they were hung, and which do not date earlier than the second half of the 9th century. Later on their number gradually augment- ed till by the year 1000 there were great numbers. This development was quite natural ; for beyond the impression made by the alternating delicate sounds of the small bells with the peals of the big ones in those days of pri- mitive music, the belfries themselves lent a special note of beauty to the outlines of the long low churches and cities, as will be recognized in the mosaic panoramas of S. Pudenziana in Rome (4t'century) and of S. Apol- linare Nuovo in Ravenna (6t» century). The number of towers owned by local communities and families was small. As a rule they were not very high and only found in connection with strongholds, town-walls, or, in accordance with the Roman fashion, flanking city gates. They became more numerous in about the year 1000, especially in the time of the civil wars and great con- flagrations, and multiplied enormously between the 11+ *) rising and beating sacred wood (instruments) gathered in the holy; temple; marginal note: the Orientals strike pieces of wood instead of ringing bells. XI and 13' centuries. In a single quarter of Rome there were 44; Florence had 150; Ascoli Piceno 159; Bologna 180. Amongst those towns with the greatest numbers were: Pavia, Cremona and Pisa. Fazio degli Uberti sees “Lucca rise like a small forest”. The general impression of so many vertical buildings must have been magnificent. One example is still offered to-day in the view of S. Gimi- gnano, though only ten towers are left. a pew lo oom a J ’ ee eee Rom. S. Maria in Cosmedin (after Giovenale) Not only did the crypts and campaniles introduce a new architectural element into the churches, but also the porticos: arches projecting over the entrance-doors and supported by large consoles, side-walls, architraves and columns. At first the churches only had a narthex (or pronaos) extending along the whole width of the facade, sometimes an atrium with four columned galleries. But the simple projecting erections were meant to shelter a single porch. In the 8th century the porch of the Ba- silica of S. Felice in Cimitile near Nola was erected. That on the north-east side of S. Vitale in Ravenna, which was foolishly demolished in 1890, was built in the 10t Ravenna. S. Apollinare Nuovo. Window (after Azzaroni) century. Those of S. Prassede, S. Cosimato and S. Cle- mente in Rome followed. Later on the porches, especially those of the cathedrals, underwent a magnificent development: the columns were placed on lions or other symbolic animals. Sometimes a niche or loggia was introduced over the main arch and thus the middle part of the facade was greatly enriched; sometimes, as in the case of Modena, the sides were also adorned with columns. Such porticos were not often trans- planted from Italy to Germany or southern France. Pa- renthetically remarked, there is nothing against the as- sumption that the porches developed in the same ambitious and creative period as that of the crypts and campaniles. The same remark applies to the three apses at the ter- mination of the basilica aisles; whereas formerly there was a plain wall or two chapels: prothesis and diaconicon at the east end. If we look at the choir end of S. Apol- linare in Classe from the outside, the general impression is that there are terminating apses for the aisles. But what we see are the apses of the prothesis and diaconi- con. Therefore the rich triple apse termination (consi- dered by some to be of oriental origin) appears in Italy towards the end of the 8 century and, judging by those monuments that have been preserved, this termi- nation begins to gain ground slowly in the succeeding centuries. In Rome, in S. Maria in Cosmedin, the triple apse dates back to the years 772—795, and to about the same time in S. Ambrogio in Milan. In S. Maria in Domnica (Rome) it was built in 820, in Agliate (Monza) the date is 881 and that of S. Vincenzo in Prato (Milan) is also of the 9th century. The apses are semicircular inside and outside ever since the custom in Ravenna to build them semicircular in the inside and polygonal on the outside fell into disuse. This is not the place to pile up statistics about monu- ments, which could only be very incomplete, and even if complete in connection with those monuments that are extant, would not be so for those buildings which no longer exist or are hidden behind later erections. We only mention a building in order to use it as an example ! 40 = = +t q . E peep pt tt Milan. S. Ambrogio (after Dartein) XII to prove our general statements. It is useful to observe here that the happy motif of the long attenuated strips of buttresses merging into a series of arched corbels under the eaves appears in the 8th and 9th centuries and is frequently met with in Romanesque art. These buttress- strips, more popular in the ancient Christian architecture of Ravenna than anywhere else, and which always had a rectangular profile, reach either to the roof, as in S. Vi- tale, or they are connected by an arch which sometimes encloses windows (Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, S. Gio- vanni Evangelista, S. Apollinare in Classe, S. Apollinare Nuovo where the lower windows have already in the sixth century a brickwork frame of triple gradines). The Ravenna examples of a series of arched corbels, which are said to date from the 5t and 6t centuries, owe their presence to a superimposed story or structural changes of ancient buildings, with perhaps the single exception of the baptistery of the Cathedral, where they occur in pairs. Later on the buttress-strips develop either into clustered shafts or half-column piers, and these again were decorated with shaft-rings or spiral fluting (Trani Cathedral). The architectural principle of the earlier cen- turies of enlivening the external plainness of the apses also dates back to the 8th century, a period when the crowning arched galleries of the apses were likewise in- troduced (S. Ambrogio, S. Vincenzo al Prato, the Church of Agliate, etc., etc). Owing to French influence these galleries develop into the rich and finely proportioned de- corative galleries which could be introduced into any part of the structure. Although their effect is comparable with that of the continuous row of windows constructed in the same period in S. Demetrius in Salonica and in the Votive Church of Galla Placidia in Ravenna, they are quite different. The windows only serve to light the interior, being openings close under the eaves of the apses, but the decorative and florid element of the galleries rapidly developed to extreme beauty. The thin buttress-strips also break the monotony of the side-wall spaces of the basilicas according to the old example set by Ravenna. As long as they do not sup- port the thrust of the vaults they do not project much, and are only on the outer walls. But to return to the chief question: we must approach the problem of the choir and transept origins. S. Vitale in Ravenna is the only basilica with a choir of the Byzantine period (6th century). The same idea that had formerly led to the lengthening of the east niche of the Baptistery of the Arians may have re-occurred to later architects. If we dispense with this single example, which is somewhat remote from the period when choirs became general, we certainly find this sort of choir in S. Ambrogio in Milan. This type of choir is something new when com- pared with the early Christian basilica and much more remarkable than the transept which developed with the cross form of church plan and was already most magni- ficently developed in the vast Constantine basilicas of Rome (S. Peter and S. Giovanni in Laterano, and others such as S. Paolo, S. Prassede, S. Pietro in Vincoli, etc.). The round windows (rose-windows) are a later innova- tion which attained to wonderful perfection and orna- mental beauty when the Romanesque style was at its height. They look like embroidery or lace worked in marble, delicate, fabulously rich, or akin to goldsmiths’ Bxsrlique. ° 5 40 xi RR St = < fe pol Milan. Atrium of S. Ambrogio (after Dartein) work in which the marble is treated like precious metals. Rome, which possesses in SS. Giovanni e Paolo its sole apse galleries, has not a single rose-window of this period. Among the churches of Latium there is also only one example (Toscanella). But wonderful creations are found in other parts of Italy; for instance in Lombardy, Venetia, Emilia, Tuscany, the Marches, and above all in Apulia. The rose-window is a unique Romanesque or mediaeval “invention” which was neither known to Roman nor By- zantine architecture. It was greatly admired, and in the Gothic period reached incomparable magnificence. Then, with the revival of the antique, it slowly disappeared. Leon Battista Alberti reproached Matteo Pasti in 1454 XIll Ravenna. Calchi-Palace (Ricci) for wanting to construct a rose-window in the Tempio Malatestiano. He called it an old-fashioned illogical fea- ture. To construct it, it was necessary to demolish the wall on the right and left, and the lower half of the curve was useless. He added that the ancient Romans introduced horizontal circular openings into the top of the domes looking out onto the sky. But they never dreamt of wea- kening vertical walls by openings that were dangerous from the point of view of statics. The advice was followed. No rose-window was intro- duced into the facade of the Tempio Malatestiano! The oldest known rose-window seems to be that of S. Zeno in Verona. It dates from about the last twenty years of the 12» century, and, is about thirty years older than that of Cluny. One is naturally inclined to make special mention of the monumental rose-windows. But as soon as we wish to discover their rudimentary form it is neces- sary to go back to the 9th century. The two windows in Pomposa with decorated frames and pierced patterns, and having their counterparts in Venice, belong to the 11 century. Then other rose-windows of the following century look down on us from the fagades of S. Pietro in Ciel d’Oro, and S. Michele in Pavia. The ornamental galleries developed as facade and side- wall decorations of Romanesque churches as magnificently as did the rose-windows. We have remarked above that they encircled the apses, and were then extended to va- rious stages along the sides, were carried to the gable of the facade, and finally encircled the domes like rows of angels holding each others hands and looking like graceful and delicate lattice work. It was Tuscany that revelled most in marbles, and employed two or multicoloured stones. Sometimes the restrained line of the architecture connected the columns, or everything was enlivened by dwarf or sickle-shaped arches, a peculiar Italian motif (which may be explained as arches, formed out of two non-concentric curves diminish- ing towards the points of intersection). The first modest suggestion of such decorative design will be found on the side-walls of the Ravenna basilica as was mentioned when dealing with the buttress-strips. But the main ob- ject of these, apart from the decorative, is the desire to strengthen the walls at intervals, and thus break the monotony of the long bare surfaces. There is also an 8» century building in Ravenna on which, beside other valuable Romanesque features, there is a real ornamental dwarf gallery. We must now discuss this structure (called ‘“Calchi” like its counterpart in Constantinople), as well as the city, which, it is true, is only studied for its 5th and 6th century monuments, but is nevertheless important for its Romanes- que buildings. The edifice in question is one that cannot lose its profane or military character in spite of an ad- Ravenna. Calchi-Palace, Stair-tower (Ricci) XIV SS iii i 04 qs GS LAMM ll VM VM Y VY SSG gy yi qm JT I] MMM : Y YU N N San Claudio al Chienti (after Rossi) jacent church. Moreover this is betrayed by its structural type and the records of history. A single transverse hall, the narrow loggia, the two circular staircase to- wers flanking the high portal at the east end and leading to an upper hall and the small door quite near the portal are all integral parts of a guard-house or “praesi- dium”. In the first half of the 8th century with the ex- tension of Langobard power, the exarchs did not feel their position to be secure. This was also due to dissatis- faction among the down-trodden citizens, they had there- fore surrounded their palace with a wall. The building now visible was the main entrance into the walled enclo- sure, and at the same time the “statio militaris” or ‘‘ex- cubitorium”. The little porch below was reserved for the guard or sentry. The big hall behind was the guard- room, and the large hall over it, reached by a winding staircase in the towers, was a dormitory. From the niche in the front announcements and laws were proclaimed to the accompaniment of trumpets. Behind this building was a large court enclosed on all sides by colonnades. The church of S. Salvatore was behind. It is impossible that the round and square co- lumns were an integral part of the church of which the walls and semicircle of the apse were found in 1907. The two rows of round and square columns along the sides do not fully coincide with the lines of the walls and the apse. For the rest, it is pure imagination to think of a sallyport at the side next to a church entrance, to say nothing of the staircase towers which must have led to the women’s gallery in the oratory of an excubi- torium, besides which the door posts still exist between which one passed from the stairs to the dormitory. The Portotorres. S. Gavino (after Scano) XV Almenno (Bergamo). S. Tommaso in Limine (after Dartein) date when this building was erected is practically certain. It was called ‘Chalki’ (from: the Greek word for bronze because thé“doors had to be made of this material), and, together with a church dedicated to the Saviour, it shows that its origin dates in the period of the Exarchate. Indeed, the building was erected in the same shape and for the same purpose as that near the palace of the Em- peror in Constantinople, on whom the Exarchate was dependent. And this too was called Chalki and was also connected with the church of the Saviour. This edifice has already been mentioned as old and carefully described by Agnello in the first third of the 9th century. And when we see that in 751 the Langobard king Aistulf resided in this palace, which means that the Chalki was built in the last years of the Exarchate, we must pre- sume that it was erected before the middle of the 8th century. Beyond the purely decorative rows of arches in the front, we find the waggon vault is supported by compound piers and polygonal columns, some of which have triangular bases. There are also two-light openings with discharging arches or “sopracigliari’’, which are also seen in the various campaniles in Ravenna, a type which was found in many parts of Italy. For the rest this city had remained a centre of culture and public activity, and still exercised conspicuous influence after the year 1000. Indeed, the ornamental terracottas of Pomposa did not originate in Venice. They are not made of Lagoon clay mixed with sand, but of the firm clay of the Ravenna alluvium. Guido of Ravenna, the Abbot of Pomposa who built the campanile and atrium for his church with their magnificent terracottas, and who was at the head of the monastery for more than a third of a century, cer- tainly fetched the artisans from his native town. Such terracotta ornaments decorate Ravenna churches: S. Pietro in Vincoli and S. Alberto near that city. The clay is not pressed but modelled and then baked. Sometimes the ornaments were carved in the baked clay in the same manner as stone and marble are treated. We have still more important proofs of Ravenna’s influence beyond the fact that the ancient city with her wealth of monu- ments continually sent forth new artists, and apart from the fact that the Ravenna towers were copied along the shores of the Lagoons. Theobald, Bishop of Arezzo, gave a present of money in 1026 to the “Maginardo arte archi- tettonica optime erudito” to enable him to travel to Ravenna and study the monuments there. He travelled “et exemplar sancti Vitalis inde adduxit atque solers fundamina in aula beati Donati instar ecclesiae sancti Vitalis primus iniecit’’*). In the same manner the architects of S. Claudio on the Chienti were influenced by the Ravenna structures. S. Claudio was not built in the 6» century, as one might suppose, but about 1000, as shown by the circular towers, 4 % f \ ' par {= sit < N S) | : | “ rR MOURL SFG 1a ae iet 10 Soe Se Peo one Gravedona. S. Maria del Tiglio (after Dartein) *) He brought from there the plan of S. Vitale and was the first to skil- fully lay the foundation on the site of S.Donati according to the pattern of S. Vitale. XVI Mul te 8 1 5 Se DRS Se Civate. S. Pietro (after Dartein) the apses, the external walls of which are also circular and ornamented with thin buttress-strips and arched cor- bels under the eaves. Although these various motifs were developed in the 11t century, they originated in the second half of the 8t century and in the 9th, Moreover, we should not forget that the half-column in front of the pilaster is already met with in the Church of SS. Fe- lice e Fortunato near Vicenza (built in 985), as well as the square column with four half-columns arranged in the pattern of a clover leaf in S. Miniato al Monte on the heights above Florence (built in the year 1013). At- tempts have been made to antedate the period of the alternating of round with square columns that break the monotony of the rows of cylindrical columns in the ancient Christian basilica. But, in the fully developed Romanesque style, the magnificent frequent and regular alternation of square with cylindrical columns, supporting a double arcade has the important task of carrying the vault more firmly. This system of alternation only deve- loped later. Cylindrical columns placed between a given number of square ones are not subjected to a particular principle, as for instance in S. Maria in Cosmedin (772 to 795), SS. Quattro Coronati (circa 850) and S. Prassede (882), all of which are in Rome. These columns are no- thing more or less than adaptations or transitionary links between old and restored parts, or reinforcements surrounding some of the columns, or, if one prefers, points of attraction considered favourable to the per- spective of the colonnade. Two architectural types have been retained without a break from the classical period to our own days, and developed new forms and effects in the Romanesque period: at first the square or oblong courts surrounded by colonnades (also called peristyle, columned court or cloisters, according to the purpose or position to the main edifice); then the building with a central ground-plan which developed in connection with the earliest aesthetic requirements. Sometimes they are as rude as the circular huts of primitive peoples, sometimes as imposing as the Pantheon, often magnificent, complex and richly orna- mented like S. Vitale in Ravenna. Many are small and graceful like S. Satiro in Milan, S. Tommaso in Limine near Almenno and S. Maria del Tiglio in Gravedona, or modest like the Baptistery of Biella, bulky like the Ro- tonda of Brescia, or delicate like S. Maria della Croce in Crema, and finally, dignified and magnificent like S. Lorenzo in Milan, unrivalled in harmonious proportions such as those of the Consolazione in Todi, classically perfect like the Rotonda of S. Pietro in Montorio, or gorgeous like the Salute in Venice. The central structure was, and will ever be, a wonderful form for picturesque Montefiascone. S. Flaviano (after Sartorio) XVII Ricci, Romanesque II (3/4) and decorative effects, and it is always to be regretted that the nave added by Maderno has disfigured the most magnificent church of the central structure type: St. Peter’s in Rome as planned by Bramante and built by Michael Angelo. This type of building was permanently adhered to in the Middle Ages, particularly in the bap- tisteries, which, although separated from the cathedrals, were near them, and numerous in Upper Italy. There are also some examples in Latium and in the Marches. They are likewise often met with in Tuscany and Emilia. Some had been destroyed or abandoned when the fonts were removed for conveni- ence sake into the inte- rior of the cathedrals. But we may say that they were continually used from the 5th to the 14th century, al- though less so from the 8th century. The oldest bapti- steries are the halls of the Thermae or Nym- phae. At first the faith- ful only underwent the ceremony of washing, therefore baptism was performed onthe banks of the river and in the Thermae. The Bapti- stery in Ravenna, orna- mented by Archbishop Neon with mosaic paintings and stucco work (449—452), was certainly a 3'¢ century “Jaconicum’”. The Lateran Bap- tistery, the first of the great works of Sixtus III. (432—440), was a “Calidarium”. Thus the public or private bath became the Christian “baptismal bath’. The shape of the building was suitable for this purpose. There was a basin in the middle, some niches, one for the altar, the others for dressing cubicles (behind curtains). No windows were permitted in the lower stage in order to exclude the gaze Of the curious. We must not forget here the churches with opposite apses such as S. Pietro in Civate, S. Gavino in Portotorres, and as we firmly believe S. Flaviano in Montefiascone. ; By what has been said we may conclude that the low- est phase of Italian art practically synchronizes with the Lombardic occupation which lasted from 568 — 774. To- wards the end of their rule the Roman tradition seems to revive. At any rate the Lombards exhaust their strength in endeavouring to subjugate Rome, and at this period Steven II. called on the Franks (who belong to the Latin race) to assist him. We know that in the last part of the 8th century, and above all in the 9, Ravenna. S. Apollinare in Classe. Coffin (8 th century) architecture was imbued with a new spirit, so that it created novel and characteristic forms. This spirit is ac- tive till towards the year 1000 (though not conspicuously so) when numerous important events carried humanity, and with it art, to new heights. It is astonishing to see what had become of art, especially sculptured figures, during the Langobard period: all animals are monstrous, even if they are supposed to be copied from nature. And the human figures are still more monstrous: the figures on the font of the Episcopal Palace in Pesaro, those of the lunette of S. Colombano in Vaprio, those of the parapet panel with Adam and Eve in the Brescia Museum and of the parapet pa- nels with the Ascension in Cividale, of the font of Gemona by Daniele of Bovino, and finally of the parapet panels by Ursus of Ferentillo exceed all power of imagination. It is incre- dible that art rose again by degrees from these hideous forms to the marvels of the Medici tombs. In fact it is almost startling that it should degenerate so far from the perfection of the Charioteer of Delphi and the Venus of Cyrene. Nevertheless we must recognize a certain artistic quality in the ornament with its wealth of details and the diversity of the leafage and osier patterns, also in many a monster of Etruscan origin (Mausoleum of Theodat in Pavia, 720) and in many a Roman face naively inserted between degenerated Byzantine elements. Naturally technique has sunk to its lowest levels. There is no longer any attempt at plastic figures or high-relief. The marble was merely sawn into slabs upon which ornament or figure was outlined and the surrounding background partly cut away. The features and drapery folds, or the wings, fur and scales of the animals, the ribs and the fasciae of the ornament are simply scratched into the surface. But the technique is very poor. The sculptor was only able to use chisel and mallet correctly from right to left. On a sarcophagus in S.Apollinare in Classe the wool of two sheep facing each other lies in the same direction, which for one of them is of course quite unnatural. The tendency is to attribute these works to Greek artists. But if one sees how great an area they cover, from the Alps to Cape Passero, one would at least presume that many native sculptors were not particularly loath to imitate the XVII Rivolta d’Adda. Church (after Rivoira) Greeks. But we read on a canopy in S. Giorgio in Val- policella (712), and on a parapet panel in Ferentillo (739) the inscription of one or two sculptors of the name of Ursus, which is certainly not a Greek name. The reasons are numerous why from the end of the year 1000 the human mind was obsessed with exaggerated ideas. To say that there is only one reason would be a much too limited explanation, namely that the Christians ceased to fear that the end of the world was coming. The feeling of security after this dread was dispelled (it has been much overrated by historians), and the circum- stance that people again turned to life and looked for- ward with confidence to the future might have induced them to work with more hope and zeal. But we must remember that it is at least exaggerated to say humanity had renounced all forms of activity in the 10” century. Even in those days noteworthy edifices were erected: churches, baptisteries, campaniles. Nor did the work of the Benedictines cease. They were very productive through- out the Middle Ages. In the renascence of a people physical and moral forces of all kinds are at work. And, if I may venture to say so, hidden powers too. Human society is like the indi- vidual. After a period of sustained activity it tires, only develops slowly, and finally becomes dormant. Then it awakens to renewed strength. What are hours for the individual become centuries for a nation. It is not our intention to describe the history of the 11‘ century, for it may be read in any manual. All we wish to draw attention to here is that the Italian communes developed towards the middle of the century. They were peculiar products of freedom and activity, often inclined to be violent and bellicose. And we may add that the Crusades begin at the end of this century, awaken the spirit of adventure, increase the number of trade routes, and establish the power of the great coastal towns. Furthermore, the University of Bologna is founded. Guilds, trading companies and em- poria spring up. The people are finally able to take their stand on Roman law in their struggles against the demands of feudal law. Rome had always set the ex- ample that a Roman city subjugated and humiliated by the barbarians always casts off the yoke, assembles the inhabitants of the country, inspires them to resume their handicrafts and participate in the new freedom. The fathers of the city leave the churches and move into special buildings of their own. And thus town-halls are erected to which lofty towers are added. 20 25M 4 5 fo 5 $$ tt tp + et Pavia. S. Giovanni in Borgo (after Dartein) XIX “= =) 20 a i ce 5 \ 25M P80 —$. $$ $$ ft —t = + Pavia. S. Pietro in Ciel d’oro (after Dartein) All the houses, including the mansions, were made of wood in those days. The great fires reported by the Chronicles prove this. The towers are another proof. They were erected by the wealthy near their dwellings in order to provide a place of retreat in case of fire. From them they could descend to the street. The few houses left over from the Middle Ages show to what a great extent wood was employed. Galleries, ceilings, framework, attics and staircases were all of wood. And there are various laws which go to prove this. Lodovico Antonio Muratori draws attention to the fact that the numerous fires in the Italian cities during the 11 and 12th centuries are a sign that the number of houses covered with shingles must have been very great. They, as well as the thatches, often caused fire to spread quickly. Then the number of conflagrations increased towards the year 1000 owing to the changed political situation of the cities. The rule of the Imperial governors had kept them peaceful. But suddenly, after a civil revolt, the citizens of Pisa and Lucca took up arms against each other in the year 1004, and received the royal privilege to carry on war independently. From this date on, in ad- dition to the wars between the cities, internal troubles were added. In addition to this there was the gigantic struggle between the Papacy and the Imperial power. And the decline of the latter resulted in the internecine wars of the communes. Even if the tocsin of the Cinzica, which awoke Pisa and saved her from being sacked by the Saracens, is a legend, it is quite certain that alone in the first twenty years of the 12t» century the Pavians destroyed Tortona, Henry V. Novara; and the Milanese destroyed Lodi and Como. There were also dreadful acci- dental conflagrations in which whole quarters of the cities perished. The great fire of Milan in 1070, known as that of Castiglione has been famous throughout the centuries. This was followed five years later by one equally terrible. In 1106 fire twice destroyed different quarters of Venice; seven years later Cremona was deva- stated by fire, and in 1147 two thirds of Bologna suffered the same fate. It would take us too far to quote all reports of conflagrations. It suffices for our purposes to know that in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries the Italian Pavia. S. Michele (after Dartein) XX Milan. S. Ambrogio (after Dartein) cities were gradually rebuilt. Some of them arose out of their own ashes, many may have been rebuilt as a result of the misfortunes of the others. And henceforth more substantial and fire proof material was employed. At the same time constructional methods were improved. Houses were built of brick and stone, and numbers of towers arose. The chur- also note that the art of vaulting was never quite lost. Indeed, it improved in the 8» and 9th centuries. The “Comacini’, who chiefly flourished in the valleys of the North Italian Lakes, were either handicraftsmen (on whom the bricklayers and stonemasons — “collegae”’ or “consortes” — were dependent), or they were the celeb- rated companies of ches were vaulted. This necessitated improving or renovating old and weak parts for statical and constructional rea- sons. Hence it is a mis- take to maintain that architects and stone- masons. They boldly solved the main part of the constructional pro- blems, and even work- ed beyond the Alps. But the fertile imagi- the vaults of the Roman world, magnificent in their manifoldness and magnitude, had been practically completely forgotten in the 7th century, and were only re-introduced in about the year 1000. The cupolas on the baptisteries had been retained. Then it became the fashion to construct apses with a double curve, and we find crossvaulting over square spaces in the 8th and 9th centuries in the ‘“Langobard Tempietto” at Cividale del Friuli, in the Chapel of S. Zeno (in S. Prassede in Rome) which is attributed to Paschal I. (817—824), further in the Chapel of S. Barbara (in SS. Quattro Coronati, also in Rome) which is ascribed to Leo IV. (847—853) and, as an exam- ple of the 8 century, the magnificent waggon-vault over the large hall of the Chalki Palace in Ravenna. It is only possible to give a few examples, but these suffice to prove that one does not meet with any edi- fices with a complete vault system developed from a consonant agreement of form, artistic feeling and techni- que before the beginning of the year 1000. We should Milan. S. Ambrogio (after Dartein) nation of unknown architects created beautiful works and bold designs in various parts of the country, espe- cially in Rome and Ravenna: the two cities with the most splendid examples. When we see the great early Christian basilicas, it seems incredible that such masses of marble, the wooden beamed ceilings and roofs of which were very high above the ground, could have burnt at all. And yet history tells us of so many great fires, commencing with that of the Temple of Diana in Ephesus (336 B.C.) down to the fire that destroyed the Aemilia Basilica in Rome (410 A. D.), and those of S. Sophia in Constantinople (404 and 532). There were another hundred fires till S. Paolo near Rome was burnt in 1823. In the 6t» century one decided to replace the timbered ceilings by vaults; the only safeguard against the great fires of the 11 and 12th centuries. At first it appears that the vaults were only carried over the nar- rower and lower aisles. This may have been due to the lesser constructional difficulties. Or the explanation XXI ” MD pp re PISS ght Phot. R. Gab. Parma. Cathedral Details of the side facade. (11 th-12th cent.) may be that it was considered preferable to remove the timber where it was near the ground because in this position it was more exposed to the danger of fire. Then came the great nave vaults, first with simple piers, then with finely profiled groin-ribs. The construction of domes over the crossing of the nave and transept (combination of basilica and central structure) synchronizes with the construction of the vaults. The square plan of the crossing became polygonal (mostly octagonal) by the insertion of corner niches. We have not mentioned that in the plan of the Romanesque church there was as a rule one bay of the nave to two of the aisles. This is doubtlessly the average scheme (also transferred to the Gothic style), but not the only one. It was certainly necessary to strengthen the walls owing to the great thrust of the vaults, as also to group the windows and to reduce them to proper scale, as well as to construct pilasters and abutments. There arises a whole system of piers and abut- ments branching off into groin-ribs, as well as a very picturesque combination of rich capitals. These again are cubiform, or constructed on the principle of the cube with sloping sides, sometimes they are in a straight line or convex. Another constructional form, which often developed highly decorative features, is the compound column with projections from which heavy curtains could be suspended. The most magnificent Romanesque churches in Italy were begun and completed from the 11* to the end of the 13th century. The greatest sculptors of the period assisted in embellishing them. The first of these were Wiligelmus and his companion Nicholas who worked in Modena, Ferrara and Verona, further the great Bene- detto Antélami whose works we find in Parma, Borgo, San Donnino and other places. But how are we to give a selection of the churches and the artists of a whole epoch, or of the town-halls from the rise of the communes? Here we have an extra- ordinary collection of monuments which give us pause when we think of the injustice of those who will not allow construction and decoration to be mentioned in the same breath with the ideal beauties of antique art, and prattle of the Middle Ages as a miserable, dark and down-trodden art epoch. We no longer mock at the mosaics of Ravenna with Taine, we have rather learnt anew to appreciate their value. * * oo We have seen that the process of renewal which led to so many Romanesque art phenomena goes back to the 9th and even to the end of the 8t century. Ancient Rome may be considered as an essential model of all these works of art. Indeed, common sense points to this. The antique buildings scattered over Italy were very XXIl Modena. Cathedral (after Dartein) numerous and varied. It was impossible not to reco- gnize their model. This does not mean that other, oriental or occidental, influences were exluded. This is manifested in the 12th and 13¢® centuries. But the constructional plan is Roman. In fact the spirit of Rome was so obstinate that it always asserted itself in spite of foreign influence. We also recognize a relapse into the Roman style in the Castel del Monte and in the Castel in Prato, both dating back to Frederick II., also in the Apulian sculptures of Nicola Pisano, and in single forms of the Cosmati. On Phot. Gab. delle Gallerie Firenze Scarperia (Florence). Fragments of the pulpit of S. Agata al Cornocchio (12th cent.), now used as parapet-panels. XXIll the other hand the Lombards, who lived near the Alps, were influenced by Germany. And they again influence south-eastern France and Burgundy by their vault con- structions. In other parts of Italy Romanesque art is influenced by the French. But we should cease to main- tain “that the Norman style spread in Italy by virtue of Norman rule in Sicily and Apulia”. In this way one is prone to confound the Romanesque art of Normandy with the Arabo-Byzantine of which we have spoken. It is very difficult to write the history of transference and exchange of art forms from one country to another. Both may only be the contemporaneous appearance of one and the same form, and we ascribe to one particular place an activity which compared with that of another centre might only deserve the name of passivity. The influence in the field of decoration is greater because of the ease with which things like fabrics, embroidery, wood-carving, goldsmiths’ work and ivories may be trans- ported from one place to another. But there is also such a thing as direct and indirect influence: such for instance as that exercised by the monastic system, particularly that of Burgundian Cistercians and the Benedictines of Cluny. Thus all these reciprocal influences reveal themselves more or less clearly. But the Roman remains the nucleus of Romanesque art. There is also an archaelogical school which ascribes the introduction of the vault in occidental churches to Byzantine or Syrian influence. However, we consider this denial of direct Roman influence as very extraordinary in view of the fact that owing to this influence all parts of Italy and many parts of Europe show the most various and powerful examples of vaults, cupolas and domes: domes as gigantic as those of the Thermae halls, as that of the Pantheon and of other buildings with a central plan. Some of the domes, as that of the Mausoleum on the Via Traenestina, ascribed to Gordian, that of the Ambulatory of the Circus Maxentius, and of the Mausoleum of S. Helen on the Via Labicana which is called Tor Pignattara just be- cause the vessels were made of pieces of terracotta. There were waggon and cross vaults with intersecting ribs, such as are found in the ruins of the aqueducts of Aqua Vergine, the Thermae of Diocletian, the Villa Sette Bassi on the Via Latina, and the so-called Arch of Janus. And did not domes crown the gigantic Basilica of Constantine ? Together with numerous ground-plans and forms of ceilings, Romanesque architecture adopted from Rome arches of all dimensions, the shape of the walls, embattled gates, bridges, and what is more important, the motif of the various colonnades surmounted by architraves, as for instance in the Baptistery of Parma and the Parish Church of Arezzo. And the whole of the Middle Ages, as well as the Renaissance have admired these on the Triumphal Arch of Septimus Severus (built 203 and destroyed towards the end of the 6th century). For the rest, the Porta Appia in Rome, the Arch of Augustus in Fano, and innumerable other Roman edifices had graceful colonnades. Thus the Romanesque artists copied many decoration motifs, if they did not make actual use of antique fragments. The Byzantines ornamented the interior of their edifices very richly and the exteriors very simply. The Christian saying that “beauty is not on my countenance but within me” seems to have given expression to this leading characteristic. The Romanesque artists gradually ornamented the exterior according to Roman patterns, and later on we find relief ornament divided into stages. Were there is neither marble nor stone, nor sculpture, artisans decorate the walls by laying the bricks in geometrical and multicoloured patterns; more often with rich patterns of inlaid marble in a fashion known as “opus sectile’”’. But this too is Romano- Byzantine, and probably never ceased in the intervening centuries. In this connection it is necessary to remark that the “opus sectile’, after having fallen somewhat into disuse, was revived after the 9th century, particularly in Rome, as the pavement mosaics of S. Cecilia, S. Marco, S. Prassede and the S.Zeno Chapels prove. The transennais also a Roman inheritance. Those with little arches and cross patterns are always Roman. Later on the lattice pattern is met with. We have already mentioned the cubic capitals and the bracked capitals. To this we must add that on nearly all the other capitals a more or less extensive remodelling of the classical Corin- thian or composite ca- pitals is recognizable. In S. Saba in Rome the 8th century makes use of the Ionic example. Etruria and Rome set the example of the em- ployment of stucco throughout the Middle Ages. It is an esta- blished fact that the stucco reliefs in Civate are derived from Etrus- can patterns. It is not Phot. R. Gab. Cori. Candelabrum in S. Maria XXIV necessary for us to examine how many and which Roman elements, either recognized as such or not, have passed into Gothic art. The Gothic appears to be that style which is most removed from the classic. In fact it con- tradicts it. Certainly, Romanesque art helped to pave the way for the Gothic. And it actually appears that since the middle of the 12 century the style which was at its zenith had to make room for the one that was just developing. The pointed arch gradually gained ground till it triumphed. The tendency towards the verti- cal continually increases. The vaulting compartments develop from square to oblong with closer placing of the piers. The apse again becomes polygonal. The crypts disappear, whereas the choir ambulatories and_but- tresses multiply. Finials occur abundantly, single forms are multiplied, and a whole world of animals and plants are copied from nature and replace fantastical ornament with interwoven monsters. The tendency to-day is to attribute the totality of the Romanesque innovations to a uniform training of the artists, and to their common desire to obtain parti- cular light effects. This induces critics, at least that is our opinion, to ascribe aesthetic intentions to the old masters of architecture which they neither had nor could have had. They were possessed of a much simpler and more natural spirit than one is inclined to presume. At the best they were imbued with a desire for colour which was a condition of their love of rich decorations and ornament. This is particularly revealed on the exterior of the edifices. For in those days the life of the cities was warm-blooded and had become superficial. The citizens no longer regarded religion as something to be exercised in solitude and as offering a retreat for the soul. But that the architects of that period should have carefully planned to subject everything to light effects is an anachronistic conception and tantamount to con- founding effect with cause. * * A history of Italian Romanesque art dealing with all its varieties and so-called natural affinities, as well as with the mutal interchange of influences and ideas with France, Germany and the Orient would be too long. So too would a history of the various characteristics and peculiarities in the single provinces of mediaeval Italy which cling like mistletoe to the great Roman tree. In France and Germany Romanesque art was more unified and occupied with static problems. In Italy such unity will not be found, not only because of the different temperament of the various peoples, but also on account of the civic and political conditions. The differences of government, habits, traditions and taste and the neces- sities of different climatic conditions are all causes which have on influence on art. Already in the advanced Middle Ages Lombardy demon- strated its spirit, organization and powers of expansion. Mention of the building guilds, the so-called ““(Comacini“ was made in the Langobard laws of the 7 century. The “Comacini“ were companies who travelled through all parts of Italy and abroad, and who gradually evolved by observation and practice a well- regulated system of construc- tion. The Lombard architects show from the very start that pro- nounced tendency towards sculp- tural ornament which later on, during the Renaissance, culmi- nated in Bergamo and in Certosa di Pavia. The church of S. Michele in Pavia is another proof. They prefer a single gable crowned by arched galleries to the Toscan facade with four roof-inclines, from which later on the great development of the ornamental loggias sprang. Their technical skill induces them to cheerfully risk difficulties, such as the erec- tion of bold and magnificent to- wers, domes, cupolas and vaults. There is one church that seems to assemble the results of the four centuries of experiments: the magnificent edifice of S.Am- brogio in Milano, and to such a degree that, although the struc- ture is not always prototypal, it is yet the greatest and most com- plicated example of Lombardic constructive ability during the Romanesque period. To the Lombards are also due the pure Romanesque edifices in Piedmont, and above all in Venetia, as for instance S. Zeno in Verona and the Trentino Cathedral built by Adam of Arogno. But Venice on_ her Lagoon still wraps herself in Byzantine splendours owing to the large amount of her building material accumulated in the 5th and 64 centuries, and owing to her connection with the East, and the neighbouring examples of Ravenna, Grado, Aquileja and Parenzo. On the other hand the Province of Emilia pays tribute to Lombardy with her superb cathedrals of Piacenza, Borgo S. Donnino, Parma, Modena, Ferrara (those of Reggio and Bologna are very beautiful, but transformed). The sculptors were passiona- Phot. Moscioni Capua. Candelabrum in the Cathedral (first half of 13th cent.) XXV tely fond of ornamenting them. Amongst these Antélami was the greatest. Ravenna stands lonely and silently aside meditating new forms. She supplies models and masters for distant parts of the surrounding country till she renounces all activity and seems to vanish and lose herself in the solitude of her coasts. Tuscany, with its pure and precise spirit, full of taste and decorum, prefers architectural to sculptural decoration. It satisfies its sense of beauty by the infinite successions and stories of arched loggias by bi-coloured marbles, also favoured by the Ligurians who oscillated between the Lombards and Tuscans. And if Tuscany turns to sculptural art, she does so to subordinate it to architecture, as in the cathedrals of Modena, Borgo S. Donnino, S. Zeno in Verona and the Baptistery in Parma. Nor is the narrative form of relief favoured any more than detached statues. Tuscany may be divided into three great centres of architectural activity. Florence has already lost herself in a dream of graceful classicism. Rich in the elegance and harmony that led to the miracles of a Brunellesco Florence seems to be a bridge between ancient Rome and the Renaissance with her Baptistery, S. Miniato al Monte, San Salvatore and the Badia of Fiesole. Lucca, on the other hand, endeavours to combine Pisan vivacity with Lombardic richness, and appears less characteristic. She develops within her own walls and exercises no influence beyond them. Pisa, with her innumerable arcaded galleries, her multicoloured fasciae and rhomb patterns, finds imitators throughout Italy. The monuments of Sardinia are Pisan; as well as many churches in other districts; in the neighbouring Lucchesia, in Pistoja, Vol- terra and S. Gimignano, and further south in Massa Marittima, nay, as far as Sannio (Benevento), Apulia (Troia and Siponto) and Dalmatia (Zara). It is quite natural that Pisa, with her incomparable groups of architectural monuments (Cathedral, Campanile and Baptistery), was bound to appeal deeply to the imagination. In the Marches there is a breath of Lombardic influence. However, it is translated into those simpler forms which this province always favoured. But the Umbrian Romanes- que monuments (Assisi, Foligno, Spoleto, Narni) are consi- dered to be the works of native sculptors who had not emancipated themselves from the powerful Lombardic influence. Their works are to be met with in Upper Latium in Viterbo, Tarquinia, Montefiascone and in Toscanella, where there are two of the most interesting Romanesque churches in Italy. The Lombardic style only reached Rome like an echo which reverberated in the apse of SS. Giovanni e Paolo. The use of ancient fragments of marble in mediaeval restoration work is particularly frequent in Rome. The so-called House of Cola di Rienzo (11t» century), and the Chapel of S. Barbara in SS. Quattro Coronati may serve as examples. Rome also restores the ancient pagan and Christian edifices, adapts them to new purposes, enlarges or reduces them. The new work done by the sculptors is incredibly poor, and the period of Robert Guiscardo’s depredations (1084) seems to synchronize with the depth of decadence. But suddenly, with the “Marmorari”’, there is a great outbreak of sculptural magnificence. The Vassaletto, Ranucci, Cosmati: all great artificers in marble, bend and form it into spirals as though it were plastic material; they decorate it with mosaics, and are able to emulate the Byzantine sump- tuousness of Rome and Ravenna, and the Arabic splen- dours of Sicily. In this manner they enrich the ancient marble works of art. They erect porticos in front of the churches, amongst which that of Civita Castellana (1210) is the most magnificent with its great arch that seems to anticipate the boldness of the Renaissance. They build cloisters of unique splendour (S. Giovanni in Laterano, S. Paolo near Rome), the columns and capitals of which appear to vie with the beauty and grace of the flowers on the lawns they enclose. In the churches they stretch splendid and highly coloured marble carpets in which porphyry and serpentine set the dominant note of varied colours. They ornament innumerable churches with an ever-growing wealth of rich works of art by erecting screens, pulpits, candelabra for the Paschal candles, altars, canopied shrines, ambones, carved seats, episcopal thrones and tombs. The “Marmorari’”’ did not stray far from Rome, hence their sphere of activity is roughly limited to Latium, although some of their works are found further afield, as for instance in Sassovivo sopra Foligno. They carved the tombs of Edward the Confessor and Henry III. in London. Some even ascribe the pulpits of Amalfi and Gaéta to these artists. Added to all this we should remember that, even if the art of Amalfi and Salerno terminated in the 12‘» century (though these cities possessed schools of sculpture), a Campanian art developed with unique force. It followed the example of Sicily in the 13th century, and produced gorgeous creations of magnificent colouring (as for instance the pulpits of Sessa Aurunca, Salerno and Ravello) and forms which are to a certain extent in contradistinction to the masculine severity of those of Apulia. Speaking generally, however, we can recognize in southern Italian art a prodigious revival of antique in- fluence which shows itself in Ruvo and Castel del Monte, as well as in Capua and Ravello, and which is due to the active spirit of Frederick II. Nicolo di Pietro transplants the same love of the antique to Pisa, and acquires by his works there both the rights of a new home and the name of Nicola Pisano. In southern Italy we set foot in the zone in which Arabo-Byzantine art irradiates. This art has been wrongly termed Norman. It extends from Sicily to the Abruzzo mountains, to Lower Latium and to Apulia. One is in the habit of attributing the great basilicas of Bari to XXVI this school of art, but there are many who maintain, and rightly too, that, together with the surviving Byzantine motifs, there is Lombardic influence here. Indeed, we meet the work of Lombard artists in the churches of the Campania, and even in the “heel” of Italy. And it is really very difficult to classify the churches of Bari together with the Cappella Palatina of Palermo and the cathedrals of Monreale and Cefalu. Perhaps there is a Norman trait in them too, but, if so, Normano- Romanesque. In connection with church “utensils”, if we may employ such a term for candelabra, altars and am- bones, the rich work of southern Italy may be compared with that of the “marmorari romani’, but the latter show fewer oriental traits. The “opus sectile” pavements alter- nate with mosaics richly decorated with monsters, chivalresque figures, symbolical, historical and astro- nomical representations. The most beautiful are in Otranto. This fashion was favoured throughout Italy. There are examples, though fragmentary, in Ravenna, Pomposa, Reggio, Emilia, Aosta, etc. Bronze doors, metal-castings and inlaid-metal work are more frequent there than in other parts of Italy. Bonannus of Pisa completed the bronze doors for the main entrance of Monreale Cathedral in 1186. But Bari- sano da Trani, who was also a bronze-founder and likewise worked in Monreale, Ravello and his native town, hailed from southern Italy. Ruggero delle Campane da Melfi cast doors for the tomb of Bohemund in Canosa; Oderisio of Benevent for Troia Cathedral, and perhaps for his native town. On these doors we find relief work which differs from that on the inlaid doors with Byzantine features in Montecassino, S.Michele on Gargano, S. Paolo near Rome and Salerno. Pianella (Teramo). Finally, there is nothing more beautiful in the world than the cathedrals of Apulia; rich, graceful, the colour of old gold and ivory, they rise above a crowd of low white houses which resemble a gathering of choir-girls kneeling in adoration at their feet. We shall never forget the churches of Barletta, Bitonto, Altamura, Ruvo, Trani, Giovinazzo, Troia and of other cities, some of which are on the sea-shore, others on the slopes overlooked by Castel del Monte. But, in reference to the latter, this wonderful building cannot, to our thinking be Romanesque, and it should come between the Classic and the Gothic periods. Southern Italy felt the influence of the East and Europe: on the one hand Romano-Byzantine art, and on the other Saracen, Tuscan, Lombardic, French and German. In its pavements are patterns from the Levant contrasting with the figures of Arthur and Roland. Thus the Orient and Occident meet here. The impressionability and adap- tability of the hot-blooded inhabitants lead them to accept all inspirations, and yet a typical art is born here; powerful and varied in its forms of decoration. If that part of Italy situated on the Mediterranean is “louder” and more fiery, the Adriatic is subdued by a more masculine note. How pleasant it would be to dwell on the contemplation of the single monuments, and to catch the echo of foreign tongues, or to hear the dulcet language of Italy telling us her own tales. But to do this we should require volumes, and not a brief foreword in which, as in a fleeting vision, we can only obtain a rapid view of everything, and admire from afar the mar- vellous garden with one short glance, and not, as Dante has it “cull flowers from among flowers”. Phot. Moscioni Details of S. Angelo pulpit by Master Acuto (12th cent.) XXVII Phot. Alinari Milan. S. Ambrogio. Left side of the forecourt (12 cent.) and the Belfry of the Canons (1128) Ricci, Romanesque 1 inari . Al Phot 10 ing the facade of S. Ambrog adjoin Milan. The hall of the forecourt (12t» cent.) rl iInar Phot. Al Ambrogio (12*» cent.) Milan. Right wing of the forecourt of S AINYUII yO] 10 wyG PY} OF YR S90S }Y S11 9y} UO sxUOP] 94} Jo Arjjag pay[ed-os a4} Sgz{] Ul yINq sem suoueD 9y} Jo Ayjag pay[es-Os BY], “OLsorquIy ‘Ss Jo MOIA UIe;Y “URTIAY ueUly yo4g eee inari Phot. Al Ambrogio (12*» cent.) in Porch of S Milan. Ma aavu oy} Jo ArayjeS-apis pue seze-ysty oy} Jo Adoued ("3020 wWZT—mI]T) Osorquiy ‘S “uel teuty "yOUd yeury "304d | (3099 wZl—m IT) esl Ya] Wor uses o1lsoiquiy *S Jo JoIayUy ‘URL IP] teurty "304d o1soiquiy *S ur ydjnd 9q} jo Ive puke I9UI0D) “UR]II] weUlTYy *}OUg yearly oud at a i A i td ee a ee at neem canal , Phot. Alinari iis Phot. Alinari Milan. S.Ambrogio. Arch in the atrium — Pulpit erected in the 13 cent. partly out of fragments from the pulpit destroyed in 1196 by the fall of the vaulting 10 O8ZI jNoqe wo. sajep 97e}s JUVsSoId sz {po10jso1 JUI}X9 JeI1S BO} pue po}eaouas ATWUONbas J reUy 304g ‘O1S10}SN'F “SG JO AOMI}UT “ueTI/] 11 ueUrTy 304d (SEZL—RZSI) WULDAIIA Op BISSO7] 10 ouOISeY e][ap OzzeTeY “URL TA 12 * eo a ; ae cd 2 & inari Phot. Al Chiaravalle Milanese. Exterior of the church (founded 1135, dedicated 1221) 13 e Phot. Arti Grafich Phot. Arti Grafiche iano near Cantu. Gall Baptistery (beginning of 11' cent.) Agliate (Monza). Apse of the Abbey Church (end of 9th cent.) — 14 Phot. Arti Grafiche (9th— 10* cent.) t and a part of the pontile i Interior of the Abbey Church with pulp Agliate (Monza). ae i as ee 2 toni ee LODE a A SORES Phot. Brogi 15 Pavia. Facade of S. Pietro in Ciel d’Oro (12+ cent.) 16 Pavia. Main doorway of S. Pietro in Ciel d’Oro (12¢» cent.) Phot. Alinari Phot. Alinari ) ichele (12t» cent. M de porch of S. i la Pav Ricci, Romanesque 2 18 — DAES seems MID Ys, x 4 | | | a : 4 ae aaa PEE SSRI inari . Al Phot ) (12'h cent ichele M in porch of S . Ma la Pav 19 a naan ETRE OFA LCOS 2 Phot. Alinari Pavia. Fagade of S. Michele (12t cent.) 20 Almenno, San Salvatore (Bergamo). Exterior of S. Tommaso in Limine (11 cent.) ae saree pet Phot. Alinari Almenno, San Salvatore (Bergamo). Interior of S. Tommaso in Limine (11+ cent.) Phot. Alinari on 22 De een : alba ks inari Phot. Al Crema. Cathedral facade (13) cent.) 23 ROR RE APD inari Phot. Al Cremona. Baptistery (1167). 24 Como. Palazzo del Broletto (1215) Phot. Alinari 22 LTE Ned BM ral (3429 wT) 9]9pay ues jo osdy “Our07) 26 Phot. Alinari Como. Apse and towers of S. Abbondio (end of 11» cent.) 27 apyesy Way “}O4g ( 1U99 wT] —mOT) Adoues ‘orja1g“S “OPATA) aS “Col 9110 [-b]10g “OUI0") ueurTy “304d RNa a. 28 apyery my 04d (3099 mIT—m OT) ‘011g °S JO MorA-opis pur osdy “(Aru114) 9}eAID j | pe MIPYEAD NAV }O4d (3499 wIT—OT) Ont *S Jo Aqqoy souuy *9yBAI+ 30 Civate. Parapet-panels (stucco) in S. Pietro (10th—11*» cent.) — Verona. Font in S. Giovanni in Fonte (end of 12th cent.) AIS RES TEED Phot. Arti Grafiche Phot. Alinari 31 taeurly “}o4d ( PESO REGL ) [ey1od apis pue (GET) snefootny 10}djn9s ay} Aq yeysod ureyy ‘[erpoyzes weUILy 04d > % . Alinari Phot. ) Facade and belfry of the Cathedral (12th cent Modena. 62 ueurpy 304d (3499 w ZI) [EApEWPeD oy} JO MIA opis “euapoy| 63 weuTYy 304d ( "JU99 wT) [eApeye_ IY} Jo 1O119}Uy + “euapoy] 64 et tiacbecitiocss s Phot. Emilia Bologna. Casa Isolani (13t» cent.) 65 uBUry 304d (-7U99 yj []) OURJI}IG “S Ul 9}eTIG JO YNOD peq[es-0G * * Oe “eusO;Og Ricci, Romanesque 5 66 leur “304d “OSSE]-) ul greuljody Ss (918-908) P]oo1]9,4 fo Adoueo seyy “BUUDAL YY = Adouro yus90 uW6 Re jo yore 9} YIM ‘(-u90 wT) We1IYyoOso f OIPpIo7y jo quo, “eusojog weuly "yO4d Phot. R. Gab. Phot. R. Gab. 67 Ravenna. S. Francesco. Belfry (10t* cent.) and Belfry of S. Apollinare Nuovo (10t® cent.) 68 laeurpY "}OUd proee Le (}U99 ug ‘OLOpoay], Jo soe[eg pay[ed-os) soeeg typjed “BuUDAeY 69 ; i inari Phot. Al Pomposa (Ferrara). Facade and belfry of S. Maria (11*» cent.) 70 is vg seem Pomposa (Ferrara). Details of the belfry and facade of S. Maria (11*» cent.) Phot. R. Gab. Phot. R. Gab. Phot. Alinari Pomposa (Ferrara). S. Maria. Pierced side window and details of the front side of the narthex (11* cent.) 71 ie teurpy 34g (yua9 wGl) [eApayzeD 24} Jo [e}od-apis 34511 pue jeyzod ure, ‘eres if waBury 304d RE SSE TEeee es: SS i, Phot. Alinari Florence. Baptistery (11'»— 13+ cent.) ie 74 (‘qu20 y¢[) quowaaed Arays1yydeg oy} jo s[reyoq ‘s0UaA0].J — *('}U29 WZ) OZUEI0] *s Jo Wdjng *(aduat0],J) eUsIC weurly “34d uueulTy "o4g ram @e a ne)“ Ibe o okt ~ rs : >: - Any yg | jie Phot. Alinari ) Part of the interior of the Baptistery (12th cent Florence. HOILPIDP ID 1 1-e 5 0 = et -e€ Us Spee neal O 4 a Je ae a ae Phot. Alinari Florence (Vicinity). Badia of Fiesole (11 * cent.) Phot. Alinari 77 Pisa. Baptistery, Camposanto, Cathedral and Leaning Tower 78 Gio) teu! (3099 WZ) [e4peyyD 9y} Jo sanzons}s zaddn jo spreyoq ‘estg — “([ZZ1) ode] sz9}seyy 0} paqtiose oq sdeysod Aeui { as0yeayeg ‘cg Jo opedey ‘a0uaI0].4 BUY 304d DRE RAR ED AIT 7h) Lso01g *}OUg ( W929 ZT wt ) Aedes esi 80 . Alinari Phot Pisa. The Leaning Tower, begun 1174, and the Cathedral (11h— 12» cent.) Paes Ricci, Romanesque 6 81 82 Bia cel Ayal OR TTAB ee eee (}U99 wyZI) Bpedef ay} JO s[teyaq “esl sai ao ied ae % ai De ee ssf Da S@ Dnt Cagliari. Side portal of S. Cecilia (13'» cent.) ¢ o % =) ~ Phot. Alinari 83 84 Cagliari. Torre dell’ Elefante, built by Giovanni Capula (1305) Phot. Alinari Dolianova. Side of S. Pantaleo (12 cent.) Phot. Alinari 85 86 laeuryy 304d (2099 wZL—w TL) OUlARD “Ss [eApoyyD ey} Jo apis *S9110}0}10g * 87 (-3U99 wyZT JO Fey puoosas) yoinyy ‘eI eu 30Ud ae aT 88 Phot. Alinari Oristano. Knocker on the Cathedral by Piacentino (1228). — Arezzo. of S. Maria della Pieve (1216) Phot. Alinari Detail of the left side-portal Pistoia. Portal of S. Pietro (about 1265) gency meron: meragepnione Phot. R. Gab. 89 90 Lucca. Main Portal of S. Maria Forisportam (12t» cent.) Phot. Alinari Lucca. Apse of S. Maria Forisportam (12+ cent.) Phot. Alinari 91 92 "4D “A 304d (LELL—ZLTT) opedes oy} yy S11 oy} uo “(§ZZ1) A4yJ9q pue osdy ‘ouerpats*s ‘eoon7y] eur 304d 93 eu }OUd (3499 wZT) lApeSIOLG Aq O40J04s117 S JO [eyWOg ureP] — ("JU99 wWZ]) luURAOIT weary youd rate Sed ale Boon] 94 & ANDAMAN | ao 2 TRS 4 uc a Rf Phot. R. Gab. Lucca. S. Michele (12* cent.) 2 ° os ‘as =e @ ; ; i Mt He Seba, Phot. R. Gab. Lucca. Cathedral S. Martino (11t»— 13 cent.) 96 EERE RRR EE” Oye pags ge CaP BES es % 116 Motes ae Soe ne Spoleto. Top: sarcophagus of S. Isacco Siro (8t and 12t cent.). Middle: portal arch of the old parish church of Castelvitaldi (1141). Bottom: relief in the museum (12+, cent.) Phot. R. Gab. 117 (3499 wrL—aZl ) onjatq S JO apesej 94} Jo Weg ‘oyojods 118 eUlly 304d (3499 wWZT) S19}SIO]D JY} JO SUIeUIAT pue OIZIyNyY “Ss *(0}9[0d¢) aT[eAtpatg 119 "qe “A 310Ud (U99 WZ) sqejs 9[qae ur P[O YIM OISSe7) S Jo jedeyp yeapoyyep “1UIBN] 120 OZze|ed 94} Ul MOU ueurpy 304d ‘oradsoig S ut Ayr9WI0} (3499 6 —w8) BUs19AIUP) eT[eP ‘kdoues e1lsniag — "eye UBOSNAYA YIM ( weurly 304d U9 wE]) Ozus107] “Sg yo Adoues "OJIAIO 121 PAREN Nef SR Gal ( W099 WET nol) ojodog jap oueydes jap ozze[eg "OPIAIO 122 aieeiGabe Phot iazza by Filippo (1210) iP i ia d Mar Part of the facade of S. Ancona. 123 spyeIy yy WY (3429 wT) sosdy (eyers0R\]) ‘Quetys uo oIpne|y ues 124 Phot. Arti Grafiche Prewiticab. San Claudio on Chienti (Macerata). Fagade (11*» cent.). — San Vittore (Fabriano). Apses and side (10 cent.) 123 Phot. R. Gab. Ascoli Piceno. Baptistery (12'» cent.) 126 inari Phot. Al Phot. R. Gab. Cingoli. Portal of S. Esuperanzio (13> cent.). — Fermo. Side Portal of the Cathedral (12* cent.) 1A | ia: cori a) Phot. R. Gab. Phot. Moscioni Ascoli Piceno. Part view of the so-called casa Langobarda (8th—9'h cent.). — Lugnano in Teverina (Perugia). View of the crypt. (12 century) 128 Phot. R. Gab. Ascoli Piceno. So-called Langobard House (8**—9 thcent.) 129 Phot. Alinari Tarquinia. Towers of the Palazzo dei Priori (11 cent.) Ricci, Romanesque 9 & - 30 1 (499 WZ] Pru ynoge) O][93seD Ip ee "S “erunbse Ly 131 Phot. R. Gab, Phot. R. Gab. Montefiascone. Capital in S. Flaviano (11t» cent.) Viterbo. Museum, marble lunette (13th cent.) 132 Phot. R. Gab. Phot. R. Gab, Montefiascone. Capitals in S. Flaviano (11¢» cent.) I ro J UES) EARN (3499 wET) AeA OuNsoII9q ° S Osa na” il 134 Phot. Arti Grafiche Phot. Moscioni S. Gimignano (Siena). Well (13th cent.). — Viterbo. Interior of S. Giovanni in Zoccoli (11 cent.) 130 ueulyy “you { ot ee et ek Ted SVEN FSD = geet (1U99 WET—m[[) 12MO} pue D10ISSeYy eLRY] “SG “eI[IUBISO], PRIS Se ann gente: 136 AetTay eal TNFa (7qu99 mT) 401sSey] Bley] “S FO el4od yYyS11 pue yo] eUITY "yO4g “B][9UBISO T 137) Phot. Alinari Toscanella. Main portal of S. Maria Maggiore (13th cent.) 138 BUY 34d 7 (429 mOI—n6 JO yore YIM) eyeLSayTo> oy ur Adoues ‘eussjog — °(}U99 wWZ]) BOISSeYY ele] “S jo Wd[ng “e[[eueosoy, "qeD "A Ud i DTA Usb, Phot. R. Gab. Toscanella. Interior of S. Maria Maggiore (11 cent.) 140 Toscanella. Part of nave of S, Maria Maggiore (11> cent.) 141 Phot, Alinari ietro (12th cent.) Cryptiof o.P Toscanella. 142 BUY “304g (3499 wI[—m6) ONAld “S JO NOYD “eTjoueoso |, 143 "qeD “A 04d ( 199 ZT) [sie yyoU wo ugoS OA} Ss jo AIO119} UT “e][PUBISOT 144 taeunpy "04d (3499 wTT) yomnyD oy} Jo [eyod-apis WSry “NY “S [ese — *(7U99 mET—wmGI) WNIWOoosoN] ay} Jo [eyOg ‘eoluRsdeD ayptyery Nay “304d SS 145 Phot. Arti Grafiche Phot. Alinari Capranica. Lunette of the portal of the Nosocomium (12th—13*» cent.). — Civita-Castellana. Back wall in the Cathedral by Diodato and Luca dei Cosmati (13'' cent.) Ricci, Romanesque 10 146 weUurfy 304d (3499 TT) YANyD oy Jo s01s9}U] Puss deo 147 F gp bos nt Se YY YH) wien, as Cates A aencaesintill i i 1 t t Pt a4 Phot. Alinari Arch of the Cathedral Porch by Lorenzo and Jacopo dei Cosmati (1210) Civita-Castellana. 148 TwoLosoy “}OUq (3499 yw TT—mOT) Ysnyp eoyiseq ay} Jo Je}ye urew oy} Jo Adouesy ‘ely 's [aseD — *(}U99 ZI) oun ye vaipuy *S jo Adoues ‘ourwoy ouezu0g 1UOLDSOJ, ‘yOUdg 149 Phot. Alinari Paolo (12' cent.) iovanni e Rome. Apse of SS.G 150 a an Cette ys Paks y cee een Se eT eee sea ereeearnteiss Phot. R. Gab, Rome, Belfry of S. Francesca Romana al Foro (13' cent.) 151 as Phot. Alinari Rome. Facade and campanile of S. Maria in Cosmedin (8'» and 12th cent.) poe Phot. Moscioni Phot. Arti Grafiche Rome. Well in the cloisters of S. Giovanni in Laterano (8t cent.) and well near S. Giovanni di Porta Latina (9' cent.) ies "qeD "A 3°Ud (}U99 WET JO SolreuUDd.ap ySA1}) IYBUOIOD 01}{ENZ “SG Jo SAd}SIO[F) “OWIOY 154 weuly 34d (*JU99 WET JO P4lyR ySaLJ) SOPoT[eSseA 9Y} Aq OURIO}eT] UI TUUBAOIT) UBS JO S19}SI0[D “IUIOY 157) lueully 304d (-qua9 mE FO Jey 3S.1}) BINUL OT Won} ojoed Ss jo S19}STO[") “IUIOd] 156 weuTy yOUd (34299 ET JO Paty ysaty) SO}JOT[eSSe A 9q} Aq oueiog}e] ul TUUBAOIL) Ss S19}SIO]O 94} jo 99IUIOD pue 9ZIIA} [eyUsMTe UIC) “QUlOY caiveeanitan-oaneepesempeemienaaeee Serr antag ie en era nr eR ceeerern nrc ctirnimnn ces panna 157 Phot. Moscioni Rome. Details of the cornice of the cloisters of S. Giovanni in Laterano by the Vassallettos (first third of 13¢» cent.) 158 Rome. Parapet slabs in S. Sabina (824—827) ley Phot. Moscioni Anagni. Detail of the episcopal throne by Vassalletto from Rome (1263). — Rome. Parapet slabs in the Museum of the Castel Sant’Angelo (9t» cent.) 160 "qeD "A 304d (90LI—6601) HeU0109 0.133eND “SG JO S49}SIO[D BY} UI MOU ‘UIe}UNO “sWOY 161 Rome. Candelabrum of the Easter Candle in the Basilica Church of S. Paolo by Nicola d’Angelo dei Cosmati and Pietro Vassalletto (towards end of 12th cent.) Ricci, Romanesque 11 162 Ane Af write. vw. we eit A bee v. St a h Vd ars 3 je>< . 4 NAS oe ep aan tae : , ROW Ey ans % Pe tees ae Bei s ¥ y ss er , a - See VAY. Sag cae & 4” ay - 8 con. PN Serta tk) FiBL ae — roe BA he tin Phot. Moscioni ee Phot. Moscioni Rome. Paliotto in S, Maria in Cosmedin, tomb of Alfano, the Chamberlain of Calixtus II. (1123). — Pavement mosaic in S. Clemente (11th—12t» cent.) 163 e Shaqeqeserenecs hw 4 sitivsiis . $3, me By: ites : Pg eS Seo ha Be cee hehe’ bine ated ctvad, PSHE SS ‘ Bor oe Se ne eee Spiga Oe 4 a 2 Fig 4 Ves 4 P44 bs Phot. Alinari Rome. Paliotto in S. Cesareo (12th cent.) and in S. Prassede (13 cent.) 164 taeUrLYy 34d (}U99 4,6) 9}USTI]D “CS Ul U49}99] pue pIdjng ‘sWOY aeteapte eee aaaae Sis netasmrascoee cet pe 165 Phet. Alinari Rome. Pulpit in S. Clemente (9th cent.) and candelabrum (13t» cent.) 166 quoLosoy “OU ae (}U99 WET piu) eurqieg ‘S ul pue (po}eAoUal YonuT “U9 nee z sd The Set i. te Creve re we! vr 43 Pererer rr te add mhpahh be bard ee® & vyvere ea rae eh & em ~ , r ¢ » , La * > > % rer" yee eeee MET) Oe1VsaZ *¢ ur souosy} [edoosidy TuOdloso[y “youd “oOWO Ry 167 Phot, R. Geb, Anagni. Apse and candelabrum of the Cathedral (13th cent.) 168 Phot. Moscioni Anagni. Apses of the Cathedral (11t» cent.) 169 Phot. R. Gab, Ferentino. Apse of S. Valentino (13th cent.) 170 Phot. Arti Grafiche Phot. Moscioni Terracina. Details of the pulpit and pavement in the Cathedral (13 cent.) 171 Phot. R. Gab. ms _ 4 ia 3 prz] Phot. Moscioni Atri. Font in the Cathedral (12t cent.). — Rome. Wooden chest, formerly in Terracina Cathedral, now in the Palazzo Venezia (11*» cent.) 172 “hb ae Phot. R. Gab. Rosciolo near Magliano de’ Marsi (Aquila). Apse of S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta (13 cent.) 173 Phot. R. Gab. Rosciolo near Magliano de’ Marsi (Aquila). Interior of S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta (12¢» cent.) 1/4 "4D "A 30Ud ‘seme (1U99 wET) OFNID “Ss Jo [eyo *(epmby) ouezzeg (7499 WET) BJouRpII0g oA Ul BUR] *S Ul 9pORUIIge}-1e]V 94} Jo sjrejoq ‘(epmby) isiep] ap ouRlsepy redu O[OINsoYy "qe “A 30d 175 "qe “A 304d ( JU99 WET) OISNID *S Jo epesey (ejmby) ouezzeg 176 Phot. R. Gab. Rosciolo near Magliano de’ Marsi (Aquila). Pulpit of S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta (circa 1150) Ne Phot. R. Gab. ) (12th—1 3th cent. ino or Valva Pel Pentima (Aquila). Apse of the Cathedral of S Ricci, Romanesque 12 178 Phot. R. Gab. RSETE ET MAID RG. Phot. R. Gab. Pentima (Aquila). Part of pulpit of the Cathedral of S. Pelino or Valva (end of 12th cent.) — Alba Fucense (Aquila). Screen in S, Pietro by Andrea of Rome (about 1225), destroyed by the earthquake of 13 January 1915 179 Pepe iFicy Shep Phot. R. Gab. Pentima (Aquila). Pulpit of the Cathedral of S. Pelino or Valva (end of 12th cent.) 180 1aeUNY 304d ‘(O6LT) BlNeseD Ip a}UsUIZ “S$ JO jeyiod ureur 94} Jo 100p szu01g ‘(oWRI9]) Lasse lap a0], — “(CI6T Arenuef w¢] jo ayenbyjsea ay} Aq poXo.rjsap) osjarg *S JO Yyonyo oy} Jo (}U20 wWET—wZI) SIOOp uspoopy *(epInby) ssusony eqry luolDsoyy *70Ud 181 “qeD “A 3d (Z8LL—9LIT) euneses Ip oyuauIa[>D “Ss Jo opedsey ‘(owesa]) Uasseg lop 110], asses ews 182 A ee e ’ aL ; . hae Phot. Alinari Torre dei Passeri (Teramo). Vestibule of S. Clemente di Casauria (1176—1182) 183 Phot. Arti Grafiche Torre dei Passeri (Teramo). Capitals on the fagade of S. Clemente di Casauria (1176—1182) 184 leur 304d (O81T) BLUNesed Ip 9}U9UITZ *S Jo asde 12INQG ‘(OWlRIa]) asseg lap o110], 185 Phot. Alinari Torre dei Passeri (Teramo). Canopy of the main altar of S. Clemente di Casauria (12t' cent.) 186 EO Vea old (‘U99 WZ JO Pua) eLINneses> Ip oJUsUIIT>Z “Ss Jo Hdjnd oy} Jo yzeg *(OWRI9]) Lasseg lap 9410], 187 Phot. R. Gab. Torre dei Passeri (Teramo). Pulpit of S. Clemente di Casauria (end of 12th cent.) 188 Phot. Arti Grafiche Moscufo (Teramo). Pulpit of S. Maria del Lago by Nicodemus (1158—1159) 189 Phot. Arti Grafiche Fossacesia (vicinity). Detail of the facade of S. Giovanni in Venere (circa 1230) 190 Phot. Arti Grafiche Troia. Facade of the Cathedral (12th—13th cent.) ibe Phot. Arti Grafiche Troia. Rose-window of the Cathedral (13 cent.) 192 Kees BS ot. De Phot. Arti Grafiche Troia. Main portal of the Cathedral (1119) 195 Phot. Arti Grafiche io of Benevent (1119) 1S ils of a bronze door of the Cathedral by Master Oder Troia. Deta 13 Ricci, Romanesque 194 apPyesy MAY -WOUg (3499 ZT) [eAPEyID O42 JO OPIS “PIOAL, 15 Phot. Arti Grafiche Troia. Exterior of the Cathedral Apse (13t» cent.) 196 * ~ ast 6 Rusti hyde wimaSap © ES inari Phot. Al (12h cent.) it Troia. Cathedral Pulp 197 Phot. Alinari S. Leonardo. Detail of the Church side-portal (end of 12th or beginning of 13'» cent.) 198 Phot. Alinari S, Leonardo. Apse window of the Church (end of 12th or beginning of 13* cent.) 199 Phot. Alinari S. Maria di Siponto. Portal of the Church (early 12th cent.) 200 eUITY 304d (JU99 wZ] JO Suruursaq) yoanys oy} Jo apesey ‘oyuodig yp ene “Ss 201 yeurTYy 304d (1499 wZT Apte) yornyD 9y} JO MoIA BpIG *OjUOdIS Ip eLRYY "Ss 202 inari Phot. Al 1120) Canosa. Exterior of Tomb of Bohemund (1111 203 Caged ent ity te ~ See} Sees Chay od 72) at Nd LE ME DETR Sey peed aN CoP Ly at I ASS SAIN La ad. pet, SOA ea pees % ‘S) 3 i inari Phot. Al 1115) Bronze door of Bohemund’s Tomb by Ruggero da Melfi (ca. Canosa. 204 inari Phot. Al inari Phot. Al 1089). — Monte Sant’ Angelo. Throne in the Canosa. Bishop Ursus’ throne in the Cathedral (1078 Sanctuary of S. Michele (second half of 12th cent.) 205 Phot. R. Gab. 14th cent.) of the Cathedral Trani. Facade (12' cent.) and Belfry (13th 206 Phot. R. Gab. Trani. Side view of the Cathedral (12th cent.) 207 Phot. R. Gab. Trani. Apses and Belfry of the Cathedral (12th cent.) 208 inari Phot. Al ) 12th cent ( in Portal of the Cathedral Trani. Ma 209 nc gnats Phot. Alinari Trani, Detail of the bronze door by Barisano of Trani (ca. 1179) Ricci Romanesque 14 210 Phot. Arti Grafiche ) Fagade of the Cathedral (early 13th cent Ruvo. 2h inari Phot. Al ) cent in Portal of the Cathedral (13th Ma Ruvo. 212 Phot. Arti Grafiche Ruvo. Interior of the Cathedral (13¢' cent.) 213 Phot. Alinari in Portal of the Cathedral (end of 12th cent.) Bitonto. Ma 214 (3499 ZT JO pus) [espeyyeD ‘oyworg 215 aIPHPAD NAV 304d en Siva’. sees oe, Ciny SCs has ( JU99 WET JO Suruursoq pue wZ] jo pus) opeole [[em 94} YUM [etpoyyesy oy} JO MOIA 9PIS ‘owO}IG 216 Phot. Alinari Bitonto. Detail of the wall arcade of the Cathedral (end of 12'» and beginning of 13th cent.) pay | i Phot. Alinar and beginning of 13th cent.) Bitonto. Detail of the wall arcade of the Cathedral (end of 12th 218 SONA A ite a. 2 a Se ree Phot. Arti Grafiche Bitonto. Detail of the wall arcade of the Cathedral (end of 12th and beginning of 13th cent.) and of the lectern by Master Nicola (1229) Pay Phot. Alinari Phot. Arti Grafiche il of the Cathedral pulpit by Master Nicola (1229) and Font (13th cent) Bitonto. Deta 220 aypyesy WY 304d (}U99 WET JO Suruursaq pue yw] Jo pus) yoiod apts Jo [reyoq *0WUOPG — -(}U99 wE]) [PApayyD oY} Jo [eyOg UrIReY Jo jIej}aq ‘oAny apyeIy Hy 304g 221 as) clan tcl (6201 ) B[OOIN] A9zsSepy Aq [eIpoyyesD oy} Ul UsO}D07] pue yidjng ‘ozUO}g aypyedy Ay OUg 222 laeUrTY “34d (-3U99 WZ) BIOOIN “S JO apesey ueg 223 i Grafiche Art Phot . Nicola isle of S Bari. Outside of right a 224 Phot. Arti Grafiche 13th cent.) Bari. Cupola and Belfry of S. Nicola (12th 225 . R. Gab. Phot io (12th cent.) ili called Lion Portal) by Master Bas ide portal of S. Nicola (so 5) Bari. Ricci, Romanesque 15 226 aUpyeAD WAY 04d (3U99 wWZT) [e4Og uory 94} Jo pue (jU99 wET) ewod urew ay JO spe} ePOOIN 'S “Heg aysyeID Ay oUg Phot. Arti Grafiche Phot. Arti Grafiche Bari. S. Nicola. Phot. R. Gab. Phot. Arti Grafiche Three capitals; the two upper ones in the crypt (ca. 1090), the third in the church (12th cent.) San Severino (Marche). Capital in the old Cathedral 228 Phot. Arti Grafiche 12th cent.) icola ( N in altar of S i, Canopy of the ma Bar 229 i - i. ‘ t Phot. Alinari Bari. Throne of Elias in S. Nicola (ca. 1098) 230 x e * ~ “-* ee eS ‘—e Phot. Alinari Bari. Windows of S. Gregorio (beginning of 11» cent.) 231 Phot. Arti Grafiche Bari. Porch of the side entrance of the Cathedral (12*» cent.) 232 Phot. Alinari ) Cathedral (end of 12t» cent indow of the i, Apse w Bar 233 Phot. Alinari (1180) in Portal of SS. Nicolo e Cataldo Ma Lecce. 234 Phot. Art. Grafiche Phot. Alinari Lecce. Details of the Main Portal of SS. Nicolo e Cataldo (1180). — Bari. Details of the Cathedral apse (end of 12th cent.) 235 Phot. Moscioni Si: Ca a SS Phot. Arti Grafiche Phot AvitGratiche Matera. Details of the Cathedral Portal (13th cent.).— Bari. Two capitals of the Loggia in the court of the castle (13t cent.) 236 URUITY “}OUd aeete ane ae (ey10d +7099 wZT YIM "JWI9 wL]) C4dJodag Je tuuRAOTD *S Jo YPANY “ISIPULTg PRY | Phot. R. Gab. Otranto. Crypt of the Cathedral (12th cent. The capitals and column shafts are older) 238 Phot. Moscioni Soleto. Font in the Cathedral (14'» cent.). — Galatina. Capitals of monument for Raimondello del Balzo (14> cent.) and of S, Caterina (14t» cent.) Pas) ponensesteanemnisviantinvosstasoansaneanr S FYER oat pate artcoonse ee coSoRNRO gre aS NOE RICCO DANN BESET ORR ONCE Phot. R. Gab. Sessa Aurunca. Pavement of the Cathedral (13th cent.) 240 es jas Ls eis os ee CH Phot. R. Gab. it of the Cathedral (mid 13» cent.) Pulp Sessa Aurunca 241 ioni Mosc Phot. 7 = o., ov ogres ior: 568604 séedor® * oo inion $e EE RE OE: ioni Phot. Mose ) id 13th cent. it (m Sessa Aurunca. Details of the Cathedral pulp Ricci, Romanesque 16 242 a ees Lr ond Phot. R. Gab. Sessa Aurunca. Lower part of the Cathedral candelabrum, and details of the pulpit (mid 13th cent.) 243 Alinari Phot Ambo of the Cathedral (13' cent.) la, Caserta vecch 244 Phot. Moscioni Phot. Moscioni alta RCA achat Pesta ane aa Nhe NSN Phot. Alinari Phot. Alinari Salerno. Capital of the larger Cathedral Pulpit (ca. 1175). — Fondi (Caserta). Head of the candelabrum in the Cathedral (13¢" cent.). — Caserta vecchia. Aspersorium and Candelabrum in the Cathedral (13 cent.) 245 % ae, N : t $ " i Grafiche Phot. Art Benevent. Cloisters of S. Sofia (12t cent.) 246 apyesy NAV “04d 1d) d de bud jw d-5 yy errr jae (3099 wET—wZT) [eAPeED ‘[eHOg ureyy Jo sprejaq “yuoaouag ueUrTY "04d not acct xn Di aim sme Ne ES A ee el CR law ido) havd Duss hid) cate ) 247 Cah! oo ei seein Phot. Arti Grafiche Benevent. Main Portal of the Cathedral (12t»—13th cent.) 248 {uUOlDSO|] }0Ud (SLIT 89) 31djnd jeapayyesd 40512] pue sa][euls 94} Jo spreyaq ‘ourajeS TUOlOSOP *}OUG a él Wey. fon er GC AD my Rr eS ooo aay BE ne bs 249 taeurTy “304d (Ke "B9) [erpeyye7) 24} fo udv1NS ay} jo yzed pure yidjnd |jeurg ‘oura[es aS Nes eecinne SE, siesisiins ioc ealeatiaaincenaienaten 250 wueutpy “30Uq (6LI1) uel], ep ouestiegd Aq 1400p 9zZu01q [eapoqye) 94} JO s[rejoqd ‘(ypewy) O[[PARY 251 Phot. Alinari i (1179) ils of the bronze door of the Cathedral by Barisano da Tran Deta i) Ravello (Amalf 252 teary “304d (ZLZT) B18804 Jo OdUWIO]O}eg Ip B[OSIN] 19}Se]A] Aq yidjng yeapoyyea “(YfewY) offeaey 23D (}U99 WZ] pus ‘1uer1y ep ouestseg Aq) [e}10d opis 94} Jo pue (OSIL ‘estq JO snuueuog Aq) [ey10d ureur [erpayyes ay} JO JOOP 9zUOI 94} Jo sfIejaq ‘aTeatUO|] euly ‘youd ABC OU is pI NGH 254 Phot. Alinari Monreale. Main Portal of the Cathedral by Bonannus of Pisa (1186) 255 LITERATURE Agnelli, G, Ferrara e Pomposa. Bergamo 1904. Agostinone, E., Il Fucino. Bergamo 1908. Annoni, A., Le Chiese di Pavia, parte I. Milano 1913. Annoni, C., Monumenti spettanti all’ arcivescovo Ariberto. Milano 1872. Arata, G. U, Il S. Antonino di Piacenza (Rassegna d’arte antica e moderna) 1919, 54 segg. — L’architettura Arabo-Normanna in Sicilia. Milano 1914. Arcioni, L., Restauri della Rotonda (di Brescia) in ,,Comen- tarii dell’ Ateneo“, 1881, p. 191. Aru, C., Chiese pisane in Corsica. Roma 1908. Atz, K., Kunstgeschichte von Tirol und Vorarlberg. 2. Aufl. Innsbruck 1909. Aus’m Weerth, Der Mosaikboden in St. Gereon zu Koln. Avena, A., Monumenti dell’ Italia meridionale. Roma 1902. Barelli, V., Monumenti comaschi. Como, 1899 (con tav.). — S. Maria del Tiglio in Gravedona (in ,,Rivista archeol. della provincia di Como“ fase. 5°. Giugno 1874, p. 1). — La Chiesa di S. Giacomo in Como (in ,,Rivista archeol. della provincia di Como“, 30 ottobre 1887). — La basilica di S. Abbondio nei sobborghi di Como (in ,»Rivista archeol. della provincia di Como“, 30 ottobre 1887). — S. Pietro in Monti di Civate (in ,,Rivista archeol. della pro- vincia di Como“ fasc. settembre 1881). Bargellini, S., I monti del Cimino. Bergamo 1914. Beissel, St., Die Erztiiren und die Fassade von St. Zeno zu Verona (in ,,Zeitschrift fiir christliche Kunst“, V. Jahrgang, 1892, S. 341—379). Beltrami, L., Gli avanzi della basilica di S. Maria in Aurona a Milano. Rilievi e note del prof. Gaetano Landriani; testo dell’ arch. L. Beltrami con prefazione del Prof. Fer- nand de Dartein. Milano 1902. — La basilica di S. Ambrogio a Milano. Milano 1921. — Memoria sulla Basilica di S. Ambrogio di Milano conte- nuta nel vol. ,,Ambrosiana“. Milano 1897. Berchet, F., Relazioni dell’ ufficio regionale per la conser- vazione dei monumenti del Veneto, volumi cinque (Ve- nezia, 1885—1901). Bernardy, A.A, Istria e Dalmazia. Bergamo 1915. Bertaux, E., L’Art dans I'Italie méridionale, tome I (De la fin de |’Empire Romain a la conquéte de Charles d’Anjou). Paris 1904. Bertoni, G., Liiscrizione ferrarese del 1135 (in ,,Studi me- dievali* 1907, vol. II, fase. IV, p. 477 segg. — v. pure vol. II. 1906—1907, p. 239). — Atlante storico-paleografico del duomo di Modena. dena 1909. — Atlante storico artistico del duomo di Modena. Modena1921. Bevilacqua-Lazise A., Asti medioevale. Milano 1911. — L’architettura prelombarda in Asti. (,,L’Artista moderno“, 1910.) Biancolini, G. B., Notizie delle Chiese di Verona. Verona 1749—1771 (8 voll.). Biadego, G., Verona, Bergamo, 1909. Biehl, R. W., Das toskanische Relief im XII.—XIV. Jahrh. Bonn 1910. Bindi, V., S. Angelo in Formis presso Capua ed i suoi illu- stratori (in ,,Rassegna d’arte antica e moderna“ a. IV, fasc. 1° e 2°, gennaio-febbraio 1917). Boggio, C., Le Chiese del Canavese. Ivrea 1910. Boito, C., Architettura del Medioevo in Italia, Milano, 1880. — Questioni pratiche di Belle Arti, Milano, 1893. Bottrigari, E., Cenni storici sopra le antiche e sulla odierna cattedrale di Bologna, negli Ati e Memorie della R. De- Mo- putazione di Storia Patria per le province di Romagna. Modena 1877. Bragato, G, Da Gemona a Venzone. Bergamo 1913. Brambilla, C., La basilica di S. Maria del Popolo di Pavia e il suo musaico. Pavia 1876. — Pavimento di musaico scoperto in S. Pietro in Ciel d’oro (R. Ist.-Lomb. di scienze, lettere ed arti, serie II, vol. XIX, 1886, p. 724.) Campanari, S., Tuscania e i suoi monumenti. Monte- fiascone 1856. Campari, A., La nuova facciata della cattedrale di Pavia e le antiche basiliche di S. Stefano e di S. Maria del Popolo. Pavia 1896. Canestrelli, A., Arte antica senese, Siena, 1904 I (v. pure in Bollettino senese di storia patria 1908, 181 segg.). — Siena monumentale. Siena 1910 ss. Canevali, F., Elenco deglie difici monumentali, opere d’arte e ricordi storici esistenti nella Valle Camonica, Milano 1912. Caprin, Istria nobilissima. Trieste 1905. Carabellese, F., Bari. Bergamo 1909. Cattaneo, R., L’architettura italiana dal sec. VI al 1000. Venezia 1889. Cavagna-Sangiuliani, Il portico di S. Celso in Milano. — Il tempietto di S. Fedelino sul lago di Mazzola. Pavia 1902. Cavazzocca-Mazzanti, V., Un nuovo archivolto del ciborio di S. Giorgio in Valpolicella (,,Madonna Verona“, Ann. II, Fasc. IV, ott., dic. 1908). Cecchelli, C., Il ,,tempietto longobardo“ di Cividale del Friuli (in ,,Dedalo“, 1924). — Arte barbarica cividalese (in ,,Memorie storiche forogiu- liesi* 1918—1924). Choisy, A., Histoire de l’architecture II, 439 suiv. Paris s. a. Cicognara L., Storia della Scultura in Italia. Prato vol. I 1824, Il e III e IV 1823, V 1825; VI—VII 1824. Clausse, G., Les marbriers romains. Paris 1897. Colasanti, A., L’arte bisantina in Italia. Milano 1912. Cordero di S. Quintino, Dell’ italiana architettura durante la dominazione longobardica. Brescia 1829. Cordero, C., L’antico duomo di Brescia detto la Rotonda (Memoria pubblicata da F. Odorici). Brescia 1854. Corroyer, E., L’architecture romane. Paris 1888. Costantini, C., Guida di Aquileja e Grado. Milano 1916. Courajod, L., Legons professées a |’Ecole du Louvre, T. I et Il. Paris 1899 et 1901. Crudo, C.,, ed., L’architettura antica in Dalmazia, Part I e I eyalorino.s: a. Dami, L., Artic. sulla Chiesa di S. Miniato di Firenze in »Bollettino d’arte del Min. P. I.“ 1915, 217 segg. D’Ancona, P., Le rappresentazioni allegoriche delle arti liberali nel Medioevo e nel Rinascimento (in |’,, Arte“ 1902, Ppol 3/209.) 300): — L’uomo e le sue opere nelle figurazioni italiane del Me- dioevo. Firenze 1923. D’Andrade, A., Relazione dell’ufficio regionale per la con- servazione dei Monumenti del Piemonte e della Liguria Torino 1899. i Dartein, F. de, Etude sur l’architecture lombarde. Paris 1869, segg. Davidsohn, R., Storia di Firenze. Firenze 1907 (per le notizie storico-artistiche nelle chiese romaniche fiorentine). De Angelis, G., Relazione dei lavori eseguiti per la con- servazione dei monumenti Roma e provincia, e delle provincie di Aquila e Chieti. Roma 1903. 256 Dehio, Die Kunst Unteritaliens in der Zeit Kaiser Fried- richs II. (,,Historische Zeitschrift“ LIX, 1905, S. 193—206). Dehio und Bezold, Die kirchliche Baukunst des Abend- landes. Stuttgart 1901. Dell’ Acqua, C., Memoria storico-descrittiva di S. Michele Maggiore di Pavia (in ,,Giornale dell’ ingegnere, architetto ed agronomo“ XII, 1864, p. 145 e p. 317). Dell’ Acqua, S., Artic. sul S. Michele di Pavia (in ,,Giornale dell’ Arch. ingegnere ed agronomo“. Pavia a. XIV, 1866, p. 261 eva, XV; 1867p. 49. Della Torre Rezzonico, Il Battistero di Callisto in Civi- dale d. F. Cividale. — Monumenti longobardi in Cividale, nel Numero unico per I’XI centenario di S. Paolino di Aquileja. Cividale 1906, p.4. De Lorenzo, G., Venosa e la regione del Vulture. Ber- gamo 1906. Di Lella, A., Cripte meridionali (in ,,Arte“ IX, 1906, p. 140). Dondi, A., Notizie storiche e artistiche del Duomo di Modena. Modena 1896. Enlart, C., Manuel d’Archéologie francaise, tome I, II. Barise! 9021903 Enlart, E., L’architecture romane (in Michel: Histoire de lart, vol. I, parte II, pp. 443—588). Errera, C., L’Ossola. Bergamo 1908. Faccioli, R., Relazione dei lavori compiuti dall’ ufficio regionale per la conservazione dei monumenti dell’ Emilia, part Ie II. Bologna 1898 e 1901. Faloci-Pulignani, A., Una pagina d’Arte Umbra (per alcue sculture romaniche di Bevagna). — Foligno 1903. Feigel, A., S. Pietro in Civate (,,Monatshefte fir KW.“ II, Heft 4, April 1909). Ferri, S., Le Chiese Medievali di Piacenza. Milano 1912. Fogolari, G, Cividale del Friuli. Bergamo 1906. Fontana, P., Sull’ origine dell’ arte lombarda (,,Archivio storico lombardo“, 31. Dic. 1896. Milano 1896). Frothingam, The Monuments of christian Rome. London 1909. Gabelentz, H. von der, Mittelalterliche Plastik in Venedig. Leipzig 1903. — Die kirchliche Kunst im italienischen Mittelalter. burg 1907. Gabiani, N., Le torri, le case-forti ed i palazzi nobili me- dievali in Asti. Pinerolo 1906. Galli, E., Articolo sul S. Giovanni di Firenze in ,,Rivista d’arte“ IX, 1917. Gardella, O., I campanili di Ravenna, nella Rassegna d’Arte del 1902. Garrucci, R., Storia dell’Arte cristiana dal I secolo all’ VIII (voll. I—VI. Prado 1872—1880). Gavini, J. C., Storia dell’ Architettura in Abruzzo (di prossima pubblic). (Un saggio in ,,Rassegna d’arte degli Abruzzi e del Molise“ 1915, I segg.) Gerola, G., L’architettura deutero-bizantina in Ravenna, nei Ricordi di Ravenna medioevale. Ravenna 1921. Giovannoni, G., Opere dei Vassalletti marmorari (,,L’ Arte“ 1908, p. 262 segg.). — I monasteri di Subiaco, Roma 1904, I, 313. — Artic. sui marmorari romani in ,,Archivio Soc. romana di storia patria“ 1904, 5 segg. Giussani, A., L’oratorio di S. Martino. (,,Rivista archeolo- gica della citta e’ antica diocesi di Como“, 41°, 1903). — L’abbazia dei SS. Pietro e Calocero in Civate (in _,,Rivista archeol. della Provincia e antica diocesi di Como“. 1921): Gothein, E., Die Kulturentwicklung Siid-Italiens in Einzel- Darstellungen. Breslau 1886. Gozzadini, G,, Delle torri gentilizie di Bologna. Bologna 1880. Gravina, D., Il duomo di Monreale. Palermo 1859. Grisar, H., Artic. sui marmorari romanici Umbri in ,,N. Bul- lettino d’arch. crist.“, 1895, 42 segg. e 127 segg. Straf- Como Hammer, Mysterium Baphomentis revelatum (,,Fundgruben des Orients“ VI). Haupt, A., Die Entstehungsgeschichte der romanischen Or- namentik (,,Monatshefte fiir Kunstwissenschaft“ VIII, S. 309. Leipzig 1915). — Die Alteste Kunst, insbesondere die Baukunst der Ger- manen (II. Aufl. 1923). Berlin. Heider, G., Das Gliicksrad (studio sulla ,,ruota della For- tuna “motivo usitatissimo nell’ arte romanica) (Mitteilungen der k. k. Zentralkommission-Wien, 1859). Hiibsch, H., Monuments de |’Architecture chrétienne (trad. Guerber). Paris 1866. Huillard-Bréholles, Recherches sur les monuments de histoire des Normands et de la maison de Souabe dans I'Italie méridionale. Paris 1844. Ivekovic, C. M., Die Entwickelung der mittelalterlichen Baukunst in Dalmatien. Wien 1910. Jackson, T. G., Byzantine and romanesque Architecture. Cambridge 1913. Kingsley-Porter, A., The Construction of Lombard and Gothic Vaults, 1911. — The Chronology of Carolingian Ornament in Italy. ,,Bur- lington Magazine“ 1907. — Lombard Architecture (voll. 2). New-Haven 1917. — Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads. Boston 1923. Kowalezyk, G. und Gurlitt, C., Denkmaler der Kunst in Dalmatien. Berlin 1910. Kraus, F. X., Geschichte der christlichen Kunst. bure 1. Br. 1896 ff: Kutschmann, Th., Romanische Baukunst und Ornamentik. Berlin 1902. Liibke, W., Geschichte der Plastik, Band I—II. Leipzig 1884. Maffei, S., Verona illustrata. Milano 1825. Malaguzzi-Valeri F., Milano (Parte I e Il). Bergamo 1906. Male, E., L’art religieux du XIII° siécle en France 2° éd. Paris 1902. Marangoni L., La basilica di S. Marco in Venezia, 2* ed. Milano 1916. Marinelli, M., L’architettura romanica in Ancona. 1921. Mariotti, C., Ascoli-Piceno. Bergamo 1913. Martin, Ch., L’Architecture romane en Italie. Paris, 1° éd. Mazzanti, F., Pulpito di Gregorio IV a Castel S. Elia (presso Nepi). (,,N. Bull. di Arch. crist.“, 1896, p. 34 segg.) — La scultura ornamentale romana dei bassi tempi (in ,,Ar- chivio storico dell’ Arte“ II, p. 33). Roma 1896. Meomartini, A., Benevento. Bergamo 1909. Mercanti, A, Monumenti nazionali: La Rotonda di Brescia (Duomo vecchio) in ,,Emporium“. Bergamo, marzo 1898. Merzario, G., I maestri comacini, I—II. Milano 1893. Michel, A., Histoire de |’Art. T. I, libro I e Il. Paris 1905 et suiv. Molmenti, P. e D. Mantovani, Le isole della laguna veneta. Bergamo 1910. Monneret de Villard, U., Il battistero e le chiese roma- niche di Firenze. Milano 1910. — Lisola Comacina (estr. dalla ,,Rivista archeol. della citta e antica diocesi di Como“). Como 1914. — L’organizzazione industriale nell’ Italia langobarda durante lalto Medioevo (in ,,Arch. Stor. lombardo“ anno XLVI, fasc. I e Ill). — Note sul memoratorio dei maestri comacini. (,,Arch. Stor. lombardo“ XLVII, fase. I—II). — Articolo nell’ architettura romanica dalmata in ,,Rassegna d’arte antica e moderna“ 1910, 77 segg. — I monumenti del lago di Como. Milano 1917. Monteverdi, A., Il duomo di Cremona, il battistero e il torrazzo. Milano 1911. Monti, S., Como. Parte I. Frei- Recanati Milano 1920 Milano 1910. Moretti, G., La conservazione dei monumenti della Lom- bardia (1900—1906). Milano 1908. Mothes, O., Die Baukunst des Mittelalters in Italien. Jena 1882—1883. Nascimbeni, G.,, Il duomo di Modena. Milano 1913. Ongania, F. ed., La Basilica di S. Marco (il testo é di varii autori fra cui il Cattaneo). Venezia 1882—1892. — Raccolta delle vere da pozzo in Venezia. Venezia 1911. Orti-Manara, G., Dell’ antica basilica di S. Zenone Maggiore in Verona. Verona 1839. Osten, F., Die Bauwerke in der Lombardei vom 7. bis zum 14. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt 1846. Panvinio, O., Antiquitatum veronensium. Patavii 1648. Papini, R., Pisa (in ,Catalogo delle cose d’Arte e d’Anti- chita d'Italia“). Roma 1912. — Artic. sul Duomo di Pisa (in ,,L’Arte“ 1913, 398 segg.). Parente, P., La monumentale chiesa di S. Angelo in Formis e l’arte del sec. XI (,,Arte e storia“, a. XXX, No. 4, p. 105 a 108; No. 8, p. 241—242; No. 11, p. 331. Firenze 1911). Pasolini, P. D., Del palazzo di Teodorico in Ravenna, negli Atti e memorie della R. Deputazione di storia Patria per le provincie di Romagna. Bologna 1875. Poggi, G., Arte medioevale negli Abruzzi. Milano 1914. Puig y Cadafalch, L’area géographique de I'architecture lombarde (in ,,Atti del X. Congresso internazionale di storia dell’ Arte. Roma 1922, 100 segg.). Quicherat, J., De l’architecture romane (,,Revue archéolo- gique“ 1851, 145 segg.). Rathgens, H., S. Donato zu Murano und ahnliche vene- tianische Bauten. Berlin 1903. Reymond, M., La sculpture florentine. Florence 1897, T. I. Ricci, C., Le cripte di Ravenna, in Note storiche e letterarie. Bologna 1881. — Il castello e la chiesa di Varignana, negli ,,Atti e memorie della R. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le provincie di Romagna“. Bologna 1891. — Volterra. Bergamo 1905. Rivoira, T., Origini dell’ architettura lombarda e delle sue derivazioni nei paesi d’oltralpe. 2* ed. in 1 vol. Milano 1908. Rohault de Fleury, G., Les monuments de Pise au moyen age. Paris 1866. — La Messe, Etudes archéologiques sur ses monuments, con- tinuées par son fils. Paris 1883—1889. Romussi, C., Milano nei suoi monumenti, vol. I e II. Milano 1o12; Rossi, G., S. Claudio al Chienti, Ancona 1906. Rupp, F. _ Inkrustationsstil der romanischen Baukunst zu Florenz. Strafburg 1912. Ruskin, John, The Stones of Venice. London 1851—53. Sacconi, G., Relazione dell’ ufficio regionale per la conser- vazione dei monumenti delle Marche e dell’ Umbria, part I e Il. Perugia 1901 e 1903. Salazaro, D., Studi sui monumenti dell’ Italia meridionale. Napoli 1871. Salm, B., Die altgermanische Tierornamentik. Stockholm 1904. Salmi, M., Arte romanica fiorentina in ,L’Arte“ 1914, 265 segg. — La questione dei Guidi (scultori lucchesi) in ,,L’Arte“ 1914, 81 segg. Sartorio, G. A., S. Flaviano a Montefiascone, nell’ Annuario dell’ Accad. di S. Luca del 1915 (Roma). Scano, D., Storia dell’ arte in Sardegna dall’ XI al XIV secolo. Cagliari-Sassari 1907. Schlosser, J. v., Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der karolin- gischen Kunst. Wien 1892 ,,Quellenschriften fiir Kunst- geschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalters und der Neu- zeit“), Ricci, Romanesque 17 (2/,) 207 Schlosser, J. v., Quellenbuch zur Kunstgeschichte des abendlandischen Mittelalters (IV.—XV. Jahrh.). Wien 1896. Schmarsow, A., S. Martin von Lucca. Breslau 1890. Schnaase, Karl, Geschichte der bildenden Kiinste bei den Alten (2. verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage, 7. Band). Diisseldorf J. Buddens, 1866—1875 (IV und VII). Schulz, H. W., Denkmaler der Kunst des Mittelalters in Unteritalien. Dresden 1860. Selvatico, P., Le Arti del disegno in Italia. Storia e critica; P. II. Milano 1880. Simeoni, L., Lo scultore Brioloto e l’iscrizione di S. Zeno (,,Atti dell’ accad. d’agricoltura in Verona“, 1898). — Liabside di S. Zeno e gli ingegneri Giovanni e Nicold da Ferrara (,,Atti dell’ Istituto Veneto“. Venezia 1908). — S. Zeno di Verona. Studi con nuovi documenti (testo e tavole separati). Verona 1909. Sthamer, E., Die Verwaltung der Kastelle im Konigreiche Sizilien unter Kaiser Friedrich II und Karl I von Anjou (,Die Bauten der Hohenstaufen in Unteritalien“, Bd. XII, Leipzig 1914.) Strzygowski, J., Amida, Heidelberg 1910. — Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa. Wien 1918, Stiickelberg, E. A., Langobardische Plastik, II. Aufl. Jos. Kosel, Kempten und Minchen 1909. — Un motif décoratif du haut Moyen-age obtenu 4 |’aide d’hemicycles disposés deux a deux (in ,,Revue Charle- magne“, tome | 1911, p. 90 suiv.). Supino, I. B., Arte pisana. Firenze 1904. — Pisa. Bergamo 1905. — Gli albori dell’ arte fiorentina. Firenze 1906. — La costruzione del duomo di Pisa (,,Memorie della R. Accad. delle scienze di Bologna, Cl. scienze mor. 1913. VII e VIII). Swarzenski, G., Romanische Plastik und Inkrustationsstil in Florenz (in ,,.Repertorium f. KW.“ XXIX, p. 518. Berlin 1916). Swoboda, K. M., Das Florentiner Baptisterium. Berlin 1919. — Romische und romanische Palaste. Wien 1919. Taramelli, A., La Sacra di S. Michele alle Chiuse (,,N. Antol.“ 1903 I, 417 segg.). Theophilus, Presbyter, Schedula diversarum Artium. Wien 1873. Toesca, P., Aosta (Catalogo delle cose d’arte e d’antichita d'Italia). Roma 1911. — Storia dell’ arte italiana, vol. I. Torino 1913 e segg. Travenor-Perry, J., The Ambones of Ravello and Salerno (,,Burlington Magazine“ IX, p. 396. London 1907). — The marble and ceramic Decorations of the Roman Cam- panili (,,Burlington Magazine“ XI, p. 209. London 1907). Ugoletti, A., Brescia. Bergamo 1909. Vaccai, G., Pesaro. Bergamo 1909. Venturi, A., Storia dell’ Arte italiana voll. II e III. 1902—1904. Vespasiani-Paravicini, T., La vetusta basilica di S. Vin- cenzo in Prato. Milano 1881. Vinaccia, A., I monumenti medioevali di Terra di Bari. Bari 1915. Vitzthum, G., Die Malerei und Plastik des Mittelalters (in Burgers ,,Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft*). Wackernagel, M., Die Plastik des XI. und XII. Jahrhunderts in Apulien. Preuf. Hist. Inst. in Rom 1911. Woermann, K., Geschichte der Kunst aller Zeiten und Volker, III. Band. Neudruck 1921. Zimmermann, M.G., Oberitalienische Plastik im frihen und hohen Mittelalter. Leipzig 1897. — Die Spuren der Langobarden in der italienischen Plastik des ersten Jahrtausends (Verhandlungen des kunsthisto- rischen Kongresses zu Koln 1894, Leipzig 1894). Milano 258 Sy OIE UE IE UR sy IP Ike ZA IILCQUNT Ss Agliate (Monza) Abbey Church . : Alba Fucense (Aquila) S. Pietro . Almenno, San Salvatore (Beene, S. Tommaso in Limine . Anagni Cathedral Ancona S. Maria di Piazza Aosta St. Ours) © Arezzo S. Maria della Pieve . Ascoli Piceno Baptistery ; Langobard House Assisi Cathedral S Rufino . Asti S. Pietro Atri Cathedral Aversa Cathedral . Bari Castle . Cathedral S. Gregorio . S. Nicola . Bazzano (Aquila) S. Giusto . Benevent Cathedral S. Sofia Bitonto Cathedral Bologna Casa Isolani . S. Stefano Tomb of Egidio Boones Bolsena Collegiata : Borgo San Donnino Cathedral Brindisi S. Giovanni al Sepolcro Cagliari S. Cecilia . Torre dell’ Ficfante Canosa Cathedral : Tomb of Bohemund . page 13, 14 178, 180 XVI, 20, 21 159, 167, 168 azz 35, 36 . 88, 105—107 125 IVER N04) i 41 t71 VII 235 V9 23 152325254 230 222 — 229 1745 1/5 246, 247 245 213 —221 64 65 66 138 053 236 83 84 pn 204 202, 203 Capranica Nosocomium Capua Cathedral Caserta vecchia Cathedral Castellarquato (Piacenza) Cathedral Castel S. Elia Basilica church . Church Cavagnolo Po Abbey Church of S. Fede . Chiaravalle Milanese Church Cingoli S. Esuperanzio . Civate S. Pietro . Civita-Castellana Cathedral . Colle di Val d’Elsa (Siena) Cathedral . Como Palazzo del Broletto . Porta-Torre . S. Abbondio . San Fedele . Cori S. Maria . Crema Cathedral Cremona Baptistery Dolianova S. Pantaleo Ferentino S. Valentino . Fermo Cathedral Ferrara Cathedral Florence Baptistery S. Salvatore . . Florence (Vicinity) Badia of Fiesole Foligno Cathedral . Fondi (Caserta) Cathedral . page 144, 145 XXV 243, 244 46 148 144, 146 29 12 126 . XVII, 27—30 145, 147 99 24 27 26 Ie, . XXIV 22 23 85 169 126 de 6 TRISTE 78 76 113 244 Fossacesia (Vicinity) S. Giovanni in Venere . Galatina Monument for Raimondello del Balzo . S. Caterina : Galliano near Cantu Baptistery Genoa Cathedral Gravedona S. Maria del Tiglio Lago d’Orta Church of Isola di S. Giulio Lecce SS. Nicolo e Cataldo . Lucca Cathedral S. Martino S. Cristoforo S. Frediano . S. Giovanni . S. Giusto . S. Maria Forisportam S. Michele ee Lugnano in Tavera (Perugia) Crypt . ior udt yom ie Massa Marittima (Grosseto) Cathedral . Matera Cathedral Milan Palazzo della Ragione S. Ambrogio S. Eustorgio . Modena Cathedral Monreale Cathedral Montefiascone S. Flaviano : Monte S. Angelo S. Michele Moscufo (Teramo) S. Maria del Lago Narni Cathedral Oristano Cathedral Orvieto Palazzo del Capitano del Popolo S. Lorenzo AF Sv Ae hee Otranto Cathedral Parma Baptistery Cathedral page 189 238 238 13 42, 43 XVI 40 233, 234 95, 96 + SR O27 90 ees i598 90591 94 127, 108, 109 PRS eae kt - XI, XII XXI, 1—9 10 . XXIII, 61—63 253, 254 XVII, 131, 132 204 188 119 88 121 120 237 54, 57—60 . VIII, XXII, 54—56 Pavia S. Giovanni in Borgo . S. Michele : : S. Pietro in Ciel d’ Oro : Pentima (Aquila) Cathedral of S. Pelino or Valva Perugia Palazzo della Universita S. Costanzo . Piacenza Cathedral Palazzo Comunale Pianella (Teramo) S. Angelo . 5 Piedivalle epee) S. Eutizio Pisa Baptistery Cathedral Leaning Tower Pistoia S. Pietro . Pomposa S. Maria Ponzano Romano S. Andrea al Fiume . Portotorres Cathedral Ravello (Amalfi) Cathedral : Ravenna Baptistery Calchi-Palace : S. Apollinare in Classe . S. Gavino . S. Apollinare Nuovo . S. Francesco Rivolta d’Adda Church Rom Basilica Church of S. Paolo Castel Sant’Angelo Palazzo Venezia S. Balbina S. Cesareo S. Clemente . F S. Francesca Romana a Foro SS. Giovanni e Paolo S. Giovanni in Laterano S. Maria in Cosmedin S. Paolo fuori le mura . S. Prassede . SS. Quattro Coronati S. Sabino . ; Well near S. Crerenni di Pore eatin 152 el 54)0156; Zo page . XIX XX, 17—19 XX, 15;.16 177-179 120 112 . 47—49 . 44-45 . XXVILI 118 es iF ld Oe 77, 80 89 . 69—71 148 . XV, 86 20252, Vil XIV, 68 VIII, X, XVIII, 66 5 2M toy 67 XIX 161 159 Tit 166 166 165 150 149 ew 162 155 163 160 158 152 163, 162, 164, ALS I5i. 53; Rosciolo near Magliano de’Marsi (Aquila) S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta . 172—174, 176 260 Ruvo Cathedral Salerno Cathedral Sant’Antimo (Siena) Church San Claudio al Chienti (Macerata) : S. Gimignano (Siena) Towers PR Well S. Leonardo Church bas Oe S. Maria del Giudice Old parish church . S. Maria di Siponto Church San Severino (Marche) Old Cathedral . San Vittore (Fabriano) Sassovivo (Foligno) Cloisters . Scarperia S. Agata al Cornocchio . Sessa Aurunca Cathedral . Signa (Florence) Soleto Cathedral Spoleto Cathedral Reliefs . page 210—212, 220 244, 248, 249 101—104 POXV 123,124 110 134 197198 100 199—201 222i, 124 114 XXIII 239—242 74 238 £15 116 Spoleto Sant’ Eufemia Sa lietros Susa Cathedral Tarquinia Palazzo dei Priori . S. Maria di Castello . Terracina Cathedral . Torre dei Passeri (Teramo) S. Clemente di Casauria Toscanella S. Maria Maggiore S. Pietro . Trani Cathedral Troia Cathedral Uta Church . Verona Cathedral . S. Giovanni in Fonte S. Zeno Vezzolano (Chieri) Abbey 28. )-0ee Viterbo Lunette S. Giovanni in Zoccoli S. Pellegrino Way . page vl) 117 40 12g 130 170 180—187 135—140 141—143 205 —209 190 —196 87 at ; ee eo . 32—34 385739 131 134 ‘) ed ee eo apa ap a ep ware ae Ce ear as Toa ee orien nein Salire re opens eenet ererers UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 3 0112 000493921 we ae HS ee Seep ape et pe ae ae To Sa a a a ee ah EO ae ARTI ag te eG OR ee el re a a ae gS eee epee ae ae ep ee Pe eee ee a a a ap ON EE ON Pan peR DENSE Sra NE eee canenRe STS Se ET STE Pp SeapeanereneeanacT en aneense MTS le = eres SSE si oy Saag eee See a A a ti ai a ae SE haar a re ee a ee ee a pe ar no Te eared Seseee se: SSicaebedchatemeteies see pena Ee we oS SS eS SS See eee ees SS acetal pS eraver eto as ce ws rien ee ae ane Spe pt ap a ip ahs me bane ee het eee aot noe eae ot een os ae ee a a ae. - = at 28m dent npr a mS ne a ae tan i ep a a lee apt Rh he ty edn er a ra ee ale bm Oe Be eee er ae Pe a reper rn oe a 52 ae een Sree ee era aa ne ee ee Stine i oe eS A a oe he ae ene ae Gh ae ee wie SPS moa hd neem Soe end whee eee slae coe errr So e5ee Br Set ae enbne pole >