of the church, and is itself a distinct object. It was begun in 1473,
from the designs of Ambrogio Fossano, and as might be supposed from the
place and date, is not Gothic, but an immense heap of little parts, in
the taste of the _cinque cento_, often beautiful in themselves, but
leaving no impression as a whole, except an undefined sentiment of its
immense prodigality of riches. I should not raise your ideas too high,
if I were to say that there are acres of bas-reliefs in figures and
ornaments, often beautifully executed, and never ill done. The material
is marble throughout; but after all I could say or write, I could never
sufficiently impress you with the richness of the building, or with the
feeling of fatigue with which you take leave of it.
LETTER XVI.
VERONA.
_Verona, 29th October, 1816._
I left Milan on the 24th of October, with some very pleasant company.
One of them was Sig. Brocchi, a celebrated mineralogist, whose knowledge
appeared to be general, and to embrace every subject on which the
conversation turned. We stopped at Brescia, where I just ran into the
theatre. It is exceedingly beautiful, and I regretted the want of time
to examine it. The following day we continued our route, which lies for
about eight miles along the broad end of the Lago di Guarda, commanding
views of that noble piece of water; but the weather was hazy, and clouds
hung about the mountains. We reached Verona at about four, where my
first visit was to the church of Sta. Anastasia; but here, among so many
classic antiquities, I cannot begin with a description of the Gothic;
though to confess the truth, none of the fragments of Roman art can
claim much merit on the score of beauty. The first object is the
amphitheatre; still an immense pile, although almost all the external
circuit has been destroyed. It is supposed to have been built after the
death of Titus; because it seems improbable that so great a work should
be undertaken in a provincial city, before one of the same sort had been
erected at Rome; and before that of Trajan, from the account which the
younger Pliny has left us of some shews exhibited at Verona: that is,
between 81 and 117 of our era. In the thirteenth century it was used as
a place for judicial combats; and it is recorded of some of the
Visconti, that they received twenty-five Venetian lire for every duel
fought there. As early as 1228 we find that its preservation had become
an object of public attention, as the Podestà engages to spend five
hundred lire in its restoration. In 1475 penalties were decreed against
any one who should remove any of the stone. In 1545 a special officer
was appointed to take care of it. In 1568 a voluntary contribution was
raised for its support, and in 1579 a tax was imposed for its
reparation. Other decrees in its favour have been since made; yet
notwithstanding this continued care, only four arches remain of the
seventy-two originally composing the exterior circuit, and a large
portion of the steps on the inside were taken away; but the latter have
lately been restored. The following dimensions are in Veronese feet,
each of which is equal to thirteen English inches and two thirds:
Ft. In.
Longitudinal axis 450 0
Ditto, of arena 218 6
Conjugate axis 360 0
Ditto, of arena 129 0
Circumference 1290 0
Height of what remains from the original pavement 88 0
The second circuit of this building remains almost entire. The arches of
the lower range are converted into little shops, over which shed roofs
project from the upper tier. Internally, the seats continue nearly in
one slope from top to bottom, nor is there any evidence that they were
divided by _precinctions_;[32] for though this part is described by
Vitruvius as essential to a theatre, it is certain that it was not
always adopted either in them, or in the amphitheatres. Immediately
above the podium, however, is a wide space, which, though never called
by that name, is precisely of the nature of a precinction, and the sixth
step from this is very narrow, and as it could not be used as a seat,
the back of the step immediately below, would become a means of
communication: it is uncertain however, whether this is any thing more
than a bungling restoration. The steps now existing are forty-three,
each on an average, as nearly as I could determine it, sixteen inches
high, and twenty-eight wide, and sloping two inches from back to front.
I will not undertake to say, that this latter circumstance arises from
any thing but the settlement of the work; yet I think, from the few
ancient steps which remain, that these were originally laid with a small
slope, to throw off the rain water. The part which still exists of the
outer circuit of the amphitheatre, is unconnected with the steps, and at
the upper part, is entirely detached from the rest of the fabric; so
that if we have therefore no direct proof of the existence of a wooden
gallery, there is at least no evidence against it. The building is much
larger than that at Nismes, but to me less interesting, from the greater
destruction of the outside, and the nearly entire state of the inside;
the decay of which at Nismes exposes to view the intricacies of the
interior construction. It is still used, for I saw there an exhibition
of horses and horsemanship, of dancing on the tight rope, and of dancing
dogs.
From the amphitheatre I went to an ancient gateway of two arches. The
Romans seem generally to have formed in this way the entrance to their
cities, probably that the carriages entering and going out might not
interfere with each other. Each arch has its own pediment, and over
these are two stories of building, with windows and pilasters
whimsically disposed, and without any correspondence with the gateways
below, except that they occupy the same extent. An inscription seems to
attribute it to Gallienus; but the Veronese antiquaries say that the
style is too good for that period, and that there are traces of a more
ancient inscription, which has been erased to make room for that which
at present exists. The same words are repeated over each gateway. There
is another arch in somewhat better style, which also appears to have
made part of a double gateway, and as its situation proves that it could
not have been an entrance into the city, it is supposed to have
appertained to the forum. The arch of the Gavii seems to have been a
triumphal, or perhaps a sepulchral arch; and we are told of some other
fragments of the same sort, but they are now destroyed, or so much
degraded, as hardly to claim the attention of a passing traveller. There
are also vestiges of a Roman bridge, and there is another bridge, ‘Ponte
del Castel Vecchio,’ built in 1354. It is remarkable for a large arch
forming a portion of a circle, whose chord is 161 feet; it appears firm,
but is shut up for fear of an accident.
I now return to the church of Sta. Anastasia, which, if the front were
finished, would probably be the most perfect specimen in existence of
the style of architecture to which it belongs. It was built at the
beginning of the thirteenth century by the Dominicans. The front was to
have been enriched with bas-reliefs, but this work has been only begun.
The inside consists of a nave of six arches with side aisles. The
transept is scarcely wider than one division of the vault, and
consequently does not strikingly interrupt the series of arches; and
beyond this is a choir, consisting only of one bay, without aisles, and
a semicircular recess. The transept is short; and in the angle between
that and the choir is a square tower, terminating in an octagonal spire.
All the arches and vaultings are obtusely pointed. The springing of the
middle vault hardly exceeds the points of the arches into the aisles;
and the windows of the clerestory are circular and very small. In the
cathedral of Milan, the width from centre to centre of each pier,
measured along the church, is just half the width of the nave, measured
also from centre to centre; and this may perhaps be considered as the
general arrangement of a Gothic building. In some of our own churches,
the proportional width of the side arch is still less. But in this
edifice, the first dimension is seven-eighths of the second. This
circumstance, in connexion with the little windows of the clerestory,
and the want of height above the side arches, impresses upon the
structure a character totally different from any thing we have; but it
forms a very fine composition, and one which makes the building appear
larger than it is; though it is by no means a small church, being about
75 feet wide, and 300 feet long.
The cathedral is another edifice of the same sort, the erection of which
is attributed to the twelfth century. A council was held in it in 1185,
and it was consecrated by Pope Urban III. in 1187. There are
nevertheless several circumstances, which would have induced me to
suppose it posterior to Sta. Anastasia. Externally, however, the Duomo
is ornamented with simple, and Sta. Anastasia with intersecting little
arches, which perhaps, on the whole, is as good a guide as we have in
the dates of this style. Four columns, supporting two arches, one above
the other, and the lower columns themselves resting on griffins, form
the porch. This mode of supporting columns seems to have been common in
Italy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. On the sides of the door
are some curious bas-reliefs, representing Orlando and Olivier. Maffei
observes of them, that the armour is precisely the same as that, which
according to Livy, was used by the ancient Samnites. Internally, the
arrangement is nearly the same as at Sta. Anastasia; but it is shorter
in proportion to the width, and not so high, and the side aisles are
wider. The piers are very slender and clustered, with fillets down the
middle of the shafts. The capitals are large, both at the springing of
the side arches, and of that of the vault; the bases preserve the
members of the Greek Attic with some peculiar modifications, but without
the deepened scotia, which we see so frequently in the latter
productions of our early Gothic. In beauty this church is much inferior
to Sta. Anastasia. The cloister attached to it has two ranges of arches
in the height of the gallery; each arch rests on a pair of columns, and
each pair is of a single stone, the capitals and bases being united.
Adjoining is a fragment of what is said to have been a church before the
erection of the present cathedral. It is merely a rectangular room, with
a groined vault, supported on columns.
The most interesting example at Verona to the antiquary, as a specimen
of the architecture of the depth of the middle ages, is the church of S.
Zeno. It is a most curious edifice, both externally and internally.
Tradition assigns the erection of it to Pepin, father of Charlemagne;
but if he begun he did not terminate it, for we find that in the tenth
century, an emperor, (perhaps Otho II.) on leaving Verona, left a sum of
money for its completion. In 1045, the Abbot Alberigo began the tower,
which was finished in 1178; and meanwhile (in 1138), the church itself
was restored and aggrandized. The front may be cited as a good example
of the early architecture of this part of Italy; the general idea is
that of a lofty gable, with a leanto on each side, which being the
natural result of the construction is, if well proportioned, a pleasing
form. The entrance is flanked on each side by a column resting on the
back of a lion, and these columns support an arch, which springs some
feet above the top of the capitals. There are sculptures on each side,
as there are in the cathedral, but these are principally taken from
Bible histories. Six of those on the left hand represent the creation,
and the fall of man; on the two lower a chase is sculptured. The feet of
the hunter are placed in stirrups; and this, according to Maffei, is the
most ancient piece of sculpture in which they are exhibited. Some lines
underneath designate him as Theodoric, and according to the vulgar
notion, the infernal spirits furnished him with dogs and horses. Has
this arisen from his being an Arian? On the other side are eight
bas-reliefs from the New Testament, and over the doorway there are
others, which seem to relate to S. Zeno. Besides these, the twelve
months of the year are represented, beginning with March. All the
figures are rudely sculptured; but the arabesques which enrich the
divisions of the different compartments, are beautifully designed, and
not ill executed. The knowledge and skill requisite for these, is much
less than that required for figures, and the merit of the design is
probably to be attributed to the artist having copied from some ancient
specimens. The doors also are covered with scripture histories in
bronze, in forty-eight panels; curious, as early specimens of art, but
not pretending to any beauty. Immediately above the arch of the porch is
a hand with the fore and middle fingers extended, and the two others
bent, in the act of the _Latin benediction_. It is said, that in the
early ages, before the artists thought of making him an old man
supported on cherubim, the Almighty was always indicated in this way.
Above the porch is a wheel window, which interrupts the lines of the
rest of the architecture; but from the simplicity of its ornaments, I am
inclined to believe it part of the original structure. It is a wheel of
Fortune, with ascending and descending figures. Maffei gives the
inscriptions:
En ego fortuna moderor mortalibus una
Elevo depono bona cunctis vel mala dono.
This is on the external circumference; within is
Induo nudatos denudo veste paratos
In me confidit si quis derisus abibit.
The whole façade, when free from other decorations, has slender upright
ribs, terminating in a capital, and three small arches in each interval
between the ribs; in the middle, these are divided into several stories;
those on the sides continue from near the ground to the slope of the
roof.
On entering the building, we descend by a flight of ten steps into the
nave, to ascend again to the choir, or rather presbytery, for there is
no transept to divide it from the nave, and the proper choir is merely a
deep vaulted recess at the end of the building. The nave is high, with
low side aisles, the arches of which are semicircular. They are in
pairs, being supported alternately on columns and piers, from the latter
of which ribs ascend to support the roof of the nave; and over each pair
of arches is one very narrow round-headed window; two only of these
ascending shafts support a direct arch across the nave; in other
respects the roof is of wood, as it probably always was, for the
arrangement is not calculated to support any vaulting. In the elevated
part of the nave, or presbytery, as I have before called it, the lower
part of the piers seems to be concealed by the present pavement; and yet
one may discover that their bases are not on the same level with those
of the lower part of the church. The recess forming the choir is vaulted
with a pointed arch. Under the elevated part of the building is a
subterraneous church, and my first idea was that the pavement had been
elevated after the building was completed, in order to form this crypt.
On descending into it, however, this opinion was very much shaken. Like
the old church by the cathedral, it is covered with semicircular groined
arches, resting on columns disposed at equal distances from each other.
On one side is a recess under the choir of the church, which, like the
choir itself, is covered with a pointed vault, and the three adjacent
arches are carried higher than the rest in order to make room for the
opening. The four piers of the presbytery above are carried down through
the groining of this crypt, without appearing to be connected with it.
Two of these piers are larger than the other two. One of the smaller
exhibits, close under the vaulting, a base similar to those of the
columns of the nave, but somewhat higher in position; nothing of this
sort is visible in the other. Of the two larger ones, one is a mere
square mass, without mouldings of any sort; the other is divided into
shafts, and has a moulded base, but not corresponding with those of the
nave, and much lower than they are. The extended basement of each of
these piers supports four columns of the crypt, which are therefore
shorter than the rest. Here seems to be proof, that this subterraneous
church was neither prior, coetaneous, nor posterior to the other; a
difficulty to which I can offer no solution. At one of the altars in the
church, you are called upon to admire a group of four columns of red
marble, with their bases and capitals, all formed out of a single stone;
and in a little chamber, near the entrance, is a great vase of porphyry,
also from a single stone, the external diameter of which is 13 feet 4
inches, the internal 8 feet 8 inches; and the pedestal is formed out of
another block of the same material. This stood originally on the outside
of the church, and Maffei supposes it to have been intended for washing
the feet of pilgrims, before entering the sacred edifice. If so it would
hardly have been elevated on a pedestal.
The cloisters of S. Zeno consist of arches supported on little coupled
columns of red marble, united by a little appendage of the same
substance, at the necking of the column, and at the upper torus of the
base. On one side is a projecting edifice, sustained by columns of
different sizes, which formerly contained a large basin for the monks to
wash themselves before entering the refectory; but it is now in ruins.
Adjoining the cloisters, we find here also, an old church, built in the
same manner as the one which stands close by the cathedral, with groined
semicircular arches supported on four pillars, all unlike, dividing it
into nine equal squares. It is possible that this may have been the
original edifice of Pepin, but the want of transept in a work of this
size, and other particulars of the architecture, induce me to think the
larger church erected before the year 1000, while the front is doubtless
of the twelfth century. The tower is panelled on the lower stories, and
each panel is surmounted by rows of little ornamental arches; but the
two upper stories have each a triple semicircular headed opening on each
face. Above these is a cornice with intersecting ornamental arches. The
lower part is probably of the time of the Abbot Alberigi, that is, 1045;
the second may be of 1178, or of some period between the two; but there
is nothing very decisive in windows of this sort, which were certainly
sometimes used much earlier, and continued in use as low as the
thirteenth, and perhaps even in the fourteenth century. The upright
stiles of the panelling are continued, to form a turret at each angle,
which is surmounted by a pinnacle, and the work is crowned by a square
spire.
In a little court close by this church, is a vault honoured with the
name of the tomb of Pepin, and in it an empty sarcophagus; the body, as
it is said, having been carried to Paris. Pepin, however, died at St.
Denis, and there is no probability that his bones were ever here. The
sarcophagus is singular in having three strong ribs on one side of the
lid, and none on the other.
Near the church of S. Zeno, are a tower and some portions of wall, said
to be the remains of the bishop’s palace; in which the German emperors
several times resided, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
After S. Zeno, I visited the church of San Bernardino, where is a
beautiful little circular chapel of the Pellegrini family, built by
Michele Sanmicheli, who ranks among the best architects of this part of
Italy; probably inferior only to Palladio. He was born in 1484,
thirty-four years before that artist, and died in 1559. His fame is
still greater as a military engineer than as an architect; since to him
we owe the invention of the modern system of fortification, where every
part is flanked by some other. His first work of this sort was in 1527,
and as might be expected, imperfect; but in his later works, we find
almost all the arrangements afterwards employed by the French engineers.
To return to the chapel of Pellegrini; it is perhaps too high in
proportion to its size. It has spirally fluted columns, and many other
defects might be pointed out in the details; but though Sanmicheli
furnished the designs, it was not finished under his direction; and he
is said, indeed, to have been very much dissatisfied with the execution.
Such as it is, however, every body admires it; it speaks to our feelings
rather than to our judgment; a language of which it is very difficult to
be master. The arabesques with which the pilasters are adorned are very
elegant.
Among the churches at Verona is a little one called San Giovanni in
Valle, which has an antique subterranean church, pretending to contain
the bodies of the two apostles, St. Simon and St. Jude. Maffei says,
probably very correctly, that towards the end of the fourteenth century,
an ancient sarcophagus was discovered containing bones; and it
immediately obtained currency in the city that these were the bodies of
St. Simon and St. Jude. The top of this sarcophagus, he continues, is
comparatively modern, but it could not have been carved with any
reference to these apostles, because it represents two men in monkish
habits, one older and wearing a beard, one younger and without one, and
behind these, is a child. I bought a little book at the place for twenty
centesimi (two pence), published this year, which gives a much more
detailed account, and as it is written by Marco Dorna, _Vicario della
Chiesa di San Giovanni in Valle_, it becomes a legitimate specimen of
the present mode of reasoning. The work begins with a history of these
apostles, and how they converted Egypt and Mesopotamia to the Catholic
faith, and then went together into Persia; where, after converting
numbers of the people and princes from their former errors; destroying
temples, and overturning the heathen images with their own hands; they
received the crown of martyrdom. What immediately became of their bodies
is uncertain, but it is well ascertained that these were afterwards
carried to Rome, and deposited in a sumptuous altar prepared for them in
the Basilica of St. Peter, where they are reputed still to remain. “If
then,” continues my author, “these relics are in the Basilica at Rome,
how can they be in the church of San Giovanni in Valle, at Verona? This
question is too rational to be neglected, and after the researches I
have made, the answer will be easy.
“In the Catalogue of Italian Saints, written in Latin by Fra Filippo
Ferrario Alessandrino, of the order of the servants of the Virgin Mary,
printed at Milan in the year 1613, by Girolamo Bordonio, is found an
index pointing out those bodies of saints which are said to be in
different places at the same time, and in it are these words. ‘The
bodies of St. Simon and St. Jude are in the church of St. Peter at Rome,
and in that of S. Giovanni in Valle, at Verona.’ This author prefixes to
the index a short preface, in which he contends ‘that it may be said,
and with truth, that the bodies of saints are, at the same time, in
different places. It may really be so,’ says he, ‘because the term
_body_ is applied to any considerable part of the body, and such relics
are venerated as entire bodies; as for example, the body of the apostle
St. James the Great, is said to be in Galicia, and also in his church on
the hill of Griliano in this neighbourhood; nor is this a solitary
example; indeed there are so many others, that Monsignore Sarnelli, in
the eighth letter of his third volume, considers it as an established
custom in the church, and our own cardinal, bishop Valerio, makes a
similar observation, calling it a _pious extension_ (_pia estensione_).
In the same manner the bishop Marco Gradenigo expresses himself. In
short, it is sufficiently evident that we may justly say, that the
bodies of St. Simon and St. Jude may be at Rome, and yet also in this
church of S. Giovanni, transported there in time of war by some one of
the faithful.