S. Trophimus of Arles, Abbey of, 131
S. Vitale, Church of (Ravenna), 10, 23, 50, 69, 70
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, Church of (Constantinople), 70
Saintes, 102
Salisbury Cathedral, 89, 91, 137
Salonica, 20 note 8, 68 note 20, 72
Saracens, 26, 56, 78, 115, 116, 117
Saxons, 26, 86, 92
Scarborough Castle, 137
Scheldt, River, 27
Scott, Leader, 45, 47
Séez, 44
Seine, River, 27
Seraphim, 81
Sergius I, Pope, 114
Sergius II, Pope, 115
Serlo, Monk of Mont S. Michel, Normandy, 40
Serlo and Aldred, Abbey of, 90
Sfondriato, Cardinal, 117
Sicily, 115, 131
Silchester, 87
Simeon, Monk of S. Ouen, Rouen, 40
Siricius, Bishop of Rome, 140, 141, 142, 143
Sixtus I, 122
Soissons Cathedral, 131
Soissons, Cathedral of, 33
Solomon, King, 45
Solomon’s Knot, 47
Southwell Abbey, 40
Southwell Cathedral, 70
Spalatro, 4, 5, 53
Spires, Church of, 102
Spires, Cathedral of, 24
Spirito Sancto, Church of, 10
Spoleto, 69 note 20
Steinbach, Church at, 23
Stephen, King of England, 38
Stephen II, Pope, 141, 142, 143
Stephen, Sir James, 26
Strasburg, Crypt of, 102
Suger, Abbot of S. Denys near Paris, 102
Syria, 50, 56
Szyrma, Mr. Lach, 92
Telesphorus, 122
Tertullian, 98, 133
Teutons, 106
Tewkesbury Abbey, 40, 43, 44
Theodolinda, Queen, 13, 14, 18
Theodora, Empress, 72
Theodoric the Ostrogoth, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 53, 73
Theodosius I, the Great, 6, 7
Theodosius II, 7
Thessalonica, 68
Thor, 92
_Times, The_, quoted, 60 note 18
Titus, 105
Torrigio, 118
Toscanella, 19
Toul, 27
Toul Cathedral, 131
Toulouse, 27, 30
Tournai, 27
Tournai, Cathedral of, 69
Tours, 26, 27, 45
Treves, 27
Trinité, Church of the (Caen), 37
Troyes, 27
Tsar Kolokol of Moscow Bell, 52, 53
Tulun, Mosque of, 56
Turks, 4
Ubaldi, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123
Urban VIII (Cardinal Barberini), 118
Valentinian II, 7, 8, 9
Valpolicella, 19
Vandals, 55
Vatican Hill, the, 100, 107, 109, 113, 118, 121
Venice, 30, 70
Verdun, 27
Verona, 19
Vézelay, 32, 33 note 11
Vézelay, Crypt of, 102
Via Cæsarea, the, 10 note 5
Victor, Bishop of Rome, 122
Villemain, 26
Viollet le Duc, 26, 28, 50, 136 note 29
Vitruvius, 5 note 3
Volpiano, William of, 34, 34 note 12, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 50, 54
Wace, 39
Walkelin, Monk of S. Etienne, Caen, 40
West, Dr., 60 note 19
Westminster Abbey, 22, 61, 88, 141
Whepstead, 143
Wilfred, Bishop, 21, 102
William I of England, 22, 37, 39, 42, 43
William II of England, 38
William of S. Carileph, 40, 44
Winchester, 129
Winchester Cathedral, 40, 43, 70, 89
Winchester, Crypt of, 102
Wing, Crypt of, 102
Worcester (Church of), Crypt of, 90, 102
Worms, Cathedral of, 24
Wulphere, King of the Mercians, 138
Wyclif, 132
York, 129
York Cathedral, 61, 89, 91
York Minster, Crypt of, 102
_Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, London and Bungay._
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Notably Quicherat, Viollet le Duc, de Caumont, Corroyer, in France;
in our England, Freeman, Jackson, and Bond; Rivoira in Italy, only to
mention a few notable names.
[2] Signor Rivoira, _Le Origini dell Architectura Lombarda_, 2 vols.
4to: Roma. Sir Thomas Graham Jackson, R.A., _Byzantine and Romanesque
Architecture_, 2 vols. 4to: Cambridge.
[3] A word or two explanatory of the term “entablature” will be useful
for those who are not familiar with architectural terminology. The term
belongs to the Renaissance period; it seems to have been first used by
Evelyn (A.D. 1664). Vitruvius has no single term to express the group
of members of which the “entablature” is composed. He writes of “Membra
quae supra columnas imponuntur.” These include the _architrave_,
_frieze_ and _cornice_.
[4] Freeman remarks here that in the buildings of Ravenna (fifth, sixth
and seventh centuries) and in other Romanesque piles, a solid member
is thrust in between the abacus and the capital, in order to guard
the often delicate capital from the pressure of the arch it supports.
The Italian name for this member is _pulvino_, which is sometimes
translated now as _pulvin_. This _pulvino_, especially in Byzantine
work, often grows into a double capital. The English scholar deems this
an unsightly feature in Romanesque architecture, and suggests that the
true remedy is found in the noble buildings of Lucca and Pisa, where
the abaci are heavier--heavy enough to protect the capital from being
crushed. The usual English equivalent for _Pulvino_ is Dosseret, or
Impost.
[5] _Classis_--_Classe_--was the port, perhaps the chief harbour of
the Roman fleet, and was built by the Emperor Augustus. It was in the
great days of Ravenna a vast port and arsenal, and possessed various
important churches, of which the magnificent Basilica of S. Apollinare
in Classe alone remains. Classis was joined to Ravenna by a long
suburb, the Via Cæsarea, nearly three miles long; but Classis and
Cæsarea have all disappeared, and the lonely Basilica of S. Apollinare
stands now by itself in the marshes.
The sea, which once bathed the walls of Classis, has retreated some two
miles, leaving what was once Classis empty and desolate. In the days
of Ravenna’s glory and prosperity the three towns, Ravenna, the long
suburb of Cæsarea, and the vast port of Classis, must have appeared as
one great city.
[6] Certain writers place the vanishing of the Comacine builders at a
somewhat later date.
[7] Writing of the importance of certain of the works of this far-back
age of Lombardic art, Paulus Diaconus dwells on the “Basilica of
the Mother of God,” outside the walls of Pavia, erected by Queen
Rodelinda, _circa_ A.D. 686, and describes it in the following words:
“Opere mirabili condidit, ornamentisque miraficis decoravit” (_Hist.
Langobardorum_). Paulus Diaconus was a monk, and most probably wrote
his history in the great Monastery of the Benedictines at Monte
Cassino. He was born _circa_ A.D. 723 and died about A.D. 800.
[8] We are not dealing here with Byzantine architecture. Constantinople
and the Eastern empire, while maintaining generally the round-arch
style, had her own great architectural invention, the Cupola, which
under Justinian in the sixth century was brought to perfection in the
great Church of S. Sophia; this was copied in many a famous church in
the Eastern empire. It influenced later some of the architecture in the
Southern Provinces of Gaul (France).
Freeman, however, is scarcely accurate in styling the Cupola as the
great architectural invention of the Byzantine masters.
The Byzantine-domed Basilica, as it appeared in the time of Justinian,
as Rivoira accurately tells us, was the result of a gradual but
tolerably rapid evolution. It was really a creation of the Latin mind,
and is based upon the old Roman-domed buildings. The Byzantine-domed
church appears first in Macedonia, where we find it notably in Salonica
in the Church of S. Sophia in that city; it received its present
development at Constantinople, in the mighty Basilica of S. Sophia,
and may justly be termed the principal characteristic feature of the
round-arch style of Byzantine architecture.
The dome or Cupola was, however, by no means unknown or unused in
the Lombardic School of the Comacine builders. But it never really
took root in Italy and in the West, save, perhaps, later in certain
districts in the south of France. It is in Constantinople and in the
near East that it was developed and adopted as the main prominent
feature of the Byzantine style.
[9] In this little summary of French Romanesque churches of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, the careful classification of Sir
Thomas Jackson, R.A., has been generally followed. A considerable
portion of his work on Romanesque and Byzantine architecture is devoted
to this Romanesque work in France.
[10] For the rise and development of Norman-Romanesque, its passing
into England and its connection with the great Burgundian Monastery of
Cluny, see below, p. 36.
[11] In these great Gothic cathedrals traces of the old Romanesque
style remain, but the round-arch and other Romanesque features were
evidently rapidly giving place to the new and generally favoured Gothic
school. In other parts of France, Sir Thomas Jackson well summarises as
follows; when this movement towards a new style in the “Royal Domain”
took place in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, we find Romanesque
art still running its course. In Vézelay (Burgundy), for instance,
although the pointed arch had been admitted, the general design still
clung to the ancient tradition, and the round-arch still ruled the
design. In Auvergne it still reigned supreme.... In Aquitaine the domed
style continued to prevail. In Normandy and England the round-arched
style followed a line of its own. In Provence, too, Romanesque held its
own for a longer period than in the “Royal Domain.”
[12] William of Volpiano was born _circa_ A.D. 961, on the Island of
Santa Giulia in the Lago di Orta--part of the Lago Maggiore. He was the
son of Roberto, Lord of Volpiano. He also founded the Monastery of S.
Benigno de Fruttuaria in Piedmont. He became one of the brotherhood of
Cluny towards the end of the tenth century.
[13] Of the capitals of the columns, the most usual were what is
commonly termed cushion capitals; these were not invented by the Norman
architects, but under their hands put on a character of their own.
[14] Orderic’s words which he puts into the mouth of the dying
conqueror are remarkable--
“Sic multa millia pulcherrimæ gentis, proh dolor! funestus trucidavi.”
Matthew Paris repeats, in other words, the same statement.
[15] An account of this “Comacine” Guild will be found on p. 14-17.
[16] Leader Scott, _The Cathedral Builders_, the story of a great
Masonic Guild, 1899.
[17] How hardly this popular misconception of “Gothic” died away
amongst us, is curiously exemplified in a statement which appeared in
the once widely-read _New Monthly Magazine_ (Colburn), 1841, edited
by Theodore Hook and then by Thomas Hood. We read here, “The Heralds’
College knocked up a shield containing the armorial bearings of both
the families.... The College tacked the tail of the sea woman to the
head of a griffin--_as everything ugly and unnatural is valued in
Heraldry and Gothic architecture_. This incongruous monster told well.”
[18] They will be found, with many like words, in a most interesting
and suggestive series of papers on “French Cathedrals,” which appeared
in the _Times_ of August and September 1912.
[19] Compare a remarkable lecture of Dr. West, before the
“Architectural Association,” reported in the _Builder_ of Feb. 17, 1906.
[20] Rivoira will not allow that the women’s galleries of the Eastern
Church, so notable a feature in the churches of Constantinople and
Salonica of Justinian, and other great Byzantine church builders,
was a pure invention of these architects. But he believes that these
galleries, so universal in the planning of Eastern Basilicas, were in
the first instance imitated from an older model, viz. from certain of
the Pagan civil galleried Basilicas, such as the Basilica Julia in the
Roman Forum, which even _before_ its rebuilding by Augustus in A.D. 12
possessed a gallery occupied on the occasion of important trials.
He also dates a _very few_ ancient examples of the existence of such a
gallery in churches of the Latin type, notably in the Churches of S.
Salvatore (Spoleto), fifth century; S. Lorenzo (Rome), sixth century;
SS. Quatuor Coronati (Rome), seventh century; S. Agnese (Rome), seventh
century.
Still, granting the strict accuracy of Rivoira’s interesting account of
the genesis of the Byzantine introduction of the women’s galleries, the
general deductions given above will not be affected.
The adoption of the women’s galleries in Byzantine churches was,
without doubt, referable to the Eastern use of the separation of the
sexes in divine worship; still, in spite of the existence of certain
rare exceptions, it was never really a Latin practice.
The planning of great churches in the West, until the “coming” of
the Anglo-Norman school of architects, was emphatically without this
gallery. But the Byzantine great women’s galleries were indisputably
the origin of the Triforium, which really only reappeared in parts of
the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
[21] Dean Milman of S. Paul’s, _Latin Christianity_. Book VII, chap.
vi; Book XIV, chap. ii.
[22] This startling doctrine, it will be remembered, was defined and
clothed with authority by a Papal Bull in A.D. 1854 by Pope Pius IX.
The words of Dr. Pusey (Liddon’s _Life of Pusey_, II, xxxiv), are very
remarkable, and coming from such a source, specially interesting:
“There are very serious things in the Roman Communion which ought to
keep us where we are. I would instance chiefly the system as to the
blessed Virgin as the Mediatrix and dispenser of all present blessings
to mankind; I think nothing short of a fresh revelation would justify
this.”
[23] The Virgin and Child are in the Catacombs delineated in a certain
number of instances, but generally with the accompanying figures of
the Magi or Wise Men with their offerings; but in these instances the
Holy Child is the central figure of the group. But even these pictures
are after all but few in number. The truth is that in the first three
centuries the hearts and minds of the Christians were so aflame
with love for the Lord Jesus, that there was little place for any
delineation of the Apostles or even for the blessed Virgin.
[24] Two remarkable exceptions in Cornwall are quoted later, see pp.
92-95.
[25] A detailed description of the “Memoria” of Anacletus and the tomb
or crypt of S. Peter, the “mother” of all the crypts since constructed,
will be found in the following chapter, pp. 106-124.
[26] There was no difficulty raised in the early days of Christianity
in getting possession of the bodies of martyrs. The custom of the Roman
Government was in every case to give over the bodies of those who had
been put to death, to those who had loved them in life. This we see
in the case of our Lord when the sacred body was at once given to
Nicodemus and the friends of Jesus.
It was only at a later date, when Christianity became a real terror to
the Roman Government, that this favour was taken away, and when every
effort was made by the authorities to prevent the Christians from
obtaining possession of the relics of their martyrs.
[27] It was of this ancient church of Constantine that Bishop Creighton
in his eloquent _History of the Papacy_, thus writes of its demolition
under Pope Julius II, _circa_ A.D. 1506--
“The basilica of S. Peter’s had been for ages the object of pilgrimage
from every land; outside it gleamed with mosaics; inside its pavement
was a marvel of mosaic art; its monuments told the history of the
Roman Church for centuries. Men may praise at the present day the
magnificence of the (New) S. Peter’s; they forget what was destroyed to
make room for it. No more wanton or barbarous act of destruction was
ever deliberately committed.”
[28] These details have been worked out by Mgr. Barnes in his elaborate
and exhaustive work on the _Tomb of S. Peter_, who gives in his
scholarly and able book many more particulars of the sacred spot.
No words of praise are sufficient to express the thanks of the
historian and archæologist, who is interested in this most famous of
Christian sanctuaries, to Mgr. Barnes for his labours here.
[29] Durandus, Bishop of Mende (Mimatensis) in Languedoc--born A.D.
1230 and died A.D. 1296--was a most distinguished Canonist. He filled
various ecclesiastical dignities, amongst them the Deanery of Chartres,
and was largely consulted by the popes of his time. In later life he
declined the archbishopric of Ravenna. He was the author of various
works which had an enduring success. Amongst these the _Rationale_
above quoted, a vast and exhaustive compilation, is the best. During
the early years of printing, this, the greatest of mediæval liturgical
treatises, was printed and reprinted more often than any book
(excepting, of course, the Holy Scriptures). It is computed that more
than ninety printed editions in different languages of the _Rationale_
appeared between the second half of the fifteenth century and the close
of the seventeenth.
Viollet le Duc, in his _Dict. de l’Architecture_ (“Architecture”), thus
sums up his estimate of the _Rationale_: “Que l’on ne saurait trop lire
et méditer, lorseque qu’on veut connaitre le moyen age catholique.”
Dom Guéranger of Solesmes calls it “le dernier mot du age sur le
mystique du culte divin.”
[30] The etymological difficulty suggested by Lightfoot can hardly be
pressed, considering the very free and rough way in which the Latin
tongue was treated at a comparatively early date in the story of the
Roman Empire, when grammar, spelling and prosody were frequently
more or less disregarded, save in highly cultured circles. This
striking disregard of all rules is very conspicuous in the numberless
inscriptions and epitaphs found in the Roman Catacombs.
The early entries in the so-called _Liber Pontificalis_ show the same
utter disregard of grammar and spelling.
Transcriber’s Notes.
Italic text is indicated with _underscores_, bold text with
=equals=. Small/mixed capitals have been replaced with ALL
CAPITALS.
Evident typographical and punctuation errors have been
corrected silently. Inconsistent spelling/hyphenation has
been normalised.
The usage of Jumiéges (Jumièges) and Sant (Sant’) is the
author’s.
A new sub-heading “Norman-Romanesque” has been introduced
at page 33 to reflect the table of contents.
Half-titles and reiterations of chapter titles have been
discarded.
End of page footnotes have been sequentially numbered and relocated
to the end of the book.
Index references to “note” have been modified to include the relevant
note number.
At the index entry for Diaconus, a duplicate footnote reference
(19 note) has been discarded.
Illustration captions have been relocated between paragraphs.