Giacomo del Rialto, and in the Church of Santa Fosca di Torcello; but most of all in Santa Tosca, which according to some writers was reared in the ninth century and according to others much later. The oldest document concerning Santa Fosca is dated 1011 [c/! Corner, “ Notizie st. delle chiese di Venezia,” page 572]. The plan is Greek; the columns and capitals of the interior are evidently Roman. The apse (ninth century) is very characteristic ; it has some points in common with that of the Cathedral of Murano (ninth century), which was built under a slight Arabian influence.
The origin of St. Mark’s is referred to the first half of the ninth century (829), that is to the time of the removal of the body of Saint Mark from Alexandria to Venice. The Doge Justiniano Partecipazio then ordered the erection of a church in honor of the Saint. Later, this edifice was destroyed (976) and it was rebuilt on a larger scale by Pietro Orseolo I. The present basilica retains few traces of the Church of Orseolo. In 1043 the doge Domenico Contarini began to reduce it to its present form. It was completed according to the historians, by Domencio Selvo (1071?). But the work was continued after the eleventh century and the church as it now exists may be considered as belonging to the beginning of the twelfth century. As for the architects of St. Mark’s, no names have come down to us. M. Bayet, in treating of this subject, asks if they were Greeks [cf “ L’ Art Byzantin,” p. 303]. The Orient, in fact, had perhaps a powerful influence at Venice on art and the artistic industries.
Signor Cattaneo remarks in his work entitled “ L’ Architettura in Italia da s° VI al Mille circa,” (p. 267), that the Italo-Byzantine art, on reaching the lagoons, found, at the outset, an adversary in Greek art; but toward the middle of the ninth century it succeeded in triumphing over its rival. In this way good elements of production were introduced and the Italo-Byzantine art of Venice bore fruit superior to that of the other Italian cities.
We may note, in passing, that the only really Byzantine monuments that were constructed on Gaulish territory were of Italian importation. Notre Dame at Aix-la-Chapelle, for example, was built by Charlemagne in imitation of San Vitale, and Saint Front at Perigueux, which was founded at the beginning of the eleventh century, was copied from St. Mark’s.
Moving southward, in search of examples of that floweringout of Byzantine art of which we have spoken, we find that there are very few recognizable traces of it in Tuscany and Rome. The earliest evidences of a Byzantine tendencv at Rome are seen in the Church of San Stefano al Celio, erected by Pope Simplicius, between 468 and 482 (see de Rossi, “ La Basilica de S. Stefano Rotondo” ; Rome, 1886).
The best known Byzantine monuments of the south are found in Sicily —the Cathedral of Monreale, with its celebrated cloisters, the Cathedral of Cefalu, the Capella Palatina and the Martorana. But let me recall the fact that Arighis, duke of Benevento, in the eighth century ordered the construction of a church in that city, dedicated to Saint Sophia, on the model of the one erected by Justinian. And we find later examples, at Molfetta, Bari, Canosa and other places, of the cupola united to Latin forms. It is needless to add that Greek influence on decoration is everywhere very pronounced.
The architecture of the Sicilian monuments named above is not wholly Greek, but they belong to a type composed of numerous elements which form a very complete and homogeneous ensemble. The splendor of their mosaics, the richness of their marbles and the originality of their architectonic forms have made them celebrated, and they are indeed worthy of admiration and of study. But research has thus far failed to settle definitively the question of their origin. The discussions concerning them have been recently earnestly reopened by the investigations of Abbe Gravina, the author of a fine monograph on the Cathedra] of Monreale. The question resolves itself into the determination of just what influence has been exercised on architecture by the divers peoples that have ruled Sicily at different epochs, and what is due to national currents. As to the time at which these monuments were constructed everything points to the period of Norman rule, that is the twelfth century. M. Gravina’s presentation of the case, the logical consequence of which is the destruction of the entire historic edifice of Sicilian mediaeval architecture, cannot be discussed here, but it must be said that his arguments are in no way conclusive.
The Cathedral of Monreale, which was founded by King
William, was already well advanced in 1174, as was also its beautiful monastery. Yet I do not think the church and decorations were entirely completed in 1182; the work must, however, have been very far along then. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that this is one of the richest and most characteristic of Italian edifices.
The cathedral of Cefalu is older than that of Monreale, but by only a few years. Although it is in the same style, it is less elegant and less ornate. It was founded in 1131, by King Roger, who also began the Capella Palatina in 1140. I should be glad to speak of several other Sicilian structures, but will confine myself to a brief reference to the church of Santa Maria del Ammiraglio, called the Martorana, the work of George of Antioch, King Roger’s admiral, finished in 1143, and annexed in 1433 to the convent of nuns established by Aloisa Martorana ; also to the celebrated Cathedral of Palmero and the palace of the Cuba. The reader is referred to the following table, in which are grouped certain Sicilian constructions belonging to the same style.
It will be noted that the erection of all these magnificent structures is comprised within a short period of fifty-five years.
While an art was developing in Sicily in which Greek influence was thus predominant, in the north of Italy, and especially in Lombardy, the so-called Lombard architecture was making its most vigorous flights. Lombard art is full of interest to us, whether, considered in itself or as the basis of the Gothic, but, for obvious reasons, it can be only briefly treated here. It took definitive shape, as is well known, in the ninth century, and continued to develop even after the terrors of the year 1000,which long assumed an importance that modern criticism has much underrated. Lombard art then carries us back of the year 1000, the period which we had reached in our study of the Sicilian monuments. And earlier than the ninth century, before the country was overrun by the Longobards, what style of architecture prevailed there ? It will be remembered that Alboin, the Longobard king, invaded Italy in 568, and that the Longobard kingdom then established lasted for more than two centuries, until Desiderius and Adelgisio, aspiring to the possession of the entire peninsula, were driven out in 774.
It may not be as difficult to answer this question as would at first appear. Very little Longobard architecture has come down to us; besides, no one can maintain that a period of artistic progress in Italy could have resulted from the unfortunate invasion of this people. It is in no way probable that they brought with them any new constructive element; the fact that they employed Italian architects is in itself a powerful argument in favor of this view : all the artists of that day so far as known, bore Italian names and, according to Clericetti, they were largely Comacini.
(To be continued.)
Unity Building, Chicago. — The Unity Building in Chicago, the tallest in the world, is almost completed. Although it is sixteen stories high, the perpendicular is said to be only a little more than half an inch out of plumb ; and one of the first civil engineers in the country has recently reported that the foundations are thirty-three and one-half per cent stronger than the average. The exterior of the building has often been described, but not the interior. The main entrance rises in a Roman arch to the second story. The grand hall or corridor is wainscoted in marble, and the gallery affording entrance to the offices on the second story is also of marble. Six elevators having a front of silver-plated metal-work run from the basement to the sixteenth story. The stairway is of steel, with marble steps, and everywhere through the building is seen the combination of silver plate and marble. The partitions between offices are of hollow tile and crystalline glass, the wainscoting and woodwork of oak, and the floors of white maple. The illumination is furnished by electricity. The light-shaft extends from corridor-floor to roof and is lined with white porcelain brick. In the Unity, the Auditorium and the Rookery, Chicago, now has three of the largest buildings of their kind in the world. — N. Y. Evening Post.
The origin of St. Mark’s is referred to the first half of the ninth century (829), that is to the time of the removal of the body of Saint Mark from Alexandria to Venice. The Doge Justiniano Partecipazio then ordered the erection of a church in honor of the Saint. Later, this edifice was destroyed (976) and it was rebuilt on a larger scale by Pietro Orseolo I. The present basilica retains few traces of the Church of Orseolo. In 1043 the doge Domenico Contarini began to reduce it to its present form. It was completed according to the historians, by Domencio Selvo (1071?). But the work was continued after the eleventh century and the church as it now exists may be considered as belonging to the beginning of the twelfth century. As for the architects of St. Mark’s, no names have come down to us. M. Bayet, in treating of this subject, asks if they were Greeks [cf “ L’ Art Byzantin,” p. 303]. The Orient, in fact, had perhaps a powerful influence at Venice on art and the artistic industries.
Signor Cattaneo remarks in his work entitled “ L’ Architettura in Italia da s° VI al Mille circa,” (p. 267), that the Italo-Byzantine art, on reaching the lagoons, found, at the outset, an adversary in Greek art; but toward the middle of the ninth century it succeeded in triumphing over its rival. In this way good elements of production were introduced and the Italo-Byzantine art of Venice bore fruit superior to that of the other Italian cities.
We may note, in passing, that the only really Byzantine monuments that were constructed on Gaulish territory were of Italian importation. Notre Dame at Aix-la-Chapelle, for example, was built by Charlemagne in imitation of San Vitale, and Saint Front at Perigueux, which was founded at the beginning of the eleventh century, was copied from St. Mark’s.
Moving southward, in search of examples of that floweringout of Byzantine art of which we have spoken, we find that there are very few recognizable traces of it in Tuscany and Rome. The earliest evidences of a Byzantine tendencv at Rome are seen in the Church of San Stefano al Celio, erected by Pope Simplicius, between 468 and 482 (see de Rossi, “ La Basilica de S. Stefano Rotondo” ; Rome, 1886).
The best known Byzantine monuments of the south are found in Sicily —the Cathedral of Monreale, with its celebrated cloisters, the Cathedral of Cefalu, the Capella Palatina and the Martorana. But let me recall the fact that Arighis, duke of Benevento, in the eighth century ordered the construction of a church in that city, dedicated to Saint Sophia, on the model of the one erected by Justinian. And we find later examples, at Molfetta, Bari, Canosa and other places, of the cupola united to Latin forms. It is needless to add that Greek influence on decoration is everywhere very pronounced.
The architecture of the Sicilian monuments named above is not wholly Greek, but they belong to a type composed of numerous elements which form a very complete and homogeneous ensemble. The splendor of their mosaics, the richness of their marbles and the originality of their architectonic forms have made them celebrated, and they are indeed worthy of admiration and of study. But research has thus far failed to settle definitively the question of their origin. The discussions concerning them have been recently earnestly reopened by the investigations of Abbe Gravina, the author of a fine monograph on the Cathedra] of Monreale. The question resolves itself into the determination of just what influence has been exercised on architecture by the divers peoples that have ruled Sicily at different epochs, and what is due to national currents. As to the time at which these monuments were constructed everything points to the period of Norman rule, that is the twelfth century. M. Gravina’s presentation of the case, the logical consequence of which is the destruction of the entire historic edifice of Sicilian mediaeval architecture, cannot be discussed here, but it must be said that his arguments are in no way conclusive.
The Cathedral of Monreale, which was founded by King
William, was already well advanced in 1174, as was also its beautiful monastery. Yet I do not think the church and decorations were entirely completed in 1182; the work must, however, have been very far along then. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that this is one of the richest and most characteristic of Italian edifices.
The cathedral of Cefalu is older than that of Monreale, but by only a few years. Although it is in the same style, it is less elegant and less ornate. It was founded in 1131, by King Roger, who also began the Capella Palatina in 1140. I should be glad to speak of several other Sicilian structures, but will confine myself to a brief reference to the church of Santa Maria del Ammiraglio, called the Martorana, the work of George of Antioch, King Roger’s admiral, finished in 1143, and annexed in 1433 to the convent of nuns established by Aloisa Martorana ; also to the celebrated Cathedral of Palmero and the palace of the Cuba. The reader is referred to the following table, in which are grouped certain Sicilian constructions belonging to the same style.
It will be noted that the erection of all these magnificent structures is comprised within a short period of fifty-five years.
While an art was developing in Sicily in which Greek influence was thus predominant, in the north of Italy, and especially in Lombardy, the so-called Lombard architecture was making its most vigorous flights. Lombard art is full of interest to us, whether, considered in itself or as the basis of the Gothic, but, for obvious reasons, it can be only briefly treated here. It took definitive shape, as is well known, in the ninth century, and continued to develop even after the terrors of the year 1000,which long assumed an importance that modern criticism has much underrated. Lombard art then carries us back of the year 1000, the period which we had reached in our study of the Sicilian monuments. And earlier than the ninth century, before the country was overrun by the Longobards, what style of architecture prevailed there ? It will be remembered that Alboin, the Longobard king, invaded Italy in 568, and that the Longobard kingdom then established lasted for more than two centuries, until Desiderius and Adelgisio, aspiring to the possession of the entire peninsula, were driven out in 774.
It may not be as difficult to answer this question as would at first appear. Very little Longobard architecture has come down to us; besides, no one can maintain that a period of artistic progress in Italy could have resulted from the unfortunate invasion of this people. It is in no way probable that they brought with them any new constructive element; the fact that they employed Italian architects is in itself a powerful argument in favor of this view : all the artists of that day so far as known, bore Italian names and, according to Clericetti, they were largely Comacini.
(To be continued.)
Unity Building, Chicago. — The Unity Building in Chicago, the tallest in the world, is almost completed. Although it is sixteen stories high, the perpendicular is said to be only a little more than half an inch out of plumb ; and one of the first civil engineers in the country has recently reported that the foundations are thirty-three and one-half per cent stronger than the average. The exterior of the building has often been described, but not the interior. The main entrance rises in a Roman arch to the second story. The grand hall or corridor is wainscoted in marble, and the gallery affording entrance to the offices on the second story is also of marble. Six elevators having a front of silver-plated metal-work run from the basement to the sixteenth story. The stairway is of steel, with marble steps, and everywhere through the building is seen the combination of silver plate and marble. The partitions between offices are of hollow tile and crystalline glass, the wainscoting and woodwork of oak, and the floors of white maple. The illumination is furnished by electricity. The light-shaft extends from corridor-floor to roof and is lined with white porcelain brick. In the Unity, the Auditorium and the Rookery, Chicago, now has three of the largest buildings of their kind in the world. — N. Y. Evening Post.