The Rhetoric of Materials in the Tempietto Longobardo at Cividale

BENTE KIILERICH The rhetoric of materials in the Tempietto Longobardo at Cividale The Tempietto Longobardo, the oratory of Santa Maria in Valle, was built around the mid-8th century to serve as a cappella palatina.1 It was probably commissioned by either Aistulf and Giseltrude (749-756) or by Desiderius and Ansa (756-774). The small oratory (ca. 10 × 6.25 m int.) consists of a presbytery covered by three barrel vaults and a square aula covered by a groin vault. The present vault (max. height 10.07 m) was rebuilt after the aula was partially destroyed in the 13th century.2 By using various materials and artistic techniques, the interior of the oratory was turned into an exciting visual ensemble: a symmetrical layout of black hexagonal and white triangular stone slabs in opus sectile decorated the floors. The lower parts of the walls were clad in greyishwhite Proconnesian marble – other stones may have been used but are not attested archaeologically. In the middle of each wall is a painted lunette framed in stucco: above the west entrance Christ, on the north wall the Theotokos, both flanked by archangels; the decoration on the south wall is destroyed. In each of the six lateral spaces we find single images of martyrs, five military, one a bishop. All are presented frontally holding a cross, crown or gospel book. In the upper zone of the west wall stand six large female saints in stucco, three on either side of a central window (fig. 75). Originally, two further groups of saints were represented between the north and south windows, giving a total of twelve statues. Above the stuccoed zone, the top of the walls and the vaulted ceiling were probably covered with golden mosaics. Scattered tesserae of these have been found. A small fragment of mosaic remains in situ in the presbytery, and nails for fastening the intonaco further confirm the presence of mosaics in its three vaults.3 Integral to the decoration is the monumental inscription painted in white on purple (now partly faded to blue), which encircled the east part of the aula and three walls of the presbytery.4 On the ca 0.55 m high text band, the words are set with elongated graceful letters. Although the inscription is lacunary and the parts preserved are partly defaced, epigraphists have been able to reconstruct a dedicatory verse in hexameters, referring to pies auctores. It brings to mind the monumental sculpted verse inscriptions in the interiors of the 6th century Constantinopolitan churches of Saint Polyeuktos and of Saints Sergius and Bacchus.5 The white letters on purple ground give the impression of a large purple codex, and the imperial colour is in keeping with the Tempietto’s royal founding. While the patrons were Longobards, the artists who ex- ecuted the visual programme certainly had a different background. There is hardly any doubt that the paintings were made by artists trained in the Byzantine tradition.6 This makes them all the more important, since almost no paintings or mosaics from the 8th century still exist in Constantinople, Thessaloniki and other major Byzantine cities. It is reasonable to assume that with the outbreak of Iconoclasm, Byzantine artists who lacked commissions at home moved either further East or to the West, and that some of them came to the Longobard court.7 Where the stucco sculptors originated from is more uncertain. On the west window frame the graffito «PAGANVS», ‘the village-dweller’, is carefully incised in the wet plaster. This is taken to be an artist’s signature.8 Whether Paganus was the master builder or designer of the stuccoes his name is a local one. Or, perhaps this is a Latinized version of a Greek name such as Paganos? The decoration of the Tempietto Longobardo thus includes a wide range of materials: bi-coloured floors, marble wall revetments, paintings, ornaments and large-scale figures in stucco, mosaics and – in the presbytery – architectural sculpture in stone. These materials are all part of a sophisticated visual rhetoric. Architectural sculpture – Old and New The sculpted elements in the presbytery consist of two marble architraves extended with limestone blocks. They are supported at the eastern end by two corbels on rectangular pillars with bases, and at the other end by four Proconnesian column shafts with Attic bases and Corinthian limestone capitals. At the choir screen is a smaller pair of pillars with Corinthian capitals. These pieces pose some chronological problems. The four large Corinthian capitals appear to be late antique. Still, a close look shows that they are imitations, or rather variations on late antique specimens (fig. 76). In fact, the ones in the Baptistery of Callistus, ca. 737757, are very similar, if of somewhat inferior quality.9 The two smaller pilaster-capitals of the choir-screen show a more simplified form, even closer to that of the Callistus Baptistery. It is apparent that by the mid-8th century the sculptors working for the Longobards had made the antique idiom their own. The four large column shafts consist of two sets of different diameter. Shafts are, of course, difficult to date: They could be newly imported from Proconnesos, spolia recut to fit the requirements of the new building, or unmodified spolia.10 The larger pair was originally meant to support the vault alone, whereas, as argued 94 L’VIII Secolo: un secolo inquieto by Hjalmar Torp, the smaller pair must have been inserted for structural reasons when, at some point during construction, the decision was made to incorporate Roman architrave blocks which were rather short for the purpose.11 The two architrave blocks differ in design: both have an acanthus scroll on the side facing the central vault, the northern block shows a variant rinceau on its underside, while the southern one has a symmetrical floral design on its underside (fig. 77).12 Since they have different designs and, in particular, because they are too short for the span they were intended to cover, they are almost certainly spolia. They could stem from a local Roman building, but since their incorporation led to a change of plan, it is perhaps more likely that they were procured from another site than Forum Iulii. Related, but non-identical, material can be seen at Aquileia: The acanthus scroll is quite close to one decorating a Flavian altar, and the symmetrical design is found in related form in reliefs at the necropolis.13 The Tempietto architects may have brought their pieces from Aquileia, which was then under Longobard rule. Another possible candidate is Ravenna, conquered by Aistulf in 751. The two corbels which support the architraves present additional problems. On the front of each the acanthus leaf is finely carved with a strong light/dark contrast. The leaf on the northern piece is broken at the edge; the central nerve shows a fishbone pattern. While the scrolls of the southern corbel are left blank, the other has plastic rosettes. Rudimentary leaves – different on each piece – decorate the lateral sides in a style inconsistent with that of the acanthus (fig. 78). The stylistic incoherence might suggest that the decoration belongs to different phases and that old corbels were re-carved and reused in the chapel.14 However corbels and modillions of Imperial Roman and even those of late antique date, for instance some from the Galerian phase of the Rotunda at Thessaloniki, early 4th century (fig. 79), are much more detailed. I therefore find it likely that the corbels were carved in toto expressly for the Tempietto. The architectural sculpture thus presents a strange ‘face’, inasmuch as it may belong to several not easily defined categories: a) spolia (the two architrave blocks), b) ‘reworking’ (four reused, re-adjusted columnshafts), c) ‘material re-use’ (rectangular shafts supporting the corbels and in the choir-screen, probably hewn from old pieces which originally served other purposes), d) ‘imitation’ (Corinthian capitals and Attic bases made in an earlier style), and e) ‘re-interpretation’ : new sculpture combining antique and more updated carving styles (corbels).15 To some extent these categories overlap and the visual diagnostic here proposed may not be correct for each and every element. Yet the fact that the modern viewer has trouble telling old from new indicates that the classical idiom had been fully assimilated into Longobard visual culture. Did Longobard viewers make subtle distinctions between spolia, ‘reworking’ and replication? The Longobard commissioners must have regarded the all too short architraves as precious heirlooms – why else take such pains to incorporate them? Nevertheless, the main point was probably not old versus new, but the use of a formal vocabulary all’antica, both for aesthetic reasons and for legitimization, in order to situate the building and its patrons – the ‘pies auctores’ of the inscription – in relation to the past. Stuccoes In the Tempietto, stucco was used for life-size figures and high-relief vegetal and geometrical ornaments framing windows and lunettes. The ornamental stuccoes were inlaid with coloured glass, presumably painted and perhaps to some extent gilded.16 The elegantly fashioned vine scroll framing the Christ lunette over the west door is cut free from the ground in à jour technique. The vine motif is also found in stucco in San Salvatore at Brescia, but a closer parallel is in marble: the intrados of the small Arch of Galerius at Thessaloniki sculpted around 310.17 In the Tempietto it seems that the technique of one material was translated into that of the other. By 750 it would probably have been difficult, perhaps neigh impossible, to find craftsmen who could execute openwork relief in marble. In stucco the ornament was assembled from smaller components that made it much easier to carry out the design. Thus, technique and cheapness of material might partly explain the Longobard preference for stucco. The low relief of the frieze under the Christ lunette is in the style of contemporary Longobard stone sculpture. Indeed, a viewer unaware that it is stucco might easily mistake the relief for marble (fig. 80). Either the stucco workers imitated stone (in the frieze as in the vine scroll), or the two media partook in a common style. Whatever the precise relationship, it suggests an interest in exploring materiality.18 The double-S design is a leitmotif in 8th century Longobard stone relief.19 It is also seen in the sumptuary arts, e.g., a small gold fibula from the necropolis at Cella, Cividale, ca. 600-650.20 The motif has a long pedigree: A decorative patera from the Porta Aurea, Ravenna and the bronze clipeus from Zuglio, about 60 km north of Cividale, betray the Roman origin of the motif.21 Around 400 it is set in mo- The rhetoric of materials in the tempietto longobardo at Cividale saic in the Rotunda at Thessaloniki, in the baptistery of San Giovanni in Fonte at Naples, and half a century later, in the Neonian baptistery at Ravenna. But the closest parallel, down to details, is in San Prisco at Capua, ca. 450/500.22 The S-motif is preserved in different media such as marble, bronze, gold, mosaic, ivory and stucco, and belongs to the antique repertoire adopted by the Longobards. Stucco saints Exquisite though the ornaments are, it is the six female figures that call for attention (cf. fig. 75).23 Being well over life-size (1.93 -1.99 m), they have a monumental statue-like appearance, but are in effect worked in high relief, built up against the wall. The tall, slender proportions and shallow depth of the figures make them appear sublime, while the frontal or near-frontal pose further intimates an iconic aspect. Draped in long elaborate gowns, wearing diadems and carrying crowns and crosses and, not least, graced with haloes, it is obvious that they are female saints. Since these monumental figures are unique, it is hardly surprising that their artistic origin and potential sources of inspiration have been debated. The possibilities are artists from the Islamic realm, Byzantine craftsmen, or they could be the outcome of an Italian tradition. In my opinion it seems unnecessary to go as far as SyriaMesopotamia for models.24 They share neither the iconography nor the figural style, with the Islamic predilection for rounded forms. Further the stucco technique was not restricted to the Mid- or Far-East, since it was also used for large scale figures in the West. Best preserved are the reliefs of male saints in the Neonian Baptistery but numerous fragments from other buildings in that city make it clear that stucco was a favoured material for decorating religious buildings.25 Perhaps Aistulf’s conquest of Ravenna instigated a vogue for figural stucco amongst the Longobards?26 More immediate forerunners or near contemporary large scale representations in stucco are attested by fragments found, e.g., at Vouneuil-sous-Biard, ca. 600-700, and at Disentis, ca. 750. At Vouneuil holy figures, perhaps apostles (ca. 1.1 m high), were placed in arcades along three sides of a room. Judging by the size of the heads, the angels and holy figures from Disentis appear to have measured ca. 1.7 and 2.10 m respectively. They are suggested to be the work of Byzantine artists from Rome.27 However, both of these decorations differ in style from that at Cividale and are of much lower quality. Indirect evidence might suggest that stucco, a fragile material likely to survive only under fortunate condi- Bente Kiilerich 95 tions, could have been more common than preserved works indicate. In Byzantium sculpture in the round ceased to be made after ca. 600-620.28 Whether stucco replaced marble in some ecclesiastical contexts is difficult to ascertain due to the fragile nature of the medium. Still, stucco was cheap, easy to get hold of and comparatively easy to work. The term plasmata encountered in late antique sources probably refers to work in this technique. Gregory of Nazianzen mentions plasmata decorating the walls of his father’s church before 374 (Or. XVIII, 39), while Hrabanus Maurus informs that «in Greek it is called plattein what in Latin is the forming of representations in clay or gypsum» (De universo XXI, 8). From the Church of Saint Polyeuktos in Constantinople, ca. 510-527, nearly thirty small marble heads with summarily treated backsides are preserved (Archaeological Museum, Istanbul). Dowel holes indicate that the heads were inserted into bodies, probably made in a different material – perhaps stucco.29 Although it remains to be proven, stucco was plausibly used in Byzantium more often than the extant evidence bears out. Concerning the ‘origin’ or models for the Tempietto saints, it may be pertinent to distinguish between technical, stylistic and iconographical models. A possible iconographical source is Byzantine ivory panels, widely circulated in the Mediterranean area.30 The graphic approach to the stucco surface of the Tempietto ladies is reminiscent of carvings in ivory, bone and wood. It could be yet another example of ‘material translation’. In view of the Tempietto figures’ lack of three-dimensionality, it is possible to argue that they are ‘magnified versions’ of ivory images. However, rather than copying specific models, such as representations on diptychs, it seems more likely that the artists drew upon several visual sources. Aesthetics of colour: polychromy Today the stucco figures (here designated ‘A’ through ‘F’) stand out in total whiteness, providing a beautiful, if somewhat misleading impression: in colour they would have looked completely different. The question of polychromy is crucial but problematic. Hans Peter L’Orange recorded merely a few traces of colour: red on the lips of ‘B’ (central figure, left), red on lips, iris and eyebrows of ‘C’ (internal figure, left), and purple on right eyebrow of ‘D’ (internal figure, right).31 Still, even though he did not venture into a reconstruction, L’Orange never doubted that the stuccoes had been painted: «La policromia è per appunto il medium attraverso cui l’arte in stucco realizza pienamente se stessa e le sue in- 96 L’VIII Secolo: un secolo inquieto tenzioni intrinseche».32 That the stuccoes were polychrome, at least to some extent, is upheld also by later research.33 Nevertheless, some scholars are more sceptical. It is perhaps surprising that the visual evidence of colour is so minuscule. Still, centuries of exposure to the elements – for a period the building stood unroofed – have undoubtedly taken their toll. When the Tempietto was restored in 1860 and measures were taken to safeguard the stucco figures, their surface, including part of the ornamentation, was retouched. No mention was made of colour.34 It might be speculated whether, in keeping with changing aesthetic ideals, the paint was deliberately removed at some point in time, for instance when the north and south lunettes were given new frescoes in the later Middle Ages, or when the statue of Saint Benedict was placed in the niche of the west window in 1536. In more recent times the stucco surface was coated with some kind of chalk varnish.35 Accordingly, it would prove difficult to detect ‘paint ghosts’, that is, slight surface differences resulting from the effects of paint no longer preserved. As a rule stucco was polychrome. Like clay and terracotta, it is a ‘plastic’ medium and in some respects is ‘two-and-a-half-dimensional’, since it is seldom, if ever, used for large freestanding statues but mainly for architectural sculpture. With its dull surface, the aesthetic of stucco depends on surface treatment; indeed, as L’Orange stated, the medium demands colour. Physical and visual evidence from different periods and geographical areas indicates that stucco was not left white and pristine but was coloured and frequently gilded.36 For instance, fragments of figural stucco from Vouneuil show grey, red, orange, yellow and green for details or shading, with blue and turquoise for larger surfaces.37 Written sources likewise refer to polychrome stucco: Hrabanus Maurus explicitly mentions painted images in stucco: «the plastic art is the decorating of walls with images and signs of gypsum painted in colours» («Plastice est parietum ex gypso effigies signaque exprimere, pingereque coloribus. Plattein autem dictum Graece, quod Latine est fingere terra vel gypso similitudines», De universo, XXI,8; cf. Isidorus of Sevilla, Etymologiarum sive originum, XVI, 3.9; XIX, 10.20).38 In the Liber pontificalis Agnellus refers to «metalla gipsea auro» (De sancto Agnello, XXVII, p. xx) probably gilded, multicoloured stucco.39 The Tempietto figures’ technical style also strongly suggests that they were coloured. The minutely incised ornaments would have been easy to see if we had been viewing them up close on a diptych, but in the Tempietto they are difficult to observe from floor level; they could have served no other purpose than to indicate coloured areas.40 Especially the detailed rendering of figure ‘A’, who wears a patterned attire with four or five different layers, would have been impossible to appreciate without the help of colour (cf. fig. 86). The female saints even have pierced earlobes for the insertion of earrings, another colouristic accent. Thus both technical and material style presupposes polychromy. But polychromy was not merely an aesthetic choice; most importantly, it was a matter of meaning and symbolic content. Garments and insignia proclaim the social status of the person. In hagiographical iconography, insignia such as crosses and crowns are essential in order to identify the represented figures as saints. As the stuccoes appear now, this substantial aspect is partly lost. In order to re-establish their hagiographical significance, it is necessary to imagine the figures in their original context and colours. Reconstructing the polychromy Recent years have seen a renewed interest in the polychromy of ancient sculpture, with Greek and Roman artworks being reconstructed in strong contrasting colours. The impact has been shocking to modern eyes accustomed to seeing white marbles.41 Of course medieval stone and wooden sculptures were also painted.42 In our context, Laura Chinellato and Maria Teresa Costantini’s studies of the colours of the Altar of Ratchis (Cividale, 737-744) are particularly interesting, both with regard to chemical composition and to visual properties.43 The altar’s main colours are red, orange, blue and green, on a blue ground. The pigments were mixed, so quite a number of hues were available to the artist. Still, since the carving style of Ratchis’ altar is quite different from that of the Tempietto, one may suspect different preferences in colour as well. As for the polychromy of the Tempietto stuccoes an immediate source presents itself, namely the 8th century wall paintings. There blue, red-purple and a golden yellow prevail visually, in addition to green. Recent studies of samples from the Christ lunette have established the pigments as red and yellow ochre, terra verde, chalk white, and ‘false blue’, that is a colour without blue pigments, but which appears to the eye ‘bluish’.44 Today the colours of the frescoes contrast with the stark white of the stuccoes, making them appear as two completely different aesthetic expressions. Nevertheless, they were part of the same decorative schema; the wall was laid out according to a modular system of proportions where sculpted and painted zones were of equal The rhetoric of materials in the tempietto longobardo at Cividale height.45 A few places paint overlaps the stucco, thus the wall paintings were executed after the stucco had been applied to the walls.46 Plausibly, the wall painters also painted the stuccoes, so the same pigments may have been used for both. There are other clues about the stuccoes’ polychromy. The double-S ornament over the west door finds a close parallel in the chapel of Matrona in Saint Prisco at Capua (figs. 81, 420).47 The design is closely similar, down to details such as the three-stranded ribbon holding the ‘Ss’ together, and the lily in between (in the Tempietto it alternates with a cluster of grapes). This makes it tempting to transfer the colours of the mosaic to that of the frieze by means of the pigments used in the Tempietto’s wall paintings: golden Ss in two tones of yellow ochre held together with a red ochre and chalk white ribbon, golden lilies on a ‘false blue’ ground, and grapes on a ground of terra verde (figs. 82, 421). Blue and green tesserae used in the double-S motif in Neon’s baptistery affirm that this colour combination is feasible. Behind the vine-scroll, remains of a dark blue ground have been observed.48 At all events the ground would have appeared dark because of its deep setting (figs. 83, 422). Accordingly, there would have been no point in using a light or medium colour, such as on a tribelon in the 6th century Bishop’s chapel at Parenzo, where the vine in low relief is set off against red.49 In San Vitale the mosaic vine is set with reddish-purple grapes and green and yellow leaves against a dark blue ground. For the Tempietto – which combines a comparative naturalism in the leaves with a highly stylized, somewhat mechanical rendering of the grapes, all placed in a perfectly harmonious scroll – I have in the reconstruction combined purple and green grapes, green leaves and ochre branches on a dark blue ground. It seems likely that the decoration also included gilding, since the crowning pelta-like ornament suggests a metal prototype in the form of sumptuous jewellery (figs. 84, 423). The effect is strengthened by chromatic accents in green glass, of which fragments still remain in some of the plastic rosettes in the borders of the vine scroll and the figural frieze. Inlaid glass and semi-precious stones in purple, blue and green feature prominently in the columns of Anicia Juliana’s church of Saint Polyeuktos in Constantinople proving the early Byzantine appreciation of multicoloured materials.50 Turning to the holy women, a blue background seems most likely (figs. 85, 425). This would be in keeping with both the blue (now appearing more green due to atmospheric impact) of the wall paintings and with the blue of the Altar of Ratchis. Blue is also the background Bente Kiilerich 97 colour of, e.g., the Anicia Juliana dedication picture in the Vienna Dioskurides, ca. 512, and the ceiling paintings in the palace at Trier ca. 320. The female figures would have stood out in contrasting colours. For reconstructing the polychromy of the garments, the incised lines and demarcations serve to separate coloured fields and pick out ornament details. For individual garments and jewellery representations of saintly and imperial women in late antique, Byzantine and Italo-Byzantine wall- and floor-mosaics, paintings and the minor arts provide information. Textile remains and written sources describing clothes have also been consulted.51 It must be stressed that since they are based on analogy rather than on direct physical evidence, the attempted reconstructions of colour are tentative. The two saints flanking the window (‘C’ and ‘D’) are identically dressed in pallae pulled up to cover their heads; worn over tunicas, these fall to the middle of the bodies.52 The personifications of Ecclesia ex circumcisione and Ecclesia ex gentibus in Santa Sabina, Rome, 5th century, wear purple pallae and tunicas. Purple is also the colour of the Theotokos in the north lunette of the Tempietto, while the Theotokos in the Panagia Angeloktistos at Kiti on Cyprus, 7th century, displays a reddish purple palla on top of a bluish purple tunica. The combinations presented in the comparative material are generally in red-purple, violet-purple or white. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that purplish tints would have featured prominently in the garments of saints ‘C’ and ‘D’. It is worth noting that without colour, it is difficult to grasp that these are two-piece garments, and the decoration of wristbands and hemlines is also imperceptible. ‘B’ wears the wide-sleeved dalmatica with clavi down the front, and a high-set belt. This late antique dress is depicted in a variety of colours in sacred and secular images. When worn by upper-class women, it was often of silk with fine woven borders. As evidenced by the Theodora panel in San Vitale the early Byzantine elite wardrobe contained many fashionable designs in a large range of colours and patterns. The lady next to the empress is dressed in a purple dalmatica with red flowers on the clavi. Interestingly, the incised decoration on ‘B’’s clavi is presented in a related design in the catacombs of Priscilla and of Traso, and it is preserved in purple on white on Coptic textiles.53 In the Tempietto the clavi and other ornaments are lined by strands of pearls. Although these may have been left white, the possibility that the pearls were gilded should not be disregarded. ‘E’ is similarly depicted in a dalmatica, but hers is without clavi. Instead, a broad patterned border 98 L’VIII Secolo: un secolo inquieto runs along the hem and the wristbands are elaborately decorated. This difference in design plausibly reflects different colours as well, say, one in light golden yellow, the other in a light reddish hue.54 ‘A’ and ‘F’, the figures next to the lateral walls, are both dressed in diagonal dalmatica. Derived from the male toga contabulata, this female ‘power suit’ was worn especially by imperial women. It displayed status inasmuch as it was an adapted version of male garb connoting power and authority. The saintly women follow the fashions of the early Byzantine court. There are minor variations in design. ‘F’ is badly damaged, with the lower part missing entirely.55 ‘A’ is dressed in complex multi-layered garments: the narrow sleeve of the inner tunica is visible at the right wrist; over this is a widesleeved tunica; then the dalmatica (fig. 86). On top of this again, ‘A’ and ‘F’ are attired in diagonal dalmatica, with pallae thrown over their left shoulders. In order to visualise this richness of material, paint must have been used to set the layers apart. Flowers in roundels decorate A’s diagonal dalmatica. Turning to possible precursors and sources, preserved textiles show variations in medallion design, e.g., in a fragment from Antinoe, red roundels on a bluish ground are framed by black with light points.56 Since the garment worn by figure ‘A’ is lined with a jewelled border, the imperial connotation is strong. Usually in mosaics the ovals represent blue sapphires, the squares green emeralds. Again, without colours it is impossible to imagine this jewelled splendour. Visual images represent various fashions in diagonal dalmatics, thus in the Vienna Dioskurides, Anicia Juliana is dressed in a gold garment with purple clavi which is draped over a wide-sleeved purple dalmatica.57 Maria Regina in Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome (before 600), is dressed in a purple gown with sumptuous pearl and gem trimmings. In the reconstruction of ‘A’, I have tried out a number of solutions, from the sombre to the more colourful. The aulic aesthetic prevailing in the Tempietto makes it likely that shades of purple, mixed from red ochre and false blue, would have been favoured (figs. 87, 424). For the earrings worn by four of the saints, I have adapted those worn by Theodora in San Vitale. Longobard jewellery from tombs at Cividale and its vicinity might provide an excellent source, but the minutiae of these designs would have been less easy to perceive. For jewelled collars and crowns, colours imitating gold, pearls, sapphires, emeralds and rubies are to be expected. The fleur-de-lis could have been represented as a blue sapphire flanked by white sapphires (Theodora) or all blue (Justinian).58 The important insignia, crosses and stephanai, were presumably highlighted in gold, as the haloes may also have been; if not gilded, these would have been painted yellow ochre, as in the wall paintings. Female skin was probably left white, whereas the eyes, brows and lips undoubtedly were made up in colour. ‘B’ and ‘C’ have slight remains of red on their lips, ‘C’ and ‘D’ have red or purple eyes. Purple eyes may seem unconvincing, yet various shades of purple were in fact the preferred eye – and hair – colouring for the saints in the mosaics of the Rotunda at Thessaloniki.59 Since red was commonly used as a ground for gold, the irises with incised black pupils might also have been gilded. For hair, a dark colour is more visible because it contrasts with white skin and golden haloes, but a range of hues from black through medium brown to golden – or even purple – is totally feasible. In sum it is tentatively suggested that ‘A’ and ‘F’ were attired predominantly in purple and gold, that ‘C’ and ‘D’ had garments in purple and violet, while those of ‘B’ and ‘E’ may have been in shades ranging from light yellow to red. Ornamental bands at sleeves, hemlines and clavi, belts, jewelled collars, jewellery and insignia would have been emphasized with contrasting colours and perhaps gilded (figs. 88, 426). The colouring of the female saints which I propose here should of course be regarded merely as a suggestion. The main point is not to establish the exact appearance of the saintly women, an impossible endeavour in view of the lack of physical evidence, but to indicate how polychromy changes the overall aesthetic aspect of the stuccoes and the decoration as a whole. With colour, the female figures look more life-like and animated and thus become more convincing representations of saints. Although it is difficult to pin-point exact hues and saturation, brightness was extremely important. The colours chosen for individual garments would in all likelihood have been associated with light, i.e., the scale from yellow, through red to purple. In antiquity and in the early Byzantine period purple was perceived as a brilliant colour. The word porphyreos could mean bright and gleaming. As Philostratos put it: «although it seems to be dark, it gains a peculiar beauty from the sun and is infused with the brilliancy of the sun’s warmth» (Imagines I, 28).60 Accordingly, since ‘C’ and ‘D’ in all likelihood wore purple, and ‘A’ and ‘F’ plausibly had purple as a dominant hue, it may be inferred that for ‘B’ and ‘E’, shades of yellow and red were chosen. The saintly women flank the window and two acclaim it as a symbol of Christus Lux. Light is the central theme of the frieze.61 The rhetoric of materials in the tempietto longobardo at Cividale If the main colours of the female dresses were purple, gold and red, the saints were swathed in colours of light. Whatever precise colours were applied to individual garments and ornaments, the overall effect, inspired by imperial art, was undoubtedly intended to display divine splendour and present the figures as members of the heavenly court. Conclusion: Aesthetics, visuality and legitimation A main characteristic of the Tempietto’s small interior is its refined decoration. Made up of a variety of materials, textures and colours, it combines traditional and novel forms, all with an air of being a prestige venture. Unfortunately the building can no longer be seen in its original state – with twelve figures in polychrome stucco, vaults gleaming with mosaics, walls with frescoes and shining marble, and with the original decor of the presbytery intact. In this ‘rhetoric of materials’, the Longobard ruling elite presents itself in a ‘Romano-Byzantine guise’, as it did Bente Kiilerich 99 almost from the moment it set foot on Italian soil.62 In a process of acculturation, the Longobards assimilated by adapting significant features from other cultures. It is also noticeable that the various Longobard sites show different approaches to ecclesiastical architecture and decoration.63 The enigma of the Longobard monumental aesthetic is perhaps that it absorbs other cultural idioms to such a degree that the modern viewer often fails to grasp the factual or perceptual origins. In the Tempietto Longobardo the extravagant display of imagery and of precious material was a visual sign of power. By taking recourse in the Romano-Byzantine heritage – spolia, imitation pieces, Byzantine paintings and mosaics, and especially impressive stucco figures in early Byzantine elite costumes – the Longobards linked their authority with that of earlier rulers. The unique Longobard aesthetic which emerged from this was a strong expression of political power and Christian cult. Note 1 The present study takes its point of departure in the fundamental work L’Orange, Torp 1977-79. I am grateful to Hjalmar Torp for discussions in the Tempietto in June 2005, December 2006, July 2007, October and December 2008. Many thanks also to Sindaco dr. Attilio Vuga and the Comune di Cividale del Friuli for their never failing hospitality. 2 On the problems of the aula: Torp 1977. The 11th century fresco fragment in situ on the east wall of the aula attests the existence of an earlier, steeper vault, indicating that also before the reconstruction of the roof in the 13th century, the building was vaulted. 3 For the architecture, see Torp 1977; for the sculpted decoration, see L’Orange 1979. Among recent studies may be signaled: Degani 1981 (oppure 1990); Rugo, Rugo, Persinotto 1990; Tavano 1990; Cividale 2002; Torp 2006. Of early works, Cecchelli 1943. 4 Mor 1982; Tavano 1990, pp. 80-84; Lomartire 2001. 5 Harrison 1989, p. 37, fig. 31; p. 41, fig. 34; pp. 82-83, figs. 8689; pp. 86-87, figs. 95-96; pp. 88-89, figs. 98-99; Croke 2007. 6 Torp 1953; Torp 1959; Torp 1999; Torp 2006, pp. 16-20. 7 Torp 1956; Torp 1984, pp. 90-103, has demonstrated the use of a Byzantine system of proportion. 8 Torp 1977, pp. 96-97. Names of other artists of this period are preserved: a magister marmorarius named Gennarius at Savigliano in 755, a pictor Auripert at Lucca in 763 and Ursus who signed the ciborium at San Giorgio di Valpolicella: Christie 1995, p. 192. 9 Cosmi de Fanti 1972; L’Orange 1979, pp. 157-163. 10 Proconnesian quarries exported pre-fabricated and semi-fabricated elements, at least until the 6th century: Barsanti 1989; Asgari 1992. 11 Torp 1977, pp. 22-30, L’Orange, Torp 1977-1979, pls. XXXVIIILII: detailed photos of the individual pieces. 12 Sacchi 2002. 13 The altar: Aquileia 1980, p. 20, fig. 38. The necropolis reliefs: Brusin 1941; Sacchi 2002, figs. 3-5. 14 L’Orange 1979, p. 135, either reworked antique pieces or new works imitating antique exemplars. For a discussion of the architec- tural sculpture, see also Bertelli 2001. 15 For spolia in Longobard buildings, Mitchell 1996; various meanings of spolia, Kiilerich 2006. 16 The chemical aspects of stucco are discussed by Kühn 1996; Palazzo-Bertholon 2006. 17 For Brescia, see Peroni 1962; for Thessaloniki: Stefanidou Tiveriou 1994; Torp 2006, fig. 5. 18 Islamic artists also transferred effects from one technique to the other, Grabar 1987, pp. 182-186. 19 See, e.g., examples in L’Orange 1979, pp. 61-63, figs. 60-74; Lusuardi Siena, Piva, 2001, pls. XXII-XXIII. 20 Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cividale, inv. n. 725; I Longobardi 1990, p. 464. cat. X 176. 21 Bovini 1957, pl. 3; L’Orange 1979, figs. 63-64. 22 Die römischen Mosaiken 1976, pl. 83. 23 L’Orange 1979, pp. 3-127, with bibliography; Casadio, Perusini, Spadea 1996; Pasquini 2002, pp. 84-91 with recent bibliography; Torp 2006, pp. 21-22. 24 Large-scale figures in stucco are of course well attested in Umayyad art (661-750), e.g., at Qasr el-Hayr el-Gharbi and at Khirbat al-Mafjar, and ornaments like vine-scrolls are frequent, too, e.g., at Qasr el-Hayr: L’Orange 1979, fig. 56. Umayyad influence is argued by Gaberscek 1973; Tavano 1990, pp. 61-64; Vaj 2002. 25 Deichmann 1969, pp. 130-151; Deichmann 1974, pp. 17-46; Pavan 1980. 26 Torp, 2006, p. 21, p. 69. 27 Vouneuil: Camus 1992; Sapin 2006, with reconstruction fig. 15, p. 61. Disentis: Studer 2006, pp. 143-165. For new fragments reported found in a pre-Carolingian stratum, see Meier 2003, p. 39 with note 39. Various types of stucco figures are discussed in Stuck 1996; Pasquini 2002; Stucs 2006. 28 Kiilerich 1993. 29 Harrison 1986, pp. 157-161; Kiilerich 1993, pp. 89-91. 30 The 5th century Boethius diptych in Brescia with a ca. 8th century painting on the reverse is a case in point, Bertelli 2005. 100 L’VIII Secolo: un secolo inquieto 31 L’Orange 1979, p. 30. L’Orange 1979. 33 Casadio, Perusini, Spadea 1996. 34 Foramitti (2008, pp. 38-49), discusses the restorations by Valentinis e.a. from 1856-1860 and other interventions up to 1915. Valentinis writes in his report: «A tutte le statue vennero rimessi gli ornamenti deperiti nelle vesti», cited by Foramitti (2008, p. 99). For the statue, see Foramitti 2008, p. 78. 35 Noted by L’Orange, cf. Foramitti 2008, p. 40: «una velatura moderna a calce». 36 Möller 1996. For earlier Mid to Far East practise, see, e.g., Kröger 1982, esp. pp. 216-220: red (cinnabar), blue (ultramarine), gold, yellow and green, also traces of brown and rose. Some figures had black eyes and hair, and red lips, Kröger 1982, p. 217. 37 Colours according to Camus 1992; Sapin 2006, p. 60, fig. 11, red and black. 38 Pavan 1980, pp. 137-138: written sources. 39 Pasquini 2002, p. 23. In wall mosaics the word metallis can refer to the sparkling colours of the tesserae, e.g., in Santa Maria in Domnica, Rome: «... nunc rutilat iugitur variis decorata metallis». 40 To what extent diptychs and other ivories were polychrome is uncertain. Some ancient Greek and Near Eastern ivories have remains of gilding and coloured inlay, and written sources refer to coloured ivories. Connor (1998, p. 4) believes that Byzantine ivories were «brightly colored», and lists hundred ivories on which she claims to have detected traces of colour (pp. 84-87). While the expensive material probably would exclude a heavy coloration written sources at least confirm the use of gild on imperial and consular diptychs. 41 Color 2002; Brinkmann 2003; Peinture 2007. 42 See, e.g., La bellezza del sacro 2002. The reconstructed reliefs of the months at the central portal of the Pieve di Santa Maria, Arezzo, are eloquent examples of brightly coloured images, La bellezza del sacro 2002, pp. 54-55. 43 Chinellato, Costantini 2006, with the colours reconstructed in the drawing pl. 1. More recently the authors have altered the colours slightly: lighter blue ground, more purplish red in angels’ garments. 32 44 Cagnana et alii 2004, esp. pp. 76-80, at p. 80: «ciò che rende il blu è un carbone, probabilmente di origine vegetale, che è stato steso sulla parete in modo da dare il risultato di un grigio; visto da lontano conferisce alla superficie l’effetto del blu». 45 Torp 1984, pp. 90-103; Torp 2006, p.28. 46 As pointed out already by Torp 1953. 47 Die römischen Mosaiken 1976, pl. 83. The ornament frames a lunette showing a bust of Christ flanked by the alpha and omega. 48 L’Orange 1979, p. 13, «sfumature scure (tracce di colore?)». Torp autopsy: dark blue colour. 49 Matejčić 2006. 50 Harrison 1989, figs. 82-83, 94. The relation between the sumptuary arts and architectural decoration is discussed by Pitarakis 2007. 51 Ancient dress is the subject of Croom 2000; Tissus 2004; Venditelli 2004; The Clothed Body 2005; Parani 2007. For the styles of the Tempietto dresses see, Kiilerich 2009. 52 For the garments and parallels in other art works, see L’Orange 1979, pp. 79-92. For all sculpted motifs in the Tempietto, L’Orange presents an exhaustive comparative material. 53 Croom 2000, fig. 35, 1-2, fig. 36,1. 54 Hypothetical analogous reconstruction of a sarcophagus: Zluwa 2008. Also colour reconstruction based on scientific methods is uncertain, f.ex. the Archaic ‘Peplos kore’ has traces of animal decoration, but the colour of her dress is unknown, see Brinkmann 2003. 55 The lower part of ‘F’ was reconstructed in 1860, Foramitti 2008, p. 99. 56 Volbach 1969, p. 61, fig. 27. 57 Kiilerich 2001, for a discussion of Anicia’s dress and insignia. 58 Baldini Lippolis 1999 presents various types of jewellery. 59 Kiilerich 2007, pp. 334-336. 60 Gage 1993, pp. 71-72; Kiilerich 2007. 61 L’Orange 1979, pp. 115-120. 62 Longobard coins are modelled on Byzantine coins: Arslan 1990. For Byzantine iconographic models: Kiilerich 1997. Other aspects of Longobard visual culture: Mitchell 1995; Mitchell 2008. 63 See, Italia Langobardorum 2008, with bibliography. Bibliografia Aquileia 1980 = I musei di Aquileia, a cura di Bruna Forlati Tamaro, Mario Mirabella Roberti, Aquileia 1980. Arslan 1990 = Ermanno A. Arslan, Le monete, in I Longobardi, cat. della mostra (Cividale del Friuli - Passariano, 1990), a cura di Gian Carlo Menis, Milano 1990, pp. 164-177. Asgari 1992 = Nusin Asgari, Observations on two Types of Quarry-Items from Proconnesus: Column-Shafts and Column-Bases, in Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Trade and Provenance. Interdisciplinary Studies on Stones and stone Technology in Europe and Near East from the prehistoric to the early Christian Period, eds. Marc Waelkens, Norman Herz, Luc Moens, Leuven 1992 (Acta archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae, 4), pp. 73-80. Baldini Lippolis 1999 = Ida Baldini Lippolis, L’oreficeria nell’impero di Costantinopoli tra IV e VII secolo, Bari 1999 (Bibliotheca archaeologica, 7). Barsanti 1989 = Claudia Barsanti, L’esportazione di marmi dal Proconneso nelle regioni pontiche durante il IV-VI secolo, in “Rivista dell’Istituto nazionale d’archeologia e storia dell’arte”, 12 (1989), pp. 91-220. La bellezza del sacro 2002 = La bellezza del sacro. Sculture medievali policrome, cat. della mostra (Arezzo, 2002-2003), a cura di Marina Armandi, Giuliano Centrodi, Arezzo 2002. Bertelli 2001 = Carlo Bertelli, La decorazione del Tempietto di Cividale, in Paolo Diacono 2001, II, pp. 437-453. Bertelli 2005 = Carlo Bertelli, Un dittico ‘longobardo’, in “Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia”, 18.2004 (2005), pp. 131-138. Bovini 1957 = Giuseppe Bovini, I monumenti antichi di Ravenna, Milano 1957. Brinkmann 2003 = Vinzenz Brinkmann, Mädchen oder Göttin? Das Rätsel der ‘Peploskore’ von der Athener Akropolis, in Bunte Götter. Die Farbigkeit antiker Skulp- tur, Ausstellungskat. (München, 2003-2004), Hrsg. Vinzenz Brinkmann, Raimund Wünsche, München 2003, pp. 53-59. Brusin 1941 = Giovanni Brusin, Nuovi monumenti sepolcrali di Aquileia, Venezia 1941 (Quaderno dell’Associazione Nazionale per Aquileia, 1). Cagnana et alii 2004 = Aurora Cagnana et alii, Indagini archeometriche sui materiali da costruzione del ‘Tempietto’ di Santa Maria in Valle di Cividale del Friuli. I. Gli affreschi altomedievali, in “Archeologia dell’architettura”, 8.2003 (2004), pp. 69-87. Camus 1992 = Marie Thérèse Camus, Stucs du prieuré de Saint-Pierre de Vouneuil, in De la création à la restauration. Travaux d’histoire de l’art offerts à Marcel Durliat pour son 75e anniversaire, Toulouse 1992, pp. 69-83. Casadio, Perusini, Spadea 1996 = Paolo Casadio, Teresa Perusini, Piera Spadea, Zur Stuckdekoration des ‘Tempietto longobardo’ in Cividale: Technische und naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsergebnisse, in Stuck 1996, pp. 37-51. Cecchelli 1943 = Carlo Cecchelli, I monumenti del Friuli dal secolo IV all’XI, Milano - Roma 1943. Chinellato, Costantini 2006 = Laura Chinellato, Maria Teresa Costantini, L’Altare di Ratchis: proposta per la ricostruzione dell’originaria finitura policroma, in “Vultus ecclesiae”, 6.2005 (2006), pp. 7-17. Christie 1995 = Neil Christie, The Lombards. The Ancient Longobards, Oxford 1995. Cividale 2002 = Cividale longobarda. Materiali per una rilettura archeologica, a cura di Silvia Lusuardi Siena, Milano 2002. The Clothed Body 2005 = The Clothed Body in the Ancient World, eds. Lisa Cleland et alii, Oxford 2005. Color 2002 = The Role of Color in Ancient Greek Art and Architecture (700-31 B.C.), Proceedings of the Conference (Thessaloniki, 2000), eds. Michael A. Tiverios, Despoina S. Tsiafakis, Thessaloniki 2002. The rhetoric of materials in the tempietto longobardo at Cividale Connor 1998 = Carolyn L. Connor, The Color of Ivory: Polychromy on Byzantine Ivories, Princeton 1998. Cosmi de Fanti 1972 = Aleandra Cosmi de Fanti, Il battistero di Callisto a Cividale, Bologna 1972. Croke 2007 = Brian Croke, Justinian, Theodora, and the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus, in DOP, 60.2006 (2007), pp. 25-63. Croom 2000 = Alexandra T. Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion, Charleston 2000. Degani 1981 = Alessandro Degani, Il Tempietto Longobardo di Cividale. Ancora un apporto alla sua conoscenza, Udine 1981 (Quaderni della Fondazione De Claricini Dornpacher, 3). Degani 1990 = Alessandro Degani, Il Tempietto Longobardo di Cividale. Ancora un apporto alla sua conoscenza, Bottenicco di Moimacco 1990. Deichmann 1969 = Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann, Ravenna. Hauptstadt des spätantiken Abendlandes, I, Wiesbaden 1969. Deichmann 1974 = Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann, Ravenna. Hauptstadt des spätantiken Abendlandes, II.1, Wiesbaden 1974. Die römischen Mosaiken 1976 = Die römischen Mosaiken der kirchlichen Bauten vom IV. - XIII. Jahrhundert, Hrsg. Josef Wilpert, Walter Nikolaus Schumacher, Freiburg 1976. Foramitti 2008 = Vittorio Foramitti, Il Tempietto longobardo nell’Ottocento, Udine 2008. Gaberscek 1973 = Carlo Gabercsek, Note sull’Altare di Ratchis, in “Memorie Storiche Forogiuliesi”, LIII (1973), pp. 53-72. Gaberscek 1977 = Carlo Gaberscek, Riflessi sassanidi nella scultura altomedievale dell’alto Adriatico, in Aquileia e l’Oriente mediterraneo, Atti della VII Settimana di studi aquileiesi (Aquileia, 1976), Udine 1977 (AAAd, 12), pp. 491-509. Gage 1993 = John Gage, Colour and Meaning, London 1993. Grabar 1987 = Oleg Grabar, The Formation of Islamic Art, New Haven 1987. Harrison 1986 = Martin R. Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, I, Princeton 1986. Harrison 1989 = Martin R. Harrison, A Temple for Byzantium. The Discovery and Excavation of Anicia Juliana’s palace-church in Istanbul, London 1989. Italia Langobardorum 2008 = Italia Langobardorum. Centri di potere e di culto (568774 d.C.), UNESCO World Heritage List, Dossier di Candidatura (2008). Kiilerich 1993 = Bente Kiilerich, Sculpture in the Round in the Early Byzantine Period – Constantinople and the East, in Aspects of Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium, eds. Lennart Rydén, Jan Olof Rosenqvist, Stockholm 1993 (Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. Transactions, 4), pp. 85-97. Kiilerich 1997 = Bente Kiilerich, The Visor of Agilulf: Longobard Ambitions in Romano-Byzantine Guise, in “Acta Archaeologica”, 68 (1997), pp. 139-151. Kiilerich 2001 = Bente Kiilerich, The Image of Anicia Juliana in the Vienna Dioskurides: Flattery or Appropriation of Imperial Imagery, in “Symbolae Osloenses”, 76 (2001), pp. 169-190. Kiilerich 2006 = Bente Kiilerich, Antiquus et modernus: Spolia in Medieval Art – Western, Byzantine and Islamic, in Medioevo: il tempo degli antichi, Atti del Convegno int. di studi (Parma, 2003), a cura di Arturo Carlo Quintavalle, Milano 2006 (I Convegni di Parma, 6), pp. 135-145. Kiilerich 2007 = Bente Kiilerich, Picturing Ideal Beauty: The Saints in the Rotunda at Thessaloniki, in “Antiquité Tardive”, 15 (2007), pp. 321-336. Kiilerich 2009 = Bente Kiilerich, Antik mode i langobardisk regi, in “Klassisk Forum”, (2009)/1, pp. 38-51. Kröger 1982 = Jens Kröger, Sasanidischer Stuckdekor: ein Beitrag zum Reliefdekor aus Stuck in sasanidischer und frühislamischer Zeit nach den Ausgrabungen von 1928/9 und 1931/2 in der sasanidischen Metropole Ktesiphon (Iraq) und unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Stuckfunde von Taht-i Sulaimān (Iran), aus Nizāmābād (Iran) sowie zahlreicher anderer Fundorte, Mainz 1982 (Baghdader Forschungen, 5). Kühn 1996 = Herbert Kühn, Was ist Stuck?, in Stuck 1996, pp. 17-24. Lomartire 2001 = Saverio Lomartire, I tituli dipinti del Tempietto longobardo di Cividale, in Paolo Diacono 2001, II, pp. 455-491. I Longobardi 1990 = I Longobardi, cat. della mostra (Cividale del Friuli – Passariano, 1990), a cura di Gian Carlo Menis, Milano 1990. L’Orange 1979 = Hans Peter L’Orange, La scultura in stucco e in pietra del Tempietto, in L’Orange, Torp 1977-1979. L’Orange, Torp 1977-1979 = Hans Peter L’Orange, Hjalmar Torp, Il Tempietto longobardo di Cividale (I vol /1977 [tavole], II vol./1977 [testo di Hjalmar Torp], III vol./1979 [testo di Hans Peter L’Orange], Roma 1977-1979 (“Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia”, VII /1-3). Lusuardi, Piva 2001 = Silvia Lusuardi Siena, Paola Piva, Scultura decorativa e arredo liturgico a Cividale e in Friuli tra VIII e IX secolo, in Paolo Diacono 2001, II, pp. 493-594. Bente Kiilerich 101 Matejčić 2006 = Ivan Matejčić, Breve nota e novità sulle decorazioni a stucco del periodo paleocristiano in Istria, in Stucs 2006, pp. 125-132. Meier 2003 = Hans-Rudolf Meier, Ton, Stein und Stuck. Materialaspekte in der Bilderfrage des Früh- und Hochmittelalters, in “Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft”, 30 (2003), pp. 35-52. Mitchell 1995 = John Mitchell, Arichis und die Künste, in Für irdischen Ruhm und himmlischen Lohn. Stifter und Auftraggeber in der mittelalterlichen Kunst; Beat Brenk zum 60. Geburtstag, Kolloquium (Basel, 1995), Hrsg. Hans-Rudolf Meier et alii, Berlin 1995, pp. 47-64. Mitchell 1996 = John Mitchell, The Uses of Spolia in Longobard Italy, in Antike Spolien in der Architektur des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Hrsg. Joachim Poeschke, München 1996, pp. 93-116. Mitchell 2008 = John Mitchell, The Power of Patronage and the Iconography of Quality in the Era of 774, in 774. Ipotesi su una transizione, Atti del Seminario (Poggibonsi, 2006), a cura di Stefano Gasparri, Turnhout 2008 (Seminari internazionali del Centro Interuniversitario per la Storia e l’Archeologia dell’Alto Medioevo, 1), pp. 263-288. Möller 1996 = Roland Möller, Zur Farbigkeit mittelalterlicher Stuckplastik, in Stuck 1996, pp. 79-93. Mor 1982 = Carlo Guido Mor, La grande iscrizione dipinta del Tempietto Longobardo di Cividale, in “Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia”, 2 (1982), pp. 95-122. Palazzo-Bertholon 2006 = Bénédicte Palazzo-Bertholon, La nature des stucs entre le Ve et le XIIe siècle dans l’Europe médiévale. Confrontation de la caractérisation physico-chimique des matériaux aux contextes géologiques, techniques et artistiques de la production, in Stucs 2006, pp. 13-47. Paolo Diacono 2001 = Paolo Diacono e il Friuli altomedievale (secc. VI-X), Atti del XIV Congresso int. di studi sull’alto medioevo, (Cividale del Friuli - Bottenicco di Moimacco, 1999), Spoleto 2001. Parani 2007 = Maria G. Parani, Defining Personal Space: Dress and Accessories in Late Antiquity, in Objects in Context, Objects in Use, eds. L. Lavan, E. Swift, T. Putzeyes, Leiden 2007, pp. 497-529. Pasquini 2002 = Laura Pasquini, La decorazione a stucco in Italia fra tardo antico e alto medioevo, Ravenna 2002 (Le tessere, 5). Pavan 1980 = Gino Pavan, Il problema della decorazione a stucco nelle basiliche ravennati alla luce degli ultimi ritrovamenti, in XXVII Corso di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina (Ravenna, 1980), Ravenna 1980, pp. 137-165. Peinture 2007 = Peinture et couleur dans le monde grec antique, Actes des Colloques (Paris, 2004), éd. Sophie Dechamps-Lequime, Paris 2007. Peroni 1962 = Adriano Peroni, La ricomposizione degli stucchi preromanici in San Salvatore a Brescia, in La chiesa di San Salvatore in Brescia, Atti dell’VIII Congresso di studi sull’arte dell’alto medioevo (Verona - Vicenza - Brescia, 1959), Milano 1962, II, pp. 229-315. Pitarakis 2007 = Brigitte Pitarakis, L’orfèvre et l’architecte: autour d’un groupe d’édifices constantinopolitains du VIe siècle, in The Material and the Ideal. Essays in medieval Art and Archaeology in Honour of Jean-Michel Spieser, eds. Anthony Cutler, Arietta Papaconstantinou, Leiden 2007 (The medieval Mediterranean, 70), pp. 63-74. Rugo, Rugo, Perissinotto 1990 = Pietro e Ornella Rugo, Luciano Perissinotto, Il Tempietto longobardo di Cividale del Friuli, Pordenone 1990. Sacchi 2002 = Furio Sacchi, Presbiterio di Santa Maria in Valle a Cividale: analisi di alcuni elementi di decorazione architettonica romana, in Cividale 2002, pp. 251263. Sapin 2006 = Christian Sapin, Vouneuil et les stucs de l’antiquité tardive, in Stucs 2006, pp. 51-68. Stefanidou Tiveriou 1994 = Theodosia Stefanidou Tiveriou, Il piccolo arco di Galerio a Salonicco, in “Archeologia classica”, XLVI (1994), pp. 279-304. Stuck 1996 = Stuck des frühen und hohen Mittelalters. Geschichte, Technologie, Konservierung (Hildesheim, 1995) Hrsg. Matthias Exner, München 1996 (Hefte des Deutschen Nationalkomitees von ICOMOS. Internationaler Rat für Denkmäler und Schutzgebiete, 19). Stucs 2006 = Stucs et décors de la fin de l’antiquité au Moyen Âge (Ve et le XIIe siècle), Actes du Colloque int. (Poitiers, 2004), sous la direction de Christian Sapin, Turnhout 2006 (Bibliothèque de l’antiquité tardive, 10). Studer 2006 = Walter Studer, Technisch-kunsthandwerkliche und künstlerische Indikatoren der frühbyzantinischen Ausstattung von Disentis, in Stucs 2006, pp. 143-165. Tavano 1990 = Sergio Tavano, Il Tempietto Longobardo di Cividale, Udine 1990. Tissus 2005 = Tissus et vêtements dans l’Antiquité tardive, Actes du Colloque (Lyon, 2003), éd. Jean-Michel Carrié, Turnhout 2005 (“Antiquité tardive”, 12. 2004). Torp 1953 = Hjalmar Torp, Note sugli affreschi più antichi dell’oratorio di Santa Maria in Valle a Cividale, in Atti del II Congresso int. di studi sull’Alto Medioevo (Grado - Aquileia - Gorizia - Cividale del Friuli - Udine, 1952), Spoleto 1953, pp. 3-15. 102 L’VIII Secolo: un secolo inquieto Torp 1956 = Hjalmar Torp, Sul principio geometrico e l’uso dei moduli nella decorazione del Tempietto longobardo di Cividale del Friuli, Venezia e l’Europa, Atti del XVIII Congresso int. di storia dell’arte (Venezia, 1955), Venezia 1956, pp. 140-145. Torp 1959 = Hjalmar Torp, Il problema della decorazione originaria del Tempietto longobardo di Cividale del Friuli, Udine 1959 (Quaderni della F.A.C.E., 18). Torp 1977 = Hjalmar Torp, L’architettura del Tempietto, in L’Orange, Torp 1977/79. Torp 1984 = Hjalmar Torp, The Integrating System of Proportion in Byzantine Art. An Essay on the Method of Holy Images, Roma 1984 (“Acta ad archeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia”, s[eries altera] in 8°, IV). Torp 1999 = Hjalmar Torp, Una Vergine Hodighitria del periodo iconoclastico nel ‘Tempietto Longobardo’ di Cividale, in Arte d’Occidente. Temi e metodi. Studi in onore di Angiola Maria Romanini, a cura di Antonio Cadei et alii, Roma 1999, II, pp. 583-599. Torp 2006 = Hjalmar Torp, Il Tempietto Longobardo. La cappella palatina di Cividale, a cura di Valentino Pace, Cividale del Friuli 2006. Vaj 2002 = Isabel Vaj, Il tempietto di Cividale e gli stucchi omayyadi, in Cividale 2002, pp. 175-204. Venditelli 2004 = Lisa Venditelli, Le produzoni di lusso, l’abbigliamento e l’ornamento a Roma in epoca tardo-antica e altomedievale, in Moda, costume e bellezza nella Roma antica, a cura di Daniela Candilio, Roma 2004, pp. 69-80. Volbach 1969 = Wolfgang Fritz Volbach, Early Decorative Textiles, London 1969. Zluwa 2008 = Georg Zluwa, Hypothetische Farbgebung der Szene ‘Anbetung durch die Weisen’auf der Sarkophagplatte Inv. 31 569 (ex 212), Rom/Museo Pio Cristiano, in “Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie”, 14 (2008), pp. 9-26.