Giovanni Gasbarri
(The “Sapienza” University of Rome, Italy)

 
Bridges between Russia and Italy: Studies in Byzantine Art at the Beginning of 20th Century 1.

There is a general consensus that Byzantine Art History as a modern discipline was born in the last two decades of the 19th century, thanks to the contribution of many specialists from different countries. Following the remarkable historical researches published by personalities like Gustave Schlumberger or Charles Diehl, a new generation of French scholars like Gabriel Millet, Émile Bertaux and Émile Molinier offered a big input for gradually rediscovering the importance of Byzantine culture in the development of European art. Germany’s major contribution in this process was the foundation of Byzantinische Zeitschrift journal, established in 1892 by Karl Krumbacher, and immediately considered as an international guiding light in each field of Byzantine studies. In Great Britain and, eventually, in the US, scholars like Ormond Maddok Dalton and Charles Rufus Morey emerged2. As for the methodology, one of the most remarkable contributions came from the Austrian School of Vienna. In this regard, we can mention the researches of Alois Riegl on the late Roman art, as well as Wickhoff’s studies on the illuminations in the Vienna Genesis, not to mention the revolutionary theories of Josef Strzygowski about the role played by the culture of Eastern Mediterranean over the growth of the medieval forms 3.
Before all these experiences, we cannot deny the fundamental role played by Russian scholars, which are considered the real “founding fathers” of Byzantine art history in Europe. In short, the deepest root of this phenomenon must be searched in a very peculiar historical process, which stimulated collectors and art historians to better identify the contribution of Byzantine and post-Byzantine culture in shaping the Russian national identity4. Far before being appreciated for their beauty and artistic qualities, Byzantine and post-Byzantine works of art began to be collected and enshrined in churches, monasteries, and, from the 17th century, even in private collections. This operations involved especially ancient medieval icons5, often assumed to be miraculous, sometimes related to prodigies or victories in battles. It was only in the 18th century, however, that we can notice the birth of an intentional intervention of rediscovering monuments and objects from medieval Russia, considered like relics of a strictly national past. From the 50’s and the 60’s of the 19th century a rational and scientific approach towards medieval art history eventually replaced the previous operations. Several elements definitely contributed to this development: the foundation of Byzantine and Russian-oriented museums, the publications of journals and periodicals, as well as the contribution of national institutions like the Russian Archaeological Society, or the Archeological State Commission. Fedor Buslaev (born in 1819) who first recognized the fundamental Byzantine substrate under ancient Russian art, gave birth to a new generation of scholars, provided with a strong cosmopolitan education. His pupil, Nikodim Pavlovitch Kondakov, born in 1844, became one of the most important and acclaimed specialists of Byzantine art history in Europe6. Together with the younger Dmitri Ainalov, Pavel Muratov and others, he offered a crucial contribution in detecting the most important characteristics of Byzantine art, and in developing new methodologies for this particular field of studies.
Looking at this context, if we consider the Italian background of Art History at the end of the 19th century, we may notice, instead, a very peculiar situation. While several scholars in Europe were gradually discovering the most important features of Byzantine art, the idea of “Sailing to Byzantium” was not immediately accepted in Italy. This statement could sound strange, even absurd, since several geographical areas in Italy had been fully part of the Byzantine Empire for centuries, and there is no doubt that, apart from Turkey, Greece, and the Eastern Mediterranean, Italy is the European country where the most of Byzantine buildings and decorations are surviving.

We can point out some very general reasons in order to explain this anomaly. First of all, Italy preserved a persistent academic tradition, based on classical and Renaissance’s criteria on art and beauty, which strongly denied any possibility to appreciate Byzantium. According to a rooted historiographical convention, especially claimed by Giorgio Vasari in 16th century, Byzantine art was substantially identified with the so called “maniera greca”, namely a style considered to be decadent, flat and anti-naturalistic 7. In agreement with this view, this manner had been ruling in the Western art as well, but it was “finally” abandoned thanks to Giotto and to his revolutionary naturalism: the assumed origin of Italian art was somewhat identified in a sort of “negation” or “overtaking” of Byzantine art 8. Furthermore, from the Italian viewpoint, the history of Byzantium was often considered as a sort of corruption or degeneration of the Roman Empire’s powers and institutions — which especially in the second half of the 19th century represented the natural point of reference for building an Italian national identity.
Therefore, the conditions for re-discovering the features of Byzantium, seem to lay in a field of studies separated from the Art History, even if strictly close to it: the field of Christian Archeology, which was rising as a modern and independent discipline precisely in the second half of the 19th century. The real difference between “Byzantine art” and, more generically, “Christian antiquities”, was not perfectly clear; in those years, in fact, we can notice how several works of art produced in Constantinople or in the Eastern Mediterranean before Iconoclasm were considered typical topic for archeologists and experts in the so called “cose cristiane”. Talking about the Italian cultural context, it is hardly surprising that the first attempts to study pre-iconoclastic Byzantine art came from Christian archeologists, like Giovanni Battista De Rossi 9 and especially Raffaele Garrucci, with his Storia dell’arte cristiana, published between 1872-1881 10.
In spite of this contribution, however, Byzantium started to be fully considered in the field of Art History in Italy only from the last decade of the 19th century, when a new generation of scholars showed a growing interest in that topic. One of the most relevant boost in this process was the important role played by the cultural context in Rome, which had recently become the capital of a new-born united country, and was still considered as a natural destination of primary importance for anyone who was involved in art history. On the turning of the 20th century, some new campaigns of excavations in the central areas of the city uncovered relevant early-medieval frescoes in a strongly Hellenistic style, like the fragments in the lower level of the Church of San Saba11. Amongst all, the extraordinary frescoes found by Giacomo Boni between 1900 and 1901 in the Church of Santa Maria Antiqua in the Roman Forum were immediately recognized as one of the most important archeological discovery of the time, and an unmistakable evidence of significant influences from Byzantine artists in Rome in the Early Middle Ages12. Thanks to these new evidences, the general interest in Eastern Christian and, by consequence, Byzantine art rapidly rose.
A contribution of primary importance for the rediscovery of the art and culture of Byzantium came from many personalities from abroad living in Italy. The city of Rome hosted several foreign scholars and collectors, as well as embassies and research Institutes sponsored and supported by European governments, like the eminent École Française, then the Deutsches Historisches Institut and the British School at Rome. Even temporary events like the 10th International Congress of Art History, held just in Rome in 1912, represented a really important chance for improving the international cultural exchanges between Italy and the other European countries: many experts had also the opportunity to deliver speeches devoted to the arts and culture of Byzantium13. Talking about the intervention of foreign personalities in Rome and Italy on the turning of the 20th century, we cannot forget the remarkable role played by Russians, whose familiarity with Byzantine art was well known and considered in Italy, even if their language could often be a troublesome obstacle. In fact, Russian was an almost unknown idiom in Italy and — generally speaking — in Western Europe; even for well-trained and competent scholars it was substantially impossible to keep updated by directly reading books or journals from Russia. For this reason, translations and synopses became often necessary. A shining example was Nikodim Kondakov’s book about Byzantine art and iconography, originally published in 1876: the translation in French — the most “international” language in those years — entitled Histoire de l’art byzantin considéré principalement dans les miniatures, provided a crucial contribution in that sense14. A major role in this context was certainly played by Adolfo Venturi, born in 1853, and considered the pioneer of the modern school of art history in Italy15. Mainly remembered for his unfinished Storia dell’arte italiana started in 1901, during his long activity in Rome Venturi created a consistent school of art historians, provided with a strong knowledge of the most updated outcomes of European historiography. As director of the eminent journal Archivio Storico dell’Arte in 1888, later renamed L’Arte, he contacted several top scholars from abroad, whose articles and writings on Byzantine works of art were often translated and published directly in Italian16. Thanks to its many sections devoted to reviews, news and reports from correspondents in Moscow and St. Petersburg, L’Arte offered an excellent opportunity for its readers to be in touch with Russian personalities and their researches, although indirectly. Kondakov’s production, for example, was quite well known: Adolfo Venturi himself reviewed some of his works, recognizing his importance as founder of modern art method for Byzantine studies. A good example is Venturi’s opinion about Kondakov’s catalog on Byzantine enamels preserved in the Alexander de Zwenigorodskoï collection, published in 1892 in a limited edition17. Being conscious of Kondakov’s scientific career, the reviewer correctly granted the author’s absolute supremacy in this particular field of studies, and considered his book as a “brilliant masterpiece” of art history. However, he criticized the decoration of the book’s cover and binding, which was a luxury imitation of an enamel work of art: “It’s a pity — he stated — that the rich ornamentation of this book is so trashy, and that Byzantine art was adopted only to get a theatrical impression!” Contacts between Italian and Russian scholars could become far more direct. In 1904 we are informed about a trip made by Adolfo Venturi in Moscow and St. Petersburg,  where he was welcomed by eminent personalities like Nicolas Romanov and Dmitri Ainalov18.

On the other hand, Rome and, generally speaking, the whole Italy were ideal destinations for several Russian specialists and collectors: Nikodim Kondakov and later Pavel Muratov, for example, spent many weeks in Rome, where they had the opportunity to meet important figures in the field of philology, Christian archaeology and art history, like Giovanni Battista De Rossi, Louis Duchesne or Antonio Muñoz19. Amongst the Russians living in Rome between the 19th and the 20th century, the name of count Grigorij Stroganoff definitely emerged. Established in Italy from the 80’s and immediately known as an eminent and sometimes bizarre personality in the group of “foreign aristocrats”, during his years spent in Rome count Stroganoff gathered a large collection of precious works of art, taking particular care on early Christian and Byzantine pieces, which were jealously preserved like precious relics in his palace20. The quality of his collection, unluckily broken up after his death in 1910, together with Russian personalities he hosted in his home, could certainly constitute a big boost for Italian scholars in improving the knowledge of Byzantine art and culture. Maybe it is not casual that the curator of his collection, the young Antonio Muñoz, born in 1884 and educated in Venturi’s school, became the leading Italian specialist in this field of studies, at least until the second decade of the 20th century21. From his first contributions in 1904, at the age of 20, Muñoz showed a strong aptitude for early Christian and Byzantine art. Unlike most of the Italian scholars of his time, he was able to extend his interests also beyond the Alps, studying for example the funerary sculpture in Siria22 and the mosaics preserved in the Kariye Cami in Istanbul23. His name is also remembered because of his participation to one of the most important cultural events of the time. In 1905, a large exhibition of Byzantine works of art was mounted in the ancient Greek Abbey of Grottaferrata 24, and Antonio Muñoz himself was involved as main editor of the official catalogue, published in French with the aim to be more accessible to the international readers. Later, after the death of Grigorij Stroganoff in 1910, Antonio Muñoz was charged with editing the catalogue of his collection. Muñoz also played a very important role in spreading the outcomes of the Russian research in the field of Byzantine art, revealing a good knowledge of the contributions written by Russian scholars, and sometimes even providing translations and overviews of different works: “Kondakov and his school — he used to state — deserve to be considered as the pioneers in analyzing early Christian and Byzantine monuments. However, their books are written in a language that is not well-known by most of the scholars: unluckily, the outcomes offered by these competent Russians are not producing a significant change of direction in studies”25.
Even if Russian studies remained (and often still remain) badly known by the Italian public, Russian scholars, however, sometimes settled permanently in Italy and pursued very relevant researches in the field of early Christian and Byzantine art. Amongst the less considered protagonists we can definitely mention Wladimir de Grüneisen. He was scholar and collector, and his work and personality are currently one of the main topics of my research. Nowadays, De Grüneisen is usually remembered as the main author of the first scientific monograph ever on the frescoes in Santa Maria Antiqua, published in Rome in 1911 26. He is less often mentioned because of his general treatise published in Florence ten years later, in which he described and analyzed the most important features of the Coptic art in Egypt27. The remaining part of De Grüneisen’s contributions, instead, are much less considered, sometimes almost completely neglected. Nevertheless, they reveal a steady interest in the early Christian and Byzantine art, with particular attention to the stylistic developments in the Christian Egypt and Minor Asia. Looking at his broad and unusual areas of interest, therefore, Wladimir De Grüneisen cannot be considered just a minor figure in the survey of the Byzantine studies in those years. After all, even his life seems to be quite obscure, since so far it was impossible to find any biographical sketch about him in Italy, nor a picture or a portrait, despite the long duration of his stay and the importance of his works there. We are informed about his Russian nationality and his commission as a foreign correspondent in Rome for the Imperial Archeological Institute of Nicolas II, in the first decade of the 20th century. From 1903, he began to publish his works both in Italian and French on some of the most famous national periodicals of the time, like “Rassegna d’Arte”, and also on the official journal of the Ecole Française in Rome, namely the Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire28. De Grüneisen was fully absorbed in the cultural context in Italy, participating to lectures and conferences, and often joining the most relevant debates concerning early Christian and Byzantine art. His bond with Rome, after all, had to be really strict, also from the emotional point of view. In this regard, the preface to his major work, the book on Santa Maria Antiqua, represents a significant example of the welcoming and cosmopolitan atmosphere in Rome on the turn of 20th century: “Je dédie cet ouvrage […] à la Ville Eternelle. […] m’a ouvert ses portes hospitalières, me facilitant l’accès de ses innombrables trésors, me faisant connaitre des amis fidèles, de savants collaborateurs, que je remercie ici, et de tout mon coeur.”
From the mid-twenties all De Grüneisen’s scientific works were written in French and published in Paris, where he began to sign with the title of “Baron”. During the later part of his career, he focused his attention on a broader area of interests, such as the Greek, Roman and Etruscan antiquities, particularly dealing with sculpture. His last writings attest that he sold his library and his rich collection, which already seems missing in 1930 29.
This overview I presented here intends to be just a first attempt to explain how the Byzantine Art History came to light as an independent field of studies in Rome and in Italy; as we have seen, the Russians provided a crucial contribution in this process: however, some important protagonists and studies are still waiting to be investigated in depth. My aim — or I should say my ambition — is to enrich this investigation as much as I can.

1 This contribution is part of a Ph.D. project in Byzantine art history I started in 2009 at the Sapienza University of Rome. My research, performed under the supervision of professor Antonio Iacobini, focuses on historiography: it aims to analyze in depth the process which led the Byzantine Art History to become an independent field of studies in Rome and in Italy on the turn of the 20th century. I would like to thank the organizers for inviting me at the Conference, which was a great opportunity for me to visit St. Petersburg and to be in touch with many international scholars.
2 For a general introduction to the history of Byzantine historiography with regard to the Italian cultural context, see F. Burgarella, Tendenze della storiografia italiana tra Ottocento e Novecento nello studio dell’Italia bizantina, in Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Moyen âge — temps moderns 101 (1989), pp. 13-41; M. Bernabò, Ossessioni bizantine e cultura artistica in Italia, Napoli 2003, pp. 55-78; S. Moretti, Roma bizantina, Roma 2007, pp. 143-155.
3 See G.C. Sciolla, La critica d’arte nel Novecento, Torino 1995, pp. 3-49 (bibliography at pp. 36- 37); A. Rosenhauer, L’école de Vienne. L’autonomie de l’histoire de l’art? in Histoire de l’histoire de l’art, éd. E. Pommier, II, XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, Paris 1997, pp. 417-441; Wiener Schule: Erinnerung und Perspektiven, ed. by M. Theisen [Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 53 (2004)], Wien 2005; E. Lachnit, La Scuola di Vienna all’epoca di Adolfo Venturi, in Adolfo Venturi e la storia dell’arte oggi. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma 25-28 ottobre 2006, a cura di M. D’Onofrio, Modena 2008, pp. 159-163.
4 G. Vzdornov, Istoriia otkrytia i izuchenia russkoi srednevekovoi jivopisi. XIX vek, Moscow 1986; X. Muratova, Adolfo Venturi e la Storia dell’arte in Russia, in Adolfo Venturi e la Storia dell’arte oggi cit., pp. 193-208; Ead., Per la storia dell’arte medievale in Russia: gli inizi; collezionisti, amatori, scrittori, eruditi, editori, primi storici d’arte, in Medioevo: arte e storia, Atti del Convegno di Parma, Parma 18-22 settembre 2007, a cura di A.C. Quintavalle, Milano 2008, pp. 120-130.
5 X. Muratova, La riscoperta delle icone russe e il «revival» bizantino, in Arti e storia del Medioevo, IV, Il Medioevo al passato e al presente, a cura di E. Castelnuovo, G. Sergi, pp. 589-606.
6 W.E. Kleinbauer, Nikodim Pavlovich Kondakov: the first Byzantine art historian in Russia, in Byzantine East, Latin West: art-historical studies in honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. by D. Mouriki, Princeton 1995, pp. 637-643; X. Muratova, s.v. Kondakov, in Dictionnaire critique d’iconographie occidentale, Rennes 2003, pp. 487-489; I. Foletti, “Mon seul regret: être né en Russie”: N.P. Kondakov et ses relations avec l’occident, in La Russie et l’Occident: relations intellectuelles et artistiques au temps des révolutions russes, Actes du colloque, Université de Lausanne 20-21 mars 2009, éd. I. Foletti, Roma 2010, pp. 31-51.
7 G. Bickendorf, “Maniera greca”: Wahrnehmung und Verdrängung der byzantinischen Kunst in der italienischen Kunstliteratur seit Vasari, in Okzident und Orient, Beiträge des deutsch-türkischen Kolloquiums am Fachgebiet Kunstgeschichte der Technischen Universität, Berlin 23/24–06- 2001, hrsg. S. Ögel, G. Wedekind, Istanbul 2002, pp. 113-125; E. Concina, Giorgio Vasari, Francesco Sansovino e la “maniera greca”, in Hadriatica: attorno a Venezia e al medioevo tra arti, storia e storiogafia; scritti in onore di Wladimiro Dorigo, a cura di E. Concina, G. Trovabene, M. Agazzi, Padova 2002, pp. 89-96.
8 Bernabò, Ossessioni bizantine cit., pp. 56-57.
9 N. Parisi, s.v. De Rossi, Giovanni Battista, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 39 (1991), pp. 201-204; A. Baruffa, Giovanni Battista De Rossi: l’archeologo esploratore delle Catacombe, Città del Vaticano 1994; G.B. De Rossi. Père fondateur de l’archéologie chrétienne, in Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae, Split — Porec 25 settembre — 1 ottobre 1994, a cura di N. Cambi, E. Marin, Città del Vaticano — Split 1998, I, pp. 183-406.
10 R. Garrucci, Storia dell’arte cristiana nei primi otto secoli della Chiesa, I-VI, Prato 1872-1881; see also Bernabò, Ossessioni bizantine cit., pp. 59-60.
11 M. Cannizzaro, L’antica chiesa di S. Saba sull’Aventino, in Atti del II congresso internazionale di archeologia cristiana, Roma 1900, Roma 1902, pp. 241-248; G. Wilpert, Le pitture dell’oratorio di S. Silvia, in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 26 (1906), pp. 15-26, especially p. 15, nn. 1-2 (bibliography); C. La Bella, San Saba, Roma 2003, pp. 98-108; G. Bordi, Gli affreschi di San Saba sul Piccolo Aventino. Dove e come erano (La pittura medievale a Roma. Temi opere contesti), Milano 2008, pp. 13-35.
12 For an overview and for the general bibliography about Santa Maria Antiqua, see Santa Maria Antiqua al Foro Romano: cento anni dopo. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Roma, 5-6 maggio 2000, a cura di J. Osborne, J. Rasmus Brandt, G. Morganti, Roma 2005.
13 J. Wilpert, Roma fondatrice dell’arte monumentale paleocristiana medievale, in L’Italia e l’arte straniera: atti del X Congresso Internazionale di Storia dell’Arte in Roma, Roma 1922, pp. 63-73; G. Galassi, Sulla prima apparizione dello stile bizantino nei mosaici ravennati, ibid., pp. 74-79; A.L. Frothingham, Di un nuovo metodo per distinguere le opere bizantine dalle italo-bizantine, ibid., pp. 80-83; A. Bertini Calosso, Origini egizie del tipo iconografico della Dormitio Virginis, ibid., pp. 84-88; G. Pàstina, Rapporti tra l’arte bizantina e l’arte pugliese nel medio evo, pp. 89-91, G. Millet, Sur les rapports entre l’art italien et l’art byzantin dans les Balkans, au XIVe siècle, ibid., pp. 92-95. Because of the Great War, the proceedings of the Congress were published only ten years later.
14 N.P. Kondakov, Istoriia vizantiiskago iskusstva i ikonografii po miniaturam’ grecheskikh rukopisei, Odessa 1876, translated in French as Id., Histoire de l’art byzantin considéré principalement dans les miniatures, éd. K. Travinskii, intr. A. Springer, I-II, Paris-London, 1886-1891.
15 For a general overview about Venturi and his work, see Adolfo Venturi e l’insegnamento della storia dell’arte. Atti del convegno, Roma 14-15 dicembre 1992, a cura di S. Valeri, Roma 1996; G. Agosti, La nascita della storia dell’arte in Italia. Adolfo Venturi: dal museo all’università 1880-1940, Venezia 1996; S. Valeri, Adolfo Venturi: la memoria dell’occhio e il rigore della storia, in L’occhio del critico: storia dell’arte in Italia tra Otto e Novecento, a cura di A. Masi, Firenze 2009, pp. 27-40. For a brief biographical sketch in English, see Venturi, Adolfo, in Dictionary of Art Historians (website), ed. by L. Sorensen, http://www. dictionaryofarthistorians.org/venturia.htm
16 About “Archivio Storico dell’Arte” and “L’Arte”, see Agosti, La nascita della storia dell’arte cit., pp. 75-79, 140-143, 213-216; L’Archivio Storico dell’Arte e le origini della “Kunstwissenschaft” in Italia, a cura di G.C. Sciolla, F. Varallo, Alessandria 1999; G.C. Sciolla, Il ruolo delle riviste di Adolfo Venturi, in Adolfo Venturi e la Storia dell’arte oggi cit., pp. 231-236.
17 N.P. Kondakov, Histoire et Monuments des Emaux Byzantins. Collection Zwenigorodskoï (Istoriia i pamiatniki Vizantiiskoi emali), Frankfurt 1892; Venturi’s review was publiched in Archivio Storico dell’Arte VIII (1895), pp. 136-137.
18 Muratova, Adolfo Venturi cit., pp. 198-199.
19 Ibid., pp. 196-197.
20 There were two main exhibitions about Stroganoff’s family and collection: Stroganoff: the palace and collections of a Russian noble family. Catalogue of the exhibition, New York-Texas 19.2-31.5 and 2.7- 1.10 2000, ed. by P. Hunter-Stiebel, New York 2000; Les Stroganoff: une dynastie de mécènes. Catalogue of the exhibition, Paris 8.3-2.6 2002, éd. B. de Montclos, Paris 2002. About the Byzantine works of art preserved in Stroganoff’s collection, see S. Moretti, Il collezionismo d’arte bizantina tra Otto e Novecento: il caso Stroganoff , in Bisanzio, la Grecia e l’Italia, Atti della giornata di studi sulla civiltà artistica bizantina in onore di Mara Bonfioli, Roma 22 novembre 2002, a cura di A. Iacobini, Roma 2003, p. 89-102; Ead., Gregorio Stroganoff: il collezionismo russo e l’arte bizantina a Roma tra il XIX e il XX secolo, in Il collezionismo in Russia: da Pietro I all’Unione Sovietica, Atti del convegno, Napoli 2-4 febbraio 2006, a cura di L. Tonini, Formia 2009, pp. 115-129; Ead., Sulle tracce delle opere d’arte bizantina e medievale della collezione di Grigorij Sergeevic Stroganoff, in La Russie et l’Occident cit., pp. 97-121.
21 For a general overview about Muñoz and his work, see C. Bellanca, Antonio Muñoz, La politica di tutela dei monumenti di Roma durante il Governatorato, Roma 2003.
22 A. Muñoz, Un affresco cimiteriale scoperto a Tripoli, in L’Arte VI (1903), pp. 96-98.
23 A. Muñoz, I musaici di Kahriè Giami, in Rassegna Italiana, March 1906, reprinted in Id., Studi d’Arte Medioevale, Roma 1909, pp. 95-11.
24 The exhibition was inaugurated on March 15th, 1905. See also A. Muñoz, L’arte bizantina all’esposizione di Grottaferrata, in L’Arte VIII, 5-6 (1905), pp. 161-170, and A. Venturi, Dittico attribuito a Cimabue nell’esposizione di Grottaferrata, ibid., pp. 199-201. A recent study about the exhibition is G. Leardi, Una mostra d’arte bizantina a Grottaferrata, in Studi Romani L, 1-2 (2002), pp. 311-333. See also S. Moretti, Roma bizantina cit., pp. 137, notes 572-573, pp. 152-153, notes 636-637.
25 A. Muñoz, Origini e svolgimento dell’arte cristiana nei primi secoli secondo gli studi recenti, in Rivista storico-critica delle scienze teologiche III (1907), pp. 923-944, and IV (1908), pp. 1-32, reprinted in Id., Studi d’Arte Medioevale cit., pp. 49-91, especially pp. 53-54.
26 W. De Grüneisen, Sainte Marie Antique, avec le concours de Huelsen Giorgis Federici David, Rome 1911.
27 W. De Grüneisen, Les caractéristiques de l’art copte, Firenze 1922.
28 W. De Grüneisen, La piccola icona bizantina del Museo russo Alessandro III a Pietroburgo e le primi tendenze del tragico nell’iconografia della Crocifissione, in Rassegna d’Arte 4 (1904), pp. 138-141; Id. Perspective: esquisse de son évolution des origines jusq’à la Renaissance, in Melanges d’Archeologie et d’Histoire XXXI (1911), pp. 393-434.
29 Collection de Grüneisen : Catalogue raisonné. Art chretien primitif du haut et du bas Moyen Age: les arts somptuaires, Paris 1930; Catalogue de la vente de l’importante bibliothèque d’art et d’archélogie formée par le Baron de Gruneisen, Paris 1930.