The cross-in-square plan in Carolingian architecture Carlo Tosco UDC: 72.033.42108 72.012.2408 Preliminary communica
210 122 10MB
121 4 81KB Read more
The cross-in-square plan in Carolingian architecture Carlo Tosco UDC: 72.033.42108 72.012.2408 Preliminary communication Manuscript received: 06. 02. 2014. Revised manuscript accepted: 18. 04. 2014. DOI: 10.1484/J.HAM.5.102665
C. Tosco Politecnico di Torino Dipartimento DIST corso Massimo d'Azeglio 42 10125 Torino Italia
The essay is dedicated to the development of the cross-in-square plan (quincunx) in 9th century architecture and to the relationships between the Byzantine empire and the West. The elaboration of the model presents different variants which prove the vitality of the research carried out by architects during the period. Following a historical path, the examples certified in the West are examined: Santa Maria delle Cinque Torri in Cassino, S. Miquel at Terrassa in Cataluña, the chapel of Germigny-des-Prés built by Theodulf d’Orléans and the chapel of S. Satiro commissioned by archbishop Anspert of Milan. These buildings present architectural similarities and differences and they stem from designs elaborated in Roman times. The examination of the political and diplomatic relations between the Byzantine empire and the Carolingian kings at the end of the 9th century helps to understand the dissemination of the cross-in-square plan during this period of architectural history. Keywords: cross-in-square, quincunx, Theodulf, Anspert The cross-in-square (quincunx) is an ideal architectural model, which presents a considerable variety of solutions and variants1. In this work, we would like to concentrate attention on the development of this constructive scheme in the West in the 9th century and on the relationships existing between the Frankish world and the Byzantine Empire. The cross-in-square plan had already been used in Roman architecture, the most famous example being the “Praetorium” of Musmiye (fig. 1), in Syria, built in 164-169 AD2. In the Christian world, an important development phase took place in Eastern Anatolia and Caucasian regions, where architects elaborated early plans for quincunx churches. The region subject to the most in-depth study is still that of Armenia, where the St. Hovhanns in Bagaran (fig. 2) and the patriarchal church of Emiacin were built in 7th century3. It is hard to establish exactly how Armenian architecture can have influenced architecture in the West but, undoubtedly, the Byzantine Empire strengthened its relations with the Caucasian regions and took on an important role in cultural mediation4. The use of the quincunx in Christian architecture began to be successful from the 9th century and spread beyond the Byzantine Empire, developing on a broad geographic scale between East and West. In Constantinople, the most famous reference is still the Nea Ekklesia, built by Basil I in the imperial palace and consecrated by the patriarch Photius on the 1st of May 8805. The complete destruction of the monument after the area was conquered by the Turks make it difficult to reconstruct its original layout on the basis of documentary sources and many doubts remain. Descriptions mainly focus on the richness of the church and the splendour of the decorations but do not allow excessively detailed interpretations in relation to architecture6. However, it seems evident that the church of Basil I was a structure with a central plan, crowned by five domes. The Nea Ekklesia however was only the most famous of the family based on this model, and in the same period in which it was built, we know that the quincunx was also developed in other churches in the provinces, promoted by high-ranking people close to the
court of Constantinople. Interesting examples are found in Beozia at the Panaghia of Skripou7, built in 873-874 by Protospatharios Leone, and at St. Andrew of Peristerai8, in Thessalonica, which was probably founded in 870-871. It is important to observe that, also in the West, in the Carolingian period, the quincunx model attracted the inte-
Fig. 1. Musmiye (Syria), “Praetorium”, drawing by de Vogüé. C. Tosco: The Cross-in-Square Plan... 489
Fig. 2. Bagaran (Armenia), St. Hovhanne¯s, plan. Fig. 3. Cassino, S. Maria delle Cinque Torri, plan.
Fig. 4. Cassino, S. Maria delle Cinque Torri, view of interior in 1930, before destruction.
rest of architects and high-level patrons. In Montecassino, Abbot Teodemaro (777/778-796) had commissioned the construction in the village near the monastery of the church of S. Maria (fig. 3-4), known later, in consideration of its shape, as “Santa Maria delle Cinque Torri”9. The building was completely destroyed during the battle of 1944, but its structure is documented thanks to the relief drawings and photographs10: it was a structure with a square plan, of considerable size (19 m along each side), with a central square nucleus inside, supported by 12 columns, with three emerging apses. The church had no domes and the roof consisted on four minor towers, set at the corners, and a major central tower, all supported by wooden framework. The church did not, therefore, perfectly represent the quin490
cunx model, although certain aspects did resemble it. We don’t know whether the building reflected others already built locally in Montecassino, or whether its origins stemmed from the culture of the abbot who had promoted its construction. Teodemaro was a high churchman from Frankish realm and had received Charlemagne and the imperial court in his monastery, with all the honours, in 78711. The group of Carolingian buildings could not, however, include S. Miquel at Terrassa, the Roman city of Egara in Cataluña. The most recent archaeological investigations have enabled a new evaluation of S. Miquel (fig. 5), identified with a funerary church built in the first episcopal phase, between the mid-5th and early 6th centuries12. It should, however, be noted that, after the Muslim invasion, the diocese of Terrassa had not interrupted its functions and, with the Frankish conquest of Cataluña, it had been included in the territories of the Marca Hispanica at north of Ebro. Even in the 9th century, the church of S. Miquel conserved its funerary role and hosted new burials in the outer corridor13. It is possible that the building might have taken on value as a point of reference for the patrons of the Carolingian architecture. In France, the most well-known building with a quincunx layout is the oratory of Germigny-des-Prés (fig. 6), founded by Theodulf while he was bishop of Orléans and abbot of Fleury, between 799 and 81814. Theodulf was of Visigoth origin and came from a family which had set up home in the Septimania region after the Muslim invasion of the Iberian peninsula. The church of Germigny was a small private chapel, built within the rich residence of a bishop. The building had a square perimeter, with apses applied on the sides, which housed a smaller square made up of four pillars. The central roof was probably a vertical tower in origin. The palatial complex of which it was part has been
Fig. 5. Terrassa, S. Miquel, archaeological plan (from M. G. GARCIA I LLINARES, A. MORO GARCÍA, F. TUSET BERTRÁN, 2009).
Fig. 6. Germigny-des-Prés, chapel, axonometric reconstruction (from C. B. MCCLENDON, 2005).
lost entirely, but documents describe it as a lavish building, befitting to the political and social rank of its owner, full of decorations and paintings15. Archaeological researches carried out in the 19th century revealed the presence of a hypocaust in the palace area, testifying to the level of the facilities that completed the residence of Theodulf16. The church of Germigny is largely the result of restoration work begun in 1845 and directed, from 1867, by the architect Juste Lisch, the aim of which was to restore the building its presumed original appearance. The most altered part is in the upper structures and the roofing system, while there is more certainty in relation to the plan, thanks to the archaeological investigations (fig. 7) carried out in 1929-3017. The building was famous for the wealth of its decorative elements and may have taken on the value of a model to imitate in the Carolingian world. One particular source celebrates it as “ecclesiam (…) tam mirifici operis ut nullam in tota Neustria inveniri potest”18. The presence of architectural elements deriving from the Visigoth architectural culture, like the horseshoe arches, suggests relations with the Iberian peninsula, due to the geographic origin of Theodulf19. The ornamental elements on the other hand seem to indicate a link with Italy. The stucco decoration C. Tosco: The Cross-in-Square Plan... 491
Fig. 7. Germigny-des-Prés, chapel, archaeological plan (from J. HUBERT, 1930).
can be likened to the works created in the Lombardy area during the Longobard and Carolingian periods, although it is hard to identify precise models of reference20. In Rome, the mosaic had been revived during the days of Leo III and Theodulf had followed the court to Italy, attending the coronation of Charles in 80021. After Theodulf was arrested in 818 and lost all his assets, the villa in Germigny was confiscated by the Carolingian kings and became part of the estate of Charles the Bald as “regium palacium”22. In 843 the king had chosen the palace of Theodulf to celebrate a synod of the French bishops23. This is interesting because it allows us to establish a probable contact with the second famous quincunx building in the Carolingian world: the chapel of S. Satiro, built in Milan by archbishop Anspert. Once again, this was a small but richly decorated private church, built by a high churchman inside a private building. 492
The church of S. Satiro24 is a monument which is well documented. The testament drawn up by archbishop Anspert on the 10th of September 879 states that, upon his death, his home in the city of Milan be turned into xenodochio (a house for the care of the poor) entrusted to the monastery of S. Ambrogio, which was to provide shelter the city’s poor and pilgrims. The house was a family palace consisting of several buildings built of wood and brick, including a “basilica”, built “a fundamentis” and devoted to saints Satiro, Sylvester and Ambrose. In this case, the term “basilica” does not include a type of architecture but a general building of particular importance. Anspert’s funerary stone, housed in the church of S. Ambrogio25, is reminiscent of the construction, together with other buildings commissioned by the archbishop: TU[m] S[an]C[t]O SATURO TE[m]PLU[m]QUE DOMU[m]Q[ue] DICAVIT
Fig. 8. Milan, S. Satiro, view of interior, looking east.
In this epitaph, the chapel is mentioned solely with the dedication to S. Satiro, evidently considered to be most representative, and this dedication was to remain in the centuries that followed. The building was therefore built in the decade between Anspert’s election (868) and his death (879). The structure conserved today represents just part of the original monumental complex, which was demolished to make way for the church of S. Maria, built with the intervention of Donato Bramante from 1477. At that time the outer walls were covered entirely with a new coat of bricks and stucco decorations, the roofs were reconstructed and almost all the interior capitals were replaced. Modern restoration work has brought to the light the medieval structures that were still conserved, earlier by Enrico Strada in 1888-1889, and, later, with the decisive intevention carried out by Gino Chierici in 1939-194226. The restoration work directed by Chierici was very attentive, recuperating what was left of the medieval building, eliminating renaissance and baroque additions where possible. The chapel was originally a structure with four semicircular apses and four isolated major columns which formed a central square (fig. 8). There were originally twelve minor columns applied in the corner spaces, three on each side. The roof of the central area has been replaced entirely in modern times and we have no idea of the way the original roof looked. The bays of the cross arm are barrel vaulted, like Theodulf’s chapel. In the corners however, the restoration work carried out by Chierici brought connecting flying quadrant vaults (fig. 9). Nowadays, only two columns remain with the original capitals, offering important evidence of 9th century Lombard sculpture. In one of the capitals it is still possible to see the hole for insertion of the beam that supported the pergula in the original liturgical setting (fig. 10). Chierici’s restoration works ascertained that the outer perimeter, hidden by renaissance intervention, was curved. The plan developed externally as a multi-lobed cylinder, with three slightly larger lobes corresponding to the in-
Fig. 9. Milan, S. Satiro, original vault in the corner compartment, photographed by G. Chierici in 1940.
ner apses, and four smaller lobes, corresponding to the corner segments. This design is important as there are no significant comparisons in the Carolingian architecture of C. Tosco: The Cross-in-Square Plan... 493
Fig. 12. Milan, S. Satiro, fragments of brickwork decorations illustrated by A. Guidini in 1888-1889.
Fig. 11. Milan, S. Satiro, figure of saint.
Fig. 10. Milan, S. Satiro, Carolingian capital.
the same period. It is probable that in S. Satiro there is a reference to Roman models and multi-lobed structures of the imperial period, of which there must have been many in a city like Milan, which was still rich in ancient monuments. Today the chapel appears to be inclined with respect to the renaissance church of S. Maria and this anomalous placement is due to the fact that it was originally aligned with the axes of the Roman city, well-known on the basis of the most recent urban archaeological researches27. When S. Satiro was built, the 9th century city still observed the imperial street layout, which was later cancelled by expansion during the late middle ages. Restoration work also uncovered fragments of frescoes which decorated the interior walls, with figures of saints standing (fig. 11), where references to the techniques in 494
use in Byzantine painting have been recognised28. On the outside, the remains of brickwork decorations were documented during the restoration carried out in 18881889, illustrated in a relief table of Augusto Guidini (fig. 12), conserved today at the “Gabinetto dei Disegni” of the Museum of Sforzesco Castle29. S. Satiro was a small but very richly decorated chapel, which we can only imagine today, characterised by the sculpture of capitals, paintings on the walls and exterior decorations in terracotta. Anspert had a very close relationship with Louis II and Charles the Bald, sustaining his imperial candidacy in 875. The following year, as soon as he had been crowned emperor, Charles the Bald displayed his recognition of the bishop with a rich donation, made during a public assembly held in Pavia30. At that exact same time, Anspert was working on the construction of the chapel of S. Satiro. A privileged relationship between the imperial court and the Lombard capital was also documented by the circulation of the manuscripts31. It is likely that the political and cultural links entwined between the Carolingian kings and the archbishop of Milan, favoured the sharing of architectural models. In short, the buildings of Germigny and Milan share a quincunx architectural layout drawn up in different forms within the local contexts32 (fig. 13-14). In Milan, references to Roman imperial architecture seem more evident, due to the wealth of the ancient architectural heritage, while in Germigny it seems possible to imagine a contact with the Christian architecture of Cataluña. A different structure, in
Fig. 13. Comparative plans of Germigny-des-Prés (left) and S. Satiro (right), at the same scale.
Fig. 14. Comparative sections of Germigny-des-Prés (left) and S. Satiro (right).
terms of dimensions and design, was presented by Santa Maria delle Cinque Torri in Cassino. The dimensions of the chapels of Germigny and S. Satiro were very similar and the two buildings can be recorded (with the exclusion of the apses) within a square with a width of 10 m. In both cases, the design model applied stems from a re-elaboration of prestigious ancient models, favoured by the intervention of high-ranking patrons. It is important to observe that the model of quincunx became popular in both the East and West at the same time. During those same years it is possible to historically reconstruct the political and diplomatic relationships that linked the Byzantine and Frankish worlds. Emperor Basil I, who had just risen to the throne in 867, had established contact with the Carolingian kings. At the same time, the disputes of Photios had created new religious and theological relations with Rome. In 868, Emperor Louis II had promoted plans (which failed) of a wedding between his daughter Ermengarde and Constantine, son of Basil I,
opening up diplomatic relations33. It is highly likely that the archbishop Anspert was no stranger to these wedding plans. If the plan had been successful, the event might have been as important to western art as the wedding, a century later, between the Byzantine princess Theophanu to the emperor Otto II. Political and diplomatic relations must have favoured cultural exchanges at that time and probably the circulation of projects and skills. The cross-in-square church was therefore, at the beginning, a heritage shared between East and West, derived from the re-elaboration of ancient architectural drawings. Only later in the history of architecture was there to be a clear separation: in the territories of the Byzantine empire, the model was to be reinstated as dominant reference from the 10th century, while in the West, after the end of the Carolingian period, it only reappeared in a few, isolated cases34.
C. Tosco: The Cross-in-Square Plan... 495
For researches about cross-in-square plan: R. KRAUTHEIMER, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, Harmondsworth, 1986, 4th ed. rev. with S. uri, pp. 340-344; G. DIMITROKALLIS, Osservazioni sull’architettura di San Satiro a Milano e sull’origine delle chiese tetraconche altomedioevali, in Archivio storico lombardo 95, 1968, pp. 127-140; D. LANGE, Theorien zur Entstehung des byzantinischen Kreuzkuppelkirche, in Architetctura 16, 1986, pp. 93-113; N. SCHMUCK, Kreuzkuppelkirche, in M. Restle (dir.), Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, V, Stuttgart, 1995, cc. 356-374; R. OUSTERHOUT, Master Builders of Byzantium, Princeton, 1999, pp. 15-19; G. DIMITROKALLIS, La genèse de l’église en croix grecque inscrite, in Byzantina 23, 2002-2003, pp. 219-232; C. B. MCCLENDON, The Origins of the Medieval Architecture. Building in Europe, A.D. 600-900, New Haven-London, 2005, pp. 131-133 2 S. HILL, The “Praetorium” of Musmiye, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29, 1975, pp. 347-349, and Z. URI MAOZ, The “Praetorium” at Musmiye, again, ibidem 44, 1990, pp. 41-46. 3 A. KOSTANOVI ZARJAN, Bagaran e le chiese del tipo Bagaran, in Atti del primo simposio internazionale di arte armena, Bergamo, 1975, Venezia, 1978, pp. 775-784; P. CUNEO, Architettura armena dal quarto al diciannivesimo secolo, I, Roma, 1988, pp. 88-93 e 630-631; F. GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene, IV-VII secolo, Roma, 1982, pp. 13-19; A. ALPAGO NOVELLO, L’architettura armena tra oriente e occidente, in Gli Armeni, Milano, 1999, pp. 186187. It would seem that the experimentations of the Cappadocia came later: in the rocky churches of the Göreme desert, the inscribed cross seems to have gained popularity only from the 10th century: J. LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE, Pour une problématique de la peinture d’église byzantine a l’époque iconoclaste, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 41, 1987, pp. 321-337. 4 S. DJEVAHIRDJIAN, Les réminiscences de l’architecture Arménienne en Occident, in Bazmavep 134, 1976, pp. 157-197 and 268-289; G. ROCCHI, Elementi genetici dell’architettura altomedievale armena. Confronto con l’architettura medievale lombarda, in Atti del primo simposio internazionale di arte armena, Bergamo, 1975, Venezia 1978, pp. 555-588. The dome of Saint Sophia of Constantinople was restored by the Armenian architect Trdat after the collapse in 989: CH. MARANCI, The Architect Trdat: Building Practices and Cross-Cultural Exchange in Byzantium and Armenia, in Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 62/3, 2003, pp. 294-305; about the question of the diffusion of Armenian architecture in Byzantium and Western Europe see also ID., Medieval Armenian Architecture. Constructions of Race and Nation, Leuven-Paris-Sterling, 2001, pp. 129-131 and 250-253, in conclusion: “We are in position of waiting for further evidence”. 5 R. J. H. JENKINS, C. MANGO, The Date and Significance of the Tenth Homily of Photius, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-10, 1956, p. 130, n. 35, and M. GALLINA, La descrizione della Nea Ekklesia nella Vita Basilii tra propaganda dinastica e retorica letteraria, in Studi medievali ser. 3°, LII-I, 2011, pp. 367-373. 6 At least four reconstructive plans of the Nea Ekklesia have been proposed: R. OUSTERHOUT, Recostructing ninth-century Constantinople, in L. Brubaker (dir.), Byzantium in the ninth century: dead or alive? Papers from the thirtieth spring symposium of byzantine studies, Birmingham, 1996, Ashgate, 1998, pp. 115-130; see also S. URI, Architectural reconsideration of the Nea Ecclesia, in Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts of Papers 6, 1980, pp. 11-12; P. MAGDALINO, Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 37, 1987, pp. 51-64; C. MANGO, “Nea Ekklesia” in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, II, Oxford-New York, 1991, p. 1446. 7 E. STIKAS, L’église byzantine de Scripou (Orchoménos) en Béotie, in XXII Corso di cultura sull’Arte Ravennate e Bizantina, Ravenna, 1975, pp. 385-400; A. H. S. MEGAW, The Skripou Screen: Dedicated to Richard Krautheimer, in Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 61, 1981, pp. 1-32; L. BEVILACQUA, Committenza aristocratica a Bisanzio in età macedone: Leone protospatario e la Panaghia di Skripou, in C. A. Quintavalle (dir.), Medioevo: i committenti. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Parma, 2010, Milano, 2011, pp. 411-420. For a comparison between the churches of Peristerai and Skripou: M. DELLA VALLE, Costantinopoli e il suo impero. Arte, architettura, urbanistica nel millennio bizantino, Milano, 2007, pp. 87-88. 8 G. DIMITROKALLIS, La chiesa del monastero di Peristerón presso Salonicco, in Archivio dei monumenti Bizantini di Grecia, VII, Atene, 1951, pp. 146-167. 9 The construction is certified by the Chronicon Casinense, in MGH, Scriptores, VII, vol. I, 2, p. 588. 10 E. SCACCIA SCARAFONI, La chiesa cassinese detta ‘Santa Maria delle Cinque Torri’, in Rivista di archeologia cristiana 22, 1946, pp. 139-189; A. VENDITTI, Architettura bizantina nell’Italia meridionale, I, Napoli, 1967, pp. 591-597; A. PANTONI, Santa Maria delle Cinque Torri di Cassino. Risultati e problemi, in Rivista di archeologia cristiana 51, 1975, pp. 243-280; ID., La chiesa di Santa Maria delle Cinque Torri di Cassino in un disegno del primo Ottocento, ibidem 56, 1980, pp. 313-322; E. PISTILLI, La chiesa di Santa Maria delle Cinque Torri di Cassino (sec. VIII), Cassino, 2000; S. CARELLA, Architecture religieuse haut-médiévale en Italie: le diocèse de Bénévent, Turnhout, 2011, pp. 81-86 11 H. HOUBEN, L’influsso carolingio nel monachesimo meridionale, in ID., Medioevo monastico meridionale, Napoli, 1987, pp. 33-34. 12 M. G. GARCIA I LLINARES, A. MORO GARCÍA, F. TUSET BERTRÁN, La seu episcopal d’Ègara. Arqueologia d’un conjunt cristià del segle IV al IX, Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica, Tarragona, 2009. 13 Ibidem, p. 183. 14 For the rich bibliography on the chapel of Theodulf: C. HEITZ, Germigny-des-Prés, in Enciclopedia dell’arte medievale, VI, Roma, 1995, pp. 559-560; G. MACKIE, Theodulf of Orléans and the Ark of the Covenant: a New Allegorical Interpretation at Germigny-des-Prés, in Racar: revue d’art canadienne 32, 2007, pp. 45-58; a late-tenth-century source states that Germigny imitaded the chapel of Aachen: U. SCHEDLER, Die Pfalzkapelle in Aachen und St. Salvator zu Germigny-des-Prés: Vorbild und Widerspruch, in R. Berndt (dir.), Das Frankfurter Konzil von 794: Kristallisationspunkt karolingischer Kultur, Akten zweier Symposien anläßlich der 1200-Jahrfeier der Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Mainz, 1997, pp. 677-698; for liturgy, architecture and decoration: A. DOIG, Liturgy and Architecture. From the Early Church to the Middle Ages, Aldershot, 2009, pp. 117-118; see also O. DEMUS, L’arte bizantina in Occidente, Torino, 2008, pp. 56-71, and G. CIOTTA, La cultura architettonica carolingia. Da Pipino III a Carlo il Grosso (751-888), Milano, 2010, pp. 129-135. 15 The paintings are described by Theodulf: MGH, Poetae latini aevi carolini, I, c. XLVI-XLVIII, pp. 544-549. 16 A. F. PRÉVOST, La basilique de Théodulfe et la paroisse de Germigny-des-Prés, Orléans, 1889, p. 27. 17 The results of the archaeological researches were published by J. HUBERT, Germigny-des-Prés, in Congrès archéologique de France, Orléans, 93, Paris 1930, pp. 534-568. 18 Catalogus abbatum floriacensium, in MGH, Scriptores, XV, p. 501, drawn up at the end of the 9th century or the beginning of the 10th; the text continues: “In hac igitur idem Theodulfus abbas et episcopus ecclesiam tam mirifici operis construxit (…). Porro in matherio turris, de qua signa pendebant, huiusmodi inseruit versus argenteo colore expressos: Haec in honore Dei Theodulfus templa sacravi / quae dum quisquis adis, oro, memento mei”. See also Letald of Micy, Liber miraculorum sancti Maximini abbatis Miciacensis (J.-P. MIGNE, Patrologia latina, 137, col. 802D): “Theodulfus igitur episcopus inter caetera suorum operum basilicam miri operis, instar videlicet eius quae Aquis est constructa, aedificavit in villa quae dicitur Germiniacus, quo etiam his versibus sui memoriam eleganter expressit: Haec in honore Dei Theodulfus templa sacravi / quae dum quisquis adis, oro, memento mei”. 19 C. HEITZ, La France pré-romane. Archéologie et architecture religieuse du Haut Moyen Âge du IVe siècle à l’an Mille, Paris 1987, p. 217. 20 P. ANNE-ORANGE, Le décor de l’oratoire de Germigny-des-Prés: l’authentique et le restauré, in Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 163, 1998, pp. 281-297, and F. HEBER-SUFFRIN, Germigny-des-Prés, une oeuvre exemplaire?, in Ch. Sapin (dir.), Stucs et décors de la fin de l’antiquité au Moyen âge (Ve-XIIe siècle), Actes du colloque international, Poitiers, 2004, Turnhout, 2006, pp. 179-195; see also L. PASQUINI, La decorazione a stucco in Italia tra Tardo Antico e Alto Medioevo, Ravenna, 2002. 21 For a recent look at the Roman mosaics: M. G. SUNDELL, Mosaics in Eternal City, Tempe, 2007, pp. 1-50; according to J.-P. CAILLET, L’art carolingien, Paris, 2005, pp. 30-31, it is likely that the mosaic artists who worked in Germigny came from Rome. 1
22 M. BOUQUET, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de France, VIII, Paris, 1870, Diplomata, doc. CXXV (a. 854), p. 535, “Actum Germiniaco palatio”, and doc. CXXXI (a. 855), p. 539, “Actum in Germiniaco palatio regio”. 23 MGH, Concilia aevi karolini, Hannoverae 1984, t. III, pp. 3-7. 24 P. VERZONE, L’architettura religiosa dell’Alto Medioevo nell’Italia Settentrionale, Milano, 1942, pp. 128-129; E. ARSLAN, L’architettura dal 568 al Mille, in Storia di Milano, II, Milano, 1954, pp. 587-594; G. LISE, Santa Maria presso San Satiro, Milano, 1975; C. PEROGALLI, Analisi critica dell’architettura del sacello di San Satiro, in ID., A. PALESTRA, San Satiro fratello di sant’Ambrogio e santa Marcellina, Milano, 1980, pp. 157-185; G. B. SANNAZZARO, Il sacello di San Satiro: l’architettura, in S. Bistoletti Bandera (dir.), Il sacello di S. Satiro. Storia, ritrovamenti, restauri, Cinisello Balsamo, 1990, pp. 7-27; ID., Il sacello e la torre di S. Satiro nelle incisioni e nella documentazione dell’Ottocento, in Rassegna di studi e di notizie 16, 1991/1992, pp. 255-320; ID., L’architettura di S. Satiro, in Insula Ansperti. Il complesso monumentale di S. Satiro, Milano, 1992, pp. 39-64; C. PEROGALLI, Satiro, sacello di S., in Dizionario della Chiesa Ambrosiana, V, Milano, 1992, pp. 3227-3231; G. B. SANNAZZARO, Per S. Maria presso S. Satiro e Leonardo: nuovi documenti, in Raccolta Vinciana 25, 1993, pp. 63-85; ID., Per il sacello e la torre campanaria di S. Satiro a Milano: novità e precisazioni, in G. Colmuto Zanella, F. Conti, V. Hybsch (dir.), La fabbrica, la critica, la storia. Scritti in onore di Carlo Perogalli, Milano, 1993, pp. 268-280. Per l’inserimento del San Satiro nel quadro generale dell’architettura carolingia: W. JACOBSEN, Die Lombardei und die karolingische Architektur, in Atti del 10° Congresso internazionale di studi sull’alto Medioevo, Milano, 1983, Spoleto, 1986, pp. 436-437; A. PERONI, Ansperto, in Enciclopedia dell’arte medievale, II, Roma, 1991, pp. 57-58; C. B. MCCLENDON, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 132; G. CIOTTA, op. cit. (n. 14), pp. 293-294; M. LUCHTERHANDT, Rinascita a Roma, nell’Italia carolingia e meridionale, in S. de Blaauw (dir.), Storia dell’architettura italiana. Da Costantino a Carlo Magno, II, Milano, 2010, pp. 345-349. 25 For recent investigations on Anspert’s epitaph: M. PETOLETTI, Copiare le epigrafi nel Medioevo: l’epitafio di Ansperto in S. Ambrogio a Milano e la sua fortuna, in Italia medioevale e umanistica 42, 2002, pp. 91-114; see also A. TCHERIKOVER, Atria vicinas struxit et ante fores. The fictitious Carolingian atrium of Sant’Ambrogio at Milan, in Arte lombarda n.s., 149, 2007, pp. 5-9. 26 G. CHIERICI, La cappella della Pietà in San Satiro, in Atti del IV Convegno Nazionale di Storia dell’Architettura, Milano, 1939, pp. 25-44, and ID., La chiesa di S. Satiro a Milano e alcune considerazioni sull’architettura preromanica in Lombardia, Milano, 1942. See also: L. GALLI, Il restauro nell’opera di Gino Chierici (1877-1961), Milano, 1989, and R. AMORE, Il contributo di Gino Chierici al dibattito sul restauro negli anni Quaranta, in Id., Andrea Pane, Gianluca Vitagliano (dir.), Restauro, monumenti e città: teorie ed esperienze del Novecento in Italia, Napoli, 2008, pp. 94-143. 27 For urban archaeological researches in the area: A. PALESTRA, Ritrovamenti d’età romana presso S. Satiro e loro rapporti con la documentazione del sec.IX, con una nota di M. Mirabella Roberti, Milano, 1964; ID., Ricerca sulle strutture urbane di un isolato al centro di Milano comprendente la basilica di Santa Maria presso San Satiro, in Arte lombarda n.s. 64, 1983, pp. 29-42; M. L. Gatti Perer (dir.), Milano ritrovata. L’asse di via Torino, Milano, 1986; Milano capitale dell’impero romano (286-402 d.C.), Milano, 1990; D. CAPORUSSO, M. T. DONATI, S. MASSEROLI, T. TIBILILETTI, Immagini di Mediolanum. Archeologia e storia di Milano dal V secolo a.C. al V secolo d.C., Milano, 2007. 28 S. BARONI, B. SEGRE, Il restauro dei dipinti del sacello di Ansperto, in S. Bistoletti Bandera (dir.), Il sacello di S. Satiro. Storia, ritrovamenti, restauri, Cinisello Balsamo, 1990, p. 66. 29 The drawing was published by G. B. SANNAZZARO, L’architettura di S. Satiro, op. cit. (n. 24), p. 41. 30 G. ARNALDI, La tradizione degli atti dell’assemblea pavese del febbraio 876, in La critica del testo. Atti del secondo Congresso internazionale della Società italiana di storia del diritto, I, Firenze, 1971, pp. 51-68. 31 N. GHIGLIONE, Il libro nel territorio ambrosiano dal VI al IX secolo, in C. Bertelli (dir.), Il millennio ambrosiano. Milano, una capitale da Ambrogio ai Carolingi, Milano, 1987, p. 147. 32 Relations between S. Satiro and the chapel of Germigny had already been recognised by G. T. RIVOIRA, Le origini dell’Architettura Lombarda, Rome 1901, p. 272; for a critical assessment: ARSLAN, L’architettura dal 568 al Mille, p. 588, and W. JACOBSEN, op. cit. (n. 24), pp. 436-437. 33 A. DUCELLIER, J. FERLUGA, J.-P. ARRIGNON, A. CARILE, La guerra e la politica estera, in A. Ducellier (dir.), Bisanzio, Torino, 1988, pp. 132-133, e G. RAVEGNANI, I Bizantini in Italia, Bologna, 2004, pp. 155-157. 34 In the Lombard area, isolated cases in the Romanesque period are the oratory of Paderna (A. SEGAGNI MALACART, Sulla tipologia delle cappelle castrensi attorno al Mille: la chiesa inedita di S. Maria di Paderna, in Storia dell’arte 41, 1981, pp.14-20), and the baptistery of Galliano, probably to be interpreted as a recovery of the prestigious model of S. Satiro (M. ROSSI, dir., Pittura a Galliano: un orizzonte europeo, Milano, 2010). In the Adriatic area, there is a recent hypothesis of reconstruction with a quinconce plan of the chapel of the patriarchs of Grado in Rialto: G. ROSSI, G. SITRAN, L’insula realtina sede dei patriarchi di Grado, Venezia, 2010, pp. 68-75; for S. Claudio al Chienti (11th century): P. PIVA, Marche romaniche, Milano, 2003, pp. 4355, and H. SAHLER, San Claudio al Chienti e le chiese romaniche a croce greca iscritta nelle Marche, Ascoli Piceno, 2006; for Croatian examples of 11th century: T. MARASOVI, “Quincunx” u ranosrednjovjekovnoj arhitekturi Dalmacije, in Starohrvatska prosvjeta ser. III, 20, 1990, pp. 215-224.
QUINCUNX U KAROLINŠKOJ ARHITEKTURI SAŽETAK Ovaj rad posveen je razvoju quincunxa u arhitekturi 9. stoljea i vezi izmeu Bizantskog Carstva i Zapada. Elaboracija modela predstavlja varijacije koje dokazuju vitalnost istraivanja koje su proveli tadašnji arhitekti. Slijedei kronologiju, prouavani su sigurni primjeri sa Zapada: Santa Maria delle Cinque Torri u Casinu, San Miguel u Terrassi u Kataloniji, kapela Germigny-des-Prés koju je izgradio Teodulf Orleanski i kapela San Satiro koju je naruio milanski nad-
Hortus Artium Mediev.
biskup Anspert. Ove graevine predstavljaju arhitektonske slinosti, ali i razlike te proizlaze iz nacrta razraenih u rimsko doba. Pregled politikih i diplomatskih odnosa Bizanstkog Carstva i karolinških vladara na kraju 9. stoljea pomae nam shvatiti širenje kvadratnog tlocrtnog plana s upisanim kriem tijekom ovog perioda arhitekturne povijesti. Prevela: Nada Beniæ
C. CROSS-IN-SQUARE Tosco: The Cross-in-Square Plan... 497 THE PLAN...