Nicklies C.E. The Architecture of The Church

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Fhotographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
University Microfilms International

A Beil & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Order Number 9215860
The architecture o f the church o f SS. P ietro e Paolo d ’Agro,

Sicily
Nicklies, Charles Edwaxd, Ph.D.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1992
Copyright ©1992 by Nicklies, Charles Edward. All rights reserved.
UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE CHURCH
OF SS. PIETRO E PAOLO D'AGRd, SICILY
BY
CHARLES EDWARD NICKLIES
B.Arch., University of Kentucky, 1982

A.M., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1986
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Art History
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1992
Urbana, Illinois
1
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
THE GRADUATE COLLEGE
14 OCTOBER 1991
W E HEREBY RECOMMEND TH AT TH E TH ESIS BY
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CHARLES EDWARD NICKLIES_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
f m t t t t f h THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE CHURCH OF SS. PIETRO
E PAOLO D'AGRO, SICILY
BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FU L FIL LM E N T OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR
TH E DEGREE OF_
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
D ire c to r o f Thesis Research
H ead of D epartm ent
Committee on Final Examination!
Chairperson
Kc s, it
!L
• Required for doctor’s degree but not for m aster’s.
(c) Copyright, 1992
Charles Edward Nicklies
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
The church of SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agro, Sicily, located
some fifty kilometers south of Messina, constitutes one of the
most sophisticated and coherent works of architecture to emerge
from the Norman rule of the island. Constructed as part of a
Basilian monastery, the church is modest in scale with attenuated
proportions, measuring approximately 11 meters in width, 20
meters in length, and 17 meters in height from the floor to the
crest of the major dome. Although the building was clearly
constructed in the twelfth century, a precise date has not been
established.
An analysis of the building's planning, structural
solutions, and decorative features reveals not only the richness
of the design but also a mixed architectural heritage,
attributable to Sicily's heterogeneous population, comprised of
Muslims, Byzantines, and Normans. The exterior volumes at Agrd
assume a rather block-like massing, similar to the Islamic
architecture of North Africa; however, the facades are decorated
with a diversity of materials and patterns, reflecting a wide
variety of influences. Similarly, the interior space exhibits
remarkable diversity. The simplicity of a three-aisled basilican
plan is modified by the interjection of two tall domes along the
building's central axis— one positioned over the central bay of
the nave, the other placed above the sanctuary. This arrangement
of domes corresponds to several Middle Byzantine church plans.
The interior also demonstrates some ambiguity in detailing. The
structural logic of Gothic architecture may be seen in the use of
pointed arches and skeletal ribbing, but this has been mixed with
iii
features that attempt to visually demateriaiize the structure,
such as honeycomb vaulting below the two domes. In the final
analysis, the success of SS. Pietro e Paolo emanates from its
unified synthesis of these diverse features. This unity of
design was unparalleled in Norman-Sicilian architecture.
However, the church is also of extreme importance because of
the survival of several unique features and details. For
instance, the handling of several specific feature of SS. Pietro
e Paolo— and in particular the muqarnas vaulting— may reflect an
indigenous tradition of building that have otherwise vanished.
In this regard, the mugarnas of Agr6 assumes a significance that
reaches beyond Sicily, and into development of the Muslim
architecture of the West.
In many ways, SS. Pietro e Paolo marks the climax of the
architectural achievement in Sicily under the Normans, and the
relationship of the church to Western, Byzantine, and Islamic
constructions of the twelfth century may also augment the study
of each of these areas. Moreover, the eleventh and twelfth
centuries witnessed the expanded contact between the West and the
Orient. The church of SS. Pietro e Paolo epitomizes this
cultural interaction, truly characterizing a medieval,
Mediterranean architecture.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study emanated from a research paper I completed for a
seminar on Early Islamic Architecture instructed by Professor
Robert Ousterhout at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign during the Fall of 1985. Although I had been intrigued
by the Norman monuments of Sicily prior to this seminar, it was
Professor Ousterhout who not only directed my enthusiasm into
scholarly research, but also suggested the church at Agrd as a
potential topic of research. It is no understatement to assert
that this dissertation would not have come into being without
Professor Outerhout's constant encouragement and support.
I am also greatly indebted to two other sources. First, the
Junior Fellowship I was awarded during the 1990-1991 academic
year at Dumbarton Oaks, Institute for Byzantine Studies,
Washington, D.C., enabled to complete this project more
thoroughly and within a much shorter time span could have
otherwise been possible, and I am sincerely grateful for the
opportunity by this great research institute. Second, the
acknowledgements would not be complete without a note of thanks
to my parents— Charles W. and Carol A. Nicklies— who provided me
with continual support, both emotional and financial, throughout
my graduate studies, and in particular during my study abroad in
Sicily and southern Italy.
Although it is impossible to thank all or those who have
aided me during this project, a few individuals deserve special
mention. I would like to the thank the Soprintendenza per i Beni
Cultural! e Ambientali, Sezione per i Beni Paesistici
Architettonica e Urbanistici of Messina, especially Gesualdo
Campo and Emanuela Barbaro-Poletti, 'for their cordiality and for
allowing me access to several documents pertaining to SS. Pietro
e Paolo. The current guardians of the church, Signor and Signora
Finocchio, are to be thanked for their general assistance on the
site. I am indebted to Professor Maryline Parca of the
Department of Classics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, for her help with the Greek inscription of the west
portal, and to Professor Dennis McManus of the Department of
Latin and Greek at The Catholic University of America in
Washington, D.C., for his help the Latin documents pertaining to
the church. Finally, my thanks to Henry Maguire and Anne D.
Hedeman, the readers of my dissertation, for their various
comments, and John Philip Thomas, for allowing me to view the
translations of the typica of the Orthodox monasteries of Sicily
and southern Italy, which will be part of his forthcoming volume
on Byzantine typica.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS........................................ viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................xiii
INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1: DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF SS.PIETRO E PAOLO..........8
Part 1: Diploma of Roger II............................ 8

Part 2: Inscription of West Portal..................... 16
Part 3: Additional Notices in Sicilia Sacra........... 19
Part 4: Sacrae Regiae Visitationes..................... 25
Part 5: Other References............................... 27
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION AND RECONSTRUCTION.................... 33
Part 1: Description. ................................ 33

Part 2: General Construction Techniques................80
Part 3: Structural Analysis............................ 84
Part 4: The Architecture of the
Twelfth-Century Church......................... 87
Part 5: The Monastic Buildings......................... 103
CHAPTER 3: SS. PIETRO E PAOLO AND THE ARCHITECTURE

OF THE MEDIEVAL MEDITERRANEAN..................... 115
Part 1: Brief History of the Architecture

of Medieval Sicily............................. 115
Part 2: Analysis of SS. Pietro e Paolo
d'Agrd..........................................125
CONCLUSION.................................................... 193
ILLUSTRATIONS................................................. 202
APPENDIX 1 .................................................... 297
APPENDIX I I ................................................... 304
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ 306
VITA..................................... ..................... 329
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 1. Map of terriories ceded to SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb

in the Vale d'Agr& as specified in the diploma of
1116 (Lombardo, pp. 32-3).
Fig. 2. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Drawing of inscription of

west portal.
Fig. 3. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Lintel of west portal.
Fig. 4. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Distant view from south.
Fig. 5. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Distant view from

southeast.
Fig. 6. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Plan.
Fig. 7. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Longitudinal section (after

Basile).
Fig. 8. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Transverse section at minor

cupola (Basile, Chiese siciliane, fig. III).
Fig. 9. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Transverse section at major

cupola (Basile, Chiese siciliane. fig. IV).
Fig. 10. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Nave, looking west.
Fig. 11. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Nave arcade, looking south.
Fig. 12. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Nave, viewed from

northwest.
Fig. 13. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Nave, looking east.
Fig. 14. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Nave, looking east into
conch of apse.
Fig. 15. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: West wall of nave.
Fig. 16. S S . Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Bema, viewed from nave.
Fig. 17. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Bema and apse, looking
northeast.
Fig. 18. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Nave, looking up from east.
Fig. 19. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Triumphal arch and muqarnas
vaulting of minor cupola.
Fig. 20. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North clerestory, looking

into major cupola.
viii
Fig. 21. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Major cupola, viewed from
northwest.
Fig. 22. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South portal, detail of

tympanum and circular recess.
Fig. 23. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Patched area in outer wall
of 1st bay of south aisle.
Fig. 24. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Minor cupola, viewed from
south.
Fig. 25. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Central apse, viewed from
north west, looking into tomb of south pastophory.
Fig. 26. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Nave, looking west into
major cupola.
Fig. 27. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Nave, looking up into

northwest coner.
Fig. 28. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Major cupola, general view.
Fig. 29. S S . Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Major cupola, detail of

drum.
Fig. 30. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Major cupola, detail of

dome.
Fig. 31. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Minor cupola, general view.
Fig. 32. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Plan of muqeurnas vaulting

of minor cupola.
Fig. 33. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Grion vault at 2nd bay of
north aisle.
Fig. 34. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Western bay of north aisle,
looking up toward west.
Fig. 35. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North pastophory, looking

up into vaulting from bema.
Fig. 36. SS. Pietre e Paolo d'Agrb: South pastophory, looking

up into vaulting from west.
Fig. 37. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North portal.
Fig. 38. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Recess in outer wall of 2nd
bay of north aisle.
Fig. 39. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Patched area in outer wall
of 3rd bay of south aisle.
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fig. 40. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: A) West facade; B) East
facade.
Fig. 41. SS . Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North facade.
Fig. 42. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South facade.
Fig. 43. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: West facade, lower half.
Fig. 44. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: West facade, upper half.
Fig. 45. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Wall of west gallery.
Fig. 46. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Wall of west gallery,

viewed from north.
Fig. 47. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: West end, looking into
porch from southwest.
Fig. 48. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: West porch, looking up into
vaulting.
Fig. 49. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: West porch, north end wall.
Fig. 50. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: West porch, looking up into
north wall.
Fig. 51. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: West portal, detail of

north jamb.
Fig. 52. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North aisle, viewed from
east.
Fig. 53. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North aisle, viewed from
west.
Fig. 54. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North ailse, area above
north portal.
Fig. 55. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North gallery, looking

west.
Fig. 56. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North gallery, detail of

wall construction.

upper west corner.

cornice.
Fig. 59. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South facade.
Fig. 60. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South facade, detail of

upper west corner.
Fig. 61. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South portal.
Fig. 62. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South portal, detail of

jamb.
Fig. 63. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South gallery, looking

west.
Fig. 64. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South gallery, detail of

cornice.
Fig. 65. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: East end.
Fig. 66. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: East end, detail of upper
level of central apse at southeast.
Fig. 67. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: East end, south apsidiole.
Fig. 68. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Major cupola, viewed from
roof of nave.
Fig. 69. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Minor cupola, viewed from
roof of nave.
Fig. 70. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South facade, detail of

socle.

window.

westernmost crenelation.
Fig. 73. Lojacono's proposed reconstruction for the west end of

SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb ("II restauro," fig. 18).
Fig. 74. My proposed reconstruction for the west of SS. Pietro

e Paolo d'Agrb.
Fig. 75. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: Site plan.
Fig. 76. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South cloister, viewed from
south gallery of church.
Fig. 77. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South cloister, portal of

east wing, viewed from south.
Fig. 78. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South cloister, ruined

section of east wing, viewed from northeast.
Fig. 79. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South cloister, detail of

wooden beams and corbels of east wing.
Fig. 80. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South cloister, arcade of

east wing, viewed from east.
xi
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fig. 81. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrbr: South cloister, stairs
leading to terrace behing south wing, viewed from
east.
Fig. 82. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: South cloister, buildings

of west wing, viewed from east.
Fig. 83. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North annex, viewed from
north gallery of church.
Fig. 84. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North annex, west wall of
south wing, viewed from east.
Fig. 85. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North annex, northwest and
northeast wings, viewed from northwest.
Fig. 86. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrb: North annex, northeast

wing, viewed from northeast.
Fig. 87. S. Maria, Mili S. Pietro: interior view of dome above

bema.
Fig. 88. The Cuba, near Castiglione di Sicilia, interior view

of vault and south wall of naos.
Fig. 89. Large Ribat, Monastir: Porch of south portal.
Fig. 90. S. Salvatore, Rometta: West facade.
Fig. 91. Annunziata dei Catalani, Messina: Detail of windows of

north facade.
Fig. 92. Private Casa, Gerace: Detail of Bifora windows.
Fig. 93. Annunziata dei Catalani, Messina: Detail of south

portal.
Fig. 94. S. Giovanni vecchio, Bivongi (near Stilo): East end,

viewed from southeast.
Fig. 95. Palazzo S. Stefano, Taormina: south portal.
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABSA The Annual of the British School at Athens.

ACIBC Atti del Conqresso Internaz ionale di Basilio di
Cesarea. La sua et£, la sua opera e iJL BasilianesTTnn
in Sicilia (Messina, 3-6 December 1979), 2 vols.
Messina, 1983.
ACISR Atti del Conveqno Intemazionale di Studi Ruqqeriani

(21-25 April 1954), 2 vols. Palermo, 1955.
ACNSA Atti del Conveqno Nazionale di Storia

dell'Architettura.
AJA American Journal of Archaeology.
AS CL Archivio Storico per la Calabria e Lucania.
ASM Archivio Storico Messinese.
ASP Archivio Storico Puqliese.
ASS Archivio Storico Siciliana.
ASSO Archivio Storico per la Sicilia Orientale.
CCARB Corsi di Cultura sull'Arte Ravennate e Bizantina.

POP Dumbarton Oaks Papers.
PsSS Documenti per servire alia Storia di Sicilia.
JBAA Journal of the British Archaeological Association.
JSAH Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.
Mah Melange d'archdoloqie et d'histoire.
ODB The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. by Alexander

Kazhdan et al., 3 vols. New York and Oxford, 1991.
SicGvm Siculorum Gymnasium. Rassaeqna Semestrale della
FacoltA di Lettere e Filosofia dell'University di
Catania.
xiii
INTRODUCTION
The church of SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd, located some
fifteen kilometers northwest of Taormina near the coast of the
Ionian Sea, is to my mind the richest and most complex work of
ecclesiastical architecture to have survived from the Norman
period in Sicily. Although the building cannot match the mosaic
decoration and sumptuous materials found in the better known
churches of the island, the articulation of its interior space
and exterior detailing demonstrate a synthesis of diverse forms
and elements that is unsurpassed.
Such an introductory statement shall probably come as a
surprise to most readers, not only because of relative obscurity
of the church, but also due to its location in eastern Sicily,
whose architectural development during the Norman period has
generally been regarded as mediocre at best. However, the few
scholars who have worked intimately with the church have
acknowledged SS. Pietro e Paolo's importance. For example, as
early as 1925, Stefano Bottari wrote that the architecture of the
church ranked with that of the great Norman cathedrals, and in
1960 Pietro Lojacono went as far as to call the building one of
the most interesting monuments in the world.1 Having studied the
church for the past several years, I wholeheartedly agree with
Lojacono's assessment.
1Stefano Bottari, "Chiese basiliane della Sicilia e della

Calabria," Bollettino Storico Messinese. 1 (1936-8), p. 13;
Pietro Lojacono, "II restauro della chiesa dei SS. Pietro e Paolo
a Casalv^cchio Siculo," Tecnica e ricostruzione, 15 (I960)," p.
169. These two statements have also been recorded by Mario
D'Amico, La chiesa normanna die S S . Apostoli Pietro e. Paolo a.
Casalv6cchio Siculo nell'8° centenario, 1172-1972 (Messina,
1972), p. 71.
But the significance of SS. Pietro e Paolo transcends its
value as a fine work of architecture. It is also a testament to
the intercultural diversity for which Norman Sicily is renowned.
Such diversity is evident in the very founding of the monastery.
Although it operated as part of an Orthodox monastery, it was
rebuilt under the patronage of Roger II, a practicing Roman
Catholic.2 Moreover, the foundation at Agrd, as the majority of
Basilian monasteries in Sicily, was integrated into the Norman
feudal system in a manner more closely resembling Benedictine
than Orthodox monasticism.3 It comes as no surprise then that
the church's architecture reveals elements that have apparently
been influenced both by Byzantine and Latin sources. However,
the most striking aspect of SS. Pietro e Paolo is its debt to the
Muslim building tradition, which is evident in various
architectural features and details, as well as the volumetric
disposition of the monument. Beyond expressing a coherent
intermingling of components and ideas of distinct origins, the
church can be seen as key monument within the development of
Western Medieval, Byzantine, and Islamic styles.
2For the significance and purpose of the Norman's patronage

of Orthodox monasteries, see Lynn T. White, Jr., Latin
Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, Mass, 1938; rpt. 1968),
pp. 43-4; Mario Scaduto, LI monachismo basiliano nella Sicilia
medievale: Rinascita e, decadenza. Sec. X-XIV. (Rome, 1947;
revised ed. 1982), pp. 73-4. Notably, the monastery at Agrd was
the first such foundation of Roger II.
3For the foundation charter of SS. Pietro e Paolo, which

gives an account of feudal rights of monastery, see infra. Ch. 1,
pt. 1. For the Latinized organization of the Orthodox
monasteries of Norman Sicily, see White, p. 52, n. 1 and pp. 69-
70. As for term Basilian, I agree with White, n. 1, p. 27, that
objections to its use seem obsessive, at least within the context
of the Orthodox monasteries that operated in Sicily and Italy
from the Norman period onward.
Despite the richness and complexity of SS. Pietro e Paolo,
the church has received relatively little attention, and most
research has focused upon resolving its date. Although a
critical evaluation of its architecture was attempted by Antonino
Salinas as early as 1885, subsequent essays upon the church in
the early decades of the twentieth century— such as those by
Edwin Freshfield and Antonino Cutrera— avoided the complex issues
raised by the earlier author.4 Critical research was resumed by
Stefano Bottari, who devoted one of his earliest works, "Nota sul
tempio normanno dei SS. Pietro e Paolo di Agrd," to the
relationship between the architecture of the church and its
primary documents— namely, a copy of the foundation charter
issued in 1116 and the Greek inscription carved into the lintel
above the west portal stating that the building was "renewed" in
4For Salinas see "Nota sull'inscrizione greca del monastero

die SS. Pietro e Paolo," Notizie deqli Scavi di Antichitd. (Jan.
1885), pp. 86-90. Although Salinas is primarily concerned with
the Greek inscription of the west portal of the church, he also
considers the phases of construction and dating. By comparing
the content of the inscription with the archaeological evidence,
he concludes that the extant building was entirely constructed in
1171/2, some 50 years after Roger II donated funds for rebuilding
the monastery. The author surmises that either the initial
construction had been delayed or, if an earlier church was built
on the site ca. 1116, it must have been of such inferior
construction as to have warranted a complete rebuilding within
several decades.
For Freshfield see Cellae Trichorae and Other Christian
Antiquities in the Byzantine Provinces of Sicily with Calabria
and North Africa Including Sardinia, vol. 2 (London, 1918), pp.
54-8. Although the entry is brief, it contains invaluable
photographs of the church's interior before various restoration
campaigns were undertaken. For Cutrera see "La chiesa normanna
die Santi Pietro e Paolo di Agrd," I/arte, 30 (1927), pp. 227-36.
Cutrera likewise reproduces indispensable photographic material,
and was the first to publish a plan of the church, although it is
by no means accurate.
1171/2 by the master builder Girardus the Frank.5 Although no
definitive conclusions were reached, Bottari notes that the
tympanum containing the inscription appears to have been added to
the west facade after the building's original construction,
implying that he believes the extant church must have been begun
by the earlier date.6
A decade later, Bottari published his most important study
of the Norman churches of eastern Sicily, "Chiese basiliane della
Sicilia e della Calabria, within which he provides precise
description and thoughtful analysis of SS. Pietro e Paolo."7
Intriguingly, Bottari modifies some of his earlier theories
concerning the church's date. By contending that its
architecture was largely dependent upon Norman influences, he
suggests that SS. Pietro e Paolo was almost entirely rebuilt
during Girardus' renovation of 1171/2, thereby arriving at a
conclusion similar to that proposed by Salinas some fifty years
earlier. Notably, Bottari has remained one of the few scholars
to have attempted explain the architecture of SS. Pietro e Paolo
by considering the training of its builder.8
5ASM, 26-7 (1925-6), pp. 281-90. For a full accounting of

the charter and inscription, see infra, Ch. 1, pts. 1 and 2.
6Ibid, pp. 287-8.
7Bollettino Storico Messinese. 1 (1936-8), pp. 1-51. This

essay was the first to consider the Basilian churches of the
Valdemone as a group, semiautonomous from the developments in the
western part of the island.
8Ibid, pp. 20-24. Although Bottari accounts for what he

believes to be northern features at SS. Pietro e Paolo through
the participation of Girardus, he also insists that this
individual must have worked for some time in eastern Sicily or
Calabria because of the numerous regional manifestations evident
in the building.
In 1938, Francesco Basile significantly advanced the state
of research on the church at Agrd by publishing a complete set of
architectural drawings of the church, accompanied by a brief
description and commentary.9 Several decades later, Basile
expanded his theories on S S . Pietro e Paolo in 1/ architettura
della Sicilia normanna.10 Although he adapts his earlier view
that the church was completely rebuilt by Girardus to accommodate
Lojacono's archaeological findings, he refuses to accept that it
was constructed as early as 1116, noting that the foundation
charter refers to the rebuilding of the monastery and not the
church itself. Therefore, Basile appears to suggest that the
extant church was constructed sometime after the issue of the
charter, but before Girardus' renovation. However, Basile's
essay is more important for its recognition of the Islamic
component in the church's architecture than for its hypothesis of
dating.
Probably the most significant research upon SS. Pietro e
Paolo to date is that of Pietro Lojacono, who conducted a major
restoration of the church between 1957 and 1960. Lojacono's
publication of his initial restoration efforts in "II restauro
della chiesa dei Ss. Pietro e Paolo a Casalvecchio Siculo," has
affected all subsequent research in its confirmation that the
west and south portals— obviously of contemporaneous
construction— were inserted into an already existing, and for the
9See Chiese siciliane del periodo normanno in .1 Monumenti

Italiani, fasc. 15 (Rome, 1938). While the drawings are clear
and accurate (excluding some minor errors), the annotation is
somewhat enigmatic when it diverges from pure description.
10(Catania, Caltanissetta, and Rome, 1975), pp. 25-35.
most part, homogeneous fabric.11 These findings unequivocally
prove that the majority of the extant church was completed before
Girardus' renovation. Although Lojacono attempted a more
complete assessment of the church's place within the architecture
of the medieval Mediterranean in "La chiesa abbaziale dei Santi
Pietro e Paolo a Casalvecchio siculo sul Torrente Agrd
(Messina)," his analysis is largely dependent upon developments
in Sicily and southern Italy, and virtually ignores the debt to
Muslim architecture.12
The Problem with much of the research outlined above—
besides not providing the amount of depth that a church the
caliber of SS. Pietro e Paolo deserves— is that too much effort
has been spent upon attempting to trace the origins of specific
details or generic planning concerns without employing a
comprehensive overview of the various developments in Byzantine,
Islamic, and Romanesque architecture. In response to these
shortcomings, I hope to make two basic contributions to the study
of the church at Agrd in this dissertation. My first goal, to
which Chapters One and Two are devoted, is to provide a thorough
description of the pertinent documentary sources and physical
conditions of the church. The intent of these pages is not only
to collate the factual information of the building, but also to
arrive at some suggestions concerning the original appearance of
the church during the twelfth century. My second goal, which is
reflected in Chapter Three and the Conclusion, is to consider the
^Tecnica e ricostruzione. 15 (1960), pp. 159-69,
12In Hommaqes .& Marcel Renard. vol. 3, ed. J. Bibauw

(Brussels, 1969), pp. 379-96.
place and significance of SS. Pietro e Paolo within the
architecture of the medieval Mediterranean. This analysis
includes a detailed examination of individual planning concerns,
features, and details, as well as the manner in which they
contribute to the gesamtkunstwerk of the building.
It should be made clear, however, that this dissertation was
not conceived to be the definitive study of the building in
question, but instead hopes to stimulate further research on this
and other buildings of the Norman South. Despite my efforts to
be as thorough as possible, there are many questions surrounding
the architecture of the church that remain unanswered.
Especially troublesome is the lack of documentary evidence
pertaining to the numerous renovations the church has undergone
from the beginning of the this century up to the present. Due to
this lacuna, the possibility exists that I have assigned various
phases of repair to the wrong restoration campaigns.
CHAPTER~1
DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF S S . PIETRO E PAOLO
Although numerous documents concerning the monastery of SS.
Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd have come down to us, they are of only
limited value to the study of the architecture of the church.
The reasons for this are twofold. First, the original copies of
almost all of the documents pertaining to the church have been
lost, and they are known only from the various transcriptions
that have come down to us. Although the authenticity of the
documents that shall be discussed below has not been challenged
(at least to my knowledge), there is always the possibility that
errors or omissions could have been introduced by the copiers.
The second point is that the documents are primarily concerned
with territorial or financial matters, and seldom mention the
physical character of the church or monastery. Still,
considering the centuries of political and economic turmoil that
Sicily has faced, we are fortunate to possess any records at all.
Part .1: Diploma of Roger II13
In 1647 Rocco Pirri, the famed historiographer of the court
of King Philip IV of Sicily, published Book IV of Sicilia sacra,
which contained accounts of various charters and records of the
Basilian monasteries of the island.14 Included within this work
13I would like to thank Professor Dennis McManus, Department

of Latin and Greek at The Catholic University of America,
Washington, D.C., for his assistance in translating this
document.
“ Rocco Pirri, Sicilia sacra, 3rd ed. by Antonino Mongitore,

2 vols. (Palermo, 1733). For comments upon the life and work of
Pirri, see White, pp. 4-5.
is a Latin translation of the foundation charter for SS. Pietro e
Paolo d'Agrd, which has been reproduced in its entirety in
Appendix I of this dissertation. In his introduction to the
entry for the church, Pirri states that the original diploma,
which was written in Greek and held in the monastery's archives,
was translated into Latin in 1478 by Constantine Lascaris, a
Constantinopolitan scholar who resided for a time in the
archimandrital monastery of S. Salvatore in Lingua Phari in
Messina. To the best of my knowledge, the original diploma has
long vanished, although G.A. De Ciocchis reported that it was
still contained within the monastic archives in 1742.15
Naturally, some caution must be used when dealing with
transcription reproduced by Pirri, as it is at least three times
removed from its original source. However, the scope and wording
of the diploma reproduced by Pirri appear authentic, and to date
it has been considered an accurate copy of the original.
The diploma opens with a statement by Roger II praising his
father, Count Roger I (1031-1101) for restoring numerous
monasteries that had been ruined during the Saracen occupation of
the island. It then recounts that while on a journey from
Messina to Palermo, Roger paused at "Scala Sancti Alexii" in
order to visit a revered monk by the name of Gerasimus, who was
found in one of the local churches.16 During his audience with
15Giovanni Angelo De Ciocchis, Sacrae Regiae Visitationes per

Siciliam. vol. 2 (Panormi, 1836), pp. 355-6.
16For the interpretation of "Scala Sancta Alexii" as the

district of S. Alessio Siculo, see Vito Amico, Dizionario
topografico della Sicilia, trans. and annotated by G. Di Marzo,
vol. I (Palermo, 1856; rpt. 1975), under "Forza d'Agrd," p. 468;
Carmelo Puglisi, Sant'Alessio Siculo (Catania, 1978), pp. 44-7.
That Roger would have stopped in the district S. Alessio is
Roger, Gerasimus humbly requested the sovereign's assistance in
reestablishing a monastery that had formerly been dedicated to
"The Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul."17 In addition to
funds for rebuilding ("reaedificandi monasterium"), the monk
requested permission to sell off something ("ac facultatem
exigendi")— presumabley the monastery where he was currently
residing.18 The diploma specifies that Gerasimus asked for these
things so that his monks, who had already been assembling, could
have a worthy place to pray, not only to Almighty God, but also
for the perennial memory of the sovereign. Roger was moved by
the monk's sincerity, and readily granted all that he had
requested. After receipt of the donation, Gerasimus set out to
gather laymen, monks, and clerics to populate the abbey.
explained by Puglisi, n. 32, pp. 72-3. It seems that during the

Middle Ages a popular route from Messina to Palermo was the Via
Consulare Valeria, which passed through S. A16ssio, continuing on
through Giardini and Nicosia, then connecting to the north coast
near Bonfornello.
It has traditionally been assumed that this same Gerasimus
was also the founder of the Basilian monasteries of SS. Pietro e
Paolo at It41a and S. Elia in the district of Milazzo. See
Bottari, "Nota sul tempio," pp. 281-90; Scaduto, p. 150.
17In his prologue to the diploma, Pirri points out that Peter
and Paul had long been the special protectors of Roger II's
father. For the general significance of the dedication to these
two saints, see Vera Von Falkenhausen, San Pietro nella
religiosity bizantina (Spoleto, 1988).
18A11 commentaries upon the diploma of which I am aware have

incorrectly read "erigendi" ("to build or erect"), instead of
"exigendi” ("to sell off"), which is the word that appears in
Pirri's text. See Bottari, "Nota," pp. 281-2; Pietro Lojacono,
"La chiesa abaziale," n. 1, p. 381; Mario D'Amico, La chiesa
normanna. pp. 36-7; Giuseppe Lombardo, Sulla ubicazione del
monumneto-monastero dei Santi Apostoli Pietro e. Paolo d'Aqr6
(Messina, 1987), p. 7; Puglisi, n. 33, p. 73. This request to
"sell off" may be significant, because it appears to imply that
at the time of Roger's visit, Gerasimus and his monks were
located at another site— perhaps within the town of S. A16ssio
itself— that they wished to quit in favor of the site on the
Agr6.
10
In addition to those things requested by Gerasimus, Roger II
endowed SS. Pietro e Paolo with vast territorial concessions.
The most extensive tract of land, which was centered around the
site of the monastery, included virtually the entire Valle
d'Agrd.19 The boundaries stipulated in the diploma began at the
mouth of the river Agrd and extended westward to the small town
of Scifi, which, although situated on the opposite bank of the
Agrd, appears to have been included within the limits of the
monastery's jurisdiction. From Scifi, the boundary turned
northward toward Casalvdcchio, then westward and around the
village of S. Carlo, and finally back to the sea along the river
Sdvoca (fig. 1). Within this district the monastery was granted
the privileges of glandage, pasturage, possession of all fields,
cultivated and uncultivated, of all trees, fruit-bearing and
nonfruit-bearing, and rights over all productive mills and
presses. The monastery also reserved fishing and docking
privileges in Messina, as well as every port in Sicily, and eight
barrels of tuna were to be sent annually from port of Oliveri,
located on the north coast near Tyndaris. All goods bought and
sold by the monastery were to be exempt from all duties and
tributes. Moreover, all inhabitants of ,:vicam Agryllae positum
infra praedictum terminum" were required to render twenty-four
days of labor every year during sowing and harvest, and to pay a
tribute in cash and animals to the monastery during Christmas and
19The limits of the district given below have been

interpreted by Lombardo, Sulla ubicazione. pp. 8-12.
11
Easter, and of wine during vintage time.20 Finally, within the
district, the abbot of SS. Pietro e Paolo was granted judicial
power in all cases, ecclesiastical and civil, except those
involving homicide, which were to be tried by the royal Curia.
The monastery was also granted the right to pasture animals
within the territories of Troina and Taormina. In addition,
within the Taormina district, an area extending from the valleys
of Brittuni to Buccolie, and then froiTl valley of Sanida to
the district of Piscarina, as well as an area surrounding the
river Alcdntara, were required to render free glandage and to
annually donate one hundred hogs to the monastery. The town and
territories of Schagi (Gaggi) were to cede to the monastery water
rights and free license to build mills. SS. Pietro e Paolo was
also given as a dependency the monastery of S. Theodoro d'Ambre,
located within the district of Taormina.
The diploma ends by threatening the wrath of the sovereign
should any of the specified concessions not be honored. The date
that the charter was sealed is given as October, 1116 A.D. ("in
mense Occtobri anno 6625. ind. 9.").21
20The "vicam Agryllae” has traditionally been identified as

the town of Forza d'Agrd. See Stefano Bottari, "Nota," n. 1, p.
285; idem, Forza d'Agrd (Messina, 1928), pp. 21-2. However, a
challenge to this identification has been made by Lombardo, Sulla
ubicazione. pp. 12-14, who suggests that the berg of Scifi is a
more likely candidate, primarily because the diploma specifies
that the town in question lies within the designated boundaries
of the monastery's jurisdiction, which Forza d'Agrd does not, and
because Scifi appears to have been established at least by Roman
times and is physically located on the banks of the Agrd directly
opposite the monastery. Although several of Lombardo's other
theories regarding the topographical history of the region are
strained, this suggestion is perhaps worth considering.
21Several authorities have incorrectly interpreted the date

of 6625 as 1117 A.D.; however, because the Byzantine calendar
begins in September, and the date of the charter is specifically
12
Several passages of the diploma merit clarification. First,
the exact year of the encounter between Roger and Gerasimus has
been subject to speculation. Mario Scaduto contends that the
meeting actually occurred well before the issue of the diploma in
1116, because he considers that the wording of the charter to
indicate that the monastery had already been rebuilt.22 As a
result of this interpretation, Scaduto dates Roger's visit to the
very first years of his ascension as sole sovereign of Sicily,
between 1113— the date of his mother's ill-fated marriage to King
Baldwin of Jerusalem— and 1115.23 However, in 1114 and 1115
Roger was occupied with affairs in Calabria, and 1113 seems too
far removed from the date of the diploma.24 It appears more
likely that the meeting occurred in 1116, when Roger is recorded
holding court at both Messina and Palermo.25 If this is the
case, then the monastery could not possibly have been completed
by the issue of the charter in the second month of that same
year. Moreover, I find no evidence in the diploma to indicate
that the any part of the monastery had been finished. In fact,
the passage in the definition of the boundaries within the Valle
said to have been sealed in October, the date corresponds to 1116

A.D.
22Scaduto, p. 149. The opinion that the reconstruction of

the monastery was begun prior to the issue of the diploma is also
considered by various other authors. See Lojacono, "La chiesa
abbaziale," n. 1, p. 381; Bottari, "Chiese basiliane," pp. 17-18.
23Scaduto, p. 149, erroneously gives 1114 as the date when

Roger assumed sole rule of Sicily. For clarification, see David
C. Douglas, The Norman Fate 1100-1154 (Berkeley and Los Angeles,
1976), pp. 33-9.
24See Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la Domination normande

en Italie et en Sicilie. vol. I (Paris, 1907), pp. 363-4.
25Ibid.
13
d'Agrd that refers to the "vicam monachorum" seems to imply that
the monks were currently settled at a temporary residence,
awaiting the completion of the new abbey.26
Another problem emerges in Pirri's introduction to the
diploma, which contends that prior to Gerasimus' efforts, an
earlier foundation had been begun under the patronage of Roger's
father, Count Roger I.27 Although the document opens by praising
Roger I's rebuilding of ruined religious foundations, it makes no
mention of SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd as one of these. On the
contrary, the diploma attributes the re-edification of the
monastery, which had apparently been ruined during the Muslim
occupation, to the efforts of Gerasimus and Roger II. Still, the
condition of the ruined monastery is not given, and it seems
equally possible that Gerasimus' rebuilding campaign could have
26This site of temporary residence has been interpreted as

being within the town of Scifi by Lombardo, Sulla ubicazione. pp.
12-14. Conversely, Bottari, "Nota," pp. 281-2, suggests that the
small band of monks that Gerasimus had gathered before his
encounter with Roger II were already settled at the site of
monastery. Although both theories are possible, the wording in
the diploma is by no means clear enough to draw any definitive
conclusions.
27For the assertion that reconstruction of the monastery had

been begun at the early stages of the Norman conquest of the
island, See Basile, Chiese siciliane. n. 8 and L'architettura. n.
38, p. 112, who states "II diploma di donazione di Ruggero II k
del 1117 [sic] ... e vi si rileva che il cenobio era gi& stato
ricostruito (dopo la distruzione araba)." See also Lojacono, "La
chiesa abbaziale," p. 382 and "II restauro," p. 162, who finds
significance in the phrase "opere imperfecto relicto," which
Pirri uses to describe the state of monastery before Roger's
patronage. However, neither of these authors separates Pirri's
introductory comments from the actual text of the diploma.
Because the wording of the diploma appears to contradict this
interpretation, one wonders if Pirri is confusing the monastery
at Agrd with that of S S . Pietro e Paolo at Itdla, founded by
Roger I in 1092.
14
either incorporated substantial portions of the abandoned
structures or none at all.
Finally, it is important to note that the diploma never
refers to the church, but only to the monastery.28 An
examination of similar types of donation charters from the Norman
period indicates that an effort was usually made to distinguish a
monastery from a church, and we should seriously consider the
implications of the terminology used in our document.29 It seems
quite possible that Roger's generous donation was given to
Gerasimus for rebuilding of the monastic buildings, but not
necessarily to the church itself.
I suggest that the church of the earlier monastery at Agrd
may not have been so badly ruined during its abandonment as has
been generally thought, and may have been suitable for use with
limited repairs.30 Because the churches of monastic complexes
were usually constructed of more permanent materials than the
support buildings, they tended to survive much longer.
Naturally, it is unreasonable to consider the extant church to
predate the Norman period. However, it is feasible that after
having established practical facilities, the monastery could have
begun a grand reconstruction of their church at a later date.
28This was first pointed out by Salinas, "Nota," pp. 88-9.

See also Basile, Chiese siciliane. n. 8 and L farchitettura, n.
38, p. 112.
29Many contemporary documents, both in Greek and Latin, that

clearly differentiate between these terms are readily available.
See various documents reproduced in Carlrichard Briihl, Diplomi ,e
Cancelleria di Ruggero II (Palermo, 1983); C.A. Garufi, I,
documenti inediti dell'eooca normanna in Sicilia, in DsSS, vols.
18 and 19 (Palermo, 1899 and 1902).
30This hypothesis is also raised by Salinas, "Nota," p. 88,

and later by Basile, L'architettura. n. 38, p. 112.
15
That a monastery as well endowed a s ’SS. Pietro e Paolo could
undertake such a project is certainly a viable hypothesis.
Part 2_: Inscription of West Portal
The only primary document testifying to the medieval
construction of SS. Pietro e Paolo is the inscription carved into
the lintel located above the church's west portal (figs. 2-3).
Although the inscription contains many abbreviations, the wording
is not particularly difficult to interpret:
& v e K (a i)v lo 0 (t|) 6 va 6 (q ) ofcx(o£) xfi>(v)

&Y* (®v) 6ot (o g t 6Az3v ) nfetxpob)
K(fiti) IKocOXou) 7c«xp&) 0 e (o )o x ii
ptK x(o t» Ka0(rpyo‘op.(£voi» xoO
xaopopevlxoo tac6 olicfet
gjv &vaX03(j.<ix (C3v) pvriq0etii cr(>x(ofc)
KC6pio)g £ x (e i)
o icpoxopaioxop TipapSoi; o <t>payKO<;.31
In translation, the passage reads:
This church of the Holy Apostles Peter and

Paul was renewed by the superior
Theosterict (us) of Taormina at his own
expense. May the Lord remember him. In
the year 6680 [1171/2 A.D.]. The master
builder was Girard (us) the Frank.32
31This transcription has kindly been provided by Professor

Maryline Parca of the Department of Classics at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
32This translation is in basic agreement with those given by

Salinas, "Nota,” pp. 88 ff., Freshfield, vol. 2, p. 57, and
Cutrera, pp. 233-4. However, some confusion has resulted in the
translation of "K<x0 (ip youH-ffcvou) " meaning "superior," or abbot,
of a monastery. Bottari, "Chiese basiliane," p. 18, and Basile,
L 'architettura. p. 112, n. 38, seem to have confused the word
with "KccXTiXO'tyievo^," which translates into "catecumeno" in
Italian, or "catechumen" in English. Moreover, Lojacono appears
to have changed his stance from reading the word as "abbate" in
"II restauro," p. 160, to contending that it is better translated
as "vescovo," or "bishop," in "La chiesa abbaziale," p. 386. The
change seems unwarranted, as it is clear that the word was
intended to read as "abbot." Professor Parca is again to be
thanked for her suggestions on this matter.
16
To date, all scholarship concerning the church has
considered the inscription to be authentic. Several factors
substantiate this evaluation. For instance, an examination of
the construction of the west portal indicates that the lintel
carrying the inscription is contemporaneous with the installation
of the jambs, archivolts, and tympanum, as its ends are precisely
fitted to follow the curving profiles of the lava imposts.
Second, lintels forming segmental arcs are not uncommon in Norman
architecture of the North.33 Finally, despite peculiarities in
the formation of certain characters, such as the sigma in
(line 3) and the delta in "ripap5oq" (line 4), there is nothing
in the epigraphy to indicate that the inscription was not carved
at the expressed date of 1171/2. In fact, a close parallel of
the formation of the delta mentioned above is found in a Greek
inscription incised into the brick of the inner face of the north
portal of S. Filippo di Fragald. near Frazzand.34
Although most of the words in the inscription are composed
of abbreviations, it is perhaps significant that some phrases are
completely or nearly completely spelled out. These include " 6cje6

olicfei Gjv 6vaAE5p.&T (05V)" ("at his own expense") and "FipapSo^ o
(jipaYKOq" ("Girardus the Frank") . It is understandable that both
the patron and master builder should wish to be remembered for
their roles in the construction campaign; however, the reference
to Girardus is the only known reference of an individual of the
33Infra, Ch. 3, pt. 2.
34The delta to which I am referring is that in "AEENd." For

a drawing of the inscription at S. Filippo, see Pietro Lojacono,
"L'architettura bizantina in Calabria e Sicilia," Atti del V
congresso internazionale di studi bizantini (Rome, 1936), fig. 2,
p. 196.
17
building trade to have come down to"us from the Norman period in
Sicily.
Perhaps due to the rarity of known builders of the Middle
Ages, scholars have tended to over-interpret the significance of
Girardus' name. For instance, both Stefano Bottari and Pietro
Lojacono seem to have assumed, due to the French origin of the
name "Girardus," as well as his surname "the Frank," that our
builder had been trained in the North.35 But it seems fallacious
to attempt to trace the nationality of an individual, especially
in the Norman south, merely upon a name. By the date of the
renovation reported in the inscription, the Normans had been
established in Sicily for over a century, and the majority of the
later generations of the northerners would not likely have ever
visited their ancestral homelands. Moreover, many instances of
wrongly attributing the nationality of an individual through the
misinterpretation of the ethnic origin of a name are to be found
in the historiography of the Norman South.36
The choice of words used in the inscription may provide a
clue to as to the extent of the work undertaken by Girardus. The
verb "ftVEKaivtcQT]" is literally translated as "renewed," or more
lucidly as "renovated" or "restored." Although the term was
35The assumption that Girardus is of Frankish stock is

implied by Bottari, "Chiese basiliane," pp. 23-4, and Pietro
Lojacono, "La chiesa abbaziale,” pp. 384 ff.
36Probably the most well-known misidentification of

nationality is that of Gualterio Offimilio, archbishop of Palermo
(1169-94), whose name had from the 18th century been thought to
have derived from the English "Walter of the Mill." See L.J.A.
Loewenthal, "For the Biography of Walter Ophamil, archbishop of
Palermo," English Historical Review. 87 (1972), pp. 75-82, for
the refuting the English derivation. Intriguingly, Salinas,
"Nota," n. 2, p. 89, has suggested that "^payKO?," the surname of
Girard, could possibly reflect arabic derivation.
18
often used to refer to completely new building projects,
"avoiKo8onn0T|" ("erected")/ or even better, navoiKo5onn0ri eK

Pa0p<BV" ("erected from the foundation") were occasionally
employed to more accurately describe the nature of a project.37
It is perhaps significant that the terminology of the inscription
at Agrd is consistent with the physical evidence of the church,
which suggests the west portal, within which the inscription is
contained, was added to the church after the completion of most
of the fabric.38
If the theories suggested within this and the previous
section of this chapter are correct, then the construction of the
Norman church of SS. Pietro e Paolo may be narrowed within a span
of some fifty-five years. The date given in the inscription of
1171/2, which appears to refer to a renovation of the original
building, would constitute a terminus ante quern, while the date
of the issue charter in 1116 provides a terminus a quo.
Part .3: Additional Notices in Sicilia Sacra
Following his account of the foundation charter of S S .
Pietro e Paolo, Pirri's entry in Sicilia sacra lists the names of
twenty-five abbots who succeeded Gerasimus.39 A brief annotation
describing the significant events that occurred during each
abbacy is also included. Although the listings are by no means
complete, they reflect an admirable attempt on the part of Pirri,
37For the significance of such wording in Byzantine

inscriptions, see ODB, "Patrons and Patronage," vol. 3, p. 1603.
38For further discussion of the physical evidence of the west

portal, see infra. Ch. 2, pt. 1.
39See Appendix I.
19
as well Mongitore, the author of a revised edition of the work in
1733, to collate the complete documentary history of this and the
other basilian monasteries of the island. Unfortunately, the
sources given for the annotations are often not readily available
or no longer exist. For better or worse, the notations in
Sicilia sacra constitute the main source of knowledge for the
history of SS. Pietro e Paolo.
Considering the character of such notices, it is worth
commenting upon the passages that seem significant to the
operation of the monastery. The items listed below have been
numbered in accordance with the scheme presented in Sicilia sacra
for SS. Pietro e Paolo.
Item _4. This entry, describing the events of the abbacy of
Fr. Barnabas, is of interest for its reference to a rebellion
perpetrated by certain residents of "dictus locus de Agrd," which
has usually been interpreted as the village of Forza d'Agrd.40
In 1398, by which time the situation appears to have stabilized,
King Martin I of Sicily (d. 1409) issued a statement that
recognized SS. Pietro e Paolo's jurisdictional rights over the
previously mentioned town. This passage infers that at least up
to the end of the fourteenth century the monastery maintained
considerable political power, although its authority was being
challenged by the local population. This situation at Agrd seems
indicative of the more prominent Basilian monasteries of Sicily,
40See S. Fondale, "I Basiliani in Sicilia al tempo dello

Scisma d'Occidente e sotto il regno ei Martini," in ACIBC, vol. 2
(Messina, 1983), pp. 742-3. This article is also extremely
useful in summarizing the historical setting of the period. For
additional references to SS. Pietro e Paolo in particular, see
pp. 733-4', 748.
20
which were caught up in an emerging 'struggle between church and
state.
Item 1_. The notice states that in 1446, during the abbacy
of Fr. Simoni de Blundo, King Alphonso of Sicily (1416-58) issued
a bull granting "Abbatiam . .., & Terram, & Fortilicum de Agrd" to
our monastery. Despite the awkwardness of the translation, the
phrase appears to state that the territory and town of Forza
d'Agrd, as well as an unnamed monastery located within its
district, were to be placed under the control of SS. Pietro e
Paolo.41 This passage seems, therefore, to indicate that the
monastery's authority over Forza d'Agrd was again in need of
confirmation. It is also perhaps significant that the same date
of 1446 is given by Pirri as the beginning of the usurpation of
the abbacy of the monastery by the "commendatori," or secular
lords, of Sicily, as the reconfirmation of territorial rights may
have been made necessary by this shift in control of the
monastery.42
Also of interest is the reference to the monastery granted
to SS. Pietro e Paolo. Giuseppe Lombardo has attempted to
identify this with a ruined church located on the outskirts of
Forza d'Agrd, locally known as S. Michele.43 This church is
designed as a three-aisled basilica of small size, ca. 12.50
meters long by 7.00 meters wide, and is articulated by three
semicircular apse at its east end. However, no tangible evidence
41The Latin translation of "Forza d'Agrd" is given by Vito

Amico, vol. 1, p. 468, as "Fortia Agrd."
42See Scaduto, p. 150, and infra. Ch. 1, pt. 3.
43Lombardo, Sulla ubicazione. esp. pp. 18-19.
21
exists to suggest either that this church functioned as a
Basilian monastery or that it is the monastery mentioned in
Pirri's text.44
Item 8.. This item is of interest for its reference to
Cardinal Bessarione, the famed founder of the Basilian monastery
of Grottaferrata, as superior of the SS. Pietro e Paolo. It
appears that the cardinal, who was instrumental in establishing a
much needed reform of the Basilian houses of Italy, actually
resided at our monastery from April 23, 1450 until March 20,
1452.45
Item 1 2 . The passage states that in 1463, Fr. Joannes
Gattus Messan, who had previously served as abbot for the
monastery of S S . Pietro e Paolo at It&la, became superior at
Agrd. Although this new abbot was of the Dominican order, such
an appointment was proabably not out of the ordinary, as the
Basilian houses in Italy had been almost entirely Latinized after
the Council of Florence in 1438-9.46
44Ibid. Specifically, the author identifies these ruins as

the church mentioned in this listing of Sicilia sacra because of
a local tradition of an annual procession from S. Michele to SS.
Pietro e Paolo. Lombardo also seems to find some significance in
the tradition that during an unrecorded excavation of the ruins
in 1921 there were found three tombs, with one of which was found
a human skull covered by cloth of golden embroidery, although he
does not explain how this identifies the ruins as a Basilian
monastery.
45For Bessarione's activities in Sicily, see Scaduto, esp.

pp. 335-44, 459-60. The Cardinal, who assumed the abbacy of our
monastery in 1449, was also appointed titular abbot of the
Basilian houses of S. Angelo at Brolo (1444), S. Filippo il
Grande near Messina (1451), and S. Salvatore at Messina (1455).
See ibid. pp. 335-6.
46See Pietro Pompilio Rodotd, Dell' oriqine, proqresso et

stato presente del rito greco in Italia, vol. 1 (Rome, 1758),
esp. pp. 454-7; Scaduto, esp. pp. 321-2, 345.
22
Item 1 3 . Pirri recounts that under the abbacy of Fr.
Aegidium (Gilum Romanum) the original foundation charter of 6625
(1116) was translated from Greek to Latin by Constantine Lascaris
in 1478. Lascaris, a Greek scholar from Constantinople, resided
in the monastery of S. Salvatore at Messina from 1467 until his
death in 1493.47 During this time, the monk translated numerous
Greek documents for the Basilian houses of the island.
Item 2 0 . We are informed that in 1579, after having
acquired title to SS. Pietro e Paolo, Vincentius la Farina gave
400 aureas to help defer certain expenses the monastery had
incurred in Rome for the drafting of bulls. This passage infers
that SS. Pietro e Paolo must have still been quite active in
contemporary Sicilian politics to justify such a large amount for
bureaucratic expenditures.
Closing comments. Following his list of abbots, Pirri
includes several paragraphs pertaining to the amount of influence
and wealth maintained by the SS. Pietro e Paolo during the later
centuries of its operation. He begins with the statement that
the abbot of the Basilian monastery was a suffragan to the
archimandrite (of S. Salvatore at Messina) until 1446, when the
abbacy at Agrd became an appanage of the Commenda.4S The
47For the career of Lascaris, see Scaduto, pp. 344-7.
48For the take over of Basilian monasteries by the

commendatori, see Scaduto, esp. pp. 353-76. Apparently, the
terms specified in the foundation charter of Roger II in 1116
that endowed the monastery with considerable income, territorial
rights, and judicial power had been largely maintained throughout
the successive centuries. As a result, the "commendatori"
appeared to have viewed the appointment as abbot of SS. Pietro e
Paolo as an opportunity to usurp the wealth and privileges of the
monastery. The situation at Agrd was by no means unique to
Sicily; during the fifteenth century the balance of Basilian
houses appear to have appropriated by the secular lords. Ibid,
23
appointment as abbot then entitled the holder to the twenty-third
seat in the Royal Curia of Sicily, as well as the right to name
the chief magistrate of Forza d'Agrd. Despite the political
appropriation of the monastery, in spiritual matters it remained
under the care of the Archimandrite in Messina.
Of particular interest is Pirri's assertion that the temple
of the monastery was consecrated with sacred oil in the 6686
(1178). Apparently, this refers to a dedication ceremony,
perhaps related to the documented renovation undertaken by
Girardus in 1171/2. In addition, the passage describes the
church as containing a number of relics, including those of the
Apostles Peter and Paul, St. Blaise, St. Nicholas of Myra, St.
Lucy, St. Dominic the Confessor, St. Pantaleimon, St. Ursula, St.
Pancras, and St. Barbara.
Pirri also gives some figures regarding the annual revenues
of the monastery. According the censuses conducted by Francesco
Puteo in 1588 and 1614, the abbey took in 500 ounces (of gold)
from its territorial holdings. In relation to these figures, the
author lists the expenditure for the year 1598, which totalled
171.24.14 ounces. The remaining 328.9.6 ounces became the
property of the abbot.
Finally, Pirri ends his account with two brief assertions.
First, he states that six monks still remain active within the
monastery, a number matching that given in 1328 during visit to
SS. Pietro e Paolo recorded by the Archimandrite of Messina.49
pp. 354-5.
49A1 s o see Codex messanensis graecus 105. ed. by Raffaele

Cantarella (Palermo, 1937), pp. 24-8.
24
Second, Pirri maintains that all churches of the town of Forza
d'Agrd, as well as that of S. Theodore in the district of
Taormina, were at the time of his writing subject to the abbey.
Part 4.: Sacrae Recriae Visitationes
Probably the most specific of the pre-modern descriptions of
the monastery and its possessions is found in the notice of SS.
Pietro e Paolo in the Sacrae Reqiae Visitationes recorded in 1742
by Royal Inspector J.A. De Ciocchis, which is reproduced in part
in Appendix II. The account beginnings with a summary of the
diploma granted by Roger II, stating that the original document,
written in Greek, is still held within monastery archives. The
inspector also informs us that the abbot of the institution
functions as a feudal lord, possessing the power to appoint the
local magistrates of Forza d'Agrd, and is also placed over the
control of the monastery of S. Theodore (district of Taormina).
De Ciocchis states that he was graciously received and led
on a tour of the monastery by the prior and honored monks. The
inspector first describes the church, which he states is small,
but contains a main altar, three subsidiary altars, a choir, and
sacristy, and bell towers. He recounts that these areas, as well
as all other parts and contents of the building— which included
the Blessed Sacrament, pixides, tabernacle, sacred oil,
reliquaries, mass books, and confessionals— were thoroughly
inspected. Following this narration, the author provides an
itemized catalogue of relics contained within the temple, which
were housed within two separate gold-covered reliquaries.
The account continues with a brief statement concerning the
nature of the abbacy at Agrd, a post that originally had been
25
filled by a monk who served as leader of the monastery, but had
later become a titular position used to supplement the income of
the Commenda. As a result, the prior was charged with the
operation of the abbey. Besides the church, the monastery was
equipped with a dormitory, containing ten cells for the monks,
and two recently built halls and workshops. The inspector
reports that he also visited the prior's quarters, the archives,
and various farm buildings.
Several passages recounted by De Ciocchis are significant
for our purposes. First, the document states that the church
possessed three subsidiary altars. In an inventory occurring
later in the text, we are told that two of the subsidiary altars
are located in the church's lateral apses.50 The north altar
contained a large painting of the Virgin, wheras tne south altar,
which was newly finished, was decorated with a large painting of
God the Father that was fitted with a gilded frame.
Unfortunately nothing survives of either the altars or the
paintings. However, I suspect that the third subsidiary altar
was positioned in the north aisle, at the second bay from the
west, where the evidence of reworking of the outer wall still
survives.51
Also worthy of comment is the reference in the text to
recently constructed workshops and halls. I believe a likely
candidate for these buildings is the surviving north annex of the
monastery, which to this day is regarded by the caretaker to have
S0The inventory describing the location and appearance of the

altars is recounted by Mario D'Amico, La chiesa normanna, p. 51,
n. 6.
26
functioned as a shop/warehouse. Certainly, the size and location
of the annex would seem appropriate enough for this function.52
Part j>: Other References
Subjugation to S. Salvatore in Messina. In 1133, Roger II
issued a diploma, written in Greek, officially granting S.
Salvatore in Messina archimandrital privileges over all the
Orthodox houses of the Valdemone, as well as several in southern
Calabria.53 The dependent houses were divided into two
categories: 1) those that were directly dependent upon SS.
Salvatore, and 2) those that were semiautonomous from the
archimandrite. The monasteries of this second group, to which
SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd belonged, were bound to respect certain
obligations to the mother house, but were for the most part
allowed to administer their own affairs, including the free
election of abbots, and were allowed to maintain their own
suffragans.54 This loose subjugation to the archimandrital
53V a t . Lat. 8201. fol. 56r and 130, with a Latin translation
on fol. 271. Also see Pirri, pp. 1151 ff. For additional
references and comments, see Scaduto, pp. 185-7.
54The procedure for the election of abbot of the suffragan

monasteries had already been established in the Typikon of Luke
for the Monastery S. Salvatore in Messina, written ca. 1131
(contained within Codex messanensis graecus 115). For Greek and
Latin transcriptions of the passage, see Iosepho Cozza-Luzi, Nova
patrum bibliotheca. vol. 10, pt. 2 (Rome, 1905), pp. 128-30. (My
thanks to John Philip Thomas for allowing me to preview his
English translation of this document.) The passage states that
the new abbot of a suffragan house is to be chosen by the
archimandrite from among three candidates, one or two of which
are to be sent from the abbey in need, the other(s) nominated
from within S. Salvatore itself. Such procedure was apparently
maintained for the monasteries directly dependent upon S.
Salvatore, while those granted semiautonomy were free to elect
abbots within their own community, as long as the elections
followed certain prescribed guidelines.
27
foundation in Messina appears to have more or less continued
throughout the subsequent history of the monastery.
Codex Messanensis Graecus 105. This Greek manuscript, now
housed in the R. Biblioteca Universitaria di Messina, contains
the accounts of visits, between 1328 and 1336, by the
Archimandrite Niphon to the monasteries subjugated to S.
Salvatore in Messina.ss Although this manuscript provides the
earliest and most extensive primary accounts of SS. Pietro e
Paolo, a thorough examination of the texts is superfluous to the
focus of this dissertation, as the entries are only of marginal
interest for the architectural history of the church. Still,
because the accounts of this manuscript were unknown to Pirri,
and only briefly considered in the revisions of Sicilia sacra by
Mongitore, a few comments are warranted.
The monastery at Agrd was visited by Niphon six times: 1)
January 1328, 2) August 1329, 3) November 1330, 4) June 1332, 5)
June 1334, and 6) May 133 6 .56 In the entry for the first visit,
the abbot's name is recorded (in the genitive case) as
"&VTG5VIOU, " but for the subsequent accounts it is registered as
"Ico&vvo'O." A similar consistency in the names of abbots is found
in the entries for the other monasteries, which seems to
indicated that the abbacies of these Basilian houses were quite
ssFor the history and description of the manuscript, see

Codex messanensis graecus 105. ed. by R. Cantarella, pp. IX-XIV.
This edition should also be consulted for the following comments
concerning the accounts of SS. Pietro e Paolo.
S6The accounts of these visits appear in the manuscript on

fols. 10v-12r; 24r-26r; 31v-33r; 108v/r-91r/v; 77v-79v; 105v-
86r/v. Also see Codex messanensis graecus 105, ed. by R.
Cantarella, pp. 24-8; 51-4; 69-71; 106-08; 136-9; 176-7.
28
secure up to the dates of these visits.57 The purpose of the
visits appears to have been two-fold. First, they were to ensure
that the liturgy was performed properly and that the monks and
abbot conducted themselves within the laws of church. Second,
they provided an opportunity to make accurate accounts of the
monasteries income and expenditures. In general, SS. Pietro e
Paolo appears to have been properly maintained and fairly well
off.58
However, the accounts of the manuscript provide little
evidence to suppose that any cultural life existed in the
monasteries. For instance, the monastic libraries witnessed a
serious decline, with many manuscripts being dispersed,
neglected, or forgotten.59 In addition, it has been suggested
that the texts contain several indications that Greek was rapidly
falling out of use in the Basilian monasteries, and that it would
not be long until the language was completely abandoned.60
Arch. Vatic. Collectoriae t. 161. A valuable document for
evaluating the financial state of the Basilian monasteries at the
beginning of the fourteenth century is the Collectoriae t. 161
contained within the Vatican Archives. Folios lOOv to 112 list
the tithes for the various Greek houses of the Archimandrite of
57See Codex messanensis graecus 105, ed. by R. Cantarella,

pp. XIX-XX.
5aThe account of the first visit to the monastery in 1328

includes an itemized list of sources of income on fol. H r . See
ibid. pp. 25-6.
59Ibid, pp. XXII-XXIII.
60Ibid.
29
Messina from the years 1308-10.61 within the document, SS.
✓
Pietro e Paolo is listed three times: 1) on folio 103, the first
tithe for the monastery is given as "unzi II tari VII 1/2;" 2)
on folio 105v, the second tithe is "unzi II tari VII 1/2;" 3) on
folio lllv, a remittance to be paid to a certain Dorn. Bernardus
is "unzi VII tari IX."62 Although it is impossible to fully
consider here the economic implications of the figures in the
roll, it is worth noting that the amounts listed for SS. Pietro e
Paolo are among the largest, implying that the monastery must
have maintained a position as one of the leading Basilian houses
of the island.
Anonymous Census of 1563. This document, which is recounted
in several secondary sources, provides a list of manuscripts
owned by the monastery at Agrd.63 The abbey is reported to have
held twenty-one texts, which included the ecclesiastical writings
of John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Dionysios the
Areopagite, John of Damascus, Anastasius of Sinai, and Theodore
61The list has been reproduced in Pietro Sella, ed., Rationes

decimarum Italiae nei secoli XIII e, XIV. Sicilia, in Studi _e
Testi, 112 (Vatican City, 1944); also reproduced in an
abbreviated form in Scaduto, pp. 309-20.
62For this last listing, the name of the monastery in

erroneously given as "Monasterium S. Petri Aco." It is also
worth noting that on folio 105v, under the heading "In Flomaria
S. Petri de Agro seu in Scala S. Alexii" there is listed
"Presbiter Iacobus et Ademadeus greci capellani ecclesie S.
Nicolai," which is responsible for a "second tithe" of "unc. II."
A similar notice for the monastery's "first tithe" is found on
folio 102, although it is listed under the simpler heading of "In
Scala S. Alexii".
63See Scaduto, p. 410; G. Mercati, Per la Storia dei

Manoscritti crreci di Genova, di varie badie basiliane d' Italia e.
di Patmo, in Studi e Testi. 68 (Vatican City, 1935), pp. 61-3,
247—52, 263-9; Robert Devreesse, Les manuscits qrecs de 1'Italie
m6ridionale, in Studi e Testi. 183 (Vatican City, 1955), pp. 15,
17ff, 39 (n. 9).
30
of Studios; the ascetical writings of Maximus, Isaac, Theodore
Studios; and an Evangelary and an Acts of the Apostles. Sometime
between 1563 and 1575 the Spanish appropriated these manuscripts
for the library of the Escorial near Madrid.
Messina Inscription. The final piece of evidence attesting
to our monastery is an inscription recording the transfer of the
Basilian monks from Agrd to Messina at the end of the eighteenth
century. The inscription, which is now located on the right wall
of the entry vestibule of number 85 (block 297A) of Via I
Settembre in Messina, is carved into a marble slab (ca. 1.25 x
3.00 m.), and reads:
D.O.M.
BASLIENSE COENOBIUM
SS. APOSTOLIS PETRO ET PAOLO SACRUM
A ROGERIO R. PROPE AGRILLAM RESTITUTUM
ET ADNITENTE B. GERASIMG ABB. DITATUM
FERDINANDUS IV SIC. ET HIER. REX
EX INSALUBRI ET DEHISCENTE SOLO
IN URBEM TRANSTULIT AN. MDCCXIV.
Although the inscription had been largely ignored, a recent work
by Marcello Danzd has attempted to decipher the history and
significance of the artifact.64 Danzd contends that the
inscription was probably carved shortly after the date of the
relocation of the community, given as 1794.65 As the inscription
indicates, it appears that the move to the city was made
necessary by the infertility and erosion of the soil in the Valle
M "Una poco nota iscrizione basiliana di Messina," in ACIBC,

vol. 2 (Messina, 1983), pp. 877-84. Also see Mario D'Amico, pp.
55-6 and fig. 7.
6SDanzd, pp. 878-9. The author suggests the move from Agrd
was probably not completed until 1797. See ibid, p. 880. It is
also suggested that by the end of the 16th century, that an
alternate residence for the monks of Agrd was established in the
nearby town of Casalvecchio. See Bottari, "Nota," p. 289; Mario
D'Amico, p. 52.
31
Unfortunately, the inscription is the only remnant of the new
residence of the community, although the order survived until
1866, when all Basilian monasteries of Italy, except that at
Grottaferrata, were suppressed by legislation.66
66During the earthquake of 1908, the original building to

which the inscription belonged appears to been nearly totally
destroyed.
32
CHAPTER'2
DESCRIPTION AND RECONSTRUCTION
Part 1.: Description
The Site;
The church of SS. Pietro e Paolo is situated upon a small
promontory at the foot of Monte S. Elia (figs. 4-5), which
overlooks the Agrd, a winter torrent from which the surrounding
valley derives its name. Although not more than four kilometers
from the Mediterranean coast, the church is effectively hidden
from view from the sea. Most probably this concealment was
intentional, to offer a degree of protection from raiders. At
present the church is quite secluded, and it is somewhat
difficult to find. The most direct route to the church is from
the coastal town of S. Aldssio Siculo to the hamlet of Scifi,
positioned above the south bank of the torrent, opposite the
church. The only bridges that traverse the Agrd are located at
its mouth, linking S. Aldssio to the neighboring town of S.
Teresa di Riva. However, because the river bed is usually dry
even in the winter months, it can be crossed with care at Scifi
by foot or by car.67 One may also approach SS. Pietro e Paolo by
a paved road from S. Teresa, by way of S&voca and Casalvdcchio
67It seems that the ruins of a bridge that once traversed the
Agrd approximately a half kilometer inland from SS. Pietro e
Paolo, were exposed early in this century during the construction
of an aqueduct system; see Lombardo, Sulla ubicazione (Messina,
1987), pp. 34-8. Basing his arguments upon the engineering
capabilities of ancient and medieval cultures, and various
descriptions of the ancient road networks of Sicily, Lombardo
suggests that the bridge must have dated to the greco-roman
period, but makes no hypothesis as to how long the bridge
continued to be used. However, given the lack of physical
evidence, it is impossible to verify this suggestion without
excavation.
33
Siculo, two villages situated in the hills north of the church.
Although this route is less direct, it is exceptionally scenic,
and perhaps indicative of the medieval topography of the area,
with small fortified towns set above the rural landscape.68
Surrounded by the orange and lemon groves of a privately
owned farm, the church is today under the protection of the
Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali of Messina.
However, due to the remoteness of the site, a local farmer and
his wife, Signor and Signora Finocchio, serve as guardians. A
few meager, private dwellings are scattered along the winding
road up to the church, whereas the summit of the hillock is
covered with the remains of monastic buildings, which date to
various periods and have undergone innumerable renovations. The
Finocchio family has restored the southeastern corner of the
cloister to serve as their home, and several other of the
monastic buildings serve as storage sheds.
Before preceding with this chapter, I would like to briefly
explain its organization. The remainder of Part 1 shall be
devoted to the description of church's plan, interior, and
exterior. Although the methods of construction for some of the
more specific features of the building are included within this
part, a separate discussion of the general construction
techniques (Part 2) and the structural features (Part 3) will
follow. In Part 4, the descriptions and analyses of the
preceding sections are employed to reconstruct the appearance of
6sFor an overview of the history of the towns and topography

of the area, see Lombardo, Sulla ubicazione; Carmelo Duro, La
Valle d'Acrrd (Verona, 1987); Mario d'Amico, pp. 13-20; Carmelo
Puglisi, Sant'A16ssio Siculo (Catania, 1978).
34
the church in twelfth century. Finally, Part 5 is reserved for a
brief discussion of the extant monastic buildings on the site.
The Plan:
At first glance, the ground plan of SS. Pietro e Paolo (fig.
6) appears composed of simple, yet well integrated forms. It is
developed as a three-aisled basilica, featuring a proportionally
wide nave bounded by two side aisles. To this core are added the
east end, divided into three bays forming the sanctuary, and the
west end, composed of a porch flanked by twin stair towers. Not
only are the elements of the plan contained within the
rectangular shell of the building, but clear internal
relationships are also established between the building core, the
east end, and the west end. Such continuity of plan is
exceptional for the Basilian churches of Sicily.
The plan of SS. Pietro e Paolo reveals some basic
proportional relationships. For instance, the overall exterior
dimensions— ca. 11.19 meters to the west, 10.63 meters to the
east, 20.61 and 20.56 meters respectively to the north and south-
-approximate a double square.69 In addition, the width of the
nave (4.20 m. average) is slightly more than twice the width of
the side aisles (1.95 m. average).70 A two-to-one ratio is also
69For all measurements not listed in the text or notes, one

may refer to my drawings, figs. 6-7, or those executed by Basile
in Chiese siciliane. tav. I-VII (my figs. 8-9 reproduce tav. III-
IV). Where discrepancies exist, I suggest that my measurements
should take precedence.
70Below is a chart of the lengths and widths of the bays of

the nave and side aisles. All dimensions are in meters, and the
bays are numbered, as on the drawings, from west to east. For
convenience, the dimensions of the bays of the sanctuary (bay 4)
have also been included.
35
found within the individual bays of'the side aisles (3.70 x 1.95
m. average). However, certain elements of the plan appear to
have been developed without regard to proportioning. Perhaps
most noticeable are the unequal dimensions of the nave bays,
where the average widths (4.20 m.) exceed the average lengths
(3.55 m . ) . Such individualizing characteristics make it seem
doubtful that the master mason responsible for the layout of the
plan was acquainted with the technique of quadratura.
In its present state, the church contains three portals.
The main entrance (2.09 m. wide) is positioned within the west
wall of the nave along the church's major longitudinal axis. In
addition, two subsidiary means of entry are located in the side
aisles. A narrow portal, 1.28 meters wide and articulated with
splayed jambs, is set within the exterior wall of the north
aisle, slightly off center of the third bay from the west. At
the south aisle, a larger portal, 1.86 meters wide, is positioned
at the approximate center of the wall of the second bay from the
west.71
BAY NORTH AISLE NAVE SOUTH AISLE

1 x w 1 x w 1 x w
1. 3.69*x 1.96 3.63 x 4.30 3.73*x 1.96

2. 3.63*x 1.92 3.50 x 4.22 3.69*x 1.96
3. 3.71*x 1.88 3.53 x 4.09 3.73*x 1.95
Av. 3.68*x 1.95 3.55 x 4.20 3.72*x 1.96
4. 2.35*x 1.85 2.37 x 3.87 2.43*x 1.80.
In this chart, indicates dimensions based upon those

reproduced by Basile in Chiese siciliane. The lengths of the
bays have been calculated from the outer faces of the transverse
ribs at the aisles and from the transverse arches at the nave.
71Although the south portal was boarded with wood planking

during my visits to the church in September, 1989, the
Soprintendenza of Messina was in the process of commissioning a
set of doors for the entrance.
36
The east end of SS. Pietro e Paolo incorporates a tripartite
sanctuary, which contained the bema and pastophoria. The
dimensions of the bema are 3.87 meters wide by 2.37 meters long;
the pastophoria average 1.83 meters wide by 2.39 meters long.
The sanctuary bays read as extensions of the nave and aisles
because their widths are analogous, and because they are
contained within the exterior shell of the building. However,
the bema and pastophoria are significantly shorter than the bays
of the nave and aisle, and are defined somewhat differently. To
the west, two thick, T-shaped piers set the sanctuary apart from
the preceding bays. The apse of bema is rather complex in
design, as it forms a stilted semicircle on the interior but is
squared at the exterior. In addition, two pentagonal niches fill
out the corners that flank the central window of the apse. The
apses of the pastophoria are more simply detailed, as the
curvature of the interior is expressed on the exterior.
The west end is made up of a shallow entry porch (1.82 m.
long x 5.08 m. wide) and two squared stair towers (average 2.53
m. long x 2.95 m. wide),12 Notably, the widths of the porch and
towers correspond, respectively, to the widths of the nave and
aisles. The porch is enclosed on all sides but the west, which
is open to the exterior by a large entrance (3.73 m. wide). The
stair towers are contained within exterior shell of the building
and symmetrically frame the western porcn. These towers are
72The length of the entry porch has been taken from the
exterior face of the west wall of the nave to the exterior face
of the outer wall containing the open portal. All dimensions of
the stair towers are taken from the outer faces of the walls.
37
accessible only on the interior through the small openings
located within the western wall of the side aisles.
The Interior;
The interior arrangement of SS. Pietro e Paolo consists
primarily of the rectangular volumes that define the nave,
sanctuary, and aisles. Although the composition is dominated by
the tall, narrow nave, the church also demonstrates a consistency
of detailing that contributes to the homogeneous reading of the
interior. This homogeneity is clearly evident in the
longitudinal section through the nave and bema (fig. 7). For
instance, the lateral arcades, the aisle and clerestory windows,
and the transverse arches are each set at systematized elevation
heights. The side aisles reveal a similar spatial continuity, as
the western bays of the pastophoria continue the system of groin
vaults used in the aisles, and the conches of the apsidioles
complement the heights of the thin transverse ribs that separate
the bays. However, the pronounced cohesion of the interior is
also imbued with a marked complexity, achieved primarily through
the imposition of a dome at the center of the otherwise
longitudinal basilica.
Proportions. Some general proportional relationships are
visible in the sections through the church. Perhaps most
striking is the fact that the measurement of the crown of the
dome from the finished floor (ca. 17.22 m.) is nearly exactly the
same as the building's overall interior length, from the western
wall of the nave to the end of the central apse (ca. 17.37 m . ).
Equally significant is the similarity of the height and length of
the nave. Measured from the finished floor to the underside of
38
the roofing, the nave is at present‘ca. 12.32 meters high; from
the inner face of the west wall to the western faces of the
pilasters strips connected to the T-shaped piers it is ca. 11.89
meters long.73
Additional relationships also appear within the longitudinal
section. For instance, if two diagonals are drawn inward at
fortyfive-degree angles from the floor of the nave at its western
and eastern extremities, these lines intersect at the crown of
the arch of the central bay of the nave arcade, and meet the
upper walls at a height approximate to the tops of the small
pendentives (ca. 11.68 meters above finished floor), which mark
the final level of transitional vaulting.74 It should be noted
that the present flat ceilings that cover the first and third
bays of the nave are relatively modern, and they are not
necessarily located at their original elevation height.75
Indeed, in terms of proportional relationships, it would make
more sense if the soffits of these ceilings were placed at the
same height as the summit of the transitional vaulting, not only
because it would form the longitudinal section of the nave into a
perfect square, but also because it would divide the lateral nave
elevations into two nearly equal halves at the crowns of the
arches of the nave arcades (ca. 5.89 m.), with the clerestory
windows centered within the upper level. Moreover, with the
73The average height for the nave ceiling is taken from

Basile, Chiese siciliane.
74The elevation height for the small pendentives is taken

from the drawings published by Basile, Chiese siciliane.
75See infra. Ch. 2, pt. 4, for discussion of the form of the

original ceiling.
39
ceilings at this height, the elevations could also be divided
three equal levels: 1) from finished floor to the tops of the
column imposts (ca. 3.91 m. ), 2) from the column imposts to the
bottoms of the imposts supporting the transverse nave arches (ca.
3.89 m.), and 3) from these inposts to the theoretical ceiling
height (ca. 3.88 m . ).
Although the transverse sections through the church at the
two domes (figs. 8-9) exhibit a marked attenuation of form,
certain relationships appear to have been established between
nave arcades and transverse arches. If two diagonal lines are
drawn at floor level from the outer aisle walls to the crowns of
the transverse arches, these lines run tangent to the inner faces
of the crowns of arches of the nave arcades.
Mural decoration. There is no evidence of fresco or mosaic
decoration in the interior of SS. Pietro e Paolo. Between 1957
and 1960, a restoration campaign supervised by Pietro Lojacono
and the Soprintendenza ai Monumenti della Sicilia Orientale
(Catania) removed the existing plaster that had covered most of
the church's interior surfaces.76 However, photographs taken
before the restoration reveal that the plaster layer was thin and
unadorned.77 Lojacono considers at least part of the plastering
to have been added to the church quite late, because it covered
76Lojacono, ”11 restauro," pp. 168-9.
77For photographs of the interior before the major

restoration of 1957-60, see ibid, figs. 9 and 11; Freshfield,
vol. 2, fig. 18 (opposite p. 56); Cutrera, fig. 8, p. 235; Di
Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia normanna, 1st ed. (Palermo,
1955), fig. 47, tav. 29; Camillo Filangeri, ed., Monasteri
basiliani di Sicilia (Messina, 1979), fig. 12 E 8, p. 94.
Unfortunately, detailed accounts of the interior of SS. Pietro a
Paolo are scarce before the latter half of this century, and it
is impossible to accurately date the application of the plaster.
40
several wall cuttings that have been attributed to the Baroque
era.78 After stripping the old plaster from the interior,
Lojacono added a thin coat of whitewash over the flat surfaces of
the interior wall of the church, excluding the pilaster strips,
"per dare rislato alle strutture architettoniche degne di
rilievo, e nascondere i pannelli murari corrosi ed intaccati
dalle successive trasformazioni.1,79 The walls remained covered
until the late 1980s, when the Lojancono's whitewash was itself
removed.
Paving. At present, the floor of the church is almost
entirely paved with hexagonal ceramic tiles, ca. 0.20 meters wide
by 0.30 meters long in their maximum dimension.80 The only
deviation of this pattern occurs at an area roughly corresponding
to the western-most bays of the nave and aisles, where square
tiles, ca. 0.25 by 0.25 meters, have been installed.
Nave. The dominant element of the church's interior is the
nave, which is approximately 11.89 meters long by 4.20 meters
wide by 12.23 meters high. Its walls are constructed of brick
and stone, laid in somewhat regularly alternating bands. Lateral
arcades (figs. 10-12), each containing three openings, provide
access into the side aisles as well as establish the modulated
rhythm of the nave. The openings are quite large, with the
crowns of the arches (5.89 m. average above finished floor)
78Lojacono, "II restauro," p. 169.
79For photographs of the interior with the modern intonaco,

see Giovanella Cassata, Gabriella Costantino, and Rodo Santoro,
Sicile Roman. Zodiaque series no. 65, (La-Pierre-qui-Vire, 1986),
pp. 111-13.
80See infra. Ch. 2, pt. 4.
41
measuring approximately one-and-a-half times the heights of their
springings (3.91 m. average).81 In turn, the springing heights
are nearly equal to the clear spans of the individual arches
(3.63 m. average). The arches are of the two-centered pointed
variety, and are outlined by a single course of vertical brick
voussoirs.
The four columns upon which the nave arcades rest
significantly enhance the spatial character of the church. They
provide relatively slender point supports (3.91 m. average from
floor to top of imposts) and are articulated with sculpted
features that relieve the visual massiveness of the wall and pier
construction. Moreover, the dimensions of the columns lend a
human scale to the building, and they provide a major decorative
focus for the church. Unfortunately, they have suffered a
substantial deterioration as a result of the mediocre quality of
the stone. Particularly noticeable is the modification at the
northeastern column, where the outer surface layer of the shaft
appears to have been cut away from its base to an approximate
height of 1.91 meters (figs. 12-13).
81 See infra, for the spans of the arches of the nave

arcade. The chart below gives the heights, in meters, of the
springing and apexes of the arches, measured from above the
finished floor of the nave.
BAY NORTH SOUTH

springing apex springing apex
w /e w /e
1. 3.89/3.88 5.87 3.94/3.89 5.92

2. 3.88/3.92 5.85 3.89/3.93 5.90
3. 3.92/3.94 5.89 3.93/3.93 5.92
Av. 3.90 5.87 3.92 5.91
4. 3.98/4.00 6.04 not taken 6.02.
As in the previous charts, the dimensions of the sanctuary bay

(bay 4) has also been included.
42
The column bases (average 0.39" m. high) and capitals
(average 0.60 m. high) are both constructed of local sandstone.
The profiles of the column bases, which are most easily read at
the northeastern column (fig. 12), exhibit a design related to
the standard Corinthian column base as described by Vitruvius.82
Similarly, the column capitals at Agrd are composed of foliate
patterns loosely based upon the Corinthian order. The design is
most readily visible in the northeastern and southwestern columns
(figs. 11, 14).83 Considering their closeness in style to the
Norman comparisons, as well as their uniformity of design, it
seems likely that the bases and capitals of the columns at Agrd
were carved explicitly for the construction of the church in the
twelfth century.84
The column shafts (average 2.64 m. high, with 0.55 m. lower
diameter) are of gray granite and taper slightly in entasis.
Although the shaft of the northeastern column appears to be
monolithic, the others contain sutures, indicating that they are
composed of two segments.85
82Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. Morris

Morgan (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1914), III.5 (pp. 90-91).
“ Although all four capitals are similarly detailed, that of

the northwest column seems perhaps slightly divergent of the
other three. It appears that the bottom range of acanthus leaves
is positioned lower than in the other capitals, thereby
attenuating the proportions of the upper tendrils. However, the
capital is badly weathered, and the discrepancy may merely be the
result of deterioration.
84See infra. Ch, 3, pt. 2.
“ The position of the suture lines in the shafts, measured

from finished floor, are: 1.62 meters at the northwest, 2.47
meters at the southwest, and 2.60 meters at the southeast.
43
Above the capitals, each of the columns is terminated by an
impost block, carved of black lava. These imposts are of
substantial size (average 0.24 m. high x 0.28 m. wide) and cubic
in design. The lower portions are articulated by fillets,
whereas the upper halves are defined by squared abaci.
All elements the columns seem to have been at one time
covered with plaster. At present, the shafts are almost entirely
coated with this material, and traces are also evident in the
bases, capitals, and imposts. The plaster coating was probably
an attempt to disguise the diversity, as well as the mediocrity,
of the materials.
In contrast to the use of columns, the western extremities
of the nave arcades rest upon flat pilaster strips engaged to
inner face of the western wall (fig. 15). These pilasters are
constructed of sandstone blocks, and include bases and capitals,
also carved of sandstone. The eastern extremities of the nave
arcades are also supported upon pilaster strips, which are
engaged to the piers separating the nave and sanctuary. In
contrast to the capitals of the western pilasters, these are
composed of brick and are capped by a simple row of brick corbels
at the springing of the arch.86
In addition to the pilasters of the nave arcades, the
eastern piers (figs. 13, 16-17) are articulated by two additional
pilaster strips at their east and inner faces, providing support
for the lateral arches of the bema and the triumphal arch. These
86The pilasters of the arches flanking the bema are

articulated with a single course of brick corbels, whereas the
pilaster strips of the western faces of the T-shaped piers
incorporate corbels composed of double brick courses.
44
piers are completely constructed of 'brick, which, from floor
level up to a height equivalent to the springing of the arches of
the lateral arcades, are significantly thicker (ca. 0.10 m.) than
those employed in the rest of the church. Although the piers are
regularly shaped, a peculiar detail occurs at the corners between
the pilasters carrying the triumphal arch and those supporting
the nave arches. At about 2.40 meters above the floor of the
nave, small ledges are formed by a reduction in the thickness of
the pilaster strips. Although the purpose of these ledges is
unclear, they may possibly have been used to support hung
scaffolding for the construction of the triumphal arch.sl
Regardless, it should also be noted that the inner faces of the
piers have been perforated by two sets of indentations ca. 1.95
and ca. 2.74 meters above the nave floor. These indentations,
which are crudely cut into the piers, appear to have supported
transverse beams, perhaps as part of an iconostasis.
The upper portions of the lateral walls of the nave are
articulated by flat pilaster strips (figs. 14, 18-19) that rise
directly from the column imposts. These pilasters (average 0.63
m. wide x 0.15 m. deep) extend to an average elevation height ca.
7.80 meters above the floor of the nave, where they are capped by
set of sandstone imposts, ca. 0.25 meters tall.88 Transverse
arches of the four-centered variety spring from these imposts to
span the width of the nave, and reach a summit of 10.20 meters
87My thanks to Robert Ousterhout for this suggestion.
88The average elevation height of the pilaster strips and the

height of the imposts were derived from the longitudinal section
produced by Basile in Chiese siciliane. It is worth noting that
the iirqposts are of the same design and material as those that top
the low pilaster strips of the western wall of the nave.
45
average.89 The triumphal arch, which separates the bema from the
nave, is of similar articulation and dimensions, except that the
pilaster strips are engaged to the freestanding brick piers and
are continued down to floor level.90
Although the pilasters and arches are mostly constructed of
horizontal brick courses, some decorative brickwork is employed
at somewhat regular intervals, beginning ca. 5.00 meters above
the nave floor. These courses consisting of either rowlocks,
shiners, or a combination of both. Such decorative patterning is
particularly significant, because it could indicate that the
masonry of these pilasters was intended to be left exposed in the
original design of the church.
A range of arched clerestory windows (figs. 20-21), which
are on average 0.79 wide by 1.70 meters tall and set at an
average sill height of 7.90 meters above finished floor, occurs
along each of the lateral walls of the nave.91 The windows are
surrounded by brick splays— typically 0.35 m. deep and outlined
by staggered stretcher and header courses, except at their arched
heads, which are framed by rowlock courses.92 Some minor
irregularities occur, as in the positioning of the windows of the
"Elevation heights taken from Basile, Chiese siciliane.
"The only dimensional differences are that the triumphal

arch are somewhat thicker (ca. 0.74 m. average) and of a slightly
narrower span (3.48 m.) than the transverse arches of the nave.
91A11 dimensions for the clerestory windows are taken from

92The depth of slays is based upon the drawings reproduced by

46
westernmost and easternmost bays slightly off axis with the
arches of the nave arcade below.93
The most pronounced entrance into the church is the portal
positioned at the center of the west wall of the nave (fig. 15).
Although the opening is rectangular (2.09 m. wide x 3.65 m.
high), the area directly above contains a recessed tympanum
formed with a two-centered pointed arch, which was probably
constructed at the same time as, or earlier than, the
corresponding tympanum on the exterior of the west wall. The
springing of this arch occurs 3.95 meters average above the floor
of the nave, whereas its crown rises to 5.11 meters. The
surrounding masonry of the opening is slightly raised from the
wall surfaces, and includes ashlars of sandstone and lava, which
reveals that the extant portal was added to the earlier wall
construction. However, the brick and mortar used to frame this
portal are not distinguishable from the materials of the original
wall construction, and this may indicate a closeness in date.
Side aisles. As in the nave, the side aisle are divided
into three bays, and their walls are constructed of brick and
stone. Each bay of the aisles contains an arched window (figs.
12-13), detailed in a manner similar to the clerestory window of
the nave. Although the widths of these windows are consistent
93The misalignment of the windows to the vaulting may

indicate that the exterior walls were constructed autonomously
from the interior of the church. In addition, many of the
windows appear to have undergone careless restorations, and as a
result it is difficult to discern whether the heads are formed of
round or slightly pointed arches. However, the splayed heads of
the windows at the second and fourth bay from the west in the
north aisle are clearly slightly pointed, and seem to have
suffered only a minimal amount of restoration. This may suggest
that all profiles were originally slightly pointed, due to the
extensive reworking at the other windows.
47
(1.10 m. average), their heights are varied, ranging from 1.73 to
2.01 meters.94 However, the heads of all windows, as well as the
deep circular recess located above the south portal, are set at
equivalent elevation heights (ca. 5.92 m. at the north aisle; ca.
5.52 m. at the south aisle) .9S
The portal (figs. 12, 22), positioned in the south aisle at
the second bay from the west, must have constituted an important
point of entry into the church. The opening (1.86 meters wide)
is currently boarded up and exhibits considerable reworking of
substandard quality at the tympanum. As in the west portal, it
is topped by tympanum, formed with a two-centered pointed arch.
The springings of the arch are set at ca. 3.20 meters above
finished floor, and the crown at ca. 4.10 meters. The jambs and
header, constructed of finished limestone, are set back some 0.52
meters into the thickness of the aisle wall. Directly above the
94Below is a chart for the measurements of the window of the

outer walls of the side aisles. The interior widths of windows
of the north aisle are taken from Basile, Chiese siciliane. while
those of the south aisle have been interpolated from my
measurements of the exterior dimensions.
BAY NORTH SOUTH

height x width sill head height x width sill head
1. 1.95 x 1.09 4.04 5.99 1.75 x 1.10 3.82 5.57

2. 1.98 x 1.13 4.01 5.99 .98*x .98* 4.50* 5.48
3. 1.76*x 1.12 4.23* 5.99 1.73 x 1.12 3.91 5.64
4. 2.01 x 1.07 3.91 5.92 1.78 x 1.09 3.78 5.56
Av. 1.98 x 1.10 3.99 5.97 1.75 x 1.10 3.84 5.56
All measurement are relative to the finished floors of the nave.

The measurement followed by have not been calculated into the
averages due to their irregularity. This chart should also be
consulted for the average dimensions which follow in the
paragraph.
9SThe window of the third bay from the west of the north
aisle, which is significantly shorter than the others, appears to
have reworked, apparently as a result of the installation of the
north portal.
48
header, a massive limestone lintel,"constructed of pink marble
and ca. 0.22 meters thick, is set flush with the face of the door
frame at a height of 2.97 meters above finished floor. This
lintel appears to support the tympanum, which contains a single
light window that is outlined by a single course of brick,
shoddily constructed to form a rounded segmental arch. The
masonry surrounding the portal is nearly identical to that of the
west portal, in that it projects slightly from the wall and
includes stone ashlars. Therefore, it seems clear that the two
portals were installed contemporaneously into the original wall
construction.
West End. The west end of the church is composed of the two
stair towers flanking the main entry. The stair of both towers
spiral upward in a counterclockwise manner, which accounts for
the asymmetrical positioning of the small portals that lead into
the towers at the church's west wall. The portals (figs. 15,
23), themselves in a good state of preservation, are of
diminutive dimensions (average 0.62 wide x 1.99 m. tall). The
bases of the two portals are cut into the west wall of the church
at an average height of 0.39 meter above the finished floor, and
the arches of the entrances are rounded.
Upon entering each staircase, one ascends a straight flight
of five risers that leads up to a square landing at the corner of
the tower, subdivided diagonally by an additional step that
forces a ninety-degree turn in progression. From here the
pattern becomes regularized, with four straight risers leading up
to the corner landings, divided by a diagonal step as in the
initial landing, until one reaches the landing for the galleries.
49
The steps that lead onto the lateral galleries are irregularly
shaped and doubtlessly the result of restoration. However, the
regular system of straight stairs continues past the gallery
landings, which suggests that the staircase proceeded to the roof
of the nave. Entry onto the west gallery is possible only from
the south tower, as the passage at the north gallery is currently
blocked by a brick wall.
Both stair towers were significantly affected by the 1964-65
restoration by the Soprintendenza ai Monumenti della Sicilia
Orientale. During the campaign the upper portion of each tower,
from the area above the barrel vault at the fifth landing upward,
was reconstructed to allow access onto the exterior galleries of
the church.96 The brick steps are in fine state of repair, and
were probably restored at the same time.
East End. The east end is composed of a bema flanked by two
subsidiary bays. At present, the floor of the bema (figs. 13,
16) is elevated by a single step (0.18 m. high) and articulated
by a marble bullnose moulding. Although this arrangement is the
result of the 1957-60 restoration, when an earlier pavement and
set of steps were removed, it is possible that the original
layout was of a similar design.97 The northern and southern
96Although it is clear that the upper portions of the outer

walls of the towers have been completely reconstructed, the
erratic detailing that occurs at the openings leading into the
western and lateral galleries may perhaps suggest that the core
elements of the towers survived, at least in ruins, to an
elevation height substantially taller than the exterior walls.
However, as I have not been able to find detailed records of the
restoration, it is not clear to what height the core of the
towers may have extended before Lojacono's reconstruction.
97Infra. Ch. 2, pt. 4, for further discussion on the elevated

floors of the sanctuary.
50
boundaries of the bema are defined By arched openings. Although
the arches of the bema are stilted and relatively narrow, their
springing and crowns occur at approximately the same height as
those of the nave arcade, and they are also of the two-centered
variety.
Clerestory windows occur at the upper level of the lateral
walls of the bema (fig. 24) . These openings are positioned to
correspond to the spacings established by the nave clerestory,
and not only disregard the vertical axes created by the arches
connecting the bema and pastophoria, but also are indifferent to
the formation of muqarnas vaults of the minor dome, which
actually cut into the voussoirs framing the windows.98
The central apse (figs. 16, 19, 25), which is raised above
the level of the bema floor by a single step (0.18 m. high),
assumes the form of a half cylinder topped by a slightly pointed
half-dome. Although the span of the apse (3.28 m.) and springing
height of the conch (ca. 7.70 m. above nave floor) are somewhat
less than those of the nave arches and the triumphal arch, the
height of its crown (ca. 10.12 m. above nave floor) is nearly
equal.99 In addition, the vertical profile of the apse is of a
similar scale to the transverse arches, although it is defined by
a two-centered pointed arch and lacks the limestone imposts carry
the haunches of the other arches. The apse is built mostly of
brick; however, its corners, as well as the pilasters that are
98As in the case with the misalignment of the other

clerestory windows with the internal organization of the church,
the lack of correlation between the bema windows and the muqarnas
vaulting may perhaps indicate that the exterior shell of the
building was constructed prior to the completion of the interior.
"All elevation heights taken from Basile, Chiese siciliane.
51
engaged to the bits of wall to its north and south, are
articulated with some sandstone or lava quoins, which begin at
floor level and continue to a height of ca. 2.50 meters.100
The half cylinder of the apse is articulated by a large
arched window positioned at the center of the apse. Although
this window is the product of a restoration of ca. 1930, a
smaller window may well have been originally located here.101
The apse also includes two curious niches flanking the central
window, which were discovered during the 1957-60 restoration.102
The niches extend from floor level to an average height of 2.90
meters above the nave floor, and are articulated with slightly
pointed arches. Because of their location between the curved
interior of the apse and the squared exterior wall of the east
end, the niches, which are pentagonal in plan, are topped by a
rather sophisticated system of cinquepartite groin vaults.
Although these niches are at present covered almost entirely with
plaster, an exposed area of wall within the north niche indicates
that the masonry was probably part of the original construction.
The two bays flanking the bema must have originally served
as the prothesis (south bay) and diaconicon (north bay) for the
Basilian church. Although the floor level of the diaconicon is
elevated above the aisle by a single step (0.18 m. high), a
100Occasional courses of shiners also occur within the wall

construction of the apse.
101The current window replaced a rectangular opening that had

been inserted during the Baroque period. See Lojacono, "II
restauro," p. 164 (caption to fig. 12).
102Ibid, pp. 167-8.
52
similar condition does not exist in'the prothesis, as it is
filled with two nineteenth-century tombs.
The pastophoria apses are tall half cylinders topped by
half-domes. The widths of the apses are slightly less than the
widths of the preceding bays, creating shallow setbacks.
Similarly, the crowns of the conches rise to an average height of
ca. 5.75 meters above the floor, which is just short of the
average heights of the crowns of the transverse arches of the
side aisles (ca. 5.82 m.). A small window opening (average 0.41
m. wide x 0.99 m. tall) is situated at the approximate center of
each apse (2.03 m. average sill height). These windows are
round-headed and plain. Although the detailing of the apses is
mostly consistent, some variation exists where the conches meet
the transverse arches of the pastophoria, obviously the result of
shoddy repair work.
Ceilings and Vaulting. The central spine formed by the nave
and bema is covered by a combination of wooden ceilings and brick
domes. The flat wooden ceilings that top the western and eastern
bays of the nave (figs. 18, 20-21, 26-27) are constructed of
battened planking, articulated by five exposed wooden cross
beams. The cross-beams are supported at their ends upon simply
sculpted wooden corbels. The particularly fine state of
preservation of the ceilings is due to the fact that they were
rebuilt during the restoration campaign by the Soprintendenza ai
Monumenti della Sicilia Orientale in 1964-65.
The major dome (figs. 21, 28-30), which covers the central
bay of the nave, is composed of three distinct zones: the
transitional vaulting, the drum, and the dome itself. The zone
53
of transitional vaulting, which allows for the transformation of
the rectangular layout of the central nave bay to the circular
plan of the drum and dome, begins at an elevation height
approximately equal to the summits of the clerestory windows of
the nave, some 9.60 meters above the floor of the nave. At its
lowest reaches, the vaulting consists of four large squinches,
each composed of double setbacks, slightly parabolic in shape.
The corner squinches are augmented by two pseudo-squinches
that occur at the north and south walls of the nave. Although
these vaults are somewhat smaller and composed of single
setbacks, their parabolic shape and brick construction reflect
the detailing of the corner squinches. Undoubtedly, the pseudo-
squinches were employed at Agrd to transform the rectangular bay
into an approximate square, but they also enhance the complexity
and sophistication of the design.
In terms of construction, the transitional vaults exhibits
some individualizing details. Specifically, the corner squinches
are not smoothly integrated into the wall surfaces, and the
manner in which the ends of the pseudo-squinches abut the
haunches of the corner squinches is somewhat awkward. However,
such minute irregularities are not particularly noticeable from
ground level, where the forms appear quite precise.103
103Cecilia Waern, Mediaeval Sicily. Aspects of Life and Art

in the Middle Ages (London, 1910), pp. 192-3, contends that the
squinches were added in the sixteenth century, and that the drum
and dome are "entirely Renaissance in appearance." However, she
appears to have been mislead by the white plaster that once
covered the dome. In its present state, the is nothing to
indicate that any part of the dome does not belong to the
original construction. A good photograph of the dome when it was
covered with plaster is found in Di Stefano, Monumenti, 1st ed.,
fig. 47, tav. XXIX.
54
The area between the range of squinches and the base of the
drum is constructed in a sophisticated manner. The eight
diminutive pendentives— each constructed of four courses of
corbelled bricks— that are placed above the corner squinches and
pseudo-squinches regularize the complex forms of the vaulting
below, and also ease the final transition to the cylindrical drum
of the dome. Five courses above the pendentives, the drum is
corbelled inward. Because this corbelling does not reduce the
diameter of the drum more that ten centimeters, it was probably
added to create a shadow line emphasizing the separation of the
drum from the transitional vaulting.
The cylindrical drum that supports the major dome is of
ample, dimensions, ca. 3.00 meters tall and ca. 3.35 meters in
diameter.104 A large percentage of the drum is occupied by
eight arched windows, which are of rather attenuated proportions
(ca. 0.45 m. wide by ca. 1.45 m. tall), and permit a good amount
of light to enter the church. Notably, the windows of the drum
are detailed differently from the those in aisle and clerestory.
They are not fashioned with splays, but are articulated by a
single setback, and their heads, constructed of slightly pointed
arches, are outlined with short, square brick voussoirs, ca. 0.05
by 0.05 meters.
The pumpkin dome that constitutes the upper level of
vaulting is built with impressive precision (fig. 30). Its eight
segments are formed of even courses of bricks, mostly of
shortened lengths and sometimes curved, in order to more
accurately define the undulating shapes. The lower portions are
104Dimensions are from Basile, Chiese siciliane.
55
joined to the surface of the drum by semicircular arches with
only minimal changes in the coursing of the masonry. At the
springings of the segments, a single brick is placed vertically
where they join the drum.
The minor dome (figs. 24, 31), which is placed above the
bema, provides the main decorative emphasis of the sanctuary.
The small scale of the dome, in combination with its lofty
placement, create a sense of extreme attenuation, with a
diameter-to-height ratio of ca. 1 to 6.92. The composition,
definition, and construction are very similar to those of the
major dome.
Because the plan of the bema is markedly rectangular, an
extensive zone of transitional vaulting is needed to bring the
bay into square. As the width of the bay is significantly larger
its length, it would have been virtually impossible to square off
the bay by the addition of pseudo-squinches at the lateral walls
as in the major dome. Instead, the builders used this
opportunity to apply an sophisticated system of muqarnas vaults,
which in addition to providing the necessary structural support
for the dome, highlight the importance of the bema.
Although the patterning of the muqarnas, or honeycomb
vaulting, is highly complex, the plan (fig. 32) demonstrates a
somewhat systematized layout of inscribed rhomboids, hexagons,
and octagons. At its lowest level, the composition springs from
what are in essence double-recessed squinches placed at the
corners. An additional set of smaller, arched insets are
superimposed upon the corner squinches at the center segments of
their curved, upper setbacks, which results in a trilobed
56
profile. From this point upward, the vaulting is defined by a
series of small, irregularly shaped vaults, built one on top of
the other. The uppermost portion of the muqarnas zone is
fashioned in a more regular vaulting pattern, with eight embryo
squinches forming an equilateral octagon, from which rises the
drum and dome.
The dimensions of the drum of the minor dome are quite
small, with a span of ca. 2.20 meters, and height of ca. 1.47
meters.105 At its base, it is separated from the zone of
vaulting below by a continuous string course of brick, slightly
bevelled in profile. The string course, as the drum itself, is
octagonal in plan. The eight faceted surfaces of the drum are
detailed with round-headed arches that conform to the shape of
the pumpkin dome above. Each facet is pierced by a round-headed
window, ca. 0.32 meters wide and 0.90 meters tall.
The upper level of the vaulting is covered by a
hemispherical pumpkin dome, comprised of eight segments, with a
diameter of ca. 2.20 meters. The interior crown of the dome
rises 15.22 meters above the floor of the nave, and its combined
height with the drum is ca. 2.35 meters.106 At the juncture of
the drum and the dome, the curvature of the individual segments
project from the flat surfaces of the drum, in contrast to the
detailing of major dome. However, the manner in which the
rounded arches of the drum allow for a smooth transition into the
curved groins of these segments is identical to the articulation
of the larger dome, as is the insertion of a single vertical
105Dimension taken from Basile, Chiese siciliane.
106Ibid.
57
brick where the springings of the segments join corners of the
faceted walls of the drum.
The transverse section through the miner dome (fig. 8)
indicates that two small, rectangular passages (ca. 0.65 m. wide
x ca. 1.00 m. tall) are set within the lateral walls above the
muqarnas zone of the minor dome.107 Both cavities open into the
large, irregularly shaped compartment positioned above the conch
of the apse. At present all three voids are accessible through a
modern hatch located in the roof of the clerestory, although it
is unclear whether the spaces were accessible in the original
design of the church. Certainly, the primary function of the
hollow spaces flanking the minor dome was to relieve the mass of
the walls created by the corbelling of the muqarnas vaults. In
addition, the passages may also have expedited construction,
because the outer masonry courses of the exterior walls could
have been built up to the parapet of the roof of the clerestory
level without interruption.
The compartment situated above the central apse creates a
much larger, yet extremely awkward volume, with its "floor"
following the curvature of the conch of the apse. The height of
the space— 1.90 meters at its lowest point, and 2.95 meters at
its highest— is tall enough to accommodate a man, and because
slitted windows with deep interior splays (ca. 0.38 m. wide x ca.
1.13 m. tall) appear within the north, south, and east walls, it
has been suggested that the compartment functioned as a defensive
107Ibid.
58
outpost.108 However, this interpretation seems rather
improbable, not only because of the unmanageable shape of the
chamber, but also due to the uncertainty that the space was
originally accessible. More likely, the conqpartment is merely
the result of a design that required the exterior of the central
apse to conform to the prismatic volumes of the body of the
church.
The side aisles and pastophoria are covered by a series of
brick groin vault (figs. 33-36) that are separated by transverse
arches, ca. 0.54 meters thick and also constructed of brick.
Although the springings of the transverse ribs are attached at
the nave side to the imposts of the columns or the pilaster
strips of the eastern piers, at the outer walls they are
supported upon simple brick corbels. The average springing
height of the vaults is ca. 4.63 meters above the floor at the
north aisle and ca. 4.76 meters at the south aisle. The crowns
of the vaults average 6.56 meters at the north aisles and 6.43
meters at the south.109
loaThe dimensions of the height of the compartment are taken

from Basile, Chiese siciliane. However, Basile provides only the
measurement for the height of the slitted window at the east wall
of the central apse at its exterior face (1.03 m.). This window
is shorter than those set within the lateral walls, which are
drawn by Basile ca. 0.40 meters wide by 1.15 meters tall.
Gianluigi Ciotta, "Aspetti della cultura architettonica normanna
in Valdemone durante i periodo della Conquista e della Contea
(1061-1130)" Quaderni dell'Istituto di Storia dell'Architettura
di Roma, (Rome, 1977), p. 16, suggests that the space above the
apse was indeed part of the church's defensive system, and was
accessible through staircases once located within the recessed
niches flanking the central apse. See supra. Ch. 2, pt. 4, for
arguments against this theory.
109Below is a chart listing the complete heights, relative to

the finished floor of the aisles, of the springing and summits at
the groin vaults of the side aisles. Bay 4, which represents the
bays of the pastophoria, has been added for convenience. This
59
Major repairs and additions. Although at present the
church's interior is indicative of its original appearance, this
is primarily due to the restoration efforts of the second half of
the this century. Throughout the ages, SS. Pietro e Paolo was
subjected to numerous repairs and additions, some of which are
still clearly visible.
The north portal (fig. 37), located at the third bay from
the west, certainly postdates the original construction. Unlike
the other portals, the jambs of the entrance are slightly splayed
and are constructed of modern masonry that has been inserted into
the wall with no regard for the original coursing. Moreover, the
brick voussoirs outlining the pointed arch are not flush with the
wall construction of the north aisle, and are composed of bricks
shorter than those employed in the voussoirs of the other
portals. Finally, the masonry of the tympanum, composed of an
admixture of rubble and brick, exhibits at least two phases of
repair.
The large, irregularly shaped window (fig. 27) positioned
above the west portal, whose sill is set approximately 7.80
meters above the nave floor, is certainly not part of the
list should also be referred to for the other average elevation

heights given in this paragraph.
BAY NORTH AISLE SOUTH AISLE

springing apex springing apex
w /e w /e
1. 4.56/4.60 6.50 4.72/4.76 6.40

2. 4.74/4.69 6.54 4.70/4.62 6.44
3. 4.53/4.66 6.56 4.79/4.97 6.45
Av. 4.63 6.53 4.76 6.43
4. 4.84/4.84 6.40 4.94/4.95 6.39.
60
original construction.110 Cutrera contends that this window was
installed in the sixteenth century after a substantial portion of
the west clerestory wall was destroyed with the collapse of the
stair towers.111 This suggestion seems reasonable, and would
explain the ungainly character of window as well as the wall.
Various other repairs also appear in the walls of the side
aisles. Most conspicuous of these is the insertion of the
sarcophagus, housing the remains of Signor Luciano Crisafulli and
his wife, which fills the entire area of the prothesis— including
the apsidiole— up to a height of ca. 0.87 meters (fig. 25) .112
Above the tombs, there also appears a flat rectangular recess,
spanned by a lintel composed of two wooden planks. Directly
above the lintel there is a smaller flat recess that appears to
have once formed an arch at its head, although in its present
state it is interrupted by the sill of the aisle window a few
centimeters above the springing. A photograph of the south
facade published by Cecilia Waern in 1910 reveals that both the
rectangular and the arched recesses were at one time expressed on
the exterior.113 These openings seem to have functioned as an
entrance, with a window above, and therefore must have been cut
into the wall prior to the installation of the Crisafulli tombs.
110The elevation height for the sill is taken from Basile,

Chiese siciliane.
m,,La chiesa normanna," pp. 235-6.
112These tombs must have been installed in the late

nineteenth century shortly after the death of Signor Crisafulli,
as they appear on an antiquated plan filed in the Messina
Soprintendenza.
113Waern, plate, XXIX.
61
The walls of the side aisles exhibit several extensive
tracts of patching. The most prominent of these are two large
patched areas positioned within the wall of the south aisle, and
an arched recess cut into the wall of the north aisle. The
reworked area in the north aisle wall is located at the second
bay from the west (fig. 38). The arched shape and shallow depth
of the recess suggests that it may have contained a panel
painting, whereas the patched area below might reflect reworking
which occurred after the removal of an adjacent altar.114 On
the other hand, it is also feasible that the patchings reveal
that an arched entrance was cut into the north wall to match the
location of the south portal.115 The patched areas of the south
aisle are easily visible by their suture lines, and occur at the
approximate centers of the first (fig. 23) and third (fig. 39)
bays from the west. Although these patched areas are not
currently visible on the exterior of the church, documentary
evidence substantiates that portals were at one located at these
locations.116
114Similar types of altars with panel paintings set into the

wall behind them are found throughout Sicily from the Baroque
period and later. A prime example exists in the side aisles of
S. Pietro at ItcLla. Intriguingly, De Ciocchis, Sacrae Reqiae
Visitationes, vol. 2, p. 355, refers to the church containing
three subsidiary altars upon his visit in 1742; see supra. Ch. 1,
p t . 4.
115However, the exterior of the wall exhibits no traces of

such an opening; see infra.
116For instance, see Waern, plate XXIX, which was published

in 1910. Door openings are also indicated at these locations in
the filed with the Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e
Ambientali in Messina. Obviously, these portals were not part of
the original construction.
62
The Exterior:
Many visitors to SS. Pietro e Paolo have been especially
struck by the fortified appearance of the building's exterior
(figs. 4-5) . The volumes are tall and solid, the windows sparse
and positioned well above ground level, and the roof of the nave
outlined by a continuous band of crenelations. However, the
exterior of SS. Pietro e Paolo must also be recognized as one of
the most successful attempts in medieval architecture at
integrating surface decoration into the volumetric composition of
a building. The church's volumes are defined by simple geometric
forms, such as prisms, cubes, and cylinders, that reflect the
tall proportions of the interior spaces. These pure volumes are
enlivened by various types of surface decoration, ranging from
the coloristic, as in the bands of reticulate revetment, to the
three-dimensional, as in the interlaced arcading. As a result,
the church presents a striking image, especially when viewed
against the lush landscape and rugged topography of the region.
Proportions. The exterior of SS. Pietro e Paolo seems to
have been developed more out of a desire to create a forceful
visual impression than by any comprehensive system of
proportions. The church is dominated by the nave and central
apse that are endowed with width-to-height ratios of between 1 to
2.5 and 1 to 3 (fig. 40), and the side aisles are barely
noticeable when the building is viewed from a distance.
Moreover, the attempt to regularize the sloping topography of the
site by the addition of a socle is only moderately successful,
because its ledges rise to different heights at the north and
south facades (figs. 41-42).
€3
Nonetheless, some general proportional relationships may
have been intended. The existing heights of the walls of the
side aisles, as measured from the socles (ca. 5.89 m. at the
north facade, and ca. 6.62 m. at the south), are somewhat close
to one-half the heights of the nave walls (ca. 11.92 m. above the
socle at the north, and ca. 12.64 m. at the south). Although the
1 to 2 ratio is not precise— and may have been more distorted if
the walls of the aisles were originally higher— this reading
seems quite valid when the church is viewed at ground level. A
most precise relationship is found in the division of the lower
portion of the west facade, which is divided into three vertical
units (3.73 m. wide) by the arched opening way leading into the
porch.
Interlaced arcadinq. Virtually the entire exterior surface
of the church is covered by a system of superimposed arcading,
made up of flat pilaster strips (ca. 0.33 m. wide) and interlaced
arches (ca. 0.20 m. wide), both of which project ca. 0.11 meters
from the exterior walls. The pilasters are composed of
systematic alternations of brick stretchers and one or two
squared blocks of lava or sandstone, although white limestone is
substituted for these in the interlaced arches.117 Notably, the
horizontal courses of the brick pilasters are interrupted at more
or less regular intervals by soldier courses. It should be
stressed that the arcading is purely decorative, and offers no
structural support to the construction, except at the thickened
117An exception to the use of stone in the interlaced

arcading is found in the north gallery, where the pilasters and
arches are built entirely of brick (fig. 56).
64
pilasters (ca. 0.66 m. wide) of the "clerestory arcades that
correspond to the columns and eastern piers of the interior.
An examination of the exterior masonry reveals that the
arcading is integrally constructed into the walls. This is
proven not only by the manner in which the masonry of the arcades
is embedded into the walls, but also by the fact that the wall
surfaces above the interlaced arches are thickened in order to
run flush against the outer faces of the arches.
Dog-tooth friezes. Dog-tooth friezes occur at the rooflines
of the north, south, and east clerestories. At the south and
east facades, the friezes are positioned just two stretchers
courses below the band of reticulate revetments (figs. 64, 66).
At the north gallery, dog-tooths frame the chevron cornice. An
additional dog-tooth frieze runs along all three sides of the
central apse ca. 0.78 meters below the high slotted windows (fig.
66). Each dog-tooth band is built of two courses of brick (ca.
0.30 to 0 .33 m.2) .
Reticulate revetments. A horizontal band of reticulate
revetments runs continuously around the rooflines of the south
facade and east end (figs. 59, 66). The individual revetments
are square (ca. 0.17 m.), and consist of either black lava or
red, unglazed ceramic. The tiles are positioned diagonally and
arranged, by color and material, in alternating horizontal rows—
two rows at the south facade, and three rows at the east end.
The tops and bottoms of the bands are filled out by triangularly
shaped half-tiles, also of an alternate color to the adjacent row
of revetments. The revetments are attached to the wall with very
thin mortar joints, thereby enhancing the bichrome effect.
65
Crenelations. The facades of the north, south, and east
clerestory levels are lined with a continuous row of round-headed
crenelations constructed of brick. Although a good deal of
variation in size and spacing exists, the average height is ca.
0.85 meters, the average width and interspacing is ca. 0.67
meters. Many of the crenelations were in a precarious and ruined
state before they were restored and structurally reinforced by
lojacono during his 1957-60 restoration.118 Of extreme interest
is the partially ruined merlon located at the western end of the
north facade. This merlon is clearly bent outward from the body
of the church at an approximate fortyfive-degree angle,
apparently indicating that it originally was connected to the
roof line of the north stair tower.119
West facade. Until the restoration efforts of the
Soprintendenza ai Monumenti della Sicilia Orientale in 1964-65,
the west end existed in a deplorable state. By the time of the
restoration, the two stair towers, from the height of the
springing of the interlaced arches (ca. 5.20 m. above the floor
of the west porch) had almost completely vanished.120 In order
to prevent further collapse of these areas, the Soprintendenza
contracted the rebuilding of the towers up to a height ca. 8.65
118Lo jacono, "II restauro," p. 168.
llsFor the sicrnificance of this merlon, see infra. Ch. 2, pt.

4.
120Although it unknown how long the west facade had lain in

ruins, it appears that it existed in such a state well before the
turn of this century. The earliest description I can find of the
facade is by Waern, p. 191, who discloses that she first visited
the church in 1906. She states that "The upper part of the west
is now almost in ruins... ."
66
meters above the porch floor, and of the walls of the porch
itself to ca. 7.95 meters.
In its present state, the west facade (figs. 43-45) is
composed of an outer layer, which is defined by the west porch
and towers, and an inner layer, which is the outer face of the
west wall of the nave. The most prominent feature of the facade
is the arched portal, which is outlined by a single course of
brick banding that rises from the socles and wraps around the
arched opening. At its lower level, the banding is composed of
alternating courses of brick and sandstone, although in the arch-
-which springs from sandstone imposts at ca. 3.42 meters above
the porch floor— blocks of lava are substituted.121
The wall above the arched opening continues up to a height
of ca. 7.95 meters above the floor of the porch, providing a low
parapet, ca. 0.86 meters high, for the west gallery. Notably,
there are substantial remains of the eastern walls of both
towers, which reveal remnants of arched voussoirs at each of
their northern flanks. The crown of the north arch is positioned
ca. 2.74 meters above the floor of the west gallery, while that
of the south appears to have been ca. 3.00 meters.122 The areas
below both set of voussoirs are blocked by masonry construction.
Of the exterior surfaces, the facade of the west gallery is
the most deteriorated. The construction is shoddy and reworked,
and it is difficult to ascertain which parts are original.
121The profiles of these imposts are similar to those

employed in the interior of the church.
122The remains of the superimposed arch of the south tower do

not reach a crown, but terminate ca. 2.91 meters above the west
gallery floor.
67
Cutrera's suggestion that a substantial portion of this surface
was damaged with the collapse of the stair towers, only to be
subsequently rebuilt, has been alluded to earlier. At the center
of the lower section of the facade appears the rectangular window
that opens into the nave (fig. 46). South of this window, an
arched recess, outlined by brick voussoirs, is set into the wall,
its crown occurring at 2.53 meters above the gallery floor. The
function of this recess in not evident, although it could
represent an addition to the original fabric.
The west porch (figs. 47-50) exhibits a rather unusual
system of vaulting, in which the central area is covered by a
large groin vault, whereas the north and south ends are defined
by diminutive transverse barrel vaults. In order to coordinate
the profiles of the groin vault with the arched opening of the
west facade, the transverse and diagonal arcs of the vault reach
their crowns well above the those of the arcs defining the short
ends. As a result, the shape of the vault bows upward from the
end walls, forming a sort of domical vault.
The porch contains a high degree of detailing, with niches
set within the surfaces of the north, south, and east walls. The
niches of the west wall of the nave are shallow (ca. 0.10 m.) and
rectangular (ca. 0.80 m. wide x 1.96 m. tall), and are positioned
to each side of the west portal, and begin ca. 1.46 meters above
the finished floor of the porch. Although the niches at the
north and south walls are located at approximately the same
elevation height, they are of taller dimensions (ca. 0.77 m. wide
x 2.97 m. tall) and their heads are rounded. Below these niches
a set of low benches, constructed of brick, span the end walls.
68
The benches are ca. 0.34 meters deep and rise ca. 0.44 meters
above the finished floor.123
The west portal (figs. 3, 43, 50-51) is set into the
exterior wall of the nave on axis with the arched opening of the
west facade. Although the opening is of substantial size (2.09
m. wide x 3.41 m. tall), it is distinguished primarily through
its richness of detail. The jambs of the portal are constructed
of large stone blocks of black lava, brown, gray, and purple
limestone, and pink marble, locally known as rosso di Taormina.
These are set atop one other with very thin mortar joints (figs.
51, 61). The outer edges of the blocks are roughly hewn, and
both sets are built into projecting surfaces of the walls that
resemble pilasters. Above the jambs, two white limestone
imposts, articulated by cavetto profiles at their inner faces,
support a lintel as well as two rows of banded voussoirs over the
doorway. The tops of the inpost occur ca. 3.59 meters above the
floor of the porch.
The lintel assumes the form of a segmental arch, with a
crown at 3.63 meters above the porch floor. It is composed of
six limestone blocks, 0.35 meters tall, which are inscribed with
four rows of a Greek inscription. The inscription includes
letters ranging in size from ca. 7.5 centimeters high for the
normal characters, and ca. 3.5 centimeters for the superscript.
Three rows of letters appear on the front face of the lintel, and
123Although the recessed panels and low benches at the north

and south walls of the porch appear to have been reworked at
their lower levels, the upper portions of the recesses contain
courses of rowlocks alternating with shiners, which is a
technique that occurs throughout the standard wall construction
of the church.
69
one row is located on its soffit. Enough evidence remains to
suggest that at one time all of the engraved characters were
filled with a black mastic, in a type of champlev6 technique.124
A curious aspect about the carving of the inscription is that
letters from the first and third lines run onto the southern end
block.12S
Directly above the lintel there is a tympanum, presently
filled with brick, into which has been set a roundel (0.75 m.
diameter) depicting an Greek cross with circular disks positioned
at its quadrants. The cross is elaborately detailed: two circles
articulate the center of the design, and the arms of the cross
end in splays divided into three segments. The roundel is of
white limestone with the interior of the cross and the negative
spaces between the arms of the cross and the disks carved in
relief and filled in with a coating of red mastic in a champlev6
technique. Although the brickwork surrounding the medallion is
heavily restored, even the earliest drawings and photographs of
the church show the tympanum as it appears today.126
The tympanum is outlined by a double row of banded
voussoirs, with crowns of 4.73 and 5.00 meters above the floor,
and a bichrome cornice moulding, set at 5.33 meters. The two
rows of banding (each ca. 0.35 m. wide) are composed of an
alternating pattern of lava and white limestone voussoirs that
124Salinas, p. 87, claims that the mastic is composed in part

of black volcanic substance.
125This oddity probably indicates that the blocks were

engraved individually before installation, because the spacing of
the letters could not be adjusted if the second and fourth rows
had already been started upon the northern block.
126For instance, see the illustration by Salinas, p. 87.
70
are framed by single courses of brick. The arched cornice is
composed of curved, triangular-shaped segments (ca. 0.15 m. wide)
of black lava and white limestone, which are articulated with
cavetto profiles at their outer faces. There is no correlation
between the voussoirs of the two rows of banding or the segments
of the arched cornice. The bands and cornice form slightly
pointed arches that resemble archivolts, as they step outward
from the plane of the wall.
North facade. The interlaced arcading that articulates the
facade of the north aisle (figs. 52-53), is comprised of 15
pilaster strips that divide the wall into 14 attenuated bays.
The arcading rises to an average height of 5.52 meters above the
socle upon which it rests. Although some reworking appears
within the wall surfaces, there is no evidence to indicate that
the arched sutures of interior of the north aisle, located at the
second bay from the west, extended through to the exterior to
form a subsidiary entrance.
The four aisle windows are positioned within the fourth,
seventh, tenth, and thirteenth interspacings from the west. The
two westernmost windows are similar in dimensions (ca. 0.70 m.
wide x 1.70 m. tall) and detailing, composed of rounded-headed
arches, all constructed of brick.127 The window at the tenth
bay, which is shorter than the others and surrounded by a badly
deteriorated sandstone frame, appears to have been reworked,
probably in conjunction with the installation of the north
127The heights are based upon two measurements given by

Basile, Chiese siciliane. and the widths have been approximated.
As on the interior, all exterior window measurements are taken
from the outer setbacks.
71
portal. However, the two westernmost windows— which are detailed
with a single setback (ca. 0.10 m. deep) and outlined by short
brick voussoirs (ca. 0.10 to 0.12 m. long) that form very
slightly pointed arches at their heads— have remained in a
relatively good state of repair, and they may serve as guides as
to how the other aisle and clerestory windows were originally
detailed.
The top of the aisle wall is capped by a stone ledge,
apparently constructed during one of the restoration campaigns
from 1957 onward.128 Although the average height of the ledge
is ca. 5.89 meters above the socle, the parapet of the apse,
which is uncapped and in a ruinous state, rises to ca. 6.50
meters. Between the crowns of the interlaced arcading and the
stone caps, three downspouts of carved limestone have rather
clumsily been inserted into the wall to provide drainage for the
gallery.
The north portal (figs. 53-54) is located within the tenth
bay from the west, below the reworked aisle window. The
rectangular opening of the portal, which is 0.98 meters wide by
2.02 meters high, is outlined by a stone frame and raised from
the sloping terrain by a short step and a threshold. As on the
interior, the masonry surrounding the portal clearly indicates
that it was inserted into the wall after the original phase of
construction. However, there also appears to be an arched suture
128The photographs of the north and south facades taken

before the 1957-60 restoration (see Lojacono, "II restauro," fig.
3, p. 160; fig. 4, p. 161) show the top of the aisles in a
deteriorate state. The earliest reproductions of the concrete
ledges appear in 1979, in Filangeri, ed., fig. 12 E 2, p. 91 and
fig. 12 E 12, p. 95.
72
line located directly above the portal, perhaps suggesting that a
differently shaped opening once existed at this location.
Indeed, the fact that the pilasters of the interlaced arcading
flanking the portals are thicker than the others could infer that
some type of portal was located at this position prior to the
extant opening.
The facade of the north gallery (figs. 55-58) is built
entirely of brick, and represents the only large monochromatic
surface of the exterior. The interlaced arcading covers most of
the facade, from the gallery floor to an approximate height of
5.28 meters. Unlike the other interlaced arches, those of the
north gallery do not include any lava or limestone blocks in
their construction. The 13 pilasters of the arcades separate the
wall into 12 relatively equal segments, although the fourth,
seventh, and tenth pilasters from the west are substantially
thicker (ca. 0.66 m.) than the other strips, as they correspond
to the internal strips that support the transverse nave arches.
Y-shaped iron ties, which secure the two iron tie beams
traversing the interior of the nave, have been clamped to the two
westernmost thicken pilasters. Another variation to the scheme
occurs at the western extremity of the facade, where the
interlaced arches are terminated at the second pilaster, and the
two westernmost strips are connected by a narrow, rounded arch,
which certainly appears to be the result of restoration work.
Between the pilasters, four round-headed windows are placed
at the second, fifth, eighth, and eleventh bays from the west.
The average dimensions of the openings, measured from the outer
73
setbacks, are 0.65 meters wide by 1T54 meters tall.129 Although
by no means precise, the clerestory windows are generally aligned
with the windows of the north aisle below.
At approximately 5.36 meters above the floor of the north
aisle, the roofline of the clerestory is defined by a frieze of
decorative brickwork, ca. 0.65 meters wide. This frieze consists
of a band of bricks arranged in a chevron, or lambda pattern that
is sandwiched between two bands of dog-tooths (fig. 58),
separated from each other by two stretcher courses. The lambda
pattern is composed of rowlocks set end to end at approximate
fortyfive-degree angles, with the negative gaps left open to a
depth of ca. 0.10 meters. Within the bottom of the frieze, two
stone downspouts have been inserted for the drainage of the roof
of the nave.
South facade. The facade of the south aisle (figs. 59-60)
is detailed in a manner similar to the north aisle, except for
some subtle variations. Most importantly, the interlaced
arcading is composed of 16 pilaster strips that separate the wall
into 15 bays, that is, one bay more than on the north aisle. In
addition, the socle that supports the pilasters is set ca. 0.28
meters lower than at the north aisle, resulting in slightly
taller arcades. The summits of the arcades occur ca. 6.44 meters
above the socle, and the top of the aisle wall at ca. 6.72
meters, although the parapet of the ruined apse extends up to
7.12 meters.
129The average widths of the windows are based the

measurements given by Basile in Chiese siciliane.
74
The windows of the south aisle" are located within the
fourth, eleventh, and fourteenth bays from the west. They are
narrow and round-headed, and except for the westernmost window,
which has been defaced by a sandstone frame, are of related
dimensions (ca. 0.70 m. wide x 1.33 m. tall) and detailing.130
An obvious omission to the rhythm created by the windows occurs
above the south portal. Notably, this position corresponds to
the location of the circular recess of the interior, which was
perhaps at one time open to the exterior.131
The south portal (figs. 61-62) is one of the most expressive
features of the exterior. The threshold, which is located ca.
0.57 meter below the top of the socle, is still some 0.86 meters
above the present ground level. Unless the topography was
substantially different at the time of the portal's completion—
which seems unlikely— some type of stairs or platform would have
been needed for entry into the church. As in the west portal,
the jambs constructed of variously colored limestone ashlars, and
appear to have been install at a later date than the original
wall construction. The top of the opening is defined by the
massive marble lintel that is visible from the interior, and is
positioned ca. 2.97 meters above the threshold.132 Above the
lintel there is an open tympanum, now filled with plexiglass,
130The average window height is based upon the drawings by

131For further discussion, see supra, Ch 2, pt. 4.
132The thickness of this lintel is greater on the exterior

because it has been notched to fit around the limestone header at
the interior.
75
that forms a slightly pointed arch set ca. 3.89 meters above the
threshold.
The tympanum is outlined by a row of banded voussoirs, a row
of reticulate revetment, and a banded, arched cornice. This
cornice is supported at its end upon two limestone imposts (fig.
63), which appear to assume the shape of inverted pyramids.133
The banded voussoirs are composed of a single row (ca. 0.29 m.
wide) of black lava and white limestone blocks, held together
with extremely thin mortar joints. Above the voussoirs there is
a row of reticulate revetment (ca. 0.21 m. wide) composed of a
single row of diagonally set squares that alternate from white
limestone and red ceramic, bordered on top and bottom by
triangular half-tiles of lava.134 The tiles are the same
approximate dimensions as those of the reticulate bands at the
roofline of the south and east clerestories (ca. 0.17 m.2), but
are much less evenly shaped. The arched cornice (ca. 0.15 m
wide) is identical to that of the west portal, as it is
articulated with a cavetto profile and composed of alternating
segments of black lava and white limestone. Intriguingly, the
successive bands of bichrome decoration that frame the tympanum
are transformed in shape from a slightly pointed arch at the
inner face of the tympanum into a parabolic curve at the cornice
moulding.
133Intriguingly, the corbels of the west portal are carved

out of the limestone blocks that extend into the wall
construction.
134The white limestone revetments at the ends of the arch are

also triangular half-tiles.
76
The interlaced arcading of the" south clerestory (figs. 63-
64) is articulated with 13 pilaster strips, and the arches rise
to an average maximum height of ca. 5.22 meters above the gallery
floor. As in the north clerestory, the fourth, seventh, and
tenth pilasters from the west are thicken and clamped with Y—
shaped iron bars that secure iron tie beams of the interior. In
a manner also similar to the north clerestory, the two
westernmost pilasters do not continue the interlaced arcading,
but are topped by a simple, rounded arch.
Windows occur within the second, fifth, eighth, and eleventh
bays from the west, with average clear openings of ca. 0.45 m.
wide by 1.54 m. tall.135 The exteriors of all these windows
appear to have been restored, as they are all detailed with
rather shoddy sandstone frames.
East facade. The dominant feature of the east facade is the
central apse (figs. 65-66). Because the width of the apse is
slightly less than that of the nave, its volume is somewhat inset
from the rectangular volume of the body of the church. According
to Cutrera, the earthquake of 28 December 1908, which devastated
eastern Sicily, caused the partial collapse of the upper level of
the apse.136 However, the repairs that were subsequently
carried out by Francesco Valenti appear to have been so well
integrated into the surviving fabric that they are not
noticeable, and one wonders how extensive the damage to the apse
135The dimensions used to determine the average height of the

window openings have been taken from Basile, Chiese siciliane.
136Cutrera, p. 230.
77
actually was.137 The only visible sign of repair is a thin iron
plate that has been bolted around all three sides of the apse
between the crowns of the interlaced arches and the decorative
frieze that tops the roofline.
As in the other facades, the lower area of the apse is
defined by a socle, although here it rests upon a concrete
plinth, obviously of modern construction The pilaster strips of
the interlaced arcades continue uninterruptedly to a height just
below the decorated cornice. The major penetration into the apse
is the large modern window set into the center of the east wall
at a sill height ca. 2.20 meters above the socle, although tall,
slotted windows— 1.03 m. high and ca. 9.64 meters above the
socle— also occur within each of the three sides of the apse.138
The smaller apses of the pastophoria (figs. 52, 67) are
simply detailed half cylinders, resting upon the socles that
continue at the heights of their respective aisles. The
ubiquitous interlaced arcading also overlays the surfaces of the
apsidioles, although the pilaster strips and interlaced banding
are thinner (ca. 0.15 m.) than those of the other arcades, and
are constructed entirely of brick. The windows that occur at the
center of each apsidiole are quite small (ca. 0.43 m. wide x 0.99
m. tall) and round-headed, as on the interior.
137However, Lojacono, "II restauro," pp. 167-8, states the

central apse was "restaurata malamente" during the First World
War. Lojacono must be criticizing the structural logic of the
repairs, as photographs published prior to his restoration (for
instance, see Di Stefano, Monumenti. 1st ed., fig. 48, tav. 29)
do not indicate any traces of unsightly reworking within the
apse.
138These dimensions are taken from Basile, Chiese siciliane.
78
The tops of both apses are ruined, and it is difficult to
estimate their original height. At present, the maximum height
is found in the south apsidiole, ca. 7.87 meters above its socle.
However, the uppermost portion of the south apse has certainly
been rebuilt, as it is constructed of rubble mixed with brick
fragments. The top of the north apse appears more representative
of the original construction, and attention should be given to
the three square lava tiles, similar in dimension to the
reticulate revetments, that are laid in a checkerboard pattern at
its south corner.
Roofs and Vaulting. Excluding the protruding domes of the
nave and bema, the nave and aisles are covered by flat roofs.
During the 1957-60 restoration by the Soprintendenza of eastern
Sicily, the aisle roofs were covered with an asphalt topping,
whereas the nave roof (figs. 68-69) was resurfaced with tile
pavers.139 Another modern feature of the nave roof is a small
hatch located near its southeastern corner. This hatch opens
into the large hollow cavity above the conch of the central apse,
which in turn leads into the rectangular voids that flank the
muqarnas vaulting of the bema. However, due to the ruinous state
of the stair towers, the nave roof is at present not easily
accessible.
The exterior treatment of the major dome (fig. 68) reflects
the form of its interior vaulting. The cylindrical drum is
pierced by eight very tall, round-headed widows, ca. 0.45 meters
wide by 1.45 meters tall, and detailed with two string courses.
The string course located just below the window sills is composed
139Lojacono, "II restauro," p. 168.
79
of a single course of brick, whereas the other, positioned at the
juncture of the drum and dome, is articulated with brick dentils.
The dome itself is simply detailed, expressing the segments
formed on the interior. At its crown, there is a small spherical
ornament supported upon a bevelled pedestal, which is most likely
not part of the original design. Unfortunately, most of the
exterior surfaces of the dome has been covered with several
layers of hard cement, making it difficult to distinguish any
repairs or additions to the construction.
The minor dome (fig. 69) is similar to its larger
counterpart in several respects. Nearly the entire surface of
the drum is covered by faded red cement, and brick string courses
appear just above the base of the drum and at the juncture with
the vaulting. Moreover, the drum is pierced by eight tall,
arched windows (ca. 0.32 m. wide x 0.90 m. tall). The greatest
contrasts to the major dome is the shape of the drum and
vaulting, both of which are defined by eight octagonal facets.
Therefore, the exterior vaulting of the minor dome assumes the
form of a cloister vault rather than a pumpkin dome. As in the
major dome, the ornamental crown that tops the vaulting is topped
by an ornamental crown, also probably added at a later date.
Part 2_: General Construction Techniques
One of the most notable aspects of the surviving fabric of
the church is the extent to which the it appears to reflect the
original phase of construction. Although various repairs and
renovations have altered some areas of the building, the
materials, techniques, and details are for the most part
80
consistently employed throughout the interior and exterior
construction.
The outer walls of the church (ca. 0.55 to 0.60 m. thick)
consist of an interior and exterior facing of masonry that is
filled in with a mixture of rubble and mortar.140 The interior
and exterior walls are probably levelled at periodic intervals by
either a solid course of brick or concealed wooden beams.
Parallels for both types are found in Byzantine construction
practice, although the latter is perhaps most likely at Agrd
because the brick courses of the interior and exterior do not
match.141
Two types of bricks appear to have been used in the original
phase of construction. One type measures ca. 0.33 by 0.16 by
0.05 meters and is deep red in color, while the other is slightly
smaller, ca. 0.30 by 0.15 by 0.05 meters, and of a lighter,
brownish hue. The original mortar, which is typically laid in
joints ca. 2.0 centimeters thick, appears to be of a mediocre
quality: it is fairly hard, but can be broken apart with a little
effort. Depending upon how the mortar was mixed during a
particular day, it varies from a grayish-green to a pink color.
140A portion of the wall construction is at present visible

in the narrow slot cut into the south wall at the third bay from
the west.
141Each of these two particular types of wall constructions

were commonly employed in Middle Byzantine Greece. See GiSrgos
VelenSs, Herm§neia tou exSterikou diakosmou st§ w a n t i n g
architektonikg (Thessoloniki, 1984), I, pp. 54-5; II, figs. 22-3.
For further accounts of Middle Byzantine construction practices
in the Balkans, see A.H.S. Megaw, "The Chronology of Some Middle-
Byzantine Churches,” The Annual of the British School at Athens,
32 (1931-2), pp. 90-130; idem, "Byzantine Architecture in Mani,"
The Annual of the British School at Athens. 33 (1932-3), pp. 137-
62.
81
The cement is brownish white, with inclusions— no larger than 1.5
centimeters in diameter— of black, grey, green, brown, and opaque
color. A walk along the bed of the Agrd river reveals that this
was certainly the source of materials for the mortar. However,
the sand and gravel of this river bed seem to have also been
exploited throughout the centuries for the mortar of various
repairs, making it quite difficult to draw conclusion through the
analysis of mortar types.
Interior walls. The interior walls are constructed of
horizontal layers of brick, usually of one, but sometimes of two
or three courses, that are placed at intervals of 0.25 and 0.35
meters. The intermediary spaces are filled with an admixture of
various types of local stone, usually irregular in shape, and
some brick and tile fragments (figs. 23, 37-38). The stone layer
is almost always only one course tall, and is set within a mortar
bed 1.0 to 3.0 centimeters thick. In general, more brick and
less stone is used in the upper portions of the walls, although
repairs have altered the construction at several points.142 An
interesting detail occurs just to the east of the south portal,
where a slightly curved stone cornice has been inserted into the
wall construction (fig. 11).
Exterior walls. The exterior walls of the church are
largely constructed of horizontal courses of brick, although
various bands of stone or brick patterning are intermixed at
relatively regular intervals. At the lower levels of the side
aisles, the construction emulates the interior of the church,
142For instance, the upper level of west wall of the nave

appears to have been almost entirely rebuilt with a less regular
pattern of brick and stone (figs. 13, 21).
82
with rubble courses (ca. 0.25 to 0.30 m. wide), composed of
irregularly shaped limestone blocks surrounded by brick and tile
fragments, separated by one, two, or three courses of brick
(figs. 53, 70). The entire facade of the north gallery, as well
as the upper walls of the aisles and south gallery, are
predominantly constructed of brick (55-56, 63).
Perhaps the most striking feature of the exterior wall
construction is the use of solid courses of black lava ashlars
(ca. 0.30 m. wide). Two rows of this banding, set at ca. 1.95
and 2.80 meters above the south socle, run without interruption
through the south aisle (fig. 59) and through the southern half
of the west facade (fig. 43), and they continue at a similar
height through the central apse (fig. 65). An additional double
band of lava also occurs higher up in the apse, at approximately
mid-wall. At the north aisle and northern half of the west
facade, only the upper of the two bands has been inserted into
the wall construction (fig. 52-53).
The wall surfaces are also articulated with various bands of
brick patterning. The most predominant type is opus spicatum, or
herringbone patterning. Notably, three courses of opus spicatum
occur between the double lava bands of the south (fig. 60), west,
and east facades, and above the lone lava band of the north aisle
(figs. 53-54). Bands of one or two courses of herringbone work
are also found at other levels of the church, as at the
springings of the interlaced arches of the aisle walls. Other
types of brick patterning found at Agrd are composed of either of
rowlocks, shiners, or a combination of both. These bands occur
near the springings of the interlaced arches of the north and
83
south clerestory levels (figs. 56-57, 63-64), and also in the
upper halves of the east end and north aisle. The most common
pattern is composed of three rowlocks alternating with one
shiner. Usually, courses containing these patterns occur in
pairs, with the rowlock and shiner of the successive course being
staggered and separated by a single course of stretchers.
Part 3,: Structural Analysis
The fact that SS. Pietro e Paolo has survived in an area of
the world that is extremely prone to earthquakes is a tribute to
its builders. Indeed, the structural system at Agrd is quite
sophisticated, indicating that the master mason responsible for
its erection was an experienced professional. However, it does
not seem that anyone on the building team was particularly
knowledgeable of static thrusts, and the survival of the church
is primarily due to the competent construction cf the walls and
vaulting, as well as the relatively short distances of the spans.
Transverse arches. The most important structural features
of the church are the three transverse arches that span the nave
and bema (figs. 7-9). The primary function of these elements
appears to have been to strengthen the shear support of the upper
level of the nave, and they may therefore be termed as diaphragm
arches. Although similar devices were commonly used in western
Romanesque architecture— both in wooden-roofed and vaulted
structures— the system at Agrd is unique in the manner in which
the flat areas above the openings of the arches support the
transitional vaulting of the two domes. Therefore, the
transverse arches were used to provide longitudinal as well as
lateral support.
84
Another significant feature of* the transverse arches is the
manner is which they are supplemented by pilaster strips at both
the interior and exterior walls. Such detailing reflects not
only a sophistication of design that allows for the reduction in
the thickness of the clerestory walls, but also reveals the
structural logic of the building. Although the articulation of
the structural system by interior and exterior pilasters is not
uncommon in contemporary Middle Byzantine, Western medieval, and
Early Islamic architecture, at Agrd the use of columns to support
the pilasters that carry the downward thrust of the transverse
arches is quite daring. It is perhaps because of the
considerable compressive load that the columns are constructed of
granite, rather than of local limestone.
Major dome. With an outer diameter of ca. 4.14 meters and
its crown set at 17.22 meters above the floor of the nave, the
major dome of SS. Pietro e Paolo is of a size that could not have
been constructed without some degree of structural planning.
However, the cross-section (fig. 9) reveals that the support
system of the dome is quite unorthodox. As noted above, the
squinches and pseudo-squinches are attached directly to the walls
of the nave clerestory and the two transverse nave arches. The
transverse arches are flanked to the east and west by the flat-
roofed bays of the nave, which provide adequate bracing along the
longitudinal axis at the critical points where the drum of the
dome meets the transitional vaulting (fig. 7). Although the
points where the squinches actually abut the flat wall surfaces
of the transverse arches are more critical for the counteraction
85
of the outward thrusts, the thickness and solid construction of
the arches mitigate this structural flaw.
A more serious problem is the lack of lateral bracing. The
north and south sides of the dome are supported entirely by the
mass of the clerestory walls. Certain improvisations, such as
the thickening of the walls at the level of the pseudo-squinches
and the placement of the dome upon a tall drum, relieve some of
the outward stress exerted by the dome. However, the drum
appears to have sustained structural damage during the earthquake
of 1908, which completely levelled Catania and Messina, as the
engineer Francesco Valenti had cause to fit a frame around its
base in 1916.143 Moreover, the thickening of the walls and the
use of a drum significantly increase the downward thrust of the
dome. This thrust presents a danger to SS. Pietro e Paolo
because the extreme height of the clerestory wall could cause
buckling, especially at the critical tension points where the
wall meets the roofs of the aisles. The fear of this type of
damage was certainly the reason why the iron tie beams positioned
just above the imposts of the transverse nave arches were
installed at the beginning of this century.144
Minor dome. Although the minor dome encounters some of the
same structural disadvantages of the major dome— such the danger
of buckling at the clerestory walls— the problems are much less
pronounced due to the smaller size of the dome (fig. 8).
Moreover, the rectangular openings in the clerestory walls
located to the north and south of the muqarnas sufficiently
143See Lojacono, "La chiesa, " pp. 391-2.
144See Lojacono, "La chiesa abbaziale," pp. 389-90.
86
lighten the downward force. However, lateral bracing does appear
to have been a concern, as a transverse wooden beam spans the two
sanctuary piers ca. 5.44 meters above the floor of the nave.145
The muqarnas vaults that form the transitional vaulting of the
minor dome also enhance the structural quality of the dome, as
they form a triangular cross-section that redirects much of the
outward thrust of the dome downward as a compressive load.
Part .4: The Architecture of the
Twelfth-Century Church
All existing evidence implies that by the end of the twelfth
century the church of SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd had been subject
to two construction campaigns. The first, which was patronized
by Roger II, constituted a rebuilding of an ancient monastery
that had been abandoned during the Muslim occupation; the second,
which is noted in the inscription carved into the lintel of the
west portal, seems to have constituted a renovation to the
original fabric of the church. Using the evidence for the
documentary history and for the physical state of the church
presented above, as well as selective comparisons to other
contemporary monuments in Sicily and southern Italy, it is
possible to form objective hypotheses as to the appearance of SS.
Pietro e Paolo after these two building phases.
Construction Prior to the 1171/2 Renovation;
Despite the countless attempts of renovation and
restoration, the surviving edifice of SS. Pietro e Paolo seems to
have retained much of the character of its original appearance.
14SI am uncertain as to whether this beam represents part of

the original construction or was added at a later date.
87
In the previous chapter, I have argued that the initial
construction of the church occurred sometime between the issue of
the foundation charter by Roger II in 1116 and the 1171/2
restoration by Girardus the Frank.146 This proposal is
augmented by the fact that the physical evidence suggests that
the lintel containing the record of Girardus' restoration was
inserted into an already existing fabric. Moreover, the church
conveys a sense of extraordinary homogeneity in both design and
construction techniques, which indicates that what survives was,
for the most part, built during a single campaign. As a result
of this remarkable state of preservation, the task of providing a
reasonable reconstruction of the first building is greatly
simplified. Because the preceding description of the building
has been quite thorough, I shall only comment upon the parts of
the church that appear to have undergone alteration.
Articulation of interior wall surfaces. Although the
absence of mural decoration is quite unusual for churches of the
Orthodox rite, none of the surviving accounts of SS. Pietro e
Paolo give any reference to mural decoration, and, as stated
above, no traces of frescoes or mosaics were found during the
1957-60 restoration.147 Because it is difficult to imagine that
such types of mural decoration would have been completely removed
from the walls at Agrd, several scholars have suggested that the
church's interior was originally devoid of mural decoration.148
146Supra. Ch. 1, pt. 2.
147Supra. Ch. 1, pt. 1.
148Cutrera, pp. 235-6, contends that, with the exception of a

limited number of churches, such as S. Maria dell'Ammiraglio and
the Cappella Palatina in Palermo and the Cathedral of Monreale,
88
On the other hand, instances of near total obliteration of mural
fresco cycles, such as at S. Filippo di Fragal& near Frazzand,
indicates that is indeed possible for entire mural programs to
vanish without a trace.149
At the very least, the walls would likely have been covered
with a coat of white intonaco, perhaps painted with simple and
quickly drawn images that were meant to fulfill the needs of the
faithful until more elaborate mural decoration could be
installed.150 Considering the decline in royal patronage of the
Basilian monasteries after Roger II was crowned King of Sicily in
1130, as well as the inevitable depletion of funds at the
monastery following the construction of the church at Agrd
itself, it is possible that a mosaic program was planned but
never realized.
Flat ceilings of nave. Although the wooden ceilings that
currently cover the first and third bays of the nave (figs. 18,
20-21, 26-27) are the product of the 1964-65 restoration, their
the majority of churches from Norman Sicily originally internally

covered with white plaster. Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia
nelle etd islamica e, normanna (827-1194) (Palermo, 1990), pp. 94-
5, seems to agree with this assessment, expounding the fact that
many secular and religious building in Norman Sicily, as a
reflection of Muslim aesthetics, were internally covered a thin
coat of white intonaco. Moreover, Corrado Bozzoni, Calabria
normanna. Ricerche sull'architettura dei secoli undicesimo e,
dodicesimo (Rome, 1974), p. 40, suggests that the interior of the
Basilian church of S. Giovanni vecchio in Bivongi, which he dates
to the last quarter of the eleventh or the first decade of the
twelfth century, was probably articulated with plaster to provide
a suitable background to mount panel paintings and tapestries
depicting sacred images.
149See Di Stefano, Monumenti, 2nd ed. (Palermo, 1979), p. 14.
150Parallels for such methods are found in several rock-cut

churches of Cappadocia. See Spiro Kostof, Caves of God. The
Monastic Environment of Byzantine Cappadocia (Cambridge, Mass.,
1972), p. 146 f f .
89
design and location within the height of the nave are based upon
a set of ceilings, of uncertain date, that had previously adorned
the church.151 It is indeed possible that this type of ceiling-
-composed of wooden panels supported upon exposed transverse
beams— reflects the original design of the building, as similar
types are to be found in the Norman architecture of Sicily and
southern Italy, as well as in numerous mosques of North Africa
and Egypt.152 However, Francesco Basile contends that the flat
ceilings at Agrd were originally positioned directly beneath the
roof structure of the nave, making the volume of the two bays ca.
1.40 meters higher than their present state.153 Unfortunately,
the spaces between the ceilings are today inaccessible. It seems
equally likely that the ceilings were located at a level equal to
the base of the drum of the major dome.154 In any event, the
possibility that these bays were originally vaulted can certainly
be ruled out because the application of vaults at this level
would likely have caused structural problems due to the lack of
bracing for the lateral walls.
Finally, we should also consider the Antonino Cutrera's
description of SS. Pietro e Paolo published in 1927, in which he
states that the wooden ceilings are composed of geometric
151The ceiling of the third bay from the west is clearly seen
in a photograph reproduced by Freshfield in 1918. See Cellae
Trichorae. vol. 2, plate 18, opposite p. 56.
152For comparisons to the wooden ceilings at Agrd, see infra.

Ch. 3, pt. 2.
153Basile, Chiese siciliane. tav. VI-VII; idem,

l farchitettura, n. 43, p. 113.
154See supra. Ch. 2, pt. 1.
90
designs.155 Although this seems to contradict surviving
photographic evidence and is not mentioned in other descriptions
of church, the account of SS. Pietro e Paolo given by Cutrera is
otherwise quite reliable.156 Intricately carved wooden ceilings
were certainly common in Norman-Sicilian architecture, and we
should not rule out the possibility those described by Cutrera
did exist, and that they may have reflected the original design
of the church.157
Floor elevations. The arrangement of the east end as it
existing before Lojacono's restoration is documented by a
photograph by Valenti in the Biblioteca Communale in Palermo, as
well as in an antiquated plan of the church on file with
Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali in Messina.158
Both the photograph and the plan clearly illustrate that the bema
and pastophoria were elevated above the level of the nave by
three steps, with a fourth creating an island in front of the
altar. The manner in which the four steps of the bema extend
into the nave, as well as the convex and concave curves with
which they are defined, certainly date this arrangement to the
155Cutrera, p. 236. The author believes these ceilings to

have been added to the church in the sixteenth century.
156Supra. for reference to an earlier photograph of the nave

published by Freshfield.
157For the use of wooden ceilings and soffits in Sicily, see

Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, pp. 90-4; Wolfgang Kronig,
II duomo di Monreale _e 1'architettura normanna in Sicilia
(Palermo, 1965), pp. 200-02.
158For a reproduction of Valenti's photograph, see Filangeri,

ed., fig. 12 E 8, p. 94.
91
Baroque period.1S9 Unfortunately, this leaves us with no
indication of the original floor levels, allowing for a variety
of hypothetical reconstructions. If his restoration of the
church is any indication, Lojacono seems to believe that bema and
pastophoria were elevated by a single step, as was the area
contained within the apse.160 Conversely, Basile depicts a rise
in level only at the bema and pastophoria in his set of drawings
of the church, while Ciotta renders all floors at the same
height, with no changes in elevation.161
Paving. Although the hexagonal pavers that currently cover
most of the floor surface of the church were installed during the
1957-60 restoration, their design reflects the pattern that had
previously survived in situ.162 However, it is not clear
whether this type of pavement was part of the original
construction of the church. The only other application of
hexagonal paving in the buildings of Norman Sicily of which I am
aware is found in the Hall of the Fountain at the Palace of the
Zisa in Palermo.163 Still, the hexagon is also featured in the
complex floor designs of the church of S. Adriano at S. Demetrio
1S9The bullnose profiles of the existing steps of the bema,

aisles, and apse may have been reused from the earlier, Baroque
design.
160In its present state, the raised floor of the apse appears
to bear no relation to the surrounding wall construction, which
seems to imply that it was not part of the original design.
161Basile, Chiese siciliane. tav. III-IV, VI-VII; Ciotta,

"Aspetti," figs. 34-5, p. 22.
162See Lojacono, "II restauro," p. 168. For an illustrations

of the pavement prior to the restoration see Cutrera, fig. 8, p.
235; Basile, Chiese siciliane. tav. VIII.
163See Giuseppe Caronia, La Zisa di Palermo. Storia e,

restauro. (Bari, 1982), p. 59 and fig. 73.
92
Corone in Calabria (late 11th or 12th century), and hexagonal
designs also appear frequently in medieval Islamic decorative
patterns.164
Sanctuary barriers. Due to the practice of the Orthodox
liturgy, the bema and pastophoria of our church must have been
separated from the nave and aisles by a templon.165 It has
already been pointed out that the two indentions on the inner
faces of the sanctuary piers (figs. 13, 16-17) appear to indicate
that a beam, which may have functioned as an epistyle of a
templon screen, once spanned the area in front of the bema.
However, these indentions are crudely cut into the piers, which
suggests that they are not contemporary with the original
164For the Calabrian churches, see Paolo Orsi, Le chiese

basiliane della Calabria (Florence, 1929), fig. 117, p. 168. For
dating of the church and pavement, see Chiara Garzya Romano, La
Baslicata; La Calabria. Italia romanica series no. 9 (St. L6ger
and Milan, 1988) pp. 241-42. For examples from Islamic art, see
Issam El-Said and Parman Ay§e, Geometric Concepts in Islamic Art
(London, 1976), pp. 50-81, 98-114; Roland Lewcock, "Architects,
Craftsmen and Builders; Materials and Techniques," in
Architecture of the Islamic World. Its History and Social
Meaning, G. Michell, ed. (London, 1978; rpt. 1987), p. 139.
165Although templa were constructed of a wide variety of

material, it appears that marble was most widely used until the
fourteenth century. See Manolis Chatzidakis, Reallexikon zur
bvzantischen Kunst. Ill, pp. 331 ff. The best preserved from the
Middle Byzantine period are found in the Theotokos (10th c.) and
Katholikon (1011 or 1022) at Hosios Lukas, both of which are in
situ. See Andre Grabar, Sculptures bvzantines du Moven Ages, II
(Paris, 1976), pp. 56-60, pis. XX, XXIV-XXV. For other examples
of Byzantine templa and further bibliography, see; Chatzidakis,
Reallexikon. Ill, pp. 325-54; Cyril Mango, "On the History of the
Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at Constantinople,"
Zograf, 10 (1979), pp. 40-3; V. Lasareff, "Trois fragments
d'epistiles peintes et le templon byzantin," D61tion t5s
ChristianikSs Archeologik5s Etaireias. 4 (1964-5), pp. 117-43;
A.W. Epstein, "The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or
Iconostasis?" Journal of the British Archaeological Association,
134 (1981), pp. 1-28; Yildiz Ottiken and Robert Ousterhout, "Notes
on the Monuments of Turkish Thrace," Anatolian Studies, 39
(1989), esp. pp. 122-5.
93
construction. Moreover, if the indentions did in fact support a
transverse beam, it would have been set ca. 2.65 meters above the
present nave floor. Although this height is comparable to the
elevation of the epistyle of the templon at the Katholikon of
Hosios Lukas, it seems somewhat short for the proportions of the
church at Agrd. Therefore, it may be best to consider that the
sanctuary enclosure at Agrd was originally constructed.without an
epistyle or iconostasis partition. Notably, the sanctuary
barrier of S. Maria dell'Ammiraglio in Palermo, which constitutes
best surviving example of a sanctuary barrier from Norman Sicily,
appears to have been of this type.166
Altar. The present position of the altar within the conch
of the apse, which is the result of Lojacono's 1957-60
restoration, does not seem well suited for the design of the
building. Because the church was an Orthodox foundation, the
liturgy would probably have necessitated more ample space for
circulation between the back of the altar and the apse. However,
the position of the altar between the piers of the triumphal arch
prior to its relocation by Lojacono, was obviously the result of
a Baroque renovation and is equally unacceptable, because such a
166See Ernst Kitzinger and Slobodan Curdi6, The Mosaics of

S t . Mary's of the Admiral in Palermo (Washington, D.C., 1990),
pp. 30-1 and figs. A/11-12. Although various fragments of marble
templa from the Byzantine periods of southern Italy and Sicily
have also survived, it is unclear to what extent epistyles were
used. For reproductions and bibliography see various plates and
entries in Gugliemlmo Cavallo et al., I Bizantini in Italia, ed.
G. Carrateili (Milan, 1982), 213-70 (southern Italy); 272-84,
286-94 (Sicily); Orsi, Sicilia bizantina. pp. 59-68 and figs. 31-
3.
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
placement would interfere with sanctuary barriers.167 A
location near the center of the bema would make more sense for
the original design, as it would allow proper circulation on all
sides.
Stair towers. By far, the most enigmatic aspect of a
reconstruction of the original form of SS. Pietro e Paolo
concerns the appearance of the twin stair towers of the west end.
The problem is essentially twofold. First, only scant physical
evidence of the upper levels of the towers has survived, making
only general speculation possible. Second, there is only limited
comparative material for twin towers at the scale of our church.
Whatever the appearance of the design at Agrd, it seems likely to
have been unique.
The single-most revealing piece of evidence for the
reconstruction of the towers is the remains of a merlon located
at the western corner of the north clerestory facade (figs. 57,
72). This merlon is bent at its middle and projects diagonally
outward from the body of the nave at an approximate fortyfive-
degree angle. An examination of the surviving masonry and
character of the merlon reveals that it is integral with the
construction of the clerestory wall. Therefore, it seems certain
that line created by the crenelation would have been connected to
the north tower, indicating that the it, as well as the south
167The earlier position of the altar is documented in several

photographs and the antique Messina plan mentioned above. For
reproduction of the photographic evidence, see Filangeri, ed.
fig. 12 E 8, p. 94; Freshfield, vol. 2, opposite p. 56.
95
tower, rose at least to height of the roof of the nave.168 From
here theories become more speculative.
Although I have not been able to find exact comparisons to
the arrangement at Agrd, other examples of eaves extending from
the body of a building to connect two separate masses are found
in the Norman South. At the east ends of the Cathedral of
Catania and S . Nicold Regale at Mazara, the rows of crenelations
that define the rooflines are continued across the gaps of the
three apses by shallow squinches that spring from the solid wall
surfaces below.169 The remains of the diagonal merlon at SS.
Pietro e Paolo indicates that a similar device must have been
employed, probably with the intent to provide a passageway
linking the tower with roof of the nave. An argument could be
made that the two towers at Agrd must have risen to the same
height as the nave, in order to allow for a continuous line of
crenelations, as in the clerestory levels of the churches at
Catania and Mazara.170
It also seems wise to reject Bottari's theory— doubtlessly
inspired by the design of the tower of S. Giovanni degl'Eremiti
in Palermo— that the towers at Agrd may have been topped by small
168Lojacono, ”11 restauro," p. 166, was the first to consider

the significance of this ruined merlon.
169For Catania Cathedral, see Di Stefano, Monumenti, 2nd ed.,

pp. 6-10, tav. IX; for S. Nicold, see ibid. pp. 26-7, tav. XXXVI.
170L o jacono, p. 166. A similar situation appears to have

been intended in the original design for the cathedral of Cefalu;
see Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, pp. 112-3. Idem, La
cattedrale di Palermo (Palermo, 1976), p. 294, also suggests the
towers of Norman Sicilian churches typically rise no higher than
the eaves of the nave.
96
domes.171 Bottari seems to have underestimated the difference
in aesthetics between eastern and western Sicily, and I contend
that such a detail would not be in keeping with the volumetric
austerity of SS. Pietro e Paolo.
West facade. If we accept the theory that the stair towers
at Agrd were initially constructed to the same height as the
nave, then it is not difficult to imagine the original appearance
of the west facade. Although Lojacono has suggested that the
area between the two towers was enclosed by a wall that rose
flush with the outer facade of the church (fig. 73), it seems
more probable that the west gallery was open to the exterior with
the outer wall rising only high enough to provide a low parapet,
similar to its present state (fig. 74) .172 Several related
examples of this arrangement are found in Norman Sicily. For
instance, west ends of the cathedrals of Mazara, Cefalu, and
Monreale provide apt comparisons. In all of these churches, the
facades of the nave are set back from the twin towers, although
whether or not the areas between the tower were originally
enclosed at ground level by porches or porticoes has been the
subject of intense debate.173 Moreover, Lojacono's hypothetical
171,,Chiese basiliane," p. 14.
17311II restauro," p. 167 and fig. 18 (p. 169) for Lojacono's

theory. To my knowledge, Lojacono's proposed reconstruction for
the west facade is only considered by Basile; see L'architettura,
p. 28.
173Heinrich M. Schwarz, "Die Baukunst Kalabirens und

Siziliens im Zeitalter der Normannen, I: Die lateinischen
Kirchengriindungen des 11. Jahrhunderts un der Dom in Cefalu,"
Romisches Jahrbuch fur Kunstsqeschichte. 6 (1942-4; publ. 1946),
p. 104 and n. 219, cites that Giovanni Luigi Lello, Historia
della chiesa di Monreale. (Rome, 1596), pp. 23-4, who describes
medieval porticoes situated between the towers of the cathedral
of Monreale, and uses this as a basis for ascribing a similar
97
reconstruction of the west facade is not only aesthetically
clumsy, but also without parallel in Sicily and southern
Italy.174
Unfortunately, due to the deterioration of the west wall of
the nave at gallery level, it is difficult determine the original
state of the upper level of the west facade. Although the large
rectangular opening set within the center of the wall is
certainly of a late date, one would expect some sort of window at
this location to supplement the interior lighting of the church.
It is also conceivable that the areas below the sets of voussoirs
that form the superimposed arches at the ruined eastern walls of
the two west towers (fig. 45) were originally open. However, if
the filled areas below these arches once served as portals, a
stairway would have been required to connect it with the roofs of
the north and south galleries, as the landings would have been
approximately 2.50 meters above the pavement of the galleries.
arrangement for the cathedrals of Mazara and Cefalu. Kronig, II

duomo di Monreale. p. 145, appears to accept this theory.
However, Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, pp. 78, 113, and
117, is convinced that the composition of the west facades at
Cefalu and Monreale were devoid of porches or porticoes, as he
considers the designs related to entrances found in Islamic
architecture, which were detailed with a portal symmetrically
flanked by two projecting towers. Bellafiore's plan for the
original design of the Cathedral of Mazara, fig. 44, p. 105, is
also rendered with no porch between the west towers.
174Besides engulfing the twin towers, Lojacono's design of

the west facade creates vast enclosed space above the west porch,
which seems completely extraneous. It should finally be noted
that in what appears to be a complete reversal of opinion,
Lojacono suggests in a later publication that in its original
state, the west end of SS. Pietro e Paolo did not contain a
vestibule, because he believes the archivolt of the entrance
leading into the porch is a product of the 1171/2 renovation.
See "La chiesa abbaziale," p. 390. However, this hypothesis also
seems unfounded, as it is in clear opposition to the surviving
archaeological evidence.
98
Due to the unlikelihood of this arrangement, the arches should be -
viewed as later additions.
Portals. In the discussion on construction practices we
have seen that all of the extant portals reveal evidence of
reworking. Naturally, the main entrance of the original church
must have been located at the position of the current west
portal. However, it seems reasonable to propose that a
predecessor to the south portal may have also been included in
the original design of the church, as it would have served as a
direct link to the south cloister of the monastery.175 If such
an opening existed, it was probably of smaller dimensions than
the existing portal, in order to fit more integrally into the
construction of the pilaster strips that make up the interlaced
arcading (fig. 59) ,176 Conversely, I see no reason for the
location of a portal at the north side of the church, and I
suggest that this facade was originally closed to the exterior.
Circular recess above south portal. Whether or not a portal
originally existed in the south facade, the blocked circular
recess directly above the interior of the south portal (fig. 22)
seems to indicate that either this circular opening— or more
likely, a round-headed window similar to the others— at one time
175For a discussion of the dating and form of the south

cloister, see infra. Ch. 1, pt. 5. Although Lojacono, "II
restauro," p. 165, argues that from the interior the masonry
surrounding the south portal appear to be part of the original
construction, a close examination seems to indicate that this is
not the case. See supra. Ch. 1, pt. 1.
176Moreover, a portal of smaller dimensions that the extant

opening would allow for a window similar in size to the other
aisle windows to have been located above the doorway. See
immediately below.
99
extended through to the exterior.177' However, two problems
arise with the window theory. First, there is no evidence of any
sort of opening on the exterior wall (fig. 61). Second, the
existence of the window at this location would interrupt the
pilaster of the exterior arcading that is centered above the
portal.
Rooflines of galleries. Although Lojacono suggests that
merlons lined the parapets of the north and south aisles, there
is no archaeological evidence for this assumption.178 However,
most of the three-aisled basilicas of Norman Sicily that are
detailed with crenelations at the roof of the nave are likewise
articulated with battlements at their side aisles.179 Moreover,
the merlons at Agrd appear to have built for defensive purposes
rather than for decoration, and it is reasonable that they would
have been needed to protect the north, south, and perhaps even
the west galleries.
Minor dome. Bottari and Basile contend that the exterior of
the minor dome, which is detailed as a cloister vault (fig. 69),
is the result of the sixteenth-century renovation. These authors
seem to suggest that its original state, its cupola was instead
topped by a pumpkin dome, reflecting its internal design.180
177Lojacono, "II restauro," p. 165, contends that the

original church was articulated with a circular window at this
location to increase the interior lighting.
178Lojacono, "II restauro," p. 163 and fig. 18, p. 169.
179For examples, see the cathedrals of Cefalu (south aisle

only) and Palermo, and S. Maria della Valle (La Badiazza), near
Messina.
180Basile, Chiese siciliane (text), and Lfarchitettura della

Sicilia Normanna. pp. 27-28; Bottari, "Chiese basiliane," p. 14.
100
However, neither Bottari nor Basile'explain their reasons for
this theory, which appears to be based upon formalistic grounds.
Renovation by Girardus the Frank:
The extent to which the present church of SS. Pietro e Paolo
reflects the renovation campaign undertaken by Girardus the Frank
in 1171/2 has been subject to debate. Much of the early
scholarship on the church— including works by Salinas, Cutrera,
Bottari, and Basile— contends that the church was almost, if not
entirely, rebuilt by Girardus.181 However, during his 1957-60
restoration, Lojacono developed an hypothesis about the phases of
construction based upon a close examination of the existing
masonry. He concluded, I believe correctly, that Girardus's role
in the construction of the extant church consisted only of the
rebuilding of the west and south portal and other limited
repairs.182 To supplement this theory, Lojacono also proposed
that the renovation may have been needed to correct the damage of
a major earthquake that devastated eastern Sicily and Calabria in
1169.183 This suggestion is worth considering, as portals are
particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage.
West and south portals. Because the west portal (figs. 2,
43, 50-51) contains the segmental lintel into which the
inscription referring to the Girardus' renovation is carved, it
181Salinas, "Nota sulla iscrizione, ” pp. 88-9; Cutrera, "La

chiesa normanna," pp. 229 ff.; Bottari, "Chiese basiliane," pp.
19 ff.; Basile, Chiese siciliane.
182Lojacono, see "II restauro," pp. 162-6, 168. For my

observations on the construction and detailing of the two
portals, see supra. Ch. 1, pt. 2.
183See "La chiesa abbaziale," pp. 385-6; "II restauro," pp.

164-5.
101
is the key to deciphering the extent of the repairs. Two aspects
are crucial for our interpretation: 1) except for some obvious
reworking at the tympanum, the elements of the portal appear to
date to the same building phase, and 2) that this phase post
dates the construction of the west wall of the nave. As a
result, we may deduce that west portal constitutes part of the
1171/2 renovation, which was installed into what may be assumed
to be the original fabric of the church. Because of its
similarities in form and construction, the south portal was
obviously added to the church by the same construction crew.
Unfortunately, the tympana of both portals have been altered
by modern repairs, and it is difficult to speculate upon their
original appearance. However, a photograph taken at the
beginning of this century, as well as one of Basile's detail
drawings, show the west tympanum filled with a rather haphazard
arrangement of brick and brick and tile fragments.184 Possibly,
this treatment could reflect the detailing of both the west and
south tympana. Regardless, Stefano Bottari's suggestion that the
tympanum of the west portal may have originally been covered with
black mastic is perhaps worth considering, as it would have
disguised any irregularities in construction.185
Stair towers and central apse. In his second publication on
SS. Pietro e Paolo, Lojacono suggests that the upper level of the
exterior of the central apse (fig. 66) may have also been
repaired as part of the 1171/2 campaign.186 Following this
184See Waern, pi. XXI; Basile, Chiese siciliane. tav. V.
185See "Chiese basiliane," p. 16.
186nLa chiesa abbaziale,” pp. 384-7.
102
lead, Kronig infers that the two towers of the west end may have
had to have been partially rebuilt after the earthquake of
1169.187 Although these hypotheses are certainly possible, I
can find no physical evidence to support either argument.
Part 5.: The Monastic Buildings
Extensive remains of ruined buildings, most of which appear
to have been part of the monastery of SS. Pietro e Paolo, are
located to the north and south of the church (fig. 75).
Unfortunately, the state of preservation of the majority of these
buildings is poor, and most reflect countless renovations that
were followed by long periods of neglect. Moreover, any attempt
to date the buildings is confounded not only by their deplorable
conditions, but also by the fact that the materials and methods
of construction are not related to those found in the church, and
they represent local practices that are not easily dated.
However, qualitative differences usually exist between a church
and its monastic buildings. In consequence, the design, if not
specific parts of the extant structures, may well be original.
Before proceeding, it should be made clear that a thorough
study of the monastic buildings is outside the scope of this
dissertation. My primary intent is to expand the awareness of
these buildings, which have scarcely been considered in the
previous research on S S . Pietro e Paolo. Any suggestions offered
here are the result of only a brief examination of the
structures.
187Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp. 22-3.
103
Although it is difficult to as'sess to what extent the
surviving remains actually reflect the original design of the
complex without conducting excavations, some observation may be
made regarding layout. For instance, the character of the
cloister, rectangular in plan and positioned to the south side of
the church, seems Latin in origin. However, the present owner of
the property adjacent to SS. Pietro e Paolo informed me that his
father recalled that at one time the church was entirely
surrounded by series of walls and buildings that connected the
south cloister and north annex. In fact, the antiquated plan on
file with the Soprintendenza of Messina clearly illustrates such
a layout.188 The plan shows that an entrance gate— located at
the east end of the south facade— and a small annex— positioned
so as to obscure the south portal— were built directing against
the fabric of the church.189 To the west, a series of buildings
appear opposite the main portal. The north and east boundary is
defined by a wall, with the area between it and the church
articulated by a set of irregularly planned stairs.
Several details of the Messina plan, such as the rendering
of the spiral staircases at the two stair towers of the church,
lead one to question its accuracy. However, it seems likely that
the church at Agrd would have originally been surrounded by
subsidiary structures to offer an added sense of separation, as
well as protection, from the outside world. Although, relatively
188Whatever existed of the surrounding structures had

disappeared by 1906, when Waern first visited the church. See
Mediaeval Sicily, pp. 189-93.
189Due to the care with which the exterior surfaces of SS.

Pietro e Paolo are finished, these two constructions certainly
constitute later additions to the church.
104
little is known about the typical arrangement of Orthodox
monasteries, a group of Greek complexes from the Middle Byzantine
period are designed with a free-standing church enclosed on all
sides by fortified support buildings.190 Indeed, the remains of
two Basilian monastic complexes in Sicily— S. Maria at Mili and
S. Filippo di Fragal& near Frazzand— appear to have been
developed in this Greek tradition. Unfortunately, the extant
buildings surrounding both of these church are of much later
dates, and it is not certain whether or not they reflect the
original layouts of the monasteries.191
It appears that at some point the monastery at Agrd was
endowed with a physical character that may have been indicative
of both Latin and Orthodox sources. To what extent this
reflected the original design of the layout of the monastery is
unknown, although such an infusion of ideals would have been in
keeping with the aesthetic temperament of Norman Sicily.
South cloister:
Many of the buildings that comprise the south complex (fig.
76) are used by the Finocchio family; in fact, their residence
consists of a renovated section of building at the southeastern
corner of the courtyard. Other structures serve as storage
sheds, and the courtyard itself has been transformed into a
190Examples include Hosios Meletios near Megara, Sagmata in

Boeotia, and the Grand Lavra at Mount Athos. See Richard
Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4th
revised ed. with S. Curdid (Harmondsworth, 1986), pp. 345-7.
191For plans and further bibliography on S. Maria and S.

Filippo, see Filangeri, ed., pp. 78-81; 36-53; Di Stefano,
Monument!. 2nd ed, pp. 16-17; 13-14; Gianluigi Ciotta, "Le
fabbriche 'basiliane' fondate nella zona nord-orientale del
Valdemone durante il periodo normanno della contea," in ACIBC,
vol. 2, tav. V-VI.
105
vegetable garden. Although several” of the extant constructions
appear to date to more recent times, the plan of the complex,
with buildings clustered around a nearly square, open court,
certainly reflects the design of a monastic cloister. Moreover,
several ruined sections at the northeastern corner of the complex
do appear to be remnants of the monastery.
The construction of the buildings of the south cloister is
quite different from that of the church. In general, the walls
(ca. 0.55 to 0.60 m. thick) are built of irregular courses of
local limestone rubble, intermixed with large quantities of brick
and tile fragments, all held together by generous amounts of
mortar. Notably, there are no leveling courses of brick, and
mortar appears whiter in color and more brittle than that found
in the church. The door and window openings are either outlined
by sandstone frames, usually considerably deteriorated, or by
brick, which appear to be of the same size and composition as
those used in the church. However, many of the structures have
been renovated and/or covered with plaster, making it inpossible
to give a full account of construction techniques.
East wing. The east wing appears to have originally been
constructed as a single unit, ca. 39 meters long by 8.25 meters
wide, that at one time extended the entire length of the
cloister, from the narrow roadway next to the church at the
north, to what has now become the Finocchio residence at the
south. Except for the renovated residence, the east wing is
severely ruined and is no longer in use. However, the northern
section still rises three stories high, with access to the upper
levels accommodated by a protruding stair case attached to the
106
west wall. The staircase is entered from the north through a
wide, arched portal, outlined by a sandstone frame (fig. 77) that
is similar to the restored frames found in several of the
church's windows. Several details— such as large patches of
white and red plaster on the walls, the exposed steel rebars at
the second floor ceiling, and the two balconies that have been
added to the east front of the building— suggest that the
northern section of the east wing (fig. 78) was in use, probably
as a residence, at least until the beginning of this century.
However, the two surviving wooden floor joists that are
articulated with elaborately carved wooden corbels (fig. 79)
could very well be remnants of the monastic construction due to
their fineness of detail.
The portal leading into the staircase also provides access
into the ground level, as it opens through another arched doorway
into a corridor (ca. 2.20 m. wide) that appears to have once run
along a substantial portion of the eastern perimeter of the wing.
Notably, the inner surface of west wall of this corridor contains
a series of six recessed arches (ca. 2.05 m. wide), which must
have originally opened into courtyard to form an arcade, although
the openings are now blocked at the outer side by the
construction of a more recent abutment wall (fig. 80). Scant
remains at the northern section of the wing also indicate that a
corridor of similar dimensions once existed at the second level.
Unfortunately, all that survives of the middle portion of the
wing is the wall containing the arcade, and the construction of
the modern residence has obscured the southern section.
107
South wing. The south wing consists of an one-storied
building (ca. 5.50 m. wide x 6.50 m. long), currently used for
storage, that abuts into the modern residence at the east, and an
adjacent shed (ca. 2.80 x 4.20 m.) to the west. The northern
walls of the buildings run flush against each other, creating a
flat plane that defines the south boundary of the courtyard. At
present, the two buildings are only accessible from the north
side, which is fronted by an irregularly shaped terrace. This
terrace is entered from a set of stair at the north end of the
Finocchio residence (fig. 81), and is defined at the south by a
retaining wall (between 0.55 and 0.85 m. thick) that converges
upon a small trapezoidal structure (ca. 2.75 m. wide x 3.75 m.
long). This building at one time served as a kitchen, evidenced
by the presence of an oven at its west side and the smoke-
blackened interior. However, this room is in essence a tower,
because it extends down to the bottom of the base of the
retaining wall (fig 81, left background). Whatever its function,
it was a substantial undertaking to erect.
As in the other subsidiary buildings, it is difficult to
ascertain what, if any, of the south wing is original. However,
the ceiling of the large storage room, constructed of ferro
concrete, indicate a modern date, although on formalistic
grounds, it appears that the north face of the wing would have
always been flush to the courtyard. On the other hand, given the
defensive nature of the church, the arrangement of the south
terrace, augmented by the tower-like structure that at one time
served as a kitchen, corresponds to the original character of the
monastery.
108
West wing. The west wing formed by two structures located
at the northwestern corner of the cloister that are now isolated
from the other groups of buildings (fig. 82). However, the
existing ground level drops sharply at the remaining section of
the west boundary, and one wonders if a wall, or perhaps
additional buildings, originally extended to meet the south wing.
The south structure of the west wing is an irregularly shaped,
single level storage shed (ca. 5.50 m. wide x 6.30 m. long), of
shoddy construction, that appears to be much later than the other
building. The north building is a two-storied, gabled structure
(ca. 5.60 x 7.70 m . ), that is accessible at ground level through
a door positioned at its east face, and at the second level
through a portal located off an elevated porch at theeaster
portion of the south facade. Although this building is also used
for storage, its size and detailing may suggest that it
originally retained a more prominent function.
Courtyard. A stone wall (ca. 0.48 m. thick), which runs
roughly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the church, divides
the courtyard into northern and southern sectors, ca. 13.75 by
16.90 meters and 18.95 by 17.35 meters respectively (fig.
76) .192 At present, the wall rises to a height of ca.2.5
meters, and has been knocked out at two points to allow for
circulation between the two sectors of the courtyard. Although
the wall is crudely constructed and badly deteriorated, it
appears to have originally run the entire width of the courtyard
192For the measurements, the north/south dimensions are given

first, followed by the east/west. The north/south measurement
given for the northern sector represents its maximum dimension at
the east; at its western extremity, it measures ca. 10.00 m.
109
without openings, with access between the to sector only
available through the east wing of the cloister. This
arrangement seems reasonable, as it would have partitioned the
court into a northern public sector for lay visitors, and a
secluded southern sector reserved for the monks' devotions. Near
the midpoint of the wall, a section has been thickened for the
insertion of a semicylindrical, arched niche that faces the
church. The niche is articulated with a cornice moulding at the
springing of the small conch. At present, the entire
construction of the niche is plastered over, although it appears
to built of brick masonry. Perhaps it once served as a fountain
or shrine.
At the northern boundary of the cloister, the north court is
separated from the road next to the church by a retaining wall
(ca. 0.55 m. thick). Although the upper portions of the wall
appear to have been reinforced rather recently, the lowers
section, facing the courtyard, seems quite older, as photographic
evidence testifies.193 Moreover, such a construction may have
been needed in the original design of the monastery because, as
in the present topography, it seems likely that a significant
change in elevation existed between the ground level surrounding
the church and that of the south cloister.
North annex;
The north annex is a massive construction that is comprised
of three main structures (fig. 83). It is separated from the
church by a narrow road (ca. 3.50 m. wide), and is abutted at its
south side by a massive stone retaining wall, reported by Waern
193For example, see Waern, pi. XXIX, p. 190.
110
to have been built between 1906 and'1910.194 At its largest
dimensions, the annex is 19.40 meters long and 10.90 meters wide.
Because the topography rises upward toward the north, the two
northern structures are entered at a higher level than the south
wing.
The date and purpose of this annex are not clear, although
it does seem that at least the south wing could have been
constructed as part of the monastery. This is the view of Signor
Finocchio, who contends that it served as a workshop and
storehouse for the monks.195 Indeed, it seems more likely such
a large construction would have been built during the latter
years of operation of the monastery, although this hardly narrows
the date. However, the construction techniques employed at the
three wings of the annex are different, which suggests they were
constructed separately.
South wing. Little survives of the south unit (ca. 19.40 m.
x 6.45 m . ), except for the two end walls at its eastern and
194Ibid. p. 191. Waern states: "In 1906, when first seen by

me, it [the church] was still picturesquely part and parcel of
the poultry yard. It is now protected by a low wall,
unnecessarily ugly, but useful." The only place where the church
appears to have been threatened seems to be at the north side,
where the topography rises abruptly. Moreover, the wall
mentioned by Waern does not appear to be that located between the
church and the south cloister, as it appears very worn in the
photograph she reproduces (pi. XXIX, p. 190), and one can easily
imagine chicken coups lining the ruined southern section of the
north annex.
195The existence of comparable facilities in a monastic

complex are found in the preface to the typicon for the Monastery
of S. Salvatore at Messina (article VIII), written by Luke, the
first archimandrite ca. 1131-33. The document states that a
hospital, hospice, archontarikia (i.e. guest quarters for
nobility), granaries, bakery, and mill were included within a
separate court of the monastery. See Iosepho Cozza-Luzi, Nova
patrum bibliotneca. vol. 10, pt. 2 (Rome, 1905), p. 126.
Ill
western extremities, a transverse wall located near the middle of
the building, and its north wall, which is shared by the two
major structures to the north. The surviving walls of the south
wing are built of irregular courses of limestone rubble and brick
and tile fragments, similar to the general masonry technique
found in the buildings of the south cloister, except that they
appear to contain periodic leveling courses of brick (best seen
at the west wall), and a greater amount of sandstone is used in
the articulation of corners, window frames, and lintels. The
floors and ceilings of this unit have long since disappeared,
although three levels are clearly distinguishable at the north
wall.
Within the room east of the transverse wall, a well and an
oven have survived. These features appear to have been added
after the collapse of the ceilings, when the ruined lower rooms
were used as open courts. Due to the scant remains, little can
be deduced about the detailing of the original construction. The
most interesting feature to survive is the bull's eye window
located at the approximate center of the west end wall (fig. 84).
Because the other two wings abut the north wall of this unit, it
appear to be the oldest part of the annex.
Northwest wing. The northwest corner of the annex is
occupied by a large one-storied structure (ca. 6.15 m. x 4.90
m.), which is currently used for storage of farm equipment (fig.
85). All of the exterior surfaces, except a few areas of the
west wall, have been covered with plaster, and the roof of the
building appears to be relatively modern. The exposed masonry
reveal a construction technique similar to that of the south
112
wing, except that neither brick leveling courses nor sandstone
ashlars appear to have been used. Although it is difficult to
access the date of this structure because of its continued use,
its method of construction and lack of formal integration into
the other parts of the annex suggest that it is quite late.
Northeast wing. The remaining wing, located at the
northeast corner, is a two-storied construction (ca. 4.45 x 9.00
m.), topped by a gabled roof (figs. 85-86). A rectangular shed
(ca. 2.40 x 3.50 m.) of modern construction has been attached to
the wing at the middle of the north facade. Although the
exterior walls of this building are in a good state of
preservation, the floor of the second level has fallen in, making
the room unusable. In its original state, the wing could be
entered either at the second level through a door at the north
facade, or at a lower level, through a rectangular opening at the
west facade. A tall window is positioned at the second level of
the west facade, and another has been crudely knocked out at the
same level at the south facade, which seems to indicate that the
northeast unit continued to function after the destruction of the
south wing. Curiously, both the doorway and the rectangular
window of the west facade are articulated with what appear to be
relieving arches, constructed of brick, set above their heads.
Another interesting remnant is found at the second level of
the interior, which contains a socle executed in fresco.
Although several panels of the socle have fallen in with the
collapse of the floor, others remain in situ. The design of the
frescoes is simple, composed of maroon colored rectangles
113
separated by thin white strips and topped by a thin, continuous
band, also painted maroon.
Several aspects of this wing suggest that it was built after
the monastery had disbanded. The exterior construction—
consisting of plastered rubble with periodic leveling course of
exposed brick— is found in many of the late nineteenth- and
twentieth-century buildings in this region. In addition, the
frescoed socle appears too modern to date to the period of the
monastery, and it seems best to assume that the building
functioned as a private dwelling.
114
CHAPTER'3
SS. PIETRO E. PAOLO
AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MEDIEVAL MEDITERRANEAN
Part 1_: Brief History of the Architecture of
Medieval Sicily
Even before the advent of the Normans, the architectural
history of Sicily was characterized by a remarkable diversity.
In order to fully consider the implications of the architecture
of SS. Pietro e Paolo, it seems appropriate to begin our
discussion with a brief outline of the indigenous traditions that
may have influenced its planning, structural design, or
construction techniques.
Byzantine Sicily. Our knowledge of the architecture of
Byzantine Sicily is quite limited. Not only are the
architectural remains very scant, but there is a marked lack of
documentary evidence, which has inevitably led to the tenuous
dating of many monuments purely upon the basis of style.197 In
general, the surviving monuments of Byzantine Sicily appear far
removed from the major centers of development. During the fifth
and sixth centuries, some church plans, such as those at N6sima
and Zitone, appear at least loosely related to the architecture
of Constantinople; but ties with the capital were not
sustained.198 Although Constans II's relocation of the capital
of the Byzantine empire to Syracuse must certainly have effected
the architecture of the region, little has come down to us from
197A prime example of such misapplication is the Cuba located

near Castiglione di Sicilia. See infra. Ch. 3, pt. 2.
198See Cavallo et al., p. 281 and tav. X.
115
this era except for a few fragments'of sculptured furniture and
architectural decoration.199
By far, the most common church type is the basilica—
generally three-aisled, without transept, and with a large
central apse, rounded both on the interior and exterior.
However, there are also some examples of basilicas with triconch
sanctuaries, such as S. Pancrati at Cava d'Ispica near Modica
(6th-mid 9th c.) and S. Pietro ad Baias near Syracuse (late 5th-
early 6th c.).200 Although less frequent, centralized plans
also appear in a variety of forms. Of particular interest is the
church of S. Salvatore at Rometta (1st half of 10th c.?), which
seems to be a derivative of Byzantine cross-domed designs.201
The chapel of S. Pietro di Deca in S. Marco d'Alunzio (5th-6th
c.?), which is an octagonal, domed building, provides another
variation of a centralized design.202
Construction techniques and material in Byzantine Sicily
reflect regional developments. For instance, in the areas of
Syracuse and Catania— where the vast majority of surviving
monuments from this period are located— ashlar construction, of
199See ibid. 272-84.
200See Giuseppe Agnello, L 'architettura bizantina in Sicilia

(Florence, 1952), pp. 144-53, 81-8, respectively.
201For S. Salvatore, see C. Autore, "La chiesa del San

Salvatore di Rometta," ASM, n.s. 1 (1934), pp. 54-63; Lojacono,
"L'architettura bizantina," p. 188; Cavallo et al., tav. X and n.
155, p. 294 (with additional bibliography).
202See Ryolo, "Contributi alia conoscenza delle architetture

paleocristinana e araba in Sicilia," Bollettino del Centro di
Studi per la Storia dell'Architettura. 24 (1976), pp. 34-8. It
is possible that the building originally functioned as a
mausoleum. For various other building in the Valdemone that
Ryolo considers to date to the Byzantine period of the island,
see ibid. pp. 23-40.
116
varying quality, was employed due to the availability of building
materials from ancient ruins. In more remote regions and in
later periods, rubble construction is more common, sometimes
mixed with randomly placed bricks and/or ashlars and set within
thick beds of mortar.203 Except for the eastern section of the
island, brick construction in Sicily had been extremely limited
during the Roman period, and it appears that this was also the
case throughout the Byzantine domination.201
Muslim Sicily. In complete contrast to the immense building
activity recorded by medieval writers— such as Ibn Hawkal's
assertion that the number of mosques found in Palermo was
surpassed only by C6rdoba— virtually nothing of the Muslin period
of Sicily has survived.205 Although various attempts have been
made to attribute certain Sicilian buildings or ruins to this
period, most such suggestions have been controversial. For
example, both the Palace of the Favara in Palermo and the so-
called Arab Baths in Cefal& Diana, which had traditionally been
considered to reflect the most complete surviving works of Muslim
architecture on the island, are today generally regarded as
203Examples of such types of construction are found in "La

Cuba" at Malvagna (6th-7th c.) and S. Salvatore at Rometta. For
Malvagna see G. Agnello, 1/architettura, p. 303; Santi Luigi
Agnello, "Architettura paleocristiana e bizantina della Sicilia,"
in CCARB, vol. 9 (Ravenna, 1962), p. 89.
2MFor use of brick in Roman Sicily, see R.J.A. Wilson,

Sicily and Sardinia During the Roman Empire: Aspects of the
Archaeological Evidence," Kokalos, 26-7 (1980-1), pp. 229 ff.;
idem, "Brick and Tiles in Roman Sicily," in Roman Brick and Tile,
ed. A. McWhirr, British Archaeological Reports Supplementary
Series, 68 (1979), pp. 11-44.
20SFor Italian translations of Ibn Hawkal and other Muslim

accounts of Sicily, see Francesco Gabrieli and Umberto Scerrato,
Gli Arabi in Italia. Cultura. contatti e, tradizioni, ed. G.
Carratelli (Milan, 1979), pp. 733-47.
117
dating to the Norman period.206 Likewise, Domenico Ryolo's
attempt to distinguish Muslim buildings from those constructed
under the Normans through an analysis of mortar types should be
viewed with extreme caution, as the consistency and composition
of mortars can often vary within the same monument.207
The two most probable surviving examples of building under
the Muslims are the south wall and annex of S . Giovanni degli
Eremiti in Palermo— which are thought to be the remnants of a
tenth-century mosque— and the ruined fortress at Mazzallaccar
near Sambuca di Sicilia (9th-lst 1/2 of 11th c.)— which appears
closely related to the Aghlabid ribats at Sousse and Monastir in
Tunisia.208 However, at best these structure only give us a
partial understanding of pre-Norman building, because of their
relatively modest scale and degree of articulation. Moreover,
due to the fact that they are both located in the western Sicily,
206For the Favara, see Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp.

95-7; Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, pp. 147-9. A good
review of the current state of scholarship on the baths at CefalA
Diana is found in Di Stefano, ibid, pp. 92-5.
207Ryolo proposes that while Muslim and Byzantine buildings

in Sicily employed a very hard mortar, which probably included
pozzolana in its composition, mortars used during the Norman
period were of an inferior quality. See "Soprawivenze arabe in
provincia di Messina," Palladio, pp. 31-2; idem, "Contributi," p.
31.
208For the earlier construction incorporated into S. Giovanni

degli Eremiti, see Giuseppe Particolo, "II monumento arabo
scoverto in febbraio 1882 e la contigua chiesa di San Giovanni
degli Eremiti," ASS. 7 (1882), pp. 170-83. For Mazzallaccar, see
Anna Maria Schmidt, "La fortezza di Mazzallaccar," Bollettino
d'arte. 57 (1972), pp. 90-3.
Particolo's identification of the remains with a mosque was
challenged early on by Vincenzo Di Giovanni, La toooarafia antica
di Palermo, vol. 2 (Palermo, 1889-90), 301-13. However,
Particolo's theory has sustain considerable acceptance, and upon
inspection of the site, I am inclined to agree with his
assertions.
118
they probably represents just one of several regional styles that
existed on the island.
The difference in construction techniques and materials
employed at S. Giovanni degli Eremiti and the fortress at
Mazzallaccar is probably due to the buildings' contrast in
function. At S. Giovanni, the construction is of finely cut
limestone ashlars laid within very thin mortar joints, whereas at
Mazzallaccar, the walls are built of large, rough stone, set in
horizontal courses and bonded with thick, irregular mortar beds.
Conversely, a separate group of buildings in the Valdemone
attributed by Ryolo to the Muslim period typically utilizes yet
another type of wall construction that features thick bands of
mortared rubble divided by a leveling course of brick.209
However, few examples used by Ryolo are securely dated.
Despite the lack of monuments, the degree of refinement with
which the early buildings of Norman Sicily emerged has suggested
to some scholars that during the Kalbid period, a Sicilian style
of Muslim architecture— influenced by, but by no means completely
dependent upon, the Fatimid architecture of Ifriqiya and Egypt—
had been firmly implanted at least in the western part of the
island.210 This hypothesis aptly reflects the political
209"Sopravvivenze arabe," pp. 31-41. Examples include: the

castle of Bauso in the Francavilla district, the castle at
Rometta, the castle at Capo S. Alessio, the church of SS.
Salvatore at Castroreale, the castle at Milazzo, the castle at
Brolo, the "Torre dei Saraceni" at S. Lucia del Mela, the "Tower
of Frederick II" at Castroreale, and the "Torre Saracena" at
Piraino.
210For example, see Gabrieli and Scerrato, p. 307.
119
situation in Sicily, where in the early tenth century the Kalbids
had been installed by the Fatimids as semiautonomous rulers.211
Byzantine and Early Norman Calabria. During the later
phases of Byzantine rule in southern Italy, the architecture of
Calabria seems to have been receptive to designs and decorative
features related to developments in Greece. The most renown
examples of such influence are the Cattolica at Stilo and S.
Marco at Rossano, both dated to the tenth or eleventh
centuries.212 Both churches are quincunx designs with domed
corner bays; however, they are distinguished from typical
Byzantine churches of this type by the fact that all nine bays
are of nearly equal dimensions. Although the closest comparisons
to the Cattolica and S. Marco are found in Crete and Cappadocia,
it has been suggested that the plan was more likely transmitted
from the Peloponnesus.213 Similarly, the brick construction at
Stilo, which includes various decorative devices such as the dog
tooth friezes and reticulate tiling of the domes, appears also to
have been dependent upon the Byzantine architecture of
Greece.214
211For the politics of Kalbid Sicily, see Umberto Rizzitano,

"Kalbids," Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 4 (Leiden, 1960), pp. 496-
7; P.M. Holt et al., eds., The Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 2
(Cambridge, 1970), pp.432-5; D.M. Smith, pp. 3-12.
212See Krautheimer, Early Christian. 4th ed., pp. 402-3;

Venditti, Architettura binzantina nell'Italia meridionale.
(Naples, 1967), vol. 2, pp. 852-73; Cavallo et al., pp. 249-51,
ns. 116-7, p. 269 (with additional bibliography).
213Krautheimer, ibid. p. 403.
214Ibid. Also see Megaw, "Byzantine Reticulate Revetments,"

in Charisterion eis Anastasion K. Orlandon. vol. 3 (Athens,
1966), esp. pp. 18-19.
120
With the takeover of Calabria by the Normans ca. 1059, a new
impetus appears to have been interjected into the building trade.
In addition to the persistence of traditional types, such as the
single-aisled basilica and cross-in-square, new types influenced
by the architecture north of the Alps also emerged. For example,
the Cathedral of Gerace (late llth-mid 12th c.) and the enigmatic
Roccelletta of Squillace (last 1/3 of llth-mid 12th c.) exhibit
certain characteristics that are decidedly reminiscent of the
Romanesque architecture of France and Germany, such as the
extended sanctuary and protruding transept, both of which are
elevated above the level of the nave and define the limits of a
hall crypt below.21S Moreover, these churches were located at
the main centers of population, and, whereas both appear to have
been built for the Greek liturgy, they must also have served as
tangible manifestations of the presence of the Normans.
On the other hand, some of the most intriguing church
designs of the period are found in the remote reaches of the
province. Especially pertinent to our discussion are the
Basilian monastic churches of S . Giovanni vecchio at Bivongi
(near Stilo) and S. Maria de Tridetti at Staiti (near
Broncaleone), both apparently dating between the last decade of
215The literature on these Calabrian churches in particularly

convoluted. For a good summary of the basic theories and dating
of various authors, see Bozzoni, esp. pp. 77-81, 154-69.
However, Bozzoni's own conclusions should be viewed with caution,
as he goes to extraordinary pains to play down the impact of
Norman rule on the architecture of the region. Also see
Venditti, Architettura. vol. 2, pp. 899-906, 913-22; Schwarz, Die
Baukunst, esp. pp. 30-40; Wolfgang Kronig, "La Francia e
1'architettura romanica nell'Italia meridoinale," Napoli
nobilissima. n.s., 1 (1961-2), pp. 203-15; Gisberto Martelli, "La
cattedrale di Gerace," Palladio, n.s. 6 (1956), pp. 117-26;
Krautheimer, Early Christian. 4th ed., p. 403; Hans Erich Kubach,
Romanesque Architecture (New York, 1975), pp. 86 and 98.
121
the eleventh century and the first half of the twelfth
century.216 The two churches, which survive only in ruin,
feature a dichotomous combination of a centralized sanctuary and
longitudinal nave.217 Although similar planning arrangements
seem to have appeared earlier in the Calabria, as in S. Filomena
at S. Severina (tentatively dated to before ca. 1050), several
details suggest inspiration from Islamic sources.218 Most
noticeable is the articulation of the vaulting over the
sanctuaries, which in both cases is composed of a drum,
containing recessed squinches, supporting a hemispherical dome.
The early Norman architecture of Calabria should also be
noted for the diversity of its materials and methods of
construction. For instance, there are prime examples of rough
rubble construction, as in S. Euphemia near Mileto, and brick
faced concrete, as in the Roccelletta at Squillace. Ashlar
masonry was also commonly used during this period, either to
articulate particular details, as in the arches of the nave
arcade or window or door openings at Cathedral of Gerace, or in
alternation with brick courses, as in the wall construction of S
216See, among others, Bozzoni, esp. pp. 31-46; Venditti

Architettura. vol. 2, pp. 906-13, 922-9; Basile, 1/architettura,
pp. 35-40; Bottari, "Chiese basiliane," pp. 26-32; Paolo Orsi,
Chiese basiliane della Calabria (Florence, 1907), pp. 41-85.
217In the case of S. Giovanni vecchio, it has been suggested

by Schwarz, Sur Stilsvnthese. p. 88, and Bozzoni, pp. 37-8, that
the nave and sanctuary were constructed during different phases,
due primarily to the contrast in wall construction.
218For S. Filomena, see Cavallo et al., pp. 251-2, n. 119, p

269 (with additional bibliography); Venditti, Architettura. vol.
2, pp. 830-4.
122
Omobono at Catanzaro.219 But in relation to our examination of
SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd, the construction techniques of the
east end of S . Giovanni vecchio and in S . Maria de Tridetti are
particularly relevant. Both churches employ a similar polychrome
wall construction consisting of multicolored rubble, mixed with
brick and tile fragments, interrupted with brick leveling
courses.
Sicily of the Contea. The religious architecture of the
Contea in Sicily (1061-1130) is characterized by two basic
groups: 1) the large, basilican cathedrals of eastern Sicily and
Mazara, and 2) the small monastery churches, the majority of
which were Basilian foundations located in the Valdemone.
The basilican churches may be further divided into two
types, based upon the articulation of the transept and east end.
These forms reflect either Desiderius' church at Monte Cassino or
the second abbey church at Cluny. Those inspired by Monte
Cassino— characterized by a tall continuous transept, slightly
protruding from the side aisle, to which a triple-apsed sanctuary
is attached— include the cathedrals of Catania (ca. 1086-94) and
Messina (ca. 1096; rebuilt by 1168), and perhaps that of Troina
(1078-80). An early example of the Cluniac type— defined by
protruding transept, extended presbytery, and multiple apses
arranged in 6chelon— is found in the original design of the
Cathedral of Mazara (1086/8-93) .22° On the other hand, the
219For S. Euphemia and S. Omobono, see Venditti,

Architettura. vol. 2, pp. 896-9, 851-2, respectively.
220For further discussion and bibliography of individual

monuments, see Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp. 3-12, 56-8;
Stefano Bottari, "Lfarchitettura della Contea,” SicGvm, ns. 1/1
(Jan.-June 1948), pp. 1-33. In his zeal to promote the Muslim
123
volumetric definition and detailing"of both classes of cathedrals
often evoke comparison with Muslim buildings.221 In terms of
construction, the preferred material is large ashlars of
limestone, for the most part well cut and laid with thin mortar
joints. However, this is not always the case: the Cathedral of
Troina employs a rough rubble construction, more indicative of
small-scale and less prestigious building in central and eastern
Sicily.222
The small monasteries that comprise our second category were
constructed at the same time and within the same region as many
of the great cathedrals. Nevertheless, they are quite different
in planning arrangements, decorative details, materials, and
construction methods, and they are best related to the churches
belonging to Orthodox monasteries in Calabria. In addition to
the church at Agrd, the most important of these foundations to
element, Bellafiore, Architettura di Sicilia, pp. 76 and 191,

denies the existence of any Northern influence, except perhaps in
the most general sense of planning, in the cathedrals of Norman
Sicily to influence from the North.
221For example, the east ends of the cathedrals of Catania

and Mazara are composed of massive geometric shapes, articulated
only by proportionally small windows that are outlined by
multiple shallow recesses.
222The rubble construction, still visible in south arm of the

transept, is laid in irregular courses within thick beds of
mortar filled with brick and tile fragments. Sandstone ashlars
are also used, but only to define corners and other details. See
Bottari, "Lrarchitettura della Contea," esp. p. 6.
Notably, Malaterra's passage describing the foundation of
this cathedral, which specifically states that master masons were
contracted from various parts ("Coementarios conducens undecumque
aggregat"), seems in contradiction to the local character of the
construction. See Gaufridus Malaterra, De rebus qestis Roqerii
Calabriae et Siciliae comitis et Roberti Guiscardi ducis fratris
eius, III 19, 4, ed. by E. Pontieri, Rerum italicarum scriptores,
5 (Bologna, 1927), p. 68. Also see Benedetto Patera, L'arte
della Sicilia normanna nell fonti medievali (Palermo, 1980), pp.
12-15.
124
have survived are S. Filippo di Fragal& near Frazzand (ca. 1090),
S. Maria at Mili S. Pietro (ca. 1091), S. Pietro e Paolo at It&la
(ca. 1092), S. Alfio at S. Fratello (late llth-early 12th c.),
SS. Salvatore at S. Marco d'Alunzio (ca. 1100) .223 These
churches are similar in that special prominence is given to the
sanctuary, which is in all examples divided into three bays. The
bema is invariably covered by a dome, and the pastophoria are
topped either by vaulting or small domes. Construction
techniques and decoration are also similar. All surviving domes
are constructed entirely of brick, and are of markedly Islamic
character. Popular decorative motives include interlaced
arcading at the exterior facades and multiple setbacks, often
articulated with banded voussoirs, to define niches and openings.
Typically, wall construction consist of somewhat regular courses
of roughly squared stone and/or rubble that alternate at somewhat
regular intervals with leveling courses of brick, although brick
is often predominant in the upper levels.
Part 2.: Analysis of S S . Pietro je Paolo d' Agrd
Planning Arrangements:
The general plan of the church at Agrd— a three-aisled
basilica with an integrated tripartite sanctuary— is quite
common. Comparisons are found in monuments of various dates
throughout the Christian world, including a few of the surviving
churches of Byzantine Sicily.224 However, basilicas with nave
223For brief description and complete bibliography, see Di

Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp. 13-14, 16-21.
224The renovated temples at Syracuse (Cathedral of SS. Pietro

e Paolo) and Agrigento (S. Gregorio) provide the best examples.
See B. Pace, pp. 336-40; Luigi Trizzino, "La basilica bizantina
125
and aisles divided into a three-by-three grid by four columns are
quite rare. It was much more typical for three-aisled basilicas
to be composed four or more bays, as is the case in the Norman
churches of S. Pietro at It&la, S. Giovanni dei Lebbrosi at
Palermo (probably ca. 1140-50), and the Annunziata dei Catalani
at Messina (1166-89?) in Sicily, and S. Maria di Terreti near
Reggio (mid llth-early 12th c.), and S. Maria del Pdtir near
Rossano (early 12th c.) in Calabria.225 Indeed, the only
basilicas from the Norman period of which I am aware that are
comparable to the four column design at Agrd are S. Cataldo
(1154-60), the Maddalena (1184-6), and SS. Trinitd (the Maggione;
ca. 1191) in Palermo, and S. Maria de Tridetti at Staiti in
Calabria.226 However, these comparisons are essentially
different from SS. Pietro e Paolo: S. Cataldo and the Maddalena
do not contain an additional set of bays to accommodate the
sanctuary, the east end of SS. Trinity is defined by a transept
and extended presbytery, and S. Maria de Tridetti employs
compound piers rather than columns.
di S. Gregorio agrigentino nel Tenpio della Concordia," Felix

Ravenna. 119-20 (1980), pp. 172-88.
225For It&la, see Di Stefano, Monumenti, 2nd ed., pp. 17-18.

For S. Giovanni dei Lebbrosi and the Annunziata, see ibid. pp.
24-2; 61-2; however, I am inclined to reject Di Stefano's dating
of the Lebbrosi to ca. 1072-85, favoring the hypothesis of Mario
Guiotto, "La chiesa di S. Giovanni dei Lebbrosi in Palermo," La
Giara, 1 (1952), pp. 123-7, and Schwarz, p. 42, that it was
constructed during the mid-12th century. For S. Maria di Terreti
and S. Maria del P&tir see Bozzoni, pp. 171-2; 40, and n. 93, p.
60; Venditti, Architettura, vol. 2, esp. pp. 928-30; 930-40;
Orsi, Chiese basiliane. pp. 89-109; 111-51.
226For the Palermatine churches see Di Stefano, Monumenti,

2nd ed., pp. 59-61, 86-7, 88-9. For S. Maria di Tridetti see
supra.
126
For the ultimate source of inspiration for the plan of SS.
Pietro e Paolo, it may be best to consider Byzantine cross-in
square churches, such as the Kilise Camii in Istanbul (ca. 1100)
or the Panagia t6n Chalkeon in Thessoloniki (ca. 1028) .227
Excluding the fact that the central bay of the naos is much
larger than those of the cross arms and corner bays, the plans of
these two churches compare favorably to that at Agrd. Each is
composed of a central core, divided into nine bays by four
columns, with a three-bay narthex attached to the west, and a
tripartite sanctuary, separated from the naos by squared piers,
added to the east. Moreover, the placement of a dome over the
central bay of the nave at Agrd also suggests possible influence
from cross-in-square designs; I know of no other example in
Sicily or southern Italy, either in the Byzantine or Norman
periods, where a dome is superinposed on a basilican design.
Although some parallels for domes positioned over both the
naos and bema appear in Byzantine architecture— such as in the
Katholikon at Hosios Lukas (1011 or 1022) and the funerary chapel
dedicated to S t . Michael in the Pantokrator monastery in Istanbul
(ca. 1136)— the placement of the minor dome over the bema at SS.
Pietro e Paolo is best regarded as autonomous from the major
dome, and it should be considered within the context of more
local traditions.228 For instance, S. Giovanni vecchio at
227For these two churches see Krautheimer, Early Christian,

4th ed., esp. pp. 362-5; 373-4. Basile, Chiese siciliane (text),
appears also to have seen the similarity between the plan of SS.
Pietro e Paolo and the cross-in-square, which he considers
"Comnenian;" see supra. Ch. 3, pt. 1.
228For Hosios Lukas and the Pantokrator, see Krautheimer,

Early Christian. 4th ed., pp. 338-40, 385-8; 365-7.
127
Bivongi, S. Maria de Tridetti at Staiti, S. Maria at Mili, and S.
Pietro e Paolo at It Ala are each articulated with a domed bema.
This type of arrangement appears to have emerged as a regional
development in the architecture of southern Italy, with
relatively early examples found in S. Michele a corte at Capua
(late 9th-10th c.) and S. Filomena at S. Severina.229 However,
the predominant use of the domed bema in the architecture of the
Norman period may also suggest influence from the Muslim
architecture of North Africa, where it was standard throughout
the Aghlabid, Fatimid, and Almoravid periods for the niched
mihrabs of mosques to be preceded by a domed bay.230 Examples
include the Great Mosques of Qairawan (ca. 862), Tunis (ca. 864),
Mahdiya (916-22), and Algiers (ca. 1096) .231
In general terms, the twin-tower plan that articulates the
west end at Agrd has numerous parallels in Sicily and southern
Italy, such as S. Nicola at Bari and the Cathedral at Cefalu.
However, the manner is which the towers are fully integrated into
the body of the church, as well as the small scale of the
elements, are unique for the architecture of the region. If S.
Giovanni Lebbrosi in Palermo was originally defined by a pair of
stair towers spanning an open porch, as Di Stefano considers
229For S. Michele a corte, see Venditti, Architettura, vol.

2, pp. 606-10, with plan and section in fig. 387, p. 609.
230See Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, p. 74.
231For general reading and basic bibliography on the mosques,

see John D. Hoag, Islamic Architecture (New York, 1977); Georges
Margais, L fArchitecture musulmane d fOccident; Tunisie, Alaerie,
Moroc, Espanae. et Sicilie (Paris, 1955); K.A.C. Creswell, Early
Muslim Architecture: Umavvads, Early Abbasids, and Tulunids. vol.
2 (Oxford, 1940); Henri Terrasse, L'Art hispano-maurescrue des
origines au Xlle siAcle (Paris, 1932).
128
distinctly possible, then this church would provide the best
comparison to the west facade of our church.232
The affiliations of the arrangement of the sanctuary of SS.
Pietro e Paolo are also somewhat enigmatic. Although there are
several instances in the architecture of Byzantine and Norman
Sicily of semicircular apses that are squared on the exterior—
such as S. Pietro ad Baias (late 5th-early 6th c.) and S.
Marziano (6th and 12th c.) at Syracuse, and S. Andrea at Piazza
Armerina (ca. 1150)— they are not flanked by apsidioles that
protrude as semicircles at the exterior.233 However, a few
Norman-Sicilian churches, such as S. Michele near Altavilla
(1071-1130) and Cefalii Cathedral, are detailed with an extended,
rectangular presbytery that is flanked to each side by a
semicircular apsidiole, creating a planning arrangement not
unlike that at Agrd.234
232Monumenti, 2nd ed., p. 26. Di Stefano also suggests that

the church of S. Lucia extra moenia in Syracuse, which he dates
to ca. 1115, may also have contained a twin tower facade with the
towers nearly flush to the lateral walls of the basilica; see
ibid, p. 121. However, this church is considerably larger than
SS. Pietro e Paolo.
233For S. Andrea see Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp. 34-

5. For S. Marziano see ibid, pp. 120-2; G. Agnello,
L farchitettura bizantina. pp. 160-79. For S. Pietro ad Baias see
ibid, pp. 81-8. It should be added that squared central apses
appear frequently in Spanish Romanesque churches, although they
are almost always formed of horseshoe-shaped plans on the
interior. For general reference, see Jerrilynn Dodds,
Architecture and Ideology in Early Medieval Spain (University
Park and London, 1989), figs. 1, 3, 18, 20, 22-5, 27; Walter
Whitehill, Spanish Romanesque Architecture of the Eleventh
Century (Oxford, 1941), figs. 66 (p. 112) and 67 (p. 113); Pedro
de Palol and Max Hirmer, Early Medieval Art in Spain (New York,
1967), figs. 28-38 (pp. 49, 51, 53).
234For S. Michele, see Di Stefano. Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp.

29-30.
129
On the other hand, comparisons' to the plan of the central
apse of our church are perhaps best found in the mihrabs of
Islamic mosques, which were often detailed as curved niches set
into rectangular masses that protrude from the outer sanctuary
walls. Examples of such layouts are found, for instance, in the
Great Mosques of Sousse, Sfax, and Mahdiya in Ifriqiya, and the
Mosque of al-Juyushi in Cairo.235
The composition of interior space at Agrd is exceptional on
several counts. First, it demonstrates a spatial homogeneity
seldom found in the basilicas of the Norman South. For instance,
the related Basilian churches of S. Giovanni vecchio at Bivongi,
S . Maria de Tridetti at Staiti, S . Maria at Mili, S . Pietro e
Paolo at Itdla, and S. Alfio at S. Fratello, exhibit a marked
discontinuity between the nave (and aisles, if present) and the
sanctuary. Conversely, at Agrd clear visual relationships are
established between the nave and bema, as well as between the
aisles and pastophoria. In Sicily, the closest comparison to
such a complete integration of space in a domed basilica is S.
Cataldo in Palermo, where the bays of the sanctuary are identical
to the those of the nave and aisles. Although it is tempting to
relate the spatial continuity at SS. Pietro e Paolo to
developments in High Romanesque architecture in the North—
particularly to Normandy— one wonders why such integration is
23SFor the Sousse and Sfax see Alexandre Ldzine, Architecture

de lfIfriqiya. Recherches sur les monuments aqhlabides.
Archdologie mdditerrandenne, 2 (Paris 1966), figs. 43, 50. For
Mahdiya and al-Juyushi, see Richard Ettinghausen and Oleg Grabar,
The Art and Architecture of Islam: 650-1250 (Harmondsworth,
1987), figs. 148 and 163.
130
consistently absent in contemporary‘monuments in Sicily and
Calabria.
A second point to consider is the dichotomy between axiality
and centrality. We have noted above the similarity of the plan
to the Byzantine cross-in-square; and, indeed, a dome positioned
at the central bay would seem to augment this reading. However,
such an interpretation loses viability upon closer examination.
The bays of the side aisles that flank the domed bay of the nave
would have to be raised to the height of the nave bays to truly
facilitate a cross-in-square. Furthermore, because the bays of
the nave are of equal lengths, the dome reads more as a
specialized covering in a progression of modular units than as a
spatial generator, which is antithetical to cross-in-square
designs. Finally, the uninterrupted rhythm of the nave arcades
clearly expresses the basilican nature of the church.
Nonetheless, the inclusion of the major dome imbues the church
with an undeniable sense of centrality.
A similar tension between centrality and axiality exists
only in a general sense in the other churches of the Norman
South. For example, S. Giovanni degli Eremiti (1142-8) and S.
Cataldo in Palermo are basilican in plan, but their naves are
composed of series of modular, domed units. At first, the
churches of S. Giovanni a mare at Gaeta in Campania (mid 11th-
12th c.) and SS. Nicold e Cataldo at Lecce in Apulia (ca. 1180)
may appear related to our church in their superimposition of
central domes upon distinctly axial plans.236 However, the
236For further discussion and bibliography on S. Giovanni a

mare, see Mario D'Onofrio and Valentino Pace, Camoanie Romane,
Zodiaque series no. 56 (La-Pierre-qui-Vire, 1981), pp. 44-5;
131
aisle bays that flank the north and" south of the central dome are
covered with transverse barrel vaults set at the same height as
the vaults of the nave, thereby functioning as cross arms.237
As a result, these two churches are in essence no more than
elongated cross-in-squares.
The ruined church near Castiglione di Sicilia, locally known
as S. Domenico or the Cuba, provides another type of comparison
to the spatial dichotomy of SS. Pietro e Paolo.238 The church
is dominated by a large, square naos, which is covered by an
unusual type of vault composed of ascending sets of squinches.
However, the centralized nature of the naos is combined with
certain longitudinal characteristics, such as lateral arcade,
composed of two arches, that lead into side aisle, each of which
is covered by three groin vaults set in succession. But in
comparison to Agrd, the church at Castiglione offers a much more
centralized reading.
The tall proportions of SS. Pietro e Paolo have often been
used to provoke comparison to Late Romanesque or Gothic
architecture of the North, whether or not the intent was to
Venditti, Architettura. vol. 2, pp. 675-81; Cavallo et al., n.

73, p. 255. For SS. Nicold e Cataldo, see Riccardo Mola et al.,
Restauri in Puglia. 1971-1983. vol. 2 (Fasano, 1983), pp.428
ff.; Belli D'Elia et al., pp. 231-6, 282, 296.
237In addition, the naves and aisles of these churches are

divided transversely into four bays, compared to the three at
Agrd.
238Although this church is typically attributed to Byzantine

Sicily, I contend it contains planning concerns, detailing, and
construction techniques that more likely relate it to the Norman
period. See Charles Nicklies, "The So-called Byzantine Church
near Castiglione, Sicily," Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts
(Baltimore, 1990), pp. 73-4.
132
attribute the design of the building to Girardus the Frank.239
Indeed, the extreme attenuation of nave and bema at Agrd, which
is striking both on the interior and exterior, appears best
related to monuments constructed during the later phases of
Norman Sicily, such as the Maddalena and SS. Trinity in Palermo.
At the very least, the steepness of proportions separates SS.
Pietro e Paolo from the group of Basilian churches in Sicily and
Calabria built during the Contea, and in terms of stylistic
analysis it would seem to call for a later dating than that of
the issue of the foundation charter in 1116.
The external volumetric composition of the church at Agrd
(figs. 5, 74) is easily related to the architecture of the
Islamic world.240 The best comparisons to the arrangement of
SS. Pietro e Paolo are the mosques of Ifriqiya, such as the Great
Mosques of Qairawan (836, 862, and later), Sousse (850-1 and late
10th c.), Tunis (864 and lOth-early 11th c.), Sfax (849 and 10th-
239For example, see Bottari, "Nota," p. 288; "Chiese

basiliane," p. 21; "La genesi dell'Architettura siciliana del
periodo normanno," in ASSO 28 (1932), p. 323; Basile,
L'architettura. p. 43; Antonina Mondello Signorino, "Insediamenti
basiliani nel messinese," in ACIBC, vol. 2, pp. 864-5. However,
various scholars have tried to relate the emphasis upon height at
Agrd to other influences. For instance, Bellafiore, Architettura
in Sicilia, pp. 47-8 and 76, sees a relationship with the Zirid
and Hammadid palace architecture of the 10th-12th centuries,
whereas Lojacono, "La chiesa abbaziale," p. 395, views the
increased verticality at SS. Pietro e Paolo tied to developments
in Middle Byzantine architecture. Both theories should be
approached with caution, as the proportions at Agrd are
considerably steeper than in any example from either of these
styles.
240See Gabrieli and Scerrato, p. 307; Basile, L'architettura,

esp. pp. 47-52; Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, pp. 23, 72.
133
11th c.)r and Mahdiya (lOth-llth c.).2<1 The sanctuaries of
these mosques are articulated on the exterior by pure rectangular
volumes, that are disturbed only by the drums and domes
positioned over the bay preceding the mihrab and the main
entrance, and usually by a protruding rectangular spine defining
the central interior aisle. Such definition seem appropriately
related to the blocky exterior articulation at Agrd, as well as
the majority of buildings constructed throughout Sicily and
Calabria during the Norman period.
Interior Features and Details:
Thus far we have witnessed a variety of possible sources of
inspiration for planning, spatial concepts, and volumetric
definition, ranging from Islamic and Byzantine to Western
architecture. However, the articulation of the architectural
features and details seem more singularly weighted toward the
Muslim building tradition, particularly that of North Africa.
Column imposts and capitals. Tracing the derivation of the
type of impost blocks used in the columns at Agrd is problematic.
241For discussion and additional bibliography for these

mosques see: Ldzine, Architecture; idem, Mahdiya. Recherche
d'arch6oloqie islamique. Arch§ologie mfediterrandenne, 1 (Paris,
1965); K.A.C. Creswell, A Short Account of Early Muslim
Architecture, revised and supplemented by J.W. Allen
(Harmondsworth, 1989); Margais, L fArchitecture musulmane; G.
Margais and L. Golvin, La Grande Mosqde de Sfax (Tunis, 1960);
Ahmad Fikry, "La Mosqu6e Az-Zaytouna A Tunis, Recherches
archdologiques," Egyptian Society of Historical Studies, 2
(1952), pp. 27-64.
The Fatimid mosques of Egypt, such as the those of al-Azhar
(970-2 and 1131-49) and al-Hakim (990-1 and 1002/3-13) in Cairo,
are also comparable, except that they typically contain
additional domes located above corners of the southernmost bays
of the sanctuary, and omit the dome at the main entrance of the
mihrab aisle; see Hoag, pp. 136-43. Intriguingly, Jonathan
Bloom, "The Mosque of al-Hakim in Cairo," Muqarnas. 1 (1982), p.
30, compares the rooms defined by these corner domes to
pastophoria in Byzantine churches.
134
In Christian architecture, the impost became popularized in the
fifth century, and continued to be used in Byzantine buildings
until the fourteenth century.242 Several examples of Byzantine
imposts are found in Sicily and southern Italy.243 However, it
may be more appropriate to track the specific application of the
impost blocks at Agrd, as well as its general appearance in
Norman Sicily, to the Aghlabid and Fatimid architecture of
Ifriqiya, where the device— probably inspired by Roman and Early
Christian remains of the region— was ubiquitously used.
Comparable examples to the type of simple splay-faced blocks at
SS. Pietro e Paolo occur within the portico preceding the
sanctuary of the Great Mosques of Qairawan (ca. 862-3), in the
sanctuary and bahu cupola of the Great Mosques at Tunis (864),
and in the sanctuaries of Great Mosques of Sfax (late lOth-llth
c.), and Mahdiya (lOth-llth c.) .244
The capitals at Agrd are a variation on the Corinthian order
that is found throughout Europe and the Near East from Late
242See ODB, "Impost Block," vol. 2, p. 990.
243Examples of Byzantine or Byzantine inspired imposts

include those in the crypts of the Duomo of Otranto (6th-llth
c.), S. Nicola at Bari (6th-llth c.), and S. Marziano in Syracuse
(12th c.). See, respectively, Cavallo et al., n. 62, p. 253 and
figs. 127 and 130; n. 64, p. 253 and fig. 129; n. 151, p. 293 and
figs. 216-8.
244For the mosques at Qairawan, Tunis, and Sfax, see Derek

Hill and Lucien Golvin, Islamic Architecture and Its Decoration,
A.D. 800-1500 (London, 1964), plates 91-5; 111-12 and 117; 170.
Although the dome preceding the mihrab in the Great Mosque of
Tunis appears to have been largely reconstructed, the range of
colonnettes and capitals of the interior appears to have
incorporated parts of the original structure; see Lucien Golvin,
"Note sur les couples de la grande mosqude al-Zaytuna de Tunis,"
Revue de 1'Occident musulman et mdditerranien. 2 (1966), p. 97.
For Mahdiya, see L6zine, Mahdiya. esp. p. 110 and figs. 50-5.
135
Antiquity to the High Middle Ages.245 Despite the ubiquity with
which such types of capitals are found, Umberto Scerrato contends
that the typical Norman-Sicilian variety is traceable to models
in Zirid and Hammadid Tunisia.246 Whether or not this
hypothesis is valid, several related examples to the Agrd
capitals are found in Sicily, including those of the porphyry
tombs of the Swabian Emperors Frederick II and Henry VI, now
located in the Duomo of Palermo, which may have been carved
during the Norman period for Roger II.247 Other comparisons
24SIn his discussion on the capitals of the tombs of

Frederick II and Henry VI in the Duomo of Palermo, Joseph Dedr,
The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the Norman Period in Sicily.
Dumbarton Oaks Studies V, (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 167-8, cites
several references for capitals from various regions, all
predating 1000 A.D., which may also be used as comparisons for
the Agrd capitals. For our purposes, the most important of these
are: Rudolf Kautzsch, Kapitellstudien. Beitrage zur einer
Geschichte des spatantiken Kapitells im Osten vom 4. bis ins 7.
Jahrhundert. Studien zur spatantiken Kunstgeschichte, 9 (Leipzig
and Berlin, 1936), pi. 44, no. 734, also pi. 10, no. 145; Georges
Margais, Manuel d'art musulman. Architecture. Tunisie, Alqdrie,
Maroc, Espaqne, Sicile. I (Paris, 1926), p. 62, fig. 29; Paolo
Verzone, "I capitelli del tipo corinzio dal IV all' VIII secolo,"
Forschunqen zur Kunstgeschichte ind christlichen Archaeologie.
vol. I I : Vandlungen christlicher Kunst im Mittelalter.
Kunstgeschichtliches Institut der Johannes Gutenberg Universitat
Mainz (Baden-Baden, 1953), pp. 87-97. For additional discussion
on Islamic capitals see Lucien Golvin, Essai sur 1'architecture
religieuse musulmane. vol. 1 (Paris, 1970), pp. 68-74.
Comparable examples to the Agrd capitals are also found in
the Romanesque sculpture of France. See John Montague,
"Romanesque Sculptured Ornament in France," Diss. University of
Wisconsin-Madison 1974, II: fig. 2., p. 52 (St.-Julien, Briode);
fig. 3, p. 56 (St.-Etienne, Caen); fig. 2, p. 57 (St.-Nicholas,
Caen); fig. 23, p. 109 (Ste.-Foy, Conques); fig. 8, p. 171 (St.-
Paul, Issoire); fig. 72, p. 220 (St.-Pierre, Moissac); and fig.
29, p. 407 (Ste.-Madeleine, Vdzelay).
For additional bibliography on Italian capitals, see Dorothy
Glass, Italian Romanesque Sculpture: an Annotated Bibliography
(Boston, 1983), esp. pp. 61-70.
246Gabrieli and Scerrato, p. 327.
247See Dedr, figs. 194, 195, 197-9 and pp. 46-85. For
reaction against Dedr's dating of these tombs, see Otto Demus,
Review of The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of Norman Period in Sicily,
136
also exist in the Cappella Palatina" (east column in south row of
nave; north columns of pulpit), S. Cataldo (west column in north
row of nave), and the Maddalena (east column in north row of
nave) in Palermo, as well as the Duomo of Monreale (engaged
columns of the east facade) ,248 Moreover, a close comparison is
found in the Duomo of Otranto, within the second bay from the
east, in the line of columns just south of the altar.249 In the
final analysis, the style of the Agrd capitals is probably best
termed Mediterranean.
Pointed arches. The pointed arches that define the lateral
arcades as well as the transverse nave arches have often been
viewed as reflecting High Romanesque or Gothic influence.250
However, more recent research suggests the pointed arches of
Norman Sicily— typically of the two-centered variety as in the
Agrd arcades— were perhaps inspired through direct contact with
Islamic architecture. This suggestion is certainly more feasible
in terms of chronology and geography. For instance, the use of
the pointed arch in the nave arcades of the church of S. Pietro e
Paolo at Itdla (ca. 1093) seems too early to accept the theory of
by Josef Dedr, Kunstchronik. 13 (1960), pp. 11-19; Klaus Wessel,

Review of The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs ..., by Josef Dedr,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift. 53 (1960), pp. 154-60.
248For the Cappella Palatina and Monreale, see Cassata et

al., figs. 9 and 53, respectively. For the Maddalena see M.
Guitto, "La chiesa di S. Maria Maddalena in Palermo," Bollettino
d'arte, 34 (1949), fig. 7, p. 366. However, all of these
comparisons are articulated with more elaborately carved foliage.
249See Cavallo et al., fig. 130, p. 221.
250For example, see Bottari, "Chiese basiliane," p. 21;

Signorino, pp. 864-5.
137
Northern influence.251 Moreover, it'is important to consider
that the pointed arch does not appear with frequency in Calabria
(e.g. S. Maria de Tridetti at Staiti), until after the Norman
invasion of Sicily, possibly suggesting that it was transmitted
from the island when the two provinces were united under Norman
rule. Wolfgang Kronig has gone as far as to suggest that the
pointed arch may have been introduced to France directly through
contact with Norman-Sicily, where it appears to have been used at
an early date in important monuments, such as the Cathedral of
Mazara (1086-93) and the abbey church, and later Cathedral, of S.
Agata at Catania (1086-90) .2S2
Although it is generally agreed that the Sicilian pointed
arch is traceable to Muslim architecture, its specific source has
251Indeed, one of the earliest consistent applications of the

pointed arch in Romanesque architecture north of the Alps, that
at the third Abbey Church at Cluny (ca. 1088-1130), is suggested
by Kenneth Conant and Henry Willard to have been transmitted
through Desiderius' church at Monte Cassino (1066-71), which had
in turn been influenced by the architecture of Amalfi, were the
pointed arch had been in use since the tenth century. Moreover,
the two authors trace the emergence of the pointed arches of
Amalfi to influence from Ifriqiya under the Zirids. See Conant
and Willard, "Early Examples of the Pointed Arch and Vault in
Romanesque Architecture," Viator. 2 (1971), pp. 203-09, with 12
figs.; Kenneth Conant, Carolinqian and Romanesque Architecture.
2nd revised ed. (Harmondsworth, 1978; rpt. 1987), p. 207. Also
useful is Herbert Bloch, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, vol. 1
(Cambridge, Mass., 1986), p. 125. Less convincing is John
Harvey's theory of transmission of the pointed arch to northern
Europe through the Crusades; see "The Origins of Gothic
Architecture: Some Further Thoughts," The Antiquaries Journal, 48
(1968), esp. pp. 89-91. For further discussion of the
development of the pointed arch in Europe, see Jean Bony, French
Gothic Architecture of the 12th and 13th Centuries (Berkeley, Los
Angeles, and London, 1983), pp. 18-19, and esp. n. 14, pp. 467-8.
252I1 duomo di Monreale (Palermo, 1965), p. 161 and n. 120,

p. 273-4. The apses of these churches, both apparently original,
are detailed with windows and blind niches formed of pointed
arches. In addition, Kronig contends that the nave arcades of
these cathedral, both rebuilt in the twelfth century, originally
contained pointed arches.
138
been debated. The problem stems from the fact that two-centered
arches, other than the horseshoe type, are not common in Islamic
architecture of the Mediterranean Basin. Lucien Golvin has
suggested possible inspiration from Palestine and Syria, where
the two-centered arch appears in examples such as the Dome of the
Rock in Jerusalem (691), the Great Mosques at Damascus (706), and
the cistern of Ramla (ca. 789) .2S3 On the other hand, Umberto
Scerrato argues that the Sicilian arches are best viewed in light
of the architecture of late Tulunid and Fatimid Egypt, or even
better, of Hammadid North Africa.254 However, Scerrato does not
cite any specific comparisons, and upon close inspection his
suggestion is problematic due to the scarcity of the two-centered
type in Egypt, as well as the dearth of standing remains from the
Hammadid period.255 Still, the minaret of mosque at Qal'a of
the Banu Hammad (begun ca. 1010) verifies the existence of such
arches in Hammadid architecture, and perhaps provides the most
logical comparisons to the typical Sicilian arch.255
The type of four-centered arch found in the transverse nave
arches at Agrd is quite rare in the architecture of Norman
253Essai, vol. 1, pp. 88-91. Golvin considers the Norman

contacts with the Crusades as the means of transmission of the
two-centered arch to Sicily.
254Gabrieli and Scerrato, p. 325. Margais, L fArchitecture

musulmane. p. 92, also notes the similarity between the pointed
arches of Norman Sicily and those of Hammadid North Africa.
2550ne example of a two-centered from Fatimid Egypt is found

in the transverse arch preceding the mihrab in the mosque of al-
Hakim in Cairo. See infra for references and illustrations.
256See Golvin, Essai, p. 91 and fig. 31, p. 101; idem,

Recherches archdoloqicrues k lja Oalfa de BanQ Hammad (Paris,
1965), esp. pp. 115-18; idem, Le. Maqrib central k 1'dpoque des
Zirides. Recherches d'archdoloqie e d'histoire (Paris, 1957),
fig. 15, p. 185 and ph. 7.
139
Sicily. However, such types were used commonly in the monuments
of Fatimid Egypt— such as in the sanctuary of the Mosque of al-
Azhar in Cairo (970-2)— which appear to afford the best
comparisons to the four-centered arches of our church.257
Transverse arches. The strainer arches of the nave at SS.
Pietro e Paolo have also been used by several researchers to
indicate influence from the North, although the proposed means of
transmission often differ. For instance, Stefano Bottari
considers the strainer arches related to uses in the architecture
north of the Alps, which he suggests may have been imported to
Agrd by the master builder Girardus the Frank.258 Indeed, the
transverse arches of buildings such as St.-Philibert at Tournus
compare well in form and structural capacity to those at SS.
Pietro e Paolo.259 On the other hand, Pietro Lojacono is
tempted to regard the features the result of Lombard artisans who
had settled in various parts of the island.260 However, we
should not neglect the fact that a similar division of bays by
means of arches commonly occurs in the mosques of North Africa
and Egypt, the only major difference being that the arches in the
Islamic monuments are set in succession to form transverse
arcades, due to the lateral expanse of the sanctuaries. The
transverse arch in front of the mihrab of the Mosque of al-Hakim
257See Golvin, Essai, vol. 1, pp. 89-91; Creswell, The Muslim

Architecture of Egypt, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1952), pp. 51-2 and plate
4; Hoag, p. 36 and fig. 170, p. 139.
258Bottari, "Chiese basiliane," p. 21, 23.
259See Jean Vallery-Radot et al., Saint-Philibert de Tournus

(Paris, 1955), esp. plates, 63-6.
260Lojacono, "La chiesa abbaziale," p. 395.
140
in Cairo provides a particularly good comparison to SS. Pietro e
Paolo because it is stilted upon pilaster strip, which are in
turn supported upon columns.261
The detailing of the transverse arches at SS. Pietro e Paolo
may also be related to Islamic architecture. For instance, the
use of wooden tie beams is common in the architecture of Egypt
and North Africa from the ninth century onward. Examples include
the mosques of al-Hakim and al-Azhar in Cairo, and the Great
Mosques of Qairawan, Tunis, and Sfax. In addition, imposts with
a profile similar to those from which the Agrd arches spring are
found in various Aghlabid and Fatimid monuments of Ifriqiya.
Particularly good comparisons are found in the Ribat at Sousse
and the Great Mosques at Sfax and Mahdiya.262
But in the final analysis, it seems clear that the two
transverse arches were included at Agrd to provide structural
support for the central dome. In this regard, S. Giovanni degli
Eremiti in Palermo is perhaps related to our church, as the domed
bays of its nave are separated by transverse arches. However,
the application of such arches— whether in Muslim, Sicilian, or
Northern Romanesque architecture— is usually associated with the
division of bays into modular units. Therefore, the transverse
arches of our church are unique in that they are used, in
261See Creswell, Muslim Architecture of Egypt, vol. 1, pp.

76-80 and plates 20, 21a.
262For Sousse see Alexandre Ldzine, Le Ribat de Sousse suivi

de Notes sur le R i b a t de Monastir (Tunis, 1956), plate 17a; for
Tunis and Sfax see Hill and Golvin, plates 117 and 170,
respectively; for Mahdiya see L6zine, Mahdiya. fig. 50, p. 125
(esp. lower left).
141
conjunction with the major dome, to'differentiate, rather that
assimilate, the central bay of the nave.
Groin vaults. The series of groin vaults of the sides and
pastophoria most probably reflect influence from Western medieval
architecture. Although examples this arrangement are numerous
and wide-spread, the manner which the vaults are separated by
flat transverse ribs that are connected to the outer walls of the
aisles by brick corbels is fairly rare. In Sicily, the best
parallels for this technique occur in the Annunziata dei Catalani
in Messina and the Cuba near Castiglione. However, as examples
also appear at an early date in Tuscany and Sardinia— for
instance in the Duomo of Pisa (ca. 1063) and S. Gavino at Porto
Torres (begun early 11th c .)— the detailing of the Agrd vaults is
perhaps best related to developments in Italian Romanesque.263
Still, it is worth noting that the groin vault appears to
have made its debut in the Muslim architecture of North Africa by
the late tenth and eleventh centuries under the Zirids, with
early examples at the Great Mosques at Sfax (ca. 988) and
Monastir (before 1068) .264 Therefore, the vaulting scheme at
Agrd would not have been out of place within the context of
contemporary Muslim architecture.
Wooden ceilings. Because it is unclear to what degree the
wooden ceilings covering the first and third bays of the nave at
263For S. Gavino, see Renata Serra, La Sardegna. Italia

Romanica no. 10 (St. Ldger Vauban and Milan, 1988), pp. 183-212
and fig. 99.
264See L6zine, Mahdiya, pp. 111-13; Golvin, Essai, p. 170.

Intriguingly, Ldzine (p. 113) suggests that the emergence of the
groin vault in North Africa may have been influence by its use in
Christian architecture.
142
SS. Pietro e Paolo reflect the original design, I wish to offer
only a few brief comments concerning possible sources of
influence.265 The best comparison to the extant ceiling at Agrd
is that covering the nave of the church of the Maddalena in
Palermo (1184-6), which is composed of transverse exposed beams
and is also flat externally.266 Related comparisons of wooden
paneling are much more found in the monuments of Norman in Sicily
used in conjunction with pitched roofs, such as in S. Maria di
Rifesi near Burgio, S. Maria at Mili, S. Pietro at It&la, and the
cathedrals of Monreale and Cefalu. Nonetheless, application of
exposed beam ceilings in flat roof designs seems to have been
common in the architecture of North Africa and Egypt. Surviving
examples include the Great Mosque of Qairawan (862) and the
Mosque of Ibn Tulun in Fustat (876-7) .267
Combinations of wooden roofs and vaulting are found in many
of the Norman churches of Sicily and southern Italy. However, in
all such examples of which I am aware, there is an emphatic
separation between the two roofing systems: vaulting is reserved
for the sanctuary, whereas wooden roofs cover the nave. In
comparison, the arrangement at Agrd, where the major dome is
interspersed between the two wooden ceilings of the nave, is
unique.
265C f . supra. Ch. 2, pt. 4.
266The most detailed accounts of the church are found in M.

Guiotto, "La chiesa di S. Maria Maddalena;" Di Stefano,
Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp. 86-7; Bellafiore, Architettura in
Sicilia, p. 132.
267See Creswell, A Short Account, revised ed., pp. 324 and

403; Georges Margais, "Plafonds peints du IXe sidcle i. la Grande
Mosqu6e de Kairouan," Revue des Arts asiaticrues. 9, pp. 1-8.
143
Major dome. Although the dome covering the central bay of
the nave at SS. Pietro e Paolo contains certain features that are
without exact parallels, it is not difficult to deduce that its
design reflects the Muslim tradition, as do the vast majority of
domes in the Norman South. This attribution is particularly
intriguing when one considers that the positioning of the dome is
most certainly related to Middle Byzantine planning. However,
the major dome at Agrd does not possess the dominating spatial
presence or structural logic of contemporary Byzantine domes.
Instead, it serves to highlight one of the three otherwise
equally detailed bays of the nave, an position more indicative of
the use of domes in the early Muslim and Fatimid architecture of
North Africa and Egypt.
The zone of transitional vaulting in the major dome at Agrd
is particularly interesting. The corner squinches, composed of
multiple setbacks forming segmental arcs, have their closest
Sicilian parallels in the dome over the bema in S. Maria at Mili
(fig. 37). However, the squinches of both these domes appear
directly related to developments in Islamic architecture. The
history of such squinches exceeds the scope of this dissertation;
for our purposes, the important fact is that comparable examples
at SS. Pietro e Paolo exist in Ifriqiya.268 The best comparison
268The best study of the early development of the squinch is

by Creswell, in Early Muslim Architecture, vol. 2, pp. 101-18,
with extensive bibliography in n. 1, p. 101. Of particular
interest for the type with multiple setbacks are the examples at
the palace at Firuzabad in Iran, dated by Creswell to the first
third of the fifth century; see pp. 101-06 and figs. 83-5, 91-2.
Also see room 32 at Ukhairdir (764/5-78); vol. 2, pp. 68-9 and
plate 15c. For additional discussion of the Iranian origin of
the type, see Ernst Herzfeld, "Damascus: Studies in Architecture,
I," Ars Islamica. 9 (1942), pp. 17-18. For discussion weighted
towards developments in North Africa, see Golvin, Essai, esp. pp.
144
to the Agrd squinches are in the Great Mosque at El Kef (11th c.)
and the Mosque of Bled al-Hadhar at Tozeur (1027-30), due to the
fact that the inner surfaces of the squinches are expressed in
trumpet form rather than as semicylindrical niches, a type that
is much more common in the monuments of Norman Sicily.269
Several characteristics of the squinches at SS. Pietro e
Paolo are unique, such as the manner in which the individual
setbacks are terminated at different levels, as well the
positioning of the lower recess at much greater interval below
the other two. In addition, the placement of the squinches at
Agrd directly above the haunches of the transverse arches is not
characteristic of Islamic, or for that matter, Norman, practice.
Without pressing the issue, one wonders if this detail could be a
vague reference to Byzantine aesthetics, in which the forms of
the transitional vaulting— typically pendentives— are well
integrated with the arches supporting the dome.
Equally unusual is the inclusion of the two pseudo-squinches
at the lateral wall of the clerestory. Although Norman-Sicilian
domes often rise from rectangular bays, thereby requiring various
devices to transform the plan into an equilateral design, I know
of no other instance in Sicily, or elsewhere in the medieval
world, in which such pseudo-squinches as those employed at SS.
134-42.
269For El Kef, see Golvin, Essai, p. 134. For Tozeur, see

ibid; Margais, 1/Architecture. p. 77. Unfortunately, extremely
little has been published on these two mosques, and the only
illustration to which I can refer are the drawings in Basile,
1/architettura, fig. 27, p. 17, although the lower section of the
squinches at Tozeur are also visible in Hill and Golvin, plate
174.
145
Pietro e Paolo were used in this capacity.270 The only formal
comparison to the manner in which the lateral squinches are
placed directly atop the corner squinches occurs in the vaulting
of the naos of the Cuba near Castiglione (fig. 88), which is
itself without parallel.271 Therefore, it is perhaps best to
consider the pseudo-squinches at Agrd as an experiment by the
building team. Probably due to the complexity of their
construction, such vaults appear not to have warranted a
following.
The more regular composition of the drum and dome at S S .
Pietro e Paolo can be traced to at several possible sources of
influence. Cutrera's assertion that the dome bears resemblance
to central dome of the Myrelaion in Istanbul (ca. 920) is
somewhat valid, as both are composed of a tall drum that is
pierced by eight windows and topped by a pumpkin dome.2'12 The
only major difference between the two domes, excluding the
transitional vaulting, is the fact that the segments of the dome
at Agrd do not extend into the drum.
However, this comparison did not satisfy Lojacono, who
believes that a source closer to home provides a more reasonable
270In the group of Basilian churches in eastern Sicily and

Calabria, it was most common to the transition from a rectangular
to a square plan by thickening the north and south walls of the
bay by means of a blind arch framing the lateral openings.
Related applications occurs at S. Maria at Mili, S. Pietro e
Paolo at Itila, and S. Maria de Tridetti at Staiti. However,
such experimentation does not seems to have been influenced by
the Muslim architecture of North Africa, as bays containing domes
are almost always square in plan.
271For this church, see supra.
272"La chiesa normanna," n. 1, p. 236. For the Bodrum Camii

see Cecil L. Striker, The Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in Istanbul
(Princeton, 1981).
146
prototype— i.e. the "Baptistery" at"S. Severina, which is
variously dated from the sixth to ninth centuries.273 The
problem with this theory is that whichever date for the S.
Severina "Baptistery" is correct, it is far removed from the time
of construction of SS. Pietro e Paolo. Moreover, other that its
appearance at S. Severina, the pumpkin dome is very rare in the
Byzantine architecture of Sicily and southern Italy, thereby
making it difficult to accept any sense of contiguity between
this monument and our church.
Another source of inspiration is offered by Basile, who in
his volume on the Norman architecture of Sicily, states that the
form of the major dome of SS. Pietro e Paolo is Islamic.274
Considering the extent to which other features and details of our
church fall within the Muslim tradition, on the surface this
proposal seems quite logical. However, one is hard pressed to
produce exact parallels to the drum and dome at Agrd from Islamic
examples. For instance, in the few occasions when cylindrical
drums are employed, as in the mihrab dome at the Great Mosque of
Qairawan or the two domes at the Great Mosque of Tunis, they are
short and articulated internally with engaged columns and
arches.275 And although the pumpkin dome is fairly common in
273"La chiese abbaziale," p. 391. Recent research suggests

that "Baptistery" of S. Severina was originally built as a heroon
or martyrium; see idem, "Sul restauro compiuto al Battistero di
Santa Severina," Bollettino d'Arte, 28 (1934), pp. 174-85. For a
thorough survey of previous scholarship of the building at S.
Severina, see Venditti, Architettura, vol. 2, pp. 824-8.
274L rarchitettura. pp. 25-7.
275For these and other Ifriqiyan domes, see Golvin, Essai.

esp. pp. 124-42; Hill and Golvin, esp. plates 86-114.
147
the Aghlabid architecture of Ifriqiya, all examples of which I am
aware are detailed with internal ribs.
In conclusion, it is difficult to assess the tradition from
which the drum and dome of the Agrd cupola arose. Perhaps the
best formal comparison is probably the Myrelaion dome. However,
it is doubtful that a direct link existed between builders in
Sicily and Constantinople. Considering, the marked Islamic
character of other elements of the cupola, it may be best to
consider the articulation of the drum and dome at Agrd the result
of indirect Byzantine influence transported to Sicily through
Muslim sources.
Minor dome. Other than the fact that the drum is composed
of eight facets, the basic design of the drum and dome of the
minor dome is almost identical to those of the major dome, and
need not be elaborated. However, the muqarnas vaulting from
which the drum and dome rise is of extreme interest. Whether one
is inclined to date the church at Agrd nearer the date of the
foundation charter of 1116 or of the renovation by Girardus in
1171/2, these muqarnas vaults represent one of the earliest
surviving applications of the technique, which is without doubt
of Islamic derivation. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to begin
our discussion with a brief outline of the history of the device.
Despite miscellaneous advances in scholarship during the
past twenty years, the origin and development of the muqarnas are
still quite obscure.276 Traditionally, it had been thought that
27SThe most recent accounts of the muqarnas include: Jonathan

Bloom, "The Introduction of the Muqarnas into Egypt," Muqarnas, 5
(1988), pp. 21-8; Yasser Tabbaa, "The Muqarnas Dome: Its Origin
and Meaning," Muqarnas. 3 (1985), pp. 61-74; Michel ficochard,
Filiation de monuments qrecs. byzantins et islamiques. Une
148
the technique was first developed in Persia during the tenth
century as a structural device employed in the transitional
vaulting of domes.277 However, the oldest currently known
examples of muqarnas, which are stucco fragments from Nishapur
(tentatively dated to late 8th-early 9th c .), appear to have been
used as ornamental motives.278 At any rate, both types of
applications of the technique continued and disseminated during
the eleventh and twelfth centuries, although the structural
question de q6om6trie (Paris, 1977), pp. 66-106; Hoag, pp. 144-6;

Ettinghausen and Grabar, pp. 144, 172, 184-6; Lewcock,
"Architects," p. 142; Gabrieli and Scerrato, eds., pp. 328-3.
Older, but still useful, research includes: Golvin, Essai,
vol. 1, pp. 154-9; idem, "Notes sur quelques fragments de platre
trouv6s r6cemment £ la Qal'a des Banu H'ammtd," in Melanges
d'histoire et d'arch6oloqie de 1'Occident musulmane, vol. 2
(Algiers, 1957), pp. 75-93; idem, Recherches. pp. 123-7; Margais,
Architecture. pp. 102-3, 237-8; Henri Terrasse, 1/Art hispano-
mauresque des oriqines au Xlle si£cle (Paris, 1932), pp. 335-40;
Herzfeld, "Damascus," esp. pp. 11-14; J. Rosintal, Pendentifs.
trompes et stalactites dans 1'architecture oriental (Paris,
1928) .
277Early examples of muqarnas squinches are found in the

mosques at Nayin (ca. 960?) and Ispahan (1088-92), as well as the
tomb of Arab Ata at Tim in Transoxiania (977-8); see £cochard, p.
66, and figs. 34a-b, p. 67; Golvin, "Notes sur quelque
fragments," p. 88; Hoag, pp. 144, 185-6.
£cochard, p. 66, contends that the device is also found in
the early fifth-century Sassanian palace at Sarvistan. However,
the author is quick to add that this does not appear related to
the type that later emerged. Although some suggest that the
muqarnas vaults at the palace at Raqqa in Syria date to the
eighth century (e.g. Golvin, Essai, vol. 1, p. 157), the building
may in reality date as late as the tenth century.
Creswell, Muslim Architecture of Egypt, vol. 1, pp. 231-2,
251-3, believes that the muqarnas developed independently in Iran
and Egypt. For criticism of this analysis see Bloom,
"Introduction," p. 22. Oleg Grabar, among others, has proposed
that the device developed independently in Iran and North Africa;
see The Alhambra (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), p. 175.
278For Nishapur see Charles Wilkinson et a l ., "The Museum's

Excavation at Nishapur," Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, 33 (1938), pp. 9 ff.; Ulrich Harb, Ilkhanidische
Stalaktitenqewolbe: Beitraqe su Entwurf und Bautechnik (Berlin,
1978). Also see Hoag, p. 144; Tabbaa, p. 61.
149
importance of the muqarnas appears to have increasingly given way
to ornamentation.
By the end of the eleventh century the muqarnas is known to
have been used in Egypt and Syria. Although the means of
dissemination of the device into the these countries is
debatable, Jonathan Bloom has recently argued that the device was
first introduced, in a provincial manner, in the transitional
vaulting of funerary monuments of upper Egypt, such as the group
of early eleventh-century mausolea located outside Aswan.279
But Bloom also submits that although the muqarnas was
subsequently transmitted to lower Egypt, it largely remained part
of a vernacular style associated with funerary architecture, and
did not enter the mainstream of Fatimid building until the
twelfth century.280
The problem with tracing the advent of the muqarnas in North
Africa is that the earliest applications to have survived in situ
appear in an extremely refined state in the Almoravid
architecture of Algeria and Morocco, such as the Great Mosque at
Tlemcen (1136) and the Qarawiyan Mosque at Fez (1135-42/3), and
these are contemporary to the carved wooden muqarnas covering the
279Bloom, "Introduction." Bloom proposes that the

transmission of the technique was the result of the importance of
upper Egyptian cities, such as Aswan, as stopping points along
the main pilgrimage routes to Mecca and Medina. For descriptions
and illustrations of the Aswan mausolea, see Creswell, Muslim
Architecture of Egypt, vol. 1, pp. 131-45 and plates 40-4. A
particularly fine example is also illustrated in Ettinghausen and
Grabar, fig. 166, p. 184.
280"Introduction," pp. 27-8.
150
nave of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo (1132-43) .281 Still,
we must not overlook the plaster fragments of muqarnas found at
the ruined site of the Qal'a of the Banu Hammad, which are
perhaps datable to the eleventh century.282 How the muqarnas
arrived at the Qal'a and to what extant this early manifestation
of the technique can be related to the later North African
examples are controversial. A complete rendition of the current
state of research on these issues would fall well outside the
scope this dissertation. Let it be enough to state that the main
points of controversy concern 1) whether the muqarnas of the
Qal'a were imported from the east or were developed autonomously
in North Africa, and 2) whether they constitute an isolated
phenomenon or were the direct predecessor to the Almoravid and
Norman-Sicilian muqarnas. Without becoming involved in this
complex problem, I venture to assume that the degree of finish
with which the twelfth-century applications at Tlemcen and Fez
are executed indicates that they followed some established
tradition.
Besides the nave roof of the Cappella Palatina, other
notable examples of muqarnas in Sicily are found in the northern
recess of the trilobed room of the palace at Caronia (before
281For general discussion and illustrations of the two

mosques, see Hoag, pp. 94, 98 and figs. 123-4; pp. 98-104 and
figs. 125-8. Hill and Golvin, plates, 205-07; 285-90; Terrasse,
L'Art hispano-mauresque. esp. pp. 227-43; 213-41. For the
Cappella Palatina see especially, Ugo Monneret de Villard, Le
pitture musulmane al soffitto della Cappella Palatina in Palermo
(Rome, 1950), pp. 23-7.
282See Golvin, "Notes sur quelques fragments;" idem,

Recherches, pp. 123-7; Hoag, pp. 74-6; Ettinghausen and Grabar,
pp. 171-2. Although the Qal'a plaster fragments are generally
accepted as having formed muqarnas, some are hesitant to accept
this view. For instance, see Tabbaa, pp. 61-2.
151
1154), the vaulting of the domes of'the chapel of the Zisa (1165-
80) in Palermo, the east towers of the Cathedral of Palermo (ca.
1170-85), the main walls of the main foyers of the Palermatine
palaces of the Zisa (1165-80) and the Cuba (ca. 1180), and a
secondary room in the Torre Pisana of the Palazzo Reale (ca.
1130) .283 To these should also be added the now destroyed
vaulting of the dome over the sanctuary of the S. Maria della
Valle (the Badiazza) outside Messina (probably late 12th or first
1/4 of 13th c.).284 Except perhaps for the examples at Caronia
and the Badiazza, these vaults demonstrate an ornateness and
complexity indicative of a well developed style. However, views
concerning the source of influence for the Sicilian muqarnas
differ significantly.285
283For basic descriptions and bibliography of these

monuments, see Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp. 74-82, 92-5,
99-100, 103-10. Di Stefano also provides illustrations for most
of the muqarnas vault, but for Caronia see Wolfgang Kronig, II
castello di Caronia in Sicilia. Pn complesso normanno del XII
secolo (Rome, 1977), figs. 34 and 39; for Cathedral of Palermo
see Gabrieli and Scerrato, fig. 139.
284See Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp. 126-8. For

illustrations of the muqarnas prior to its destruction, see
Giuseppe Agnello, "S. Maria della Valle o la 'Badiazza' in
Messina," Palladio, n.s. 3 (1953), fig. 4, p, 52; idem,
L'architettura in Sicilia nell'eti sveva (Rome, 1961), fig. 155,
p. 257; Bottari, Monumenti svevi di Sicilia (Palermo, 1950; rpt.
1984), fig. 12.
285For various proposed sources for the Sicilian muqarnas

see: Basile, L'architettura. p. 59, and Gabrieli and Scerrato,
eds., p. 238, both of whom appear to favor influence from
Almoravid North Africa; Margais, Architecture. p. 238, who
suggests either North African or Egyptian influence; Bellafiore,
Architettura in Sicilia, esp. pp. 47, 89, 145-6, 154, 157, who
seems to suggest a possible link with Fatimid koine, either from
Egypt or North Africa; Golvin, Essai. vol. 1, p. 156 and Monneret
de Villard, p. 26, both of whom favor direct contact Sicily and
the Orient; Slobodan Curfiid, "Some Palatial Aspects of the
Cappella Palatina in Palermo," POP, no. 41 (1987), pp. 140-4, who
suggest a possible link with palatial buildings in Constantinople
in the Cappella Palatina ceiling.
152
In light of these various contentions, the muqarnas vaulting
of the minor dome at SS. Pietro e Paolo takes on added
importance, and I believe they may provided valuable insight into
the dissemination of the motif in North Africa, as well as
Sicily. Two points concerning the application of the device at
Agrd are immediately noticeable. First, in comparison to the
North African and Palermatine examples, the muqarnas of our
church assumes a more experimental nature. Although the
competence of construction suggest that these do not represent a
mason's first attempt to build such vaults, the technique is
neither overly refined nor ornate, and the geometry of the design
(fig. 32) is not particularly lucid. But at the same time, the
muqarnas at Agrd is quite different from the related arrangements
at the Badiazza and Caronia. In the Badiazza, the character of
the vaults is degenerate, lacking the complex and intricate
interplay of forms; and the application of the device at Caronia
is mere surface decoration carved into the individual blocks of
the quarter dome. Although all three examples may stem from a
common model, the Agrd muqarnas seems closer to the initial
source of inspiration.
The second point concerns the structural nature of the
muqarnas at SS. Pietro e Paolo. In both the North African and
Palermatine examples, the muqarnas had evolved into a decorative
motif, which, when applied to vaults and domes, tended to
visually dematerialize the structure.286 Referring to the
286Even the muqarnas in the chapel of the Zisa, which is used

to transform the rectangular plan of the bay into a square, is
surface decoration. See Lucio Trizzino, SS. Trinitd all Zisa.
Proqetto di restauro (Palermo, 1979), pp. 64, 75, and figs. 51,
53, and 60.
153
technique as it appears in the Maghrib, Ettinghausen and Grabar
write:
The muqarnas of North Africa, certainly

derivative, is used on square or
rectangular plans. It is not structural,
but a plaster screen, almost entirely of
architectural origin, hiding the actual
vault. However intricate some of the
plaster muqarnas of Fez or Tlemcen may have
been, the feeling remains of a rapidly
learned new ornamental routine.287
This description is in sharp contrast to the vaulting at Agrd,
which is in essence composed of an ascending series of diminutive
squinches and pendentives whose function is to structurally
transform the rectangular plan of the bay into an smaller
polygon. Related structural uses of the muqarnas in Sicily are
rare, but not unknown. The lost muqarnas of the Badiazza appear
to have to functioned as multiple squinches to support the dome;
and the vaulting of the naos at the Cuba near Castiglione,
composed entirely of tiers of trumpet squinches, is certainly
derivative of muqarnas vaults.
I believe it is not coincidence that the surviving examples
of structural application of the muqarnas are found in eastern
Sicily, which was removed from the mainstream architecture of
Palermo. In reference to Bloom's assertion that the muqarnas
entered Egyptian architecture first through vernacular sources,
one wonders if the technique could have spread into the koine of
North Africa and Sicily by the mid eleventh or early twelfth
century. Notably, the early Egyptian examples, varied as they
are, maintain a structural integrity. I propose that the
287Ettinghausen and Grabar, p. 144. Also see Lewcock,

"Architects," p. 142; Gabrieli and Scerrato, p. 328.
154
muqarnas at SS. Pietro e Paolo, as well as the vaults covering
the naos of the Cuba near Castiglione, may reflect the initial
stages of the transformation of the device from strictly
vernacular usage to applications in more prestigious building
types.288 It is perhaps reasonable to expect such an experiment
to have occurred outside the mainstream of Palermo. Indeed, the
structural muqarnas vaults of eastern Sicily differ from the
decorative applications in the western part of the island, which
reflect a technique that seems to have already entered into the
vocabulary of cosmopolitan architecture.
In addition to accounting for the unique form of the
muqarnas at Agrd, the above theory would also explain several
issues surrounding the developments of the device in North
Africa. If the technique originally surfaced in the popular
architecture of this region, then it is not surprising that no
traces have survived, as vernacular construction is often of
relatively low quality. Moreover, the existence of muqarnas in
popular architecture could also account for the degree of
refinement present in the twelfth-century applications that
emerged in Algeria. In sum, significance of the Agrd muqarnas
may reach well beyond the realm of one particular building, or of
one region.
As a final observation, it is worth pointing out that the
manner in which the octagonal drum is positioned in relation to
288Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, p. 72, also suggests

that many of the Basilian churches of the Valdemone were
constructed largely within the Muslim vernacular tradition of the
island. However, in his account of SS. Pietro e Paolo (p. 101),
the same author describes the muqarnas as "vagamente
islamizzanti." To my mind, this represents an inconsistency.
155
the bay, with its corner points aligned to the orthogonal axes of
the church, tends to undermine the structural quality established
by the muqarnas. Therefore, the sense of dematerialization that
is common in contemporary Islamic architecture is not completely
absent in the minor dome at Agrd.
Central apse. The form of the central apse, with its tall
proportions, pointed conch, and dearth of detailing, seems more
reminiscent of Islamic mihrabs— such as those in the Ribat at
Sousse and Small Ribat at Monastir— than of apses of Christian
churches.289 The resemblance of the apses of the Norman
churches of Sicily has often been commented upon by various
researchers, because of the use of inset columns flanking the
opening or the placement of a dome at the bay immediately
preceding the apse.290 However, considering that mihrabs became
increasing articulated with sculpted decoration during the
Fatimid period, it is wise not to press this issue too far.
The archaeological evidence of the church suggests that the
two arched niches set within the central apse are part of the
original construction phase; however, their purpose is not
clear.291 Although small niches frequently occur within the
289See Hill and Golvin, plates 128 and 147.
290For example, see Gabrieli and Scerrato, pp. 327-8;

Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, p. 74; idem, Pall'Islam alia
Maniera (Palermo, 1975), p. 20; Ciotta, "Architetture basiliane,"
p. 835; Signorino, pp. 860, 865.
291Ciotta, "Aspetti," p. 16, contends that the niches once

housed small staircases leading up the space above the conch of
the apse. This suggestion seems fallacious for several reasons.
First, there does not appear to be ample space for stairs to have
been constructed within the spaces. Second, two staircases in
such close proximity seems entirely unnecessary, as does their
positioning in the highly visible apse. Finally, there are no
precedents for such a arrangement.
156
sanctuaries of Byzantine churches, they almost exclusively occur
within the prothesis and diaconicon— either as diminutive apses
adjacent to the main apse, or, less seldom, as recesses set
within the north and south walls— but rarely within the main apse
itself.292 In the final analysis, the niches are probably best
292The best comparison to the niches set into the apse at

Agrd are found in the ruins of S. Silvestro di S. Stefano
d'Aspromonte, located outside Reggio di Calabria. All that
survives of the church is its apse, which are detailed with two
rectangular niches. However, the church was certainly a single-
aisled basilica, and the niches must have functioned as prothesis
and diaconicon. This church has been dated to the 12th century.
See D. Minuto and S. Venoso, Chiesette medievali calabresi a
navata unica (Cosenza, 1985), pp. 104-5, 162.
Numerous and varied comparisons of niches cut into the
thickness of the walls flanking the main apse are found in church
architecture under the influence of Byzantium. In Sicily,
related examples occur at S . Maria at Mili, S . Alfio at S .
Fratello, and the chapels of the palaces of the Favara in Palermo
and the Parco in Altofonte; see Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed.,
pp. 16-17; 18-19; 95-7; 97-9). Elsewhere in the Byzantine world,
similar types exist in the Middle Byzantine church of the Chora
and Kilise Camii at Istanbul, the Katholikon at Hosios Lukas, and
various provincial churches of Greece from the Middle Byzantine
period. See Robert Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Karive
Camii in Istanbul (Washington, 1987), p. 45; Krautheimer, Early
Christian. 4th ed., pp. 362-3; 385-8; 390-3. One example of
niches carved into the lateral walls of the bays flanking the
bema occurs in a ruined church of unknown dedication located near
Castiglione. For bibliography see Cavallo et al., no. 156, p.
294, but caution should be used in the attribution of this church
to the Byzantine period. The relationship between such niches as
cited above and the Greek monastic rites has been touched upon by
Edwin Freshfield, vol. I, p. vii. Although Freshfield's
assertions are intriguing, caution should be used, as his dating
and attribution of certain churches to the Greek rite are often
outmoded. Notably, similar types niches are found in several
churches and chapels in Sicily and southern Italy originally
constructed for the Latin liturgy. Examples in Sicily include S.
Giovanni degli Eremiti and S. Maria Maddalena in Palermo, S.
Maria de Refesi near Burgio. See Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed.,
pp. 40-1; 86-7; 62-4, respectively. In southern Italy, the Duomo
of Mileto provides a good example. See Bozzoni, pp. 113-17.
Moreover, when niches appear in the sanctuary of the Orthodox
rite, they almost always occur, as in S. Silvestro di S. Stefano
d'Aspromonte, in churches that lack sufficient space to develop
individual rooms for the prothesis and diaconicon. However, as
the church at Agrd is endowed with separate pastophoria, the
niches of the central apse could not have retained this function.
It should also be noted that niches possibly related to those at
157
seen strictly as structural devices'that were integrated into the
design to relieve the mass from the squared exterior of the
central apse.293
Exterior Details and Decoration;
The exterior details and decorative devices employed at SS.
Pietro e Paolo often appear in other contemporary monuments of
the Sicily and southern Italy, and therefore may be viewed as
part of the architectural vocabulary that developed in the Norman
south. Considering the extent to which Islamic architecture
appears to have influenced the interior articulation of the
church, one would expect to find a similar correspondence to
Muslim building on the exterior. However, the final word has yet
to be written upon the ultimate source of derivation for many of
the external feature that appear at Agrd, and one should not rule
out possible sources in Northern or Byzantine building.
Twin-tower facade. The twin-tower facade of S S . Pietro e
Paolo has usually been viewed as a Romanesque feature, imported
by the Normans either directly to Sicily or through intermediary
SS. Pietro e Paolo occur in the apses of the Byzantine churches

of S. Marziano and S. Pietro ad Baias at Syracuse; see supra. Ch.
3, pt. 2.
Niches set into apses also occur sporadically in the Middle
Byzantine Greece and Romanesque Spain. In Greece, the best
example is the church of St. Demetrius on Mount Varasova, where
arched niches are hollowed into the walls of the three apses of
the triconch design; see A.K. Orlandos, in Archeion t5n
BvzantinSn MnimeiOn tis Hellados, 1 (1935), pp. 105-20, and fig.
3. In Spain, the niches usually articulate the apses in large
number. Examples include S. Viceng at Cardona, S. Maria at
Roses, S. Lloreng at Munt, and S. Pone de Cobera; see Whitehill,
pp. 47-51, 80-1, 87-9, 107-08 and figs. 16, 18-19, 36, 39-40, 60
and plate 25a.
293This is also the opinion of Bottari, "Chiese basiliane,"

p. 22.
158
sources in southern Italy.294 Indeed, several aspects of the
facade have appropriate parallels in the Norman churches of
France and England. For instance, the integration of the towers
into the bodies of the side aisles and western porch, which is
extremely rare in the Norman South, compares somewhat favorably
to St.-Etienne (ca. 1096-1100) and St.-Nicholas (ca. 1083-93) at
Caen in Normandy, as well as Gloucester Abbey church (ca. 1089-
1121), and Southwell Minster (ca. 1130) in England.295
Moreover, the open entry leading into the western porch functions
similarly to the main entrances at Notre Dame at Jumidges (1037-
66) and Southwell Minster.296 Still, the twin-tower facade at
Agrd contains certain distinctions that are uncharacteristic of
Romanesque style. Such aspects include the church's compactness
of the design, with its towers rising only to the height of the
nave clerestory, and the volumetric disposition of the west
294For example, see Signorino, p. 864; Lojacono, "La chiesa

abbaziale," p. 395; Schwarz, p. 106; Bottari, "Chiese basiliane,"
p. 20.
295For St.-fitienne and St-Nicholas, see Lucien Musset,

Normandie romane; La basse Normandie. Zodiaque series no. 41 (La-
Pierre-qui-Vire, 1983), pp. 55-61; 105-111. For Gloucester and
Southwell Minster, see Nikolaus Pevsner and Priscilla Metcalf,
The Cathedrals of England, vol. 1, Midland, Eastern and Northern
England (Harmondsworth, 1985), pp. 131-55; 301-12; Clapham,
English Romanesgue Architecture after the Conquest. esp. pp. 32-
4; 43-5, 62-3. Besides Di Stefano's theoretical reconstruction
of S. Giovanni Lebbrosi in Palermo, the best comparable example
to the towers at Agrd in the Norman South is the Cathedral of
Molfetta in Apulia (1162 and later); see Conant, Carolingian and
Romanesque, p. 350.
296For Jumidges, see Musset, Normandie romane: La haute

Normandie. Zodiaque series no. 25 (La-Pierre-qui-Vire, 1974), pp.
61-117.
159
gallery, which was probably open to" the exterior except to the
east.297
Intriguingly, several of the two-tower facades of Norman
Sicily have been viewed by various authors as reflecting Islamic
detailing. Probably the most familiar of such contentions is the
comparison of the towers of the Cathedral at Cefalu to North
African minarets.298 However, Bellafiore takes the argument
even further, suggesting that the two-tower designs of the
cathedrals Cefalu and Monreale, as well as those that he proposes
for the cathedrals of Mazara and Catania, emerged out of the
Fatimid tradition of city gates, such as the Bab al-Nasr or Bab
al-Futuh in Cairo (both ca. 1087) ,299 Although it is not wise
to completely discount Romanesque influence in the Sicilian
facades, at least in terms of general planning arrangements,
Bellafiore's theory is worth considering. Not only is there a
marked similarity between the massive, protruding forms of the
towers of the Fatimid gates and of the Sicilian cathedrals, but
also the west fronts of Christian churches were often formally
and symbolically representative of city gates.
I believe the analogy of the three-dimensional articulation
of the west facade and the Fatimid gates is equally plausible for
SS. Pietro e Paolo. Although the lower portions of the towers of
297For discussion as to the original form of the western

gallery, see supra. Ch. 2, pt. 4.
29eFor exanple, see Conant, Carolinqian and Romanesque, p.

357.
299See Architettura in Sicilia, pp. 76, 113, 117. Also see

supra. Ch. 2, pt. 4. For the Bab al-Nasr, Bab al-Futuh, and the
other Fatimid gates, see Creswell, Muslim Architecture of Egypt.
vol. 1, pp. 23-31; Terry Allen, A Classical Revival in Islamic
Architecture (Wiesbaden, 1986), pp. 30-7 and figs. 38-48.
160
the gates cited above are not bridged by a porch as at Agrd, they
are similar to the west facade of our church in their compactness
of form. In addition, the large open entry at SS. Pietro e Paolo
evokes comparison to the arched openings that often articulate
such gates. Other similarities include the crenelated roofline
of the Bab al-Futuh and the low gallery positioned between the
towers of the Bab al-Nasr. Finally, because the towers at Agrd
may have been included for defensive purposes, the fortified gate
would have provided an apt model. This is not to imply that two
gates in Cairo directly influenced the builders of SS. Pietro e
Paolo, but that these types of formal arrangements probably also
existed in Fatimid Ifriqiya— as the severely altered Skifa al-
Kahla in Mahdiya testifies— and may have become part of the
architectural vocabulary of both Muslim and Norman Sicily.300
Western porch. The western porch at Agrd is also
occasionally categorized as a Norman importation, and is placed
among the same group of Sicilian building detailed with two-tower
facades, which include the cathedrals of Mazara, Cefalu,
Monreale, and sometimes the Cathedral and S. Giovanni Lebbrosi of
Palermo.301 However, we have already touched upon the
controversy concerning the existence of the porticoes in the
cathedrals listed above, and the arrangement of the facade at the
Lebbrosi is only speculative.302 Furthermore, the small and
shallow form of the porch at Agrd seems unrelated to the
300For the Skifa al-Kahla, see Ldzine, Mahdiya, pp. 24-38;

Mar?ais, L fArchitecture, p. 79.
301See Bottari, "Chiese basilian," p. 20; Schwarz, p. 106.
302For the cathedrals, see supra. Ch. 2, pt. 4. For the

Lebbrosi, see supra.
161
narthexes and exonarthexes that appear in Middle Byzantine
churches, although such sources seem to have inspired the narthex
at S. Maria dell'Ammiraglio in Palermo.303
On the other hand, some excellent comparisons to the porch
of our church are found in the Fatimid and Zirid architecture of
Ifriqiya. For instance, the well-known entry porch of the Great
Mosque of Mahdiya (ca. 912) is similar to the porch at Agrd in
scale and dimensions, and the recessed panels that enliven the
wall surfaces are not unlike the flat recesses flanking the
church's main portal.304 An equally valid comparison to the
vestibule at SS. Pietro e Paolo is the porch of the south portal
at the Ribat at Monastir (fig. 89), which was added to the
fortress in the eleventh century.30S The porch of the ribat is
not only set into the surface of the facade as at Agrd, but its
lateral walls contain deep recesses that are articulated with low
benches and are covered by diminutive barrel vaults. Therefore,
the porch at Agrd may have been inspired by prototypes related to
the Ifriqiyan examples that had become realized in the
architecture of Muslim Sicily.
303For S. Maria dell'Ammiraglio, see Kitzinger and (Surdid,

pp. 41-8 and 51-2. For the narthex in Middle and Late Byzantine
architecture, also see Robert Ousterhout, "The Byzantine Church
at Enez: Problems in Twelfth-Century Architecture," JOB, 35
(1985), pp. 261-81; idem, Architecture. pp. 96-106; Athanasios
Papageorgiou, "Constatinopolitan Influence on the Middle
Byzantine Architecture of Cyprus," JOB, 32/4 (1982), pp. 469-78;
Slobodan Curdid, "The Twin-Domed Narthex in Paleologan
Architecture," Zbornik radova Vizantinolodkoq instituta, 13
(1971), pp. 333-44.
304For the porch at Mahdiya, see Ldzine, Mahdiya, esp. pp.

86-92, 116-18, and phs. 91-103.
305See Ldzine, Le Ribat. pp. 35-43; idem, Architecture de

1'Ifriqiya, pp. 122-6; idem, Mahdiya. p. 117 and ph. 119.
162
Domes. In contrast to the similarity of the interior
articulation of the drums and domes of the two cupolas to Middle
Byzantine prototypes, the exterior designs are better related to
the Zirid architecture of Ifriqiya. Typically, Byzantine domes
feature more elaborately detailed window openings, and the domes
are protected by a outer shell of lead or tile roofing. Probably
the best comparisons to the major dome at Agrd are bahu and
mihrab cupolas of the Great Mosque of Tunis, which are defined
externally by cylindrical drums and pumpkin domes. Although
cylindrical drums are otherwise rare in North Africa, pumpkin
domes are not uncommon, with examples dating back to the Aghlabid
period, such as in the mihrab dome of the Great Mosque of
Qairawan. In addition, the dentil mouldings that separate the
drum and dome is extremely close to those that decorate the
northeast facade of the Great Mosque of Sfax (988) .306 Related
examples to the octagonal drum of the minor dome appear in Zirid
Ifriqiya— as in the dome above the northeast tower of the Great
Mosque at Sousse (late lOth-llth c.)— and Fatimid Egypt— as in
the mihrab dome of the al-Hakim Mosque in Cairo.307
In Sicily and southern Italy, there are also several
comparable examples to the cylindrical and faceted drums of the
Agrd domes. Good comparisons to the simple, geometrical shape of
the drum of the major dome are found in S. Alfio at S. Fratello
(late llth-early 12th c.), the two Byzantine churches of the
306See Golvin, "Notes sur les ddcor," pp. 581-3 and figs. 1-
6; Margais and Golvin, pp. 32-6 and figs. 15-17.
307For Sousse, see Ldzine, Architecture. pp. 103-04 and ph.

38. For the al-Hakim Mosques see Creswell, Muslim Architecture
of Egypt, vol. 1, p. 81; Hill and Golvin, plate 29.
163
Cattolica at Stilo and S. Marco at Rossano (both 10th or 11th
c.), S. Giovanni a mare in Gaeta (mid llth-12th c.), and S.
Giovanni del Toro in Ravello (late 12th c.?)— which also contains
a dentil moulding at the cornice of the drum.308 Octagonal
drums are somewhat rarer, although those at S . Maria at Mili
(1092) and S. Maria dell'Ammiraglio in Palermo (1132-43) provide
sufficient comparisons. At the same time, the lack of parallels
for the exterior treatment of the minor dome as a cloister vault
may support the suggestion that it was originally a pumpkin dome,
as on the interior.309
Central apse. The towering, rectangular form of the central
apse is to my knowledge unprecedented in the medieval
architecture of Sicily and southern Italy. Although a few Norman
churches, such as S. Cataldo in Palermo and the Cathedral at
Cefalu and Trani, contain apses that rise above the interior
conches to the roofline of the nave— thereby creating a similar
type of unusable void as at Agrd— they are expressed externally
as half cylinders. Conversely, although mihrabs in the mosques
of North Africa are commonly squared, they do not extend to the
full height of the buildings. In my opinion, the form of the
apse at SS. Pietro e Paolo is best explained as representing an
aesthetic choice on the part of the builders, not only to conform
to the geometrical purity of the exterior, but also to take
advantage of the church's orientation on the site. The most used
route to the church would certainly have been from the east along
308For S. Giovanni del Toro, see Venditti, Architettura. vol.

2, p. 665; D'Onofrio and Pace, Campanie Romane, pp. 339-42 and
the color plate on p. 332. For the other churches, see supra.
309See supra. Ch. 2. pt. 4.
164
the bed of the river Agrd, and the solid form of the apse that
rises from the foothill of S. Elia would have dominated the
valley like a tower of a citadel, as it still does today.
West and south portals. Some of the most interesting and
complex problems of the exterior of SS. Pietro e Paolo are found
within its two main portals, located at the west and south
facades. Probably the most noticeable aspect is the polychrome
detailing that frames the tympana. Structural elements (i.e. the
voussoirs of the relieving arches), as well as plastic
ornamentation (i.e. the arched cavetto mouldings) and decorative
inlays (i.e. the semicircular lozenge frieze of the south
portal), are all executed in various polychrome techniques.
However, tracing the direct source of inspiration for the
polychrome techniques employed at Agrd is daunting, not only
because of the variety of applications used in the portals, but
also because the techniques appear sporadically in numerous parts
of the medieval world.
The technique of articulating arches with alternately
colored voussoirs or inlays was extremely widespread throughout
the Middle Ages. For instance, examples of both structural and
decorative used of alternating voussoirs are found in at
relatively early dates in Byzantine, Carolingian, and Umayyad
monuments.310 During the later Middle Ages, the technique was
equally prevalent, appearing in monuments from Greece to North
Africa and Spain. Although such ubiquity complicates our
310For a concise account of the use of banded voussoirs in

the early Middle Ages, see Dodds, p. 95 and n. 50, pp. 164-5.
Although outdated, Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Jr., "Banded Arches
Before the Year 1000," Art Studies. 6 (1928), pp. 172-91, is also
valuable.
165
assessment of the appearance of the'technique in Sicily, it is
perhaps significant that the banded arches of the two portals at
Agrd are detailed somewhat differently. In the south portal, the
single row of voussoirs is composed of alternating black lava and
white limestone, whereas in the west portal the two rows of
banded arches contain alternating lava and limestone blocks that
are framed on each side by upright bricks.
Pietro Lojacono has suggested that the two different types
of banding at our church may be related to different
traditions.311 He believes that the polychrome technique of the
south portal, which produces a stark contrast between light and
dark shades (his term is "chiaroscuro"), is related to pre-Gothic
aesthetics, which was likely imported to Agrd by Girardus the
Frank.312 Conversely, the author views the inclusion of brick
in the voussoirs of the west portal as a reference to a tradition
that had been established in Sicily and southern Italy during the
Byzantine domination. This theory may indeed be correct, as an
early Sicilian application of alternating brick and stone
voussoirs is found in S. Salvatore at Rometta (fig. 90), usually
dated to the first half of the tenth century.313 However, we
311See "II restauro," pp. 164-5; "La chiesa abbaziale," pp.

384-7.
312In his use of pre-Gothic, I assume Lojacono is referring

to the related uses of decorative banding and zebra-work
prevalent in Tuscan Romanesque and Gothic architecture. Lojacono
confers that Girardus' appellation "the Frank" could have
connoted variety of Northern ethnic origins, and that he could
possibly have been a North Italian. See "II restauro," p. 163;
"La chiesa abbaziale," p. 384.
313In S. Salvatore, the voussoirs over the windows and

portals are detailed with an alternation of two, three, or, more
rarely, four courses and single blocks of limestone. For the
church, see supra. Ch. 3, pt. 1. The use of brick in alternating
166
should not overlook the fact that the most extensive applications
of bricks in an alternating voussoir patterns occurs in the Great
Mosque of C6rdoba (786-7) ,314
Lojacono's assertion that the polychrome banding of the
south portal is related to developments in late Italian
Romanesque architecture is also possible, as appropriate
comparisons to our church are found in Campania by the early
twelfth century.315 But again, we should also consider a
possible connection to Islamic sources. For instance, similar
types of banding occur in the arches framing the windows and
recesses of the interior and exterior of the bahu cupola (991 or
early 11th c.).316 In any event, it should be noted that banded
voussoirs also occurs in monuments that have tentatively been

dated to the Byzantine period of Sicily, such as in the small
upper window of the south conch of Cuba at Malvagna (6th-7th
c .?), where the voussoirs alternate between two courses of brick
single blocks of lava. For accounts of this church, see
Freshfield, vol. 1, pp. 8-10; Bottari, "Chiese basiliane," p. 37
and tav. XIV; G. Agnello, L'architettura bizantina. p. 303; S.L.
Agnello, p. 89.
314See Dodds, p. 95.
315For instance, the alternating voussoirs composed of solid

blocks are found in the gallery arcades of atrium (late 11th-
early or 12 c .) and in the interlaced arcades of the campanile
(ca. 1137-54) of the Cathedral of Salerno. See D'Onofrio and
Pace, Campanie Romane. pp. 271-3 and figs. 120-1, 123; Gabrieli
and Scerrato, fig. 402, p. 363; Kronia, II duomo di Monreale, pp.
180-1.
316See Golvin, "Note sur les couples," pp. 100-05 and pis.
Ill and IV, who states that the polychrome banding is composed of
white stone and ceramic. Also see Slimane-Mostafa Zbiss,
"Documents d'architecture fatimite d'Occident," Ars Orientalis, 3
(1959), pp. 27-9; Hill and Golvin, pp. 95-6 and plates 111-13.
Although polychrome banding also appears in the arches that
articulate the drum and in the pumpkin dome of the cupola in
front of the mihrab of the same mosque, the decoration is painted
and bears no resemblance to the masonry construction. Moreover,
it has been suggested that the drum and dome of this cupola have
been largely rebuilt, probably during the 17th century. See
Golvin, "Note sur les couples," pp. 99-100.
167
voussoirs related to those in the south portal of our church are
quite rare in the architecture of Norman Sicily, and appear only
in monuments of late or dubious date, such as S. Spirito (J
Vespri) in Palermo (ca. 1178) and the Annunziata dei Catalani in
Messina (1166-89?).
Although the current state of research on the architecture
of the Norman South has produced no definitive conclusions about
the emergence of polychrome inlays, such as the reticulate frieze
in the south portal at Agrd, many scholars are convinced that the
technique first appeared in Campania at the end of the eleventh
century, and was later disseminated to the southern regions.311
The general chronology of the monuments of southern Italy, such
as the Palazzo Veniero in Sorrento (ilth-12th c.?) and the
campanile of the Cathedral of Melfi (1153) seem to support this
theory.318 In addition, polychrome inlays do not occur with any
degree of regularity in Sicily until the last third of the
twelfth century, with notable application in the cathedrals of
Monreale (1174-82) and Palermo (ca. 1170-85), as well as in the
campanile of S. Maria dell'Ammiraglio (completed by 1184).
Still, the technique never seems to have been used extensively in
317For example, see Gabrieli and Scerrato, pp. 335-6; Mario

D'Onofrio, La Cattedrale di Caserta Vecchia (Rome, 1974), p. 120;
Roberto Pane, "Intarsi murali romanici a Salerno," Bollettino di
Storia dell'arte dell'Istituto universitario di maaistero, 2/2
(1952), p. 39; Bottari, "I rapporti tra l'architettura siciliana
e quella Campania del Medioevo," Palladio, n.s. 5 (Jan.-June
1955), pp. 7-28. However, Luigi Kalby, Tarsie ed archi
intrecciati nel romanico meridionale (Salerno, 1971), esp. p. 13,
proposes a reciprocal development between southern Italy and
Sicily.
318For Melfi, see Romano, pp. 34-6, and figs. 1-2; Kalby, pp.
85-7 and photographs 114-16. For the Palazzo Veniero, see ibid.
pp. 118-21 and photograph 171; Gabrieli and Scerrato, figs. 396-
7, p. 361; Kronig, II duomo di Monreale, pp. 209-10.
168
the island, and the inlays of the south portal at Agrd are
notably of much simpler design than these other Sicilian
applications.319
Nonetheless, some close comparisons the technique in the of
south portal are found in eastern Sicily, such as the windows of
the north aisle of the Annunziata dei Catalan! in Messina (fig.
91) and the arches framing the southernmost openings of the piano
nobile in the east and west facades of the Palace at Caronia.320
To these should also be added the reticulate revetments that
articulate the roofline of SS. Pietro e Paolo itself, which must
date to before the 1171/2 renovation.
Perhaps the most logical sources of derivation for the
reticulate design of eastern Sicily is found in the architecture
of North Africa, where the related use of polychrome inlays had
been realized by the late tenth to twelfth centuries in Ifriqiya,
the Maghrib, and Egypt.321 The bahu cupola of the Great Mosque
at Tunis provides a close comparison to Agrd in its use of two
reticulate friezes— one located just below the cornice of the
squared exterior drum, and the other at the top of the interior
of the cylindrical drum. Notably, this type of decoration was
not limited to the Great Mosque, but appears with some frequency
319See Kronig, II duomo di Monreale. esp. pp. 208-14;

Bellafiore, Cattedrale di Palermo, pp. 122 ff.; Kitzinger and
Curdid, pp. 58-9.
320For Caronia, see Kronig, II castello. pp. 38-9 and figs.

12, 16, 24-5.
321See Gabrieli and Scerrato, p. 336.
169
in other Ifriqiyan monuments, mostly in the vicinity of Tunis,
dated between the late tenth and twelfth centuries.322
The polychrome treatment of the arched mouldings in the west
and south portals of SS. Pietro e Paolo have few parallels either
in Sicily, southern Italy, or North Africa. By far, the closest
comparison for the technique at Agrd is found in a set of bifora
windows (fig. 92), dated to the 13th century, in a casa in
Gerace, located in the vicinity of the Duomo.323 In this case,
the similarity between the profile of the moulding of the right
set of windows and those in the portals at Agrd is so exact as to
make it tempting to suggest that the same workshop was employed
at both sites.
However, if we disregard the polychrome detailing of the
Agrd mouldings, then related comparisons become quite numerous.
For instance, the specific type of profile at Agrd, in which the
fascia is only slightly concave, has parallels in Norman France
and England. A particularly close comparison exists in the
tympanum of Salford, which, as at Agrd, is supported upon
sculpted corbels.324 Still, related examples of arched
mouldings set upon corbelled brackets are quite rare in Sicily
and southern Italy, where such detailing appears only at a late
322See Zbiss, "Documents."
323See Domenico Oliva, Mille anni e. un qiorno Gerace

(Reggio Calabria, 1975), p. 69 and illustration.
324See Charles E. Keyser, A List of Norman Tympana and

Lintels with Figure or Symbolic Sculpture Still or Till Recently
Existing in the Churches of Great Britain (London, 1927), fig.
24.
170
date, as in the Casa in via Protonotaro (last quarter of 12th c.
or later) and the Duomo of Tropea (13th c.?) ,325
Again, we should consider developments in Ifriqiya, where
appropriate comparisons to the combination of arched moulding and
corbels occur in numerous eleventh- and twelfth-century
monuments. Among the best comparisons are two examples from the
Great Mosque, both of which are securely dated by inscriptions.
The first, constructed in 1064, frames a superimposed arch,
composed of alternating voussoirs, that is positioned above a
portal of the east facade; the second, dating to 1081, is
situated above two rows of arched voussoirs that articulate the
back wall of a porch in the north facade.326 However, the
fascias of the mouldings in both Tunisian examples are much more
concave than at Agrd, not to mention the fact that, mouldings form
horseshoe arches. As a result, it is difficult to arrive at any
precise conclusions concerning the Agrd mouldings.
The design of the tympanum of the west portal— consisting of
a limestone disk, decorated with an inscribed cross rendered in
champlevd— is, to my knowledge, unique for Sicily and southern
Italy. Related tympanum designs occur in the Norman architecture
of the North. Particularly good comparisons are found in
provincial English churches, such as Great Washbourn, Wold
32SFor the Casa in via Protonotaro, see Di Stefano,

Monumenti, 2nd ed., pp. 116-7 and tav.CLXXVI and CLXXVIII. For
the dating of the facade at Tropea, see Schwarz, p. 12. Although
diminutive corbels support an arched moulding at the west portal
of SS. Pietro e Paolo at Itdla, the moulding profile is quite
different to that at Agrd.
326For both examples, see Zbiss, "Documents," p. 29 and figs.

6-7; for arch at the east facade, see L6zine, Architecture de
1'Ifriqiya. p. 128 and ph. 42.
171
Newton, Haltham-super-Bain, and Broadwell.327 The major
discrepancies between these tympana and that at Agrd are that the
designs of Norman examples are carved into the contiguous stone
surfaces of the tympana, and that they offer no evidence to
suggest the use of champlevd.
However, the inscribed cross motif itself appears to have
quite popular from Early Christian times onward. For example, a
similar type of maltese cross inscribed with a circular band and
containing floral motifs in its quadrants, appears within a
reconstructed marble slab (2nd half of 5th to 1st quarter of 6th
c .) — executed in champlevd technique— from Kourion in Cyprus.328
Moreover, appropriate parallels for the inscribed cross motif are
known in sculpted decoration of Byzantine Sicily. The best
example occurs in a sarcophagus fragment, now in the Museo
Axcheologico Regionale in Syracuse, in which the arms of the
cross are detailed a perla, and small disks appear in the
surviving quadrants.329 This work has been tentatively dated to
the 9th century.330 Although the disk at Agrd was likelycarved
in the twelfth century, its design may well be based upon Early
Christian or Byzantine models.
The use of the champlevd technique in the disk may also
reflect Byzantine influence. We have already mentioned its
existence at Kourion, where shallow recesses of the design were
327See Keyser, figs. 13, 16, 17, and 20.
328See Susan A. Boyd, "A Little-Known Technique of

Architectural Sculpture: Champlev6 Reliefs from Cyprus," JOB,
32/5 (1982), p. 315 and fig. 7, p. 324.
329See Cavallo et al., n. 145, p. 288 and fig. 205, p. 276.
330Ibid.
172
originally filled with colored mastic. Although the technique
was probably most widespread in the fifth and sixth centuries,
there is also evidence to suggest it was also known in Middle and
Late Byzantine architectural sculpture.331 For instance, mastic
appears to have been used in some of the tenth-century sculptural
decoration in the north church of the Monastery of Constantine
Lips in Istanbul, in the marble plaques covering the exterior of
the drum of the Theotokos church at Hosios Lukas (ca. 960), and
perhaps in the fragments of the templon screen (ca. 1140) of the
south church of the Pantokrator Monastery in Istanbul.332
Examples from the Late Byzantine period appear with more
frequency, with notable examples found in the Parigoritissa in
Arta (1283-6), the south church of the Lips monastery (13th c.),
and in a large sculpted roundel depicting an eagle devouring a
hare (13th c.), now in the Rotunda of St. George in
Thessaloniki.333
JJlSee Boyd, pp. 313 ff., for the use of champlev6 in the 5th
and 6th centuries.
332For the Lips Monastery, see Grabar, Sculpture, vol. 1

(Paris, 1963) pp. 112-13 and plate LI/2. For Hosios Lukas, see
idem, "L'feglise de la Vierge a Saint-Luc (Phocide)," Comptes
rendus des stances de 1'Acad6mie des Inscriptions et Belles-
Lettres. (1971), p. 25 and fig. 7, p. 21. Intriguingly, Grabar
proposes that the designs are of Islamic inspiration. For the
Pantokrator, see ibid. vol. 2, (Paris, 1976), pp. 94-5 and plate
LXIII/a-b; A.H.S. Megaw, "Notes on Recent Works of the Byzantine
Institute," P.O.P.. 17 (1963), pp. 334-6 and figs. E, 7-8.
Although these accounts of the Pantokrator fragments do not
mention champlev6 being employed, the issue has been raised by
Raffaella Farioli Campanati; see Cavallo et al, pp. 218-19. Also
see M. Suput, "Les reliefs byzantins remplis de p£te colorê des
X H I e et XlVe si^cles," Zoqraf. 7 (1976), pp. 36-44 (in Serbian).
333For the Parigoritissa, see Grabar, Sculpture, vol. 2, p.

146 and plate CXXVIII. For Lips, see ibid. pp. 127-8 and plate
CV. For the roundel in Thessaloniki, which was taken from the
floor of St. Sophia in Trebizond, see Manolis Chatzidakis et al.,
eds., Byzantine A r t . An European Art. 2nd ed. (Athens, 1964),
173
The extent to which the technique was used in the West is
not clear, although it may have been used in Italy during the
early Middle Ages.334 At any rate, by the late Romanesque
period, champlevd employing colored mastic or stucco as a
background material is found throughout Italy, such as in a set
of twelfth-century marble panels in S. Ciriaco in Ancona, and in
various twelfth- and early thirteenth-century friezes decorating
the interior and altar of S. Nicola at Bari, not to mention the
numerous application of vitreous paste in liturgical furnishing
of southern Italy and Sicily.33S Still, it is often suggested
that the use of champlevd in Italy is related to Byzantine
tradition, perhaps revitalized in the south by Greek artists
working in Campania in the eleventh century.336 Therefore, the
technique at Agrd could possibly reflect either a survival from
Byzantine rule, or a new wave of influence transmitted from the
continent.
The lintel of the tympanum of the west portal at Agrd,
formed in the shape of a segmental arch, is quite rare among the
monuments of the Norman South. In Sicily, the only relevant
comparison that I can produce is the arch defining the opening of
the west portal of the Cuba near Castiglione, which, although
entry no. 10, p. 132.
334For instance, lozenge and circle patterns in the Ottonian

tombs in the crypt of Fidele in Pavia may have been filled with
mastic. See Grabar, Sculpture, vol. 1, p. 113 and plate LVIII/c.
33SFor S. Ciriaco, see Stefano Bottari, ed., Tesori d'arte

cristiana. vol. 2, II Romanico (Bologna, 1966), figs. 1-2, p. 330
and figs. 1-2, p. 331. For S. Nicola, see Gabrieli and Scerrato,
figs. 326-7, p. 294.
336Cavallo et al., p. 219.
174
ruined, appears as if it may have originally been formed in a
shape similar to that at Agrd. From the Byzantine period, the
less conspicuous portals and windows of S. Salvatore at Rometta
are also framed by segmental arches. Otherwise, the device is
limited to a few minor application.
However, segmental arches are occasionally used in portal
designs in the architecture of Norman England and France.
Examples include the west portals of the abbey church at Lessay
(late llth-early 12th c.), in which the segmental arch is used to
support a tympanum, and St.-Pierre at Thaon (1120-30?), where the
arch mimics the partial form of a semicircular sculpted frieze
that appears above the portal.337 Although the segmental arch
also occurs sporadically in the Muslim architecture of North
Africa, these applications seem less related to SS. Pietro e
Paolo, as the openings that they define lack the sense of detail
and monumentality of the Romanesque examples.338
This leaves but the inscription to discuss. As we have just
seen, the use of champlevd was not unusual in the Norman South;
and although I know of no other application in which mastic was
employed to fill an inscription, an it is entirely possible that
the present fill was added at a much later date. However, the
method of filling a carved inscription with decorative material
is perhaps related to the more luxuriantpractice filling
inscriptions with marble inlays, such as in the fragments of an
337See Musset, Normandie romane: La basse Normandie, pp. 119-

23 and figs. 37 (Thaon); pp. 205-08 and fig. 76 (Lessay). For
examples in England, see Keyser, figs. 31 (Middleton Stoney) and
109 (Essendine).
338For instance, a segmental archframe thesouth portal of

the Ribat at Monastir. See fig. 88.
175
arabic frieze (12th c.) from the Palazzo Reale in Palermo.339
Because SS. Pietro e Paolo was founded as an orthodox monastery
church, it is not surprising that the inscription is carved in
Greek. Moreover, artists working the in Norman Sicily seem to
have been well equipped to confront problems of a multilingual
society, as some surviving carvings contain three or four
different languages.340
Reticulate revetments of the nave and bema. The polychrome
bands of reticulate revetments positioned at the rooflines of the
south and east facades of the nave and bema should be considered
within a slightly different context than the lozenge frieze above
the south portal. Although the designs are composed of square
and triangular inlays of similar dimensions, not only do the two
applications appear to date to different phases of construction,
but the combination of black lava and red ceramic tiles of the
cornice frieze creates an aesthetic that is somewhat distinct
from the black, white, and red tiles in the portal.
Moreover, the use of reticulate bands to decorate the
exterior surfaces of buildings is more readily traceable, at
least in Sicily and southern Italy, to developments in Byzantine
architecture. In his classic study of Byzantine reticulate
revetments, A.H.S. Megaw has convincingly argued that the
technique emerged as a regional development in southern Greece,
Macedonia, and Albania in the tenth century, and was subsequently
339See Gabrieli and Scerrato, p. 302 and figs. 175-6, p. 158.
340The best known examples are two mid twelfth-century tomb

slabs, now in the Galleria Nazionale della Sicilia in Palermo.
See ibid. p. 302 and figs. 173-4, p. 158.
176
disseminated westward into southern' Italy, as in the Cattolica in
Stilo (10th or 11th c.).341
However, tracing the polychrome applications of such tiling
is more problematic, because the surviving examples in Byzantine
architecture, such as in the Parigoritissa at Arta (1289-96), are
quite late. Although uses of polychrome lozenge patterns appear
in southern Italy as early as the late eleventh or early twelfth
century, and in Ifriqiya by the late tenth or early eleventh
century, these are almost always rendered in more strongly
contrasting colors, such as black and white or red and white.342
Indeed, one wonders if the subtle color pattern of red and black
at SS. Pietro e Paolo is not closer in intent to the Middle
Byzantine monochromatic applications of the technique.
Nevertheless, there are no survivals of reticulate
decoration in Sicily from the Byzantine or Muslim periods, and
the technique was by no means common in the Norman monuments of
the island.343 Although I know of no other examples that employ
ceramic and lava tiles, ceramic tiles are used alone in the
reticulate frieze framing the north portal of S . Filippo di
Fragald. near Frazzand, and similar applications composed of
ceramic and light-colored stone tiles are found above the two
openings at the palace at Caronia, and in the outer band framing
the arched recess above the south portal of the Annunziata dei
341"Byzantine Reticulate Revetments,” pp. 1-22. Also see

Krautheimer, Early Christian. 4th ed., p. 403.
342Supra for examples in southern Italy and Ifriqiya.
343However, the vast majority of application of reticulate

revetments are found in the Valdemone.
177
Catalani in Messina (fig. 93) .344 In the final analysis, these
applications, as well as the cornice friezes at Agrd, are
probably best viewed as regional developments of eastern Sicily,
separate from the more elaborate polychrome designs that emerged
in Palermo and environs during the last third of the twelfth
century.
Interlaced arcadinq. Despite the amount of scholarship
devoted to the development of the interlaced arcade in Sicily and
southern Italy, no definitive conclusions have been reached. The
main problem has emanated from the fact that at approximately the
same time, the motif appears decorating facades in the
architecture of England, France, the Norman South, and North
Africa. Although the interlaced motif is known to have been used
as a framing pattern in Roman mosaic decoration, particularly in
North Africa, its earliest known architectural applications
occurs in Spain by the last third of the tenth century.345
Examples include in the interior arcades and ribbed dome of the
prayer hall of al-Hakim in the Great Mosque at C6rdoba (961/76)
and the facades of the Bab Mardum in Toledo (ca. 1000) .346
344For S. Filippo see Filangeri, ed., p. 36 and fig. 20 N 28,

p. 53; Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed., pp. 13-14. For Caronia,
see supra. For the Catalani, see Di Stefano, Monumenti, 2nd ed.,
pp. 61-2. It should be pointed out that the remaining
applications of reticulate designs at the Catalani, which are
used extensively in the horizontal bands at the east and in
arched friezes above the windows of the north and south facades,
are composed instead of white limestone and black lava inlays.
345An example of the motif in a floor mosaic from the Roman

town of Skhira, now in the Archaeological Museum in Sfax, is
reproduced by Basile, L farchitettura. fig. 17, p. 15.
346See Ettinghausen and Grabar, esp. pp. 129-35
178
By and large, there are two basic schools of thought as to
how the interlaced arcade emerged in the Norman south. The first
school— which bases its conclusion upon the early dates of the
decorative arcading in England, such as in the interior faces of
the side aisles at Durham Cathedral (late llth-early 12th c.)—
proposes that the motif first made its way from Spain to France
and England, and was then transported to southern Italy and
Sicily through Norman connections.347 However, the interlaced
arcading in the facades of S. Maria at Mili and S. Pietro e Paolo
at It&la in late eleventh-century Sicily stands in opposition to
theory.348 The second school suggests that the motif was
imported to Sicily, perhaps as early as the Kalbid period,
through associations in North Africa, and usually views the
interlace in the monuments of England and France as a separate
development.349 Early applications of the motif in North
Africa— such as in the stone sheathing in the facade of the Zirid
palace at Ashir (ca. 947) and fragments of an architectural
frieze from the Qal'a of the Banu Hammad (begun 1010)— seem to
347For example, see Cleofe Giovanni Canale, "Aspetti dell

cultura architettonica relisiosa del secolo IX in Sicilia e in
Calabria," Cronache di archeoloqia js di storia dell'arte
(University di Catania), 6 (1967), pp. 92-106; Bottari, "I
rapporti," pp. 9-11; Schwarz, pp. 69-72. For Durham, see
Geoffrey Webb, Architecture in Britain: The Middle Ages
(Harmondsworth, 1956), pp. 35-9 and plate 33a.
348Although the authenticity of the blind arcading at Itila

has been questioned by scholars such as Bottari ("I rapporti,"
pp. 10-11), an examination of the wall construction seems to
suggest that the arcades are contemporary to the rest of the
building.
349For example, see Gabrieli and Scerrato, pp. 336-7;

Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, pp. 86-7; idem, Pall'Islam,
p. 29; Bertaux, L'Art dans l'ltalie m6ridionale (Paris, 1908), p.
620.
179
support this theory.350 Yet, by dismissing the Normans as the
possible means of transmission of the device, one wonders why it
emerged simultaneously in two distant regions.
Although I do not wish at this time to enter the debate
surrounding the derivation of the interlaced arcade in the Norman
South, it is worth noting that a few examples of the interlaced
motif are found in the Byzantine art of Sicily. The best
surviving example is the ninth-century (?) tomb slab in the Museo
Regionale Archeologico in Syracuse, mentioned in the above
discussion of the inscribed cross design in the tympanum of the
west portal. The fact that examples of the device existed as
early as the Byzantine period perhaps strengthens the theory of
its independent development in Sicily.
But regardless of its source, the application of the
interlaced arcading at SS. Pietro e Paolo is of unprecedented
elegance. Although the method of construction is by no means
precise, the conception of the design is quite refined. The
manner is which the arcades turn the corners of the facades
testifies to the degree of planning: the arches are bent at a
ninety-degree angle, and interrupted by corner pilasters, but
otherwise continue the rhythm of the interlaced pattern. This
detailing, which has a close parallel in the minaret of the
Mausoleum of Sidi 'Uqba in Tahuda (12th c.), is better conceived
and more subtly integrated into the facades than many designs of
more lavishly endowed buildings of the island. For instance, the
350For Ashir, see Golvin, Le Magrib, pp. 180-1 and ph. 13,p.
225; idem, "Le Palais," p. 70 and pi. 15, fig. 40. For the
Qal'a, see ibid, p. 70; L6on De Beyli6, La Kalaa des Beni-Hammad
(Paris, 1909), fig. 48, p. 64 and fig. 61, p. 71; Basile,
L farchitettura. fig. 21, p. 15.
180
manner in which arcading wraps around the apses of the Cathedral
of Monreale is somewhat clumsy in comparison.351 Moreover, we
should also note that the slender proportions and extreme height
achieved in the arcading of the central apse at Agrd without
parallel. Even at Monreale, the arcading is divided into three
tiers.
Crenelations. Creneiations are fairly common in the
churches of Norman Sicily, and the application at the roofline o f •
the nave and bema at Agrd needs but little elaboration herfe.
Similar practices are found occasionally in Norman churches of
England, such as the abbey churches of St. Albans (crossing
tower) and Romsey, St. Mary the Virgin at Iffley, and the
Cathedrals of Ely and Norwich.352 However, equally valid
parallels of crenelations in religious foundations are found in
the Early Muslim architecture of North Africa and Egypt.
Crenelations line the circuit walls of the ribats of Sousse and
Monastir, the Great Mosque of Sousse, and the mosques of al-Hakim
in Cairo and Ibn Tulun in Fustat, just to name a few
applications. Nonetheless, the essential point concerning the
crenelations at SS. Pietro e Paolo is that they were certainly
built for defensive purposes, in contrast, for example, to their
decorative application in S. Cataldo in Palermo.
351For the minaret at Tahuda, see Hill and Golvin, plate 198.
For Monreale, see Kronig, II duomo di Monreale, plates 18-20.
352See Webb, figs. 46/c (St. Albans), 48 (Ely), 44 (Norwich);

Robert Stoll, Architecture and Sculpture in Early Britain (New
York, 1976), figs. 58 (Romsey) and 86 (Iffley).
181
Construction Methods and Materials:
It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from an
analysis of the methods and materials of construction at SS.
Pietro e Paolo for a variety of reasons. The most serious of
these concerns the fact that there is little correlation between
construction techniques employed at Agrd and the regional
architecture of the earlier eras. However, it is very probable
that this lack of continuity is due more to the general lacuna of
securely dated buildings from the Byzantine and Muslim periods of
Sicily, than from a break with preestablished local traditions.
For instance, the surviving monuments from the Byzantine period
are far removed from the date of our church, and the scattered
remains from the Muslim period are mostly found in western
Sicily. Indeed, the methods and materials of construction used
at Agrd undoubtedly reflect a regional style, whose influence
extended throughout the Valdemone and southern Calabria. Whether
or not this style was established before the Norman invasion is a
matter of debate, and shall be considered in the following
paragraphs.
Wall construction. The type of wall construction employed
at Agrd— in which certain sections are composed of bands of
rubble alternating with regularly spaced brick courses— is quite
commonly found in the Norman buildings of the Valdemone and
Calabria, at least up to the first half of the twelfth
century.353 Although no two techniques are exactly alike,
comparable examples to our church include S. Maria at Mili, SS.
3S3Alternating construction at Agrd is especially noticeable

in the interior walls and lower portion of the facade of the
north aisle. See supra. Ch. 2, pt. 2.
182
Pietro e Paolo at Itdla, S. Giovanni vecchio at Bivongi, and S.
Maria de Tridetti at Staiti. However, related types of wall
construction do not appear to have been extensively used in
Sicily and southern Italy prior to the Norman period, unless we
accept Ryolo' s tentative dating of various fortifications and
towers to the Kalbid period.354 In truth, the general absence
of brick in the monuments of pre-Norman Sicily is not surprising,
as this material was used only occasionally even in the Roman
monuments of the island. Although the majority of brick
buildings that survive from the Roman period are located in the
eastern part of the island, especially in the vicinity of
Taormina, walls are typically constructed of a brick facing with
no alternation of rubble or stone layers.355 Therefore, it
seems best to look elsewhere for possible sources of influence.
Considering the general affinity for brick masonry in
Byzantine architecture, one would perhaps expect to find
comparable types of wall constructions in the nearby regions of
Greece and/or southern Italy. Indeed, from the early tenth
century onward, the Middle Byzantine architecture of Greece is
frequently composed of alternating bands of brick and stone. For
instance, the methods employed in the churches of the Anargyroi
(1st third of 11th c.) and the Kubilidike (ca. 900 or 11th c.) in
Kastoria provide fairly close comparisons to the wall
354Supra. Ch. 3, pt. 1.
355See Wilson, "Sardinia and Sicily," p. 229. It is also

worth mentioning that Roman brick in Sicily is substantially
larger that medieval brick; see idem, "Brick," pp. 11 ff.
183
construction at Agrd.356 However, in Greece the individual
blocks that make up the stone course are almost always framed to
each side either by soldier courses or decorative patterns of
brick, creating a technique known as cloisonne masonry, which is
virtually unknown in Sicily and southern Italy.357 Nonetheless,
a close, if not rare, comparison to the type of wall construction
at SS. Pietro e Paolo is found in the apse of the Old Metropolis
in Verrioa (12th c.).358
Alternating courses of brick and stone were used to varying
manners and degrees in the different regions of Byzantine
southern Italy. In Apulia, solid horizontal bands of brick and
limestone ashlar— related to the opus vittatum of Roman
architecture— appear to have been commonly employed as a walling
technique from the sixth to mid eleventh century, as in the
Cathedral at Canosa (1st quarter of 11th c.?).359 In Calabria,
such methods are less frequent, although S. Omobono in Catanzaro
(10th c.) provides a notable example. 360 However, the best
comparisons to the technique at Agrd are found in the S. Niceto
region of Calabria, the part of the peninsula closest to the
356For the Kastoria churches, see Krautheimer, Early

Christian. 4th ed., pp. 336 and figs. 294-5. p. 337. For a
convenient discussion concerning the use of alternating bands of
brick and stone in the Middle Byzantine architecture of Greece,
see A.H.S. Megaw, "The Chronology of Some Middle-Byzantine
Churches." ABSA. 32 (1931-2), pp. 101-02.
357For the use of cloisonn6 in Greece, see ibid. pp. 354-5.
358See Evi Melas, ed., Alten Kirchen un Kloster Griechenlands

(Cologne, 1972), p. 127 and fig. 35.
359See Ann Wharton Epstein, "The Date and Significance of the

Cathedral of Canosa in Apulia, South Italy," POP. 37 (1983), esp.
p. 82; idem, Art of Empire. 148-9.
3S0For S. Omobono, see supra.
184
Valle d'Agrd. For instance, the ruined church of S. Nicola di
Zurgond. near Motta S. Giovanni (10th c. or earlier) is built of
rubble construction interrupted at widely spaced intervals by
levelling courses of brick, a technique apparently derived from
Roman practice.361 Although it is doubtful that the brick
courses at Agrd functioned in this capacity, the use of rubble,
rather than ashlar banding is significant.362 A ruined church
of anonymous dedication (11th c. or earlier) located a few
kilometers northeast of Motta S. Giovanni provides even a closer
comparison. This building exhibits a wall construction composed
of rough rubble with more closely spaced brick layers, which is
of the same general character of that at SS. Pietro e Paolo.363
If these churches are dated correctly, then it seems safe to
assume that the alternating banding employed at Agrd followed
local practices that had been established prior to Norman rule.
Before terminating our discussion of banded wall
construction, it is worth adding that alternating courses of
brick and stone were also commonly employed in the Hammadid
architecture of Bougie. Although only scant remains of this
architecture have survived, such structures as the Bab al-Bahr
(1st half of 12th c.), locally known as the porte Sarrazine,
testify that the technique was competently executed by the Muslim
361See Minuto and Venoso, 112-15, 161, and figs. 63-8.
362Supra, Ch. 2, pt. 2, for possible levelling devices in the

wall construction at Agrd.
363Minuto and Venoso, pp. 110-11, 161, and figs. 59-61.
185
builders of this region.364 It is possible that the
architecture of Bougie had an influence upon building methods in
Sicily, as commercial and cultural relations were strong between
the two areas. In fact, upon the capture of the Algerian city by
the Almohads in 1152, the last of the Hammadids sought refuge on
the island.365 However, considering the early dating and
affinity of the wall construction of SS. Pietro e Paolo to the
two churches near Motta S. Giovanni, it is difficult to argue in
favor of other sources of influence.
The sources of inspiration for the types of brick pattering
that occurs on the exterior, and to a lesser extent on the
interior, are somewhat enigmatic, because most, if not all,
motifs can be traced back to Roman construction, and therefore
appear throughout various parts of the medieval world. For
instance, herringbone patterns, or opus splcatum, is found in the
Middle Byzantine, French Romanesque, and Italian Medieval
architecture. Although the technique does not appear to have
been particularly popular in the medieval architecture of
Calabria, it does appear in the apse of the Panaglia in Rossano
(12th c.?).366 Clearer references to Byzantine building
practices are the dog-tooth friezes that occur within the wall
construction of exterior of the central apse. The use of such
friezes midway up a wall is particularly common in the monuments
364See Golvin, Le Maqrib. pp. 192-3 and ph. 11-12; Georges

Margais, Alq6rie m6di6vale. Monuments et pavsaqes historique
(Paris, 1957), pp. 42-3; idem, 1/Architecture. p. 92.
365See Golvin, Le Maqrib. pp. 128-9; The Encyclopedia of

Islam, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1960), p. 1205.
366See Venditti, Architettura. vol. 2, pp. 842-6 and fig.

486.
186
of Middle Byzantine Greece, such as* the Kubilidike in Kastoria,
H. Theodoroi in Athens (ca. 1060-70) and the Theotokos (10th c.)
and Katholikon (1011 or 1022) at Hosios Lukas.367 On the other
hand, the mixed rowlock and shiner bands the appear on both the
interior and exterior of SS. Pietro e Paolo are quite rare in
medieval building. The only other application of the technique
in Sicily and Calabria of which I am aware is found at S.
Giovanni vecchio at Bivongi, where course composed of either
rowlocks and shiners, or shiners alone, appear sporadically on
the exterior facades of the east end (fig. 94). Otherwise, the
best comparison I can produce is the wall construction in the
addition of al-Mansur to the Great Mosque at Cdrdoba (987), where
squared stones, cut in the shape of bricks, are set in courses
comprised of three or four rowlocks alternating with single
shiners.368
We should also consider the polychrome nature of the wall
constructions. The combination of variously colored brick, stone
and mortar at Agrd, which also occurs in the group of Basilian
churches in the Valdemone and southern Calabria, has occasionally
been viewed as a conscious aesthetic developed by builders of
these regions during the early Norman period.369 Whether or not
this is true, the solid bands of black lava ashlars that run
through the exterior facades of our church were undoubtedly
inserted for coloristic effect. However, as far as I can
361See Krautheimer, Earlv Christian, 4th ed., dp . 379-83 and

figs. 205, 336, 337.
368See Margais, LfArchitecture. p. 146 and fig. 88/c.
369For examples, see Basile, L farchitettura. pp. 46-7;

Ciotta, "Aspetti," p. 7.
187
ascertain, this technique is without parallel in the architecture
of the Norman South. Although it could possibly be related to
the type of zebra-work in Tuscan Romanesque, its function at Agrd
is quite different, in that the black banding serves to divide
the facade in nearly equal segments. At any rate, the colorful
quality of the wall construction at Agrd is quite different from
that used in the western part of the island. Even in the late
buildings, such as the cathedrals at Monreale and Palermo, where
polychrome inlays were used, the wall constructions continued to
be built of monochromatic materials.
To sum up, although many aspects of the wall construction
appear related to Middle Byzantine building, others seem distinct
from this tradition. As a result of these findings, I suggest
that the wall methods at Agrd reflect a regional style, grounded
in Byzantine practices, but modified by local variations.370
Domes. In the previous section, an indirect link between
the interior articulation of the two domes at Agrd and Middle
Byzantine pvmpkin domes, such as that at the Myrelaion, has been
suggested. Indeed, the general method of construction of the
domes at SS. Pietro e Paolo— in which bricks of shorter lengths
are used to more easily express the undulating forms of the
segments— is comparable to some Byzantine constructions. Still,
the plain detailing of the drums and windows of both domes is
best viewed as a regional development, as in such openings were
typically surrounded by masonry setback or decorative patterning
in Middle Byzantine monuments. Although the exteriors of the
370For a similar view, see Lojacono, "La chiesa abazziale,

pp. 394-5.
188
domes are covered with cement, I would not expect to find any
decorative brickwork underneath, considering that the domes are
not easily seen from the outside.
In the final analysis, the construction of the transitional
vaulting of the two domes must also be seen as indicative of
regional practices for several reasons. First, the forms of the
squinches, pseudo-squinches, and muqarnas vaults have few
parallels in medieval architecture. In addition, the masonry
construction itself, which produces parabolic curves and
sometimes awkward jointures, is not executed with painstaking
precision. But the technique is by no means slipshod. The
overall geometry seems quite accurate, and it is obvious that the
building team responsible for the domes was experienced in
constructing complex vaulting arrangements. In my opinion, the
achievement of competent results through unorthodox methods is
best explained if we consider the domes to have been built by a
crew of highly trained local masons.
Columns. Although granite column shafts were not common in
Sicily, their use is not unprecedented, as they were employed in
the Norman cathedrals of Catania and Messina.371 However, the
granite columns of the two cathedrals appear to have been spoils
appropriated from Roman sites. Considering the rarity of granite
in Norman Sicilian architecture, the shafts at Agrd may also have
been taken from an antique construction.
Of more intrinsic interest is the fact that the diverse
material of the columns— which in addition to the granite shafts
371See Schwarz, pp. 49 an 55; Kronio, II duomo di Monreale,

pp. 148-9.
189
are composed of sandstone bases and'capitals, as well as lava
imposts— were at some point covered by a plaster coat. Notably,
a gypsum stucco mixture was often used by Islamic builders to
endow disparate materials or materials of lesser quality with
finishes emulating alabaster or marble.372 Regardless of
whether the technique employed at Agrd reflects Islamic
construction methods, it does seem to indicate that there was a
problem in importing high quality materials into the region.
Interlaced arcadina. The method in which the interlaced
arcades of the exterior facades at Agrd are bonded into the wall
construction is similar to the brick of interlace at S. Pietro e
Paolo at Itdla, S. Maria at Mili and S. Giovanni vecchio at
Bivongi. The arcading at S. Giovanni vecchio provides a
particularly good comparison to that of our church due to the
occasional use of soldier courses (fig. 94). However, at Agrd
the construction of the interlaced arcades of the west, south and
east facades differs from each of the above examples, because
white limestone and black lava blocks are included within the
brick masonry. The systematized, polychrome effect achieved
through this construction has its closest parallels in various
monuments in Campania, such as the campaniles of the cathedrals
of Salerno (1137-54) and Ravello (1st half of 12th c.?).373 On
the other hand, the interlaced arcading of the Campanian examples
are typically bichromatic and use either no or considerably less
brick than at Agrd. Therefore, it seems that the construction of
372See Lewcock, "Architects," pp. 138-9.
373For the campanile at Salerno, see supra. For Ravello, see

Kalby, pp. 112-14 and fig. 156.
190
the exterior interlace of our church combines local and Campanian
traditions.
Brick cornice friezes. Although the dogtooth friezes that
articulate the rooflines of the north, south, and east facades of
SS. Pietro e Paolo are fairly rare in the architecture of Norman
Sicily, they appear with some frequency in the Byzantine and
Norman monuments of Calabria. For example, dogtooth friezes
define the eaves of the domes and apses of the Cattolica at
Stilo, the central apse and clerestory at S. Maria de Tridetti at
Staiti, and the three apses at S. Giovanni vecchio at Bivongi.
Whether the dogtooth represents either a survival from Roman
construction, or an importation from Middle Byzantine building in
Greece need not concern us here, because the above examples
indicate that the device had been established in Calabria well
before the construction of the church at Agrd.374
The same argument also applies to the lambda frieze that is
located between the dogtooth friezes of north clerestory of our
church. The best comparison to the technique is found in apse of
the Chiesa dell'Ospedale (S. Lucia) in S. Severina (12th c. or
earlier), due to the manner in which the spaces between the
triangular brick pattern are set back into the wall as at
Agrd.375 However, applications of the same pattern with the
areas between the chevrons set flush with wall appears in the
cornice of dome of S. Maria at Mili and the decorative band of
374For a brief summary of dogtooth cornices in the Greece,

see Megaw, "Chronology," pp. 116-17.
375See Venditti, Architettura. vol. 2, p. 838 and fig. 469,

p. 837.
191
the apse of the Panaglia at Rossano^ Therefore, this device is
also best viewed as a local technique.
West and south portals. In regard to the construction
methods of the west and south portals, I would like to offer only
two brief comments. First, the manner in which the arches
framing the tympana of both portals are constructed without the
use of keystones is fairly common throughout the medieval world,
and is of only minimal value in any attempt to trace methods of a
particular master mason or building team. However, it is worth
noting that a similar technique appears in the bifora window in
the casa in Gerace, which, as we have seen above, contains a
bichromatic moulding of similar profile and design to those in
the Agrd portals. The other point to consider is the manner in
which the exterior jambs of the portals— composed of large,
differently colored limestone blocks— are inserted into the
existing wall construction with uneven, and sometime jagged,
outer profiles. Although parallels to this technique are
extremely rare, a close comparison is found in the portal of the
south facade of the Palazzo S. Stefano in Taormina (fig. 95; 1st
half of 13th c.?) ,376 in addition to similarity of the jambs,
the portal at Taormina also resembles south entrance at Agrd in
the use of alternating limestone and lava voussoirs, notably
constructed without a keystone. Considering the close proximity
of the two monuments, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the
entry at Taormina may have been built by the same workshop
responsible for the Agrd portals.
37sFor the Palazzo S. Stefano, see Di Stefano, Monument!, 2nd

ed., pp. 130-1 and tav. CXCIV.
192
CONCLUSION
Although the analysis of architecture of SS. Pietro e Paolo
d'Agrd in the previous chapter has raised as many questions as it
has answered, enough appears to have been resolved to allow a few
conclusion to be drawn.
First, let us consider the manner in which various sources
of influence actually entered into the construction process.
Within the design of SS. Pietro e Paolo there seems to be a basic
dichotomy between the planning arrangements, which reflect
developments in Christian church design, and the three-
dimensional realization of the architecture and its details,
which seem more aligned with Islamic building. It has been
demonstrated above that the sources of influence within both
Christian and Islamic traditions are themselves quite diverse.
However, a wide range of influence is to be expected from a
region touched by as much cultural interaction as medieval
Sicily.
Because the church functioned as part of an Orthodox
monastery, the references in plan to the local Basilian
traditions of the Valdemone and Calabria, as well as the possible
link to Byzantine centralized arrangements, are certainly
appropriate. Correspondingly, the fact that the three-
dimensional aspects at Agrd exhibit a marked affinity toward the
Muslim architecture of North Africa also makes sense, if we
consider that the majority of artisans of the building trade in
Norman Sicily must certainly have been trained within an Islamic
193
tradition that was probably aligned to architectural developments
in Ifriqiya and the Maghrib from the Fatimid period onward. Such
influence should come as no surprise, considering the
geographical disposition of the island and the strong ties to
North Africa during the Kalbid and Norman rules of Sicily.377
Related examples of Christian plans having been realized in
Islamic terms are extremely common in the Norman architecture of
the island. Probably the most evident examples of such dichotomy
are the group of cross-in-square churches, which includes S.
Maria dell'Ammiraglio in Palermo, the Trinity di Delia near
Castelvetrano, and S. Nicold Regale in Mazara. Even the early
Norman-Sicilian cathedrals that are planned as Romanesque
basilicas, such as those at Catania and Cefalu, exhibit enough
recourse to Muslim building practice to confidently conclude that
Islamic-trained workmen played an extensive part in their
construction.378 In the final analysis, the separation of the
source of influence of a plan, whose salient features could
readily be transported long distances, and the actual realization
of a building, which was usually contracted to building teams
composed mainly of local artisans, is completely within the
character of construction procedures of the Middle Ages.
377For ties between North Africa and Sicily, see Rizzitano,

"Kalbids," Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 4, pp. 496-7; The
Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 2, pp. 432-5; Smith, vol. 1, pp.
3-12, 22, 29; al-Muqqaddasi, Description de lrOccident musulman
au IVe-Xe si^cles. trans. and intro, by C. Pellat (Algeirs,
1950), p 17.
378For the use of workmen of Islamic training in Norman

Sicily, see Di Stefano, Monumenti. 2nd ed., esp. pp. XXIV-XXVIII;
Bellafiore, Architettura in Sicilia, pp. 75-77.
194
At this point, perhaps some conclusions can be made
concerning the backgrounds of the builders who composed the
construction team at Agrd. First, the master mason of SS. Pietro
e Paolo, who would have been responsible for the plan of the
church, appears to have been knowledgeable of a wide range of
Christian prototypes. Beyond the obvious references to the
traditional Basilian plans of the early Norman period in the
Valdemone and Calabria— normally a longitudinal basilica
articulated with a domed bema— the placement of the major dome at
the central bay of the naos seem to indicate that the planner was
also aware of more standard Byzantine spatial organizations, such
as the cross-in-square type. Possibly, the inclusion of the
major dome at Agrd may have been influenced by the cross-in-
square designs of the Norman churches mentioned above, all of
which date to the second quarter of the twelfth century.
Regardless, the twin towers that define the west end of the
church are decidedly western features, whether one wishes to
attribute their use at Agrd to influences either from north of
the Alps or from mainland Italy. Indeed, the inclusion of these
towers seems to dispute any suppositions that the plan could have
been imported in toto from Byzantium. Rather, the master of SS.
Pietro appears to have adopted the use of the domed bema, domed
naos, and twin-towered facade all from different sources.
The spatial definitions and three-dimensional features of
the church, whose origins seem largely dependent upon local
and/or Islamic traditions, further preclude that the mater
builder came from the Byzantine realm. Therefore, I believe the
195
master of our church is best considered as having gained the bulk
of his experience in Sicily, Calabria, and conceivably even North
Africa. But from whatever background the master builder came, it
is unquestionable that he possessed a remarkable ability to
combine ideas and elements of disparate sources and traditions
into a refined and coherent work of architecture. The enigma of
SS. Pietro e Paolo is that the degree of refinement does not
appear to have been repeated in ecclesiastical building of Norman
Sicily.
The other members of the construction team were likely
divided into two main categories: 1) skilled artisans, who would
been responsible for more complicated features and details of the
church, such as the domes and vaults, and 2) unskilled laborers,
who were charged with the more menial tasks, such as the digging
of foundations and general wall construction, although the
inclusion of the interlaced arcading at the exterior facades of
the church presupposes that an individual of skilled training
must also have directed the wallers.379 As would be expected,
the wall construction, which is similar to other Norman churches
in the region, seems to indicate that the unskilled workers were
of local origin. More surprising are the revelations concerning
the background of the skilled artisans that are suggested by the
design and construction of the two domes at Agrd. Although the
379The division of artisans into these two categories is

derived from my personal observations of the construction at
Agrd. It is possible that the distinction between the two groups
was not great. For the division of labor within the Byzantine
empire, see ODB. vol. 1, "Building Industry," pp. 331-2.
196
forms of these elements are, for the most part, best related to
developments in the Muslim architecture of North Africa, their
construction in brick— which is executed in an assured manner— is
best viewed as a local technique of the Valdemone. The logical
conclusion to be drawn from these observations is that masons
responsible for the domes at Agrd had been trained within an
Islamic tradition that had been established in this region of
Sicily. If this theory is correct, its implications are of
uncommon importance, as the forms and details of the domes may
provide an indication of the style of architecture that had been
in place in eastern Sicily before the Norman conquest.
As for the background of Girardus the Frank, the master
charged with the 1171/2 renovations, it is worth pointing out
that the two portals of SS. Pietro e Paolo appear to belong to a
different artistic tradition than that of the rest of the church.
This not only works well with our conclusions that the entrances
were added to the building at a later date, but perhaps also give
credence to the appellation of the builder, i.e. the Frank, as
several of the designs and decorative features may suggest that
he was quite familiar with various Western traditions. The
miscellaneous references to Byzantine and Islamic sources can be
accounted for by the relatively late date of the portals, by
which time such influences could have already been absorbed into
the architectural and decorative vocabulary of the Norman South.
However, the correlation between the Agrd portals and later
works, such as the thirteenth-century windows at Gerace,
197
indicates that the style employed was on the verge of postdating
the traditional aesthetics of the Norman period.
In Chapter One, I suggested that the church was likely
constructed between the dates of the foundation charter (1116)
and the inscription of the west portal (1171/72). However,
several factors regarding the style and articulation of the
architecture seem to call for a dating on the later end of this
scale. This assessment is suggested not only by the coherent
integration of the complex spatial sequence and elements of the
church's interior— which is rare in the architecture from any
period of Norman rule— but also a range of other factors. First,
the attenuated proportions, along with the structural system used
to support the nave and domes, seem to demonstrate an advance
from the proportioning and structuring found in the monuments
built during the reign of Roger II (d. 1154). In addition, the
use of certain individual features, such as the muqarnas vault,
the four-centered openings of the diaphragm arches, and
reticulate cornice frieze, at least when first considered, seem
more indicative of the architecture erected during the reigns of
William I (1154-66) and William II (1166-89).
However, the historical circumstances surrounding the
Orthodox monasteries of Sicily during the later periods of Norman
rule appear to support a different conclusion. Throughout the
reign of Count Roger I and during the early years of that of
Roger II, the Basilian houses had enjoyed great prosperity,
primarily due to royal patronage. However, between the period
when Roger II was crowned king in 1130 by the antipope Anacletus
198
II and the official recognition of his title in 1139 by Pope
Innocent II, royal support was drastically redirected toward the
founding and upkeep of Latin monasteries.380 Moreover, by ca.
1130, an overabundance of foundations appears to have resulted in
a general decline within the Orthodox monasteries of the
Valdemone, which led to the consolidation of the Greek houses of
this region into the archimandrital monastery of S. Salvatore in
Messina, founded between 1131 and 1134.381 Therefore, if the
general prosperity of the Basilian monasteries serves as any
indication, then it makes sense to place the construction of the
original church of SS. Pietro e Paolo no later than the 1130s.
A more detailed consideration of the style and architectural
features at Agrd does perhaps make it possible to connect the
church to the period of Roger II. For instance, if my theory is
correct that the muqarnas vaulting of SS. Pietro e Paolo reflects
a indigenous tradition that developed separately from that of
western Sicily, then it need not be dated to the later periods of
Norman rule. However, probably the single most important factor
in arguing for a relative early dating of the church at Agrd
rests in the fact that several details that are usually
attributed to later periods, such as polychrome revetments,
attenuated features, and muqarnas vaulting, also appear in the
palace at Caronia, which is likewise located in the Valdemone and
has been dated to the last decades of Roger II's reign.
380See White, esp. pp. 44-54; Smith, vol. 1, p. 29.
381White, pp. 445-46.
199
As pointed out by Kronig in the introduction to his book on
the palace at Caronia, the Valdemone region was held in favor
with Roger II throughout his life.382 The most explicit
manifestation of his indulgence was the royal palace of Messina,
completed ca. 1141. Although all that survives of the palace
today are fragments of an inscribed frieze, it is know from
various written sources to have been quite sumptuous.383
Therefore, it may appropriate to surmise that during the Norman
period, there must have existed in the Valdemone other buildings
matching the level of competency achieved at Agrd.
To date, the research on architectural developments in
Norman Sicily has been focused almost entirely upon the monuments
of the western part of the island. This is perhaps justified, as
the majority of first-rate buildings are located within the
environs of Palermo. However, the insinuation by various authors
that the architecture of eastern Sicily was only a pale
reflection of the style that emerged at the capital needs to be
eliminated. The church of SS. Pietro e Paolo bears witness that
buildings of the first magnitude were also constructed in the
eastern section of the island. Moreover, the tradition to which
the church belongs is perhaps more indicative of architectural
designs and practices that had developed during the Kalbid
period.
382II castello. pp. 19-21.
383Ibid, pp. 20-21, for a convenient recollection of the most

famous accounts of the palace.
200
Within the broader perspective of medieval architecture, the
church at Agrd deserves recognition on at least three counts.
First, the building is a masterful piece of architecture. Not
only are the material and decorative devices handled to produce
striking visual effects, but the interior space is imbued with a
quality that is complex yet lucid. Second, the church
demonstrates an integration of components and ideas from various
cultural sources in a manner that is perhaps unsurpassed in
medieval architecture. Whether or not such competent
intermingling of distinct traditions had been established in
preceding works of the Valdemone will probably never be known.
However, it seems clear to me that the church at Agrd must have
followed well established local traditions because of the
confidence with which complex details are realized. This
supposition leads into my final point, that the handling of
several features of SS. Pietro e Paolo— and in particular the
muqarnas vaulting— may reflect an indigenous tradition of
building that has otherwise vanished. In this regard, the
architecture of Agrd assumes a significance that reaches beyond
Sicily, and into development of the Muslim architecture of the
Mediterranean.
201
ILLUSTRATIONS
fcSfcSS';hsSfilSW&kj&Mf
;tY*'it s^^^vr&sivtfv-w-f
MARE'
1) L 'livi d i S. Q nofrio 7) Comrade Liezze

2) Zona ruderi scoperti 8) Comrade Cancello
2) Contrada Petraro 9} Comrade Cesale Rocca Scale
4) Comrade Salto 10) Monumento S. Pietro e Peolo
Sj Comrade Conneto 11) Comrade Pome
6/ Comrade Ptetrabianca
Fig. 1. Map of territories ceded to SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd

in the Valle d'Agrd as specified in the diploma of 1116
(Lombardo, pp. 32-3).
202
H
+ A H£ ) K N IC6K vy A A ("fr TT £ i r i r CT
P ftK A T O ^ M fT o V A TTOdt K £ T
U) 'A A, ft A a w m a tm i t C e e t 'H A O K c " e T^ x tr
0T?OTOhi A \c T o rr» p A P ô c o <J> PA' rK o c
Fig. 2. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: Drawing of inscription of

west portal.
203
portal.
of west
Lintel
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
3.
Fig.
204
south.
from
view
Distant
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
4.
Fig.
205
m
CP
•H
Pm
206
Plan.
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
Pietro
SS.
C
6.
JS
Q.
Fig.
207
Basile).
(after
section
Longitudinal
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
1.
Fig.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
i •»
2 3 4
Fig. 8. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: Transverse section at minor

cupola (Basile, Chiese siciliane, fig. Ill).
209
4U
"T
2 3 4
Fig. 9. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: Transverse section at major

cupola (Basile, Chiese siciliane, fig. IV).
210
west.
looking
Nave,
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
10.
Fig.
211
south.
looking
arcade,
Nave
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
11.
Fig.
212
northwest.
from
viewed
Nave,
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
12.
Fig.
of apse.
conch
into
east
looking
Nave,
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
14.
Fig.
215
nave
of
wall
West
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
15.
Fig.
216
nave.
from
viewed
Bema,
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
16.
Fig.
northeast.
looking
apse,
and
Bema
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
17.
Fig.
218
east.
from
up
looking
Nave,
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
18.
Fig.
219
cupola.
of minor
vaulting
muqarnas
and
arch
Triumphal
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
19.
Fig.
220
cupola.
major
into
looking
clerestory,
d'Agrd: North
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
20.
Fig.
221
northwest.
from
viewed
cupola,
d'Agrd: Major
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
21.
Fig.
222
recess.
circular
and
of tympanum
detail
portal,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
22.
Fig.
223
aisle.
south
of
bay
1st
of
wall
in outer
area
Patched
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
23.
Fig.
224
225
tomb
into
looking
west,
north
from
viewed
apse,
Central
S S . Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd:
of south pastophory.
25.
Fig.
226
cupola.
major
into
west
looking
Nave,
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
26.
Fig.
227
corner.
northwest
into
up
looking
Nave,
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
27.
Fig.
228
view.
general
cupola,
Major
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
28.
Fig.
230
231
view.
general
cupola,
Minor
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
31.
Fig.
Fig. 32. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: Plan of muqarnas vaulting of
minor cupola.
233
234
west.
toward
up
looking
aisle,
of north
bay
Western
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
34.
Fig.
235
bema.
from
vaulting
into
up
looking
pastophory,
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
35.
Fig.
236
west.
from
vaulting
into
up
looking
pastophory,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
36.
Fig.
237
portal.
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
37.
Fig.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
aisle.
of north
bay
2nd
of
wall
in outer
Recess
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
38.
Fig.
239
aisle.
south
of
bay
of 3rd
wall
in outer
area
Patched
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
39.
Fig.
240
.“V ,
facade.
\\
CD
B) East
■D
CO
O
(0
facade;
co I
CO 1
CD
A) West
d'Agrd:
Paolo
o
p
□ 0 -p
~G 0)
co •H
CL.
o
co CO
CO
0
0 O
CT>
•H
fa
241
£
0 facade.
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
~a
o
0
S S . Pietro
o
c
41.
Fig.
242
am m i m m fM nrii» /K n w nm n m i nzpw»mn iiiin m --------------------------------------
mum
5P.mi!
ntTon l rc
south facade
Fig. 42. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: South facade
half.
lower
facade,
d'Agrd: West
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
43.
Fig.
246
247
southwest.
from
porch
into
looking
end,
West
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
47.
Fig.
248
vaulting.
into
up
looking
porch,
West
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
48.
Fig.
249
Fig. 49. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: West porch, north end wall.
250
o
tr>
O'
•H
tu
251
Fig. 51. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: West portal, detail of north
jamb.
252
«Vgq ) ^ni|-]>i-— (
253
west.
from
viewed
aisle,
d'Agrd: North
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
53.
Fig.
254
west.
looking
gallery,
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
55.
Fig.
256
construction.
of wall
detail
gallery,
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
mm
56.
Fig.
257
corner.
west
of upper
detail
gallery,
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
57.
Fig.
258
cornice.
of
detail
gallery,
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
58.
Fig.
259
facade.
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
59.
Fig.
260
261
R eproduced w ith perm ission o f the cop yrig ht ow ner. F urthe r rep rod uction prohibited w ith o u t perm ission.
Fig. 61. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: South portal.
262
jamb.
of
detail
portal,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
62.
Fig.
263
west.
looking
gallery,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
63.
Fig.
264
of cornice.
detail
gallery,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
64.
Fig.
265
Fig. 65. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: East end.
266
267
Fig. 67. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: East end, south apsidiole.
268
of nave.
roof
from
viewed
cupola,
Minor
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
69.
Fig.
270
socle.
of
detail
facade,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
70.
Fig.
271
Fig. 71. SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: North gallery, detail of
window.
272
crenelation.
of westernmost
detail
gallery,
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
72.
Fig.
273
Fig. 73. Lojacono's proposed reconstruction for the west end of
SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd ("II restauro," fig. 18).
274
Fig. 74. My proposed reconstruction for the west of S S . Pietro e
Paolo d'Agrd.
275
of church.
gallery
south
from
viewed
cloister,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
76.
Fig.
south.
from
viewed
wing,
of east
portal
cloister,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
77.
Fig.
278
SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: South cloister, ruined section of east wing, viewed
from northeast.
Fig. 78.
of
corbels
and
beams
of wooden
detail
cloister,
South
d'Agrd:
SS. Pietro e Paolo
east wing.
79.
Fig.
280
east.
from
viewed
wing,
of east
arcade
cloister,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
80.
Fig.
281
south
behind
to terrace
leading
stairs
cloister,
South
SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd:
wing, viewed from east.
81.
Fig.
282
from
viewed
wing,
of west
buildings
cloister,
South
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
east.
82.
Fig.
283
of church.
gallery
north
from
viewed
annex,
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
S S . Pietro
83.
Fig.
284
east.
from
viewed
wing,
south
of
wall
west
annex,
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
84.
Fig.
285
Fig. 85. S S . Pietro e Paolo d'Agrd: North annex, northwest and northeast wings, viewed from
northwest.
northeast.
from
viewed
wing,
northeast
annex,
North
d'Agrd:
e Paolo
SS. Pietro
86.
Fig.
287
bema.
above
of dome
view
Interior
S. Pietro:
Mili
S. Maria,
87.
Fig.
of
wall
south
and
of vault
view
Interior
Sicilia:
di
Castiglione
near
Cuba,
The
88.
Fig.
289
Large Rifat, Monastic: Porch of south portal.
Fig. 89
290
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
facade.
West
Rometta:
mm.
S. Salvatore,
90.
Fig.
291
facade.
of north
of windows
Detail
Messina:
Catalani,
dei
Annunziata
91.
Fig.
292
Fig. 92. Private Casa, Gerace: Detail of bifora windows.
293
portal.
south
of
Detail
Messina:
Catalani,
dei
Annunziata
93.
Fig.
294
southeast.
from
viewed
end,
Stilo): East
(near
Bivongi
vecchio,
S. Giovanni
94.
Fig.
295
Fig. 95. Palazzo S. Stefano, Taormina: South portal.
296
APPENDIX 1
Entry of S S . Pietro e Paolo in Sicilia sacra, by Pirri Rocco
[p. 1039]
Notitia Decimaquinta
SS. Petri et Pauli de Agro, Olim De Agrilla
Cum noster Magnus Comes Rogerius sui belli triumphales Duces

Apostolorum Principes semper agnovisset, A dominatus Siciliae
initio prima Basiliani monasterii ad horum honorem fundamenta
ejecit juxta fluvium Agryllae in aspris rupibus oppidi nuncupati
Fortilicii de Agrd, * quod hodie 352 lares, & 2081. incolas
recenset; ab alio Savocaep. m. 1. & ab Urbe Messana 24. abest.
Sed adversus ingruentes Barbaros ad victoriam assequendam
accinctias, hoc sacro opere imperfecto relicto, illoque sub
religiosissimi viri Gerasimi regimine commendato, illuc euolavit.
Nec Rogerius II. paternae pietatis aemulus, Abbatisque hujus
precibus permotus post genitoris annos 16. perimisit, quin
propriis opibus ad summum culmen monasterium non produceret,
illudque patrimonialibus possessionibus, atque ampliori
coenobitar. conventu non exornaret.
Ita quidem autographum adhuc in tabulario ejusdem coenobii
litteris Graecis ab anno mundi 6625. sal. 1117. [sic., 1116],
exaratum, atque A Constantino Lascari Constantinopol. 26. Feb. 8.
ind. 1478. in Latinum traslatumb enucleatiiis declarat. Id ego
mox vobis dabo, quod datum est primo Abbati.
I. Fr. Gerasimo, quern fortasse eundem, ac SS. Petri, & Pauli

de Itala tantae sanctitatis, ejusdem nominis, & ordinis fuisse
Abbatem non ambigimus.
"Rogerius in seipsis successionem pro splendare vitae, &
aeterna beatitudine insinuavit. Unde bonae memoriae mei
genitoris Comitis Rogerii haeres constitutus, & majori honore ab
altissimo Deo dignatus satis studui divina ejus opera prosequi:
maxima cum communis mors, & immatur a eum rapuisset, plurima
monasteria in Regno Siciliae ab impiis Saracenis ruins. passa
penitus destructa remanserunt. Unde A Messana proficiscens
Panormum magna comitante caterva nostrorum militum, & nobilium,
in Scala Sancti Alexii reperi in divino templo venerabilem magna
virtute virum, monachum residentem, & A multis laudatum dominum
Gerasimum, qui cum honestate, & reverentia Majestati nostra
humiliter supplicavit, ut daremus eidem adjutariu, ac facultatem
exigendi, & reaedificandi monasterium situm, & positum in fluvio
Agryllae; quod quondam fuit nominatum in nomine Principum
Apostolorum Petri, & Pauli; ac etiam providere dignaremur pro
vita monachorum congregandorum ad laudem Omnipotentis Dei, & ad
memoriam perennem meae Majestatis. Hujus verd petitionem, &
supplicationem, tamquam omnipotenti Deo placidam, & animae meae
perutilem libenter, ac grato amino suscepi, jussique Thesaurario
a Bonflfgs. in histor. Sic. fol. 23.
b In lib. Praelat. Siciliae fol. 364.
297
meo dari ipsi impensam suffieientem’pro monasterio reaeaificando:
qui cum recepisset, statim cum maxima dilgentia, ac summa
solertia, Deo savente, ad perfectionem reduxit, virosque
virtuosos monachos, & clericos, congregavit, & monasterium de
integro constituit & ut spiritualiter vivant, & ne sint dediti
mumdanis curis, quibus ab officio divino alienentur, introitum
certorum fundorum in praedicto flumine Agryllae donamus praedicto
sancto monasterio; cujus termini ita se habent, & incipiunt &
mari fluvii Agryllae ascendendo per eumdem fluvium usque ad
vaiionum capitis Nasidae Sancti Sonufrii. Inde ascendendo per
eundem vaiionum, & ferit in serram sitam super Pitariam,
illincque descendit usque ad caput magna talamurdae sitae super
membrachium, & ferit ad vicum monachorum. Illincque ascendit per
serram ex Occidentali parte de Scharri, & ferit ad fluvium
Agryllae, illinc transit per eundem fluvium usque ad Cannaverium,
& ferit ad serram de Calathames. Et ascedit per eandem serram, &
ferit super quandam serram de Aloga. Illinc finit ad Cancellum,
inde descendit ad fluvium usque ad mare, & procedit per boream
mare mare usque ad fluvium Agryllae, unde intium fecimus. Igitur
infra hujus modi terminos, qui sunt montes glandium, pascua
animalium, campiculti, & inculti, arbores fructiferae, &
infructiferae, fluxus aquarian ad conficienda molendina, &
battinderia, & alia ad apta. Donavimus praedicto monasterio, ut
habeat penitus libera, & exempta ab omni molestia, & turbatione
aliqua. Praeterea donamus praedicto monesterio vicum Agryllae
positum infra praedictum terminum cum omnibus hominibus in ipso
habitantibus, ut faciant servitia necessaria monasterio,
ubicumque sint, & ab eis poscere debitum servitium, videl.
angariam, scharisciam pro effodiendo, metendo quilibet dictas
vigintiquatuor, in seminando quidlibet par bovum duodecim dies, &
duas gallinas in festivitatibus Nativitatis Christi, & Paschae,
decimam onmium caprarum, & porcorum suorum; & judicari, &
condemnari sub dominio Abbatis monasterii, & potestatem habere
super eos, & chm in delictis inciderint, & ligandi, &
flagellandi, & in compedibus manendi, reservata tamen poena
homicidii Curiae nostrae Majestatis. Sint praetera iidem homines
in principalibus festivitatibus Nativitatis, & Resurectionis
Domini nostri Jesu Christi obnoxii & obligati facere penit, &
omnino venationes pro amore spiritualium amicorum monasterii, &
praecipu^ in pretiosa festivitate SS. Apostolorum Petri, & Pauli.
Similiter ex debito in omni ministerio, & sevitio, ac etiam in
tempore vindemiarum quilibet afferat unum circulum pro vegetibus
ipsius monasterii. Sint ergo ex nunc & monasterium, & ejus
villae homines liberi, & exempti ab omni portatione lignorum pro
aedificatione murorum, & arcis; & ab omni altera questione, &
molestia. Praeterea praecipimus, ut praedictum monasterium
annuatim habeat, & consequatur ex piscatione Oliverii octo
barrilia tonninae, & habeat barcham liberam ob omni vectigali, &
solutione in omnibus portibus totius Siciliae, & in tholomo
Messanae tarn per terras, [p. 1040] qu&m per mare; & omnia, que
deferuntur, & efferuntur pro monasterio, sint penitus libera.
Praeterea volumus animalia ejusdem monasterii pascua habere per
omne territorium terrae Tauromenii; & tenae Trahynae libera, &
exempta. Praeterea donamus eidem monasterio Eccl. Sancti
Theodori de Ambre, sitam, & positam in territorio Tauromenii sic
terminatam: incipit & scala k vallono Brittuni & ascendit per
298
eunden vaiionum, finit in buccolio,'& illinc ascendit per
vaiionum de Sanida, & finit ad ariam de Piscarina. Illincque
ascendit per serram serram, & finit super plectrum. Illincque
descendit per Traccola, & finit ad vaiionum Thimoniate, illicque
descendit per vaiionum, & finit ad Aconim, illincque ascendit per
vaiionum Castania & finit ad rubeum collem ad serram. Illincque
descendit per Orientalem partem ad scalem de Schamoti ad
cancellum, illincque descendit per Cymam serri, & finit ad scalam
de Victuma super Trapesium, illic descenti per serram serram, ad
lapidem rubeum, ad scalam de Brittuni, unde initium fuit. Igitur
omnia loca domestica, & agrestia sita, & posita infra praedictum
terminum, preaterea sint pro dicto monaster, ad operationem, &
utilitatem ejus in glandibus. Igitur hujus modi termini vclumus,
qudd monasterium pasceret centum porcos, & haberet finit ulla
molestia k nostris officialibus; & ita perpetud pascere.
Similiter domanus k fluvio Canterae in territor. Schagi locum, &
territorium, ut monasterium possit aedificare molendinum, &
habere possissionem aquae ab eodem fluvio perpetud & absque
aliquo impedimento. Similiter campos sitos, & positos illic, qui
ita terminatur, & incipiunt k praedicto fluvio k scala de Schagi,
& ascendunt per viam Regiam usque ad fluvium de Granitis; inde
descendunt ad fluvium della Cantera, & ascendunt per fluvium ad
scalam de Schagi, & ibi includuntur. Haec superius annotata
concessimus, & donavimus perpetud praedicto monasterio SS.
Apostol. Petri, & Pauli de Agrd. Et si quis contra praedicta
praesumpserit, nostram, & nostrorum haeredum, & successorum
indignationem patiatur, & pro declaratione, & affermatione
praedictorum, praesens sigillium est datum in mense Occtobri anno
6625. ind. 9. Coeterorum subsequentium Abbatum nomina non lego;
sed tantum."
2. Fr. Pauli Furfulli, sub cujus regimine Rex Fridericus I.

[sic., II.] hoc coenobium ab anno sal. 1130.c Archimandriatatui
subjectum, eidem an. 1202. univit.
3. Fr. Anelinus, qui cum alterius ejusdem ordinis monasterii

S. Salvatoris de Placa esset Prior ex nova unione fuit simul &
hujus conventus Abbas. Prot. lib. anni 1408. f. I. Ei
sufficitur.
4. Fr. Barnabas antd etiam ex Bonifacii IV. [IX.]

concessione Prior S. Georgii de Trocculis, cui Martinus Rex in
suis litt. sub. an. 1398. Prot. eo an. fol. 80. sic loquitur: Cum
in nostro Regno, & potissimum in Valle Daemonis pax, &
tranquillitas fit, decet, ut affectu dictus locus de Agrd
regatur, gubernetur, S tueatur per Abbatem ipsius, & c. Quard
usurpatam k quibusdam rebellibus oppid jurisdictionem, ac regimen
Abbati jure optimo restituit. Obeuntis Baranbae spolia Lucas
Archimandrita de more affectutus est.d
c nos supr.
d Supra ab anno 1424.
299
5. Fr. Barsanophrius de Comite ex monasterio Basil. Xiglio
in Calabria hue per regiam Alphonsi presentationem Cesarauguste
23. martii 1425. in Cane. ult. julii 3. ind. f. 470. transfertur.
6. Fr. Filogatum successisse ad Abbatiam de Mili habes in

Pr. 1447. f. 70.
7. Fr. Simoni de Blundo Panormit. ord. Praedicator. S.T.D.

Rex Alphonsus per litt. in Castro novo Neapolis 23. Maji an. 1446
in Prot. eo an. f. 2. & Cane. f. 425. Abbatiam concedit, &
Terram, & Fortilicum de Agrd. ("Fuit etiam Simon Quaesitor de
rebus fidei in Sicilia, & 15. Octob. 1454. Archiepiscopus S.
Severinae. Ughell t. 9. Ital. Sac. f. 484 & Fontana in Theat.
Dom. par. 1. f.98. & 330."). Post quartor an.
8. Fr. Bessarioni Graeco Constantinop. Basiliensis ordinis &

Protectori Presbyt. Cardin, de eo satis in Archimandrit. Dat. in
Casali Arni 23. April, anno 1450. & ex PP. Nicolai V. bullis in
Prot. f. 108. & Cancell. f. 297. Sed mox Rege assentiente,
scriptis litt. Puteolis 20. martii 1452. cessit Abbatiam.
9. Petro Cardinali Colvmna Romano, eodem suffragante Pont.

Romae 15. Kal. april. pont. an. 6 Prot. f. 310. Cancell. f. 258.
10. Fr. Jacobnm de Mili voluit Rex Abbat. fed respuit PP.
Coelestinus III. Prot. ann. 1457. f. 50. fitque deinde Mili Abbas
S. Savatoris de Placa ejusdem oridinis.
11. Angelus Stayti ex ordine Senatorio Messanensis simul ac

Capellanus Major in Sicilia. Prot. lib. an. 1478. f. 69. Sed
sufficitur eodem ann.
12. Fr. Joannes Gattus Messan, ordinis Dominicani, vir

magnae doctrinae, & nominis, aestrimationisque apud Cardinalem
Nicoenum: fuit simul Abbas SS. Petri, & Pauli de Itala,® sine
tamen Regis assensu; nam per haec tempora hujus monasterii
Abbatem legimus.
13. Fr. Aegidium seu Gilnm Romanum ex nobili genere

Messanensem, qui in fui monasterii bonum, exoratis & Prorege
litteris Catanae 15. decemb. in lib. Secret, an. 1460. f. 77. &
fol. 164. A Pirrucchio Joenio barrilia decern, tynninae ex
Tynnaria Oliverii repetiit. An. 1478. 15. julii ind. XI. apud
patriam agens, primaevum diploma fundationis, ac dotationis suae
Abbaitae sub an. mundi 6625. ind. 9. ex graeco idiomate in
latinum A Constantino Lascari transferendum curavit lib. Procl.
f. 364. Post. Gili obitum an. 1480. Prorex Gaspar de Spes die
15. julii 13 ind. ibid. ann. 1480. fol. 365. Abbatem suum fratem
"Joannem de Spes" elegit. Earn non admisit electionem, sed aliam
successori exhibuit Rex Ferdinand II.
e In es not.
300
14. D. Alphonso de Aragonia sub notho filio, ut ex litteris
apud Proton, lib. ann. 1489. fol. 50. Anno verd 1488. ex paterna
facultate in seccessoris gratian resignavit.
15. Joannis de Spes Hispani, Raymundi Regii Camerlinghi,

filii, & Gasparis Siculi Proregis fratris, Rege assensum
prestante prime electioni Reg. Cane. lib. 1490. f. 749. £ Prot.
f. 287. interdiu nomine Joannis monast. regebat F. Thomas
Belluchius Basiliensis: constat ex. lit. dat. Hispali 31. mart.
1490. exscrip, in Prot. 3. julii 8. ind. an. ejusdem, quae ad
ann. 1492. usque suum sortitae sunt [p.1041] effectum, lib. Prot.
an. 1492. f. 69. Anno verd 1506. 19. Decemb. Regi suum cessit
jus Joannes.
16. Martinus de Gurrea Regius alumnus Martini de Gurrea de

Plomar de Baronia Argatiesso filius eligitur 4 Ferdinaudo II. in
Castellonovo Neapolis 30. jan. an. 1507. Prot. eo an. 17. apr. f.
208. Hie an. 1510. 8. martii XIII. ind. suae Ecclesiae
dotationis privilegium in lib. Praelatiarum Sicilie f. 364.
exscribendum sategit. An 1334. in Regno Aragoniae ad Episcopatum
Oscensem & Pactensem evectus est.
17. Ferdinandus de Villanova Valentinus Reg. Saceilanus ex

Angelo de Villanova Reademinae Prorege natus ob nominatonem
Caroli V. Tole. ti 2. maji 1534. & confirmationem Pauli III.
Romae 6. id. jan. pont. an. XI. Prot. 15 apr. 8. ind. f. 295.
suum Hispania an. 1559. clausit diem.
18. Hieronymus Brancifortius Siculus equestris ordinis

Sacerdos aulicus R. Philippi II. patroni per rescriptum Romae
Kal. feb. Pii IV. pont. an. I. Prot. eo an. 5. aug. 3. ind. f.
519. Mox aliam ejusdem ordinis, & tituli de Itala abbatiam
obtinuit. Sede Abbatiali vacante Monachi absque novis Abbatis
facultate quendam terrarum tractum Joanni Antonio Finochio ad
emphyteusim concessere. In lib. seer. 1561.
19. Marianus de Manno Siculus Saccensis vir maturae

virtutis, magnae litterarum peritiae, Episcopus Tricariensis per
litt. ejusdem Regis dat. Bruxellis 27. junii 2. ind. onere tamen
solvendi Antonio Cancellario Siculo Nicosiensi (fuit iste post
Archiepis. Messane) annuam 100. aureorum pensionem, & Pii IV.
Romae XI. Kal. Feb. Prot. 27. feb. 5. indict. 1562. f. 317. Iste
tarn de jurisdictione pervetusta in suos incolas oppidi Agrd, qu4m
de officialibus ibidem creandis adversus Juratos Messanae, ultimo
april. anno 1562. sententiam est consequutus.
20. Vincentius la Farina Siculus Politiensis S.T.D. ex

antiquissima Senatoria familia Baronum Aspri-Montis Capellanus
Regis Philippi II. 4 quo primiim Canonicus Metropolit. Eccliesie
Panor. de Eremitis ob Thome Calvi Messanensis cessionem, datis
Aravonz litt. 12 maji 1571. in Prot. ult. julii 14. ind. f. 461.
anno 1576. simul & Abbas S. Salvatoris de Placa; deinde hujus
monasterii, cum aureis 400. in auxilium expensarum bullarum dat.
Romae idibus octob. ann. 7. pont. Gregorii XIII. ut liquet in
Pont. 7. jan. 7. 1579. Cane. Reg. 7. junii 1578. f. 49. & 134.
constituto ad possessionem procuratore Jo. Baptista la Farina suo
301
fratre. Obiens an. 1583. ind. 12. uncias tantum 30. ex spolio
reliquit in lib. Con. serv. eo an.
21. Alexander Glorierus Hispanus die 25. martii 14. ind.

1586. per procuratorem, huius Abbatiae adeptus est possessionem.
Post cuius obitum.
22. Michael Zara. & Ingarus Syracusanus, dum apud Regiam

Secretariam in Hispania scriptoris fungeretur munere ab. ann.
1596. ad S. Eliae de Ambula ann. 1604. Rege Philippo III. etiam
concedente aureos 300. ex sedis vacantis proventibus, per litt.
in Valle Oleti 8. april. in Cane, eo ann. f. 339. ad hanc ejusdem
Basil, instituti pinguiorem evehitur abbatiam. Panormi degens, £.
Caeremoniis Proregis Ducis Feriae, atque in Regno deputatus fuit.
Unde semper ad an. 1612. ciim 6 vita decessit, I Monasterio non
recessit. Ex spolio unciae 180. repertae sunt.
23. Didacum Salvaterram Hispalensis diocesis, Abbatem

Ecclesiae Collegiatae Ossune, cujus Dux dum in Sicilia Regis
vices agebat, Regi obtulit eligendum, exlit. Matriti 20. aug.
1612. & bullis cum dispensatione ad utramque Abbatiam, Romae 3.
nonas junii pont. Pauli V. an. 9. in Prot. 17. Sept. 12. ind.
Proton. 17. Sep. 12. ind. 1613. fol. 20. & 23. & Cancel, fol. 12
& 18. Hie nunquam vidit Siciliam, eoque mortuo an. 1614. 16.
maji Regia Curia possessionem habuit Abbatiae.
24. Carolus de Neopoli, & Banesio Panorm, ex utroque parente

praeclarus genere, Patre Hieronymo primo Principe Resuttani,
equite S. Jacobi de Spada, ex eo nepos Josephi de Neapoli
Regentis supremi Concilii Italiae, Ducisque Campi belli, matre
Elisabetha Baresia Baronum Patrae, ex litt. regiis, ("7. Sept.
1641. in offic. Prot. f. 192") & bullis Urbani VIII. Romae 28.
Sept. 1641. Cancel. 22. Novemb. 10. indict, an. 1641. f. 34. cum
dispensatione ad etatem annorum 11. in quibus asseritur valorem
esse 47. florenorum auri in libro Camerae Apostol. ("Decessit
anno 1697") .
”25. Petrus Regius Panormitanus, Stephani Regii Campifloridi

Principis, & Doroteae Branciforti filius, Philosophiae Doctor,
sanguinis claritate, animique dotibus insignis: Abbas electus ex
bullis datis Rome idus Junii 1697. exscriptis Panor. 11. Julii
ejusdem anni. In Reg. Cancell. f. 63. & Prot. f. 94. Fuit etiam
Abbas S. Maria de Pedali, & etiam primus Abbas S. Joseph Pisani,
quam Abbatiam fundavit Andreas Regius Episcopus Catenensis pro
secundo genitis Principum Campifloridi, ea conditione, ut Romae.
inter Praelatos viverent. Romam adiit Petrus anno 1699. ibique
Jurisprudentiae ingenii vires egregid admovit: & inter
Referendarios utriusque signature Justitiae recensitus est. At
cum ejus Doctrina, dilucida mens, & morum integritas Clementi XI.
satis innotuissent, ab eodem gubernandis civitatibus Faventiae,
Reatis, Sabinae, Fabriani, & Fani successive adhibitus est. Ea
laude haec obiit munia, ut magnam sui expectationem excitaverit.
At ex nimia animi contentione contracto morbo, Romam repetiit &
veniam exoravit, ut in patriam regressus fractam valetudinem
instauraret; ea tamen conditione veniam obtinuit, ut statim
resumptis viribus Romam rediret, jam ad altiorem dignitatem
302
defignatus. At ingravescente morbo'17. Novembris 1709. vivere
desiit magno ctim bonorum dolare; & in Ecclesia Societatis Jesu
sepultus est.
26. Nicolaus Judice Neapolitanus ex Principibus Juvenatii,

Francisci S.R.E. Cardinalis nepos, ex regiis literis 25. Januarii
1710. ex bullis apostolicis 30. Aprilis ejusdem anni, exscriptis
Panormi 17. Junii hanc [p. 1042] obtinuit Abbatiam, cujus
possessionem est adeptus eodem die 17. Junii. A Benedicto XIII.
P.M. Cardinalis Diaconus tit. S. Maria ad martyres creatus 11.
Junii 1725.”
Ab initio hujus Monasteri Abbas Monachus Basiliensis

suffraganeus Archimandritae ad an. 1446. fuit. Inde
Commendatarius ex jure patr. Regis Siciliae cum Sedis Apostolicae
confirmatione. In Regni colloquiis 23. sedet loco. Est Baro, &
Dominus cum potestate creandi officiales in oppido Fortiae de
Agrd; sed in spiritualibus ordinariam, & quasi episcopalem
exercet jurisdictionem Archim. Templum praefulget pervetustum ab
an. mundi 6686. sal. 1178. sacro linitum oleo, ubi hae Sanctorum
Reliquiae mango sunt in honore: Petri, & Pauli Apost, Blasii M.
Nicolai Myrensis Episc. Lucia V. & M. Dominici Confess.
Pantaleonis M. Ursulae V. S M. Pancratii M. & Barbarae V. & M.
Annui census sub Visitatore Francesco Puteo an. 1588. & an.
1614. ind. 12. erant unc. 500 videlicet ex Feudo dicto S. Alesii
ad oram maritinam. ex Bagliatu oppid Forzae de Agro, ex feudo
dell' Abbatia ex feudo dicto S. Joannis in agro de Cessio. ex
Oliveto cum Trapeto, ex nemore Forciae, ex decimis victualium,
pecudum & molendinorum, ex quinquage sima omnium bonorum
stabilium, que venduntur un oppido Agrd, & ejus territorio, ex
censibus parvis in dicto oppido, & Casalis Gallidori, & Casalis
Veteris.
Onera verd, quae singulis annis ex his deducuntur; sunt pro
victu, & vestitu monachorum unc. 101. sed ab an. 1598. mensam
habent separatam. Profabricus, & ornamentis Ecclesiae unc. 23.
Pro cultu divino unc. 9. Pro custodia Castelli S. Alexii situati
in sublimi Colle juxta mare unc. 13. Pro dandis Regiis unc.
6.23.14. Pro dandis Regni unc. 3.12. Pro sesto SS. Petri, &
Pauli unc. 5. Pro jure Archimandritae unc. 5.21. Pro mercede
porterii unc. 2. 24. Pro mercede Carcerarii Forzae unc. 2. ad
summam unc. 171.24.14. Pro Abbate igitur reliquae sunt unc.
328.9.6.
Tam pro administranda animarum cura, quam pro horis
Canonicis Graecd cantentibus sex inferviunt Basilienses monachi.
Omnes Ecclesae oppidi Fortalitii, ac ilia hodie diruta S.
Theodori in agro Tauromeni Abbati subjiciuntur.
303
A P P E N D IX 'II
Excerpts from Entry of SS. Pietro e Paolo in Sacrae Reqiae

Visitationes. by J.A. De Ciocchis.
[p. 355] SANCTA REGALIS VISTITATIO

ABBATIAE, ET MONASTERII SS. PETRI ET PAULI DE AGR& ORDINIS S.
BASILII M. CUJUS ABBAS COMMENDATARIUS EST D. CAROLUS VILLANA
PERLAS, HABITE PER ILLMUM ET RMUM DNUM REGIUM GENTEM VISITATOREM
D. JOANNEM ANGELUM DE CIOCCHIS EIE 26 SEPTEMBRI 1742.
DE VISITATIONE STATUS LOCALIS
Apostolorum Principibus Petro et Paulo, quo Rogerium Comer,

sui belli triumphales Duces agnossebat, templum ac Coenobium
Ordinis S. Basilii extruere coepit in aspris rupibus oppidi
Fortilicii de Agrd, adsignata certa dote. Ea subinde Rogerius
Rex ad eulmen perducens perampla dote donavit, pluribusque
privilegiis, et praerogatiuis insignit, et inter coetera, cum
laudatus Rex dedisset Monasterio vicum Agrillae, modo nuncupatum
"de Agrd," voluit incolas "judicari, et condemnari sub dominio
Abbatis Monasterii," et "postestatem habere super eos, et cum in
delictis inciderint, et ligandi, et flagellandi, in compedibus
manendi, reservata tamen poena homicidii Curiae nostrae
Majestatis. Praeterea donavit praedicto Monasterio Ecclesiam S.
Theodori de Ambre, sitam, et positam in territerio Tauromenii,"
cum ejus dote, ut liquet ex ejus diplomate Graecis litteris
exarato ab anno Mundi 6625, salutis 1117 [1116], quod adhuc
prostat authographum in taimlario ejusdem Coenobii. Qua de re
Abbas est Baro, et Dominus cum potestate creandi officiales i
oppido Fortiae de Agrd, habetatque pro membris Abbatiae Ecclesiam
Sancti Theodori, que modo diruta est.
Ex quibus omnibus haec Abbatia merito de Regio Patronato
est, ad Regiam spectat praesentationem, tandis, donativis, ac
spolio subest, et Regiae Visitationi obnoxia est.
Ecclesia ergo ista parva est, quae praeter aram maximam
tribus constat altaribus, habet chorum, sacristiam, turrimque
campanariam.
Ad earn itaque Abbatiam, Illmus et Rmus Dnus Regius Gereralis
Visitator die 26 Setembris 1742 sumptuosa pro dignitate evectione
se contulit, ubi a Priore Monasterii, et Monachis
honorificentissimd exceptus, Ecclesiam subiit, visitavitque in
primus Sanctissimum Sacramentum, pixides, tabernaculum, nec non
olea sacra, sacrasque reliquias, altaria omnia, chorum, librosque
chorales, confessionalia, sacristiam, turrim campanariam, ac
omnes et singulas Ecclesiae partes. Sacrae vero Reliquiae sunt:
CATALOGUS RELIQUIARUM
Duo fragments de ligno Sanctae Crucis in reliquiario argenteo.

In reliquiario lingneo sub auro asservantur reliquiario.
Ex ossibus S. Petri Apostoli.
Ex cranio S. Viti M.
Ex ossibus S. Dominici C.
Ex ossibus S. Barbarae V.M.
304
Duo fragmenta ossium S. Sergii M.
Ex ossibus S. Laurentii M.
Ex ossibus S. Ursulae M.
Ex ossibus S. Emiliani.
Ex ossibus S. Demetrii M.
In alio reliquiario ligneo sub auro asservantur reliquiae
sequentes:
Brachium integrum S. Theodori M.
Digitus S. Philareti M.
Ex ossibus S. Bartholomaei Apostoli.
Fragmentum ossis S. Basilii.
Ex ossibus S. Luciae V.M.
Ex ossibus S. Pantaleonis M.
Ex ossibus S. Nicolai Mirensis.
Ex ossibus S. Pancratii.
[p. 356] DE MONASTERIO
Monasterium hujus Abbatiae a primaeva fundatione Monachi

Ordinis S. Basilii semper inhabitarunt sub Abbate Monacho;
redacta postmodum Abbatia in Commendam cum omne jus Abbatiale, et
Dignitas in Commendatarios transiisent, Monasterium sub Priore
Monacho remansit.
Praedictum autem Monasterium modo constat uno dormintorio
cum decem cellis pro religiosis, habetque necessarias officinas
praeter duas aulas, quae modo extruuntur.
Expleta itaque Vistiatione Ecclesiae, Illmus et Rmus Dnus
Regius Visitator Gerneralis, ejusmodi perlustravit Monasterium,
dormitorium, aulas Prioris, archivium, in quo asservantur
scripturae ad Monasterii negotia pertinentes, et autographum
privilegium regis Rogerii, visitavit nec non cellas Monachorum,
officinas, fabricasque omnes interiores et exteriores, nonnulla
praecepit, prout inferius.
305
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources and Documents:
Amari, Michele. Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula ossia raccolta di testi

arabici che tocano la qoeqraphia. la storia, la bioqrafia el
al biblioqrafia della Sicilia. Supplement to Rerum
italicarum scriptores. vol. 1, pt. 2. Turin and Rome, 1880.
---------- . Le epiqrahi arabiche di Sicilia. 3 vols. Palermo,

1875 (I), 1879-81 (II), 1905 (III); rpt. in a single vol.,
ed. Fr. Gabrieli, Palermo, 1971.
---------- . Nuova raccolta di scritture e. documenti intorno alia

dominazione deqli Arabi in Sicilia. Palermo, 1851.
---------- . Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, 3 vols., 2nd. ed.

Rome, 1933-8.
Amari, M. and Schiaperelli, C. L fItalia diescritta nel Libro del

Re ruqqero compilato da Edrisi. Atti della Reale Accademia
dei Lincei, series 2, vol. 8 (Rome, 1883).
Bruhl, Carlrichard. Diplomi e, Cancelleria di Ruqqero II,

Palermo, 1983.
Codex messanensis graecus 105. ed. by R. Cantarella. Palermo,

1937.
Cozza-Luzi, G. "Del Testamento dell'abate fondatore di Demenna,"

ASS. 15 (1890), 33-9.
Cusa, Salvatore. I diplomi qreci ed arabi di Sicilia, 2 vols.

Palermo, 1868-81.
Danz6, M. "Una poco nota iscrizione basiliana di Messina," in

ACIBC. vol. 2, 877-84.
De Ciocchis, Giovanni Angelo. Sacrae Reqiae Visitationes per

Siciliam. 2 vols. Panormi, 1836.
Filagato da Cerami. Omelie per i. vanqeli domenicali e, .la feste

di tutto lfanno, ed. G. Rossi Taibbi, (Istituto Siciliano di
Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, Testi, 11), vol. 1. Palermo,
1969.
Gaetani. Isaqoqe ad historiam sacram siculam. Palermo, 1707.
Garufi, Carlo Alberto. "Di alcuni codici conservati nel

tabulario di Monreale," ASS, 25 (1900), 185-216.
---------- . "L'Archivio Capitolare di Girgenti: I documenti del

tempo normanno-svevo e il 'Cartularium' del sec. XIII," ASS,
28 (1903), 123-56.
306
---------- . "Carte e firme in versi nella diplomatica
deli'Italia meridionale nei secoli XII e XIII," Studi
medievali. I (1905), 107-17.
---------- . "Censiemento e catasto della popolazione sevile.

Nuovi studi e recherche sull'ordinamento amministrativo in
Sicilia nei secoli XI e XII," ASSO. 49 (1928), 1-100.
---------- . "Un contratto agrario in Sicilia nel secolo XII,"

ASSO. 5 (1908), 11-22.
---------- . "Documenti dell'epoca sveva," Ouellen und

Forschunaen. 8 (1905), 196-205.
---------- . I_ documenti inediti dell'epoca normanna in Sicilia,

in DsSS. vols. 18 and 19. Palermo, 1899 and 1902.
---------- . "Memoratoria, chartae et instrumenta divisa in

Sicilia nei secoli XI a XV," Bullettino dell'Istituto
Storico Italiano. 32 (1912), 67-127.
---------- . "Monte e conii nella storia del diritto siculo dagli

arabi ai Martini," ASS, 23 (1898), 1-171.
---------- . "Tre nuove pergamene greche del monastero de S.

Michele di Mazara," ASS. 53 (1933), 219-24.
Malaterra, Gaufridus. De rebus qestis Roqerii Calabriae et

Siciliae comitis et Roberti Guiscardi dueis fratris eius.
ed. E. Pontieri, Rerum italicarum scriptores. 5. Bologna,
1927.
Mango, Cyril, ed. The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453:

Sources and Documents. New York, 1972; rpt. in idem,
Toranto, 1986.
Montfaugon, Bernard de. Palaeograhia Graeca, sive De ortu at

progressu literarum. scriptionis graece generibus: itemgue
de abbreviationibus S. de notis variarum artium ac
dis ciplinarum. Paris, 1708.
al-Muqqaddasi, Description de 1'Occident musulman au IVe-Xe

si6cles. trans. and intro, by C. Pellat. Algeirs, 1950.
Patera, Benedetto. L'arte della Sicilia normanna nelle fonti

medievali. Palermo, 1980.
Pietro da Eboli. Liber ad Honorem Augusti. ed. G.B. Siragusa,

Fonti per la storia d'Italia n. 39, 2 vols. Rome, 1905-06.
Pirri, Rocco. Sicilia sacra disguisitionibus et notitiis

illustrate. 3rd ed. by Antonino Mongitore, 2 vols. Palermo,
1733.
307
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Salinas, Antonio. "Nota sulla iscrlzione greca del monastero dei
SS. Pietro e Paolo," Notizie deqli Scavi di Antichit&, (Jan.
1885), 86-90.
Silvestri, Giuseppe. Tabulario di S^. Filippo di Fraoali e. di S .

Maria di Maniace. in DsSS. vol. 11. Palermo, 1887-9.
Spata, Giuseppe. Diplomi qreci inediti ricavati da alcuni

monoscritti della Biblioteca Comunale di Palermo. Turin,
1870.
---------- . Le perqamene qreche esistenti nel Grande Archivio di

Palermo. Palermo, 1864.
Starrabba, Raffaele. I diplomi della Cattedrale di Messina,

raccolti da A. Amico, da un codice della Biblioteca
Communale di Palermo, in DsSS. vol. 1. Palermo, 1870-90.
---------- . "Contributo all studio della diplomatica sicliana

dei tempi normanni. Diplomi di fondazione delle chiese
episcopali di Sicilia (1082-1093." ASS. 18 (1893), 30-135.
Stasolla, Maria Giovanni, ed. Italia evro-mediterranea nel

Medioevo; Testimonianze di scrittori arabi. II mondo
medievale series no. 13. Bologna, 1983.
The Travels of Ibn Jubavr. trans. and ed. R.J.C. Broadhurst.

London, 1952.
Dgo Falcando. La Historia £ Liber de Regno Sicilie e. la Epistola

ad Petrum panormitanae ecclesie thesaurarium. ed. G.B.
Siragusa, Fonti per la storia d'Italia, 22. Rome, 1897.
History and Culture:
Amico, Vito. Dizionario topoqrafico della Sicilia, trans. and

annotated by G. Di Marzo, 2 vols. Palermo, 1856; rpt. 1975.
Bloch, Herbert. Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages. 3 vols.

Cambridge, Mass., 1986.
Canard, M. "Le C6r6monial fatimite et le c£r6monial byzantin:

Essai de comparison," Bvzantion. 21 (1951), 355-420.
---------- . "Fatimides," in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed.

Leiden, I960-, vol. 2, 850-62.
---------- . "LfImp6rialisme des Fatimides et leur propagande,"

Annales de lfInstitut d'&tudes Orientales. 6 (1942-7), 156-
93.
---------- . "Une Lettre du caliphe fatimite al-Hafiz ... 3. Roger

II," in ACISR, vol. 1, 125-46.
308
---------- . "Quelques notes relatives 3. la Sicile sous les
primiers Califes Fatimites," in Studi medievale in onere di
A. De Stefano. Palermo, 1956, 569-76.
Canterella, Glauco Maria. La Sicilia e, i, Normanni. Le fonti del

mito, II mondo meidievale no. 19. Bologna, 1989.
Cappelli, Biagio. ,11 monachesimo basiliano ai confini Calabro-

Lucani. Studi e ricerche. Naples, 1963.
Caspar, Erich. Roger II. (1101-1154) und die Griindung der

Normannisch-Sicilischen Monarchie. Innsbruck, 1904; rpt.
Darmstadt, 1963.
Cavallo, Guglielmo. " Monachesimo italo-greco e trasmissione

scritta della cultura profana nell Sicilia normanna," in
ACIBC, vol. 2, 751-76.
Cavallo, Guglielmo et al. I Bizantini in Italia. Milan, 1982.
Chalandon, Ferdinand. Histoire de la domination normande en

Italie et en Sicile. 2 vols. Paris, 1907; rpt. New York,
1960.
D'Amico, Mario. La chiesa normanna die SS. Apostoli Pietro e,

Paolo a, Casalv6cchio Siculo nellf8o centenario, 1172-1972.
Messina, 1972.
Delogu, Paolo. I. Normanni in Italia. Cronache della conguista e,

del regno. Naples, 1984.
Douglas, David C. The Norman Achievement 1050-1100. Berkeley

and Los Angeles, 1969.
---------- . The Norman Fate 1100-1154. Berkeley and Los

Angeles, 1976.
Duro, Carmelo. La Valle dfAgrd. Verona, 1987.
Fondale, S. "I Basiliani in Sicilia al tempo dello Scisma

d'Occidente e sotto il regno dei Martini," in ACIBC, vol. 2,
733-50.
Fonti e, studi del Corpus membranarum italicarum. 12: Ruggero il

Gran Conte e, 1' inizio dello stato normanno. Relazioni e,
comunicazioni nelle Seconde Giornate normanno-sveve (Bari,
maggio 1975). Rome, 1977.
Gabrieli, Francesco. "Greeks and Arabs in the Central

Mediterranean Area." POP. 18 (1964), 57-67.
Gabrieli, Francesco and Scerrato, Umberto. Gli Arabi in Italia.

Cultura, contatti e, tradizioni. Milan, 1979.
Gianfreda, Grazio. II Monachesimo italo-greco in Otranto.

Galatina, 1977.
309
Giunta, Francesco. Bizantini e. bizantinismo nella Sicilia
normanna. 2nded., Palermo, 1974.
---------- . "II Monachesimo basiliano nella Sicilia Normanna,"

in ACIBC. vol. 2, 709-32.
Guillou, Andr6. Aspetti della civilitcL bizanitna in Italia:

Societi e, cultura. Bari, 1976.
---------- . Culture e_ Soci6t6 en Italie Byzantine (VIe-XIe s.) .

London, 1978.
---------- . "Grecs d'Italie du sud et de Sicilie au Moyen Age:

Les Moines," Mah, 75 (1963), 79-110.
---------- . "Inchiesta sulla popolazione greca della Sicilia e

della Calabria nel medio evo," Rivista storica italiana. 75
(1963), 53-68.
---------- . "II monachesimo greco in Itlaia meridionale ein

Sicilia nel medioevo," in Atti del 2° settimana di studi
Mendola. Milan, 1965, pp. ____ .
---------- . Studies on Byzantine Italy. London, 1970.
Haskins, Charles. "England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century,"

The English Historical Review. 103 (July 1911), 433-47; 104
(October 1911), 641-65.
Idris, Hady Roger. La Berb6rie orientale sous les Zirides: Xe-

Xlle si^cles. 2 vols. Paris, 1962.
Kehr, K.A. Die Urkunden der normannisch-sicilischen Konige.

Innsbruck, 1902.
Korolevskiv, Cirillo. "Basiliens italo-grecs et espagnols," in

Dictionnaire d fhistoire et de q6oqraphie 6ccl6siastique, 4
(1932), 1180-1236.
Lake, Kirsopp. "The Greek Monasteries in South Italy, III,"

Journal of Theological Studies. 5 (1904), 22-41.
Lancia di Brolo and Gaspare, Domenico. Storia della chiesa in

Sicilia nei dieci primi secoii del cristianesimo, 2 vols.
Palermo, 1880-4.
Lavagnini, Bruno. "Cultura bizantina in Sicilia sotto i

Normanni," Bollettino della badia greca di Grottaferrata,
n.s. 36 (1982), 81-93.
Lombardo, Giuseppe. Sulla ubicazione del monumento-monastero dei

Santi Pietro e, Paolo d' Aqrd. Messina, 1987 .
Messina, Aldo. "La presenza basiliana nel Val di Noto," in

ACIBC. vol. 2, 1983, 813-24.
310
Norwich, John Julius. The Normans in the South. 1016-1130.
London, 1967.
Novaino (au-Nuwayri). "Storia d'Africa," in Nuova raccolta di

scritture e, documenti intorno all dominazione daqli Arabi in
Sicilia, ed. M Amari. Palermo, 1851.
Peri, Illuminato. Umoni. citt£ e campaqne in Sicilia del XI al

XIII secolo. Bari, 1978.
Puglise, Carmelo. Sant'A16ssio Siculo. Cantania, 1978.
Rizzitano, Umberto. Storia e, cultura nella Sicilia saracena.

Palermo, 1975.
Rodot&, Pietro Pompilio. Dellforiqine, proqresso et stato

presente del rito qreco in Italia. 3 vols. Rome, 1758-63.
Russo, Francesco. "II monachismo calabro-greco e la cultura

bizantina in occidente," Bollettino della badia greca di
Grottaferrata, n.s. 5 (1951), 5-29.
Scaduto, Mario S.I. II monachismo basilino nella Sicilia

medievale: Rinascita i, decadenza. Sec. X-XIV. Rome, 1947;
revised ed., 1982.
Siciliano, Joseph. "The Greek Religious and Secular Community of

Southern Italy and Sicily during the Later Middle Ages,"
Diss. Rutgers 1983.
Smith, Dennis Mack. A History of Sicily. Medieval Sicily. 800-

1713. New York,- 1975.
Stern, S.M. "An Embassy of the Byzantine Emperor to the Fatimid

Caliph." Bvzantion. 20 (1950), 239-58.
Talbi, Mohamed. L'fonirat Aqhlabide, 184-296 (800-909). Histoire

politique. Paris, 1966.
Tramontana, Salvatore. Popolazione, distribuzione della terra

nella Sicilia normanna. Rome, 1977.
Vasiliev, Alexander. Bvzance et le Arabes. 2 vols. Brussels,

1935-68.
Von Faulkenhausen, Vera. La dominazione bizantina nell'Italia

meridionale dal IX all'XI secolo. Rome, 1978.
. "I gruppi etnici nel regno di Ruggero II e la loro

-
partecipazione al potere," in Societi. potere e, popola

nell'et£ di Ruggero II. Terze qiornate normanno-sveve
(Bari, 23-25 May 1977). Bari, 1979, 133-56.
. "Patrimonio e politica patrimoniale dei monasteri

-
greci nella Sicilia normanno-sveva," in ACIBC, vol. 2, 777-

90.
311
Waern, Cecilia. Mediaeval Sicily. 'Aspects of Life and Art in
the Middle Ages. London, 1910.
White, Lynn T., Jr. Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily.

Cambridge, Mass., 1938; rpt. 1968.
Wieruszowski, Helene. "'Rex-Tyrannus' in Twelfth-Century

Political Thought," Speculum. 28/1 (1963), 46-78.
Art and Architecture;
I. Byzantine.
Agnello, Giuseppe. L'architettura bizantina in Sicilia.

Florence, 1952.
---------- . "L'architettura rupestre bizantina in Sicilia," in

Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi bizantini,
1936. vol. 2. Rome, 1940, 3-18.
---------- . "La chiesa della Favorita presso Noto," Bollettino

d'arte. 34 (1949), 307-10.
---------- . .1 monumenti bizantini della Sicilia. Florence,

1951.
---------- . "Sculture bizantino della Sicilia," SicGvm, n.s. 5/1

(Jan.-June 1952), 76-91
Agnello, Santi Luigi. "Architettura paleocristiana e bizantina

della Sicilia," in CCARB. vol. 9. Ravenna, 1962, 53-108.
Autore, C. "La chiesa del San Salvatore di Rometta," ASM, n.s. 1

(1934), 54-63.
Bordenache, Riccardo. Due monumenti dell'Italia merdionale: I.

L'avanzo di una chiesetta a croce greca in Castro; II. La
cappella romanica della Foresteria nell'abbazia di Venosa,"
Bollettino d'arte. 27 (1933-4), 169-84.
Demus, Otto. Byzantine Mosaic Decoration. Aspects of Monumental

Art in Byzantium. Boston, 1955, and later reprints.
Diehl, Charles. "Notes sur quelques monuments byzantins de

Calabre," Mah. 10 (1890), 284-302.
---------- . Manuel d'art bvzantin. 2 vols. Paris, 1925-6.
Dimitrokallis, Georges. Contrubution ^ 1'6tude des monuments

byzantins et m6di6vaux d'Italie. Athens, 1971.
£cochard, Michel. Filation de monuments qrecs, byzantins et

islamiqes. Une question de q6om6trie. Paris, 1977.
312
Epstein, Anne Wharton (Annabel J. Wharton). "The Middle
Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or Iconostasis?" JBAA,
134 (1981), 117-43.
Freshfield, Edwin Hanson. "Cellae Trichorae" and Other Christian

Antiquities in the Byzantine Provinces of Sicily with
Calabria and North Africa including Sardinia. 2 vols.
London, 1913 (I) and 1918 (II).
Garana, Ottavio. Le cat a combe siciliane e, i, loro martiri.

Palermo, 1961.
Grabar, Andr6. Sculpture bvzanitnes du Moven Ages, vol. 2.

Paris, 1963 (I) and 1976 (II).
Jordan, E. "Monuments byzantins de Calabre," Mah, 9 (1889), 321-

35.
Krautheimer, Richard. Early Christian and Byzantine

Architecture. 4th revised ed. with S. CurCid,
Harmondsworth, 1986.
Lagona, Sebastiano. "La Sicilia tardo-antico e bizantina," Felix

Ravenna. 119-20 (1980), 111-30.
Lojacono, Pietro. "L'architettura bizantina in Calabria e

Sicilia," in Atti del V Conqresso di Studi Bizanitini. 1936,
vol. 2. Rome, 1940, 183-197.
---------- . "II restauri alia chiesa di S. Marco a Rossano

Calabro," Bollettino d'arte. 27 (1933), 374-85.
---------- . "Sul restauro compiuto al battistero di Santa

Severina," Bolletino d'arte. 28 (1934), 174-85.
Mango, Cyril. Byzantine Architecture. New York, 1976.
Martelli, Gisberto. "La cattedrale di Gerace," Palladio, n.s. 6

(1956), 117-26.
Martorano, Francesca and Minuto, Domenico. "Cinque chiese

calabresi di tradizione bizantina. Struttura muraria,
tipologia architettonica, decorazione," in Bisanzio e.
1'Italia: Raccolta di studi in memoria di Aqostino Pertusi.
Milan, 1982, 239-59.
Matthews, Thomas F. The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul. A

Photographic Survey. University Park and London, 1976.
Megaw, A.H.S. "Byzantine Architecture in Mani," ABSA. 33 (1932-

3), 137-62.
---------- . "Byzantine Reticulate Revetments," in Charisterion

eis Anastasion K. Orlandon. vol. 3. Athens, 1966, 1-22.
313
---------- . "The Chronology of Some Middle-Byzantine Churches,"
ABSA. 32 (1931-2), 90-130.
Messina, Aldo. Le chiese rupestri del Sirucusano. Istituto

Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neolellenici, Monumenti, 2.
Palermo, 1979.
Millet, Gabriel. L'fecole qrecque dans lfarchitecture bvzantine.

Paris, 1916.
Orlandos, Anastasios K. Moanasteriake architecktoniks. Athens,

1958.
---------- . Sicilia Bizantina. Rome, 1942.
Ousterhout, Robert. "Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine

Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre," JSAH. 48/1 (1989), 66-
78.
Pace, Biagio. Arte e civilti della Sicilia antica, vol. 4,

Barbari e Bizantini. Rome, Naples, and Citt& di Castello,
1949.
Palekanidis, Stylianos and Chatzidakis, Manolis. Kastoria,

trans. H. Zigada, Byzantine Art in Greece series, Mosaics
and Wall Paintings, M. Chatzidakis, ed. Athens, 1985.
VelenSs, Gidrgos. HermSneia tou exaterikou diakosmou st5

w a n t i n g architektonike. 2 vols. Thessoloniki, 1984.
Venditti, Arnaldo. Architettura bizantina nell'Italia

meridionale. 2 vols. Naples, 1967.
---------- . "Per un profilo dell'architettura bizantina in

Grecia." Critica d'arte. 11/63 (1964), 29-43; 11/67-8
(1964), 9-34.
Wharton, Annabel J. Art of Empire. Painting and Architecture of

the Bvzantine Periphery. A Comparative Study of Four
Provinces. University Park and London, 1988.
II. Islamic.
Allen, Terry. A Classical Revival in Islamic Architecture.

Wiesbaden, 1986.
Basset, H. and Terrasse, Henry. Sanctuarires et forteresses

almohades. Paris, 1932.
Bellafiore, Giuseppe. "Architeturra e cultura delle citt&

fatimite in Sicilia," Storia della citt£, 17 (1980), 3-10.
---------- . Pall'Islam alia Maniera. Palermo, 1975.
314
---------- . "Edifici d'etd islamica e normanna presso la
cattedrale di Palermo," Bollettino d'arte, 3 (1967), 178-95.
---------- . "I gardini paradiso a Palermo nelle et4 islamica e

normanna." Arcromenti di Storia dell'arte. 1 (1983), 5-22.
Bercher, L. "Le Palais d'El Mansour a Bougie," Revue Tunisienne,

29 (1922), 50-4.5
Bertaux, Emile. "Les arts de 1'Orient musulman dan 1'Italie

M6ridionale," Mah. 15 (1895), 417-53.
Blanchet, M. "Rapport sur les travaux ex6cut6s 4 la Kalaa de

Beni-Hammad," Recueil des notices e, m6moires de la Soci6t6
Archeoloqique. Historicrue et G6oaraphicrue du Department de
Constatine. 32 (1898), 97-116.
Bloom, Johnathan. "The Introduction of the Muqarnas into Egypt,"

Muqarnas. 5 (1988), 21-8.
---------- . "Meaning in Early Fatimid Architecture: Islamic Art

in North Africa and Egypt in the Fourth Century A.H. (Tenth
Century A.D.)," Diss. Harvard 1980.
---------- . "The Mosque of el-Hakim in Cairo," Muqarnas. 1

(1982), 15-36.
---------- . "The Origins of Fatimid Art," Muqarnas. 3 (1985),

20-38.
Creswell, K.A.C. A Bibliography of Muslim Architecture in North

Africa. Paris, 1954.
----------- . E a rly M u s l i m Arch i t e c t u r e : U m a v v a d s . E arly Abbasids,

and Tulunids. 2 vols. Oxford, 1932 (I) and 1940 (II).
---------- . The Muslim Architecture of Egypt, 2 vols. Oxford,

1952 (I) and 1959 (II).
---------- . A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture.

Harmondsworth, 1958; revised and supplemented by J.W. Allen,
1989.
Dussaud, R . ; Descnamps, P.; Seyrig, H. La Svrie antique et

m6di6vale illustr6e. Paris, 1931.
El-Said, Issam and Parman, Ay§e. Geometric Concepts in Islamic

A rt. London, 1976.
Ettinghausen, Richard and Grabar, Oleg. The Art and Architecture

of Islam: 650-1250. Harmondsworth, 1987.
Ewert, Christian. "Die Moschee bei Bab al-Mardum," Madrider

Mitteilunqen. 18 (1977), 237-354.
315
. Spanish-islamische svsteme sich Kreuzender Boqen,
Madrider Forschungen, vol. 2. Berlin, 1968.
Ewert, C. and Wissak, J.-P. Forschunaen zur almohadischen

Moschee. I : Borstufen. Hierarchische qliederunqen
westislamischer Betsale des 8. bis 11. Jahrhunderts: Die
Hauptmoscheen von Oairawan und Cordoba und ihr Bannkreis.
Mainz, 1981.
Fazio-Allmayer, V. "Gli arabi e l'arte in Siclia," Rassecma

d'arte. 8 (1908), 37-9, 76-9.
Fikry, Ahmad. La Grande mosquê de Kairouan. Paris, 1935.
---------- . "La Mosqu6e Az-Zaytouna A Tunis, Recherches

arch6ologiques," Egyptian Society of Historical Studies. 2
(1952), 27-64.
Gelfer-Jargensen, Mirjam. Medieval Islamic Symbolism and the

Paintings in the Cefalft Cathedral. Leiden, 1986.
Golvin, Lucien. Essai sur 1'architecture reliqieuse musulmane, 2

vols., Arch£ologie m6diterran6enne, 5. Paris, 1970-1.
---------- . Le Maqrib central k 1'£poque des Zirides.

Recherches d'arch6oloqie et d'histoire. Paris, 1957.
---------- . "Notes sur les couples de la Grande Mosqu6e al-

Zaytuna de Tunis," Revue de 1'Occident musulman et de la
M6diterran6e. 2 (1966), 95-109.
----- . "Notes sur le d6cor des fagades en Berb6rie Oriental

a la periode sanhagienne," in fetudes d'Orinetalisme d£di£es
a la m6moire de L6vi-Provencal. vol. 3. Paris, 1962, 581-9.
---------- . "Notes sur les entries en avant corps et en chicane

dans 1'architecture musulmane de l'Afrique du Nord," Annales
de l'Institut d'fetudes Orientales. 16 (1958), 221-45.
---------- . "Notes sur quelques fragments de piatre trouv£s

r6cemment k la Qal'a des Banil H'ammSd," in Melanges
d'histoire et d'arch6oloqie de 1'Occident musulmane, vol. 2.
Algiers, 1957, 75-93.
---------- . "Le Palf- .s de Ziri k Achir (Dixi^me Sidcle J.C.),"

Ars orientalis. The Arts of Islam and the East. 6 (1966),
47-76.
---------- . Recherches arch6oloqiques a, _la Qal'a des BarvO

Hammad. Paris, 1965.
Grabar, Oleg. The Formation of Islamic A rt. New Haven and

London, 1973.
Herzfeld, Ernst. "Damascus: Studies in Architecutre, I," Ars

Islamica. 9 (1942), 10-40.
316
---------- . Mat6riaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum.
p t . 2, Svrie du Nord. vol. 1, Inscriptions et monuments
d fAlep. Cairo, 1955.
Hill, Derek and Golvin, Lucien. Islamic Architecture of North

Africa. London, 1976.
Hill, Derek and Grabar, Oleg. Islamic Architecture and Its

Decoration. A .D. 800-1500. London, 1964,
Hoag, John D. Islamic Architecture. New York, 1977.
Hutt, A. Islamic Architecture: North Africa. London, 1977.
L6zine, Alexandre. Architecture de l'Ifriqiva. Recherches sur

les monuments aqhlabides. Arch6ologie m6diterran6enne, 2.
Paris, 1966.
. Deux villes d'Ifriqiva. fetudes d'arch6oloqie

d'urbanisme de d6moqraphie. Sousse, Tunis. Paris, 1971.
---------- . Mahdiva. Recherches d farchôloqie islamique.

Arch6ologie m6diterran6enne, 1. Paris, 1965.
---------- . "Notes d'arch6ologie ifriqiyenne, IV: Mahdiya,

quelques precisions sur la 'ville' des premier Fatimides,"
Revue des fetudes Islamiques. 35 (1967), 82-101.
---------- . Le Rib§t de Sousse suivi de Notes sur le Rib§t de

Monastir. Tunis, 1956.
---------- . "Les Salle d'audience du palais d'Archir," Revue

des etudes islamiques. 37 (1969), 203-18.
---------- . "Les Salles nobles de palais mamelouks," Annales

Islamoloqiques. 10 (1972), 63-148.
Margais, Georges. Alqerie Medievale. Monuments e paqvsaqes

historiques. Pairs, 1957.
---------- . L'Architecture musulmane d'Occident: Tunisie,

Alqerie. Moroc, Espaqne et Sicilie. Paris, 1955.
---------- . Cupole et plafonds de la Grande Mosquee de Kairouan

Tunis, 1925.
Margais, Georges and Golvin, Lucien. Grande Mosquee de Sfax.

Tunis, 1960.
Margais, William and Margais, Georges. Les Monuments arabes de

Tlemcen. Paris, 1903.
Maslow, Borris. Les Mosquees de Fes et du Nord du Maroc. Paris

1937.
Mayer, Leo A. Islamic Architects and Their Works. Geneva, 1956
317
Meuin6, Jacques and Terrasse, Henri'. Recherches arch6oloqiques k
Merrakech. Paris, 1952.
Meuin6, Jacques; Terrasse, Henri; Deverdun, Gaston. Nouvelles

recherches arch6oloqiques £. Merrakech. Paris, 1957.
Michell, George, ed. Architecture of the Islamic World. Its

History and Social Meaning. London, 1978; rpt. 1987.
Monneret de Villard, Ugo. Le pitture musulmane al soffitto della

Cappclla Palatina in Palermo. Rome, 1950.
Papadopoulo, A. LfIslam et lfart musulman. Paris, 1976.
Rivoira, G.T. Moslem Architecture. Its Origins and Development,

trans. G. McN. Rushforth. Edinburgh, 1918.
Rosintal, J. Pendentifs. trompes et stalactites dans

1'architecture oriental. Paris, 1928.
Ryolo, Domenico. "Contributi all conoscenza delle architetture

paleocristiane e araba in Sicilia," Bollettino del Centro di
Studi per la Storia dell'Architetttura. 24 (1976), 31-41.
---------- . "Soprawivenze arabe in provincia di Messina,"

Palladio, n.s. 18/1-4 (Jan./Dec. 1968), 31-41.
Saladin, Henri. Manuel d'art musulman. vol. I. Paris, 1907.
Sarre, F. and Herzfeld, E. Archaoloqische Reise im Euphrat und

Tigris Gebiet. 4 vols. Berlin, 1911-4.
Sauvaget, Jean. "Notes sur quelques monuments musulmans de Syrie

& propos d'une 6tude r6cente," Syria, 24 (1945), 211-31.
Schmidt, Anna Maria. "La fortezza di Mazzallaccar," Bollettino

d'arte. 57 (1972), 90-3.
Sebag, P. La Grande Mosqu6e de Kairouan. Zurich, 1963.
Tabbaa, Yasser. "The Muqarnas Dome: Its Origin and Meaning,"

Muqarnas. 3 (1985), 61-74.
Terrasse, Henri. LfArt hispano-mauresque des oriqines au Xlle

sijicle. Paris, 1932.
---------- • "La Mosquee d'al-Qarawiyin & Fes et 1'art des

Almoravides," Ars Orientalis. The Arts of Islam and the
East. 2 (1957), 135-48.
Whitehouse, David. "Excavations at Ajadabiyah: Second Interim

Report," Society for Libyan Studies: Fourth Annual Report.
(1972-3), 20-7.
Williams, Caroline. "The Cult of 'Alid Saints in the Fatimid

Monuments of Cairo: pt. I: The Mosque of al-Agmar,"
318
Muqarnas. 1 (1983), 37-52; pt'II, "The Mausolea," ibid, 3
(1985), 39-60.
Zbiss, Slimane-Mostafa. "La cupole aghlabide de la Grande

Mosqu6e de Sousse," in Melanges d'histoire et d farch6oloqie
de 1'Occident musulmane. vol. 2. Algiers, 1957, 177 ff.
---------- . "Documents d'architecture fatimite d'occident," Ars

orientalis. 3 (1959), 27-31.
---------- . "La Grande Mosqu6e de Tunis," Compte Rendus de

lrAcad6mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1953), 443-5.
---------- . "Portes, baies et fagades dat6es dans 1'architecture

musulmane de la ville de Tunis," in Cahiers des arts et
techniques dfAfrioue du nord. Toulouse, 1960-1, 131 ff.
Ill. Romanesque and Gothic.
Anfray, Marcel. L'Architecture normande. Paris, 1939.
Barral i Altet, Xavier. L fArt pre-RonteLnic ,a Catalunya. Seqles

IX—X . Barcelona, 1981.
Bony, Jean. French Gothic Architecture of Twelfth and Thirteenth

Centuries. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1983.
Choisy, Auguste. Histoire de l farchitecture. Paris, 1929.
Clapham, A. W. English Romanesque Architecture before the

Conquest. Oxford, 1930.
---------- . English Romanesque Architecture after the Conquest.

Oxford, 1934.
Conant, Kenneth J. Carolinqian and Romanesque Architecture. 2nd

revised ed., Harmondsworth, 1978; rpt. 1987.
Delogu, Raffaello. Lfarchitettura del medioevo in Sardegna.

Rome, 1953.
Du Colombier, Pierre. Les Chantiers de Cath6drales. Paris,

1973.
Durliat, Marcel. Hispania Romanica. Die Hohe Kunst der

Romanischen Epoche in Spanien. Vienna and Munich, 1962.
Frischaruer, Aina Stephanie. Altspanischer Kirchenbau. Berlin,

1930.
Keyser, Charles E. A List of Norman Tympana and Lintels with

Figure or Symbolical Sculpture still or till Recently
Existing in the Churches of Great Britain. London, 1927.
319
Kottmann, Albrecht. Des Geheimnis romanischer Bauten.
Stuttgart, 1971.
Kronig, Wolfgang. "La Francia e l'architettura romanica

nell'Italia meridionale," Napoli Nobilissima. n.s. 1 (1961-
2), 203-15.
Kubach, Erich Hans. Romanesque Architecture. New York, 1975.
Liess, Reinhard. Per Fruhromanisch Kirchenbau des 11.

Jahrhunderts in der Normandie. Munich, 1967.
Mark, Robert. Experiments in Gothic Structure. Cambridge, Mass.

and London, 1982.
Musset, Lucien. Normandie romane; La basse Normandie. Zodiaque

series no. 25. La Pierre-qui-Vire (Yonne), 1983.
---------- . Normandie romane; La haute Normandie. Zodiaque

series no. 41. La Pierre-qui-Vire (Yonne), 1974.
Palol, Pedro de and Hirmer, Max. Early Medieval Art in Spain.

New York, 1967.
Pevsner, Nikolaus and Metcalf, Priscilla. The Cathedrals of

England, vol. 1, Midland, Eastern and Northern England.
Puis i Cadafalch, J.; De Falguera; Goday I Casals.

L'arguitectura rominica a Catalunya. 3 vols. Barcelona,
1909-18.
Ruprich-Robert, V. L 'Architecture normande aux XI et XII

si6cles. 2 vols. Paris, 1884-9; rpt. Farnborough, Hants.,
Gregg, 1971.
Salinas, Antonio. "Trafori e vetrate nelle finestre delle chiese

medievali di Sicilia," in Centenario della nascita di M.
Amari, vol. 2. Palermo, 1910, 495-507.
Sarrade, Marie-Th6r6se. Sur les connaissances math&natiques des

batisseurs de cath£drales. Paris, 1986.
Street, G.E. Some Account of Gothic Architecture in Spain, 2nd

ed., 2 vols. London, New York, and Toranto, 1914.
Webb, Geoffrey. Architecture in Britian: The Middle Ages.

Whitehill, Walter Muir. Spanish Romanesque Architecture of the

Eleventh Century. Oxford, 1941.
320
IV. The Norman South.
Agnello, Giuseppe. "1/archtiettura religiosa mitlitare e civile

dell'et& normanna," ASP. 12 (1959), 159-96.
---------- . "Una chiesa cistercense di Sicilia: S. Nicold di

Agrigento," in Scritti di storia dell'arte in onore di Mario
Salmi. Rome, 1961, 309-23.
---------- . "Aspetti ignorati dell'attivita edilizia

ferdericiana in Sicilia," in Studi medievali, 8. Palermo,
1956, 1-14.
---------- . "Aspetti della scultura normanna in Sicilia," in

ACISR. vol. 1, 295-301.
Arata, Giulio. L'architettura arabo-normanna e il rinascimento

in Sicilia. Milan, 1925.
---------- . Architettura medioevale in Sicilia. Novara, 1942.
Avena, A. I monumenti dell'Italia meridionale. Rome, 1902.
Basile, Francesco. L'architettura della Sicilia normanna.

Catania, Caltanissetta, and Rome, 1975.
---------- . Chiese siciliane del periodo Normanno. I Monumenti

Italiani, 15. Rome, 1938.
---------- . Nuove ricerche sull'architettura del periodo

normanno in Sicilia," Atti del Conqresso Nazionale di Storia
dell'Architettura. 7 (1952), 257-66.
Beck, Ingamar. "The Sicilian Dilemma. The Clash between

Byzantine Mosaic Decoration and Arab Architectural
Tradition," Actes du XlVe Conqr6s intenational des 6tudes
bvzantines. 3, Bucharest, 1976, 285-7.
Bellafiore, Giuseppe. Architettura in Sicilia nelle etd islamica

e normanna (827-1194). Palermo and Siracusa, 1990.
---------- . La civilt^ artistica della Sicilia. Florence, 1963.
---------- . La cattedrale di Palermo. Palermo, 1976.
---------- . La Zisa di Palermo. Palermo, 1978.
Belli D'Elia, Pina et al. l£ Puglia fra Bisanzio e, 1'Occidente.

Milan, 1980.
Benedetto, Rocco. "I mosaici delle chiese normanne in Sicilia.

Squardo teologico, biblico, liturgico," Ho Theoloqos, 11-12
(1976), 122-72; 17 (1978), 9-68.
Bertaux, Emile. L'Art dans 1'Italie meridionale. Paris, 1904.
321
Bologna, Ferdinando. II soffitto della Sala Magna all Steri di
Palermo e, ,1a cult nr a feudale siciliana nellfautunno del
Medioevo. Palermo, 1975.
Bottari, Stefano. "L'architettura della Contea. Studi sulla

prima architettura del periodo normanno nell'Italia
meridionale e in Sicilia," SicGvm. n.s. 1/1 (Jan.-June
1948), 1-33.
---------- . "L'architettura del medioevo in Siclia," Atti del

Conqresso di Storia dell'Architettura. 7 (1956), 109-51.
---------- . "Chiese basiliane della Sicilia e della Calabria,"

Bollettino Storico Messinese. 1 (1936-38), 1-51.
---------- . La cultura fiqurativa in Sicila. Messina, 1954.
---------- . II duomo di Messina. Messina, 1927.
---------- . Forza d'Aqrd. Messina, 1928.
---------- . "La genesi dell'architettura siciliana del periodo

normanno," ASSO, 28 (1932), 320-37.
---------- . Monumenti svevi di Sicilia. Catania, 1950; rpt. ed.

by G. Frazzetto, 1984.
---------- . Mosaici bizantina della Sicilia. Milan, 1963.
---------- . I mosaici della Sicilia. Catania, 1943.
---------- . "Nota sul tempio normanno dei SS. Pietro e Paolo di

Agrd," ASM, 26-7 (1925-6), 281-90.
---------- . "I Rapporti tra l'architettura siciliana e quella

Campania del Medioevo," Palladio, n.s. 5 (Jan.-June 1955),
7-28.
---------- , ed. Tesori d'arte cristiana. Bologna, 1966.
Bozzoni, Corrado. Calabria normanna. Ricerche sull'architettura

dei secoli undicesimo e dodicesimo. Rome, 1974.
Cagiano de Azevedo, Michelangelo. "Policromia e polimateria

nelle opere d'arte della tarda antichiti e dell' alto Medio
Evo," in CCARB, 17. Ravenna, 1970, 99-102.
Calandra, Enrico. Breve storia della architettura in Sicilia.

Bari, 1938.
---------- • "Chiese siciliane del periodo normanno," Palladio. 5

(1941), 232-9.
Canale, Cleofe Giovanni. "Aspetti della cultura architettonica

religiosa del Sec. XI in Sicilia e in Calabria," Cronache
322
di archeoloqia e di storia dell'arte. 6. Catania, 1967, 92-
106.
---------- . "Chiese monastiche basiliane del periodo normanno in

Sicilia e Calabria," in ACIBC. vol. 2, 869-76.
---------- . La Cattedrale di Troina. Palermo, 1951.
---------- . La decoratizione plactica nell' architettura tardo-

romanica della Sicilia orientale. Collona di saggi e
monographie, n.s. 16. Palermo, n.d.
---------- . Strutture architettoniche normanne in Sicilia.

Palermo, 1959.
Caronia, Giuseppe. La Zisa di Palermo. Storia e, restauro. Rome

and Bari, 1982.
Cassata, Giovanella; Costantino, Gabriella; Santoro, Rodo.

Sicile Roman. Zodiaque series no. 65. La-Pierr-qui-Vire
(Yonne), 1986.
Ciotta, Gianluigi. "Aspetti del cultura architettonica normanna

in Valdemone durante il periodo della Conquista e della
Contea (1061-1130)," in Ouaderini dell'Istituto di Storia
dell'Architettura di Rome. Rome, 1977, 3-26.
---------- . "Le fabbriche 'basiliane' fondate nella zona nord-

orientale del Valdemone durante il periodo normanno della
contea," in ACIBC. vol. 2, 825-44.
Conant, Kenneth J. and Willard, Henry M. "Early Examples of the

Pointed Arch and Vault in Romanesque Architecture," Viator,
2 (1971), pp. 203-09, with 12 figs.
Cuccia, Sofia. I Baqni arabi di Cefali Diana. Catania, 1965.
6ur£id, Slobodan. "Some Palatial Aspects of the Cappella

Palatina in Palermo," POP, no. 41 (1987), 125-44.
Cutrera, Antonino. "La chiesa normanna dei Santi Pietro e Paolo

di Aqr6." L'Arte. 30 (1927), 227-36.
De6r, Josef. The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the Norman Period in

Sicily, Dumbarton Oaks Studies no. 5. Cambridge, Mass.,
1959.
Demus, Otto. Bvzantine Art and the West. New York, 1970.
---------- . The Mosaics of Norman Sicily. London, 1949.
Di Giovanni, V. La topocrraphia antica di Palermo, 2 vols.

Palermo, 1889-90.
Di Stefano, Guido. I-'architeturra qotico-sveva in Sicilia.

Palermo, 1935.
323
---------- . "L'architettura religiosa in Sicilia nel sec. XIII,
ASS. 4-5 (1938-9), 39-81.
---------- . "Monumenti ed aspetti della tutela monumentale in

Sicilia," ASS. 8 (1958), 342-69.
---------- . Monumenti della Sicilia normanna. Palermo, 1955;

2nd ed. revised by W. Kronig, 1979.
Di Vita, Antonino. rAppunti sulla abbazia di Santo Spirito

presso Caltanissetta," SicGvm. n.s. 2/1 (Jan.-June 1949),
106-115.
Diehl, Charles. L'Art dans 1'Italie mdridionale. Paris, 1894.
---------- . "Chiese bizantine e normanne in Calabria," ASCL, 1

(1931), 141-50.
---------- . Palerme et Syracuse. Paris, 1907, and later

reprints.
D'Onofrio, Mario. La Cattedrale di Caserta Vecchia. Rome, 1974
D'Onofrio, Mario and Pace, Valentino. Campanie Romane, Zodiaque

series no. 56. La-Pierre-qui-Vire, 1981.
Filangeri, Camillo, ed. Monasteri basiliani di Sicilia.

Messina, 1979.
Fragale, G. San Filippo di Fraqal&. Palermo, 1929.
Frothingham, A.L., Jr. "Notes on Byzantine Art and Culture in

Italy and Especially in Rome," AJA, 10 (1895), 152-208.
Gaily Knight, Henry. The Normans in Sicily, Being a. Sequel to

"An Architecutural Tour in Normandy." London, 1838.
---------- . Saracenic and Norman Remains to Illustrate "The

Normans in Sicily." London, 1840.
Garzya Romano, Chiara. La Basilicata, La Calabria, Italia

romanica, vol. 9. St. Ldger and Milan, 1988.
Giacomazzi, G. II palazzo che fu dei re. Divaqazione storico-

artistica sul palazzo dei normanni. Palermo, 1959.
Glass, Dorothy F. Italian Romanesque Sculpture: An Annotated

Bibliography. Boston, 1983.
---------- . "Romanesque Sculpture in Campania and Sicily: A

Problem of Method," The Art Bulletin. 56 (1974), 315-24.
---------- . "Sicily and Campania: The Twelfth-Century

Renaissance," Acta, vol. 2, The Twelfth Century.
Binghamton, 1975, 130-46.
324
Goldschmidt, Adolf. "Die normannischen Konigspalaste in
Palermo," Zeitschrift fur Bauwesen. 48 (1898), 541-90.
Guitto, M. "La chiesa di S. Maria Maddalena in Palermo,"

Bollettino d'arte. 34 (1949), 361-7.
---------- . II palazzo ex-reale di Palermo. Recenti restauri e,

retrovamenti. Palermo, 1947.
Helliot, Pierre. "La catnedraie de Cefalu, sa chronologie, sa

filation et les Galeries murales dans les £glises romanes du
midi," Arte lombarda. 10 (1965), 19-38. „
Kalby, Luigi G. Tarsie ed archi intrecciati nel Romanico

meridionale. Salerno, 1971.
Kick, Friedrich. Die Baukunst in Sizilien. I . Teil. Die

Griechische. Romische. Bvzantinische, Arabische und
Normannische Baukunst. Vienna, n.d.
Kitzinger, Ernst. "The Arts as Aspects of a Renaissance. Rome

and Italy," in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth
Century, ed. R.L. Benson and G. Constable. Cambridge,
Mass., 1982, 637-70.
---------- . "The Date of Philagathus's Homily for the Feast of

Sts. Peter and Paul," in 3vzantino-Sicula, vol. 2,
Miscellanea di scritti in memeoria d i . Giuseppe Rossi
Taibbi. Palermo, 1975, 301-6.
---------- . "The Mosaic Fragments in the Torre Pisana of the

Royal Palace in Palermo: A Preliminary Study," in Mosaique.
Recuell d'hommaqe & Henri Stern. Paris, 1983, 239-43.
---------- . I mosaici di Monreale. Palermo, 1960.
---------- . "The Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo: An

Essay on the Choice and Arrangement of Subjects," The Art
Bulletin. 31 (1949), 269-92; rpt. in idem, The Art of
Byzantium and the Medieval West, ed. W.E. Kleinbauer.
Bloomington, Ind. and London, 1976, 290-314, with a
postscript, p. 394.
---------- . The Mosaics of St. Mary's of the Admiral in Palermo,

Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 27. Washington, 1990.
---------- . "Norman Sicily as a Source of Byzantine Influence on

Western Art in the Twelfth Century, in Bvzantine Art, An
European Art. Lectures. Athens, 1966, 123-47.
---------- . "On the Portrait of Roger II in the Martorana in

Palermo," Proporzioni. 3 (1950), 30-55; rpt. in idem, The
Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West, ed; W.E. Kleinbauer.
Bloomington, Ind. and London, 1976, 320-6.
325
Kronig, Wolfgang. _I1 castello di Coronia in Sicilia. Un
complesso normanno del XII secolo. Rome, 1977.
---------- . Cefalu der Sizilische Normannendom. Kassel, 1963.
---------- . .11 duomo di Monreale e, 1' architettura normanna in

Sicilia. Palermo, 1965.
---------- . "II palazzo reale normanno della Zisa," Commentari,

26 (1975), 229-47.
Lojacono, Pietro. "La chiesa abbaziale dei Santi Pietro e Paolo

a Casalvecchio Siculo sul Torrente Agrd (Messina)," in
Hommages k Marcel Renard. vol. 3, ed. J. Bibauw. Brussels,
1969, 379-96.
---------- . "II restauro della chiesa die SS. Pietro e Paolo a

Casalvecchio Siculo," Tecnica e ricostruzione, 15 (1960),
159-169.
---------- . "La Cuba presso Castiglione di Sicilia," Tecnica e

ricostruzione 15 (1960), 55ff.; rpt. in idem Archeoloqia.
Problemi. ricerche. scoperte. 1,9 (1962), 13-17.
Martelli, Gisberto. "Chiese monumentali di Calabria," Napoli

Nobilissima. 10 (1956), 33-40.
---------- . "Influssi campani nell'architettura del sec. XII in

Calabria," ACNSA (Caserta, 12-15 October 1953). Rome, 1956.
293-300.
Mauceri, E. "L'abbazia di Mili," L'Arte cristiana. 10/1 (1922),

14-7.
Minuto, Domenico and Venoso, S. Chiesette medievali calabresi a

navata unica (Studio icnoqrafico e. strutturale). Cosenza,
1985.
Nercessian, Nora. "The Cappella Palatina of Roger II. The

Relationship of Its Imagery to Its Political Function,"
Diss. University of California at Los Angeles 1981.
Orsi, Paolo. Le chiese basiliane di Calabria. Florence, 1907.
Particolo, G. "La chiesa di S. Maria dell'Ammiraglio e le sue

adiacenze," ASS. 2 (1877), 137-71; 3 (1878), 399-406.
Perogalli, Carlo. Architettura dell'Altomedioevo occidentale

dall'etA paleocristiana alia romanica. Milan, 1974.
Pratesi, Lorenza Cochetti. "In margine ad alcuni recenti studi

sulla scultura medievale nell'Italia meridionale. III. Sui
rapporti tra la scultura campana e quella siciliana,"
Commentari. 21 (1970), 255-90.
Russo, Lia. La Martorana. Palermo. 1968.
326
Ryolo, Domenico. "I bagni di C e f a i y , " Sicilia Archeoloqica.
4/15 (1971), 19-32.
---------- . "Monumenti inesplorati del periodo medioevale in

provincia di Messina," Atti del VII Conqresso Nazionale di
Storia dell'Architettura (Palermo, 1950). (1956), 283-6.
Salazaro, D. Studi sui monumenti dell'Italia meridionale dal IV

al XIII secolo. Naples, 1871-5.
Salvini, Roberto. .11 chiostro di Monreale e. la scultura romanica

in Sicilia. Palermo, 1962.
---------- . "Monuments of Norman Art in Sicily and Southern

Italy," in The Normans of Sicily and Southern Italy.
Oxford, 1977, 64-92.
---------- . Mosaici medievale in Sicilia. Florence, 1949.
Santoro, R. "Strutture e speciality di S. Maria dell'Armmiraglio

nella forma architettonica," Oriente christiano, 17/2
(1977), 5-32.
Schmidt, Anna Maria. "La chiesa normanna di S. Maria di Rifesi

presso Burgio," Bollettino d'arte. 60 (1975), 106-14.
Schwarz, Heinrich M. "Die Baukunst Kanlabirens und Siziliens im

Zeitalter der Normannen, I: Die lateinischen
Kirchengriindungen des 11. Jahrhunderts un der Dom in
Cefalii," Romisches Jahrbuch fur Kunstsqeschichte, 6 (1942-4;
publ. 1946), 1-112.
Scuderi, V. "Contributo all stori dell'architettura normanna in

Val di Mazara," ACISR. vol. 1, 317-25.
Signorino, Antonina Mondello. "Insediamenti basiliani nel

messinese," in ACIBC. vol. 2, 1983, 845-67.
Thieme, Thomas and Beck, Ingemaj. La Cattedrale normanna di

Cefalu. Pn frammento della civilty socio-politica della
Sicilia medioevale. Analecta Romana Istituti Danici 7,
Supplementum 68. Odense, 1977.
Toesca, Pietro. Storia dellfarte italiana. vol. 2, II. Medioevo.

Turin, 1927.
Trizzino, Lucio. SS. Trinity all Zisa. Proqetto di restauro.

Palermo, 1979.
Vagnetti, Luigi. "Carateristiche dei materiali lapidei

nell'architettura dell'area palermitana," Palladio, n.s.
18/1-4 (Jan.-Dec. 1968), 193-202.
Valenti, Francesco. "L'arte nell'era normanna," in II regno

normanno. vol. 2. Messina, 1932, 197-251.
327
---------- . "II Palazzo reale di Palermo," Bollettino d'arte, 4
(1924-5), 512-28.
Valenziano, Crispino and Valenziano, M. La Basilica Cattedrale

di Cefalti nel periodo normanno. Palermo, 1979.
328
VITA'
Charles Edward Nicklies
Date of Birth: October 26, 1959.
Place of Birth: Louisville, Kentucky.
Education: Ph.D. in Art History, School of Art and Design,

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
January, 1991. Major: Western Medieval Art and
Architecture. Minor: Byzantine Art and
Architecture.
Master of Arts in Art History, School of Art and

Design, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
1986. Major: Medieval Art and Architecture.
Minor: Northern Renaissance Art. Master's paper
"Cosmology and the Labors of the Months at
Piacenza: The Crypt Mosaic of San Savino."
Bachelor of Architecture, College of

Architecture, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
1982. Minor: Art History.
Employment: Visiting Assistant Professor in Art History,

Department of Art, Wheaton College, Norton,
Massachusetts, 1991-92.
Excavation Architect, Princeton Archaeological

Expedition, Polis, Cyprus, 1988-90.
Awards and
Honors: Dumbarton Oaks Junior Fellowship, Center for
Byzantine Studies, Washington D.C., 1990-91.
Rexford Newcomb Award, School of Architecture,

University of Illinois, 1989.
Tau Sigma Delta Honorary Architecture Fraternity

University of Kentucky, 1981.
329

Nicklies C.E. The Architecture of The Church

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nicklies C.E. The Architecture of The Church

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Fhotographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

University Microfilms International

The architecture o f the church o f SS. P ietro e Paolo d ’Agro,

Nicklies, Charles Edwaxd, Ph.D.

Copyright ©1992 by Nicklies, Charles Edward. All rights reserved.

CHARLES EDWARD NICKLIES

B.Arch., University of Kentucky, 1982

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

THE GRADUATE COLLEGE

W E HEREBY RECOMMEND TH AT TH E TH ESIS BY

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CHARLES EDWARD NICKLIES_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

f m t t t t f h THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE CHURCH OF SS. PIETRO

E PAOLO D'AGRO, SICILY

BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FU L FIL LM E N T OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR

D ire c to r o f Thesis Research

H ead of D epartm ent

Committee on Final Examination!

• Required for doctor’s degree but not for m aster’s.

Charles Edward Nicklies

All Rights Reserved

The church of SS. Pietro e Paolo d'Agro, Sicily, located

some fifty kilometers south of Messina, constitutes one of the

most sophisticated and coherent works of architecture to emerge

from the Norman rule of the island. Constructed as part of a

Basilian monastery, the church is modest in scale with attenuated

proportions, measuring approximately 11 meters in width, 20

meters in length, and 17 meters in height from the floor to the

crest of the major dome. Although the building was clearly

constructed in the twelfth century, a precise date has not been

An analysis of the building's planning, structural

solutions, and decorative features reveals not only the richness

of the design but also a mixed architectural heritage,

attributable to Sicily's heterogeneous population, comprised of

Muslims, Byzantines, and Normans. The exterior volumes at Agrd

assume a rather block-like massing, similar to the Islamic

architecture of North Africa; however, the facades are decorated

with a diversity of materials and patterns, reflecting a wide

variety of influences. Similarly, the interior space exhibits

remarkable diversity. The simplicity of a three-aisled basilican

plan is modified by the interjection of two tall domes along the

building's central axis— one positioned over the central bay of

of domes corresponds to several Middle Byzantine church plans.

The interior also demonstrates some ambiguity in detailing. The

structural logic of Gothic architecture may be seen in the use of

such as honeycomb vaulting below the two domes. In the final

analysis, the success of SS. Pietro e Paolo emanates from its

unified synthesis of these diverse features. This unity of

design was unparalleled in Norman-Sicilian architecture.

However, the church is also of extreme importance because of

the survival of several unique features and details. For

instance, the handling of several specific feature of SS. Pietro

e Paolo— and in particular the muqarnas vaulting— may reflect an

indigenous tradition of building that have otherwise vanished.

In this regard, the mugarnas of Agr6 assumes a significance that

reaches beyond Sicily, and into development of the Muslim

architecture of the West.

In many ways, SS. Pietro e Paolo marks the climax of the

architectural achievement in Sicily under the Normans, and the

relationship of the church to Western, Byzantine, and Islamic