~A Ji

MA ~

The Bronze Doors of the Abbey ofMonte Cassino and of Saint ...Thomas Jex Preston 4

g

' +~s

THE BRONZE DOORSOF THE ABBEY OF M O N T E C A SSINO

A ND OF SA IN T P A U L ' SROME

A DISSERTATION

PRESENTED TO THE

FACULTY OP PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DE G REE

OP DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

THOMAS JEX FRESTON, JR.

PRINCETON U N I VERSITY PRESSPRINCETON

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORDOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

1915

Publlshed October, 1915

Accepted by the Department of Art and ArchaeologyApril, 1910

yaHCElON4NtKISITY

eaESS

1 99808i ':C -1 IOI5Wl+P9Z.

PREFACEThis thesis, as originally presented in January, I9 Io, in

addition to the studies of the bronze doors at Monte Cassinoand Saint Paul's, included also iconographical studies of theAnnunciation, Nat iv i ty , Baptism, and C rucifixion based onm onuments of Ch r ist ian ar t un t i l the year I z oo . I n or d e rto make these studies more oomplete and comprehensive, aswell as to include studies of the other scenes from the Life ofChrist which are represented upon the Saint Paul's door, it isintended to publish them separately.

It is also expected that studies on the other bronze doors ofItaly, a list of which follows in the appendix, will be publishedwith il lustrations in the not too remote future.

My thanks are due to Do n G i useppe Picenino of M o n teCassino for favors and assistance received during my stay atthe Abbey, and to Professor Al lan Marquand and ProfessorCharles R. Morey of Pr inceton who have kindly read theproof.

WestlandTHoMAs JEX PREsToN>JR.

Princeton, New JerseyM ay I8th, I9 I 5

THE BRONZE DOORS OF THE ABBEY QHURCH OFMONTE CASSINO

The Monastery of M o nte Cassino, according to t raditxon,is built upon the site of an ancient temple dedicated to theworship of A p o l lo . T o :t h i s spot came St . Benedict in t heyear 5~ A . D . f r om the solitudes of Subiaco, where hehad fled from the corruption of Rome, and here he foundedhis monastery.

Of the original buildings there remain only a few founda-tion stones and possibly a v ery f e w s c u lptural f r agments.I n the e ighth c entury t h e c h u rch was rebuil t u n der o n ePetronace of B rescia by o rder o f P ope Gregory I I . ' I t isn oteworthy that a N o r th I t a l ian was called upon to do t h erebuilding, and t ha t R o man a rchitects were passed over.'By this time the Monastery had become so famous throughoutEurope that k ings, pr inces, and o ther potentates presentedit with many g i f t s o f g o ld and l ands. I t th u s came aboutthat the Abbey had many possessions scattered throughout thesurrounding districts and adjacent provinces, even as far asBari. Over these possessions, some of them churches, othersfarms or rentable property, the Abbey had the authority of aPrince, temporal as w e l l a s s p i r i tual , and f r o m t h em i tderived a very considerable revenue.

In the year 748 Pope Zachary confirmed the privileges ofthe Abbey and i t s r u le over i t s dependencies, and made i tsubject only to the Holy See at Rome.' In this "Privilege"'the dependencies were specifically mentioned. Of this docu-ment nothing now remains but the leaden seal which is pre-

MONU]NKNTh GERMANIhE HxSTORICA, vol. VII, Scaxproavsx, Chronic.Cosine., I, ch. 4. Hannover x@6.

~Cmavxrs, I Codici e le Arti a Monte Cossino, I, p. 2a Monte Cassino,x86p.

'This is signi6cant as it shows less artistic activity in the South.It is entirely probable that such activities in South I taly reached alower point in the seventh century than at any time within the lasttwo thousand years. In the eighth century a slight revival becomesvisible.

Chronic. Cosinen., I, ch. 7. Caaavxrs I, p. s4.'Tosrx, Storio di Monte Cossino, I , p. 8x. Naples, x~.

served at the Abbey, where are also several copies of thePrivilege, the most ancient of which is of the eleventh century.The authenticity of the Privilege it attested by the mentionmade of it in several very ancient documents the original it-self, although much damaged by time and use, was still in ex-istence in the thirteenth century. Then the Abbot, in view of itsfrail condition, prevailed upon Pope Gregory to reproducethe entire document in a Bull in favor of the Abbey. ThisBull may be seen today in the archives of the Vatican.' Asearly as the latter half of the eighth century the monks of theAbbey had secured from Desiderius, King of the Lombards, adocument similar to the one given them by Pope Zachary. Acopy of this is still to be seen.'

Charlemagne, in the year 787 after his Italian campaign,also confirmed to the Abbey its possessions; this was broughtabout in the following way. On his return from the expedi-tion he had undertaken against the Duke of Benevento,Charlenxagne halted at Monte Cassino. Wishing to obtainthe good will of the monks and the ecclesiastical party inItaly by granting favors which cost him practically nothing,he specifically confirmed the donations which the Duke Gisulf'had previously made to the Monastery. Before leaving Italy,wishing to give the Monastery new proofs of his favor, hesent to the Abbot Theodemare three documents bearing thetitle of "Praecepta", confirming the privileges of the Abbey,and detailing in one of them the list of dependencies whichmight be held under his approval.s

'The most ancient of these is a Preceptm of Charlemagne. SeeMvaamax, Atiq. Ital. Med., V, Diss. 6p, p. 83y. Milan, xy&x.

'This Bull gives the entire text of the Privilege of Pope Zachary ofThe order of Gregory is short and prefaces the text of the

Privilege. The document may be seen in the Vatican archives underRegestr. Gregor., IX, num., XXXI, fol. y6.

'Even before this confirmation given by the Lombard Desiderius,the monks of Monte Cassino had secured a similar privilege fromKing Ratchis who, in yg, sent from Pavia a confirmation of thePrivilege of Pope Zachary. See Regest. Petri Diocoi, num. xox,fol. 4a.

For further concerning Ratchis, see Chroologio Bresciso Atich.Logob. Mllo., I, p. 8o, Diss. r, No. So.

'About y3a A. D. according to Leo of Ostia. The Duke confirmedhis gifts in three Diplomas. The originais do not exist but they arereferred to in later imperial and papal docmnents.'After the campaign was over, Charlemagne, in y8y, gave the Proe-

6

Digitized by G OOgk.

A fter the death o f C h arlemagne the Abbey had n opowerful protector. O w i ng t o t h e enormous increase in i t swealth it became a tempting prey to the Saracens, who, towardthe middle of the ninth century, laid i t i n r u ins, taking awaywhatever o f v a lue t hey c ould r e move; t h i s i n c luded theprecious gifts of such princes as Carloman, Pepin, Charlemagne,as well as others of lesser rank and, according to the Chronicl'e,"amounted to a hundred pounds of go ld, eight hundred andsixty-flve pounds of silver, and not a few thousand gold coins.So complete was the ruin that the monks were compelled toabandon it as a place of residence. I t w as not unti l the nextcentury that they began to return. T h e Abbey was then suffi-ciently rebuilt to make it habitable, but no large and completescheme comprehending i t s en t i re r estoration was p l anned.This was not undertaken until the latter half of the fo l lowingcentury, when, in zo66, the great Abbot Desiderius planned andexecuted an extensive restoration o f t h e o l d m onastery, aswell as adding thereto new bui ldings, which has made himfamous since that t ime. H i s i s the greatest name in the longl ine of Abbots. T o h i m and h i s work the Cardinal Leo o fOstia, who was an eye witness of the great changes made atMonte Cassino, consecrates the third volume of his Chronicle."

The complex poli t ical relations existing among the I ta l ianstates in the early part of the eleventh century, were renderedstill more diflicult by the appearance of the Normans in SouthItaly. T he r el a t ions between th e E m p erors an d P o pes,both personally and politically, were becoming continuallymore strained. T he h i s tor ically dramatic scene at Canossaoccurred i n z o 7g . The Chu rc h w a s c o nstantly r eachingout f o r inc r eased t emporal d o m in ion a n d pre r ogative.;d oing al l in i ts po w e r to st r engthen i t sel f w i t h i n a n dw ithout f o r the gre a t s t r uggle t h r ough w h i c h i t w asp assing, the c onfl ic t w i t h t he Emp e rors o f t he N or t h .Within the Church itself this was a period of faction, schism,cepta to Monte Cassino. T h e se amounted virtually to r epetitionsof the Privileges of Pope Zachary and King Desiderius in confirmingthe titles of the dependencies of the Abbey and its rule over them.These documents are given in the Vatican Archives, Regest. PetriDiaconi, num. to2, fol. 44; ibid., num. io3, fol. 44, ibid., num. io9, fol. 48.It is in the second of these that the list of dependencies is detailed.T hey are reproduced by Tosri, op. cit., I, p. 93.

Chroic. Casinen., I, ch. a6.MON. GERhf. HisT., Vol. V I I . Scairv. Auctore Leone.

and the setting up of anti-popes, but with the great Hi ldebrandupon the throne of Saint Peter as Pope Gregory VII , thepapacy was in strong hands. Cardinal Leo of Ostia andDesiderius, Abbot of M o nte Cassino, belonged to that partywhich was trying to arrest the tide of spiritual decay which tot hem seemed to be sweeping into the Church. I t w a s t h ebeginning of the intellectual renaissance in Italy. T h ei r partystood for the establishment and extension of the papal authorityand dogma at all points. W h a tever tended toward these endswas by no means to be neglected; therefore the physical re-habilitation of the famous Abbey of which Desiderius wasthe head, being one of the most prominent centres of ecclesias-tical learning and authority i n t h e w o r ld , seemed no smallstep toward the accomplishment of these ends. I t s authoritywas to be made even greater by the completeness of its build-ings and the magnificence of their decoration, that they mightbe a worthy exponent, not only of the party in power, but ofthe founder of the Abbey and of the Benedictine Order, SaintBenedict himself, of w hose remains the Monastery was thecustodian.

Desiderius then, rebuilt the Abbey in a becoming mannerand spared neither pains nor gold to make it worthy of SaintBenedict and the position it occupied at the head of the papalworld as the home of the greatest of Orders. M a n y descrip-t ions of t h i s newer M onastery have been given, and manyreferences to it have been made in the history of the ar t o fItaly of t h i s t ime. T h ere i s no doubt i t s magnificence wasa ppreciated and commented upon by its contemporaries. W eare told by the Poet-Archibishop Alfanus" of Salerno that "Somagnificent was the basilica of Desiderius there was nothingin the Occident which might wor th ily compare with i t , andthat it rivalled the glories of the Temple of Solomon".

The new b a s i l ica seems t o h a v e b een c ommenced byD esiderius about March fi rs t xo66," an d completed by t h ey ear l o7z . I n the s ame y ear i t w a s d e d icated by P o peAlexander I I " in the pr e sence o f H i l d ebrand, St . P e terDamianus and f o r ty-six b ishops, together w i th t h e p r incesof Benevento, Capua, Salerno, Naples, Sorrento, and manyo ther p laces. A c c ounts g iven o f t h i s d e d ication make i t

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra, Anec. X, p. 59.a MvRAmRr, Rer. Ital. Script., V, p. yZ.B~RONtvs, Attnales Ecclesiastics, XVII, p. 3o9, An. tppt.

a very grand function. I t s solemn and ceremonial characterwould seem to indicate that nothing important had been leftundone in the matter of the buildings or their furnishings.We may certainly presume that the church proper was com-plete in every respect. The completeness of the church inits appointments is a matter which becomes important to theargument, later on, and is therefore emphasized here.

The basilica was built in the usual Romasx style" andappears to have been constructed by native workmen underthe personal supervision of the Abbot; but for the decorationhe ignored Roman and Italian workmen and imported masterartists from Constantinople. These, with the aid of youngmonks and novices whom they were to instruct, adornedthe new church. This we learn from 'the text of the Chronicle'of Leo of Ostia.In seeking Byzantine aid, Desiderius appears to have done

what Italy always did before the twelfth century when anyspecial art work was desired. The mosaic workers of medi-aeval Italy were either Greeks or followers of the Greek tradi-tion. This was the case throughout the early ages between thefifth and ninth century. The mosaics at San Marco at Rome,the last of the period, show even a stronger Byzantine influencethan some of the earlier ones. The great mosaics of Venice,Monreale, and Palermo may be mentioned as additional proofof this. Even the very centre of the region m which theRenaissance had its earliest and deepest root, Florence, hasupon the cupola of its Baptistery" great mosaic pictures byByzantine workers who were looked upon as masters in that art.

Writers who have dealt with the question of painting inItaly have been at a loss to explain the gap between themosaics of the Florentine Baptistery and the works of Cimabue,

A description of the church is given in Chron. Cocisco., II I ,ch. 28. This is elaborated by GsTxo~ Hi r torio Abbatioc Carcicscic,Venice x723.

Chronic. Cocincs., III, ch. z7, y. 7x8. Th is hss been very oftenquoted and referred to. Around it has arisen a considerable amountof discussion on the Byzantine question in Italy. I n teresting presen-tations of each side may be found in the Jkb. k. Prclcc. KNnsxomo.for x893 and x894. F. X. Ka s vs contributes anarticle on DicWasdgcmoidc vos St. Angclo in Forveic, and E. DonsmtT replies ina paper entitled Zur Byzostisischc Frogc. Since then there has beenmuch discussion between'the adherents of each side.

"Q.~vssz, Bocigqucc ct Nosoiqucc, II, p. zx9. Puris, x8p3.

Digitized by GOOgIC

Giotto, and Pietro Cavallini. Some have sought the explana-t ion in a possibly forgotten and unrecorded school of Romanartists whose works have not been preserved. T h i s may bethe case; but a f a r m o r e p r obable reason fo r t h e suddenactivity of paintistg in I taly in the th i r teenth century may befound in the emigration of Byzantine painters, forced out ofConstantinople by r eason o f t h e u nsettled conditions theredue to the p resence of the C rusaders, who i n z ao4 beganan occupation of many decades. The Crusaders were by nomeans patrons or p rotectors of a r t . A s t h e n a t ive nobil i tyat Constantinople were not in position to encourage artists asformerly, what more natural than that these artists should seekemployment in Italy where a brighter future seemed likely?Duccio may have been one of th is class. B y zantine art wasalways more or less concerned with painting, and the remains ofearly thirteenth century painting in I taly s'how a Byzantine in-fluence which indicates, not simply that which may have filteredover from Byzantium, but the direct teaching, i f not actuallyt he work, o f B y zantines. I n p a i n t ing, therefore, as i n a l lother work of decorative art between the fi fth and th i r teenthcenturies, the Italians were the willing pupils of their Byzantine

At any rate, Desiderius sent to Constantinople for masterst o direct the decoration o f h i s c h urch. A c c o rding t o t h eChronicle" they were ski l led in the work ing of go ld, s i lver,bronze, iron, glass, wood, stucco, and marble; and in t hesethey gave instruction to the young men at the Abbey.

Early in the h istory o f t h e r econstruction of h i s basilica,Desiderius had occasion to visit the neighboring city of Amalfi ,then a great entrepot fo r t h e commerce of the East . T heexact reason for t h is v isi t and i t s exact date are uncertain,but the latter becomes important in connection with the historyof the Bronze Doors of the A bbey. L e o o f O s t ia " p l aces

Note in support of this the fourteenth century mosaics of Kahrie-djami at Constantinople, and t'he frescoes at Chiesa San Sepolcro,Barletta, and the Chiesa del Casole at BHndisi.

Chronic. Casinen., III, ch. ay, p. yt8.Ibid., I I I , p . yn t. M od e rn wr i ters are not a ll agreed as to the

date owing to the various readings of the texts of the Chronicle.ScHNAAsE places the date i n t o 62: BER rAUx, w ho r e fe rs to t h eoccasion, says to66, but-gives to the Door at Monte Cassino the dateof toyo, which is that of the doors in the basilica of Saint Paul's at

masters."

thE date of the visit in the year xo67, and gives as the reasonfor it that the Abbot journeyed thither for the purpose of pur-ohasing silk as a present to the Emperor Henry IV, who wasthen about to set out on a journey to Italy. It is not recordedthat the Emperor made the trip in xo&r; but in the previousyear, that is in xo66, he had planned to go into Italy, thenchanged his mind and relinquished his plan*' after all arrange-ments had been made. It was probably because of this expectedtrip in xo66 that the Abbot bought the silk of which Leospeaks. It is perhaps not unlikely that the chronicler confusedthe years in his Chronicle.

In the year xo66 then, when Desiderius went to Amalfi, hesaw for the first time the new and splendid bronze doors whichhad recently been placed at the entrance to the Cathedralchurch of Saint Andrew in that city, by the munificence ofa certain noble of Amalfi, Pantaleone" by name. The Chron-ide of Leo records in a sentence the delight of Desideriusat seeing the doors. He says," "Videns autem tunc portasaereas episcopii Amalfitani, cum valde placuissent oculis ejus"Desiderius thereupon expressed a wish to have a pair of similarJoors for the new church at Monte Cassino which he wasthen beginning to reconstruct. It has already been establishedthat this was not begun until xo66, and it is not thereforeprobable that the idea for a similar door occurred to Desideriusbefore he saw the one at Amalfi. The date of these doors is notrecorded in contemporary chronicles but it is thought to beabout xo65.

Pantaleone, the donor of the Amalfi doors, was at this

Rome. Cf. BaaraUx, L'Art doss I* Italie Meridiosaie, p. 4o5; also MAacsxREYMOND, La Sclptre Florestise, I, p. 3x.

Mavaa voN KaoNaU, Iahrbgcher des Detsches Resches sterHeisrich IV sd Heisrich V, I, pp. Q6-55o. Lelpzig, x8po.

Ca~ NnaoN, Histoire de la Dosssatios Normosde es Italie et esSicile, I, p. azx. Paris, x9oy.

For attempts at reconstructing the Pantaleone family tree, seeSxxeax.xa in Zeitschrift fsr kirchliche Archaeologie sd Ksst, x859,and ScaUzz, Desknsaoler der Ksst des Mittelalters is Usteritalies,II, p. z4z. Dresden, x86o. Since the tsme of the foregoing, ae urnin the Monastery of Farfa has been described by Faxocx-Pvuom,Nxin Archiriio Storico per le Marche e per Ussbrio. The urn bearsan inscription showing it to be the gift of Mauro, and details a listof his children. This monument was not hnown to Sraaax.xa andScamz.

s Chrosic. Casises., III, ch. x8, p. yxx, lines 33-35.xx

Digitized by GOOgle

time the consul of A m alfi r esident at Constantinople.s' H ewas of noble and wealthy family and took upon himself theexpense of the doors which he caused to be made in Constan-t inople, and set up in his native town." H e w a s the fi rst o fh is family to present such doors to an I t a l ian church; l a terothers of h i s f a mi ly gave bronze doors to M o nte Cassino,Atrani, Saint Paul's at Rome, and to M onte Sant 'Angelo inGargano. I n t h e y ear zo66 Pantaleone seems no longer tohave been alive. W e fi n d a r ecord in the Ms. Chronicle ofthe Minore Trionfante" where he is spoken of as a deceasedperson for the repose of whose soul a g i f t o f f ou r h undred"tari" has been made to the church o f Santa T rofimena atMinori ; and again in a d ocument in the archives of SantaTrinita at Amalfi" we find Pantaleone referred to as follows-"Ego quidem Maurus fi l ius quodam Panteleonis de M aurode Maurone Comite" . W e m a y t h erefore conclude that al -though Pantaleone himself may have promised a pair of doorsto Desiderius he was not able to order them, and that the dutydevolved upon Mauro h i s son. A t a n y r a t e an i nscriptionupon the doors at Monte Cassino tells us that Mauro the sonof Pantaleone ordered the doors at his own expense and inthe year zo66 from Constantinople."

The records say that D esiderius sent the m easurementsfor the doors to Constantinople, but that when they arrived atMonte Cassino they were found too small for the place intendedfor them." T h i s would indicate either that an error had beenmade or that Desiderius had made the door opening in t hefaqade larger than was o r ig inally i n tended. T h e f ac t t h a tthe doors are spoken of as being too small would also indicate

HEvn, Geschfchte des Levonthandels in Mittelalters, trans. by Fvacv-RwvNwvn, I, p. z5z. .Paris, t886. A lso BtNm, Monntnenti Storici edArtistici degli Abrnzzi, p. 44t, note z. N a p les, t889. The opinionsexpressed by this author must be received with caution. He fo l lowsthe tradition current at Rome, that Pantaleone was a Roman Consul.'This tradition is to be found in many of the Guide Books on Romeissued about the beginning of the seventeenth century, and from thatt ime forward. F o r ex a mple: SzvzRwNo, Le Sette Chiese di RontalMAINARDI, Ronta Sacra, etc.

This we learn from an inscription upon the doors. Cf . Scavt.z,op. cu., II, p. z4y.

Page 6r of the Ghronicle."Ms. No. t5 t .According to the inscription given in note 36.Chronic. Casinen., III, p. yrt, l ine 35.

that the walls of the new basilica were well up and the roofon. In any case, the doors had to be made larger. How thiswas done or by whom we are not told. The silence of therecord on this point makes it impossible for us to know whetheradditional material was sent from Constantinople, or whetherthe work was done by the skilled imported workmen who bythat time were employed in the Abbey. The latter assumptionseems the more probable. This uncertainty however raisesa question which must be considered when taking up theargument on the evidence which the doors themselves furnish.

Caravita" says that one of the valves of t'he doors was lostat sea in transportation, and hazards the suggestion that theother may have been remade at Amalfi . N e i t her for the state-ment nor for the suggestion is there any foundation whateverin the original records either of Leo or the Abbey. Had oneof the valves been lost it is more than probable the fact wouldhave been recorded in connection with the enlargement ofthe doors; furthermore, the materials originally sent fromConstantinople' consisted of loose pieces of bronze of no greatsize or weight, so that the doors could be packed in smallcompass, and the chances of a part being lost at sea would bevery small.

As to what the doors were like when they were finally put inplace at the entrance to the basilica at Monte Cassino, theirgeneral design, the arrangement and decoration of their panels,we know absolutely nothing from contemporary writers. I twould seem, however, that we might reasonably expect them toresemble to a considerable extent the other bronze doors fromConstantinople which came into Italy during the latter half ofthe same century. As they were made to please the Abbot whohad seen the Amalfi Doors, we might expect their resemblaucewould be closest to these.

Before we consider the doors in detail it is necessary torefer to other bronze doors which the Abbey possessed at asomewhat later time. There were two pairs of these. In con-nection with some work done by Desiderius upon the churchof San Martino, then within the confines of the Monasteryand near the basilica, Petrus Diaconus" states the following:

C ARhvlrA, op. cit., I, p. xgg gives this as a t radition. ~ Uss z ,Les oriXxises Bhsldictiwes, Paris, x8ppi presents the statement as a fact.

~CIirosic. Cariucs., III, Ch. 34. Desiderius did not remain Abbotof Monte Cassino to finish the church of San Martino. I n xa86 he

x3

Digitized by GOOgIC

"Fecit et portas aereas in ingressu eiusdem ecdesiae," accord-ing to which we may understand that a second pair of bronzedoors is meattt in addition to the one at the entrance to thebasilica. Again from the record of the same writer'* referringto the abbacy of Oderisius, the successor of Desderius he says:"Abbas Oderisius portas haereas pulcherrimas in ingressuhujus nostrae ecdesiae fieri jussit." We are not told to what"hujus nostrae ecclesiae" refers; the plans of the Abbey in-cluded several churches, and the one for which these doorswere made must remain a matter of conjecture. I t couldhardly mean to replace the doors at the entrance to the bas-ilica, the gift of Mauro, which were new less than sixtyyears before. It might, however, mean a new pair of doorsfor one of the side entrances of the faqade. There is a traditionamong the monks of the Monastery that originally all threeopenings on the faqade were closed by bronze doors. Thismay arise from the fact that the records speak of three pairsof bronze doors, reference to which has just been made. Inany case we fied the Abbey possessing three within the space ofsixty years. One was the gift of Mauro; a second the gift ofDesiderius; the third made for Oderisius. In connection withthe last the Chronicle specially refers to their beauty; in whatthis consisted, we are left to imagine. At the present time theAbbey has but one pair of bronze doors. This closes the prin-cipal entrance to the basilica, and it has genetally been referredto as being from Constantinople.** Considering the length oftime elapsed since the gift of Mauro, and the vicissitudesthrough which the Abbey has passed, before definitely acceptingthis conclusion we may well pause to ask whether or not this bereally the door given by Mauro itt Io66 to Desiderius.

We will first examine the doors in detail, and with the aidof the information which they themselves give us proceedto an argument as to their authorship. O f d ocumen-tary evidence as to the origins of the three pairs of doors weknow of none beyond that to which reference has already beenassumed the papel tiara under the title of Victor III. PLhTINh, Storiedelle Vite de' Postipei, II, p. 289, Venice, Iy6I, in a note, gives apicturcsquc recital of the manner in which he came to be electedPotpe. The church of San Martino was finished by 'his suocessorOdcrisius, and dedicated in togo.~Chronie. Coeises., IV, ch. 8o, Asetore Petro.

Scc the works of S cHI~ , Sc HNhhsz, ShLhzhRO, BINRK, andBERThUX.

I4

Digitized by GOOgle

made. O f do c umentary evidence between the twel fth and.nineteenth centuries, there is but l i t t le; th is, however, wil l begiven. I t i s to the doors themselves we must look in the mainfor their history. A t t h e present the principal doors consist oftwe wooden valves upon the outer surface of which are fasten-ed a series of forty panels of bronze; these are secured to thewood by means of small nails intended to be hidden by thesmall ogee mouldings of the f rame. The upper thirty-sixpanels a r e ins c r ibed wi t h nam e s of chur c hes, l a nds,etc., formerly the dependencies of the Abbey; below these aretwo panels bearing dedicaWry inscriptions, each of wh ich isf lanked by a cross in rel ief, an below these again two otherpanels bare of any ornament or inscription. T h e two va lvesc lose an opening about five f eet seven inches wide by t enfeet eleven inches high.

Classified as to size, we find three varieties of panels.r. The upper thir ty-six, eighteen to each valve, measure on

their exposed surfaces about 38 centimetres high, by 2o to 2 Icm. wide.

2. Two o b long panels, each of wh i ch i s p l a ced d i rectlyunderneath the group of eighteen just spoken of, are between7I to 72 cm. long, and about 45/> cm. high. T h e y consistof three separate pieces of bronze; the middle piece in eachpanel bears an inscription, which is flanked on either side bya plate upon which is a bronze cross in relief . T h e a rms ofthe cross are equal and they are above a sor t o f s t andardsimilar to the crosses which appear upon the doors at Amalfi."The crosses are held to the doors by f our l a rge spikes, onethrough each arm of the cross, and are thus made ornamentalas well as useful . T h e tw o panels thus formed are f ramedabout with the same ogee used in the upper panels. T h e twomiddle pieces of bronze, bearing inscriptions, will be referredto as "panels A" in o rder to distinguish them from the seriesof thirty-six above, which also bear inscriptions. T h e d imen-s ions of panels A are no t iceably different f rom that o f t h eother series, being 45~/ 2 cm. high by 3o/2 cm. wide. P a r t icularattention is asked to this variation in s ize as i t becomes im-portant in the argument.

3. In the t h i rd c lass we p lace the two r emaining panels,lowest o f a l l u pon the doors, one t o e ach v a lve. E x c ept

ScHUr.z., op. cit., Atlas, p l. 8S, no. F VI I .

rS

for the ornamental border, these are the full width of eachvalve, and are ~cm. high. Each one is composed of twonarrow strips of bronze nailed through the face upon thedoors, and framed about with a moulding somewhat widerthan the ogees which are used above. Outside the ogee is aflat band of bronze 734 cm. wide. The whole pauelthus arranged occupies the entire width of the valve, 84 cm.,or about two feet nine inches.

It is important here to note that around the series ofthe upper eighteen panels and the oblong panel below oneach valve, there is a small bronze moulding about 5+z cm.wide, framing the panels of classes one and two by themselves.

Classified as to decoration we find the panels fall intothree groups. Those bearing inscriptions; the class A panelsflanked by crosses; aud those without inscriptions or decoration.

The panels which bear inscriptions will now be consideredbriefly. In these the letters have all been made by engravingthe surface of the bronze with a sharp instrument. In somecases the incised channels have been filled with au alloy ofsilver, and in others they have been left unfilled. To the.former class belong the upper eighteen panels on the lefthand valve, the first panel on the upper left hand cornerof the right valve, and the panel directly underneath it, twentyin all. These panels will be called "panels B", in contradis-tinction to those already denominated "panels A". PanelsA resemble panels B in so far as the technique is concerned;the channels in them have been filled with alloy, but in a man-ner somewhat different from that which obtains iu panels B.In the A panels the alloy is so inserted that the resultingsurface is smooth; in passing the finger over the work there isno joint noticeable. The alloy iu class B is put in so thatthis surface, while not higher than that of the surroundingbronze at the middle, is lower than this level at the edges,making its surface slightly convex. This causes a small chan-nel to follow the edges of the alloy so that a good tracing ofeach letter may be made by passing the point of a pencil aroundthe edge as it easily follows the groove where the alloy joins.the bronze. With panels A this method of obtaining re-productions is impossible. The sixteen remainiug panels ofthe upper part of the right hand valve have the channels un-filled with alloy. They bear no evidence whatever of havingheld alloy at any time. These will be referred to as "panels C.'"

r6

Digitized by GOOgIC

To recapitulate therefore, we have defined three classes ofpanels: Class A, the panels of dedication, with smooth surfacedalloy; class B panels with convex surfaced alloy; and class C,in the channels of which there is no alloy.

Proceeding now w i th th e examination of c l ass A p anels,we find one upon each valve, placed with a r e l ief c ross oneither side of it , four crosses in all . T h e di fference in dimen-sion between these panels and those of c lass B has al readybeen noted, and a paragraph of the doors Rate I will show themto be equal to the exposed surface of the B p anel in w i d thplus that o f t h e b r onze batten alongside. T h e i n scr iptionsupon these panels give us i n fo rmation in d e tai l concerningthe gift of Mauro to the Abbey of Monte Cassino. Theyare as fol lows:

I. On the left valve.HOCSTUDIISMAURIMUNUSCONSISTITOPUSCLIGENTISMELFIGENERENITENTISORIGINISARCEQUIDECUSETGENERISHACEFFERTLAUDELABORISQUASIMULAUXIL I ICONSPESMANEATBENEDICTIACSIBICAELESTESTESEX HOCCOM M UTET

HONORESssThe inscription on the r ight valve distinctly states that the

doors were given in Io66. I f a comparison of these two panelsbe made with similar ones on the doors at At rani and Amalfiwhich came from Constantinople at approximately the sametime, and were l ikewise gifts of the same Pantaleone family,it will be found that the work is similar in character and that

OFILIUSPANTALEONISDECOMITEMAURONEADLAUDEMDNIETSALBATORISNRIIHUXPIABCUIUSINCARNATIONEANNOMILLESIMSE

XAGESIMOSEXTO

Hoc studiis Mauri snunus consistit opuscli,Gentis Melfigene renitentis originis arce,Qui decus et generis hac effert laude laboris;Qua simul auxilii conspes maneat BenedictiAc sibi caelestes ex 'hoc commutet honores.

In the original the last syllable of ihe word caelestes is repeated;which might indicate that the engraver worked from a copy and madean error, yerhaps not knowing Latin.

Hoc fecit Mauro filius PantaleonisDe comite Maurone ad laudem domini et salbatorisNostri Jesu Christi ab cuius incarnationeAnno milesimo sexagesimo sexto.

I7

the alloy is inserted in the same manner. In fact this appearsto have been the customary way i n w h i ch th e B y zantinesinserted the al loy ; we fi nd i t d one i n t h i s way o n a l l t h eByzantine doors, not only in the inscriptions, but in the fig-u red scenes as well . I n vi e w o f t h e r esemblance both inletter fo rms and t echnique which panels A b ear to o t h e rByzantine work, and in view of the record of the Chronicle con-cerning the gif t o f M a u ro, i t w ould seem as i f t hese panelsmight certainly be accepted as forming a part of the originaldoor of i o 66 . T h e a rgument wil l be based upon th isassumption.

If the letters in class A panels be compared with those ofB and C t h e i r character w i l l b e f o und t o d i ffe r i n m a n yimportant respects. F i rst of al l in their proportion. T h ose inclass A are much more slender; with the same average widthmf letter stem, about three mil l imetres, they have an averageheight of about a5 mm. i n the inscription on the lef t va lve,. and 3omm. on the r ight valve, as against a height o f f r o m20 to 22 mm. in B and C c lasses. Secondly, in regard to thecharacter of the channelling of the incisions. T h ose in classA are much more irregular, with smaller proportion of straightlines in them, more attempt at finial ornament, having in many~ases, the stem of the letter swelled out into a smal l roundball as an o rnament, which occurs but r a rely i n t h e o therclasses. I t w i l l be seen also that the letters are less squarein appearance, and many of the stems have an outwardcurve, beginning with the l i t t le ball , wh ich i s g radual unt i ljust before the end of the stem is reached when it suddenlyexpands, bell-like, and then terminates quickly. T h is bell-l ike end of the letter stem is a common characteristic of t hel etters in c lass B, bu t the ou tward curve i s l acking in t h estem. If now individual letters of the A panels be comparedwith the same letters in the B panels we wil l find them verydifferent. T a k e fo r example the letter E w h ich lends i tselfto a characteristic treatment, the difference is so marked asto require no further comment. T hey are plainly of di fferentw ork, the same man d id no t m ake both . T a k e again t h em atter of p u nctuation. I n t h e c l ass A p anels there is n opunctuation; we do i ndeed find an o rnament at the end o ft he inscription on th e l e f t h and v a lve, but t h i s cannot beconstrued into a m ark o f p u nctuation. I t me ans only thatthe engraver had finished his work. I n the B and C panels,

i8

I

~ i"y

Pr.ATE ITHE BRONZE DOORS AT MONTE CASSINO

Digitized by Google

on the other hand, the punctuation is rather carefully attendedto. I n a d d i t ion we f ind the words in these panels well sep-arated, and not run together as on the class A panels.

Not only do the class A panels differ in general workman-ship from the others which bear inscriptions, but also in thequality of the materials, the bronze and silver, used. Thesilver alloy is of a di fferent admixture, so that it is of darkerhue. This same difference is true of the bronze itself. Thatthis is not due to greater exposure to the weather is proved bythe fact t ha t t h e a d j o in ing panels wh ich bear t h e r e l ie fcrosses are of the same hue as the panels of c lasses B andC . I f the p a t ina b e r u bbed off an d t h e s u r f aces o f t h evarious panels be exposed, those of c lass A w i l l b e f o u ndstill to be darker . I n ot her w o rds the bronze is di fferent ;it is not the same metal.

In view therefore of the d i fferences existing between thepanels of class A and those of B and C, in the manner of in-serting the inlay, in the character of the inlay i tself, in letterforms, punctuation, and a r rangement o f w o r ds, and l ast lyin the very composition of the bronze, differences as radicalas could possibly exist, we may conclude without reasonabledoubt, that the workshop which made panels A did not makethose of B and C. W he t her the latter even came from Con-stantinople wil l be taken up later.

Coming now to the examination of the twenty panels whichcompose class B, we f ind the si lver al loy upon them al l i n -serted in a c ommon manner. T h e c h aracter o f t h e l e t tersalso is of the same general type; those however, in the fi rstthree panels, counting vertically f rom the upper left hand cor-ner bear a somewhat closer resemblance to the letters of classA than do the remainder of the set, but these three are morelike their fellows than like those of class A. A m ong the otherseventeen, the departure from the general type is not wide. I tis confined mainly to the use of ligatures like B for DE, Nfor AN, 2E for A E e tc . S o me di fferences in the manner ofabbreviation are also observable. We find, for example, forS ANGTUs in some places SCS, while in others simply S ; f o rC vM OMmisvs PERnxEwvrs Suis the abbmriation CV O I BPTSS SUIS; in other places PERvrxEmis gfipears as PERvrii',sometimes in the full form PERnNEiivi is, ~g the OIB changesto OIBVS . I n t h e p unctuation marks we f ind considerablevariety among the panels composing class B; this is- so evident

and distinctive that i t d oes eot seem necessary to do mo rethan call attention to it . T h e b r onze used throughout in th isseries of panels is the same in quality and color. I t i s of aruddy copper tone. T h e d iameter of the letter stems is about3 mm., their height var ies f rom 23 t o 2 8 m m . , averagingabout a5 mm.

I n concluding, we find t hat a m i nute examination of t h eclass B panels discloses the fact that although the forms of theletters are of the same general type, yet sufficient variationexists among them to war rant the behef they are the workof the same school but of d i f ferent hands. T he r e i s a per-fectly apparent individuality about them which reveals itselfwhen they are scrutinized closely; and yet there is a sufficientsimilarity among them in general style and workmanship, whichtogether with the identity of materials common to all , causesus to believe they were the work of one school and of the sameperiod.

I t now remains to consider the panels of c lass C; t hosewhich bear inscriptions, but in the channels of which no alloyhas been placed. These are the only ones which so far seemt o have given archaeologists any concern. W h e n an y d i f -ferences have been noted, wr i ters have generally contentedthemselves by ascribing them to the Abbot Oderisius; in thisthey follow Dom Erasmo Gattola, in his great work on MonteCassino, who says these panels were added by Oderisius, andgives as his authority the passage in the Chronicle of PetrusDiaconus," a l ready referred to . H e int e rprets i t t o m e anan addition to the doors of Desiderius. I n t h is he is followedby Schulz 8s who says we must not take i t too l i terally, andthat what Petrus D iaconus meant was not t hat w hole newdoors had been made, but probably the addition. I f t h is bethe case, we may well ask why the doors of Desiderius shouldhave needed an addition so soon? The opinion of Schulz hasbeen followed by Caravita, Tosti, and Clausse. Th e l a t ter '~goes so far as to say

precious monument at Canosa, nor does it correspond, more-over, with the description of the Chronicle which specificallyrefers to its beauty. Bertiux,~ in his work on SouthernItaly, says that the lists of the dependencies" which nowappear upon the doors were undoubtedly sent by Desideriusto Constantinople, and there engraved as we see them now;Clausse says that the class B panels were added by Oderisius'*in IIx3. In one point all these writers agree: that the panelswere an addition. I believe it can be shown that they cannothave been an addition to the doors of Desiderius and maynot even be the work of the Abbot Oderisius.

The bronze composing them is very difFerent in compositionfttom that in panels B, which was reddish and rather light incolor; this, on the contrary, is quite dark and of a greenishhue. We find at once a marked difFerence in the style ofthe lettering; not only are the channels without alloy, butthe letter forms are very different from those in panels B.This is so noticeable that further comment seems unuecessary.The lines across the ends of such letters as I and T, the round-limbed S etc., will be noticed immediately. There is nothingwhatever in the letters of the other panels tike them. In thematter of punctuation, but one mark is used; a kind of tri-angular period. Abbreviations are also less general than incLtss B; cvM and PERTxNENTIIs being often given in full. Themark denoting the abbreviation is placed over the word and isa straight line with a short mark across each end, so that itresembles the letter I lying on its side. In the class B panels,this assumes a variety of shapes, generally composed of varia-tion of one or more concave curves placed parallel to eachother and united at the ends. These are not found in thepanels of class C. This difference in the abbreviation andthe sign denoting it causes us to suspect, quite as much asthe difference in the letter forms, that this series of panels

~ Bsaravx, op. cit., p. 4oS."Cf. MONTFhvcoN, Diorilm Italicsm, Paris, tyos. MaatuoN, Murews

Italiclm, I, Casinum et Suhlacus; Garror.a, Histona Abbatioe Cosinensis;Ga~ , Acc essiones Abbats'ae Cemsrssir; and Cmvssa op. cit., whocredulously quotes the Commentary of HosFIN to the effect that inthe eleventh century the Abbey was the tuler of 2 principalities, socounties, 44o towns and villages, a~ castles, aa seaports, and z66achurches or chapels!

~Cmvsss, Les Origines Bdeddictines, bases this on the opinion ex-pressed 'by ScavLz who gives the same date.

2I

Digitized tty GOOgle

is of considerably later work than those of chss B. I t i showever, for the moment, quite sufficient to point out thevery marked difFerence between the two classes.The panels of dass C also show more difFerences as com-

pared with each other, than do the preceding series which aremuch more homogeneous in style. I t is not at all l ikely thatthey are all of the same handiwork. A workman who madethe panels in dass C beginning "IN DLMA~" ss would hardlyd o those beginning " I N C xvxvAvE FxEMANA" and "C v O x sPvxwa". The task of separating either this or the precedingseries of panels into groups and assigning them to X, Y, orZ, would serve no present purpose. It i s q u i te enough toshow that marked difFerences exist between the two series,and that within the same series having the same generalcharacteristics, such differences exist as make it very improb-able that the panels of that series were the work of any oneman. A s t r iking confirmation of this fact is seen in twopands of dass C which bear the same list of names, givenin the same order, but with slightly different spelling andletter form. I t is not to be bdieved that the same man woulddo both panels intending to use them upon the same doors.It would seem as if sufficient evidence had been adduced

from the examination of the monument itself, noting the dif-ferences in the character of w o rkmanship, letter forms,materials, etc., which exist in the three series of panels, toestablish beyond reasonable doubt the fact that they representthree distinct periods and dasses of workers. In this respectthe Bronze Doors of the Abbey of Monte Cassino differfrom all Byzantine doors of which we have any knowledge.Nowhere else do we find. any such diversity of work as ishere presented, and I conclude that if we accept the panelsof class A, those with the dedication referring to the gif tof Mauro, as forming part of the original doors sent fmmConstantinople, we must deny that honor to panels B andC for the reasons already brought forward. We shall find,also, that other reasons exist for such a view.

Before coming to the additional reasons we may take up

Thesc: panels would be numbers ay, ~ and s8 i f we numberedthe thirty-six on the upper part of the doors, beginning with the oneat the upper left hand corner, downward, and aorose the doors fromleft to right. They are numbers VII, IV, and VIII, in the list of theinscriptions as given by Tosn, op. cit., I, p. ~ .

D lgltlzed by Goog l e

the documentary evidence as to the condition of t h e doors.We have already referred to the original records in the earlyChronicles. After these, the first reference to the doors I havebeen able to find is that made by a monk of the Abbey, oneMarco Antonio or A lessandro in a Chronicle" o f t h e eventsof the Abbey. S i nce the earliest times it has been the customfor one of the monks to record the events of the Monasteryin manuscript form in books provided for the purpose, anda long series of them is now in the archives of the Abbey.The above mentioned monk chronicled in Latin f rom the yearsI504 'to I535. He gives a list of the dependencies of the Abbeywhich we see to-day upon the doors, and states that theywere to be f ound on the doors in h i s t ime. H e g i ves then umber of p anels then ex ist ing as t h i r ty-eight, but i n a no rder s l ightly d i ff erent f r o m t h a t i n wh i c h w e n o w f in dthem; indicating a rearrangement since that t ime. A n o t hermonk, Dom Petrucci Placido, whose chronicle" ends in I58o,also gives the number o f p a nels as t h i r ty-eight. I n I 6 I oanother monk, O n o rato d e M e d i c i ,ss w r i t ing i n It a l i an,records eighteen panels of bronze upon the doors. G a t tola,"the great historian o f t h e A b bey, in I7 I o , ju s t a h u n d redyears after Onorato, says the panels numbered thir ty-eight,as the chroniclers previous to Onorato had stated. W e can-n ot therefore reconcile the statement o f O n o rato w i th t h eother wr i ters, and must conclude he was unintentionally inerror, and that the th i r ty-eight panels existed then as beforeand after.

A s noted before, the doors hold to-day forty panels. T h enumber as given by Gattola and others, thirty-eight, omits theplain panels, one at the bot tom o f e ach va lve; these musttherefore be addit ions since the t ime o f p at t o la i n I 7 I O ,t he more so i n v i ew o f o t her i n teresting in formation th ishistorian gives us concerning the condition of the door at thatperiod. H e s tates that the divisions between the panels wereof bronze, those running vert ically being somewhat smallerthan the horizontal ones, while the outside border was entirely

This manuscript is pasted inside the back cover of the Chronicles ofthe Abbey from I5o5 to I544, and bears the date of I'5'35.

Basilica autem ipsa tres januas habet in qua media triginta octolamina aerea sunt affixa, ubi l iteris argentis sunt sculpta oppida, ville,ecclesie, monasterii fuerunt, quorum vix pauca hodie possedentur.

Page 567 of his Chronicle." Gwrtot.w, Accessiones, p. I~.

23

of wood. About this time the Abbey was reconstructed tosuch an extent, that afterward a re-dedication was deemednecessary, and actually occurred April zznd, lysy. PopeBenedict XIII officiated in person. A marble" in the churchrecords this dedication as well as the two others to whichreference has already been made. It is to this constructionthat we owe the baroque character of the work we now findin the basilica and its surroundings at Monte Cassino.

It is therefore probable that the doors were included in therestoration, the unequal divisions between the panels beingremoved, the two lower panels, one on each valve, added, thewooden border replaced by one of bronze, and the doors ineffect as we now see it. The thirty-eight panels referred toby the Chroniclers are undoubtedly those above the two lowestpanels.We have now examined all the surface except the four

crosses in relief adjacent to panels A, and the bronze onwhich they are set. These are so similar to the crosses uponthe doors at Amalfi, Atrani, Salerno, and Venice, that wemight accept them perhaps as forming a part of the originaldoor of Mauro did we consider only their style; but thebronze of which they are made and that on which they areplaced, is not that of panels A. On the other hand, it is thesame as that of panels B, and we must therefore conclude itbelongs to them. It is altogether unlikely that two varietiesof bronze would be used in Constantinople for the doors.We must refuse, therefore, to accept these crosses as forminga part of it.

It would be instructive, did the materials exist at MonteCassino, to institute a comparison between the panels andthe bars or mouldings which separate them as to proportionalwidth. These unfortunately do not exist. We cannot receivethe present bars as to material, proportion, or design as theoriginals. The mediaeval workmen in xo66 did not use mould-ings with an ogee profile such as we find here. These wereundoubtedly made in the early eighteenth century before there-dedication of Iyzy. The doors at Amalfi have separatingbars between the panels within a fraction as wide as thepanels themselves. In the doors at Atrani the proportionsare as three for the bars to seven for the panels. At Salernoas nine and one-half to thirteen; and these general ratios

Published by C~vrr~ ap. cit., III, p. 4Sx.

Digitized tty G OOglC

hold good for other Byzantine doors. These proportionswould alone cause us to view the Byzantine origin of the doorsat Monte Cassino with suspicion.

There remain therefore the panels to the number of thirty-eight which we can safely accept as anterior to the year x535;of these, only the panels of class A can we accept as formingpart of the original doors, the work of a Byzantine atelier.We have already stated that we did not credit the theoryadvanced by Gattola, followed by Schulz and others, as to theaddition of sixteen panels made by Oderisius to the doors ofDesiderius. The query then suggests itself as to how thepresence of panels B and C upon the doors is to be explained PTo answer this, a reference to the history of the Monasterybefore x35o is necessary.

We learn that in the year I349, on September ninth, thereoccurred such an earthquake to use the exact words of thehistorian" "as caused the total ruin of the famous basilicaof Desiderius and of the Monastery." These lay in ruinsuntil Bishop Angelo da Sora, between x357 and x365, under-took to raise the walls of a new church. It is probable thatthe bronze doors, placed as they were in immediate connec-tion with the walls, would receive the most severe injuriesfrom the falling stone, and we cannot believe they escapedtheir share of the destruction which overtook the unfortunteabbey at this time. It is also probable that much of the bronzework in them was irreparably ruined. The doors of Maurobeing in the heavier walls of the great basilica, perhaps suf-fered most of all. I f the doors of Oderisius were in thischurch also, very likely they su8ered also. The doors madeby Desiderius for the lesser church of San Martino, may havefared somewhat better.

It now remains to be asked whether the present pair of doorscontains remains of these other doors? Before replying, wemust consider what the three pairs of doors originally may havebeen like, and also if any of the work we now see possibly be-longed to one of them. W e w il l begin with the doors ofMauro; as stated before, we know nothing of what they were

~Ibid., I, p. 335. BERThUx, ap. cit., note z, referring to tbis eventgives the date incorrectly as x3p). The Bull of Urban V to which herefers, basing his reference on Gavrm.a, Accessioses, II, p. 5m, onlysanctions reconstruction of the ~Basilica; the date of Ais was x3yo andmarlrs ayproximately the compleHon of the work of Bishop de Sora.

25

Digitized by Google

like beyond the fact that the Amalfi doors pleased Desideriusand he wanted a similar pair. The Amalfi doors areornamentedin the middle by four panels incised with figures of Christ, theVirgin, Saint Peter, and Saint Andrew. These panels are sur-rounded by others bearing a monotonous series of crosses inrelief. The really beautiful part of the doors is the figures.My own idea is that Mauro gave to the Abbey of Monte Cas-sino a pair of doors entirely of figures or figured scenes, ex-cept for the panels bearing the inscriptions. Bearing in mindthat the Abbey, to which the gift was made, was at that timethe most splendid and prominent ecclesiastical establishmentin the world, the gift of doors composed either of inscriptionsor crosses would not have been satisfactory to Desiderius, norworthy of the Monastery. A few years later, a member ofthe same family gave a pair of doors to Saint Paul's at Romecomposed wholly of figured scenes. May we not thereforesuppose that Monte Cassino had one equally magnificent?However, history and tradition are silent on this point. Onthe present doors none of the panels show any visible marksof contusions received, or any evidence of having been dam-aged, bent, or straightened.H ow the doors were enlarged on account of being originally

too small for their place, we do not know. A border of reliefcrosses may have been added out of bronxe already in stockat the Abbey. It is possible this may account for the presenceof the four crosses, as well as for another similar one whichstands upon a column in the cloister to-day.The doors of Desiderius are an easier problem. These, I

think, may have been composed of inscriptions, a part of whichare now on the doors in the panels of class B, made by mtonkswho were studying under the Byxantine masters then at theAbbey; indeed the first three panels of the series may havebeen made by the masters themselves. These doors may alsohave had crosses upon them; if so, the crosses we now see mayhave originally belonged to the doors of Desiderius. Thegreater number of panels inow remaining of the doors ofDesiderius, if such they are, can be accounted for by the pos-sibility iof its having received less damage because of its beingset in a lighter wall.

The doors of Oderisius present the most difficulty in view ofthe fact that Petrus Diaconus especially refers to their beauty.In the light of this we are not justified in identifying the panels

26

Digitized by G OOgk.

of class C as a part of them. I n f act I cannot see that there isanything on the doors as they now exist which we can attributeto the later doors of O der isius. T h e i r design must remainentirely a matter of conjecture. I t i s very possible that afterthe earthquake of I3$9 the monks gathered from the remains ofthe San Mart ino doors the inscriptions and completed the listfrom the records of the Abbey; these, withthededicatorypanelsfrom the doors of M auro, and the four c rosses, formed thed oors as Gattola and the other chroniclers saw them. T h esupposition that the panels of c lass C were made and addeda fter the earthquake of z3g9 is most probable, in view of thecharacter of the letters and of the abbreviations. The task ofa ttempting to r econstruct even one o f t h e d oors f rom t h escanty materials which exist is a too di ff icult one, interestingas the attempt might be.

F inally, af ter m i nute and r epeated examination o f th emonument as we see it to-day, we conclude that the presentdoors at Monte Cassino, aside from the two panels of c lassA bearing th e d edicatory i nscriptions, contain no thing o ft he or iginal d oors w h ich i s sued f rom t h e wo r k shop a tC onstantinople, at the expense of M auro o f A m al fi , fo r t h ehonor of the Church of Sa int Benedict.

THE BRONZE DOORS OF THE BASILICA OFST. PAUL'S AT ROME

The Basilica of Saint Paul's at Rome, in common with thechurches at Amalfi, A t rani, Monte Cassino, and Monte Sant'Angelo, through the munificence of the Pantaleone' family ofAmalfi, in the year zo7o A.D., became the possessor of a pairo f bronze valves which closed the pr incipal entrance in thewestern front of the church.

A t th is t ime H i l debrand, a f terward P ope Gregory V I I ,was Abbot of Sa int Paul 's. B a r onius records' that in zo7ohe made a j o u rney t o C onstantinople, in w h ich c i t y t hesedoors, as well as those just referred to, were made. W h etheror not the visit of H i ldebrand to the Imperial city was under-taken in connection with the doors, we do not know. I t isfair, however, to presume, that he must have devoted sometime and attention to the regal gift which was to be one of theg lories of his church, and he doubtless had much to do w i ththe details which appeared upon its surface.

All the Byzantine doors which came into I taly dur ing thelatter half of the eleventh century were made in substantiallythe same manner. C o mparatively small and l i ght p ieces ofbronze, the surface of which bore a decoration of some kind,the thickness of w h ich b ronze hardly exceeded four m i l l i -meters, or a quarter o f a n i n ch, were spiked upon a so l idbacking of wood, generally oak, and then were f ramed aboutby bronze bands which overlapped the edges of the panelsin order to conceal their f astenings. T h e bands were heldto the wooden backing by means of round-headed bronze bolts

' PAwvrwtvs, De Praecipccis Romae, p. y3 states the door was madeat the expense of Hi ldebrand. This error is repeated by SEvzaawo,Le S e t te C h i ese di Rott t a, p. 394 . NI BB Y, Ro m a tte l A t ts oMiDCCCXXXVII, Parte Modertta, I, p. sy8 claims Pantaleone as aRoman Consul in Constantinople. H e a lso says that Saint Paul'soriginally had three bronze doors in its western faqade, the middle oneof which was from Constantinople.

* BARowtvs, Anrtales Ecclesiastici, Anno MLXX.

placed in regular order and thus made more or less a decora-tive feature. W h ere these bands, or f ramings, came togetherupon the door vert ically, the jo int was covered by an o rna-mented bar, hal f an octagon in p rofi le, which ran ver t icallybetween each set of frames. These bars were likewise fastenedto the wood by bolts of the same pattern as those used on theframes. T h is in br ief, is the method of construction used onthe doors of Saint Paul's.

In size they exceeded any of the other doors given by Pan-taleone or his family, being sixteen feet six inches high, byeleven feet and three inches wide. T hey contained fi f ty- fouroblong upright panels, ornamented with scenes from the Lifeof Christ, figures of the Prophets, Apostles, etc. W h en newthey were perhaps the most splendid doors in Italy, owing totheir size and the variety of their decoration. T hey were thework of Staurachios of Scio, as we are told from an inscriptiononce upon them. I t w i l l thus be seen that we are dealing witht he largest, and w i t h t h e exception o f t h e P a la d ' Oro a tVenice, the most important work in metal of Byzantine originwhich remains to us.

Of changes or restorations made in the doors between thetime it was set up and the year x823, we know nothing posi-t ively more than a t radi t ion that i t was restored during thep ontificate of A l exander IV , w h o w a s P ope f rom I 2 54 t oI26z, at which t ime the doors had been in p lace nearly twohundred years. T h i s t radit ion is repeated from t ime to t imeincidentally by writers who refer to it . F o r the use of pilgrimsv isiting Rome in th e e ighteenth century, a ser ies of G u ideBooks' were written, none of which can claim exactness ofinformation. T h e wr i ters do not trouble to give the authorityupon which they base their statements. I t i s f r om these thatwe get t h e i n f o rmation concerning th e t r a d i t ion o f t hethirteenth century repairs to the door.

In the year I 823 th e B a s i l ica o f S a in t P a u l 's suffereda disastrous fire w h ich destroyed the nave, as fa r a s t h etransept, and ruined forever the bronze doors. They arenow, in their ru ined condition, set up in a r oom adjacent tot he sacristy o f t h e c h u rch, between the c lo isters and t h eVia Ostiensis. T h i s r oom is being gradually converted intoa small museum fo r t h e e x position o f o b j ects o f i n t erestbelonging to the church.

' SEvzRwNo, op. clt., p. 396. Cf. also MmN~ r , Romo Sacra, p. 45r.29

The doors were published by Ciampini' in x69o, but withs o li t t le exactness that h i s i l l ustration g ives only a ve r ygeneral idea of them. Almost no details are given, and apartfrom the arrangement of the panels, some of their subjects,and the proportions of the door, the i l lustration is worth butlittle. They were again published by Seroux D'Agincourt' inx823. I t i s important to note in connection with this publica-tion of the doors, that the drawings upon which the engravingsare based were made in the year x783 and, as the authorstates, "with great exactness and extreme personal labor andfatigue." H i s detailed drawings are superior to those ofCiampini, but also inexact in details which at the time no doubthe considered as of minor importance. He presents only thegeneral features, and o f ten omi ts, or m i s represents, detailswhich to a s tudent are of the greatest value. M o r eover, inthe enlargements of th e panels, which he publ ishes in setsof nine, his engravings have the very great disadvantage ofbeing reversed from the originals.

I have seen no date earlier than x823, the year of the fi reat Saint Paul's, upon any copy of the work of D'Agincourt.It would seem as if the plates at least must have been issuedbefore that date as t hey w ere seen by a n I t a l ian, N i colaNicolai,' who was preparing a work upon the Basilica of SaintPaul's. I t b ears the t i t le La Basil ica di Sats Paolo and uponthe ti tle page is the date Mncccxv . N ic o la i had seen thep lates of D ' A g incourt w h ich w ere m ade i n x 7 83, and i ncomparing them with the doors, had noted their shortcomings.H e determined to include in h i s book a s im i lar set o f e n -gravings which should surpass the French author in exactnessof detail. I n t h is he succeeded. The plates from which theseengravings were made are now the property of the Basil ica.Wherever the panels now upon the' doors are compared with theplates of N i colai, the latter are f ound to be correct. I t isonly fai r t o the painstaking industry o f N i co lai to say thatwe are compelled to depend upon him f o r s uch details ofthe door as existed in his t ime, which the door in i ts presentruined condition does not furnish.

' Cu.MrrNr, Vetera Monimenta, I, ch. 4. Romae, r6go.' SERovx D'AorNcoURT, Histoire de /'Art par les Monnnrents, vol. IV.

Paris, r823.'Ibid., II , p. 48, note b.' Nrcor.hr, La Basilica di San Paolo, Rome, r8r5.

We will consider, first, briefly, the subjects depicted uponthe panels of the door, then the technique employed, next thecondition and arrangement of the panels, and finally somedetails of its construction.

The panels are fifty-four in number; they are disposed uponthe doors in nine rows of six panels each. Each panel showsan exposed surface about a64 millimeters wide by 4oo mm.high, or xog by x5~4 inches. All bore either pictorial illustra-tions or inscriptions. One series of twelve were devoted toScenes from the Life of Christ. In chronological order theyare: Annunciation, Nativity, Presentation in the Temple, Bap-tism, Transfiguration, Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Cruci-fixion, Deposition from the Cross, Christ in Hades, Incredulityof Saint Thomas, Ascension, and Pentecost. Twelve otherpanels are occupied with the single figures of the eleven apos-tles,' Thomas, Philip, James, Simon, Matthew, Luke, Mark,John, Peter, Andrew, and Bartholomew, and the twelfth panelshowing Christ with Saint Paul. A third set of twelve panelsis taken up with the representation of the death of eachof these persons, except Christ, whose Crucifixion is picturedin the first series. A fourth series of twelve represent OldTestament Prophets who foretold the coming of Christ. Theyare Moses, David, Isaiah, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel,Elijah, Elias, Jonah, Habakkuk, and Sophonias, whomweknowas Zephaniah. To these forty-eight panels were added twobearing inscriptions, two with crosses, and two with eagleswith outstretched wings fifty-four in all.The panels as given by Nicolai do not appear to have been

arranged quite as we might expect in view of their subjects.Those devoted to the Life of Christ were placed together inthe upper left hand corner, three wide by four deep. Thetwelve bearing the Old Testament Prophets, except Moses,were placed in the lower right hand corner; Moses, crowdedout by the Eagle, was put above the four nearest the middleof the doors which brings him in the middle row of panelsconsidered horizontally. In this middle row, beginning from

'I call them the eleven apostles for convenience. On the Door thefigures of Saints Luke and Mark replaced those of James the Lessand Thaddeus, which are oenitted. Cf. lists given Matt x, ' , Markxxx, x6, Luke VI-xg When the word apostles is used in this it willbe understood to refer to the persons represented upon the Door, andnot to Che correct list as given by the Evangelists.

3x

D igitized by Goog l e

the left, were an ornamental Cross, an inscription, the Deathof Saint Paul, Moses, a second inscription, and lastly anotherornamental Cross. The two Eagles were placed one in eachlower corner. This leaves the twelve panels of the Apostles,and the eleven panels showing their deaths (the deathof Saint Paul already being in the middle row), for thetwo remaining spaces on the doors. One might reason-ably expect that for each series of representations a specialfield upon the door would have been selected, and that apanel showing an Apostle would have been placed adjacentto that depicting his death. As Ciampini, D'Agincourt, andNicolai show the doors, this sequence seems to be more amatter of accident than design, and we cannot accept anytheory of the arrangement of the panels which would leadus to suppose that in a work of this magnitude the matterof arrangement was not made the subject of the most carefulthought. The plate' showing the entire doors (Pl. II) disclosesthat the Apostles Philip, Mark, Peter, Bartholomew, Thomas,Matthew, and Andrew are placed with the panei which showthe manner of their death. The remaining five pairs are moreor less widdy separated. The rectangular spaces on the doorswith an arrangement such as Nicolai shows would prevent alogical placing of these panels. We cannot think that originallythey were placed in this manner. The twelve panels depictingthe Life of Christ, the principal ones on the doors, contain-ing the most detail and being the most beautiful and important,would certainly have been placed where they could best beseen, and not ten or fifteen feet above the ground.

We have no means of knowing whether the fifty-fourpanels as given in the engraving are the same as thoseoriginally sent from Constantinople. We do not know thatin the thirteenth century repairs of Pope Alexander II it wasfound necessary to replace any of them; those which still existappear to be all of the same materials and workmanship.Assuming the original panels to be as we know them to havebeen in x8x5 a better arrangement would be the following,or something similar to it: beginning with the top row at theleft, across the doors, then downward; First row, six Apostles;Second row, their deaths; Third row, other six Apostles;Fourth row, their deaths; Fifth row, an eagle, an inscrip-tion, a cross, another cross, an inscription, an eagle; Sixth

'Nxaaar, op. cit., pl. XI.

Digitized by Google

00

0 0 9 0J.I 0

III

9

0I

0I,

Q 80 0 0I cc

t." P * C C Pt ii f

0I i l V C I "

U f i MII% I &

PI

ll"I 3 ' l l I POclflfl& f f l l l l t + 0

0

0 j ' Ola

0 l30 0 9O

' c

O' Ib' $3

0 00i 0

c .' (-'3Q ~C

Pi

o

PLATE IITHE BRONZE DOORS AT ST. PAULS', ROME

Digis ed by Google

row, six scenes from the L i fe o f Ch r ist ; Seventh row, othersix of the same; E ighth row, six O l d T estament Prophets;Ninth row, other six o f t h e same. S ome such arrangementa s this would appear to b e t ha t w h ich th e a r t i sts had i nm ind when designing the doors, w i th s i x p anels in a r o wand twelve scenes to a set. A p o ssible objection to i t i s thatit does not give good opportunity o f v i ewing at c lose ranget he panels which depict the deaths o f t h e A p ostles. T h i sis true, but they would be exhibited better than are the scenesof the L i fe of Chr ist as they are at present. I t h a s also theadvantage of varying the l ines of decoration across the doors,thus avoiding the monotony which might otherwise exist, ort he confusion resulting f rom such an a r r angement as t h ep late of N icolai indicates. W e w o uld then have fi rst a rowof figures under arches, next a row o f scenes, then anotherrow of s i ngle figures fo l lowed by another row o f s c enes;the middle row w o uld b e t ha t bear ing the eagles, crossesa nd inscriptions, then the two most in teresting rows of t h eLife of Chr ist, fo l lowed by two rows of s ingle figures underarches. I t appears very probable that some such logical orderw as followed by Staurachios in setting up the doors. I f s o ,the arrangement in i 8 r 5 c o uld no t h ave been the o r ig inalorder. T h e doors themselves show that considerable repairshad been made upon them and therefore a re-arrangement ofthe panels is neither impossible nor improbable.

At the middle of each of the decorated bars which separatethe panels vertically we find a r e c tangular tablet having across incised upon its sur face. O n t h e central bar N i colaishows the tablet upside down; it could not have been originallythus. A n e x a m ination o f t h e o r namentation on th e t h reebars to the lef t as compared with the two on the r ight w i l ld isclose the di fferences of design. W e do n o t k n o w t h a tthese bars were originally ornamented in the same way, but wemay infer it." T h e design upon the two bars to the right is notByzantine, but Roman, and is similar to the Cosmati mot i fso f the th i r teenth century. I t h a s n o th ing in common w i ththe Byzantine types of ornament on the other three bars, int he spandrils of the arches over the s ingle figures, or w i t hanalogous ornament on the Byzantine doors at M onte Sant'Angelo, Salerno, and Venice. A ga in, i t w i l l be noted that the

CIaMpINI shows this right side up and the crosses on all the othersof the same design.

half octagon form o f t h e ba r c eases near the top o f t hedoors and a square-edged casting of bronze is added tof inish i t , f l a r ing ou t a t t he t o p t o ab ou t h a l f a g ain i t sd iameter at t h e b ase. U p o n t h ese capitals a d esign w asd rawn wh ich i n t w o c a ses d i ffers f r o m t h e o t hers. T h eargument that these are restorations may apply here as wellas to the bars, except that the work upon these capitals isdone in the Byzantine spirit, and i f they are restorations theymay be copies. Bases, similar to the capitals, were undoubt-edly on the lower ends of the bars. N i c o lai shows the barsas not al l running to the ground the first three to the lef ta 5d the last to the r ight stopping considerably short o f i t -and does not show any o f t h e fl a r ing end-pieces as basesin place. S i nce his t ime, the door has been again restored,at least in part . A pho t ograph" o f t h e p resent actual con-dition of the doors shows al l but one o f t h e bars i n p lacet o the bottom of t h e doors, together with the bases. N o wthe bars seem to have suffered f rom the effects of the fi r ewhile the bases appear to be quite new. W e m ust thereforeconclude they are recent additions.

'After the p ieces of the doors were collected from thef ire and kept i n b o xes fo r m any y ears, they w ere fi na l lybrought out and assembled. W e f in d , n o tw i thstanding theguidance of D ' A g incourt and N i colai, the monks assembledthem in a haphazard order and so they stand to-day. N i col'aigives a plate of the entire doors, then, for convenience of study,he divides the doors into six zones, corresponding to the sixv ertical d i v isions, number on e b e ing t h e l e f t h and r o w .Of each o f th ese zones he g i ves an e n larged p late, be-ginning his consideration with the lowest panel and proceedingupward. F o l lowing this method," except that we number thep anels consecutively, beginning w i t h t h e l o w est l e f t h a ndcorner we find th e a r rangement as fo l lows : r T he E a g le,2 Saint John Theologos, 3 Death of Saint Andrew, 4 Chr istand Saint Paul, 5 A Cross, 6 The Incredulity of Saint Thomas,7 The C rucifix ion, 8 T h e B a p t ism, 9 T h e A n n u nciation;these composed the first zone. T h e second zone consisted ofro The Death of Saint Thomas, l r D eath of Saint Bartholo-m ew, r2 Saint Andrew, r3 Death of Saint Peter, i 4 A n I n -s cription, i 5 Th e A scension, l 6 T h e D e position f rom t h e

~ MoscioNi, photo, 6y3o.~This numbering of the panels will be adhered to throughoist.

Cross, x7 The Transfiguration, x8 The Nativity. The thirdzone: x9 Saint Thomas, 2o Saint Bartholomew, 2x Deathof Saint John, 22 Saint Peter, 23 Death of Saint Paul, 24The Pentecost, 25 Christ in Hades, 26 Triumphal Entry intoJerusalem, 27 The Presentation in the Temple. The fourthzone: 28 Habakkuk, 29 Elijah, 3o Jeremiah, 3x David, 32Moses, 33 Saint Luke, 34 Death of Saint Matthew, 35 SaintJames, 36 Death of Saint Philip. T h e fi f th zone: 37Sophonias, 38 Elisha, 39 Ezekiel, 4o Isaiah, 4x An Inscrip-tion, 42 Death of Saint Mark, 43 Saint Matthew, 44 Deathof Saint Simon, 45 Saint Philip. Sixth zone: 46 The Eagle,47 Jonah, 48 Daniel, 49 Hezekiah, 5o A Cross, 5x Saint Mark,52 Death of Saint Luke, 53 Saint Simon, 54 Death of SaintJames. The drawing of Ciampini shows panels xo and x9reversed. This is probably due to an error of the engraver.To-day panel 45 holds Saint Simon, panel 53 Elijah, panel 43Saint Philip, panel 33 Saint John, panel 5x Saint Thomas,panel 22 Sophonias, panel 3x Hezekiah, panel 49 Ezekiel, panelx2 Saint Mark, panel 3o Jonah, panel 29 Daniel, panel 2oSaint Matthew, panel 29 Saint Peter, panel 38 Saint Bar-tholomew, panel 28 David. At present vacant are 48, 2, 47, x9,and all but a small portion of number 37. We find thereforethat there are fifteen panels out of their places as given byNicolai; moreover they all depict single figures. Now thereare only twenty-three panels on the entire doors which showsingle figures, and if in the nineteenth century errors are madeto the extent of fifteen out of a possible twenty-three, whatmay we expect of a thirteenth or fifteenth century-re-arrange-ment consequent upon a restoration?

We will now pass to a brief consideration of the techniqueof the work. The bronze used in the panels, as well as inother parts of the doors, varies in thickness from four tosix millimeters, or from three sixteenths to one quarter ofan inch. The panels were smoothed on the face, while theback was left somewhat rough. The desired design wasthen traced upon the surface, and aloug the lines so tracedchannels were cut about three millimeters wide and the samein depth. Into these channels a metallic cement or amalgam,sometimes silver, was placed, which was softened by heatbefore using, thus making it easier to work. A f ter thechannels were filled and the work had cooled off, theplate was buffed smooth and brilliant. The inlay used on

35

Digitized by GOOgle

t he Saint Paul panels was for the most part of s i lver . N ic -olai,'* in h i s examination o f t h e d o ors, speaks of c o loredinlay being used in some places, and to-day some of this re-mains, especially the reds and blues. We also know that uponthe bronze doors at Monte Sant' Angelo and Salerno, both ofthem approximately o f t h e same date, colored in lays wereused in places. When representing nude portions of the body,it was the Byzantine custom to use, for these parts, plates ofsilver which were set into the bronze, and upon these plates todraw in fine black lines the lineaments of the face, the fingers,and the feet.

The origin of decoration by incised lines is lost in the mistsof antiquity. A s f a r as we have any records of p ictorial artwe find l ine drawings. O n a material softer than the instru-m ent used to make the l ines, the latter become incised. I t i sthe art fi rst used by chi ldren as with a sharpened stick theydraw upon the ground or sand. P r ehistoric peoples scratchedtheir d rawings upon r o cks, and d ecorated thei r d o mesticu tensils by means of i n c ised l ines. I t is b u t a s tep t o fi l lup the incisions thus made with a d i fferent color, and so atonce obtain added boldness and decorative effect. N u m erousexamples of the early use of i n c ised l ines can be found inany of the great museums of art . A f ew o f s uch instancescited here may not be without interest. Th e N imroud Galleryin the Br i t ish Museum contains some Phoenician plaques ofivory ranging in date from 85o to 7oo B.C. which are decoratedin this manner. C esnola" pub l ishes some Phoenician bowlsfrom Cyprus, Crete and Etruria, dated about the sixth centuryB.C., thus incised. The decoration of Etruscan bronze mirrorsand of early Greek vases in this manner is too wel l knownto require more than a passing reference. B u t b e f ore thedate of any of the Greek vases which have come down to us,the Greeks were adepts in the use of inlaying silver on bronze.The Shield of Achilles was a work of silver inlay, made evenbefore the time of Homer when art had hardly yet becomeGrecian; so also was the work upon the famous Daggers ofMycenae. Another interesting example of sixth century B.C.Greek work, silver inlay on bronze, may be seen in theAntiquarium at Berlin; in Room z, a Greek bronze plate showsa sphinx inlaid in si lver. T h e I t a l ians soon acquired the

iNtcomt, op. cit., p. z87.CESNQLA, CyPrss, pl. I9 .

same practice; in the same Museum at Berlin there is a helmet-top of bronze bearing as the principal design a series of malefigures on horseback, inlaid in silver. This object was foundin the Po near Cremona and is dated as of the sixth or fifthcentury B.C. The Museo delle Terme at Rome contains,among the objects found in the tombs at Castel Trosino, nearAscoli Piceno, some bronze fragments upon which an open-work design of a basket pattern appears inlaid in silver; alsosome bronze bars found at Ostia on which are inlaid insilver rosettes in a Greek diaper pattern. The Museum ofthe Conservatori in the same city has a chair of Romanwork; the frame is of bronze and is magnificently decoratedwith inlays of silver in both geometrical and arabesquepatterns, as well as with human figures which are repre-sented in a garden among trees, foliage, fruit, etc., allof good style and charmingly executed; in addition to thesilver inlay, other metals of various colors are introducedmaking the whole combination remarkable for graceful formand color. The National Museum at Naples contains a numberof similar works taken from the excavations at Pompeii, show-ing bronze inlaid with silver and copper on such objects asswords, scabbards, basins, pedestals etc."

The ceiebrated Chest of Cypselos which stood in theopisthodomos of the Heraeum at Olympia was of cedar, awork of about the sixth century B.C. I t was decorated witha series of figures wrought partly in ivory and cedar, and alsoin gold. These were probably in relief. The ivory was usedas an inlay for the nude portions of the female figures inexactly the same manner as the Byzantines used silver inconnection with incised figures upon bronze, centuries after.

The art of inlay has always been much used by the Asiatics.The expertness of the Chinese, Japanese, and the natives ofIndia, the Arabians, Persians and the Moors is too well knownto be dwelt upon. A pplied to sword-making, the art aspracticed at Damascus in the middle ages gave that city au nique position in the history of metal working. T h eByzantines, then, came naturally to the art of inlay.The figures drawn upon the doors of Saint Paul's are of

the thin and elongated style familiar to the student of Byzantineart, and resemble other work of this period. For the mostpart, the draperies are in somewhat stiff lines, with as few

Catalogue, No. yo.gg5, No. xx5.p32, No. go.g8g, No. g2.goo, etc.3y

Digitized by G OOgk.

c urves indicated as the pose of the figures will allow. T h esingle figures all stand facing the spectator and are monoton-ously alike in attitude. They are allowed only a few variationsof gesture, and these quite elementary. S ometimes the r ighthand is extended free from the body and an upward gesturei s given to it ; at other t imes it is placed either in f ront of t hebreast, or assists, as in the case of the prophets, in holding thescroll which the lef t hand contains. T h e l ef t hand does notg enerally project f rom the outl ine of t h e body; i n t h ecase of the apostles it i s employed in holding a c losedbook or scroll, while w ith the prophets the scroll is openeda nd upon i t i s t r aced a few l i nes f rom the w r i t ings of t h eindividual who holds it . A l l t h e single figures are placedu nder arches, the f aces o f w h i ch a r e d ecorated w i th t h esimplest rectangular ornament, while the spandrils hold a simplearabesque. The arches rest upon columns on either side, whichin turn are placed upon a stylobate of three steps.

The present condition of t h e doors is that o f a s a d andm ournful wreck as compared with their o r ig inal beauty. Aphotograph" of i t g ives a better idea of it than can any writtendescription. Al l o f the bronze is damaged by fire. Th i r ty-three of the panels are st il l ent i re, and th ree are gone al-t ogether; the r emaining e ighteen are l acking i n p a r t s a sfollows:" No. 3, small strips out of upper right hand side; No.Io, upper th i rd zone; No. i9 , no th ing remains but a s mal loblong piece in lower lef t hand corner ; No. 2i , up per th i rdgone; No. 22, lower ha lf g one; N o . 2 4, l a rge p iece out o fupper right hand side;" No . 28, all gone except a piece about,six inches square in the upper left hand corner; No. 29, jaggedcorner and lower fi f th gone; No. 3o, lower half gone; No. 3I ,triangular piece from upper lef t hand corner; No . 32, smalltriangular piece from lower lef t hand corner; No . 34, smallp iece from lower lef t hand corner ; No . 36, p iece f rom thebottom; No. 37, all gone except a piece about six inches squarein upper left hand corner; No. 38, triangular hole in lower lefthand section; No. 4I , t r iangular piece out of lower lef t handcorner; No. 49, lower quarter gone; No. 53, two small holesnear centre.

MoscioNi, photos. 67go and 6732."Following the numeration already given.~This panel is that of the Pentecost. The missing piece is now

in the Museo Kircheriano at Rome.

If we now re-arrange the panels in the position which theyoccupied in the time of colai, before the conflagration, wewill obtain a better idea as to the portions of the doors whichsuffered most. It will be seen that the lower part sufferedgreater damage than the upper, and it is at once evident thatthe greatest damage was received by the small pairs of doorswhich opened in the middle of the greater pair." A ppar-ently the fire originated inside the Basilica. When it reachedthe door, the small doors must have been open and thereforewere directly subjected to the flames. The wooden backingof the doors was doubtless consumed and the bronze panels,heated from the back, were brought close to the point offusion. Traces of the silver alloy are still to be seen in them;in some of the channels it has been melted out entirely; inothers it has expanded beyond its original limits and runtogether in the lower part of the channels. Here and theredrops of melted silver are still to be seen upon the surfacesof some of the panels, which are themselves pitted and scoredby the intense heat. In cooling, they varied from black,greenish black, and dark blue, to a coppery red, and in somecases to yellow. The panel depicting the Crucifixion is yellow,with black lines taking the place of the silver inlay. Thepanel of the Ascension in its upper part is bright red withdark mottles, while the inscriptions upon it are of a greenishblack. The panel of the Nativity is of a dirty yellow color.The small silver plates which were used for the nude portionsof the figures, are of course all gone. When the doors werenew, they were probably of a re ddish brouze, almosta copper color, and must have presented a very splendid ap-pearance with the colored and silver inlay outlined againstthe polished red of the shining bronze.

Some of the details of construction may now be brieflyconsidered. The general arrangement of panels, the framing,and the vertical bars have been already discussed. Plate XIof Nicolai shows the entire doors; a transverse bar runs acrossbetween the two outside rows of the panels, six rows upfrom the ground; this appears in the plate as without or-nament. " Immediately underneath it the twenty-four panels,

The construction of these two small valves wlll be better under-stood by referring to the plates of D'ActNcovar or Ntcor.at, and bythe explanation which is given later in tthis chapter.

~ Probably a restoration.

39

Digitized by GOOgIC

twelve on each side of the middle line, were so hinged to theother part of the doors that they could be opened as a sep-arate pair of valves, thus obviating the necessity of openingand closing the two larger valves. The transverse bar abovethe smaller valves served as a moulding against which theycould close, and also to cover the joint or break in the surfaceof the large door. The small valves, like the larger pair,opened inward. As previously stated, the indications arethat they were open at the time of the fire. T he largevalves swung upon tenons, or dowels, of bronze which ex-tended vertically from the upper and lower exterior anglesof the doors, and worked in holes made to receive them inthe threshold and soffit of the lintel. T h is was the ancientway of hanging doors and continued throughout the mediaevalperiod. All of the bronze doors, large or small, which arestill in place are hung in this manner. D'Agincourt, in hisengraving of the door, shows two of the four bronze tenonsupon which the door was hung. Across the lower edge ofthe door a wearing strip of bronze was attached by meansof nails driven through circular discs of metal to increase theh olding surface. Nicolai shows them in plate XI . Th eframes which surrounded the panels appear to have beenmade when possible in one piece; naturally in the four middlerows of panels, owing to the break caused by the small pairof valves, the frames were in two sections. T hese framesresemble ladders in which the rungs are the same in size asthe uprights. On e i ther side of the vertical separating barsthese ladders show an exposed surface