The West Door of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, showing the Comacine style of building(opus gallicum).(From a photograph by Mr. Freeman Dovaston, Oswestry.)See page 124.
The West Door of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, showing the Comacine style of building(opus gallicum).(From a photograph by Mr. Freeman Dovaston, Oswestry.)
See page 124.
Some light may be thrown on the way the round arch first got into Normandy, by the following bits of old Norman chronicles, which show that a very important event took place in the history of the Comacines at the end of the tenth century, connecting them in a remarkable and suggestive manner with the rise of Norman architecture. We find from old chronicles that S. Guillaume, Abbot of S. Benigne in Dijon, was a Lombard, born in 961 on the island of Santa Giulia, in Lago di Orta, part of Lago Maggiore. He was the son of a certain Roberto, Lord of Volpiano; Otho the Great himself had been his godfather at the time when he besieged the island, and took prisoner Willa, wife of King Berengarius. Guillaume (William) was, as his friend and biographer, Glabrius Rodolphus, tells us, "of a keen intellect, and well instructed in the liberal arts." In his youth he travelled much in Italy, and was often at Venice, where he formed a close friendship with Orso Orseolo, Patriarch of Aquileja. The Patriarch Orso was at that time engaged in the restoration of the church of Torcello, one of the gems of architecture of the age; while his brother, the Doge Otho Orseolo, was pressing forward the works of S. Marco at Venice. It was here probably that S. Guillaume was interested in the Masonic guild, and recognizing its power as an aid to mission work, would have joined it. He founded the famous monastery of S. Benigno di Fruttuaria in Piedmont, and towards the end of the tenth century he went to France with the venerable Abbot of Cluny; here he decided to build a monastery to S. Benigne in Dijon, which he himself designed. But to effect his design he had to send toItaly, his own country, for "many people, men of letters, masters of divers arts, and others full of science."[89]The chronicler goes on to say that Guillaume displayed much wisdom in bringing these masters (magistri conducendo) to superintend the work (ipsum opus dictando). These two phrases are identical with those of Article 145 in the Edict of Rotharis, and I think might be equivalent to a proof that the Italians who built S. Benigne at Dijon were indeed of the Comacine Guild. The chroniclers further tell us that the Abbot Guillaume was invited to Normandy by Duke Richard II., to "found monasteries and erect buildings." The very phrase implies his connection with, and command of architects. He at first refused, because he had heard that the Dukes of Normandy were barbarous and truculent, and more likely to deface than to erect sacred temples; but afterwards he decided to go. He stayed there twenty years, founding forty monasteries, and restoring old ones, which were in those days chiefly built of wood. "He had many of his Italian monks trained to continue the work he had begun. These propagated such love and taste for art in those rude and bold Normans, that stone buildings multiplied there, and when William of Normandy conquered England, the style passed over with him." Hope, whose judgment is unerring on all subjects connected with the Lombard style, confirms this. He says[90]that some time before the style came into England, Normandy had given remarkable models of atutto-sesto(round-arched) or Lombard style, and that the same precedence is noticeable in the pointed or composite style. Indeed, the English owe to the Normans the erection of many fine edifices ofboth kinds. Thus some gave the name of Norman to the Gothic buildings and others gave it to Lombard ones, and it was imagined that the pointed arch came originally from Normandy. And yet Normandy was one of the stations of pointed architecture in its pilgrimage towards us from the south. As an illustration and convincing proof of this pedigree of Norman style from the Lombard, we may give one of our oldest so-called Norman churches, that of St. Bartholomew the Great at Smithfield, London. The original nave has vanished, but the tribune remains, divested, it is true, of the two great piers in front of the apse, which were removed in 1410. The semi-circle of the apse has, however, been replaced in the old style; and, with its pillared arches and ambulatory, harmonizes well with the ancient part, now the nave, which is perfectly Lombard. The ambulatories below, and the women's gallery, such as we find in St. Agnes at Rome, and many Comacine churches, both have a distinctly Italian origin. Even the stilted arches in the choir only seem in their outline like magnified Lombard windows. The masonry is the true Comacine style, great square-cut blocks of stone, smoothed and fitted with exact precision; while the windows of the triforium are clearly a four-light development of the two-light Lombard window, divided by its small column; the very form of the column is identical, though it lacks the sculpture. Probably the Italian artists were few, and English assistants not yet trained. The clerestory was a reflex of a later style, being added in 1410, to replace the so-called Norman one, which no doubt had the usual round-arched windows with a column in the centre. Indeed, I think it would be worth the while of archæologists to find out whether the whole church were not originally built by Italian architects, as Rahere, its founder, was in Rome on a pilgrimage, when he fell very ill of fever, and vowed to build a hospital if he recovered. He soon after had avision of St. Bartholomew, who instructed him to return to London, and build a church in the suburbs of Smithfield. He founded both the church and hospital of St. Bartholomew in about 1123. There seems to me to be such a difference between this church and other more heavy Norman contemporary buildings, that it might be suspected Rahere followed the older example of St. Wilfrid and St. Benedict Biscop, and brought over the Comacines with him.
South Side of the Choir, St. Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield.(From a photograph by Mr. Freeman Dovaston, Oswestry.)See page 124.
South Side of the Choir, St. Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield.(From a photograph by Mr. Freeman Dovaston, Oswestry.)
See page 124.
I cannot agree with Mr. Fergusson in his assertion that the members of the early Freemason guilds were only masons, and never designed the works entrusted to them, but always worked under the guidance of some superior person, whether he were a bishop or abbot, or an accomplished layman. Certainly the architects who worked for the Longobards must also have sometimes given the design, or what do the wordsopus dictandomean in the Edict of Rotharis? Surely Theodolinda could not have been architect enough to draw the plan for Monza. Nor do I think that the wordMagistroin the masonic or any other art guild, applied to mere masons or underlings, but to those who were so far masters of their craft as to direct others, and make a working plan for them. The bishop or abbot, or educated layman, might have formed his own idea about the style he wished his building to take, and have made a sketch of it; but the practical working plan would have been drawn by the Magister, who directed his workmen orcolligantesto put it into execution.
It is true that many ecclesiastics were, like the monks of S. Guillaume at Dijon and other Dominicans, members of the Masonic guilds, and were accordingly versed in the science of architecture. In that case the monk, when he became bishop or abbot, might furnish a plan, and very often did so. Fra Sisto and Fra Ristori built Santa Maria Novella in Florence; but they were connected with the Florentine lodge, so their doing so would certainly be noproof that the Masters of the guild could not have done equally well themselves.
That the oldest churches in Normandy have a great affinity to Lombard buildings is evident on examination. See the Lombard-shaped windows in the towers of St. Stephen's at Caen; the exterior of the circular apse of St. Nicholas, Caen, which still keeps its original hexagonal form, with pilasters like slight columns running from ground to roof at each division, and a colonnade surrounding it of perfect Lombard double-arched form, with a small pillar in the centre of each. (SeeFergusson'sArchitecture.)
The local Norman developments are equally well defined in this building; the usual little Lombard gallery beneath the roof has given way to large, deep, circular-headed windows, and the roof has taken the high pitch natural to the climate. Both of these are climatic distinctions; the northerner aiming at more light, the southerner trying to shut out the sun: the damp climate, of course, necessitated the sloping roof.
Now, before the Normans came back to Italy they had made Italian architecture their own, and impressed on it their own character, rugged and robust, and it was so different to the buildings in South Italy with which they have been accredited, that I think this theory will have to be revised. The arts were certainly not influenced in Sicily by the first Norman invasion in 1058 under Roger I., son of Tancred, he being entirely a bellicose and rough warrior. It was when the Normans had taken root there, had become more softened, and had formed a settled government; in fact, after Roger II. had been crowned King of Apulia and Sicily in 1130, that they began to give their minds to artistic architecture. This was a century and a half after Abbot Guillaume took his countrymen over to build at Dijon. The first stone of the Duomo of Cefalù was laid in 1131, and the royal palaceof Palermo begun during the next year. Under Roger's successors the fine churches of Martorana, and the cathedral of Monreale in 1172, the cathedral of Palermo (1185), and the palace of Cuba arose. An Italian writer, La Lumia, is very enthusiastic over the Duomo of Monreale—"that visigoth (sic) art which had in Normandy erected the cathedrals of Rouen, Bayeux, etc., multiplied in Monreale the ogival forms which had been known and practised in Sicily since the sixth century,[91]and took its upward flight in towers and bold spires. In the mosaics and decorations the majestic Arabic art espoused Byzantine and Christian types. The varied and multiplex association has impressed on these works animprontboth singular and stupendous. The columns show the ruins of pagan classicism, the incredible profusion of marbles, verd-antique, and porphyry speak of a rich and florid political state; while the solemn mystery of those sublime arcades, profound lines and symbolic forms; the dim religious light, the ecstatic figures of prophets and saints with the gigantic Christ over the altar offering benediction to men, all shadow forth the mediæval idea of Christianity—full and ingenuous faith, vivified by conquest."
Then he goes on grandiloquently to say—"The names of the builders are unknown to us, and we need not trouble to seek them: a generation and era is here with all its soul made visible, with all its vigorous and fruitful activity."
But if we cannot find the names it would at least be interesting to know whether the Norman-Siculo architecture were entirely the work of the Normans or not. Gravina, Boitò, and other Italian writers think that the Normans took a similar position in Sicily to that of the earlier Longobards in the north,i.e.that they were thepatrons, and employed the artists whom they found in Sicily.
Merzario,[92]giving as his authority Michele Amari,[93]brings forward as a suggestive fact, that precisely at the time of the Norman occupation, there was a large emigration into Sicily of members of the Lombard or Comacine Guild. Amari thinks that the feudal government of the Normans at that time did not allow their subjects to emigrate from land to land (excepting of course their armies for purposes of conquest), while in North Italy feudalism was going out, and with the establishment of republics the movement of the inhabitants was freer. "This," he says, "accounts for the so-called colonies of Lombards, which came to Sicily at that time, but of which, unfortunately, we have no reliable historical evidence."
These Lombardo-Siculan colonies, however, have been clearly traced by an Italian writer, Lionardo Vigo, in hisMonografia critica delle colonie Lombardo sicule.[94]He has proved that there were four Lombard colonies in Sicily. That the first went down with Ardoin and Mania, between 1002, when, on Otho's death, Ardoin was elected King of Italy, and his retirement to S. Benigno in 1013 after his long struggle with Henry II. The second was during the Norman conquest of Sicily in 1061; the third later in the century, at the time of the union of the Norman and Swabian dynasties; and the fourth about 1188 under the Emperor Frederic,—this colony was led by Addo di Camerana.
The first two colonies left no lasting traces in the island, but the third founded the town of Maniace, and the last planted a settled colony which has left its mark, not only in the language, but in the many Lombard place-names.Thus there are in Sicily villages named Carona, Gagliano, Novara, Palazzolo, Padernò, Piazza, Sala, and Scopello, all of which are names of older places in the Comacine territory. Another name, "Sanfratelli" (the holy brethren), is very suggestive of the patron saints of the Lombard Guild, the "Quattro Incoronati." It is in this district precisely that Signor Vigo finds a special language, which has no affinity with Sicilian, or central Italian, and which he describes as a "hybrid, bastard language; a decayed Longobardic, only intelligible to those who use it; a frightful jargon and perfectly satanic tongue."
In the same volume of theArchivio Storico Sicilianois another collection of documents, regarding an episode of the war between the Latin and Catalonian factions at Palermo in the time of Ludovico of Aragon, about 1349. It shows in a list of volunteers, several names ofMagistriwhich seem to be familiar to us. Here is Magister Nicolao Mancusio, Magister Guillelmo, Magister Nicolao de Meraviglia, Magister Chicco, Magister Juliano Guzù, Magister Roberto de Juncta (Giunta), Magister Vitalis, both from the Pisan lodge, Julianus Cuccio, Salvo di Pietro, etc. We find that Benedictus de Siri, a Lombard, was paid for twenty soldiers for ten days. Again on July 31, 1349, among the payments made to those who fought to defend Vicari during the siege, we find Magister Vanni di Bologna, Paulo de Boni, Magister Gaddi, Magister Benedicto de Lencio (Lenzo near Como), and Johanni de Gentile, and various others, all mixed up with ordinary folks who have no magicMasterbefore their names. This seems to imply that the Lombard colony at that time had been long enough in Sicily to be nationalized, and that they furnished men for the war like any other citizens.
In some cases the payments are made to the heirs of Magister Johanne or Vitale, thus proving them to have become possessed of property. This was a privilegeaccorded to the Comacine Masters even in feudal times, when other classes were bound and enslaved. From the example of Magister Rodpert, the Longobard who sold his land at Toscanella many centuries before, we judge that when the Comacine remained long in a place, he made use of his earnings to buy land. Indeed in those days when no banks existed, landed property was the only secure disposition for wealth. And having bought his house and vineyards, it was but natural that he should name the estate after his own native place in Lombardy.
It is gratifying to find these direct proofs of the constant presence of the Lombard Masters in Sicily during the whole Norman and Swabian dynasties. It accounts for so much. It accounts for the so-called Norman architecture in Sicily having so much more affinity to Italian forms than to French-Norman; and it accounts for the Saracenic cast which Lombard architecture took after that era. The influence was a lasting one, and showed itself in all the subsequent work of the guild, during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Was this influence imbibed by the Normans who are said to have caused it? Evidently not.
Was Norman architecture proper, in the north of Europe, immediately changed? Not at all. It remained the same through all the Norman rule from Robert Guiscard to the fall of the line. It was not till the thirteenth century that the elegant pointed Gothic found its way into England—but not through Normandy—and took the place of the solid round-arched, short-pillared buildings introduced by William the Conqueror. We have seen that this round-arched style was first taught the Normans by the Italian builders whom the Abbot Guillaume brought northward with him.
But the Lombard influence in France was not confined to Normandy nor to Aix-la-Chapelle. Hope, the Englishauthority on Lombard architecture, who spent eight years studying European churches, finds many a sign of Lombard handiwork on French soil. At Tournus is an abbey church of extremely interesting Lombard form. Fergusson[95]thus describes it—"Its antiquity is manifested by the rudeness both of its design and execution. The nave is separated from the aisles by plain cylindrical columns without bases, the capitals of which are joined by circular arches at the height of the vaults of the aisle. From the capitals rise dwarf columns supporting arches thrown across the nave. From one of these arches to another is thrown a tunnel vault which runs the cross way of the building, being in fact a series of arches like those of a bridge extending the whole length of the nave." Here we have, I believe, the first step towards the vaulted roof of the later Gothic buildings. The church of Ainay at Lyons, is said by Fergusson to be very similar to this.
Then there is the cathedral of Avignon in Provence, with its octagonal cupola, and its porch of Charlemagne's era in Romano-Lombard style. It is not unlikely that the earliest Provençal churches were built by Italian architects, for Avignon was closely connected with the Papacy at that time, and the Popes as we know were the especial patrons of the Masonic guild.
In the church of S. Trophime at Arles we have distinct signs of the Comacines, in the lion-supported columns of the central porch, and the frieze of sculpture above. There are three richly-sculptured porches; the central door is divided in two like a Lombard window, by a slight column which rests on kneeling figures, and has angels carved in the capital. The richly ornate architrave has lions on each side of it.
The church at Cruas in Provence has three apses with Lombard archlets round them all. Its dome is surrounded by a colonnade, and a superimposed round turret withLombard windows. The tower has the usual double-arched windows.
Provence shows some beautiful specimens of Italian cloisters, at Aix, at Arles, and at Fontifroide. The latter has a row of arches supported by double columns of elegant slightness, and with foliaged capitals of varied form and great freedom of design. Fergusson says that the freedom and boldness are unrivalled. The cloister at Elne is still more varied and unique; the capitals mix up Egyptian, classic, and mediæval art in a manner truly unique.
As for towers, those left in Provence show a distinctly Lombard style. The tower at Puissalicon near Beziers is perfect in every particular, with its pillared Lombard windows increasing in width and lightness as they ascend.
From Provence, the land of the Popes, the Comacines penetrated further into France. The church of S. Croix at Bordeaux, attributed to William the Good, Duke of Aquitaine, who died in 877, has its round-arched porch, decorated with a profusion of Comacineintrecciof intertwined vines; and spiral pilasters grouped at the angles. Hope quotes the façade of the cathedral of San Pietro at Angoulême, as the finest Lombard one existing. There are numerous files of round arches, on elegant little columns, statues in niches, rich bas-reliefs, friezes, and arabesques. The nave is divided into three portions, each with a cupola. In this we see another step forward towards the vaulted roof. At Tournus the arches are simply thrown across the three divisions of the nave; here they are arched into the shape of a dome. The tower is entirely Lombard in form. There are Lombard churches at Poictiers, Puy, Auxerre, Caen, Poissy, Compiègne, etc., in all of which the style is perfectly distinct from the Norman, as it was then developed; and also from the later Gothic.
The heading of this chapter implies nothing that can impugn the claims of the Teutons to the perfecting of the Gothic style, which claims are undoubtedly fair. It only implies that the pointed Gothic architecture was not an invention of the Germans, so much as a national development of some earlier form; and, like all developments, must have had some link connecting it with that earlier source. Was the Comacine Guild that link? Legends and traditions pointing to it are many, but, as usual, absolute proofs are few. Some proofs might be found if, with a clue in one's hand, search could be made among the archives of the German cities in which round-arched Lombard-style churches were built before the pointed Gothic and composite style came in. Some Germansavantshould sift out certain traditions, which, from want of authorities and unfamiliarity with the language, I am not able to do. These are—
Firstly: That St. Boniface came to Italy before proceeding on his mission to Germany inA.D.715, and that Pope Gregory II. gave him his credentials, instructions, etc., and sent with him a large following of monks, versed in the art of building, and of lay brethren who were also architects, to assist them.[96]This is the precise method in which St. Augustine and St. Benedict Biscop were equipped and sentto their missions in England, and S. Guillaume to his bishopric in Normandy. What resulted in England from the missions of St. Augustine, St. Wilfrid, and St. Benedict? The cathedral of Canterbury, the abbeys of Hexham, Lindisfarne and others—all distinctly Lombard buildings. What did S. Guillaume do in Normandy? He built the churches of Caen, Dijon, etc., also in pure Lombard style, not in the heavier Norman by which the natives followed it. So in Germany we hear that among the bishoprics founded by St. Boniface were Cologne, Worms, and Spires,[97]precisely the cities which have remains of the earliest churches in Lombard style. There are many other German churches, now fine Gothic buildings, whose crypts and portals show remains of older round-arched buildings.
Secondly: It is necessary to discover the precise connection of the Emperors Charlemagne, Otho, and the German monarchs who successively ruled in Lombardy, with the Masonic guild there. Whether, as they employed them in the Italian part of their kingdom, they did not also employ them across the Alps.
Thirdly: To find out whether, when Albertus Magnus went back to Cologne from Padua, he had not become aMagisterin the Masonic guild, as many monks were, and whether he propagated the tenets of the brotherhood in Germany.
Certain proof exists that he designed the choir of the cathedral there, if nothing more. He also wrote a book entitledLiber Constructionum Alberti, which afterwards became the handbook for Gothic work. It is probable that this was in great part borrowed from an earlier Italian work on the construction of churches, namedL' Arcano Magistero. This, however, was a secret book of the guild, and was kept most strictly in the hands of theMagistrithemselves. Kügler relates that in 1090 a citizen of Utrecht killed a bishop, who had takenL' Arcano Magisteroaway from his son who was an architect. I am strongly of opinion that Albertus Magnus was much connected with the importation of Freemasons into Germany.
Fourthly: To discover whether in the cities where great buildings went on for many years, there remains any trace of the same threefold Masonic organization, which we find in the Italian cathedral-building towns; and whether the administration thereof was jointly managed by theMagistrior head architects, and the patrons or civic authorities of the city in which the buildings were carried on.
All these things can only be verified, in case the works of contemporary chroniclers still exist, or if there remain any traces of archives of so early a date.
As far as style in building goes to prove anything, the Lombards certainly preceded the native Gothic architects in Germany. Hope enumerates several churches, such as those at Spires, Worms, Zurich, and several old ones at Cologne, built before or about the Carlovingian era, which have every sign of Lombard influence.
The Gross Münster of Zurich was begun in 966 as a thank-offering of the Emperor Otho for his victories in Italy, and its plan, arches, windows, towers (excepting only the climatic addition of the pointed roofs) are all in Lombard style. The cloister adjoining it is very Italian, with its double columns and its sculptured capitals. Now, as Otho granted a special charter to the Masonic guild of Lombardy, it is natural to suppose that when he wanted a church built, he would employ this valuable class of his new subjects. At Basle we have a distinct sign of the Comacine Masters in theintrecciand other symbols sculptured round theGallus-pforteof the cathedral, whilein the crypt are two carved lions which were once beneath the columns of the door. They were removed in the restoration of the cathedral, after the earthquake of 1356. These lions are precisely the counterparts of those in the doorways of Modena and Verona. But it is at Cologne, the city of Albertus Magnus, that the Lombard style is unmistakable. Can one look at the three apses of the churches of the Apostles and of St. Martin, with the round arches encircling them, and little pillared galleries above, or at the double-arched windows in the towers, without at once recalling the Romanesque churches of Lucca, Arezzo, and Pisa, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries?[98]
Santa Maria del Campidoglio at Cologne, which was founded by Plectrude, wife of Pepin, has the same Lombard galleries running round the apses, and Cunibert's church in its western door shows not only pure Comacine sculpture, but the characteristic lion of Judah between the column and the arch. S. Andrea and S. Pantaleone, both founded in 954 by Bishop Bruno, brother of Otho the Great, were in the same style. This group of buildings all in one city, and all founded under the Emperors who ruled in Italy, surely suggest that when Charlemagne took over the builders for Aix-la-Chapelle, they as usual left their school andlaboreriumthere, and that Otho and his successors in their turn had not far to go for architects.
Palazzo del Popolo and Palazzo Comunale, Todi.See pages 137and257.
Palazzo del Popolo and Palazzo Comunale, Todi.
See pages 137and257.
If their churches are not enough, the civil architecture of that epoch also affords proof of Lombard influence in Germany. Compare the windows and style of the ancient dwelling-house at Cologne which Fergusson illustrates, p. 590, with those of any Lombard building whatsoever, from the Palace of King Desiderius in the eighth century to the Bargello of Florence in the thirteenth, and you will find them identical. The only German innovation is in the high gabled roof. Again, compare St. Elizabeth's home,the Castle on the Wartburg, with the ancient Communal Palace at Todi, or at Perugia, or other Lombard building of the twelfth century, and its genesis will at once be seen.[99]
Ferd. Pitou, author of the fine monograph on the Cathedral of Strasburg, confirms the presence of Italian builders in Germany, not only in the time of the Carlovingians and the line of Otho, but also in the later times of the Swabian dynasty. He says, when speaking of the works at Strasburg, that "colonies of artisans, chiefly sent from Lombardy and other parts, where church-building was prevalent, accompanied the monks and ecclesiastics who directed the work. These spiritual leaders, however, had all the glory of the buildings up to about the end of the twelfth century, when ogival architecture arose. These Lombard colonies pushed on beyond the Rhine, to the Elbe, the Oder, and the Vistula, and even penetrated to the forests and lands of Sarmatia and Scythia."
There seems little doubt that the German lodges founded by the Comacine emigrations took root, and became in time entirely national. Traditions are many, and most of them point back to Italy. For instance, legend says a brotherhood of stone-carvers existed in Spires and Bamberg from the time when those cathedrals were begun. Others say that Albertus Magnus on his return from Padua formed the first Masonic association in Germany, making special laws and obtaining especial privileges for the immense number of builders he collected to put into execution his cathedral at Cologne.[100]Again, L' Abbé de Grandidier, writing to a lady in November 1778, tells her that he has discovered an ancient document three centuries old, which shows that the much-boasted society of the Freemasons is nothing but a servile imitation of an ancient and humble confraternity of real builders whose seat was anciently inStrasburg. Hope, however, says that the Strasburg lodge, which was the earliest acknowledged German one, was first recognized by a legal act executed at Ratisbon in 1458, and that the Emperor Maximilian ratified and confirmed the act by a diploma given at Strasburg in 1498.
My theory is this, that in their early emigrations the Comacine Masters founded the usual lodges; that the Germans entered their schools and became masters in their turn; that in the end the German interest outweighed the foreign element in the brotherhood, and the Germans, wishing to nationalize an art which they had so greatly developed, split off from the universal Masonic Association, as the Sienese builders did in Siena in the fourteenth century, and formed a distinct national branch: that this decisive break probably took place at Strasburg, and that other lodges followed suit and nationalized themselves in their turn. No doubt some German searcher into archives may arise, who will do for Cologne and Strasburg what Milanesi has done for Siena, and Cesare Guasti for Florence, and so throw light on the complicated organization of patrons, architects, builders, and sculptors which banded together under one rule, to build the multiplex and grand old cathedrals.
Wherever the Romans planted colonies, there they establishedCollegia; without its colleges Roman society was incomplete; theCollegiumwas an element essential to Roman life.
TheCollegiumwas a corporation or guild of persons associated in support of a common object; there were colleges of artists, of architects, builders, and artisans, as well as colleges associated with the administration and government, with religion and law.
TheCollegiumconsisted ofCollegæorsodales(fellows, as we should term them), with a president who was styled "Magister"; theCollegiumwas recognized by the State, which confirmed the regulations made by the members for the government of their body, provided they were in conformity with the laws of the land. There is evidence that RomanCollegiawere established in Britain shortly after its conquest by the Romans, and there was certainly aCollegium fabrorumin Britain in the reign of Claudius, the first Roman emperor to whom the islandwas subject. Under the direction of the Roman college, the Britons as builders reached a high degree of excellence in their craft, "so that when the cities of the empire of Gaul and the fortresses on the Rhine were destroyed, Constantius Chlorus,A.D.298, sent to Britain for and employed British architects in repairing and re-edifying them" (Archæologia, vol. ix. p. 100).
Mr. Coote affirms thatCollegiaexisted here after the final departure of the Romans from the island, and that the Saxons found them here, and did not interfere with them. Now ifCollegia fabrorum, which certainly existed in Britain throughout the Roman occupation, were still in existence during the Saxon occupation, it needs explanation why the earliest missionaries to the Saxons had to bring or to send abroad for workmen to build churches.
On the Continent the barbarians who overran Italy dreaded the influence of theCollegia, and vigorously suppressed them, prohibiting them everywhere under the hardest penalties; under such circumstances we can understand that the societies in Rome could scarcely escape observation, and we shall be prepared to hear that the college of architects and builders in that city removed from thence and took refuge elsewhere. According to tradition they settled at or near Comum, where in mediæval times, under the title of Comacine Masters, they gained fame as architects, and their services were in much request throughout the Continent and beyond it. Had the barbarians, however, treated the Roman colleges with the same indifference as the Saxons are reputed to have shown towards them in England, all guilds of artists and artisans must, for a time at least, have ceased to exist, or have removed from Rome, where there was no longer any appreciation of art, or demand for their services.
It is true there is no documentary evidence to prove the continuous existence of theCollegiafrom Roman tomediæval times, or to show that the Roman college, which removed to Comum, was identical with the Comacine Guild which emerged from the darkness which shrouds the history of those early times;—there is, however, such evidence as can be derived from the similarity of the institutions, in their aims and constitutions. In the latter institution even the title ofMagisterwas retained, though the use of the term was no longer limited to the president of the body, every competent and fully instructed member of the society was admitted to the order ofMagistri,[102]—possibly because these members formed the governing body—and the president became a Grand Master. The members generally were calledLiberi muratori—Freemasons—because they were not subject to the sumptuary and other laws which regulated the work and pay of ordinary workmen.[103]
Comum, which possessed all the privileges of a Romanmunicipium, stood at the head of Lacus Larii—the Lake of Como—on the northern shores of which, from Como to the island of Comacina, P. Strabo and C. Scipio settled Greek colonies, which Julius Cæsar added to and consolidated. The names of villages on these shores of the lake are still some guide to its extent and limits. Comum was made the chief seat of the colony.
After the fall of the Empire, this Romano-Greek colony seems to have withstood the attacks of the barbarians, and preserved its independence for a long time. At the time of the invasion of Italy by the Longobards, the whole of the northern end of the lake was in the hands of the imperial (Byzantine) party, and it was not until the year 586 that the island of Comacina fell into the hands of the Longobard King Autharis, though the lake and country northwards of the island seem to have still continued under imperial rule. The country around Comum, therefore, remained in comparativequiet, and if much progress in art was not possible, there at least it did not become altogether degenerate.
The Greek influence was evidently strong in the colony. Even the bishop in the latter end of the fifth century was a Greek, for S. Abbondio, who died Bishop of Comum in 489, had previously held the bishopric of Thessalonica; possibly other bishops of that diocese were of the same nationality: it would be surprising if the Roman architectural college, which took refuge there, had been altogether unaffected by it, particularly as the Romans derived their knowledge of architecture as well as of art from the Greeks, and Greek architecture was at all times treated by the great Roman architects with respect, as we learn from Vitruvius; besides, with the fall of the Empire, all progress in Roman art had ceased, and Byzantium was the quarter to which men looked for instruction in Christian and secular art.[104]It could only be that the work of a Roman society of architects in the midst of a Greek colony would show marked traces of Byzantine influence, and none the less because in all probability there were Byzantine societies of a similar kind beside it.
Müller says, after the fall of Rome, Constantinople was regarded as the centre of mechanical and artistic skill, and a knowledge of art radiated from it to distant countries.[105]
Let us turn our attention now to Britain. The Italianchroniclists relate that Pope Gregory inA.D.598 sent over the monk Augustine to convert the British, and with him several of the fraternity ofLiberi muratori(Freemasons), so that the converts might speedily be provided with churches, oratories, and monasteries; also that Augustine, in 604, despatched the priest Lorenzo and the monk Pietro back to Rome with a letter to Pope Gregory, begging him to send more architects and workmen, which he did.[106]We shall presently see, that although Bede does not say in so many words that Augustine was accompanied by architects and builders, yet that is the only inference which can be drawn from his words, and from Pope Gregory's instructions to Mellitus.
It was a common practice in mediæval times for missionaries, whether bishops or monks, to have in their train builders and stone-cutters, and they themselves were often skilful architects. St. Hugh of Lincoln was not the only bishop who could plan a church, instruct the workmen, and handle a hod.[107]
Even female saints appear to have included in their retinue, persons who were capable of building churches, though the followers of St. Modwen,[108]who, on landing in England from Ireland aboutA.D.500, left her attendants to erect a church at Streneshalen, near the Arderne forest, while she went to visit the king, may have been only capable of building in wattle-work or in wood, "of hewn oak covered with reed," "after the manner of the Scots." Bede (iii. 25) describes the church of Lindisfarne as "a church of stone," that material not being usual amongst the Britons (iii. 4); still it is one instance amongmany, of the prevalence of the custom for missionaries, whether priests, monks, or nuns, to take in their train on their missionary journeys workmen experienced in building, and to employ them where necessary to build churches for their converts.
Professor Merzario states, on the authority of ancient MSS., that the architects and builders sent wereLiberi muratori. Now, the members of the Comacine Society were known and are described in ancient MSS. under that title; besides, what other guild would Gregory be likely to invite to send members to join the mission?—were there indeed any other building guilds existing at the time, except the Byzantine societies. It is certainly not probable that Gregory would have invited Greeketairiato send members with the Roman mission, to build churches "after the Roman manner," which is what the first builders in Saxon England did, and in preference to builders belonging to a society which was of Roman origin, and held all the traditions of the Roman school of architecture.
But without the record of the Italian chroniclists it would have been clear to any careful reader that architects accompanied Augustine, and other early as well as the late missionaries to England. The first evidence will be found in Bede (i. 26), where it is stated that after King Ethelbert had been converted to the faith, the missioners built churches and repaired old Romano-British churches in places whither they came, for their converts to worship in.
And again (i. 30), Gregory instructs Mellitus not to destroy the idol temples, but if well built to cleanse them and put altars in them, and convert them into churches. Gregory states that he decided on this course after mature deliberation; which shows that Gregory knew that many of the old Roman temples were still in use, and that Mellitus had with him architects who were qualified to carry out the necessary repairs to them.
Fiesole Cathedral Interior.
Fiesole Cathedral Interior.
Again, in 601, Pope Gregory sent Paulinus and others to assist Augustine in his work, and by them he sent sacred vessels, ornaments for the church, and vestments. Now experienced architects and builders to build churches for the converts were as necessary as the ornaments wherewith to furnish them, and it is fair to conclude that this essential had not been overlooked, and that there were with those who brought the ornaments, men competent to erect the churches to place them in. Indeed it seems possible that Paulinus himself may have graduated in the Comacine school of architecture; it is a curious fact that he is spoken of under the title ofMagister,[109]the title given to fully-instructed members of that order, and we know that many monks were amongst the enrolled members of the Comacine body.
The strongest evidence, of course, would be the evidence of his work as a builder; unfortunately very little of that remains—though the little we know about it is consistent with the fact that either he was of that order, or he had Comacine Masters with him. The Whalley cross which is attributed to him is ornamented with that peculiar convoluted ornament which is found in early Comacine work; and he was certainly a great builder of churches, of the precise type which the Comacines would have built at that time. Bede relates that he built in Lincoln a stone church of beautiful workmanship, in which he consecrated Honorius, Bishop of Canterbury, in the place of Justus. The "beautiful workmanship" implies an experienced architect. Bede who thus describes it was a competent witness, and in all probability he knew the church, which was in his time roofless. Again, King Edwin under the direction of Paulinus built a "large and noble church of stone" at York (ii. 14). At this time the Comacine builders had not begun to build in the style whichwas afterwards known as the Lombard or Romanesque style, and of which indeed they were the authors, and this church seems to have been an Italian Basilican church with an atrium at the west end as was customary in churches of the period; this particular atrium being built round the little wooden oratory which Edwin had put up when under the instruction of the bishop, before his baptism, the oratory being in the midst of the open court.
The Basilican church of the period has been so often described that it will not be necessary to give a detailed description of it. It generally consisted of a nave, with two aisles separated from the nave by arcades; at one end (sometimes at both) the building terminated in an apse, of which the floor was raised; this raised floor in later times projected into the nave and was protected by a railing.[110]The altar was in the centre of the string of the arc of the apse, and round the arc were seats for the clergy, the bishop's throne being in the centre, in the place which would be occupied in a Roman heathen Basilica by the presiding magistrate. Beneath the raised floor of the apse was theconfessioor crypt, in which the body or relics of the saint to whom the church was dedicated were deposited. Plans of several Saxon crypts still remaining in England will be found in Mr. Micklethwaite's valuable paper in theArchæological Journal, New Series, vol. iii. No. 4.
At a little later period a further change was made; on the floor of the nave from the chancel westward a space was divided off by a low screen, in each side of which was abemaor pulpit; from which the Gospel and Epistle were read, and the services sung by the Canonical singers.[111]A very complete screen of a little earlier date than St. Augustine may still be seen in the church of San Clemente, Rome; the ancient church from which itwas removed is underneath the present church; westward of the church was the atrium, an open court surrounded by a colonnade; the atrium seems to have been used in some British churches for the canons, who had cells round it.