Byzantine Architects, Builders, and Stonemasons in Latin Europe in the 10Th to 12Th Centuries 1

applyparastyle “fig//caption/p[1]” parastyle “FigCapt”

Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 113 2020 Michalina Duda, Sławomir Jó źwiak, Marcin Wiewióra

1 Byzantine Architects, Builders, and Stonemasons in Latin Europe in the 10th to 12th Centuries 1

113 Abstract: The article concerns the issue of Byzantine architects, builders, and stone masons in 130 Latin Europe in the tenth to twelfth centuries. The heart of the conducted analysis is the participation of builders from the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) in erecting particular buildings in the countries of Latin Europe. The authors referred to Byzantine builders’ activities 2020 in Reich (Paderborn and probably in Cologne), Italy (Venice, Monte Cassino), and Hungary. It is worth to notice that the topic is analysed in view of written sources from the epoch, which are often disregarded in similar studies.

Keywords: architects, builders, stone masons, Eastern Roman Empire, Middle Ages, Latin Europe

Introduction

Since the nineteenth century, research on architecture and construction in Latin Eu- rope in the Middle Ages has grown into a vast literature, in which, as is the natural order of things, the best art historians and archaeologists set the directions and lead the way. Already, however, issues which purely concern architects, builders, stonemasons or sculptors represent only a small part of the interests of researchers on this subject. Meanwhile, only a very small number of studies focus exclusively on the issues of long-distance journeys by foreign builders.1 This is due to the basic problem of the very limited number of preserved written sources (especially for before the fourteenth century), it is not easy to find evidence for trans-regional or cross-border journeys by building specialists. And yet such studies are very important, because they allow for the formulation of conclusions which are valid (and, above all, strongly supported by evidence) on the methods and directions of cultural transfer (people, styles, and tech- nologies) in medieval construction. One research issue which to date has practically not been dealt with by scholars as a separate issue is that of the participation of architects, builders, stonemasons, and sculptors from the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) in erecting particular buildings (especially sacral buildings) in the countries of Latin Europe in the tenth to twelfth centuries. The authors of this study treat it as only a preliminary and as yet quite

The online edition of this publication is available open access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY 4.0 license. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

© 2020 Michalina Duda, Sławomir Jó źwiak, Marcin Wiewióra https://doi.org/10.3726/med.2020.01.05 114 Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 general attempt to address this subject which is difficult because of extensive nature of the territory in question and, at the same time, the paucity of sources and literature. Written by an anonymous friar from the Abdinghof monastery in Paderborn (North Rhine–Westphalia), most likely between 1155 and 1165, but regarded as a reliable work based on numerous earlier written sources, the Life of Meinwerk Bishop of Paderborn (d. 1036), included a reference to the fact that this church dignitary ordered a chapel dedicated to Saint Bartholomew the Apostle in the vicinity of the local cathedral be built by a “Greek builder” (“per Grecos operarios”2). (here fig. 1 and 2) It stood near another, existing chapel built in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary.3 Because both the interior and exterior of this building have survived to this day in a state not much changed since its construction (in the early eleventh century), there is an opportunity, unique for this era, to test the credibility of the written evidence against the architectural object. Although the exact date of construction of this chapel was not specified in the source, most scholars have been inclined to place it around 1017.4 What does the building itself look like? From the outside it is a small rectangular stone temple with a small apse on the eastern side, and covered with a gable roof. The interior is far more interesting. It consists of a hall with two rows of three columns. They support the rectangular segment-dome vaulting in the main nave, while in the aisles the vaulting takes the form of square hemispheres supported along the walls by engaged columns.

Fig. 1. Paderborn. Saint Bartholomew’s Church [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capilla_de_San_ Bartolomé_(Paderborn)] Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 115

Fig. 2. Paderborn. Interior of Saint Bartholomew’s Church [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Capilla_de_San_Bartolomé_(Paderborn)]

Ultimately, the most outstanding architectural interior element in terms of the time and area in question is the aforementioned dome vaulting.5 According to some re searchers, this is supposed to be the first church completely vaulted in this way north of the Alps.6 And yet, in its external appearance as a rectangular hall, it did not resem- ble Byzantine sacral buildings of that time, for they were built to a cross-shaped plan with a towering central dome on four supports. The longitudinal and transverse axes of such temples were barrel vaulted, while in larger buildings the remaining side naves were crowned with small domes.7 For these reasons, scholars have long disputed the true origins of the “Greek builders” who were supposed to have operated in the early eleventh century in Paderborn. Many ideas have already been put forward on this matter. Analysing the external and internal architecture of the local chapel of Saint Bartholomew, and comparing it with other sacral buildings being created at that time in Latin Europe and in the Byzantine Empire, most scholars to date have tended to conclude that its builders came from northern rather than southern Italy (Ravenna, Venice, Aquileia). One of the arguments for this was the fact that Bishop Meinwerk sojourned relatively fre- quently in these areas, staying in the company of Emperors Otto III and Henry II. Huge controversy has been aroused, moreover, by the issue of whether the builders of the Paderborn chapel were in reality “Greeks.” Most researchers dealing with this issue were willing to accept this idea, but with the proviso that they were builders who had settled in Italy (for instance in Byzantine properties there) and that they had 116 Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 not come directly from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean (for instance from Constantinople itself).8 Besides various other fantastical ideas, each bearing no relation to the contents of the quoted source (an Islamic influence, a Carolingian model, or the chapel being constructed by German builders exclusively), there was a theory in the 1990s that the external construction of this temple used only local stonemasons who worked in, and were from, the Reich (which is indicated by certain architectural and sculptural similarities with the contemporaneously built Saint Michael’s Church in Hildesheim), but the dome-shaped vaulting of Paderborn, which was unique in Western European architecture of the time, could have been the work of “Greeks.”9 In 1997, a German art historian, Hans J. Böker, published an article in which he conducted a detailed analysis of construction details preserved in the interior of Saint Bartholomew’s chapel and an extensive search for contemporaneous architectural similarities, and concluded that a distant form of model for the Paderborn temple (its projection, the construction methods of the dome vaultings, its dimensions) was the second storey of the Myrelaion (Bodrum Mosque) church in Constantinople, which was erected between 922 and 944. Furthermore, the researcher noticed that certain Byzantine architectural traits could also be found in the south, two-storey chapel of the cathedral in Paderborn (before 1015) – although it should be noted here that its original interior has not been preserved to the present day – and in the chapel of Saint John in Curia in the southern part of Cologne Cathedral (whose foundations have been uncovered), which was connected to the neighbouring archiepiscopal palace and built at the initia tive of Archbishop Heribert (before 1021). Hans J. Böker attributed these objects to a “Byzantine workshop”. The author also pointed out that the same church dignitary initiated the rebuilding of the church at the Benedictine Abbey in Deutz (near Colo- gne) as a kind of monument commemorating Otto III (before 1020). And it just so happens that in the Life of Saint Heribert, which was probably written between 1045 and 1056 by Lantbert, a monk from the Benedictine abbey in Liège (who then stayed in the monastery in Deutz from the 1040s to around 1060),10 it is mentioned that in order to rebuild this temple the archbishop of Cologne brought “the most experienced architects from the farthest corners” and entrusted them with “arranging the entire construction”.11 H. J. Böker and other researchers alike are inclined to conclude that this case may have concerned Byzantine builders.12 This assumption is probably not unfounded. The question is where they would have come from: Italy or Constantinople? In his deliberations, H. J. Böker sought a Byzantine model in later (but still eleventh-century) two-storey cross chapels with dome built on a square plan which are preserved to this day, inter alia, in cathedrals in Speyer and Mainz,13 but these considerations are not supported by any convincing source materials, not to mention that there is not even trace evidence of any data that would confirm any involvement of Byzantine builders in the construction of these objects. Would it have been strange, this supposed presence of architects, builders, stonemasons or sculptors from areas of the Eastern Roman Empire (and perhaps even from Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 117

Constantinople) in the Reich at the end of the tenth century and in the first decades of the eleventh? No, not if you consider Italian politics and the politics of marriage of suc- cessive members of the Saxon dynasty. It is enough to mention Empress Theophanu (wife of Otto II and mother of Otto III), who upon her death (991) was buried in Saint Pantaleon’s Church in Cologne, which had been extended at her instruction. Unfortu- nately, the written sources contain no evidence that Byzantine builders were employed in the works there, and the temple itself was rebuilt several times in subsequent epochs. The brother of Theophanu, Gregorios, founded the monastery in Burscheidt near Aachen (no longer extant). “Greek” monks were also mentioned at the beginning of the eleventh century in the diocese of Hildesheim, as well as in the middle of the tenth century at a monastery in Reichenau.14 A comprehensive and important source for the history of Italy in the tenth to the first half of the twelfth century is the Chronicle of the Monte Cassino Monastery. This work was edited for several decades by three authors – local Benedictines – but in the context of the present analysis, attention is drawn to the first part, which was written between 1099 and 1115 by Leo Marsianus. Besides being a monk from Monte Cassino (he joined the monastery between 1060 and 1063), he was also, at the beginning of the twelfth century, both bishop and cardinal of Ostia.15 The author devoted a great deal of space to discussing the involvement of the Benedictine abbot Desiderius (later a cardinal, and the pope known as Viktor III) to the community in the building of the new basilica there (after the old one was demolished at his order). Its construction and interior decoration were to last from 1066 to 1 October 1071 (its consecration). The new temple in fact represented the basilica style, with three apses, three naves and a transept. It was also preceded by a spacious atrium with porticos.16 In the context of this analysis, one part of the chronicle in particular arouses special interest. During the construction, abbot Desiderius sent envoys (“legatos”) to Cons- tantinople, in order to bring expert artists (“artifices17 [...] peritos”) in both mosaic work and stonemasonry. And such artists indeed came. Some were responsible for the mosaics in the apse, an arch (what kind is unknown) and the vestibule of the larger basilica, while another was tasked with flooring the whole temple in various stones.18 In the context of the chronicler’s full narrative, however, it appears that the artists from Constantinople were brought to perform finishing works on the temple interior. Thus, it is not known who designed and built the shell of the building. A poem in praise of the deeds of Desiderius written before 1086, most likely by Alfanus, Archbishop of Salerno, has been preserved. The author presented our issue of the participation of newcomers from Constantinople in constructing the basilica at Monte Cassino very casually: “[Desiderius] also gave [the temple] different ornaments (paraments) and knowledgeable artists (creators) from Greece”.19 This fragment of the work places a clear emphasis on the interior of the basilica, which seems to confirm the message from the chronicle of Leo Marsianus, that it was not so much about architect–builders from Byzantium as artist–craftsmen from there.20 The very fact that Abbot Desideri- us bought many spolia of ancient origin (columns, their bases, architraves or marble slabs of various colours)21 in Rome still unfortunately does not allow us to answer the 118 Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 question of the design of the temple and its authorship. In describing the monastery buildings, the author mentioned that they too were covered with “stone floors [after the model] of Byzantine art”.22 When looking for traces of the activities of Byzantine builders in Latin Europe in the tenth to twelfth centuries, the Basilica of Saint Mark in Venice cannot be overlooked. Even if the lack of written sources make it impossible to conclusively prove that builders from Constantinople or other parts of the Eastern Roman Empire participated in designing and building the temple,23 then besides its architecture and layout being unusual, and unheard of in this part of Europe, there is too much indirect source material to make the possibility seriously worthy of consideration. Until the ninth century Venice was controlled by the Byzantine Empire. The truth is that in the same century this political dependence was abolished, but vigorous mutual economic relations were maintained in the following centuries. And this may also have affected the borrowing of design models in construction.24 Such a state of affairs is clearly indicated by a mention in the Translation of Saint Nicholas, a source edited by an anonymous author in the early twelfth century in the monastery of San Niccolo di Lido near Venice. This is because while Vitaly Falier held the function of doge of Venice (1084–1096), the construction of the church of Saint Mark the Evangelist is supposed to have been completed. It was initiated by one of his predecessors, Do- menico Contarini (1043–1071), and the elaborate temple itself is supposed to have been modeled on the church of the Twelve Apostles in Constantinople (here fig. 3).25 It is true that this last building, which was built in the times of Emperor Justinian (in the middle of the sixth century) in a form known in the Middle Ages, was destroyed by the Turks after they captured the city, but based on twentieth-century archaeological studies of its foundations it can be stated that in fact it may have been the archetype for the church of Saint Mark in Venice.26 On the other hand, due to it having under- gone numerous changes (especially after the twelfth century) and the lack of relevant archaeological research, it is not at all easy to reconstruct the original plan and layout of the Venetian basilica at the time of its erection (around 1094).27 In generally terms, it was built almost entirely of brick on a Greek cross plan with its transept slightly shorter and narrower than the longitudinal aisle. The entirety was topped with five domes of differing dimensions: the main and western one had a diameter of 13 m, the eastern – 11 m, and the north and south – 10 m. Each of the four arms of the temple was divided into three parts. The main (eastern) arm ended with three apses which were semi-circular from the inside while, from the outside, only the central apse was polygonal. The other three arms of the temple were straight-walled. The great crypt under the presbytery (which was a departure from the Byzantine model) duplicated architectural solutions from the upper level (the nave).28 Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 119

Fig. 3. Church of the Holy Apostles, Constantinople – an image from a Vatican Codex (twelfth century) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Apostles#/media/File:Kokkinobaphos_ Holy_Apostles.jpg)

Indirect evidence of the participation of Byzantines in the building of the Venetian Basilica of Saint Mark is provided by relatively numerous sources from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which unambiguously tell of Greek artists (especially mosaic artists and painters) who lived in the city and also worked on decorating the mosaics of this temple.29 However, due to their skills they were also hired by other rulers in Italy. Those turning to the Venetian doge requesting he send such a mosaic artist included Pope Honorius III. This related to work at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls.30 Scholars agree that the interiors of Saint Mark’s in Venice which was built in the second half of the eleventh century were decorated with mosaics, though to a much lesser extent than was the case in later centuries (twelfth and thirteenth). This earliest mosaic decor was limited to the main apse, the presbytery and a bench framing the gate leading from the vestibule to the nave.31 There is, of course, no absolute certainty that it was executed by Byzantine artists, but the observations cited above would make this thesis very likely. As for the construction techniques of the temple, scholars note 120 Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 traits typical of Byzantine buildings on the one hand (the laying of stones and bricks in alternating rows, or the fixing of long, thin bricks with very thick layers of mortar) and, on the other, Western, Roman techniques (the dense arrangement of large bricks bonded with thin layers of mortar). And this, among other things, leads to the conclusion that the construction of the Saint Mark’s Basilica in the second half of the eleventh century may actually have been led by an architect from Byzantium (Constantino ple?), but that it is in no way necessary that the building crew was made up solely of his countrymen.32 Unfortunately, the researchers of this temple to date have a constant problem with the proper dating of its individual parts, which seriously weakens the reliability of the conclusions presented here. Among the various details, the sculptural workshop of the balustrade separating the presbytery from the nave is also noteworthy, and, according to researchers, betrays a Byzantine provenance.33 Scholars also point to another possible model for Saint Mark’s Basilica. Erected before 1045 at the order of emperor Constantine IX, it is Constantinople’s Church of Saint George. While it is true that the building no longer exists, archaeological research conducted in the 1920s showed that it was a brick basilica crowned with five domes (one larger than the others) with dimensions and a layout similar to the temple erected a little later in Venice.34 However, the hypothesis about the Constantinopolitan Church of Saint George being the model for the later basilica in the city on the lagoon is based solely on an investigation of similarities in layout and architectural details between the two, while the written sources offer not the slightest confirmation. However, while dealing with such matters, it is worth looking at another very interesting idea. And that is that, in the island district of Castello (formerly Olivolo) in Venice (here fig. 4), from at least the ninth century there was an episcopal cathedral dedicated to Saint Peter (which was rebuilt in the first quarter of the eleventh century). However, it was completely destroyed by fire in 1120; but soon thereafter, in the second quarter of the twelfth century, it was rebuilt. In truth this cathedral was itself completely rebuilt in the sixteenth to seventeenth century, but its appearance in the Middle Ages is known from a fairly precise drawing made in 1500. And so it turns out that the temple was built in the second quarter of the twelfth century in the typical Romanesque style on an elongated rectangular plan, as a three-nave construction (the main nave being central, with 16–18 windows, and towering significantly above the side naves) with three semicircular apses in the choir (of which the middle one was decidedly taller and wider). The cathedral had no recesses within its walls. On the south side there was a three-winged monastery (an episcopal palace?).35 This cannot be decisively resolved, but it cannot be ruled out that the temple was built of stone and not of brick (previous scholars have not addressed this issue at all). Even a cursory comparison of the Venetian cathedral from the phase of the second quarter of the twelfth century (which was built in the classical Romanesque style) against the local Basilica of Saint Mark reveals fundamental differences in the architectures of the two.36 And yet chronologically there was not much difference between them.37 So, is it possible then that, in the first half of the twelfth century, the Romanesque style supplanted Byzantine architectural models in Venice? Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 121

Fig. 4. Jacopo de' Barbari’s (1460/1470 - 1516) cutwood View of Venice, detail of the island of San Pietro di Castello (https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_Barbari_san_Pietro_di_Castello.jpg)

At this point, it is worth briefly referring to the case of the builder of the cathedral in Pisa (of the end of the eleventh century) (here fig. 5). Information about it was included in an inscription on the facade of this temple. Irrespective of the fairly considerable differences between researchers’ readings, the name of the architect mentioned there would be either “Busketus” in the nominative or “Busketum” in the accusative. Thus far scholars have either kept silent about the origin of this builder,38 or have judged purely based on the name and taken him for a Greek (Byzantine),39 or they considered him a local. Peter C. Claussen’s conclusion, which cited not wholly accurate information claiming that a document from 1105 mentioned a certain “Buschettus”, the son of a member of the Pisan elite, Judge Johannes, was that the architect of the cathedral came from the local circle of wealthy merchants.40 However, the matter is not so simple; most recently, Marc von der Höh took a closer look at this issue, and it turns out that, indeed, the no-longer extant documents Archivio Capitolare di Pisa of between 1104 and 1110 mentioned a certain Buschettus. In one (from 13 February 1104) he was described as “filius quondam Iohannis”, but there was no mention of his father holding the position of judge in the city. So, assuming that the Buschettus mentioned at the time was actually the builder of the cathedral, it can only be said that he died after 1110. However, there is no source evidence that either he or his alleged father belonged to the Pisan elite and were thus locals.41 122 Mediaevistik 33 . 2020

Fig. 5. Pisa Cathedral – inscription [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buscheto#/media/File:Duo- mo_di_Pisa,_targa_2.JPG]

The Chronicle of the Hungarians, which was written by János Thuróczi and edited before 1488, contains a passage which is of particular interest to the present discussion. It tells of a certain Hungarian king, Saint Stephen (1000–1038), who travelled with his wife Gisela and son Emeric to Buda, and there, finding no temple in which they could praise God, ordered a monastery and church dedicated to saints Peter and Paul to be built using wealth gained during the war with Bulgaria, endowing this pious work with numerous land estates. For her part, the queen is said to have donated numerous paraments to the temple. During the construction, stonemasons were also brought in “de Graecia”. However, during the life of Stephen I it was not possible to complete the construction of this temple. This was only accomplished by the king’s great-grand- son, Saint Ladislaus I (1077–1095).42 The events described by the chronicler must have taken place between the end of the war with Bulgaria, which was led in an alliance with the Byzantine Emperor Basil II (after 1018), and the death of Saint Emeric (in 1031). Unfortunately, regarding the construction of this temple, rather than focusing on the analysis of information provided by de Thuróczi, researchers to date (especially art historians) dreamed up various often fantastic ideas completely at odds with the content of the source. Thus, for Ernö Marosi, for example, this was a side issue in an extensive investigation of alleged influences of the Lombard Romanesque style in Hungary in the eleventh to twelfth century.43 What were his ideas based on? Generally speaking, on comparison of sculptural details in sacral buildings and seeking in them features from buildings of the Lombardy region of northern Italy. Unfortunately, art historians who think thus are avoiding answering key questions; namely, who would Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 123 actually have built these temples in Hungary and made their sculptural decor? Would it really have been migrant architects, builders, masons or sculptors from northern Italy? Taking a key quote from de Thuróczi’s chronicle out of context (and not even mentioning the source itself), and without subjecting it to any critical analysis, while also referring to former researchers (whose studies he nonetheless did not provide), E. Marosi concluded that these “master stonemasons from Greece” were from around the Adriatic Sea, from which one was probably to infer that they in fact came from Italy.44 Later in his work, in an argument that was both extremely chaotic and incorrectly and insufficiently documented, the author cited quite random findings by other Hungarian researchers and again took a key quotation out of context (neither taking its context into account nor conducting an independent analysis of the source), to conclude that the foundation of the church and monastery of Saint Peter and Paul in Buda cannot be attributed to King Stephen I (because to date no traces of any such early building have been found), and he claims that the historiographic tradition on this subject comes from the thirteenth century (and would this mean that the builders “de Graecia” would have arrived in Buda only then?). Referring to earlier Hungarian researchers, E. Ma- rosi stated that the “magistri lapicidae de Graecia” would have come from northern Italy. It seems that this scholar agreed with this thesis in full.45 Nonetheless, this issue is not at all so clear; the latest research shows that the sources contain no mentions for the whole Latin area of Central Europe and the Reich to attest to architects, builders, stonemasons or sculptors from northern Italy staying in these areas in the tenth to eleventh centuries.46 The only exception to this is a somewhat vague source reference to builders from Como (in the Diocese of Milan) staying in Regensburg before 1146, which has recently been studied in detail by Claudia Caesar.47 Where did German, Hungarian, Czech or Polish art historians ideas about a Northern Italian influence on Romanesque sculpture and art in these countries in the tenth to eleventh centuries come from? They came purely from comparisons of sculptural and architectural details and searching for var ious, more-or-less incidental similarities or comparable features. This is particularly noticeable in an extensive article by Erwin Kluckhohn (supplemented by Walter Paatz) on Italy’s influence on construction and sculpture in the Reich (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands) in the Romanesque period (tenth to eleventh centuries). The authors analysed a relatively large number of buildings in the area in question, and reached the conclusion that their layouts, architecture and sculpture were all borrowed from Italy. Even if W. Paatz referred to the source content analysed above which mentioned “operarios Graecos” in Paderborn, he still drew on older literature to decide that this was actually referring to builders from Italy who were supposedly referred to in the Reich at the time as “Greeks.”48 And so, in summary, E. Kluckhohn and W. Paatz based their conclusions solely on investigations into similarities which have been preserved in architectural and sculptural details in sacred buildings, because, as men tioned above, there exist almost no written sources that provide indisputable evidence to support the idea. Meanwhile, the concept has numerous weaknesses. After all, a large proportion of the sacral buildings of this era no longer exist or were later rebuilt several times. So, is it not the case that limiting oneself to searching for supposed 124 Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 similarities in architectural or sculptural details in many cases risks serious mistakes being made? There is also a multitude of weaknesses in these researchers’ proposed chronology, which is almost exclusively based on a comparison of the physical appear ance of individual artefacts, and such a method results in multiple discrepancies between relative and absolute datings. Moreover, based on the assumption presented by the German researchers, individual buildings in the Reich in the tenth and eleventh centuries would have been erected by architects, builders, stonemasons or sculptors brought in from Italy. And yet, apart from the one mention cited above (which was, moreover, quite controversial in its phrasing) there is not a word about this. Erwin Kluckhohn and Walter Paatz made no effort to explain this significant discrepancy between the written word and the preserved material. Returning to the information in the de Thuróczi chronicle, we should again ask whether, in the first half of the eleventh century, King Stephen I could have brought builders (stonemasons) to Hungary from Byzantium, but not meaning Italy, but rather, Constantinople, for example. In light of the analysis carried out here, it is entirely likely. After all, there were at that time mutual political connections between the countries (the alliance against Bulgaria), so why could there not have been cultural relations at that time? The only methodical problem is that the mention in the chronicle was written quite some time after the events described. This raises the question of where the author gets his information on the subject from. However, his credibility in no way needs to be rejected out of hand.

Conclusions

Several important conclusions can be made based on the above analysis. Firstly, in none of the cases cited can it be ruled out that the “Greek” builders (“Byzantine” architects, masons and sculptors) mentioned in the sources actually came from the Eastern Roman Empire and, most often, probably from Constantinople itself. Contrary to what the decided majority of researchers to date have claimed, those working in Paderborn (and possibly also in Cologne) in the 1020s may also have come to the Reich from the empire’s capital (via the Apennine peninsula), since some scholars see the model for the segment-dome vaulting inside the chapel as being a temple in Constantinople from the first half of the tenth century. There is no doubt that during the construction of the new basilica at Monte Cassino in the 1060s and 1070s, masons and mosaic artists from Constantinople were employed, which is stated expressis verbis in a key source. A number of indirect source references indicate that in the latter half of the eleventh century, Venice’s Basilica of Saint Mark and its entire interior decor were the work of architects, builders, and artists, at least some of whom were brought directly from Constantinople. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Hungary, despite the relatively late source mention. Would the “magistri lapicidae de Graecia” who appeared there in the times of King Stephen I have come from Italy (as all previous researchers have accepted), or from within the Empire “proper”, and perhaps even from Constantinople itself? Due to the political and cultural connections between the two countries at the Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 125 time and the excessive distance between them, this second possibility deserves serious consideration. What happened that in the later Middle Ages (from the twelfth century) there are no more sources talking about Byzantine architects, builders, stonemasons or sculptors in Latin Europe? The situation was undoubtedly influenced by the eastern empire being in its political twilight (at the beginning of the thirteenth century the state even ceased to exist for some time) which was accompanied by a decline in the appeal of its model of construction.

Michalina Duda State Archive in Torun Plac Rapackiego 4 87-100 Torun [email protected]

Sławomir Jó źwiak Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun Faculty of History St. Bojarskiego 1 87-100 Torun [email protected]

Marcin Wiewióra Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun Department of Archaeology of Architecture St. Szosa Bydgoska 44/48 87-100 Torun [email protected]

Endnotes

1 Among the most important works on this subject, see: Émile Bertaux, “Les artistes français au service des rois angevins de Naples” (deuxième article), Gazette des Beaux-Arts 34.2 (1905): 89–114; id., “Les artistes français au service des rois angevins de Naples” (troisiè- me et dernier article), Gazette des Beaux-Arts 34.4 (1905): 313–25; Caroline A. Bruzelius, “ad modum franciae: Charles of Anjou and Gothic Architecture in the Kingdom of Sicily,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 50.4 (1991): 402–20; Günther Binding, Wanderung von Werkmeistern und Handwerkern im frühen und hohen Mittelalter [http:// www.binding.ws/GuentherBinding/werksmeister.pdf; last accessed on Nov. 1, 2020]; Christian Lovén, “La neige, les briques et l’architecte français. La cathédrale d’Uppsa- la 1272-,” Regards sur la France du Moyen Âge. Mélanges offerts à Gunnel Engwall à l’occasion de son départ à la retraite, ed. Olle Ferm, Per Förnegård, and Hugues Engel. Stockholm: Sällskapet Runica et Mediaevalia, 2009, 3–33; Jean Wirth, Villard de Honne- court. Architecte de XIIIe siècle. Genève: Librairie Droz, 2015, 259–66; Michalina Duda, Sławomir Jó źwiak, and Marcin Wiewióra, “Did French Architects, Builders, Stonema- sons, and Sculptors Operate in the Hungarian Kingdom in the Second Half of 12th Century and in the 13th Century?,” Mediaevistik. Internationale Zeitschrift für interdisziplinäre 126 Mediaevistik 33 . 2020

Mittelalterforschung 31 (2018): 115–32; id., “French Architects, Builders, Stone Masons and Sculptors in Latin Europe in the latter Thirteenth Century,” Res Gestae. Czasopismo Historyczne 8 (2019): 22–49. 2 Cf. “Operarius” means: laborer, workman, operative or underworkman in: A Latin Dictio nary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary, revised, enlarged, and rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=operarius&highlight=operarius. The issue of the key noun needs explaining. Starting from its basic dictionary definition, one might think that this concerned simple labourers or hired hands. However, specialists in medieval building note that in the nomenclature of the time it had a broader meaning. It also indicated “site manager,” “architect,” “administrator responsible for supervision of construction,” or “canon or other chapter official with the duty of overseeing construction works.” Cf. Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire de l’architecture et à la condition des architectes en France, au Moyen-Âge XIe-XIIIe siècles, eds. Victor Mortet and Paul Deschamps. Paris: Editions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, 1995, th2 ed., glossaire, 583, 1037; Marcel Aubert, “La construction au Moy- en Âge (suite),” Bulletin Monumental 119.1 (1961): 9. The general meaning of “builders” as proposed here would allow us to stress that the “Greeks” in Paderborn need not have been just ordinary contractor–labourers, but could also have been both the designers and the builders of the temple. 3 “Juxta principale quoque monasterium capellam quondam, capellę in honore sancte Marię perpetuę virginis a Geraldo, Karoli Magni imperatoris consanguineo et signifero con tiguam, per Grecos operarios construxit, eamque in honore sancti Bartholomei apostoli dedicavit.” Das Leben des Bischofs Meinwerk von Paderborn, ed. Franz Tenckhoff, Monu- menta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores, vol. 59. Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1921, 82; Otto Lehmann-Brockhaus, Schriftquellen zur Kunstgeschichte des 11. und 12. Jahr- hunderts für Deutschland, Lothringen und Italien. Berlin: Deutscher Verein für Kunstwis- senschaft, 1938, 209, no. 1039. 4 On this subject, cf.: Arthur L. Frothingham Jr., “Byzantine Artists in Italy from the Sixth to the Fifteenth Century,” The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts 9.1 (1894): 32‒52; Jan J. M. Timmers, “Byzantine Influences on Architecture and Other Art Forms in the Low Countries with Particular Reference to the Region of the Meusein,” Byzantium and the Low Countries in the Tenth Century: Aspects of Art and History in the Ottonian Era, eds. Victoria D. van Aalst and Krijna N. Ciggar. Hernen: A. A. Brediusstichting, 1985, 104–46; Gabriele Mietke, Die Bautätigkeit Bischof Meinwerks von Paderborn und die frühchristliche und byzantinische Architektur. Paderborn: Ferdi nand Schöningh, 1991; Cecil L. Striker, “The Byzantine Question in Ottonian Architec- ture Reconsidered,” Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer, ed. Cecil L. Striker. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996, 157–61; Hans J. Böker, “Per Grecos Operarios. Die Bartholomäuskapelle in Paderborn und ihr byzantinisches Vorbild,” Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 36 (1997): 9; Robert Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzan- tium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999, 55–56. 5 Hans Böker, “Per Grecos” (see note 4), 9–10. 6 Axel Bayer, “Griechen im Westen im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert: Simeon von Trier und Si- meon von Reichenau,” Kaiserin Theophanu. Begegnung des Ostens und Westens um die Wende des ersten Jahrtausends, eds. Anton von Euw and Peter Schreiner, Vol. 1. Cologne: Schnütgen-Museum, 1991, 340. 7 Hans Böker, “Per Grecos” (see note 4), 11. Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 127

8 For the latest discussion of all ideas relating to the presence of Greek builders in Pader- born, see: Claudia Caesar, Der „Wandlerkünstler”. Ein kunsthistorischer Mythos. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2012, 189–90. 9 The proposals of art historians are collated in their entirety in: Hans Böker, “Per Grecos” (see note 4), 11–13. 10 On the subject of the author of the work, cf. “Lantbert von Deutz, Vita Heriberti, Miracula Heriberti, Gedichte, Liturgische Texte,” ed. Bernhard Vogel, Monumenta Germaniae His- torica. Scriptores, vol. 73. Hanover: Hahnsche Buchchandlung, 2001, 9–12 – publisher’s notes. 11 “Inde ad modum navalis mali in altum effossa terra fundamenta firmat in solida petra primis peritores architectos ab externis finibus exquirens et eis disciplinam totius struc- turę committens” – Lantbert von Deutz, ed. Bernhard Vogel (see note 10), 170; Otto Leh- mann-Brockhaus, Schriftquellen (see note 3), 62, no. 271. 12 Hans Böker, “Per Grecos” (see note 4), 15–20; Günther Binding, Wanderung (see note 1), 3. 13 Hans Böker, “Per Grecos” (see note 4), 20–22. 14 Eugène Müntz, “Les Artistes byzantins dans l’Europe latine,” Revue de l’Art chrétien 36.3 (1893): 183–185; Axel Bayer, “Griechen im Westen” (see note 6), 335–41. On the subject of Greek settlers arriving at that time in the Reich, cf. also: Krijnie N. Ciggaar, Western Travellers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantium, 962–1204: Cultural and Political Relations. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill, 1996, 208, note 11. 15 “Die Chronik von Montecassino,” ed. Hartmut Hoffmann, Monumenta Germaniae Histo- rica. Scriptores, vol. 34. Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1980, VII–XII (publisher’s notes). 16 Unfortunately, only modest relics of Desiderius’ basilica at the foundation level have been preserved. It began to fall into ruin after an earthquake in 1349 and was completely rebuilt in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is quite likely, however, that this temple was shown in a dedication scene painted in the apse of the basilica at Sant'Angelo in Formis which has been preserved to this day (Capua, southern Italy). This work was probably pro- duced after 1087, and certainly before the end of the eleventh century. Cf. Maria Andaloro, “L’abbaye du Mont-Cassin. Sur les traces d’un édifice disparu,” Chantiers médiévaux, eds. Francesco Aceto, Maria Andaloro, Roberto Cassanelli [et al.]. Saint-Léger-Vauban: Zo diaque; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1996, 53–54, 63, 66–67. 17 Cf. “Artifex” in: A Latin Dictionary (see note 2). 18 “Legatos interea Constantinopolim ad locandos artifices destinat peritos utique in arte musiaria et quadrataria ex quibus videlicet alii absidam et arcum atque vestibulum maioris basilice musivo comerent, alii vero totius ecclesie pavimentum diversorum lapidum varie- tate consternerent” – “Die Chronik von Montecassino,” ed. Hartmut Hoffmann (see note 15), 396; Otto Lehmann-Brockhaus, Schriftquellen (see note 3), 478, no. 2278. 19 “Varias quoque Grecia vestes/ Dedit artificiesque scientes,” Otto Lehmann-Brockhaus, Schriftquellen (see note 3), 481, no. 2281; Michael Greenhalgh, Marble Past, Monumental Present. Building with Antiquities in the Mediaeval Mediterranean. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009, 402. 20 Permission not only to import building materials (including gold and silver) for a new temple, but also for the departure of a group of artist-craftsmen was issued by the Roman emperor Roman IV Diogenes (1067–1071) himself. Cf. Krijnie N. Ciggaar, Western Travel- lers (see note 14), 258–59. 21 “Die Chronik von Montecassino,” ed. Hartmut Hoffmann (see note 15), 394; Otto Leh- mann-Brockhaus, Schriftquellen (see note 3), 476–77, no. 2277; 481, no. 2281; Maria An- daloro, “L’abbaye du Mont-Cassin” (see note 16), 54. 128 Mediaevistik 33 . 2020

22 “[...] lapideis pavimentis Bizantei artifici [...]” – “Die Chronik von Montecassino,” ed. Hartmut Hoffmann (see note 15), 407; Otto Lehmann-Brockhaus,Schriftquellen (see note 3), 484, no. 2283; Günther Binding, Wanderung (see note 1), 5. 23 The later, fifteenth-century historiography of Venice contained information that the design ers of the church of Saint Mark and its first builders were architects brought from Cons- tantinople. Except, in this case, this concerned a second temple, on which construction was begun here immediately after the first was set fire to during internal rebellions in 976 – cf. Eugène Müntz, “Les Artistes” (see note 14), 183 (which also references sources and older literature on the subject). Unfortunately, there are no sources from the era that could confirm this. Fulvio Zuliani presents this issue in a misleading manner; he invokes these alleged builders from Constantinople in reference to the construction of a third Venetian temple (basilica) in the second half of the eleventh century. – cf. Fulvio Zuliani, “Le chantier de la basilique Saint-Marc (1063–1094),” Chantiers médiévaux, eds. Francesco Aceto, Maria Andaloro, Roberto Cassanelli [et al.]. Saint-Léger-Vauban: Zodiaque; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1996, 72. 24 This is especially evident in the eleventh century, when Venice was ruled in succession by doges Domenico Contarini (1043–1071), Domenico Silvio (1070–1084), and Vitale Falier (1084–1096). It is worth remembering that the second of these married Theodora, the sis- ter of emperor Michael VII Dukas. All these aforementioned doges were involved in the construction of the Basilica of Saint Mark – cf. Krijnie N. Ciggaar, Western Travellers (see note 14), 267. 25 “Regnante itaque Vitale Faletro, Veneticorum duce egregio, consummata est Venetiae ec- clesia evangelistae Marci, a Dominico Contareno, duce nobilissimo fundata, consimili constructione artificiosae illi ecclesiae, quae in honorem duodecim Apostolorum Cons- tantinopolis est constructa” – “Monachi anonymi Littorensis Historiae de translatione Sanctorum...,” Recueil des historiens des Croisades. Historiens occidentaux, vol. 5. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1895, 284. 26 Cf. Fulvio Zuliani, “Le chantier de la basilique” (see note 23), 71–72. 27 Fulvio Zuliani, “Le chantier de la basilique” (see note 23), 72–73. 28 For a precise description of the plan, layout and interior of the temple, see: Fulvio Zuliani, “Le chantier de la basilique” (see note 23), 73ff. The extensive previous literature on the subject is also collated therein. 29 Cf. Otto Demus, The mosaics of San Marco in Venice. Chicago: University Press, 1984, 1–53. 30 For a summary of knowledge on Greek mosaics artists and painters living in Venice in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, see: Eugène Müntz, “Les Artistes” (see note 14), 186–88. 31 Fulvio Zuliani, “Le chantier de la basilique” (see note 23), 74. 32 For an extensive treatment of construction technique and workshops, see: Fulvio Zuliani, “Le chantier de la basilique” (see note 23), 77–78. 33 Fulvio Zuliani, “Le chantier de la basilique” (see note 23), 79–80. 34 For a summary of studies on this building, see: Fulvio Zuliani, “Le chantier de la basilique” (see note 23), 78. 35 Xavier Barral i Altet, “La cathédrale Saint-Pierre contre la basilique Saint-Marc de Ve- nise, ou les motivations politiques et religieuses d’un choix architectural au XIIe siècle,” Materiam svperabat opvs. Hommage à Alain Erlande-Brandenburg, eds. Agnès Bos, Xa- vier Dectot, Jean-Michel Leniaud, and Philippe Plagnieux. Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux: 2006, 201–11. 36 However, the deliberations of X. Barral i Altet should be approached with care; he sought models for this Venetian cathedral in North Italian Romanesque art of the eleventh to the first half of the twelfth century, listing eight temples from the region that were supposed Mediaevistik 33 . 2020 129

to be similar to it. His whole idea is based only on comparisons of claimed similarities between buildings he chose fairly circumstantially and the cathedral depicted in the image from 1500 which, even at a cursory glance, differ significantly from each other. The author is of course unable to provide conclusive evidence for the truth of his suggestions. Cf. Xavier Barral i Altet, “La cathédrale” (see note 35), 204–5. So, in order not to introduce unnecessary chaos, it is enough to state that the twelfth-century cathedral in Venice was erected in the Romanesque style, without the need to contrive a decision on where this influence came from. 37 Here we must also be critical of the extensive arguments of X. Barral i Altet, who contri- ved to explain what political, ideological, religious or prestige-driven considerations might have been behind these Venetian temples differing from each other so markedly in style. Cf. Xavier Barral i Altet, “La cathédrale” (see note 35), 206–9. The scholar’s deliberations find no evidentiary support in the preserved source material; they are the result of the author’s highly hypothetical thoughts and, laying aside the underlying and evident difference in architectural style between the two churches, they in no way clarify this otherwise interesting issue. 38 Cf. Thomas G. Jackson, Byzantine and romanesque architecture. Cambridge: University Press, 1920, 240; Arthur L. Frothingham Jr., “Byzantine Artists” (see note 4), 40; Christi- ne Smith, “Negative Case of Byzantine Influence,”Atti del 24 Congresso internazionale di Storia dell'Arte, vol. 2. Bologna 1982, 95–102. 39 Pierre du Colombier, Les chantiers des cathédrales. Ouvriers-Architectes-Sculpteurs. Pa- ris: Picard, 1973, 114. 40 Peter C. Claussen, “Künstlerinschriften,” Ornamenta ecclesiae. Kunst und Künstler der romanik, vol. 1. ed. A. Legner. Köln: Schnütgen-Museum, 1985, 269–70. 41 Marc von der Höh, Erinnerungskultur und frühe Kommune. Formen und Funktionen des Umgangs mit der vergangenheit im hochmittelalterlichen Pisa (1050–1150). Berlin: Aka- demie-Verlag, 2006, 315–17. On the latest archaeological research results relating to the cathedral in Pisa, cf. Antonio Alberti, Luca Parodi, and John Mitchell, “La cattedrale prima di Buscheto,” Archeologia in Piazza dei Miracoli. Gli scavi 2003–2009, ed. Antonio Alberti and Emanuela Paribeni. Pisa: Felici, 2011, 243–67. 42 “Deinde sanctus rex venit in ciuitatem, quae vetus Buda vocatur, una cum filio suo, sancto Emerico, et regina. Et cum ibi non inuenisset aliquod pium opus in Christo, in quo posset laudari creator omnium; statim sanctissimus rex, de thesauro praedicti Kean, ducis Bul- garorum et Sclauorum, quem occiderat, coepit in medio ciuitatis aedificare grande coenobium in honorem apostolorum Petri et Pauli, ditando illud multis praediis [...]. Dum igitur aedificaretur, magistri lapicidae de Graecia ducti erant et sanctissimus rex cum regina ratione deuotionis ibidem degebant. Regina autem cruces, tabulas et ornamenta procura- bat. Quia vero illud grande opus inceptum multos annos conduxerat. Ideo vivente sancto Stephano rege illud coenobium non potuit consummari, sed volente Deo post multum tem- poris sanctissimus rex Ladislaus, nepos eiusdem beati Stephani, illud opus consummauit ut scilicet posset adimplere votum proavi sui sicut inferius plenius declarabitur” – János Turócczy, Chronica Hungarorum. Brno: Konrad Stahel et Matthias Preinlein, 1488, 34v [http://dspace.bcucluj.ro/bitstream/123456789/64053/1/BCUCLUJ_FCS_BMV10.pdf - accessed: 01.11. 2020]; “M. Johannis de Thwrócz Chronica Hungarorum,” ed. Johannes G. Schwandtner, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, ed. Johannes G. Schwandtner. Vindobona: Impensis Ioannis Pauli Kraus, 1746, 96. 43 Ernö Marosi, “Esztergom e gli influssi del romanico lombardo in Ungheria,” Il Romanico. Atti del Seminario di studi diretto da Piero Sanpaolesi, ed. Maria L. Tomea Gavazzoli. Milano: Istituto per la storia dell'arte lombarda, 1975, 262–76. 130 Mediaevistik 01 . 2020

44 Ernö Marosi, “Esztergom” (see note 43), 269. 45 Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge der Gotik in Ungarn. Esztergom in der Kunst des 12.–13. Jahr- hunderts. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984, 20, 219. 46 Cf. Rafał Quirini-Popławski, Rzeźba przedromańska i romańska w Polsce wobec sztuki włoskiej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2006, 8–21, 52–69. 47 Claudia Caesar, Der „Wandlerkünstler” (see note 8), 194–97, 213–14. 48 Erwin Kluckhohn, “Die Bedeutung Italiens für die romanische Baukunst und Bauorna- mentik in Deutschland (Mit einem Nachwort von Walter Paatz),” Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 16 (1955): 1–120.