In the southern Italian city of Lucera, the former medieval Muslim settlement turned re-Christianized city in Apulia's fertile Tavoliere plain, a small road just north of the city's impressive early fourteenth-century cathedral is dedicated to an individual integral to the city's late medieval history (Figures 1 and 2).1 That person, a Frenchman named Pierre d'Angicourt, the “prothomagister et provisor operum curie” (headmaster and supervisor of the court's works) under the Angevin king of Naples Charles I (1266–85) and still active at royal construction sites under the successor king Charles II (1285–1309), is identified by a street sign as the cathedral's “architect,” a title bestowed on Pierre for his involvement in nearly a dozen other southern Italian constructions roughly contemporary to Lucera's cathedral.

Figure 1

Cathedral, Lucera, ca. 1300–1317 (author's photo).

Figure 1

Cathedral, Lucera, ca. 1300–1317 (author's photo).

Figure 2

Modern street sign naming Pierre d'Angicourt “architect,” Lucera (author's photo).

Figure 2

Modern street sign naming Pierre d'Angicourt “architect,” Lucera (author's photo).

The erection of this sign, a local initiative, speaks to wider popular and scholarly attitudes about the Frenchman. Since the nineteenth century, historians of multiple disciplines have frequently, although imprecisely, identified Pierre as an architect, wavering between the term's more medieval usage signifying a mason and its modern connotation of a theory-based designer.2 This imprecision has affected the understanding not only of Pierre and individuals like him at Angevin construction sites but also of the buildings with which he and others have been credited, especially in regard to questions of formal and structural agency, building types, and reception. Recent scholarship has identified Angevin architecture in southern Italy—particularly after King Charles I's attempts to build “French Gothic” monuments at the Cistercian abbeys of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Abruzzo and Santa Maria di Realvalle south of Naples—as sedate, austere, and vernacular, a far cry from the architecture of Paris.3 Explanations for the shift in style are numerous. According to Caroline Bruzelius, one of the few scholars of the past forty years to have produced sustained, critical work on Angevin architecture, the change to an emphasis on local building styles (e.g., native Apulian styles constructed in Apulia, Abruzzan in Abruzzo) resulted from social, economic, and political factors. Bruzelius argues that the austere forms resulted from a host of factors, including the influence of a new mendicant spirituality; a lack of both skilled workers and high-quality building materials, which made reproducing French Gothic impossible; a dismal economic situation; and an increased attempt by the Angevin king Charles II to ingratiate himself with his subjects.4 With the exception of material and labor realities, however, these explanations assume inherently that the two Angevin kings' buildings contained stylistic-symbolic plans from inception and that those plans were reproducible by “architects” like Pierre.

In this article I reexamine the use of the term architect for Pierre and its implications. I reconsider Angevin chancellery diplomas, Pierre's career and steady social ascent, the administrative class to which he belonged, the structure of Angevin construction sites, and the use of words like magister. I argue that Pierre's duties at construction sites were more administrative and bureaucratic in nature than concerned with design or construction. Pierre was the most cited, but certainly not the only, Angevin bureaucrat who organized and directed royal building sites. In this article I question the manufacture of Pierre as “architect” and reveal how this identification has affected readings of Angevin buildings in general, not only those where the Frenchman's work has been documented. Understanding Pierre's true role at royal construction sites proves instrumental for understanding the specific aims the Angevin kings might have expressed through architecture. In short, I argue that aesthetic outcomes at the Angevin sites resulted from the process of construction rather than from predetermined and whole “plans.” This article contributes to a growing body of studies that examine medieval buildings through their construction sites, particularly in urban or highly centralized regions, in contrast with viewing these buildings exclusively from the perspectives of single great patrons or artists.5 

A Brief Overview of Angevin Building Campaigns and the Chancellery Documents

In 1266 Charles I of Anjou became king of Naples.6 Following his defeat of the Hohenstaufen ruler Manfred at the Battle of Benevento, Charles, the youngest brother of Louis IX of France, inherited a kingdom that comprised all of mainland southern Italy, parts of what is now southern and eastern Lazio, and until 1282 the island of Sicily.7 Arguably medieval Europe's first state, the kingdom had been founded in 1130 by the Norman king Roger II. After the Normans, the kingdom's political and economic consolidation continued under the Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick II (reign 1198–1250) and culminated aggressively under the rule of Charles I; his heir, Charles II; and the third Angevin king, Robert of Anjou (1309–43). The number of architectural works the Angevin kings ordered attests to their efforts at state building. Royal building projects were undertaken throughout the kingdom. From approximately 1270 through the first quarter of the fourteenth century, Angevin projects included the major redevelopment or construction ex novo of cities, including Naples, the kingdom's new capital, and L'Aquila in Abruzzo; religious foundations, including the Cistercian monasteries Santa Maria di Realvalle and Santa Maria della Vittoria; and more than 175 castles, fortresses, palaces, and towers.

Much of this building activity was recorded in the Angevin chancellery registers, which are the source for nearly all documented evidence of Pierre d'Angicourt's career and Angevin construction projects.8 Among the earliest and most extensive collections of late medieval royal documents in Europe, the registers contain copies of the letters, diplomas, and mandates issued by and in the names of the Angevin kings. The documents devoted to royal construction provide vivid and consistent accounts of the structure of Angevin building sites.

Art historian Arthur Haseloff, Bruzelius, and archaeologist Carola Small, among others, have commented on the character of the chancellery building documents.9 Five fundamental features emerge from their commentary. First, the diplomas present only the view of the patron. They are not dialogues; rather, they are orders provided in the voice of the king to the building site. Some of the documents record the king's reactions to events on the ground, however, and in doing so offer glimpses into the dynamics among worker, building administrator, and patron. Second, the orders provide more detail in regard to construction operations than most surviving late medieval building documents from elsewhere. Many texts detail the dimensions of walls, the amounts of supplies needed and their acceptable cost, the payment of skilled and unskilled workers as well as building administrators, the transport of materials, and the locations where construction funds should be procured. The level of micromanagement evident in the documents has led some scholars to argue that the Angevin kings “designed” many royal buildings—an issue that will be addressed later. Third, Charles I in particular was an extremely impatient patron. To increase workers' and administrators' output, he issued threats of punitive damages for late or unsatisfactory work. Some skilled and unskilled workers were conscripted and threatened with chains should they leave the work site.10 Fourth, the documents provide the names, ranks, and origins of many building administrators and even some skilled workers. These details especially are important for deciphering Pierre d'Angicourt's role as “headmaster of the court's works” in relation to others named in the diplomas. Fifth, the documents overwhelmingly address castles, fortifications, and towers under Charles I, but surviving documents for Charles I's two Cistercian abbeys (ca. 1274–1284) as well as the Lucera cathedral (1300–1317), begun by the king's heir, Charles II, and completed by Charles II's heir, Robert of Anjou, reveal that Charles I's successors institutionalized his approach to building.11 The Angevin kings approached the construction of castles and churches in a similar manner and employed the same industrial and administrative organization from the reign of Charles I well into the reign of Charles II. Moreover, building projects during both kings' reigns operated within a larger bureaucratic structure that involved other functionaries of the realm, including provincial justiciars, bailiffs, and city captains, who through their own juridical and administrative mandates collected men, materials, and money for building sites. This insight is important because it demonstrates that any discussion of Angevin architecture, especially one examining aesthetic motivations or rhetorical messages, must analyze castle building and church building together.

Pierre d'Angicourt and Angevin Construction

Since the nineteenth century, the literature on Pierre d'Angicourt has been marked by a series of misidentifications regarding the Frenchman's role at Angevin construction sites. Examining the chancellery documents, art historian Heinrich Wilhelm Schulz identified Pierre as an “engineer.”12 A series of writers from the second half of the nineteenth century onward have argued that he began his career as a stonecutter or quarryman before quickly rising through the ranks of Angevin building administration.13 In regard to Lucera, Pierre has been identified as the architect of that city's cathedral based on an Angevin diploma from 1304 charging the Frenchman with assessing the value of houses (domus) destroyed during the cathedral's construction.14 Moreover, that document, coupled with the similarity between Lucera's cathedral and the plan for the cathedral in Naples (begun 1294), led archaeologist François Lenormant to assign Pierre authorship of that building as well.15 In addition, in 1894 the Frenchman Camille Enlart argued that Pierre was the architect of both Lucera's cathedral and the Magdalen shrine at Saint-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume in Provence, the most “Gothic” of all the churches built under the orders of the Angevin kings.16 He cited as evidence a 1295 Angevin diploma that stated an individual named Petrus Gallicus from Naples was charged with overseeing the work site.17 

Most of these conclusions remain unchallenged in the scholarship. A close reexamination of the chancellery documents, however, paints a different picture of Pierre's career trajectory. Pierre arrived in the Kingdom of Naples from northern France, most likely Picardy. Through its connections to southern Italy via the Capetian line, this area of the French realm served as the homeland for numerous individuals who would become clerks, administrators, and other officials within the kingdom's burgeoning court and bureaucracy. In addition to the most prominent member of this group, Robert II, the Count of Artois and nephew of Charles I, who also served as regent of the Kingdom of Naples from 1285 to 1289, surviving documents reveal that the area provided dozens of administrators and courtiers for the Angevin kings. These included two other building administrators with whom Pierre would work at Castel Nuovo in Naples, Pierre de Chaule and Palmerius d'Arras, and at least one other individual named Pierre d'Angicourt, who, according to Angevin diplomas, died around 1273.18 

The Pierre under consideration here first enters the Angevin building documents in September 1269, when surviving diplomas report that a “magister Petrus de Angicuria” requested stone, lime, and pack animals for work on the castle housed inside Lucera's fortress (Figure 3).19 In one way or another, Pierre would remain connected to the city of Lucera through building management and other administrative duties for nearly all of his four decades in the Angevin registers.

Figure 3

Palace and fortress today, Lucera (author's photo).

Figure 3

Palace and fortress today, Lucera (author's photo).

The Frenchman remained attached specifically to construction activities at Lucera's fortress through 1282. He also accepted responsibility elsewhere, however, particularly along the Adriatic coast of Apulia (Figure 4). By 1271 Pierre was named provost for the repair of castles (prepositus reparatori castrorum) at Canosa castle and by 1276 provost (prepositus) and headmaster (prothomagister) at the castle of Bari.20 The following year he was mentioned with the same titles at royal construction projects in Barletta, Mola di Bari, Villanova, Brindisi, and Melfi in Basilicata.21 In 1278 Pierre directed proceedings at the walls and fortress of the port Manfredonia and would continue to work at the site intermittently through 1282.22 In 1278 he also was named officially in the diplomas “headmaster and supervisor of the court's works.” The new position necessitated extensive travel between building sites, and, as a result, the king provided him with a salary of three tarì per day plus a security detail of four mounted soldiers.23 His appointment also was accompanied by the additional titles of familiaris and fideles to consecrate his personal and intimate relationship with the king.24 By 1279 Pierre was working with two other Frenchmen, the aforementioned Palmerius and Pierre de Chaule, both also named familiares, at the king's main residence, Castel Nuovo in Naples.25 The following year Pierre d'Angicourt and Pierre de Chaule worked on the construction of a castle in the Angevin new town Leonessa along the kingdom's northern frontier.26 

Figure 4

Map of the Angevin Kingdom of Naples (Sicily excluded) showing the locations where Angevin diplomas note Pierre's presence (author's illustration).

Figure 4

Map of the Angevin Kingdom of Naples (Sicily excluded) showing the locations where Angevin diplomas note Pierre's presence (author's illustration).

After 1282 Pierre disappears in large part from the building documents. He does not, however, leave the Angevin diplomas altogether. Instead, for the next two decades the Frenchman moves in and out of a number of roles within Angevin administration, all the while steadily rising in social status while gaining titles including valet (vallectus) and knight (miles).27 In fact, his confirmation of entry into the Angevin household by the early 1280s led the eminent art historian Émile Bertaux to identify the Frenchman as a “chevalier et feudataire” (knight and feudal lord) who through his social position became an “architect.”28 Returning to his career, in 1284 Pierre facilitated the transfer from Lucera to Sicily of four siege machines and one hundred Muslim soldiers to guard and service those machines in the fight against rebellion on the island.29 In 1291 he was entrusted with collecting penalties of 25 ounces of gold from all officials or nobles in the southwestern areas of the kingdom who did not contribute their quotas of soldiers to quash a rebellion at Pantuliano, south of Naples.30 By 1300 Pierre was listed as the castellan, or governor, at Castel dell'Ovo in Naples.31 Between 1301 and 1308 the Frenchman returned to working in building administration. This included his 1304 cameo at the construction of Lucera's cathedral and his occasional appearances at the Angevin-funded renovations to the Cathedral of Altamura, southwest of Bari, from 1301 to 1308 (Figure 5).32 After Altamura, Pierre's final moments in the Angevin diplomas are silent regarding his current duties to the Angevin king, but they are valuable nevertheless for revealing the substantial wealth and security the Frenchman had earned while operating within the Angevin administrative framework. In 1310 Charles, the Duke of Calabria and son of the third Angevin king, Robert, ordered the return to Pierre of a house in the Adriatic port of Barletta as well as a number of other goods that had been wrongly seized from the Frenchman.33 Finally, in 1313, presumably after his death, Pierre's sons petitioned the Angevin king to recover 400 ounces of gold that the familiaris had deposited with the Barletta branch of the Florentine Lamberteschi merchants.34 From there, the trail marking Pierre's four decades in service to the Angevin kings goes cold.

Figure 5

Cathedral, Altamura, north façade, ca. fourteenth–eighteenth centuries (author's photo).

Figure 5

Cathedral, Altamura, north façade, ca. fourteenth–eighteenth centuries (author's photo).

Prepositus, Prothomagister, and the Organization of Angevin Building Sites

Studies of Angevin architecture tend to use the terms found in the diplomas—expensor, prepositus, prothomagister, and magister—interchangeably to describe perceived architects within the Angevin realm. In addition, these studies often use the term architect rather imprecisely, meaning something between the anachronistic modern theory-based designer and the medieval mason.35 A reexamination of the building documents reveals, however, that they did not use any of these terms to describe an architect in either sense. Moreover, only the first two titles, expensor and prepositus, denoted job descriptions, and neither was used exclusively within the context of building construction. Rather, these somewhat broad titles were employed in documents to describe individuals who performed a number of bureaucratic roles, not only during Angevin and earlier Hohenstaufen rule but also in medieval administrations in general. At Angevin building sites as elsewhere, the paymaster, or expensor, was charged with managing funds for building projects. He received funds from multiple sources, usually within a particular Angevin province, and then dispensed those funds for the duration of the building project.36 In Angevin building documents the title of provost, or prepositus (a term used in Latin literate lands since imperial Rome to denote the overseer of any but no particular administrative body), denoted the royal manager of an Angevin construction site, and in some earlier occasions the overseer of a Hohenstaufen building site.37 Under the Angevins the provost directed builders and workers on- and off-site, procured materials, and served as the ultimate quality control. As the project's manager, the provost at times was the most direct line of communication to the king. As noted earlier, most Angevin building documents that mention Pierre d'Angicourt identify the Frenchman with this title.

The other titles, magister and prothomagister, represented ranks or honorifics and generally received modifiers. In Angevin texts, the terms in and of themselves did not signify any particular vocations. One was a master of or because of something. The Angevin building documents referred to individuals as “masters” of the law and of chapels, as masters of building and carpentry, stonecutting, glass windows, and moving materials, and as masters of works, among others.38 The early Angevin-era construction of the chapel at San Lorenzo in Pantano near Foggia in Apulia marks one of the earliest instances in the building diplomas when the title of master signaled a level of status rather than a profession. In 1269 an individual described as a clerk named Petrus de Bonolio received one cart, four oxen, and ten workers from the bailiffs, judges, magistri iurati, and other officials of Foggia and San Lorenzo for the construction of the chapel. The following year he had gained the title of master of chapel works (magister operis capelle) along with the title of provost (prepositus).39 

The title prothomagister, or headmaster, referred to the first master, or the leader of masters. As a result, the provost at a building site sometimes was given the title due to his position as director of construction works, and therefore the director of multiple “masters” involved in the technical aspects of building. As a designation of rank, the title was fluid. Those who directed other experts were prothomagistri, and therefore the individuals given the title depended on the experts present. The fluidity of the rank is clear in the construction documents for Lucera's fortress (ca. 1269–86). Multiple provosts worked at the massive site, and each was responsible for the construction of a portion of the fortress. For part of the construction, Pierre d'Angicourt and another individual named Riccardo da Foggia both were designated headmasters due to their roles as provosts of separate sections of wall.40 However, while Pierre and Riccardo worked on the fortress's walls, another person, Goffrido de Bonguilielmi, was designated provost for all works within the fortress. In the company of the building crews they directed, Pierre and Riccardo were referred to as prothomagistri, but when Pierre and Riccardo were in the company of the provost for all fortress works, Goffrido was named the sole prothomagister.41 

The exception to the fluidity was the rank of prothomagister et provisor operum curie. This rank, which the surviving sources show was attained for the first and only time by Pierre d'Angicourt, designated the court's roving provost: the individual who traveled around royal building sites to audit and direct building projects if needed. As such, he was always first among masters and the provost of provosts. A few examples from Pierre's career reflect this power dynamic. The most notable instance dates to 1281, when he complained directly to Charles I that the castellan administering construction in Melfi had concentrated on the wrong parts of the renovation program, neglecting the wall near the new gate and focusing on less urgent projects. The official's negligence had caused the project to go over budget.42 

Given their contractual nature, the documents clearly established each individual's role at construction sites. They also established that in most cases Angevin construction provosts, not unlike individuals bearing the title in other medieval contexts, were notaries, jurists, clerks, or other types of literate administrators.43 This shows that the prerequisite for the job was most often, if not always, not building experience but rather managerial skills. Giuliana Vitale, Samantha Kelly, and others have shown that these same individuals formed part of an extensive bureaucratic framework—a framework Jean Dunbabin has argued was far more advanced than other unified kingdoms in Europe—that the Angevin kings employed to administer multiple initiatives within the Regno, from the collection of taxes to the construction of fortresses.44 In turn these individuals were rewarded with titles of nobility, feuds, and stipends, forming, in Kelly's words, a late medieval noblesse de robe.45 Countless individuals followed this route. For example, the courtier Giovanni Pipino of Barletta, originally a notary before becoming an ambassador, served as a financial minister (magister rationalis), the liberator-governor of re-Christianized Lucera, and the Count of Altamura in Apulia. Bartolomeo da Capua, a former jurist, became Charles II's protonotary-logothete, the highest position within the Angevin court during his tenure.46 Both men rose through the ranks of the court, received multiple feuds and titles, and appear to have reached their highest positions through a combination of administrative competence, fervent loyalty, and political astuteness.

The bureaucratic structure of Angevin building projects is articulated most clearly in a construction document for the walls of Manfredonia dated 23 March 1278 (Figure 6).47 Two groups are specified in the royal mandate. The first comprises the builders, each of whom is named along with his respective expertise. The second group consists of the building administrators, all of whom are named and identified as justices, protonotaries, and advocates of the Angevin court.

Figure 6

Manfredonia, north section of city walls, ca. 1277–84, with later renovations (author's photo).

Figure 6

Manfredonia, north section of city walls, ca. 1277–84, with later renovations (author's photo).

The document reveals additional significant information in that almost all the individuals listed are identified by their geographic origins. While the project's administrators are shown to have come from places throughout Angevin and Capetian realms, including nearby Foggia and Andria, Amalfi and Salerno on the Tyrrhenian coast, France and the county of Artois, every builder was recruited from a nearby location. The project's carpenters, masons, and builders came from Manfredonia as well as from surrounding cities, including Monte Sant'Angelo, Foggia, San Giovanni Rotondo, Vieste, Andria, and Barletta (Figure 7). The only worker whose surname does not reveal a place of origin was a builder called Rogerio. However, his use of the Greek patronymic Caroiohanne suggests that he hailed from the region around Bari, some 100 kilometers south.48 

Figure 7

Map of the Angevin Kingdom of Naples (Sicily excluded) showing the cities of origin of the masons who built Manfredonia's walls (author's illustration).

Figure 7

Map of the Angevin Kingdom of Naples (Sicily excluded) showing the cities of origin of the masons who built Manfredonia's walls (author's illustration).

Taken together, the Manfredonia document and the other diplomas analyzed previously reveal that royal clerks pulled from throughout the kingdom administered the construction of Angevin buildings, and local workers constructed them. As such, Pierre's presence at Lucera and Altamura during the first decade of the fourteenth century now seems in tune with his role for much of the 1270s and 1280s as headmaster and supervisor of the court's works. The single source that links Pierre to Lucera's cathedral states that the Frenchman assessed the value of property needed for construction of the cathedral.49 By this time his career must have slowed, especially in regard to construction management, he may have been elderly, and perhaps he no longer possessed his old title of prothomagister et provisor operum curie, but the job Pierre was charged to do at Lucera was one that required a trusted administrator, as had the jobs he had performed since his first appearance in the documents.

Conclusions and Implications for Further Study

The preceding reexamination of Pierre d'Angicourt's career and the specific language employed in Angevin building diplomas allows me to draw a number of conclusions. First, Pierre was not an architect as we employ and understand that title today. In fact, medievalists should use the term architect with extreme caution because of its modern connotation of a theory-based designer who, as Marvin Trachtenberg has argued recently, builds “outside of time” versus the practice of building “in time” that dominated premodern construction.50 Rather, Pierre was a provost and project manager for Angevin building sites who also, like other members of the emergent Angevin bureaucracy, flowed in and out of numerous administrative positions.51 That Angevin sources divulge the names of administrators and local builders reveals the extent to which construction was bureaucratized under the reigns of both Charles I and Charles II. This in itself was a sign of the kingdom's emergence as a centralized state. Until recently robust Angevin centralization within the Regno has been overlooked due to the prejudices embodied in the “Southern Question,” a sociological, political, and historiographical construct that has portrayed southern Italy as perpetually backward and economically stunted.52 Like other business conducted by the Angevin kings—the collection of taxes, the administration of justice, and the regulation of the economy—bureaucratization reflected the need to manage a wide expanse of territory and people within the technological constraints of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Few regimes or patrons in late medieval Europe were faced with these conditions during building, but when they were they took similar measures. The closest parallels to the bureaucratization of Angevin urban and architectural planning are the bastides of southwest France built between ca. 1200 and ca. 1400, another example of late medieval political and economic consolidation, and the centralization of building administration in England through the clerks of the king's works.53 The first Angevin king, Charles I, may initially have intended to build evocations of France, as has been argued regarding the monasteries Santa Maria di Realvalle and Santa Maria della Vittoria, but his early intentions were never sustainable on the scale at which he and his successors desired to produce buildings.54 

The system for construction created by Charles I and sustained under Charles II determined the formal outcomes of their buildings. The chancellery diplomas reveal that at times the Angevin kings outlined their expectations. Charles I especially wrote to builders and provosts stating how many builders should work at a site, how much equipment and material should be procured, what the dimensions of walls should be, where gates should be placed, and other details. Moreover, the travel involved in Pierre's career, along with his ability to order the destruction and rebuilding of unsatisfactory work, suggests that his position afforded him considerable control over buildings. However, the architectural and documentary evidence suggests that the formal and structural outcomes of Angevin buildings resulted from collaboration among individual builders working under the surveillance and approval of royal administrators rather than from any initial grand schemes. The requests made in the Angevin documents provide only sketches of the buildings desired, and phrases such as “in our manner” and “according to our provisions” reveal the limits of nonverbal communication for the initiation and direction of construction projects.55 Moreover, many of the Angevin kings' requests reveal desires beyond the aesthetic. In the 1278 Manfredonia document, Pierre d'Angicourt was reported to have measured “personally” a tower that was to contain the castle's cistern (Figure 8). Measuring the tower before a group of judges, notaries, and clerks who served as witnesses and checks, Pierre provided the dimensions for the cistern, the estimated stones and other materials required, and the number of masons and manual labor needed. After calculating the dimensions and the costs of the materials and workers needed, Pierre reported that the total price of the project was expected to be 86 ounces, 3 tarì, and 3 granì of gold.56 It is clear from the tone of the diploma that Pierre's preoccupation with these details pertained most to his duty to report the anticipated cost and time frame of the project to the king.

Figure 8

Manfredonia, last extant Angevin tower at the castle, ca. 1278; the cistern tower was altered in subsequent renovations (author's photo).

Figure 8

Manfredonia, last extant Angevin tower at the castle, ca. 1278; the cistern tower was altered in subsequent renovations (author's photo).

This Angevin approach undoubtedly shaped building outcomes, and the system left room for individual workers to leave an imprint on the fabric of a building.57 In sum, the process of construction, more than anything else, resulted in an Angevin preference for local architectural styles. The stonemasons and builders who constructed the buildings relied on their own competence and experience to fill in details.58 In regard to agency, bureaucratization afforded the workers on-site a great deal of freedom to determine the forms of buildings, and some of their “identities” still can be read. For example, the unnamed masons charged with executing the main portal for Lucera's fourteenth-century cathedral were from Apulia, as evidenced by the structure's pronounced gable and sculpted details, which connect it to monuments like the thirteenth-century Cathedral of Bisceglie on the Adriatic coast (Figures 9, 10, and 11). At the Lucera fortress's Torre del Re, a lack of care for obtaining blemish-free wall surfaces allowed dozens of ashlar blocks to be set with masons' marks facing outward (Figures 12 and 13). This oversight, which might have been a means of accounting or perhaps even subversion on the part of workers, reveals that at least twenty different stonecutters formed ashlar blocks for the tower, although their names no longer survive.59 As Michael Davis has noted, Angevin buildings should be viewed as collections of parts rather than as conceptual wholes.60 Methodologically, the number of identifiable agents present compels the historian to study each building site on its own terms.

Figure 9

Cathedral, Lucera, main portal with French Gothic–inspired jambs and archivolts combined with sculpted motifs and gable local to Apulia, ca. 1300–1317 (author's photo).

Figure 9

Cathedral, Lucera, main portal with French Gothic–inspired jambs and archivolts combined with sculpted motifs and gable local to Apulia, ca. 1300–1317 (author's photo).

Figure 10

Cathedral, Lucera, detail of main portal and capitals bearing local sculpted motifs, ca. 1300–1317 (author's photo).

Figure 10

Cathedral, Lucera, detail of main portal and capitals bearing local sculpted motifs, ca. 1300–1317 (author's photo).

Figure 11

Cathedral, Bisceglie, detail of main portal bearing Apulian sculpted motifs similar to those found at Lucera's cathedral, thirteenth century (author's photo).

Figure 11

Cathedral, Bisceglie, detail of main portal bearing Apulian sculpted motifs similar to those found at Lucera's cathedral, thirteenth century (author's photo).

Figure 12

Fortress, Lucera, the round Torre del Re (background) at the fortress's northeast corner, ca. 1269–86 (author's photo).

Figure 12

Fortress, Lucera, the round Torre del Re (background) at the fortress's northeast corner, ca. 1269–86 (author's photo).

Figure 13

Fortress, Lucera, Torre del Re, detail showing masons' marks on ashlar masonry, ca. 1269–86 (author's photo).

Figure 13

Fortress, Lucera, Torre del Re, detail showing masons' marks on ashlar masonry, ca. 1269–86 (author's photo).

Previous studies have emphasized the importance of local workers and materials, but my examination of how architectural ideas circulated in Angevin construction reveals that architectural decisions resulted not necessarily from a lack of funds or resources—or even a heightened cultural sensitivity, as scholars have argued in the past—but from the process of bureaucratization under the Angevin kings. This process also explains how Pierre d'Angicourt could be attached to buildings that are vastly different formally and structurally throughout the Kingdom of Naples. As a prepositus, he was tasked with ensuring that the general outlines directed for each building were completed satisfactorily. The important question remains, however, what constituted satisfactory work? Was it solid construction, function, an architecture that bore meaning, aesthetics, or some combination of all these factors?

If we look to an example of Angevin reuse of earlier southern Italian architecture, efficient, solid, and cost-effective construction appears to have constituted satisfactory work. Jill Caskey, who has employed Henri Lefevbre's theory of spatialization and Alexei Lidov's concept of hierotopy to examine the 1296 Angevin appropriation of the Basilica San Nicola in Bari, has shown that Charles II was invested heavily in projecting his French Capetian origins on his buildings (Figure 14). However, he promoted his lineage and his presence not through altering the building architecturally but through the performance of Parisian rituals and liturgies, the donation of sumptuous objects that evoked France and the Capetian line such as the reliquary of the True Cross (Figure 15), and the proliferation of Angevin heraldry above the portals of the Barisan church (Figure 16), conceptually transforming the late eleventh- to early twelfth-century shrine of Saint Nicholas into a southern Italian Sainte-Chapelle.61 This reading, as well as my analysis of Pierre and other individuals who performed similar tasks, reveals that Angevin buildings in southern Italy cannot be read using Richard Krautheimer's or even Robert Branner's “iconographies” of medieval architectural forms, the theoretical tools that have been used in the past.62 Rather, Angevin buildings were flexible and fluid products. They were capable of projecting the Capetian line as effectively as the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris, but not through symbolic architectural forms. They did so with their processes of construction, the result of Angevin bureaucratization; their use, including liturgical, paraliturgical, civic, and juridical activities; and their ornament.

Figure 14

Basilica San Nicola, Bari, late eleventh–early twelfth century (author's photo).

Figure 14

Basilica San Nicola, Bari, late eleventh–early twelfth century (author's photo).

Figure 15

Guillaume de Verdelay, detail of reliquary cross with Angevin heraldry, gilt silver and champlevé enamel, Basilica San Nicola, Bari, ca. 1298 (photo by Jill Caskey).

Figure 15

Guillaume de Verdelay, detail of reliquary cross with Angevin heraldry, gilt silver and champlevé enamel, Basilica San Nicola, Bari, ca. 1298 (photo by Jill Caskey).

Figure 16

Basilica San Nicola, Bari, detail of late thirteenth- to early fourteenth- century Angevin heraldry flanking a sculpture of Saint Nicholas (photo by Jill Caskey).

Figure 16

Basilica San Nicola, Bari, detail of late thirteenth- to early fourteenth- century Angevin heraldry flanking a sculpture of Saint Nicholas (photo by Jill Caskey).

Returning to Lucera's street sign, the identification of Pierre as an “architect,” especially in the modern sense used first by many early French art historians who studied Angevin architecture in southern Italy, has led to an understanding of these buildings as conceptually whole.63 As a result, and through their supposedly French parentage, these buildings often have been viewed as provincial offshoots of French Gothic architecture, leading to explanations of their shortcomings in relation to a supposed metropolitan style rather than analyses developed on each building's own terms.64 Integrating the processes of construction into the study of Angevin buildings—a simultaneous “top-down” examination of the state's initiatives and “bottom-up” investigation of the workers, landscapes, and materials employed to execute those initiatives—leads to two major shifts in the consideration of these buildings in southern Italy. The first, related to a top-down examination, is the recognition that these buildings are not only a sign of the Angevin state's presence but also a microcosm of the Angevin state. Both the existence of these monuments and the bureaucratic system employed in the administration of constructing them speak to the consolidation of the Kingdom of Naples under the Angevin kings.65 The second shift, related to the bottom-up perspective, returns southern Italians and southern Italian culture to analysis of medieval architecture in the Angevin south. Examining processes of construction in these ways frees the study of Angevin architecture and the Angevin kingdom from the center–periphery and Southern Question paradigms that have dominated scholarship for more than a century.

Notes

Notes
1.
I undertook the initial research for this article during the writing of my PhD dissertation, “Patronage in the Re-Christianized Landscape of Angevin Apulia: the Rebuilding of Luceria sarracenorum into Civitas Sanctae Mariae” (University of Toronto, 2014). I would like to thank my PhD adviser, Jill Caskey, for her earliest comments and suggestions concerning Pierre d'Angicourt. I would also like to thank Elly Truitt for reading the earliest drafts of this article and the anonymous readers and editor of the journal for their helpful feedback. Any mistakes that remain are my own.
2.
For examples, see Heinrich Wilhelm Schulz and Ferdinand von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst der Mittelalters in Unteritalien (Dresden: Eigenthum von W. K. H. Schulz, 1860), 1:21; Gaetano Angerio Gugglielmo Filangieri, Indici degli artefici delle arti maggiori e minori (Naples: Accademia Reale delle Scienze, 1891), 1:373; Camille Enlart, Origins française de l'architecture gothique en Italie (Paris: Thorin, 1894), 22–25; Émile Bertaux, “Les artistes français et es rois angevins,” Gazete des Beaux-Arts 34 (1905), 97; Arthur Haseloff, Architettura sveva nell'Italia meridionale, ed. Maria Stella Calò Mariani, trans. Leopoldo Bibbò (Bari: Mario Adda, 1992), 161–62; Ernst Pitz, “Das Aufkommen des Berufe des Architekten und des Bauingenieurs: Baubetrieb und Baugewerbe insbesondere nach unteritalienischen Quellen des 13. Jahrhunderts,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Bibliotheken und Archiven 66 (1986), 48; Martin Warnke, Bau und Überbau: Soziologie der mittelalterlichen Architektur nach den Schriftquellen (Frankfurt: Syndikat, 1976), 143; Pierre-Yves le Pogam, Les maîtres d'oeuvre au service de la papauté dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2004), 58.
3.
Santa Maria di Realvalle, near Scafati, located approximately 30 kilometers south of Naples, was built in commemoration of the Battle of Benevento in 1268. Santa Maria della Vittoria, near Scurcola Mariscana in Abruzzo, commemorated the Angevin victory at nearby Tagliacozzo in 1268 over the legitimate Hohenstaufen king Conradin. Construction on both monasteries began in 1274, but few remains of either survive. On their construction and “Frenchness” of architectural style, see Caroline Bruzelius, “ ‘Ad modum franciae’: Charles of Anjou and Gothic Architecture in the Kingdom of Naples,” JSAH 50, no. 4 (Dec. 1991), 402–20; Caroline Bruzelius, “Charles I, Charles II, and the Development of an Angevin Style in the Kingdom of Sicily,” in L'état angevin: Pouvir, culture et société entre XIII et XIV siècle: Actes du Colloque international (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, École Française de Rome, 1998), 99–114; Caroline Bruzelius, “Il Gran Rifutio: French Gothic in Central and Southern Italy,” in Architecture and Language: Constructing Identity in European Architecture c. 1000–c.1650, ed. Georgia Clarke and Paul Crossley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 36–45; Caroline Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples: Church Building in Angevin Italy, 1266–1343 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2004).
4.
Caroline Bruzelius, “Columpnas marmoreas et lapides antiquarum ecclesiarium: The Use of Spolia in the Churches of Charles II of Anjou,” in Arte d'Occidente: Temi e metodi. Studi in onore di Angiola Maria Romanini, ed. Antonio Cadei, Marina Righetti Tosti-Croce, Anna Segagni Malacart, and Alessandro Tomei (Rome: Sintesi informazione, 1999), 187–95; Caroline Bruzelius, “Ipotesi e proposte sulla costruzione del Duomo di Napoli,” in Il Duomo di Napoli dal paleocristiano all'età angioina, ed. Serena Romano and Nicolas Bock (Naples: Electa, 2002), 119–31; Bruzelius, Stones of Naples. See also Christian Freigang, “Kathedralen als Mendikantenkirchen: Zur politischen Ikonographie der Sakralarchitektur unter Karl I., Karl II. und Robert dem Weisen,” in Medien der Macht: Kunst zur Zeit der Anjous in Italien, ed. Tanja Michalsky (Berlin: Reimer, 2001), 33–60.
5.
Salient literature includes Elizabeth Bradford Smith, “Santa Maria Novella and the Problem of Historicism/Modernism/Eclecticism in Italian Gothic Architecture,” in Medioevo: Il tempo degli antichi, ed. Arturo Carlo Quintavalle (Milan: Electa, 2006), 621–30; Robert Maxwell, “Romanesque Construction and the Urban Context. Parthenay-le-Vieux in Aquitaine,” JSAH 66, no. 1 (Mar. 2007), 24–59; Caroline Bruzelius, “Project and Process in Medieval Construction,” in Ex quadric lapidibus: La pierre et sa mise en œuvre dans l'art medieval, ed. Yves Gallet (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), 113–23; Michael T. Davis, “Guidelines: The Bishop's Garden, a Mason's Drawings, and the Construction of Notre-Dame, Cathedral of Clermont,” in Patrons and Professionals in the Middle Ages: Proceedings of the 2010 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Paul Binski and Elizabeth A. New (Donington, England: Shaun Tyas, 2012), 167–81.
6.
The Angevin kings referred to their realm as the Kingdom of Sicily. However, many modern scholars use the term Kingdom of Naples to describe it. This shift recognizes the Angevin kings' use of the Campanian city as their court and administrative center and also acknowledges its loss of the island of Sicily during the course of the Vespers Rebellion and ensuing war (1282–1302). On the War of the Sicilian Vespers, see David Abulafia, The Western Mediterranean Kingdoms, 1200–1500: The Struggle for Dominion (London: Longman, 1997).
7.
On Charles's early life and conquest of southern Italy, see Jean Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou: Power, Kingship, and State-Making in Thirteenth-Century Europe (London: Longman, 1998).
8.
The registers were held originally in Naples. On 30 September 1943 retreating German soldiers incinerated the registers, which contained hundreds of thousands of royal documents. Thankfully, thousands of building documents pulled from the registers had been published in various volumes prior to World War II. Between 1912 and 1923 historian Eduard Sthamer published approximately 1,900 building documents from the registers, adding to the approximately four hundred Angevin diplomas on art and architecture Heinrich Wilhelm Schulz published in 1860. Historian Pietro Egidi made a significant contribution by publishing sixteen documents on the Cistercian monastery Santa Maria della Vittoria and dozens more on Lucera's cathedral. See Eduard Sthamer, ed., Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten: Kaiser Friedrichs II. und Karls I. von Anjou, vols. 1–2 (Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann, 1912–26); Eduard Sthamer and Hubert Houben, eds., Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten: Kaiser Friedrichs II. und Karls I. von Anjou, vol. 3 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2006); Schulz and von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst, vol. 4; Pietro Egidi, Carlo I d'Angiò e l'abbazia di S. Maria della Vittoria presso Scurcola (Naples: Pierro & Figlio, 1910), 111–26; Pietro Egidi, ed., Codice diplomatico dei saraceni di Lucera (Naples: Stab. Tip. L. Pierro & Figlio, 1917); and I registri della cancelleria angioina ricostruiti da Riccardo Filangieri con la collaborazione degli archivisti napoletani (Naples: Accademia, 1950–2010). On the structure of the registers, see Andreas Kiesewetter, “La cancelleria angioina,” in L'état angevin, 361–415. Jean Dunbabin contends that the structure of the registers themselves is the greatest example of Angevin centralization and bureaucracy. She also argues that the registers' format for record keeping was exported to the county of Artois and the kingdom of France. See Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou, 23; Jean Dunbabin, The French in the Kingdom of Sicily, 1266–1305 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 254–59.
9.
See Haseloff, Architettura sveva; Pitz, “Das Aufkommen des Berufe,” 40–74; Carola M. Small, “The Crown as an Employer of Wage Labour in Angevin Basilicata,” Social History 14, no. 3 (Oct. 1989), 323–41; Bruzelius, “ ‘Ad modum franciae,’ ” 403–6; Caroline Bruzelius, “Charles of Anjou and the Architecture of the French in Italy: Some Issues Pertaining to the Labor Force,” in L'Europa e l'arte italiana, ed. Max Seidel (Venice: Marsilio, 2000), 95–107; Caroline Bruzelius, “The Labor Force South and North: Workers and Builders in the Angevin Kingdom,” in Arnolfo's Moment, ed. David Friedman, Julian Gardner, and Margaret Haines (Florence: L. S. Olschki, 2009), 108–10.
10.
Small, “Crown as an Employer of Wage Labour,” 332–33.
11.
Haseloff also notes this phenomenon. See Haseloff, Architettura sveva, 407.
12.
Schulz and von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst, 1:21.
13.
Filangieri, Indici degli artefici, 1:373; Haseloff, Architettura sveva, 161–62; Pitz, “Das Aufkommen des Berufe,” 48; Warnke, Bau und Überbau, 143; Pogam, Les maîtres d'oeuvre, 58.
14.
Egidi, Codice diplomatico dei saraceni di Lucera, no. 747 (15 Jan. 1304).
15.
François Lenormant, A travers l'Apulia et la Lucanie: Notes de voyage (Paris: A. Lévy, 1883), 95–96; Vinni Lucherini, La Cattedrale di Napoli: Storia, architettura, storiographia di un monumento medievale (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2009), 293–98. Lucherini lists Francesco di Vico as a possible architect for the Naples cathedral as well. Construction on the Naples cathedral began in 1294 and was completed during the first quarter of the fourteenth century. Each of the two cathedrals features a nave, two aisles, an extended transept, three vaulted apses, and a trussed roof.
16.
Enlart, Origins française de l'architecture gothique, 22–25. Enlart's formal comparisons between the Magdalen shrine and Lucera's cathedral have been largely dismissed. See Bruzelius, Stones of Naples, 78.
17.
Enlart noted that the individual was placed above all others who worked at the site, including the master mason Matheus, who had been hired by the bishop of Sisteron. Enlart, Origins française de l'architecture gothique, 22–25. Moreover, Charles II ordered that the new overseer be treated as a member of the court and be given a house. For the two surviving documents pertaining to Petrus Gallicus at Saint-Maximin, see Georges Digard, “Deux documents sur l'Église de St. Maximin en Provence,” Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire 5 (1885), 313–17.
18.
On Palmerius and Pierre at Castel Nuovo, see Sthamer and Houben, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 3, doc. 1440. Little is known about the Pierre d'Angicourt who died in 1273 except that his son was a student at the University of Naples, the major center for developing bureaucrats and jurists within the Kingdom of Naples. In addition, it is unclear whether the Pierre d'Angicourt listed in 1269 as the rector of the chapel of Castel Vairano outside Naples was the one who died in 1273, the individual who is the subject of our study, or even a third Pierre d'Angicourt, perhaps the thirteenth-century trouvère Perrin d'Angicourt, whose songs and dialogues express an intimate relationship with Charles I not substantiated by any historical documents outside his produced works. The rector, like the prothomagister et provisor operum curie, is confirmed as a familiaris, a sign of his close and intimate relationship with the king. On the Pierre who died in 1273, see Stefano Palmieri, ed., I registri della cancelleria angioina, vol. 50 (Naples: Arte Tipografica Editrice, 2010), 150, 165, 296. On Pierre d'Angicourt the rector, see Schulz and von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst, vol. 4, docs. 45, 47. On Perrin d'Angicourt, his work, and his literary connections to Charles I, see Georg Steffens, Die Lieder des Troveors Perrin von Angicourt (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1905); Jean Maillard, “Charles d'Anjou: Roi-trouvère du XIIIème siècle,” Musica Disciplina 21 (1967), 7–66.
19.
Sthamer, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 1, doc. 41. The first phase of the construction included the vaulted palace structure to the northeast (see Figure 3, top right corner), begun under the Hohenstaufen king Frederick II circa 1240. A major Angevin expansion comprising the construction of circulating walls, renovation of the Hohenstaufen palace, and construction of various buildings within the walls, including barracks, a hospice, and a chapel, occurred approximately between 1269 and 1286.
20.
On Pierre at Canosa, see Sthamer, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 2, docs. 717–19. On Pierre at Bari, see docs. 571, 574, 579, and 642 in the same volume. See also Haseloff, Architettura sveva, 161–62.
21.
For his activities at these sites, see Sthamer, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vols. 1–2; Sthamer and Houben, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 3.
22.
Sthamer, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 1, doc. 430. Documents on construction of the walls of Manfredonia date from 1277 to 1284. I am currently at work on a study of this structure.
23.
The salary of three tarì per day plus mounted soldiers was a level of compensation equal to that received by a captain (governor) of a royal city or the provisor castrorum, an official responsible for the provisioning of castles within a given province. See Sthamer, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 1, doc. 232. See also Haseloff, Architettura sveva, 162–63.
24.
Historian Giuliana Vitale has argued that the Angevin kings conferred titles such as fides and familiaris on individuals who had sworn an oath of loyalty and that these titles were conferred to consolidate and consecrate long-standing personal relationships with the king. See Giuliana Vitale, Élite burocratica e famiglia: Dinamiche nobiliari e processi di costruzione statale nella Napoli angioino-aragonese (Naples: Liguori, 2003), 49. See also Samantha Kelly, The New Solomon: Robert of Naples (1309–1343) and Fourteenth-Century Kingship (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 57; Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou, 191–93.
25.
Schulz and von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst, vol. 4, doc. 224; Sthamer and Houben, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 3, docs. 1440, 1458. Pierre de Chaule enjoyed a lengthy career in building administration. Described as a clericus, the “magister Petrus” is also counted in the Angevin diplomas as a familiar and faithful of the king who by 1283 received a salary of four tarì per day. Scholars cite most often his presence during the construction of Santa Maria di Realvalle, Santa Maria della Vittoria, and Castel Nuovo. In addition to his work with Pierre d'Angicourt at Leonessa, Pierre de Chaule served as expensor of construction for a royal palace at Marano di Napoli. See Sthamer and Houben, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 3; Egidi, Carlo I d'Angiò; Alain de Boüard, ed., Documents en française de Archives angevines de Naples, vol. 2 (Paris: E. de Boüard, 1935), 75, 153, 295; Nicolas Bock, “Patronage, Standards, and Transfert Culturel: Naples between Art History and Social Science Theory,” Art History 31, no. 4 (Sept. 2008), 577.
26.
Sthamer and Houben, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 3, docs. 1301–3. See also Camillo Minieri Riccio, Saggio di Codice diplomatico formato sulle antiche scritture dell'Archivio di Stato di Napoli (Naples: R. Rinaldi e G. Sellitto, 1878), 1:167–69; Camillo Minieri Riccio, Il regno di Carlo I d'Angiò (Florence: M. Cellini, 1875), 10; Andrea di Nicola, “La fondazione di Cittaducale e il controllo della montagna,” Bullettino della Deputazione abruzzese di Storia Patria 97/98 (2007–8), 475.
27.
Pierre received his first feud from Charles I in 1279 when he was granted Pietramontecorvino in northern Apulia. He possessed the estate until 1283. He was given the title of valet in a diploma dated 3 March 1282 and called a knight in 1289 during a land dispute with the Count of Vadomonti and again in the 1304 Lucera diploma. On Pierre at Pietramontecorvino, see Nunzio Tomaiuoli, “Albori della Cattedrale di Lucera,” in Benignitas et Humanitas: Studi in onore di Mons. Francesco Zerrillo Vescovo di Lucera-Troia, ed. Giuseppe Trincucci (Foggia: Litostampa, 2007), 274; Salvatore Savastio, Notizie storiche sull'antica città di Montecorvino di Puglia e sul borgo di Serritella (Pozzuoli: Puteolana D. Conte, 1940), 69, 72. For Pierre as vallectus, see Schulz and von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst, vol. 4, doc. 261. For Pierre as miles, see Schulz and von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst, vol. 4, doc. 290; Egidi, Codice diplomatico dei saraceni di Lucera, no. 747. On other feuds Pierre potentially possessed, see Haseloff, Architettura sveva, 165.
28.
Bertaux, “Les artistes français,” 97.
29.
Schulz and von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst, vol. 4, doc. 287; Haseloff, Architettura sveva, 164.
30.
Schulz and von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst, vol. 4, doc. 298.
31.
Ibid., doc. 318.
32.
On Pierre at Altamura, see Adriana Pepe, “La Cattedrale di Altamura dalla fondazione federiciana al cantiere angioina,” in Cultura artistica, città e architettura nell'età federiciana, ed. Alfonso Gambardella (Rome: Edizioni de Luca, 2000), 341.
33.
Francesco Carabellese, “Spigolature storico-artistiche robertine,” Napoli nobilissima 8 (1899), 191–92.
34.
Ibid., 192n3; Haseloff, Architettura sveva, 165.
35.
On the theory-based architect as anachronism during the Middle Ages, see Marvin Trachtenberg, “Building outside Time in Alberti's ‘De re aedificatoria,’ ” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 48 (Autumn 2005), 123–34; Marvin Trachtenberg, Building-in-Time: From Giotto to Alberti and Modern Oblivion (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2010).
36.
For example, the clerk Pierre de Chaule was described as an expensor at times for Santa Maria della Vittoria. See Egidi, Carlo I d'Angiò, 43–45.
37.
Prepositus is used overwhelmingly in surviving Hohenstaufen diplomas to denote church administrators, but it appears occasionally in building documents, most notably in the period 1239–40 in connection to the provost Riccardo de Lentino, identified as prepositus novarum hedificiorum at sites including the Castle of Augusta, the Vivarium of San Cosmo, the Castle of Caltagirone, the Castle of Milazzo, the Castle of Lentini, and the Castle of Catania, all in Sicily. A Sicilian who, surviving documents show, was employed extensively in and around his native eastern coast of Sicily, Riccardo appears to have had more autonomy and technical knowledge than the Angevin prepositi, including the ability to alter the siting for planned castles, as at the Castle of Catania. This level of expertise, the lack of consistent use of the term prepositus at building sites under the Hohenstaufen, and Riccardo's Sicilian identity suggest that the position of prepositus at building sites was not institutionalized under the Hohenstaufen. On Riccardo's activities in 1239–40, see Schulz and von Quast, Denkmäler der Kunst, 4:4–6; Sthamer and Houben, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, 3:220–24; Jean Louis Alphonse Huillard-Bréholles, Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi, vol. 5, pt. 2 (Paris: Henricus Plon, 1852–61), 220; Cristina Carbonetti Venditteli, ed., Il regestro della cancelleria di Federico II del 1239–1240 (Rome: Istituto Storico per il Medio Evo, 2002), 48–49, 173, 176–77, 204, 206–7, 725–26; Vittorio Franchetti Pardo, Città, architeture, maestranze tra tarda antichità ed età moderna (Milan: Jaca Book, 2001), 90.
38.
Sthamer, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 1, docs. 9, 68, 431.
39.
Ibid., docs. 11, 12, 15, 19–22.
40.
From 1274 to 1276, Pierre directed construction of the fortress's east wall while Riccardo directed work on the north wall. See ibid., doc. 97.
41.
In fact, during this period the extent and limits of their respective ranks were made explicitly clear. Riccardo, for instance, was addressed as “Riccardus de Fogia prothomagister operis muri Lucerie ex parte Florentini.” See ibid., docs. 94, 100.
42.
In another episode, Pierre destroyed part of a wall at Lucera that had been supervised by Riccardo da Foggia and not done to the Frenchman's liking. This appears to be the event that Bertaux notes as having caused Riccardo to leave his position in disgrace. See Bertaux, “Les artistes français,” 96; Small, “Crown as an Employer of Wage Labour,” 338.
43.
See Pitz, “Das Aufkommen des Berufe,” 42–63.
44.
On the development of Angevin administrative practices through the adoption and expansion of those in Provence under Raymond Berengar V (1209–45) and Frederick II in southern Italy, see Dunbabin, The French in the Kingdom of Sicily, 26–27, 70–73. Salient studies of Angevin administration of the Regno include Léon Cadier, Essai sur l'administration du royaume de Sicile sous Charles 1er et Charles II d'Anjou (Paris: E. Thorin, 1891); Samantha Kelly, “Noblesse de robe et noblesse d'esprit à la cour de Robert de Naples: La question d'Italianisation,” in La noblesse dans les territoires angevins à la fin du Moyen Âge, ed. Noël Coulet and Jean-Michel Matz (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2000), 347–61; Kelly, New Solomon, 54–72; Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou; Dunbabin, The French in the Kingdom of Sicily; Vitale, Élite burocratica e famiglia.
45.
Kelly, “Noblesse de robe et noblesse d'esprit.”
46.
Kelly, New Solomon, 62. On Giovanni Pipino, see Romolo Caggese, “Giovanni Pipino Conte D'Altamura,” in Studi di onore di M. Schipa (Naples: ITEA, 1926), 141–65; Caroline Bruzelius, “Giovanni Pipino of Barletta: The Butcher of Lucera as Patron and Builder,” in Pierre, lumière, couleur: Études d'histoire de l'art du Moyen Âge en l'honneur d'Anne Prache, ed. Fabienne Joubert and Dany Sandron (Paris: Presses de l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1999), 255–67; Sylvie Pollastri, Le lignage et le fief: L'affirmation du milieu comtal et la construction des états féodaux sous les Angevins de Naples, 1265–1435 (Paris: Éditions Publibook, 2011), 272. Members of the Rufolo and Della Marra clans also should be counted within this group. See Jill Caskey, Art and Patronage in the Medieval Mediterranean: Merchant Culture in the Region of Amalfi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 29–38; François Widemann, “Les Rufolo: Les voires de l'anoblissement d'une famille de marchand en Italie méridionale,” in Coulet and Matz, La noblesse dans les territoires angevins, 115–30; Pollastri, Le lignage et le fief, 32.
47.
Sthamer, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 1, doc. 431.
48.
The given name Caloiohanne (or Kaloiohanne), of which Caroiohanne is a variant, occurs in sources dating from the late tenth to early eleventh centuries collected in the Codice diplomatico barese, in which a number of clerics addressed in the following documents bear the name: doc. 4 (dated June 990), doc. 8 (dated the year 1003), doc. 14 (Mar. 1019), doc. 16 (Aug. 1025), doc. 25 (Mar. 1036), doc. 37 (Apr. 1057), and frag. 2 (Nov. 971). It was recorded as a patronymic by the thirteenth century, as evidenced by the example above and the presence an individual named Theodore of Caloiohanne, identified by the historian Raffaele Colapietra as a member of the “old Byzantine Aristocracy from Bari,” at the construction site of Lucera's fortress in 1270. In addition, an individual named Tommaso of Caloiohanne served in 1280 as expensor of Bari's castle during renovations. On Caloiohanne and its derivatives as a given name under Byzantine dominance, see Francesco Nitti di Vito, ed., Le pergamene di S. Nicola di Bari: Periodo greco (939–1071), vol. 4 of Codice diplomatico barese (Trani: Cav. Vecchi, 1900). On Caloiohanne as a surname or patronymic indicating Greek heritage, see Raffaele Colapietra, “Lucera e L'Aquila sotto i primi Angioini,” Rassegna di Studi Dauni 2, nos. 1–2 (1975), 16–17. On Tommaso of Caloiohanne at Bari's castle, see Sthamer, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 1, doc. 640.
49.
Egidi, Codice diplomatico dei saraceni di Lucera, no. 747.
50.
Trachtenberg, “Building outside Time,” 123–34; Trachtenberg, Building-in-Time.
51.
On Angevin fluidity of administrative positions in general, see Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou, 191. On Pierre's closest parallel, the clerk, prepositus, and familiaris Pierre de Chaule, who prior to administering construction on Castel Nuovo in Naples served in the Angevin bureaucracy as a tax collector and auditor of traitors' property, see Francesco Aceto, “Lecastrum novum’ angevin de Naples,” in Chantiers médiévaux (Paris: Présence de l'Art, 1996), 256, 265.
52.
The Southern Question has been employed as a catchall to describe southern Italy's social and economic retardation. On the nineteenth-century roots of the Southern Question, see Nelson Moe, The View from Vesuvius: Italian Culture and the Southern Question (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); Lucy Riall, “Which Road to the South? Revisionists Revisit the Mezzogiorno,” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 5, no. 1 (2000), 89–100. For revisionist economic histories of late medieval southern Italy that challenge the projection of the Southern Question to the Middle Ages, see S. R. Epstein, An Island for Itself: Economic Development and Social Change in Late Medieval Sicily (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); S. R. Epstein, Freedom and Growth: The Rise of States and Markets in Europe, 1300–1750 (London: Routledge, 2002); Eleni Sakellariou, Southern Italy in the Late Middle Ages: Demographic, Institutional, and Economic Change in the Kingdom of Naples, c. 1440–c. 1530 (Leiden: Brill, 2012).
53.
The kings of France and England and the counts of Toulouse built more than seven hundred bastides in southwest France. See Adrian Randolph, “The Bastides of Southwest France,” Art Bulletin 77, no. 2 (June 1995), 290–307. On building in England and its parallels to southern Italy, see Pogam, Les maîtres d'oeuvre, 130–32; Pardo, Città, architeture, maestranze, 92; R. A. Brown and H. M. Colvin, “The Clerks of the King's Works, 1378–1485,” in The History of the King's Works, ed. H. M. Colvin (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1963), 1:189–201; Günther Binding, Baubetrieb im Mittelalter (Darmstadt: Primus-Verlag, 1997), 75. For parallels to the ergolabos in the Byzantine world, see Robert Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzantium (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999), 46–47.
54.
On the monasteries Santa Maria di Realvalle and Santa Maria della Vittoria, see Bruzelius, “‘Ad modum franciae’”; Bruzelius, “Charles I, Charles II,”; Bruzelius, “Il Gran Rifutio”; Bruzelius, Stones of Naples.
55.
For parallel arguments, see Davis, “Guidelines”; Matthew Johnson, Behind the Castle Gate: From Medieval to Renaissance (London: Routledge, 2002), 11.
56.
Sthamer, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kastellbauten, vol. 1, doc. 431.
57.
Robert Maxwell has addressed this issue in his analysis of Romanesque Aquitaine. See Maxwell, “Romanesque Construction.”
58.
Norbert Nussbaum, “Planning and Building without Writing: Questions of Communication in Gothic Masons' Lodges,” in Architecture, Liturgy and Identity: Liber Amicorum Paul Crossley, ed. Zoë Opačić and Achim Timmermann (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), 145.
59.
The marks of these twenty stonecutters are just some of the dozens that survive throughout the fortress. For the most complete list of masons' marks at Lucera's fortress, see Haseloff, Architettura sveva, 303.
60.
Michael T. Davis, “Angevin Architecture in the Kingdom of Naples: A Review of Recent Studies,” AVISTA Forum Journal 13, no. 1 (2003), 18–21.
61.
Jill Caskey, “The Look of Liturgy: Identity and Ars Sacra in Southern Italy,” in Ritual and Space in the Middle Ages: Proceedings of the 2009 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Frances Andrews (Donington, England: Shaun Tyas, 2011), 111–20. The Angevin regime created a second south Italian “Sainte-Chapelle” in Naples toward the end of the fourteenth century. That church, Santa Maria Incoronata, is an unusual two-aisle plan that resulted from part reuse of an older tribune and part new construction. It contained a thorn from Christ's crown that Charles V of Valois donated to Joanna I of Anjou sometime between 1364 and 1367. For Santa Maria Incoronata, see Paola Vitolo, La chiesa della regina: L'incoronata di Napoli, Giovanna I d'Angiò e Roberto di Oderisio (Rome: Viella, 2008).
62.
Krautheimer's concept of an “iconography of architecture” and Branner's later concept of a Capetian “court style” adhere to the idea that the structural forms of buildings can be symbolic. On Krautheimer's and Branner's long-influential theories, see Richard Krautheimer, “Introduction to an ‘Iconography of Mediaeval Architecture,’ ” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942), 1–33; Richard Krautheimer, “The Carolingian Revival of Early Christian Architecture,” Art Bulletin 24, no. 1 (1942), 1–38; Robert Branner, St. Louis and the Court Style in Gothic Architecture (London: A. Zwemmer, 1965). On challenges to Krautheimer's concept of architectural iconographies, see Marvin Trachtenberg, “On Brunelleschi's Choice: Speculations on Medieval Rome and the Origins of Renaissance Architecture,” in Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer, ed. Cecil L. Striker (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 169; Valentino Pace, “La ‘Felix Culpa’ di Richard Krautheimer: Roma, Santa Prassede, e la ‘Rinascità Carolingia,’ ” in Ecclesiae urbis: Atti del Congresso internazionale di studi sulle chiese di Roma (IV–X secolo), Roma, 4–10 settembre 2000, ed. Federico Guidobaldi and Alessandra Giuglia Guidobaldi (Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 2002), 65–72; Caroline Goodson, “Revival and Reality: The Carolingian Renaissance in Rome and the Case of S. Prassede,” Acta ad archaeologiam et atrium historiam pertinentia, n.s., 5 (2005), 163–92; Catherine Carver McCurrach, “Renovatio Reconsidered: Richard Krautheimer and the Iconography of Architecture,” Gesta 50, no. 1 (2011), 41–69. On Branner's court style, see Eric Fernie, “Robert Branner's Treatment of Architecture Sources and Precedents,” Gesta 38, no. 2 (2000), 157–200; Meredith Cohen, “Branner's ‘Court Style’ and the Anxiety of Influence,” in Medieval Art and Architecture after the Middle Ages, ed. Janet T. Marquardt and Alyce A. Jordan (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2009), 218–45.
63.
For examples of this early French scholarship, see Lenormant, A travers l'Apulia et la Lucanie; Enlart, Origins française de l'architecture gothique; Bertaux, “Les artistes français,” 89–114; Émile Bertaux, “I monumenti medievali della regione del Vulture,” supplement, Napoli nobilissima 6 (1897), 5–11; Émile Bertaux, Castel del Monte et les architectes française de l'empereur Frederic II (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1898); Émile Bertaux, “Les francaise d'outre-mer en Apulia et en Épire au temps des Hohenstaufen d'Italie,” Revue historique 85 (1904), 225–54.
64.
On issues of provincializing Angevin architecture in southern Italy, see Caskey, Art and Patronage, 16; Jill Caskey, “Steam and Sanitas in the Domestic Realm: Baths and Bathing in Southern Italy in the Middle Ages,” JSAH 58, no. 2 (June 1999), 171–72.
65.
Harper, “Patronage in the Re-Christianized Landscape of Angevin Apulia,” 2–3.