Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:56:34.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Church of SS Quirico E Giulitta in Rome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

Spencer Corbett
Get access

Extract

Although the church of SS Quirico e Giulitta near the Forum of Augustus received its present aspect in the first half of the eighteenth century, it is mentioned in the eighth century and the building incorporates ancient elements (which seem to be even earlier than the eighth century) in sufficient quantity to afford a good idea of the main outlines of the original building. It had an unusual plan, but it has received scant attention from students of medieval Roman architecture. The relevant historical data has been collected by A. Rava and L. Montalto in two useful articles but both of these ignore important archaeological evidence; and although the architecture of the church has been mentioned by G. Giovannoni, his interpretation of it (as a late medieval structure in the “gothic” style) seems to be wholly mistaken.

Type
Articles
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , November 1960 , pp. 33 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1960

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.)

References

1 A. Rava, Bullettino delta Cotnmissione Archeologica Communale, 1933, pp. 217–234. Montalto, L., Bollettino del R. Istituto di Archeologia e Storia dell' Arte, VI (1933), pp. 127–152Google Scholar.

2 Giovannoni, G., Atti del II Convegno Nazionale di Storia dell'Architettura, 1937 (Rome, 1939), pp. 229–238Google Scholar.

3 The inscription now embellishes the main doorway of the church. By its style, the door frame is also a fifteenth-century monument, but neither it nor the inscription are in their original places, and they do not necessarily belong together. Indeed, the inscription seems to have been trimmed away a little, to make it fit the frame.

4 R. Lanciani, Bullettino Communale, 1889, p. 30. Id., Ruins and Excavations, p. 307.

5 Marble tablet, which is now built into the wall on the north side of the high altar. In Mellini's time it formed part of the front of the altar (Cod. Vat. Lat. 11905, f. 384 r).

6 G. Francino, Le Cose Maravigliose dell'Alma Citta di Roma (Venice, 1588).

7 P. Ugonio, Historia delle Stationi di Roma (1588), p. 277 (which, by a printer's mistake, follows p. 284).

8 O. Panciroli, Tesori Nascosti (1625), p. 202. Rava, op. cit., p. 221.

9 Nardoni, L., ‘Di Alcuni Sotterranee Confessioni,’ Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto, vol. ii (1881), pp. 165–170Google Scholar.

10 Rava, op. cit., p. 230.

11 A quarter of a century later Mellini noted four cross-arches in his description of the church, c. 1660. (Dell' Antichità di Roma. Cod. Vat. Lat. 11905, 383 v.).

12 F. Torrigio, Le Sacre Grotte Vaticane (1635), p. 302.

13 Rava, op. cit., p. 231.

14 Bacci, A., Nuovo Bollettino di Archeologia Cristiana, xvi (1910), p. 67Google Scholar.

15 Rava, op. cit., pp. 228 and 231.

16 Nardoni, op. cit., p. 169.

17 Ibid., p. 168; Bacci, op. cit., p. 67.

18 Rava, op. cit., p. 231.

19 Some soundings were made in 1930, during which the lower part of the south side-apse (B) came to light (Montalto, op. cit., n. 36 on p. 137).

20 See n. 4.

21 This is the side aps e where, i n 1909, Bacci discovere d trace s of medieva l painting. Montalto (op. cit., p. 138) says it was behind the fourth altar on the right, but Bacci's own descriptio n (n. 14 above ) leaves no doubt that it was really the third niche, that is, the second altar to the right. Bacci been reporte d in 1637. If anythin g survives today, it is burie d beneath a thick layer of plaster.

22 The apse is too restricte d for photography, Giovannoni (op. cit., p. 231) publishes a handpainte d reproduction of the frescoes which still decorate the lower part of the apse wall.

23 Op. cit., p. 229. Rava does not report the source of the document.

24 Nardoni, op. cit., p. 169.

25 It must be so, because the vaults enclosed by the wall are intact. However, the outside face of the wall has been so drastically shaved back, refaced, encroached upon and re-built, in the process of incorporation in the fabric of adjacent houses (now removed), that the original structure is unrecognisable.

26 On the north side of the church the cornice retains interesting traces of what seems to be original painted stucco revetment.

27 The prominence given by Francino to the painting suggests that it was then new, and Cardinal de' Medici was undoubtedly responsible for some of the paintings in the church. This is attested both by Mellini (op. cit., f. 383 v.), and in another description, written about a century later, wherein the anonymous writer recalls seeing the Medici arms in the paintings which decorated the old church before the eighteenth-century remodelling (Nardoni, op. cit., p. 169).

28 Armellini (Le Chiese di Roma, ed. Cecchelli, p. 222) wrote ‘Nell' archivio di S. Marco ho trovato un documento dal quale risulta che nell' entrare in questa chiesa si calavano alquanti scalini.’

29 See n. 11, above. Turoni complained of two low arches, and one of them must have been the arch which supported the west gable wall. The other arches are not identifiable at present, but they may be supposed to be strengthening arches inserted to reinforce the roof. They were noted by Ugonio.

30 It is seen in Maggi's plan of 1625. There were then three doorways in the west front. When the apse was removed a central doorway took its place, as Nardoni's anonymous writer attests (op. cit., p. 169).

31 Turoni (cited by Rava, op. cit., p. 230).

32 It is surprising that the material used in heightening the side wall is the so-called Saracinesca masonry (small blocks of tufa used as though they were bricks) which, in Rome, is commonly associated with the later middle ages; e.g. The Lateran Campanile, S. Nicola a Capo di Bove, the old Lateran Palace. Nevertheless, Francino's woodcut leaves no room for doubt that the wall was built after 1588. Possibly the masons made use of medieval tufelli which lay to hand. Similar masonry occurs near-by in the south wall of the convent of S. Catherine a Magnanapoli, but its date is uncertain.

33 Nothing is known of this document except what is reported in the inscription of 1584 (above, p. 33). The original was preserved for a time, but early in the seventeenth century it was carelessly built into the foundations of some new structure— probably, but not certainly, the exedra for the new high altar, which was built c. 1630 (Mellini, op. cit., f. 384 v.).

34 Krautheimer, R., Corpus Basilicarum Christianarutn Romae, vol. i (Rome 1937), p. 91Google Scholar.