Christians [see ‘‘Funerary Architecture”] 1. Some writers have maintained that they were used for the interment of the dead without distinction as to religious faith; but the researches of Signor G — B. de Rossi have shown conclusively that this was not the case.
It is needless for us to enter into details concerning the catacombs. And, as their most characteristic features are the paintings, I will merely direct attention to a work by M. Lefort which may serve as a guide to persons desirous of visiting, for the purpose of studying them, the Roman and Neapolitan catacombs ; the latter are more beautiful and more spacious than the former, but are in great part obstructed by the caving-in of the earth and bv the graves of the victims of the plague of 1656, who were buried there.
We come now to the Christian basilicas, which took the place directly of the catacombs; it is to Rome, therefore, that we must look for the different primitive types of these edifices. After the conversion of Constantine, certain Roman structures belonging to the imperial estates were converted into basilicas ; others were reared in different quarters of the city and the suburbs. We have also absolute proof that, in the fourth century, the Constantinian basilica was constructed in the imperial palace of the Lateran ; the basilica of St. Peter in the imperial gardens of the Vatican; that of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in the so-called Variani gardens — this last is sometimes called the Sessorian basilica — and on the Esquiline the basilica frequently termed the Liberian.
There is proof also that Pope Saint Damasus built near the Theatre of Pompey, on ground belonging to himself, the basilica of San Lorenzo, which still perpetuates his name; and near the gardens of Sallust, Anastasius reared the basilica Crescenziana; outside the walls of Rome rose in the same century, the basilica of St. Paul, and on the Agro Verano and Suburbano of Constantine the basilicas consecrated to San Lorenzo and Santa Agnese. Others were erected in the next century (the fifth), as those of San Clemente, Santa Sabina and Santa Bibiana and still others in the sixth century, before 536, the year which witnessed the outbreak of the war between the Goths and Byzantines—a war fatal to Italy and especially to Rome.
Among the Roman basilicas, that of St. John Lateran has always ranked first. Another of the principal ones ( or patriarchal, as the four largest were termed, namely; St. John Lateran, Santa Maria Maggiore, St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s) is the Liberian basilica, so named from the pope who founded it, and to-day known as Santa Maria Maggiore. It dates from the fourth century; the largest of these basilicas, and in fact the largest in Christendom, was St. Paul’s, the vicissitudes of which every one is familiar with. St. Peter’s will be spoken of later. The basilica of San Clemente, erected on an older structure, should also be mentioned here.
Among the early basilicas in the neighborhood of Rome, that of Saint Elias near Nepi [sixth century?] should not be forgotten ; it is not as well known as it deserves to be, although it was probably restored in the eleventh or twelfth century.
All these churches show their immediate connection with pagan art, which persisted in Italy down to a much later period. It was at this time, just after Constantine had removed his capital from Rome to Byzantium, that the Romanesque architecture of Italy was brought under a foreign influence, which was, of course, Oriental.
The existence of this influence has been questioned; Salazaro, in a well-known work, “ Studi sui monumenti dell’ arte meridionalc dal IV al XIII secolo,” writes in an exaggerated fashion on this subject, as he also does when he refuses to recognize the importance of Byzantine art in decorative development. It cannot be denied that Byzantium exercised an active influence on Italian art during the Middle Ages, both before and after the year 1000. In fact, Lombard architecture in its advanced stages manifests evident Byzantine traces. And who does not recall the school of Monte Cassino ? The famous Abbe Didier (Victor III f 1088), of Longobard origin, returning to Italy from Constantinople, brought with him the germ of Greek civilization. Didier summoned colonies of Greek artists to Monte Cassino, which thus became a centre of the artistic and literary activity of those times. It is true that the influence of Byzantine art in Italy was not general and did not develop everywhere in the same measure. In some regions it made a deep impression, in others not. For example, the part
1 Vol. XXVII, No. 741, p. 147.
it played in the south is evident. Lenormant is therefore right (see “La grande Grece,” 1881, t. II) in giving great prominence to the importance of the Greek element in the history of the Southern Italy of this period. In the north, this influence was not long in showing itself at several different points. Ravenna and Venice were the two cities which felt its effects most directly.
Odoacer, the first barbarian to take up his abode in Italy, settled at Ravenna, where he was killed in 493 by Theodoric, who with his Ostrogoths captured the city at that date, after a three years’ siege, and made it the capital of his new kingdom. The rule of the Goths lasted seventy years and, as long as Theodoric lived, constituted the glory of Ravenna.
Byzantine art can be studied more advantageously at Ravenna perhaps than in the East itself, and certainly one can understand here better than elsewhere the real extent of the influence of oriental art in Italy.
It was in consequence of a journey to the East which Archbishop Ecclesius made in company with Pope Gregory I in 525, that the Church of San Vitale at Ravenna was built; this shows that San Vitale, which is the most remarkable and the most purely Byzantine church of Ravenna, may be a few years older than Santa Sophia. The Byzantine style was then brought into Italy in the sixth century. The octagonal church of San Vitale resembles the celebrated chapel at Aix-la- Chapelle, built by Charlemagne (774-814) between 796 and 804. The Ravenna church is, however, much older than that of Aix-la-Chapelle. In fact, it was completed and consecrated under Archbishop Maximian (546-556). Charlemagne, impressed by its originality and beauty, copied it in the circular church of Aix-la-Chapelle. The only difference between the two edifices lies in the structure of the vaults and in the constructive disposition dependent upon it. It would, however, be absurd to assume that the characteristic style of San Vitale had no prototype. The Temple of Minerva Medica at Rome traces the path to this type, which proclaims the advent of the cupola boldly placed on a polygonal base. Ravenna, which might be termed the Italo-Byzantine Pompeii, while the basilica of San Vitale was being reared, witnessed also the construction of Saint Apollinaris in Classe, under the direction of Saint Ursicino (535-538) (cf. Tarlazzi, “ Mem sacre di Ravenna,” page 48), a splendid Byzantine monument dedicated by Archbishop Maximian (549).
St. Apollinaris Nuovo, also at Ravenna, was erected by Theodoric in the early part of the sixth century. It was at first called San Martino in Caelo aureo. It seems to have received the other appellation under Archbishop John VIII (872-882). The porch was rebuilt in the sixteenth century; the choir was reconstructed by Ursicino Lunardi, and again later still by Francesco de Meldola. The interior is grand, with its arches adorned with a fine border and an admirable frieze above, on which we seem to find the memory of the ancient Panathensea revived. It is a monument of the sixth century ; but here, as in Saint Apollinaris in Classe, the plan of the antique Latin basilica has been preserved, which clearly demonstrates that maintenance of ancient traditions to which we have referred above : it is an example not to be overlooked. I have said that San Vitale is the most Byzantine church of Ravenna. This is an important point; it was begun a few years before Saint Sophia. In the essential differences between it and the Church of Constantinople some have recognized the presence of a national school of architecture, which, according to them, existed at Milan between the fourth and fifth centuries (see Hubsch, Gueber’s translation, “Monuments del architecture chretienne, depuis Constantin jusqu’a Charlemagne” ; Paris, 1886). But, even if it be admitted that such a school did exist, it certainly had some relationship to the Byzantine school, for it seems to me that the Oriental traces remarked even in Lombard decoration cannot be ascribed wholly to a national source. The Byzantine spirit was not blindly followed in Italy, but in becoming acclimated there it necessarily associated itself with local traditions and adapted itself to different materials of construction.
Turning to Venice, our attention is immediately fixed upon Saint Mark’s, which strikes the imagination as an Oriental dream. The appearance of Byzantine art here was much later than at Ravenna. And at Venice, that association of which I have spoken above, is evident in Saint Mark’s (in which Ramee was unwilling to concede any connection with Byzantine art), in the old part of the Church of San
It is needless for us to enter into details concerning the catacombs. And, as their most characteristic features are the paintings, I will merely direct attention to a work by M. Lefort which may serve as a guide to persons desirous of visiting, for the purpose of studying them, the Roman and Neapolitan catacombs ; the latter are more beautiful and more spacious than the former, but are in great part obstructed by the caving-in of the earth and bv the graves of the victims of the plague of 1656, who were buried there.
We come now to the Christian basilicas, which took the place directly of the catacombs; it is to Rome, therefore, that we must look for the different primitive types of these edifices. After the conversion of Constantine, certain Roman structures belonging to the imperial estates were converted into basilicas ; others were reared in different quarters of the city and the suburbs. We have also absolute proof that, in the fourth century, the Constantinian basilica was constructed in the imperial palace of the Lateran ; the basilica of St. Peter in the imperial gardens of the Vatican; that of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in the so-called Variani gardens — this last is sometimes called the Sessorian basilica — and on the Esquiline the basilica frequently termed the Liberian.
There is proof also that Pope Saint Damasus built near the Theatre of Pompey, on ground belonging to himself, the basilica of San Lorenzo, which still perpetuates his name; and near the gardens of Sallust, Anastasius reared the basilica Crescenziana; outside the walls of Rome rose in the same century, the basilica of St. Paul, and on the Agro Verano and Suburbano of Constantine the basilicas consecrated to San Lorenzo and Santa Agnese. Others were erected in the next century (the fifth), as those of San Clemente, Santa Sabina and Santa Bibiana and still others in the sixth century, before 536, the year which witnessed the outbreak of the war between the Goths and Byzantines—a war fatal to Italy and especially to Rome.
Among the Roman basilicas, that of St. John Lateran has always ranked first. Another of the principal ones ( or patriarchal, as the four largest were termed, namely; St. John Lateran, Santa Maria Maggiore, St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s) is the Liberian basilica, so named from the pope who founded it, and to-day known as Santa Maria Maggiore. It dates from the fourth century; the largest of these basilicas, and in fact the largest in Christendom, was St. Paul’s, the vicissitudes of which every one is familiar with. St. Peter’s will be spoken of later. The basilica of San Clemente, erected on an older structure, should also be mentioned here.
Among the early basilicas in the neighborhood of Rome, that of Saint Elias near Nepi [sixth century?] should not be forgotten ; it is not as well known as it deserves to be, although it was probably restored in the eleventh or twelfth century.
All these churches show their immediate connection with pagan art, which persisted in Italy down to a much later period. It was at this time, just after Constantine had removed his capital from Rome to Byzantium, that the Romanesque architecture of Italy was brought under a foreign influence, which was, of course, Oriental.
The existence of this influence has been questioned; Salazaro, in a well-known work, “ Studi sui monumenti dell’ arte meridionalc dal IV al XIII secolo,” writes in an exaggerated fashion on this subject, as he also does when he refuses to recognize the importance of Byzantine art in decorative development. It cannot be denied that Byzantium exercised an active influence on Italian art during the Middle Ages, both before and after the year 1000. In fact, Lombard architecture in its advanced stages manifests evident Byzantine traces. And who does not recall the school of Monte Cassino ? The famous Abbe Didier (Victor III f 1088), of Longobard origin, returning to Italy from Constantinople, brought with him the germ of Greek civilization. Didier summoned colonies of Greek artists to Monte Cassino, which thus became a centre of the artistic and literary activity of those times. It is true that the influence of Byzantine art in Italy was not general and did not develop everywhere in the same measure. In some regions it made a deep impression, in others not. For example, the part
1 Vol. XXVII, No. 741, p. 147.
it played in the south is evident. Lenormant is therefore right (see “La grande Grece,” 1881, t. II) in giving great prominence to the importance of the Greek element in the history of the Southern Italy of this period. In the north, this influence was not long in showing itself at several different points. Ravenna and Venice were the two cities which felt its effects most directly.
Odoacer, the first barbarian to take up his abode in Italy, settled at Ravenna, where he was killed in 493 by Theodoric, who with his Ostrogoths captured the city at that date, after a three years’ siege, and made it the capital of his new kingdom. The rule of the Goths lasted seventy years and, as long as Theodoric lived, constituted the glory of Ravenna.
Byzantine art can be studied more advantageously at Ravenna perhaps than in the East itself, and certainly one can understand here better than elsewhere the real extent of the influence of oriental art in Italy.
It was in consequence of a journey to the East which Archbishop Ecclesius made in company with Pope Gregory I in 525, that the Church of San Vitale at Ravenna was built; this shows that San Vitale, which is the most remarkable and the most purely Byzantine church of Ravenna, may be a few years older than Santa Sophia. The Byzantine style was then brought into Italy in the sixth century. The octagonal church of San Vitale resembles the celebrated chapel at Aix-la- Chapelle, built by Charlemagne (774-814) between 796 and 804. The Ravenna church is, however, much older than that of Aix-la-Chapelle. In fact, it was completed and consecrated under Archbishop Maximian (546-556). Charlemagne, impressed by its originality and beauty, copied it in the circular church of Aix-la-Chapelle. The only difference between the two edifices lies in the structure of the vaults and in the constructive disposition dependent upon it. It would, however, be absurd to assume that the characteristic style of San Vitale had no prototype. The Temple of Minerva Medica at Rome traces the path to this type, which proclaims the advent of the cupola boldly placed on a polygonal base. Ravenna, which might be termed the Italo-Byzantine Pompeii, while the basilica of San Vitale was being reared, witnessed also the construction of Saint Apollinaris in Classe, under the direction of Saint Ursicino (535-538) (cf. Tarlazzi, “ Mem sacre di Ravenna,” page 48), a splendid Byzantine monument dedicated by Archbishop Maximian (549).
St. Apollinaris Nuovo, also at Ravenna, was erected by Theodoric in the early part of the sixth century. It was at first called San Martino in Caelo aureo. It seems to have received the other appellation under Archbishop John VIII (872-882). The porch was rebuilt in the sixteenth century; the choir was reconstructed by Ursicino Lunardi, and again later still by Francesco de Meldola. The interior is grand, with its arches adorned with a fine border and an admirable frieze above, on which we seem to find the memory of the ancient Panathensea revived. It is a monument of the sixth century ; but here, as in Saint Apollinaris in Classe, the plan of the antique Latin basilica has been preserved, which clearly demonstrates that maintenance of ancient traditions to which we have referred above : it is an example not to be overlooked. I have said that San Vitale is the most Byzantine church of Ravenna. This is an important point; it was begun a few years before Saint Sophia. In the essential differences between it and the Church of Constantinople some have recognized the presence of a national school of architecture, which, according to them, existed at Milan between the fourth and fifth centuries (see Hubsch, Gueber’s translation, “Monuments del architecture chretienne, depuis Constantin jusqu’a Charlemagne” ; Paris, 1886). But, even if it be admitted that such a school did exist, it certainly had some relationship to the Byzantine school, for it seems to me that the Oriental traces remarked even in Lombard decoration cannot be ascribed wholly to a national source. The Byzantine spirit was not blindly followed in Italy, but in becoming acclimated there it necessarily associated itself with local traditions and adapted itself to different materials of construction.
Turning to Venice, our attention is immediately fixed upon Saint Mark’s, which strikes the imagination as an Oriental dream. The appearance of Byzantine art here was much later than at Ravenna. And at Venice, that association of which I have spoken above, is evident in Saint Mark’s (in which Ramee was unwilling to concede any connection with Byzantine art), in the old part of the Church of San