I left Milan on the 24th of October, with some very pleasant company. One of them was Sig. Brocchi, a celebrated mineralogist, whose knowledge appeared to be general, and to embrace every subject on which the conversation turned. We stopped at Brescia, where I just ran into the theatre. It is exceedingly beautiful, and I regretted the want of time to examine it. The following day we continued our route, which lies for about eight miles along the broad end of the Lago di Guarda, commanding views of that noble piece of water; but the weather was hazy, and clouds hung about the mountains. We reached Verona at about four, where my first visit was to the church of Sta. Anastasia; but here, among so many classic antiquities, I cannot begin with a description of the Gothic; though to confess the truth, none of the fragments of Roman art can claim much merit on the score of beauty. The first object is the amphitheatre; still an immense pile, although almost all the external circuit has been destroyed. It is supposed to have been built after the death of Titus; because it seems improbable that so great a work should be undertaken in a provincial city, before one of the same sort had been erected at Rome; and before that of Trajan, from the account which the younger Pliny has left us of some shews exhibited at Verona: that is, between 81 and 117 of our era. In the thirteenth century it was used as a place for judicial combats; and it is recorded of some of the Visconti, that they received twenty-five Venetian lire for every duel fought there. As early as 1228 we find that its preservation had become an object of public attention, as the PodestÀ engages to spend five hundred lire in its restoration. In 1475 penalties were decreed against any one who should remove any of the stone. In 1545 a special officer was appointed to take care of it. In 1568 a voluntary contribution was raised for its support, and in 1579 a tax was imposed for its reparation. Other decrees in its favour have been since made; yet notwithstanding this continued care, only four arches remain of the seventy-two originally composing the exterior circuit, and a large portion of the steps on the inside were taken away; but the latter have lately been restored. The following dimensions are in Veronese feet, each of which is equal to thirteen English inches and two thirds:

The second circuit of this building remains almost entire. The arches of the lower range are converted into little shops, over which shed roofs project from the upper tier. Internally, the seats continue nearly in one slope from top to bottom, nor is there any evidence that they were divided by precinctions;^[32] for though this part is described by Vitruvius as essential to a theatre, it is certain that it was not always adopted either in them, or in the amphitheatres. Immediately above the podium, however, is a wide space, which, though never called by that name, is precisely of the nature of a precinction, and the sixth step from this is very narrow, and as it could not be used as a seat, the back of the step immediately below, would become a means of communication: it is uncertain however, whether this is any thing more than a bungling restoration. The steps now existing are forty-three, each on an average, as nearly as I could determine it, sixteen inches high, and twenty-eight wide, and sloping two inches from back to front. I will not undertake to say, that this latter circumstance arises from any thing but the settlement of the work; yet I think, from the few ancient steps which remain, that these were originally laid with a small slope, to throw off the rain water. The part which still exists of the outer circuit of the amphitheatre, is unconnected with the steps, and at the upper part, is entirely detached from the rest of the fabric; so that if we have therefore no direct proof of the existence of a wooden gallery, there is at least no evidence against it. The building is much larger than that at Nismes, but to me less interesting, from the greater destruction of the outside, and the nearly entire state of the inside; the decay of which at Nismes exposes to view the intricacies of the interior construction. It is still used, for I saw there an exhibition of horses and horsemanship, of dancing on the tight rope, and of dancing dogs.

From the amphitheatre I went to an ancient gateway of two arches. The Romans seem generally to have formed in this way the entrance to their cities, probably that the carriages entering and going out might not interfere with each other. Each arch has its own pediment, and over these are two stories of building, with windows and pilasters whimsically disposed, and without any correspondence with the gateways below, except that they occupy the same extent. An inscription seems to attribute it to Gallienus; but the Veronese antiquaries say that the style is too good for that period, and that there are traces of a more ancient inscription, which has been erased to make room for that which at present exists. The same words are repeated over each gateway. There is another arch in somewhat better style, which also appears to have made part of a double gateway, and as its situation proves that it could not have been an entrance into the city, it is supposed to have appertained to the forum. The arch of the Gavii seems to have been a triumphal, or perhaps a sepulchral arch; and we are told of some other fragments of the same sort, but they are now destroyed, or so much degraded, as hardly to claim the attention of a passing traveller. There are also vestiges of a Roman bridge, and there is another bridge, ‘Ponte del Castel Vecchio,’ built in 1354. It is remarkable for a large arch forming a portion of a circle, whose chord is 161 feet; it appears firm, but is shut up for fear of an accident.

I now return to the church of Sta. Anastasia, which, if the front were finished, would probably be the most perfect specimen in existence of the style of architecture to which it belongs. It was built at the beginning of the thirteenth century by the Dominicans. The front was to have been enriched with bas-reliefs, but this work has been only begun. The inside consists of a nave of six arches with side aisles. The transept is scarcely wider than one division of the vault, and consequently does not strikingly interrupt the series of arches; and beyond this is a choir, consisting only of one bay, without aisles, and a semicircular recess. The transept is short; and in the angle between that and the choir is a square tower, terminating in an octagonal spire. All the arches and vaultings are obtusely pointed. The springing of the middle vault hardly exceeds the points of the arches into the aisles; and the windows of the clerestory are circular and very small. In the cathedral of Milan, the width from centre to centre of each pier, measured along the church, is just half the width of the nave, measured also from centre to centre; and this may perhaps be considered as the general arrangement of a Gothic building. In some of our own churches, the proportional width of the side arch is still less. But in this edifice, the first dimension is seven-eighths of the second. This circumstance, in connexion with the little windows of the clerestory, and the want of height above the side arches, impresses upon the structure a character totally different from any thing we have; but it forms a very fine composition, and one which makes the building appear larger than it is; though it is by no means a small church, being about 75 feet wide, and 300 feet long.

The cathedral is another edifice of the same sort, the erection of which is attributed to the twelfth century. A council was held in it in 1185, and it was consecrated by Pope Urban III. in 1187. There are nevertheless several circumstances, which would have induced me to suppose it posterior to Sta. Anastasia. Externally, however, the Duomo is ornamented with simple, and Sta. Anastasia with intersecting little arches, which perhaps, on the whole, is as good a guide as we have in the dates of this style. Four columns, supporting two arches, one above the other, and the lower columns themselves resting on griffins, form the porch. This mode of supporting columns seems to have been common in Italy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. On the sides of the door are some curious bas-reliefs, representing Orlando and Olivier. Maffei observes of them, that the armour is precisely the same as that, which according to Livy, was used by the ancient Samnites. Internally, the arrangement is nearly the same as at Sta. Anastasia; but it is shorter in proportion to the width, and not so high, and the side aisles are wider. The piers are very slender and clustered, with fillets down the middle of the shafts. The capitals are large, both at the springing of the side arches, and of that of the vault; the bases preserve the members of the Greek Attic with some peculiar modifications, but without the deepened scotia, which we see so frequently in the latter productions of our early Gothic. In beauty this church is much inferior to Sta. Anastasia. The cloister attached to it has two ranges of arches in the height of the gallery; each arch rests on a pair of columns, and each pair is of a single stone, the capitals and bases being united. Adjoining is a fragment of what is said to have been a church before the erection of the present cathedral. It is merely a rectangular room, with a groined vault, supported on columns.

The most interesting example at Verona to the antiquary, as a specimen of the architecture of the depth of the middle ages, is the church of S. Zeno. It is a most curious edifice, both externally and internally. Tradition assigns the erection of it to Pepin, father of Charlemagne; but if he begun he did not terminate it, for we find that in the tenth century, an emperor, (perhaps Otho II.) on leaving Verona, left a sum of money for its completion. In 1045, the Abbot Alberigo began the tower, which was finished in 1178; and meanwhile (in 1138), the church itself was restored and aggrandized. The front may be cited as a good example of the early architecture of this part of Italy; the general idea is that of a lofty gable, with a leanto on each side, which being the natural result of the construction is, if well proportioned, a pleasing form. The entrance is flanked on each side by a column resting on the back of a lion, and these columns support an arch, which springs some feet above the top of the capitals. There are sculptures on each side, as there are in the cathedral, but these are principally taken from Bible histories. Six of those on the left hand represent the creation, and the fall of man; on the two lower a chase is sculptured. The feet of the hunter are placed in stirrups; and this, according to Maffei, is the most ancient piece of sculpture in which they are exhibited. Some lines underneath designate him as Theodoric, and according to the vulgar notion, the infernal spirits furnished him with dogs and horses. Has this arisen from his being an Arian? On the other side are eight bas-reliefs from the New Testament, and over the doorway there are others, which seem to relate to S. Zeno. Besides these, the twelve months of the year are represented, beginning with March. All the figures are rudely sculptured; but the arabesques which enrich the divisions of the different compartments, are beautifully designed, and not ill executed. The knowledge and skill requisite for these, is much less than that required for figures, and the merit of the design is probably to be attributed to the artist having copied from some ancient specimens. The doors also are covered with scripture histories in bronze, in forty-eight panels; curious, as early specimens of art, but not pretending to any beauty. Immediately above the arch of the porch is a hand with the fore and middle fingers extended, and the two others bent, in the act of the Latin benediction. It is said, that in the early ages, before the artists thought of making him an old man supported on cherubim, the Almighty was always indicated in this way. Above the porch is a wheel window, which interrupts the lines of the rest of the architecture; but from the simplicity of its ornaments, I am inclined to believe it part of the original structure. It is a wheel of Fortune, with ascending and descending figures. Maffei gives the inscriptions:

This is on the external circumference; within is

The whole faÇade, when free from other decorations, has slender upright ribs, terminating in a capital, and three small arches in each interval between the ribs; in the middle, these are divided into several stories; those on the sides continue from near the ground to the slope of the roof.

On entering the building, we descend by a flight of ten steps into the nave, to ascend again to the choir, or rather presbytery, for there is no transept to divide it from the nave, and the proper choir is merely a deep vaulted recess at the end of the building. The nave is high, with low side aisles, the arches of which are semicircular. They are in pairs, being supported alternately on columns and piers, from the latter of which ribs ascend to support the roof of the nave; and over each pair of arches is one very narrow round-headed window; two only of these ascending shafts support a direct arch across the nave; in other respects the roof is of wood, as it probably always was, for the arrangement is not calculated to support any vaulting. In the elevated part of the nave, or presbytery, as I have before called it, the lower part of the piers seems to be concealed by the present pavement; and yet one may discover that their bases are not on the same level with those of the lower part of the church. The recess forming the choir is vaulted with a pointed arch. Under the elevated part of the building is a subterraneous church, and my first idea was that the pavement had been elevated after the building was completed, in order to form this crypt. On descending into it, however, this opinion was very much shaken. Like the old church by the cathedral, it is covered with semicircular groined arches, resting on columns disposed at equal distances from each other. On one side is a recess under the choir of the church, which, like the choir itself, is covered with a pointed vault, and the three adjacent arches are carried higher than the rest in order to make room for the opening. The four piers of the presbytery above are carried down through the groining of this crypt, without appearing to be connected with it. Two of these piers are larger than the other two. One of the smaller exhibits, close under the vaulting, a base similar to those of the columns of the nave, but somewhat higher in position; nothing of this sort is visible in the other. Of the two larger ones, one is a mere square mass, without mouldings of any sort; the other is divided into shafts, and has a moulded base, but not corresponding with those of the nave, and much lower than they are. The extended basement of each of these piers supports four columns of the crypt, which are therefore shorter than the rest. Here seems to be proof, that this subterraneous church was neither prior, coetaneous, nor posterior to the other; a difficulty to which I can offer no solution. At one of the altars in the church, you are called upon to admire a group of four columns of red marble, with their bases and capitals, all formed out of a single stone; and in a little chamber, near the entrance, is a great vase of porphyry, also from a single stone, the external diameter of which is 13 feet 4 inches, the internal 8 feet 8 inches; and the pedestal is formed out of another block of the same material. This stood originally on the outside of the church, and Maffei supposes it to have been intended for washing the feet of pilgrims, before entering the sacred edifice. If so it would hardly have been elevated on a pedestal.

The cloisters of S. Zeno consist of arches supported on little coupled columns of red marble, united by a little appendage of the same substance, at the necking of the column, and at the upper torus of the base. On one side is a projecting edifice, sustained by columns of different sizes, which formerly contained a large basin for the monks to wash themselves before entering the refectory; but it is now in ruins. Adjoining the cloisters, we find here also, an old church, built in the same manner as the one which stands close by the cathedral, with groined semicircular arches supported on four pillars, all unlike, dividing it into nine equal squares. It is possible that this may have been the original edifice of Pepin, but the want of transept in a work of this size, and other particulars of the architecture, induce me to think the larger church erected before the year 1000, while the front is doubtless of the twelfth century. The tower is panelled on the lower stories, and each panel is surmounted by rows of little ornamental arches; but the two upper stories have each a triple semicircular headed opening on each face. Above these is a cornice with intersecting ornamental arches. The lower part is probably of the time of the Abbot Alberigi, that is, 1045; the second may be of 1178, or of some period between the two; but there is nothing very decisive in windows of this sort, which were certainly sometimes used much earlier, and continued in use as low as the thirteenth, and perhaps even in the fourteenth century. The upright stiles of the panelling are continued, to form a turret at each angle, which is surmounted by a pinnacle, and the work is crowned by a square spire.

In a little court close by this church, is a vault honoured with the name of the tomb of Pepin, and in it an empty sarcophagus; the body, as it is said, having been carried to Paris. Pepin, however, died at St. Denis, and there is no probability that his bones were ever here. The sarcophagus is singular in having three strong ribs on one side of the lid, and none on the other.

Near the church of S. Zeno, are a tower and some portions of wall, said to be the remains of the bishop’s palace; in which the German emperors several times resided, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

After S. Zeno, I visited the church of San Bernardino, where is a beautiful little circular chapel of the Pellegrini family, built by Michele Sanmicheli, who ranks among the best architects of this part of Italy; probably inferior only to Palladio. He was born in 1484, thirty-four years before that artist, and died in 1559. His fame is still greater as a military engineer than as an architect; since to him we owe the invention of the modern system of fortification, where every part is flanked by some other. His first work of this sort was in 1527, and as might be expected, imperfect; but in his later works, we find almost all the arrangements afterwards employed by the French engineers. To return to the chapel of Pellegrini; it is perhaps too high in proportion to its size. It has spirally fluted columns, and many other defects might be pointed out in the details; but though Sanmicheli furnished the designs, it was not finished under his direction; and he is said, indeed, to have been very much dissatisfied with the execution. Such as it is, however, every body admires it; it speaks to our feelings rather than to our judgment; a language of which it is very difficult to be master. The arabesques with which the pilasters are adorned are very elegant.

Among the churches at Verona is a little one called San Giovanni in Valle, which has an antique subterranean church, pretending to contain the bodies of the two apostles, St. Simon and St. Jude. Maffei says, probably very correctly, that towards the end of the fourteenth century, an ancient sarcophagus was discovered containing bones; and it immediately obtained currency in the city that these were the bodies of St. Simon and St. Jude. The top of this sarcophagus, he continues, is comparatively modern, but it could not have been carved with any reference to these apostles, because it represents two men in monkish habits, one older and wearing a beard, one younger and without one, and behind these, is a child. I bought a little book at the place for twenty centesimi (two pence), published this year, which gives a much more detailed account, and as it is written by Marco Dorna, Vicario della Chiesa di San Giovanni in Valle, it becomes a legitimate specimen of the present mode of reasoning. The work begins with a history of these apostles, and how they converted Egypt and Mesopotamia to the Catholic faith, and then went together into Persia; where, after converting numbers of the people and princes from their former errors; destroying temples, and overturning the heathen images with their own hands; they received the crown of martyrdom. What immediately became of their bodies is uncertain, but it is well ascertained that these were afterwards carried to Rome, and deposited in a sumptuous altar prepared for them in the Basilica of St. Peter, where they are reputed still to remain. “If then,” continues my author, “these relics are in the Basilica at Rome, how can they be in the church of San Giovanni in Valle, at Verona? This question is too rational to be neglected, and after the researches I have made, the answer will be easy.

“In the Catalogue of Italian Saints, written in Latin by Fra Filippo Ferrario Alessandrino, of the order of the servants of the Virgin Mary, printed at Milan in the year 1613, by Girolamo Bordonio, is found an index pointing out those bodies of saints which are said to be in different places at the same time, and in it are these words. ‘The bodies of St. Simon and St. Jude are in the church of St. Peter at Rome, and in that of S. Giovanni in Valle, at Verona.’ This author prefixes to the index a short preface, in which he contends ‘that it may be said, and with truth, that the bodies of saints are, at the same time, in different places. It may really be so,’ says he, ‘because the term body is applied to any considerable part of the body, and such relics are venerated as entire bodies; as for example, the body of the apostle St. James the Great, is said to be in Galicia, and also in his church on the hill of Griliano in this neighbourhood; nor is this a solitary example; indeed there are so many others, that Monsignore Sarnelli, in the eighth letter of his third volume, considers it as an established custom in the church, and our own cardinal, bishop Valerio, makes a similar observation, calling it a pious extension (pia estensione). In the same manner the bishop Marco Gradenigo expresses himself. In short, it is sufficiently evident that we may justly say, that the bodies of St. Simon and St. Jude may be at Rome, and yet also in this church of S. Giovanni, transported there in time of war by some one of the faithful.

“‘In the second place, if not so in fact, it may, nevertheless, be justly said,’ contends the already cited Ferrario, ‘that the bodies of saints are in different places at the same time, when there exists a holy belief that they are in one place, while they really exist at the other, having been secretly stolen from the first and carried to the latter; and he adds that he could cite a great many instances, but he abstains from doing it, lest he should give offence.’” The writer then goes on to state that he will not presume to affirm that these bodies are in Rome only by a holy belief, but he adduces some evidence to prove that this is the case; nor will he assert that they are wholly and entirely at Verona; because, as they are only seen by means of a small hole in the sarcophagus, it is impossible to decide that question. After this he proceeds to give the more recent history of these bones.

I will spare you the further detail of the author’s arguments; his position is, that these bones were stolen from Rome about the end of the twelfth century, and hidden at Verona, where they were found in 1395, with an inscription on the sarcophagus which pointed out to whom they had belonged. Unfortunately for this theory, not only there is now no such inscription on the sarcophagus, but the whole is covered with figures which bear all the character of the early ages of Christianity, and yet have no reference to any part of the known, or imagined story, of St. Simon and St. Jude. To get over this difficulty the author has recourse to a series of gratuitous hypotheses, which shew his confidence in the easy faith of his readers; “and thus,” continues he, “having brought my work to its termination, it is, I believe, useful to observe, that from the year 1395, when the holy bodies of our apostles were first discovered, down to the present time, the memory of their existence in the above-mentioned marble chest, in the crypt of this church, has always been more or less preserved; and thus more than five centuries^[33] have concurred to consecrate such a tradition; on which account, I maintain, that it deserves every possible respect, whatever may have been said, or thought, to the contrary; and it deserves also, that here the faithful should run together every year to pay their vows to these great saints; and principally on the Sunday included in their octave, on the fourth day of Lent, in the triduo which precedes their festival, and on the 28th of October, which is the day of the festival itself.” He then laments, that owing to bad times, and continual revolutions, this festival had not been celebrated as it ought to have been, and professes his resolution to observe it in future with all possible magnificence.

One more church and I have done with the Gothic architecture of Verona, or rather, with the architecture of the middle ages, for which we want a convenient term; the word Gothic having been appropriated to the modification of the pointed style, which prevails in our own country. Many other buildings of these times, well worth examination, might perhaps be found here; but I have not time to enter more extensively into the subject. The church I mean is that of San Fermo, built in 1313. It is of brick with a good deal of ornament, and the rows of little arches are some of them trefoil-headed. The door of the faÇade is round headed, with a profusion of ornamented mouldings. It has no rose in the front, but instead, are four lancet windows with trefoil heads, and the parts seem more consistent on this account, as the rose window rarely unites well with the numerous intersecting lines of this style of building. Over these is a smaller window, divided by little shafts into three parts, and a small circular opening on each side of it. There is no tracery. The building ends in a gable whose cornice is loaded with ornament, and three pinnacles rise above it. Internally, the ceiling is of wood and not handsome. When seen from the bridge behind the church, a little polygonal building, each face of which terminates in a high gable, composes very richly. As I was about to come away, an old woman pressed me very earnestly to stay and hear the mass, which was just about to be performed, as it might contribute to the salvation of my soul. It does not seem to be considered any sort of intrusion to go about these churches, even during the performance of the religious ceremonies. One frequently sees the Italians doing so themselves, and in the larger churches, the attendants, who hope to make something of your curiosity, take you about to all parts, and talk as loudly as if there were not a soul present. In general, however, they are very careful to bend one knee on passing opposite the high altar, and frequently make a similar obeisance at some of the side altars. There are people on their knees at all times in the morning, and though they are much more numerous during the celebration of the mass, yet they do not then kneel all together, at particular parts of the service, but some at one time and some at another. During the whole time of the ceremony, perhaps more than half the congregation are kneeling, but there is hardly any period at which many of those who seem to be attending to what is going forward, as part of their religion, may not be seen standing or sitting.

Before turning to the modern architecture of Verona, I must just mention to you the three principal tombs of the Scaligers. That of Can Grande, the second dog of the race, is not a very sumptuous monument; two square pilasters against the wall of a church, with foliage on the capitals, support a platform, and over this is a Gothic canopy with trefoil-heads, but with little other ornament; above the canopy is a pyramid crowned with a figure on horseback, representing, probably, Can Grande himself, who is also extended below, under the canopy. The second is entirely detached, with precisely the same arrangement, but with more ornament, and higher and more graceful proportion; this contains the remains of Mastino II. (the Mastiff). The third is of Can Signorio, which is much more highly ornamented, but the disposition is the same, except that it forms a hexagon on the plan. The pyramid is disagreeably truncated in all, in order to admit the equestrian figure on the summit. These dogs seem to have deserved the name; the first died in 1328, the second in 1350, and the third, who erected his tomb in his own lifetime, in 1375. The desire of the Italians to introduce something resembling the columns and entablatures of the Roman architecture, renders these monuments much inferior to our own Gothic crosses.

I have already mentioned to you Sanmicheli; in 1525 or 1526, he left the service of Clement VII. for that of the republic of Venice, and was immediately employed in fortifying Verona. The works executed prior to his time have round towers instead of bastions; these and the gates have most of them inscriptions with dates; the last of the ancient style are the bastion of St. George, built in 1523, and the gate of St. George, 1525. The bastion of the Magdalen was the first erected by Sanmicheli, and bears date 1527. He has made it polygonal but small, and perhaps more like a tower than a modern bastion; but in the succeeding ones, all the particulars unite to give them the complete character of bastions. The Porta del Palio, built also by this artist, is very beautiful as a piece of architecture. It presents internally a range of arches, between doubled Doric columns; but it was left unfinished at his death, and has never been completed. I do not know how it is, but though I always condemn coupled columns in theory, they nevertheless occur in many of the buildings I most admire. The Porta Nuova was also by Sanmicheli; it is not so good, nor do any of his palaces equal in grace and purity of design, this Porta del Palio; yet they are all fine buildings. His usual defect seems to be in not putting his stories well together, generally making the lower too high, in relation to the upper, or else putting under the second order a double pedestal, and thus leaving too much space between the columns. Taking each order singly the proportions are beautiful.

Every Englishman who comes to Verona goes to see what he is told is the tomb of Juliet. It is a plain sarcophagus without a cover, which has been made use of as a cistern, and now lies neglected in a garden. You are told on the spot, that she was deposited there after having taken the sleepy potion; it may be so, but the entire want of internal evidence, and of all accompaniments, leaves the imagination unsatisfied.