Although none of Bell's extant letters indicate specific reasons for coming to Italy, her archaeological interests at the time – which primarily concerned the palace of Ukhaidir in Mesopotamia and its architectural elements that derived inspiration from Greco-Roman traditions – must have been her primary motivation. Bell had by this time just recently completed her article on the vaulting systems of Ukhaidir, which she had submitted to the Journal of Hellenic Studies,14 and she still had foremost in her mind the vaults’ possible connection to Rome and the West, something she had only cursorily explored thus far.
It is evident that while in Rome, Bell wished to spend more of her time with archaeologists than with any other friends or acquaintances, for the former are frequently mentioned in her letters both before and after the departure of her father, who had been her travelling companion in Rome for at least ten days in February.15 When Bell remained on her own in Rome for the rest of February and into March, her education in Roman-period architecture and ornament seems to have intensified, particularly after a lecture that she gave, probably at the British School at Rome. She reports that it was attended by ‘a very distinguished audience of professors’.16 It is likely that on this occasion Bell lectured about her findings at Ukhaidir, and that she received helpful and enthusiastic feedback from the attendees.
Present at Bell's lecture, and probably the person who had organized the talk, was a long-time friend of Bell, Eugénie Strong, at that time the assistant director of the British School at Rome (Fig. 5.1). Working in that capacity until 1925, Strong helping to transform the institution into a major scholarly and cultural centre.17 Strong was a well-connected individual in Britain, having moved in London high society in her youth, and then having benefitted from her marriage to Sanford Arthur Strong, a scholar of Oriental languages and literature and an art historian, who served as Librarian to the Duke of Devonshire at Chatsworth House in Derbyshire.18 Eugénie herself would assume this post for four years upon her husband's death in 1904. She was also a well-trained and skilled scholar of Classical art and archaeology. She had been educated at Cambridge, the British School at Athens, and Munich, where she studied under the Classical archaeologist Adolf Fürtwangler and the philologist Ludwig Traube.19 Her interests gradually shifted from Greek to Roman art, and during her time in Rome, where she lived until her death in 1943, she published widely on Roman art – particularly sculpture – and Roman religion.20
By the time of her trip to Rome in 1910, Bell had known Eugénie Strong for some time. They had moved in the same circles of English society, and their families were acquainted.21 Bell was also connected to Sanford Arthur Strong, who had offered to teach her Persian in 1892 before her departure to Persia.22 Later, in 1896, she received instruction in Arabic from him in London, where he had been appointed Professor of Arabic at University College, and he had read over her translations of the Persian poet Hafiz.23 After Eugénie and Arthur married in 1897, Bell's relationship with both of them continued, and then with Eugénie alone after Arthur's death.24 While in Rome in 1910, Bell saw Eugénie frequently, especially after her father's departure. Strong's connections with the scholarly community of Rome made it easy for Bell to move about in this society, meeting Strong's colleagues in the British School at Rome, listening to lectures – including one delivered by Strong – and wandering with her around the Palatine Hill, Forum and Baths of Caracalla.
Bell also became acquainted with the director of the British School at Rome – and Strong's closest working colleague – Thomas Ashby. Appointed to the British School in 1906, Ashby spent most of his adult life in Rome, becoming a foremost researcher of the topography and monuments of the city and of the surrounding Campagna.25 He hiked and biked tirelessly around the Roman countryside, investigating and recording all extant inscriptions and Roman remains and endeavouring to place these finds within their proper historical context.26 With Thomas Ashby as director and Eugénie Strong as assistant director, the British School at Rome possessed an academically robust and balanced team that would bring the school into its heyday of success and prestige. While Ashby was the expert on Rome's topography and countryside, Strong's specialization was the Roman art in the galleries.27 Moreover, while Ashby was painfully shy and lacked social graces, Strong was socially confident and brought to her position a developed network of connections, which not only bolstered the British School's relationship with other important Italian and European researchers but helped to bring necessary funding.28 Bell does not mention any of Ashby's shyness in her letters, only remarking that he spent much of his time ‘trotting around with us’.29 On at least one occasion, she reports having an immensely pleasurable motor outing in which Ashby showed her and her companions the ruined villas around the hills of the Campagna.30
Fig. 5.1 Photograph of Eugénie Strong, a friend of Gertrude Bell, working as Librarian at Chatsworth House (1904–9), shortly before taking up her post as the Assistant Director of the British School at Rome. Well liked and well connected to the scholarly community of Rome, Strong introduced Bell to experts of Classical antiquity such as Thomas Ashby, Esther Van Deman and Richard Delbrück.
Of special interest is Bell's acquaintance with the American archaeologist Esther Van Deman, a ‘nice little plain American woman’, as Bell describes her in a letter (Fig. 5.2).31 It is conceivable that Van Deman met Bell in the British School at Rome, and she possibly attended Bell's lecture, being counted among the ‘distinguished audience of professors’ at that event.32 Bell's letters reveal that the two spent a considerable amount of time together, inspecting Roman ruins within the city, including the Palatine Hill and the Forum, the Pretorian Camp, Trajan's Baths and the Baths of Caracalla. Van Deman also accompanied Bell on her outing with Thomas Ashby to the Campagna, where they visited ruined villas. Later, she and Bell went to Tivoli to see Hadrian's Villa.33
Bell found in Van Deman not only a friendly companion but an impressive scholar of Roman archaeology. By 1910, Esther Van Deman, who was in her forties and living in Rome, had earned a scholarly reputation for her extensive, detailed work on Roman construction, particularly the uses of concrete and wall-facing techniques, subjects on which she is now regarded as a pioneer.34 She used the appearance and size of brickwork facings and concrete mortar to date Rome's buildings, a method presented in her monograph on the imperial Atrium Vestae, which she published in 1909.35 This work was followed by two important articles in the American Journal of Archaeology (1912), which dealt also with the dating of Roman buildings through their bricks and mortar.36 While Van Deman's dating method ultimately proved to be flawed, her work is still praiseworthy for its close observations and its scope. Moreover, many of her publications were expertly illustrated with exact architectural plans and crisp, detailed photographs.37
Fig. 5.2 Photograph of the American archaeologist Esther Van Deman, and a Roman brick construction. During her visit to Rome in 1910, Bell saw much of Van Deman and visited several Roman-period sites with her. She was probably influenced by Van Deman’s interest in ancient materials and construction techniques, and the assiduous manner in which she recorded such details in her archaeological research.
By 1910, Van Deman had become well acquainted with Thomas Ashby, and in her letters to Bell it is clear that she held him in high esteem. Van Deman's and Ashby's scholarly relationship would later culminate, between 1924 and 1931, in a profitable collaboration on all of the surviving aqueducts in and around Rome, establishing their building histories and mapping their routes into the city.38
Van Deman also knew and liked Eugénie Strong39 and admired the Ashby–Strong teamwork at the British School. In a letter to Bell, we get her fascinating assessment of that partnership:
My own work is not exciting – though I've found a number of new facts recently. I am working up the levels on the Palatine and in the Forum, and find there is much of value for my ‘brick’. I think Mr. Ashby has my ‘brickwork scheme’ with him, but he has not yet sent it to Mrs. Strong or to Mr. St
uart-Jones, I hear. I so wish that same gentleman and Mrs. Strong were to change places, for he does not like the public duties and wishes her to do them, while she does them so well. But if any must be over her, I hope there may be no change, for they go admirably, and he is so very loyal and nice to her in every way – all men would not be so lovely. And he is a sound, good scholar and is honored everywhere for his real ability and good work. With her here, the School seems ideally managed only I hope they may let Mrs. Strong have more time to work next year – she cannot be rude, but it is hard to see so many people constantly, for it saps one's vitality, especially in our climate.40
Bell must have been impressed by Van Deman's scholarly drive and diligence, and no doubt saw a little of herself in this unique woman, who often conducted her research alone in the field and yet managed to collect a tremendous amount of detailed architectural data, just as Bell strove to do. She would have witnessed first-hand Van Deman's fastidious, focused approach to archaeological remains. On one occasion in Rome, with her father in tow, Bell remarks that ‘we considered every separate brick in the Forum with her one morning’.41 On another occasion, Bell recounts how she joined Van Deman at the Baths of Caracalla ‘and worked at them all the afternoon’.42 Rather than finding these close observations of Roman ruins tedious, Bell describes them as ‘most interesting’. Her comprehension of these complex constructions enlivened her, as is evident from her comments about her visit with Van Deman to the Baths of Caracalla: ‘what a delightful sensation it is to begin to understand these things. I feel so excited about them that I can scarcely bring myself to come in for lunch!’43
In Bell we see a similar drive to provide clear and detailed observations of construction methods and technical considerations in her descriptions of ancient buildings (Fig. 5.3). This is nowhere more evident than in her letter written to Van Deman from the Dalmatian Coast, where she travelled from Rome in April 1910, with the aim of taking in Roman ruins and learning about their schemes outside Italy. Given Van Deman's own penchant for exactitude, Bell felt no need to hold back in her description, as she might have when writing to her parents. Moreover, Van Deman would have been genuinely interested in her observations. Bell's details from the palace of Diocletian at Split (Spalato) include the following:
Now the vestibule dome was built of rings of tufa a. brick, not very regular, a course or two of brick, then, 3 or 4 of stone; with mortar. No filling, the brick a. stone structure goes right through. The bricks are rectangular, indeed exactly square, 32c–35c square x 2–4c thick. The mortar 4–5c thick.44
Fig. 5.3 Bell’s photograph of one corner of the Hall of Doric Piers at the Villa of Hadrian, Tivoli (Italy). Her effort to photograph this architecture probably was inspired not only by her own interests in brick constructions, but those of Esther Van Deman, her travelling companion, who would have pointed out to her the net-like opus reticulatum brickwork, and the vertical and horizontal brick bands around the doorway.
Van Deman warmly received Bell's letter, even if the details supplied fell outside of the construction schemes she was familiar with in Rome:
I was much interested in Spalato and under great obligation to you for writing me all these interesting facts. After the Basilica in Trier, which is solid brick, & of square bricks too, I am less astonished at anything my Romans may do, but I'm sorry they try so many new schemes.45
In Bell's own published works, direct evidence of Van Deman's influence upon her is not readily apparent, although one can perhaps detect it indirectly. Bell's coverage of the palace at Ukhaidir, with her careful observations, measurements, descriptions of brick, arch and vault constructions, as well as her detailed notes on structures elsewhere, emulate Van Deman's emphasis on such matters.46 Specific techniques – such as the construction of archivolts, and arch constructions with wooden centring – although copied from O. Reuther's own detailed observations at Ukhaidir, reflect Bell's appreciation for such subjects, possibly in the wake of having witnessed Van Deman's careful observations in Rome.47 Lastly, Bell's goal to record construction details, not only in her plans and notebooks but also through her photographs, may be credited in part to Van Deman, whose photographic records of brickwork in wall facings were abundant and meticulous.48
Over the course of their eventful lives, Bell and Van Deman crossed paths only once, during those happy days in Rome in 1910, and their correspondence was brief. Nevertheless, their letters show a clear attitude of friendliness and respect. Bell included Van Deman among her ‘bosom friends’ in Rome, and Van Deman, who could be aloof and brusque with some, expressed her admiration for her friend by signing her letters ‘affectionately’49 and ‘very sincerely and affectionately’.50 Her sense of having found another kindred spirit who revelled in the exploration of ancient ruins, away from the bustle of city life, is conveyed by her remarks to Bell: ‘How I wish you were here to go off into these wild hills with me’51 and ‘I wish you were here to take a few more wild runs after vaults, for our hills remain lovely.’52 One wonders what sorts of achievements these two extraordinary women might have accomplished had they combined their professional talents. But they were both fiercely independent, and the marks they ultimately made in their respective careers were achieved largely by ‘going at it’ alone.
Of all of her connections in Rome, Bell's relationship with Richard Delbrück (1875–1957), a noted German expert on Hellenistic and early Republican Roman architecture, seems to have made the greatest impact on her research pertaining to Ukhaidir and early Islamic architecture.53 Once in Rome, Bell did not waste any time tracking down Delbrück, who at the time was the First Secretary of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, in Rome. Delbrück appears to have been flattered by Bell's intense but nonetheless intellectually inquisitive and attentive nature towards him, and willingly made himself available to her. Especially after the departure of her father, Bell spent a great deal of her time in the company of Delbrück – visiting sites in Rome, attending lectures, discussing topics such as vaults or simply reading books he recommended in the German Institute.54 Delbrück also advised Bell of other places to visit in Italy, giving her a guidebook to Spoleto and providing her with introductions to the Director of Antiquities in Split, on the Dalmatian Coast.55 The intensity of their relationship and the mutual admiration each felt for the other is evident in a letter that Bell wrote to her mother:
Yesterday morning I spent 3 hours with Delbrück who gave me the most wonderful disquisition I have ever heard on the history of architecture. It was a regular lecture; he had prepared all his notes and all his books to illustrate what he was saying. He is a very remarkable man and as he talked I got the hang of things that had always remained mysteries to me. He ended by saying that it was absurd that I should be so ignorant of the Roman monuments and by telling me that I ought to come here for 6 weeks to study.56
With so much time spent in each other's company, one wonders whether a more personal attachment evolved between Bell and Delbrück, although there is no evidence that anything of that nature transpired.57 In any event, Bell's continued scholarly esteem for Delbrück is reflected in her 1914 monograph on Ukhaidir, in which she addresses the subject of Early Islamic architectural forms, materials and construction techniques, and the inspiration they received from the architecture of Rome. Practically all references pertaining to the transmission of Hellenistic forms to Roman Italy, notably vaults and wall decorations such as arched and columned niches, and their consequent transference to the Near East – now on a grander and more ubiquitous scale – are to Delbrück's Hellenistische Bauten in Latium.58 Bell regarded this monograph as the authoritative work on the subject, and she found in Delbrück a scholar whose efforts to trace the evolution of architectural forms through time and across space were a good match to her own methodological emphasis on this process – this being a critical feature of her discussion of the genesis of the Islamic palace.
The last part of Bell's 1910 trip to Italy included a short excursion to the
Dalmatian Coast of Yugoslavia across the Adriatic, where she wanted to see archaeological sites of Roman and Late Antique date. Her interests were no doubt precipitated by her continuing research into the transmission of architectural features between East and West during these periods, spurred on not only by her work on the early Islamic period in Mesopotamia but also by her ongoing study of Late Antique Anatolian churches. She left Rome on 27 March, spending two nights in Spoleto in east Umbria before reaching Ancona and crossing the Adriatic. Once at the city of Split (Spalato) on the Dalmatian Coast on 30 March, Bell made a speedy inspection of the ruins on her wish list: the palace of Diocletian at Split, the cathedral and Venetian fortresses at Šibenik (Sebenico), early Christian basilicas at Solin (Roman Salona, where Diocletian was born), the walled medieval town of Trogir (Trau) further up the coast, Zadar (Zara) and Pola. From Pola, Bell journeyed to Trieste and then carried on back into Italy to Udine and Ravenna, reaching the latter on 7 April.
Although venturing alone on this trip to Dalmatia, Bell made the acquaintance of several people along the way, many of whom were archaeologists. These included Max Dvořák – a leading art historian of the Vienna School of art history and an opponent of Josef Strzygowski – and Emil Reisch, Director of the Austrian Archaeological Institute.59 Bell also made the acquaintance of the German archaeologist Georg Niemann, well known for his research and fieldwork in Greece and Anatolia, as well as his careful architectural study of Diocletian's palace at Split.60
The care with which Bell made architectural observations of ancient buildings continued on this journey, as evidenced by her letter to Van Deman, quoted above, in which she provides detailed comments about the building materials and construction methods at the palace of Diocletian. Bell's photographs of the sites she visited, mostly of vaults, columns, capitals and carved friezes, betray her continuing interest in architectural ornament, styles and building techniques.61 All the while, she observed the impact made by the East on the region's architecture, noting in the palace of Diocletian, for example, that ‘suddenly the East steps in, bends the architraves into arches, sets new and fantastic decorations on every cornice, brings even the plan of a Syrian camp on which to build the house of a king’.62 On her visit to Trogir, she remarked that the cathedral's system of vaulting was taken ‘straight from Byzantium’63 and that a tiny domed basilica in that town was a type peculiar to the Levantine coast.64 At Zadar, she looked at a ninth-century church ‘of oriental type’.65 These hints of the East also reminded Bell of the pleasure she felt exploring its lands, and they reawakened her desire to see it once more. Still in Italy, Bell wrote, while visiting Spoleto:
Britain and the Arab Middle East Page 21