The main gate of the abbey of Montecassino is still an unsolved puzzle. It is a collection of different parts, by origin and date, and is the result - as often happens - of renovations, restorations and additions. The door is made of two panels with dedicatory inscriptions, recalling the date 1066 and the name of the person who paid for the work, Mauro de comite Maurone acting on the will of the powerful abbot Desiderius; traditional panels with crosses, constant of the Byzantine doors arrived in Italy between the eleventh and twelfth centuries; other panels with silver inlaid figures (‘agemina’), representing patriarchs and apostles, inverted and reused, along with new panels, from the artisans at work for Oderisio II, abbot from 1123 to 1126, to him we owe the idea of the door as we see it today, that is a monumental written document on bronze (in fact, the panels show the list of the possessions of the abbey of Monte Cassino); and finally restoration panels with inscriptions simply engraved and not with silver inlaid. This paper aims to analyze the version of Desiderius door of Monte Cassino (impossible, however, reconstruct the original iconographic program), which undoubtedly belong to the dedicatory panels and those with crosses (except for additions). More complex is the analysis of figurative panels, around these has been developed over the years a lively critical debate: for some experts they would be part of the door commissioned by Desiderius and made in Constantinople, after the admiration (“cum valde placuissent oculis eius”) caused by the sight of the door of the cathedral of Amalfi, which had been produced in the Byzantine capital and donated by his son Pantaleone di Mauro; according to others, the panels would be part of the door of the church of St. Martin in the abbey, commissioned by Desiderius but probably made by local craftsmen. Indeed, the group has inside inhomogeneity of style and technique. The panels can be split into two distinct groups from the point of view of the style: one hand, the patriarchs, classical in approach, represented by massive figures, plastically designed and covered by large drapery; the other, apostles that in the faces, in the low foreheads, in hair, resembling Monte Cassino typology. With regard to the technique, the Old Testament figures reveal expert hands in the use of ‘agemina’, the apostles, on the contrary, show an apparent experimental craft. A further contribution may come from paleographic analysis, although it has so far produced ambiguous readings. Can we found a compromise solution between the different critical positions? If we answer in the affirmative, the question could be answered as follows: panels with the patriarchs constitute hidden ‘relics’ of the Byzantine door commissioned by abbot Desiderius, panels with the apostles belong to the bronze door of the church of St. Martin. Several, however, are the objections to this hypothesis: the reader will read in part, to him, then, the task of finding new ones and to find further solutions. The puzzle around the Byzantine door of Monte Cassino remains, once again, unresolved.

La porta principale della chiesa abbaziale di Montecassino costituisce a tutt’oggi un enigma irrisolto. Essa è un insieme di parti diverse, per provenienza e datazione, ed è il risultato – come spesso accade - di rifacimenti, restauri e integrazioni. I due battenti sono costituiti da: due formelle con iscrizioni dedicatorie, che ricordano la data 1066 e il nome di colui che pagò l’opera, Mauro de comite Maurone che agiva per volontà del potente abate Desiderio; pannelli con le tradizionali croci rapportate, costante delle porte bizantine arrivate in Italia tra XI e XII secolo; altri pannelli figurati ad agemina con patriarchi e apostoli, rovesciati e riutilizzati, assieme a nuove formelle, dagli artigiani a lavoro per Oderisio II, abate dal 1123 al 1126 – a quest’ultimo dobbiamo l’idea della porta come la vediamo oggi, cioè un monumentale documento iscritto sul bronzo (i pannelli riportano infatti l’elenco dei possedimenti dell’abbazia cassinese) –; infine formelle di restauro con iscrizioni semplicemente incise e non in agemina. Questo contributo si propone di analizzare la versione “desideriana” della porta di Montecassino (impossibile, però, ricostruirne il programma iconografico originario), a cui indubbiamente appartengono i pannelli dedicatori e quelli con le croci rapportate (salvo integrazioni). Più complessa è l’analisi delle formelle figurate, intorno all’inquadramento delle quali si è sviluppato negli anni un vivace dibattito critico: per alcuni studiosi esse farebbero parte della porta commissionata a Costantinopoli da Desiderio, dopo l’ammirazione (“cum valde placuissent oculis eius”) causata dalla visione della porta della cattedrale di Amalfi che era stata prodotta nella capitale bizantina e donata da Pantaleone figlio di Mauro; secondo altri, le formelle avrebbero fatto parte invece dei battenti della chiesa cassinese di S. Martino, voluti da Desiderio ma realizzati probabilmente da maestranze locali. Invero il nucleo presenta al suo interno disomogeneità stilistica e tecnica. I pannelli possono dividersi in due gruppi piuttosto distinti dal punto di vista dello stile: da una parte i patriarchi, classici nella loro impostazione, rappresentati da figure massicce, plasticamente intese e ricoperte da ampi panneggi; dall’altra gli apostoli che nei volti, nelle fronti basse, nelle capigliature, ricordano tipologie cassinesi. Per quanto riguarda la tecnica, le figure veterotestamentarie rivelano mani esperte nell’uso dell’agemina, gli apostoli, al contrario, mostrano un’apparente sperimentazione artigianale. Un ulteriore contributo potrebbe venire dall’analisi paleografica – la cui competenza è estranea a chi scrive –, benché essa abbia sinora prodotto letture contrastanti e sia stata utilizzata vuoi per avvalorare un’interpretazione vuoi per criticarla. Si deve e si può, allora, cercare la soluzione in un compromesso tra le diverse posizioni critiche? Se rispondiamo affermativamente, la questione potrebbe essere così risolta: i pannelli con i patriarchi costituirebbero “reliquie” celate della porta bizantina commissionata dall’abate Desiderio, quelli con i personaggi neotestamentari apparterrebbero alla porta bronzea della chiesa di S. Martino. Varie però sono le obiezioni a detta ipotesi: il lettore potrà in parte leggerle nell’articolo, a lui, poi, l’eventuale compito di trovarne altre e di cercare ulteriori soluzioni. L’enigma intorno alla porta cassinese di Desiderio rimane, ancora una volta, irrisolto.

Cum valde placuissent oculis eius...: i battenti di Amalfi e Montecassino, 2009.

Cum valde placuissent oculis eius...: i battenti di Amalfi e Montecassino

Moretti, Simona
2009-01-01

Abstract

The main gate of the abbey of Montecassino is still an unsolved puzzle. It is a collection of different parts, by origin and date, and is the result - as often happens - of renovations, restorations and additions. The door is made of two panels with dedicatory inscriptions, recalling the date 1066 and the name of the person who paid for the work, Mauro de comite Maurone acting on the will of the powerful abbot Desiderius; traditional panels with crosses, constant of the Byzantine doors arrived in Italy between the eleventh and twelfth centuries; other panels with silver inlaid figures (‘agemina’), representing patriarchs and apostles, inverted and reused, along with new panels, from the artisans at work for Oderisio II, abbot from 1123 to 1126, to him we owe the idea of the door as we see it today, that is a monumental written document on bronze (in fact, the panels show the list of the possessions of the abbey of Monte Cassino); and finally restoration panels with inscriptions simply engraved and not with silver inlaid. This paper aims to analyze the version of Desiderius door of Monte Cassino (impossible, however, reconstruct the original iconographic program), which undoubtedly belong to the dedicatory panels and those with crosses (except for additions). More complex is the analysis of figurative panels, around these has been developed over the years a lively critical debate: for some experts they would be part of the door commissioned by Desiderius and made in Constantinople, after the admiration (“cum valde placuissent oculis eius”) caused by the sight of the door of the cathedral of Amalfi, which had been produced in the Byzantine capital and donated by his son Pantaleone di Mauro; according to others, the panels would be part of the door of the church of St. Martin in the abbey, commissioned by Desiderius but probably made by local craftsmen. Indeed, the group has inside inhomogeneity of style and technique. The panels can be split into two distinct groups from the point of view of the style: one hand, the patriarchs, classical in approach, represented by massive figures, plastically designed and covered by large drapery; the other, apostles that in the faces, in the low foreheads, in hair, resembling Monte Cassino typology. With regard to the technique, the Old Testament figures reveal expert hands in the use of ‘agemina’, the apostles, on the contrary, show an apparent experimental craft. A further contribution may come from paleographic analysis, although it has so far produced ambiguous readings. Can we found a compromise solution between the different critical positions? If we answer in the affirmative, the question could be answered as follows: panels with the patriarchs constitute hidden ‘relics’ of the Byzantine door commissioned by abbot Desiderius, panels with the apostles belong to the bronze door of the church of St. Martin. Several, however, are the objections to this hypothesis: the reader will read in part, to him, then, the task of finding new ones and to find further solutions. The puzzle around the Byzantine door of Monte Cassino remains, once again, unresolved.
Italiano
2009
Le porte del Paradiso: arte e tecnologia bizantina tra Italia e Mediterraneo, 11.-12. secolo
Roma
2006
internazionale
su invito
Le porte del paradiso : arte e tecnologia bizantina tra Italia e Mediterraneo
Iacobini, Antonio
159
180
22
978-88-88168-43-2
Italy
Roma
comitato scientifico
A stampa
Settore L-ART/01 - Storia dell'Arte Medievale
1
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10808/2253
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact