as the sudden appearance of this masterpiece it is needful to seek some antecedents elsewhere.[408] This leads them to ask whether Niccola did not owe his origin and education to some other part of Italy.  Finding at Ravello, near Amain, a pulpit sculptured in 1272 by Niccola di Bartolommeo da Foggia, they suggest that a school of stone-carvers may have flourished at Foggia, and that Niccola Pisano, in spite of his signing himself Pisanus on the Baptistery pulpit, may have been an Apulian trained in that school.  The arguments adduced in favour of that hypothesis are that Niccola’s father, though commonly believed to have been Ser Pietro da Siena, was perhaps called Pietro di Apulia,[409] and that meritorious artists certainly existed at Foggia and Trani.  Yet the resemblance of style between the pulpits at Ravello [1272] and Pisa [1260], if that indeed exists (whereof hereafter more must be said), might be used to prove that Niccola da Foggia learned his art from Niccola Pisano, instead of the contrary; nor again, supposing the Apulian school to have flourished before 1260, is it inconsistent with the tradition of Niccola’s life that he should have learned the sculptor’s craft while working in his youth at Naples.  For the rest, Messrs. Crowe and Cavalcaselle dismiss the story of Pisano’s studying the antique bas-reliefs at Pisa with contempt;[410] but they omit to notice the actual transcripts from those marbles introduced into his first pulpit.  Again, they assume that the lunette at Lucca was one of his latest works, giving precedence to the pulpits of Pisa and Siena and the fountain of Perugia.  A comparison of style no doubt renders this view plausible; for the lunette at Lucca is superior to any other of Pisano’s works as a composition.

The full discussion of these points is rendered impossible by the want of contemporary information, and each student must, therefore, remain contented with his own hypothesis.  Yet something can be said with regard to the Ravello pulpit that plays so important a part in the argument of the learned historians of Italian painting.  Unless a strong similarity between it and Pisano’s pulpits can be proved, their hypothesis carries with it no persuasion.

The pulpit in the cathedral of Ravello is formed like an ambo of the antique type.  That is to say, it is a long parallelogram with flat sides, raised upon pillars, and approached by a flight of steps.  These steps are enclosed within richly-ornamented walls, and stand distinct from the pulpit; a short bridge connects the two.  The six pillars supporting the ambo itself are slender twisted columns with classic capitals.  Three rest on lions, three on lionesses, admirably carved in different attitudes.  A small projection on the north side of the pulpit sustains an eagle standing on a pillar, and spreading out his wings to bear an open book.  On the arch over the entrance to the staircase projects the head of Sigelgaita, wife of Niccola Rufolo, the donor of the