Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:36:30.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The late antique ‘domus’ on the Clivus Suburanus, the early history of Santa Lucia in Selci, and the Cerroni altarpiece in Grenoble*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

Fabio Barry
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 71 , November 2003 , pp. 111 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am particularly indebted to Robert Coates-Stephens and Caroline Goodson for unstinting support in writing this article.

References

1 Hor., Epist. 2.2.72–3Google Scholar; Mart., Ep. 5.22.5–8Google Scholar. The literary sources are summarized in Lugli, G., Fontes ad Topographiam Veteris Urbis Romae Pertinentes (Rome, 1952–1969), III, 242–9Google Scholar; Panella, C., in Steinby, E.M. (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, 6 vols (Rome, 1993–2000), IV, 127–9Google Scholar.

2 Hibbard, H., Carlo Maderno and Roman Architecture 1580–1630 (London, 1971), 136–7Google Scholar. Other treatments of Santa Lucia in Selci include: G.A. Bruzio, Theatrum Romanae Urbis sive Romanorum Sacrae Aedes: chiese, conservatori e monasteri di monache della città di Roma, Tom. XV, BAV, Vat. Lat. 11884, tol. 220, fols 213v–19v (modern numeration); Vasi, G., Delle magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna VIII (Rome, 1757), XIGoogle Scholar and pl. 143; Parati, G., ‘Chiesa di S. Lucia in Selci’, Album 14 (1847), 94–5Google Scholar; Armellini, M., Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IV al XIX (Vatican City, 1891), 432Google Scholar; Hiilsen, C., Le chiese di Roma nel niedio evo, cataloghi ed appunti (Florence, 1927), 48, 306Google Scholar; Montenovesi, O., ‘Santa Lucia in Selci’, Archivi 10 (1943), 89–120Google Scholar (generally reliable but devoid of any archival citations whatsoever); Niederer, F.J., The Roman Diaconiae. A Study of the Use of Ancient Buildings by the Christian Church prior to 806 A.D. (Ph.D. thesis, New York University, 1951), 68–71, 333–7Google Scholar (unaccountably ignored by all subsequent historians); Portoghesi, P., ‘Saggi sul Borromini: un'opera ignota di Borromini, la decorazione della chiesa di S. Lucia in Selci; Borromini nella cultura europea’, Quademi dell'Istituto di Storia dell'Archilettura 27–9 (1958), 13–56Google Scholar (without citations and with many errors), republished in Portoghesi, P., Borromini nella cultura europea (Rome, 1964), 205–20Google Scholar, 401–6 (version cited here); Krautheimer, R., Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae (Vatican City, 1962), II, 188–92Google Scholar; Lumbroso, M. Maroni, ‘Il monastero agostiniano di S. Lucia in Selci’, Fede ed Arte 14 (4) (1966), 498–503Google Scholar (repetitious summary of Montenovesi); Krautheimer, R., Rome. Profile of a City, 312–1308 (Princeton, 1980), 72, 87, 314Google Scholar; Serlorenzi, M., ‘S. Lucia in Selci’, in Cecchelli, M. (ed.), Materiali e tecniche dell'edilizia paleocristiana a Roma (Rome, 2001), sched. 24, 291–2Google Scholar.

Just before this article was submitted Robert Coates-Stephens kindly alerted me to the existence of an unpublished Ph.D. on the late antique phases at Santa Lucia in Selci by Mirella Serlorenzi (Il complesso di S. Lucia in Selci, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Architettura e Topografia Medievale, relatore L. Pani Ermini, correlatore C. Panella, anno academico 1987–8). Dr Serlorenzi's survey drawings are published, at uncomfortably reduced scale, in Carandini, A., Storie dalla terra: manuale di scavo archeologico (Turin, 1991), 114–15Google Scholar, but the bulk of her research will appear in a forthcoming article. For the seventeenth-century history of Santa Lucia see F. Barry, Borromini, the Cavaliere d'Arpino and Others at S. Lucia in Selci, Rome (forthcoming).

3 Panella, C., ‘L'organizzazione degli spazi sulle pendici settentrionali del colle Oppio tra Augusto e i Severi’, in L'Urbs. Espace urbain et histoire (Ier siècle av. J.-C.–IIIe siècle ap. J.-C). Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et l'École Française de Rome (Rome, 8–12 mai 1985) (Rome, 1987), 611–51Google Scholar, esp. figs 8 and 10; Panella, in Steinby, Lexicon Topographicum (above, n. 1), IV, 127–9 with complete bibliography.

4 Rodríguez-Almeida, E., ‘Forma Urbis marmorea: nuove integrazioni’, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 82 (1970–1971 (1975)), 105–35, esp. pp. 105–9 and 124–7Google Scholar; Rodriguez-Almeida, E., ‘Aggiornamento topografico dei colli Oppio, Cispio e Viminale secondo la Forma Urbis maimorea’, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia 48 (1975–1976), 263ffGoogle Scholar. but summarized in Rodríguez-Almeida, E., Forma Urbis marmorea. Aggiornamento generale 1980 (Rome, 1980), 77–92Google Scholar.

5 Pliny, , HN 14.2.11Google Scholar. The vine produced twelve amphorae of grape-juice per annum.

6 The Lacus Orphei is mentioned in Mart., Ep. 10.19Google Scholar. Its site was finally established by Rodriguez-Almeida, Forma Urbis marmorea (above, n. 4), 82–92. For the correct location of Pedo's house, see also E. Rodriguez-Almeida, in Steinby, Lexicon Topographicum (above, n. 1), II, 29–30; for Pliny's house, E. Rodriguez-Almeida, in Steinby, Lexicon Topographicum (above, n. 1), II, 158–9.

7 E. Rodriguez-Almeida, ‘Qualche osservazione sulle Esquiliae patrizie e il Lacus Orphei’, in L'Urbs. Espace urbain et histoire (above, n. 3), 415–28. Still another house belonged to Martial's friend, the lawyer Paulus.

8 Krautheimer (Corpus (above, n. 2), II, 190) reported that Wolfgang Frankl entered the substructures of the convent in 1937, though only very briefly. Dr Mirella Serlorenzi's equally brief 1987 inspection remains unpublished and she could only survey the structure at those points where the plaster had blown. Apollonj Ghetti published surveyed plans, sections and elevations as endpapers to his article but omitted any mention of their authorship and the circumstances of their production; Ghetti, B.M. Apollonj, ‘Le chiese titolari di S. Silvestro e S. Martino ai Monti’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 37 (3–4) (1961), 271–302Google Scholar. Their dimensions diverge considerably from Frankl's partial elevation, but Dr Serlorenzi's surveyed elevation is proportionately closer to Frankl's, which is therefore the basis for the amended elevation shown here (Fig. 4). Apollonj Ghetti's plans, which are evidently based on survey, have been preferred over Frankl's, which were probably drawn from memory.

9 Two domus can be located roughly in the zone of Santa Lucia: that of Bruttius Praesens probably the consul of that name in AD 180, and the domus of M. Servili Fabiani, consul in AD 150; Serlorenzi, ‘S. Lucia in Selci’ (above, n. 2), 291. Apollonj Ghetti, ‘Le chiese titolari’ (above, n. 8), esp. pp. 286–95. Apollonj Ghetti's proposal has been systematically refuted by Coccia, E. (‘Il ‘titolo’ di Equizio e la basilica dei SS. Silvestro e Martino ai Monti’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 39 (1–2) (1963), 235–46Google Scholar) and Krautheimer (Corpus (above, n. 2), III, 122–5). Filippo Coarelli regarded the structure as ‘assai simile alia Biblioteca di Agapito … una sorta di basilica civile, della fine del III o dell'inizio del IV secolo d.C.’ (Roma (Guide archeologiche Laterza) (Rome, 1980Google Scholar; revised edition published 1995), 217) and the building has been identified as a domus also in Guidobaldi, F., ‘L'edilizia abitativa unifamiliare nella Roma tardoantica’, in Giardina, A. (ed.), Società romana e impero tardoantico II (Bari, 1986), 165–237, at pp. 188–92Google Scholar. Krautheimer (Corpus (above, n. 2), II, 191) reckoned that the brickwork cannot be later than the third or fourth century.

10 P. Ugonio, Compendium Rerum Memorabilium Urbis Romae/Monumenta Sacra et Prof ana Romanae Urbis/Antiquitates Urbis. Theatrum Urbis Romae, MS, BAV, Barb. Lat. 1994, fols 204–5 and Barb. Lat. 2160, fol. 122v. On his sketch of Santa Lucia, Ugonio followed the words ‘in orphea’ with ‘Illic parva tui domus Pedonis’ (‘there the small house of your Pedo’), that is Mart., Ep. 10.20.10Google Scholar. The bulk of Ugonio's notes on Santa Lucia in Selci, which are on fol. 205 (not cited by Krautheimer doubtless because they are scarcely legible), go on to expound the identification of the remains with Pedo's house. Most topographers now consider the comparatively modest house of Pedo to have been the backdrop to the Fountain of Orpheus, further up the slope and across the square.

11 For the debate that has surrounded the find-site of the Esquiline Treasure (British Museum) and the identity of its owners, see most conveniently Painter, K.S., ‘Il tesoro dell'esquilino’, in Ensoli, S. and Rocca, E. La (eds), Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alia citta cristiana (Rome, 2000), 140–6Google Scholar, with bibliography. For the hoard of 5,650 bronze coins, see Gatti, G., ‘Trovamenti di oggetti d'arte e di antichità figurata’, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 18 (2–3) (February-March 1890), 76–8, at p. 76Google Scholar (kind reference of Robert Coates-Stephens).

12 A. Giovannoli, Roma antica di Alò Giovannoli da Cività Castellana, libro secondo (Rome, 1615), no. 36. The legend reads: ‘Templum positum ab Augusto pro victoria ex M. Ant.° et Cleopatra. Vergit ad orientem: Hodie S. Lucia ad Silices. S. Carolus Borromeus Xpi Columnam petit inter preces ibi se verberaturus, in tinere pauperum inopia sublevati./Tempio fatto da Cesare per la vittoria contro M. Ant.°e Cleopatra. Oggi S. Lucia in Selci à Levante. S. Carlo Borromeo va alia Colonna del Sigrea fare oratione e disciplina per via da elemosina à poveri’. Only Niederer has mentioned this engraving, and argued that Giovannoli knew a lost inscription that led him to believe that the remains were those of a temple dedicated by Augustus; Niederer, The Roman Diaconiae (above, n. 2). Saint Charles Borromeo appears at the lower left as he dispenses alms on his way to venerate the column of the flagellation at Santa Prassede.

13 The report (30 November 1886) is in Archivio Storico Capitolino, Fondo Contratti, 1886, Atti Pubblici, parte IV, fols 643–53. The plan is at fols 647/648. For the later remodellings, see Barry, Borromini (above, n. 2).

14 There is no evidence to support Apollonj Ghetti's assertion that the travertine piers were spolia; ‘Le chiese titolari’ (above, n. 8). Nor are they roughly built (as often said), but have just received rough treatment over the centuries. In fact, close tolerances mark their fitting. The joint between the masonry of the substructures of the Porticus Liviae and the ‘domus’ may be represented by the pier (now hidden under masonry from 1606) that Ugonio indicates as ‘C’ (Fig. 5), labelled ‘lapides quadrati politi’ (‘polished and draughted stone blocks’) and distinguished from the adjoining ‘columnae seu perticae e tiburtino’ (‘columns or piers in Travertine’). Serlorenzi also supported a pre-Severan date for the travertine piers, ‘S. Lucia in Selci’ (above, n. 2).

15 Only Coarelli has previously noticed the Priapus, Roma (above, n. 9), 217. Apollonj Ghetti diplomatically stated ‘che vedi una figura che, un po’ per la natura del materiale (il travertino), un po’ per le ingiurie del tempo e degli uomini, è irriconoscibile’ (‘Le chiese titolari’ (above, n. 8), 287). Priapus effigies have four predominant locations: in house vestibules, on shop fronts, near gardens and near crossroads or traffic forks. This one fits the latter three categories.

16 Serlorenzi (pers. comm.) contends that an apse did originally exist, continuous with the basilical side walls. If so, no trace of its foundation walls has ever come to light and the putative apse would have been uncomfortably tangential with the veering wall and its very large fenestration.

17 Marcelli, M., ‘Su alcune tombe tardo-antiche di Roma: nota preliminare’, Archeologia Medievale 16 (1989), 525–40Google Scholar.

18 For the social function of diaconiae, now see Falesiedi, U., Le diaconie: i servizi assistenziali nella Chiesa antica (Rome, 1995)Google Scholar and Hermes, R., ‘Die stadtrömischen Diakonien’, Römische Quartalschrift für Christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 91 (1996), 1–120, esp. pp. 61–2Google Scholar. (My thanks to Judson Emerick for the latter reference.)

19 Krautheimer, Corpus (above, n. 2), II, 192.

20 ‘simili modo et sarta tecta Luciae martyris quae ponitur in Orphea a novo refecit’ (Liber Pontificalis I, 324). In classical texts ‘tecta’ was frequently a metonym for ‘building’. Biondo is wrong in asserting that Leo IV (847–55) subsequently remodelled the church too; he simply confused this pontiff with Leo III (Biondo, Flavio, Roma instaurata, XXXVIGoogle Scholar, in D'Onofrio, C., Visitiamo Roma nel Quattrocento. La città degli umanisti (Rome, 1989), 177Google Scholar) and Ugonio repeated the remark, without comment (BAV, Barb. Lat. 2160, fol. 122v).

Areas of ‘Servian masonry’ (walls built with large tufa blocks supposedly robbed from the Servian walls) have been identified in the substructures of the late antique building and are thought to belong to Leo Ill's intervention (Apollonj Ghetti, ‘Le chiese titolari’ (above, n. 8); Serlorenzi, ‘S. Lucia in Selci’ (above, n. 2)). However, I presume that Nolli is not describing these but rather the street frontage when he noted ‘nel monistero di s. Lucia in Selci si osserva un muro con cortina di tufotti, e mattoni, e piii avanti con gran massoni di tufi, e travertini, e segue poi avanti parimente con cortina di tufi, e mattoni’; De Rossi, G.B. and Gatti, G., ‘Note di ruderi e monumenti antichi di Roma, prese da G.B. Nolli nel delineare la pianta di Roma conservate nell' Archivio Vaticano’ (Part II), Studi e Documenti di Storia del Diritto 5 (1884), 109–58, at p. 151Google Scholar, n. 3507; Liber Pontificalis II, 11, 17.

Biondo, Flavio, Roma instaurata, in Valentini, R. and Zucchetti, G. (eds), Codice topografico della città di Roma (Rome, 1953), II, 296Google Scholar. Francesco Albertini, Opusculum de Mirabilibus Novae et Veteris Urbis Romae (Rome, (1510)), in Valentini and Zucchetti (above), IV, 491: ‘That is not to mention, furthermore, the marbles and porphyretic stones of various colours, and walls fashioned (in the manner of painters) into effigies, as appears in the portico of Saint Peter's and Santa Maria in Trastevere and in the church of Sant'Andrea encrusted with wondrous artifice (as I said in the Stationibus Urbis), and in the church of Santa Lucia in Selci, in which churches pictures of animals and birds are depicted as if they were made of mosaic and painting, [and] the spoils of Roman temples and baths are to be seen’ (‘Obmitto praeterea marmora et lapides porphireticos diversorum colorum septaque in statuis pictorum more reducta, ut apparet in porticu Sancti Petri et Sanctae Mariae Transtyberinae et in ecclesia Sancti Andreae miro artificio incrustata ut dixi in Sationibus Urbis, et in ecclesia Sanctae Luciae in Silice, in quibus ecclesiis picturae animalium aviumque ac si musivo et pictura essent depictae, visuntur spolia templorum et thermarum Romanarum’). The text is first cited in Niederer, The Roman Diaconiae (above, n. 2), 335, no. 16. Albertini's original text reads ‘septaque’ not ‘sectaque’ (as in Valentini and Zucchetti, and all later writers). Charles Rohault de Fleury's claim, in 1890, to have detected lancet windows in the upper storey of the late antique structure is just another case of bad eyesight at Lucia, Santa (Les saints de la messe et leurs monuments (Paris, 1894), IIGoogle Scholar, pl. 147).

21 Liber Pontificalis II, 110. Raymond Davis hypothesized that ‘the escape of methane from the mounds of rubbish which underlay many of the habitations of 9th-century Rome might have caused the phenomena mentioned’ (The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies of Ten Popes from A.D. 817–891 (Liverpool, 1995), 118Google Scholar).

Coates-Stephens, R. (‘Housing in early medieval Rome, AD 500–1000’, Papers of the British School at Rome 64 (1996), 239–59)CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues that areas like this one continued to be inhabited almost as densely as they were in Imperial times. In particular, he cites Gatti, G., ‘Trovamenti risguardanti la topografia e la epigrafia urbana’, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 17 (1) (January 1889), 35–49, at p. 41Google Scholar for an otherwise unspecified ‘muro dei bassi tempi’ opposite the church.

22 Wolf, G., Salus Populi Romani. Die Geschichte Römischer Kultbilder im Mittelalter (Weinheim, 1990), 39, 42, 45, 51, 72, 145Google Scholar; Parlato, E., ‘Le icone in processione’, in Andaloro, M. and Romano, S. (eds), Arte e iconografia a Roma da Costantino a Cola di Rienzo (Milan, 2000), 69–92Google Scholar; Wolf, on the basis of Pseudo-Apuleius, connected basil with basilisk (p. 55).

23 Ostrow, S., Art and Spirituality in Counter-Reformation Rome. The Sistine and Pauline Chapels in S. Maria Maggiore (Cambridge, 1996), 119Google Scholar.

24 For the title of in Orthea or in Orphea, see Montenovesi, ‘Santa Lucia in Selci’ (above, n. 2), 89 and Krautheimer, Corpus (above, n. 2), II, 188. Bruzio said that some contemporaries held the church was built on the site of a temple of Orpheus, but he knew that the toponym was actually derived from the nearby fountain, Theatrum Romanae Urbis (above, n. 2), fol. 213v. Ugonius had already made the same observation (BAV, Barb. Lat. 1994, fol. 205). The appellation ‘in orfeo’ continued to be mentioned in Visite Apostoliche until the end of the seventeenth century.

Liber Pontificalis II, 313 ('sancta Lucia de silice’). ‘… detta in Silice, per una selciata antica, della quale anco se ne vedono vestigij …’ (P.M. Felini, Trattato nuovo delle cose meravigliose dell'alma città di Roma (Rome, 1610), 179). Cf. F. Del Sodo, Comoendio delle chiese con le loro fondatione consegratione e titoli de cardinali delle parocchie cò il battesimo e senza dell hospitali reliquie et indulgentie e di tutte li luoghi pij di Roma …, MS [1575], BAV, Vat. Lat. 11911, fols 162–3.

25 The first reference to a Benedictine community is made, without sources, by Parati, ‘Chiesa di S. Lucia’ (above, n. 2), 94. He is followed by Adinolfi, P. (Roma nell'età di mezzo (Rome, 1881), II, 116–19, at p. 119Google Scholar) and texts as authoritative as P. Kehr, Fridolin, Italia Pontificia sive Repertorium Privilegiorum et Litterarum a Romanis Pontificibus ante Annum MCLXXXXXVIII Italiae Ecclesiis, Monasteriis, Civitatibus Singulisque Personis Concessorum (Berlin, 1906), 46Google Scholar. However, there is no mention of any monastic foundation at Santa Lucia between the fifth and tenth centuries; cf. Ferrari, G., Early Roman Monasteries. Notes for the History of the Monasteries and Convents at Rome from the V through the X Century (Studi di antichità cristiana, Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana 23) (Rome, 1957)Google Scholar. I have uncovered none for the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

26 Gauchat, P., Hierarchia Catholica, Medii et Recentioris Aevi … (Regensburg, 1935), I, 3, n. 1, no. 23Google Scholar. Cf. ASV, Scheda Garampi, 112, fols 77r/v. Cencio simultaneously held the office of camerarius to Celestine III (1191–8). His Liber Censuum lists Santa Lucia without particular comment; Valentini and Zucchetti, Codice topografico (above, n. 20), III, 232.

27 Anonymous Memorandum, ‘Fondatione del Ven.e Monast.ro di S. Lucia in Selce di Roma’, on fol. lr of Archivio di Stato di Roma, Congregazioni Religiose Feminili, Agostiniane in S. Lucia in Selci, vol. 5527 (Libro Mastro 1697–1721): ‘… dell'anno 1216 fù restaurato da Honorio 3.°, essendo il Monas.ro habitato da Monaci, che vi dimo ono sino all'anno 1370, che poi furno trasferiti à S.Croce in Gerusalemme, e dà quel tempo fù concesso il Mon.ro alle Monache dell'Ordine di S. Agostino, che di presente lo ritengono, come apparisce per Bolla di Urbano quinto’. No such bull is published in L. Cherubini, Bullarium sive Nova Collectio Plurimarum Constitutionum Apostolicarum Diversorum Romanorum Pont. A Beato Leone Primo usque as S.D.N. Paulum Quintum … (Rome, 1621), I, 219–20. The same information is repeated in Bruzio, who alleged that Honorius ordered the restoration to be undertaken by ‘un certo Cardinale Stefano’, Theatrum Romanae Urbis (above, n. 2), fols 11.2v–113r.

28 See Bianchi, L., Case e torri medioevali a Roma. Documentazione, storia e sopravvivenza di edifici medioevali nel tessuto urbano di Roma (Rome, 1998), I, 3–97Google Scholar with vast bibliography.

29 Fioravante Martinelli was the first to assert that the church was Carthusian (Roma ex Ethnica Sacra Sanctorum Petri, et Pauli … (Rome, 1653), 164). Francesco Del Sodo confused everything by saying that they were Cistercians (Compendio delle Chiese …, MS, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, G 33, fol. 103r; kind reference of Caroline Goodson). There are two unpublished (but uninformative) references to a certain ‘Bartholomeus clericus ecc.ae set. Luciae in montibus’ in 1248 (ASV, Registri Vaticani, torn. 21, nos. 884, 893) and the church is fleetingly mentioned in 1303 (ASV, Registri Vaticani, torn. 51, ep. 884), again without reference to a monastic order. The Turin catalogue of c. 1320, although it is otherwise very specific about orders, simply says ‘Ecclesia sancte Lucie in Silice dyaconi cardinalis habet clericos V’; Valentini and Zucchetti, Codice topografico (above, n. 20), III, 301.

30 Mosti, R. (ed.), I protocolli di Johannes Nicolai Pauli, un notaio romano del '300 (1348–1379) (Collection de l'École Française de Rome 63) (Rome, 1982), 34Google Scholar, no. 51, 19 August 1348: venerabilis domina Francisca domini Roberti abbatissa monasterii Sancte Marie in Selce, domina Angela de Urbe et domina Iohanna de castro Vallis Montonis moniales dicti monasterii pro se ipsis et aliarum monialium absentium pro quibus promiserunt de rato et vice et nomine dicti monasterii et pro eo earum bonis voluntatibus locaverunt et locationis titulo dederunt assignaverunt et concesserunt Petro Cerronis de regione Montium presenti et recipienti idest unum casale ipsius monasterii quod vocatur Sancta Elena positum extra portam Maiorem …’ Cf. Mosti, I protocolli (above), 34, no. 52.

‘Santa Maria in Selce’ should not be confused with ‘Santa Maria ad Suburram’, founded in 1228 on the site of the present Madonna dei Monti, for which see Temperini, L., ‘Fenomeni di vita communitaria tra i penitenti Francescani in Roma e dintorni’, in Pazzelli, R. and Temperini, L. (eds), Prime manifestazioni di vita comunitaria e femminile nel movimento francescano della penitenza (1215–1447). Atti del convegno di studi francescani, Assisi, 30 giugno–21 luglio 1981 (Rome, 1982), 615–17Google Scholar.

31 Two istromenti cited by Garampi in the eighteenth century, but now lost, record sizeable property bequests made by Stefano dei Normanni (1400) and Lorenzo Santi (1414) to the ‘Cappellam S. Mariae in ipsa Ecclesia’ (ASV, Scheda Garampi, vol. 113, fol. 39v, citing these lost manuscripts: Registri Lateranenses, Bonifatius IX, XII, 12, fol. 165; Registri Lateranenses, Martinus V, III, 13, fol. 254). Bruzio and some Visite Apostoliche also cite the dedication to Mary, as does the painted dedicatory inscription in the church (of 1604): ‘… TEMPLUM MARIAE AUGUSTAE GENETRICI DEI ET LUCIAE VIRG1NI MARTYRI INVICTAE DICATUM …‘; Forcella, V., Inscrizioni delle chiese e d'altri edifici dal secolo XI fino ai nostri giorni (Rome, 1869–1884), X, 360Google Scholar, no. 593.

32 For the inscriptions, see Petrus Sabinus, Epitaphia Varia Antiqua Romae et Alibi Reperta, MS (c. 1488), BAV, Ottob. lat. 2015, fol. 139v (‘In ecclesia sancte luciae in regione montium: PERIBLEPTUS AUG. LIB ULPIAE ARETE CONIUGI CARISSIMAE FECIT’); this inscription (CIL 23928) is repeated in Jacopo Mazocchi, Epigrammata Antiquae Urbis (Rome, 1521), 39 (Fig. 11). Mazocchi also mentioned two others: ‘In sancta Lucia in Silice … VESBINO AUGI [actually AUG L] PATRI SAN[C]TISSIMO ET FLAVIAE AMPLIATAE MATRI PIISSIMAE. ITEM SIBI POSTERISQUE SUIS T. FLAVIUS AQUILA FECIT’ (CIL 28615) and ‘D. M. ASCONIAE DORIDI ET ERASMO [actually ERASiNO] CONIUGI EIUS Q ASCONIUS ERASMUS [actually ERASINUS] PARENTIBUS DULCISSIMIS’ (CIL 12507). By 1666, when Francesco Tolomei made his own sylloge (Biblioteca Comunale degli Intronati, Siena, K VIII, 2.3, torn. 1, fols 31, 79) the first two inscriptions had entered the gardens of the Villa Giustiniani, while the third was apparently lost. See also Anonymous, Harvard, Houghton Library, MS typ. 152H, fol. 48: ‘In sancta Lucia in Silice Rom. Hie situs est quondam coeli pars maxima plebs/adfectus omnis possidet iste lapis/vix consumavit septem quinquendendia lustri/oscula ferventem nee tonuere animam/quod si mutari patuissent fila sororum/gauderet condi maximus hoc tumulo/cellius maximus pheb lib dulciss’. I am indebted to Kathleen Christian for these references.

See also Albertini, Opusculum de Mirabilibus (above, n. 20). The capital base (Fig. 12) is in the Delorme sketchbook, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Codex Q5b, Fi 23/29. The annotation reads ‘in canpo lasubburra [i.e. ‘in capite suburae’’ a Santa Lucia’.

33 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Sutherland collection, Large vol. IV, fol. 96a-b. For the post-1534 history of the church, see Barry, Borromini (above, n. 2).

34 BAV, Barb. Lat. 1994, fol. 204. Krautheimer (Corpus (above, n. 2), II, 188–9) was perplexed by the ramp in Ugonio's sketch and could arrive at no adequate explanation for it, given that Ugonio seemed to omit the tower structure that adjoins the tabernae (Krautheimer's ‘Structure II’; see my Fig. 4). But Ugonio's tiny sketch must have been scrawled from memory.

For Tempesta's map, see Frutaz, A.P. (ed.), Le piante di Roma (Rome, 1962), II, pianta CXXXIV, 3, tav. 265Google Scholar; it is copied almost exactly in Gotfried van Schayck's plan of 1630 (II, pianta CXLVIII, 3, tav. 326). Leonardo Bufalini's earlier 1551 map is absolutely unusable for this exercise, as his fictional plan of Santa Lucia is even located on the wrong side of the street (II, pianta CIX, 9, tav. 198). Equally unreliable is Du Pérac's aerial plan of 1577, where Santa Lucia (labelled) appears as a detached church surrounded by green space and roughly on the site of Santa Maria della Purificazione (see Ehrle, F., Roma prima di Sisto V. La pianta di Roma Du Pérac-Lafréry del 1577, riprodotta dall'esemplare esistente nel Museo Britannico (Vatican City, 1908))Google Scholar. One detail of Tempesta's representation is momentarily misleading, namely the apparent apse backing on to the street at roughly the point of the present choir. On-site observation shows this to imitate the slight, and still extant, curvature of the wall at this point. Every other map between Bufalini and Tempesta omits the church.

35 Ville de Grenoble: catalogue des tableaux … exposés dans les galeries du Musée … (Grenoble, 1911), 155, no. 543Google Scholar. The painting was purchased in Rome before 1901. My thanks to Pascal Boissin for his courtesy and speed in supplying a photograph of the altarpiece.

36 Coor-Achenbach, G., ‘Notes on two unknown early Italian panel paintings’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 42 (1953), 247–57Google Scholar; Hetherington, P., ‘A Cavallinesque panel painting in Grenoble’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 103 (March 1984), 94–8Google Scholar.

37 Coor-Achenbach, ‘Notes’ (above, n. 36), was aware of the label, but suggested that the altarpiece might have been transferred to Santa Lucia in Selci at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Hetherington, ‘A Cavallinesque panel painting’ (above, n. 36), strangely, was unaware of her article, and hence the label, and therefore regarded the painting's original home as ‘a tantalising obscurity’.

38 For detailed information on the Cerroni family, see Giovanni Pietro Caffarelli, Spoglio di notizie storico-genealogiche riguardanti famiglie romane …, BAV, Ferraioli 282, fols 259–62 (anno 1597); Domenico Mita, genis Ceroniae in Aemilia de vetusta aliquot monimenta (Rome ex typ. Filippo and Nicolò de Romanis 1826) (MS originally 1634, Italian edition: Sull'origine e sulle geste della famiglia Ceroni (Faenza, 1884), 17–22)Google Scholar; Bianchi, Case e torri medioevali (above, n. 28), I, 49, n. 153. For the social and political status of the family, see Gennaro, C., ‘Mercanti e bovattieri nella Roma della seconda metà del Trecento (Da una ricerca su registri notarili)’, Bullettino dell'Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo e Archivio Muratoriano 78 (1967), 155–203, esp. pp. 181Google Scholar–3; Maire Vigeur, J.-C., ‘Classe dominante et classes dirigeantes à Rome a la fin du Moyen-âge’, Storia della Città 1 (1976), 4–26Google Scholar.

39 See Martini, P. Supino in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani XXIV (Rome, 1980), 29–30Google Scholar with bibiliography, but largely based on Matteo Villani, Histona ab Anno MCCCXLVIII ad Annum MCCCLXIV, cap. XLVII (Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, XIV, cols 136–7).

40 Boise, H. and Vigeur, J.-C. Maire, ‘Strutture famigliari, spazio domestico e architettura’, in Storia dell'arte italiana V (Momenti di architettura) (Turin, 1983), 99–160, at pp. 118–22 and 136–8Google Scholar; plans and tables at pp. 119 and 137. See also the amendments made in Bianchi, Case e torri medioevali (above, n. 28), I, 45–50.

41 Giovanni di Pietro de Cerronibus (Odo's cousin) owned a ‘palatium cum puteo et orto … in loco qui dicitur selciata Sancte Lucie’ in 1377. Notarial act, copy of 1446 in Archivio di Stato di Roma, Ospedale del SS. Salvatore ad Sancta Sanctorum, b. 504, n. 7; published in Bianchi, Case e torri medioevali (above, n. 28), I, 45–50, and 77–83, doc. 2.

Moreover, Pietro Cerroni rented property from (probably) Santa Lucia (see document of 19 August 1348; above, n. 30) and the Cerroni continued to bury their dead in nearby Santa Maria Maggiore until the Quattrocento. For the family vault in Santa Maria Maggiore, see D. Jacovacci, Repertori delle famiglie, BAV, Ottob. Lat. 2549, parte II, fols 919–20: ‘In Catasto S.mi Salvatoris, 1419. Petrus de Cerronibus de regione montium sepultus est in ecclesia S.tae Mariae Maioris, qui reliquit d.° hospitali 50.ta florenos, pro quorum solutione d.a societas habuit unam vineam in Catasto possessionum contentam’ (fol. 917); ‘In d.° Catasto S.mi Salvatoris, 1451. Lellus de Cerronibus sepultus est in ecclesia Sanctae Mariae Maioris, pro quo sunt assignati floreni 50.ta de fructibus Varchae, ut patet per acta Thomase Serentini’ (fol. 918); ‘In d.° Catasto S.mi Salvatoris, 1451. Dn a Camilla uxor Pauli de Cerronibus sepulta est in ecclesia S.tae Mariae Maioris, pro qua dictus Paulus dedit per manus Petri Pauli Stephani quantitatem vini valentis L. flor. quo fuit portatum ad hospitale’ (fol. 918); ‘In S.ta Maria Maiore lapide sepulcrale HOC EST SEPULCHRUM DE CERRONIBUS. Hic iacet Dna Laurentia Fadanni, obijt anno Dominj MCCCCLXXXiiij’. Lorenzo di Pietro Cerroni (Odo's cousin) was also presumably buried there as he endowed the chapel of the Magdalene; Coste, J., ‘Il fondo medievale dell'Archivio di S. Maria Maggiore’, Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 96 (1973), 5–77, at p. 42 and n. 182Google Scholar.

42 There is no record whatsoever of who owned the Torre dei Capocci prior to the seventeenth century. Moreover, the Cerroni landholdings listed in the surviving trecento notarial acts are partial; they only record Cerroni properties that were held in common by Odo and his cousin Francesco, whilst Odo's other properties are only mentioned when they adjoin these. As a clan, the Cerroni may have strategically acquired properties along the artery of the Via in Selci in the same way that the Orsini did in the Campo Marzio in the same century: Bosman, F., ‘Incastellamento urbano a Roma: il caso degli Orsini’, in Christie, N. (ed.), Settlement and Economy in Italy 1500 BC–AD 1500. Papers of the Fifth Conference of Italian Archaeology (Oxbow Monograph 41) (Oxford, 1995), 499–507Google Scholar (kind reference of Claudia Bolgia).

43 Krüger, K., Der Frühe Bildkult des Franziskus in Italien. Gestalt- und Funktionswandel des Tafelbildes im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1992)Google Scholar. Cf. the crypt painting of Saint Lucy, with scenes from her life, at Melfi, published in Ortolani, S., ‘Inediti meridionali del Duecento’, Bollettino d'Arte 33 (1948), 295–319, at p. 302Google Scholar; Rizzi, A., ‘Ancora sulle criptevolturine’, Napoli Nobilissima 12 (1973), 71–84, at p. 73Google Scholar and n. 30 (for the correction of the dating to 1292); Kaftal, G., Iconography of the Saints in Central and Southern Italian Schools of Painting (Florence, 1965), figs 831–4Google Scholar.

44 Before restoration, a seam of surface abrasion extended from the central jewel of the saint's crown all the way down to the feet, corresponding with the meeting line of the lateral shutters; Coor-Achenbach, ‘Notes’ (above, n. 36), 248, figs 1 and 2.

45 Petersen, M., Jacopo Torriti: Critical Study and Catalogue Raisonné (Ph.D. thesis, University of Virginia, 1989), 449–51Google Scholar, cat. no. 3L, with further bibliography, who wisely made no attribution but dated it to c. 1280–5. The most thorough stylistic analysis of the Grenoble panel is still that in Coor-Achenbach, ‘Notes’ (above, n. 36), 251–7.

46 Bellosi, L., Lapecora di Giotto (Turin, 1985), 113–14Google Scholar.

47 Ferri, G., ‘Le carte dell'archivio Liberiano dal secolo X al XV’, Archivio delta Società Romana di Storia Patria 30 (1907), 127–8Google Scholar. This identification was still pursued by Hetherington, ‘A Cavallinesque panel painting’ (above, n. 36), 98.

48 Boskovits, M., ‘Proposte (e conferme) per Pietro Cavallini’, in Romanini, A.M. (ed.), Roma anno 1300: atti della IV settimana di studi di storia dell'arte medievale dell'Universita di Roma ‘La Sapienzd (19–24 maggio 1980) (Rome, 1983), 297–8Google Scholar. Boskovits also cited a marginal note in a manuscript (originally published in Fedele, P., ‘Per la biografia di Pietro Cavallini’, Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 43 (1920), 157–9)Google Scholar, dating to c. 1350–60, wherein the papal scriptor Iohannis de Cerronibus recorded the death of his father Petrus de Cerronibus at the age of 100. This ‘Iohannis’ is almost certainly the person mentioned in the document cited in the next footnote.

49 Mosti, I protocolli (above, n. 30), 59, 63, 196, nos. 115, 116. 452: 20 November 1348 (‘… domina Margarita filia Johannis Cerronis de regione Montium que iuravit etc. cum consensu dicti Iohannis patris sui sponte donavit inter vivos Petro Cerronis, Ceccho et Oddoni germanis fratibus [sic] filiis quondam Pauli Cerronibus …’); 20 November 1348 (‘… supradicta domina Margarita … dicto Iohanne patre suo per sollennem stipulationem promisit restituere Petro Cerronis, Ceccho et Oddoni nepotibus dicti Petri quicquid ad earn perveniat et aubcessionem Iohannis Cerroni patris sui …’); 10 December 1363 (‘… Oddonem Cerronis et Laurentium Cerronis …’). Sanfilippo, I. Lori (ed.), Il protocollo di Lorenzo Staglia, 1368 (Rome, 1986), 38–9Google Scholar, no. 34 (sale of wool, 7 February 1372); the last document is cited by Jacovacci, Repertori delle famiglie (above, n. 41), fol. 916, although he mistakenly gave the notary's name as ‘Pannutius Joannis Tagliae notarius’ (neiiher these documents nor those in the previous note were known to Boise, Maire Vigeur and Bianchi). The document of 26 April 1377 mentioning Odo (‘… ab uno latere habet Oddo de Cerronibus …’) is cited above, n. 41. Contracts of 1385 and 1387 are cited in Gennaro, ‘Mercanti e bovattieri’ (above, n. 38), 181–2.

50 For an overview, see Tomei, A., ‘Roma senza papi: artisti, botteghe, committenti tra Napoli e la Francia’, in Tomei, A. (ed.), Roma, Napoli, Avignone. Arte di curia, arte di corte 1300–1377 (Turin, 1996), 11–54Google Scholar; Romano, S., Eclissi di Roma. Pittura murale a Roma e nel Lazio da Bonifacio VIII a Martino V (1295–1431) (Rome, 1992)Google Scholar.

51 The figures vary in date, from c. 1200, late thirteenth century, while those occupying the left half of the frieze seem to have been remade in the early fourteenth century; cf. CoorAchenbach, ‘Notes’ (above, n. 36), 252–3 with bibliography at n. 15. It is one of the latter with which Hetherington unwittingly compared the Grenoble Saint Lucy, ‘A Cavallinesque panel painting’ (above, n. 36), 96 arid fig. 2.