The Crypt of the Seventy Pillars: Volumetric Proportions and Structural Ratios in the Benedictine Abbey of Nonantola

Beneath the brick basilica of San Silvestro at Nonantola, ten kilometres north of Modena, a crypt of exceptional lateral extent occupies the full width of the raised presbytery above: sixty-four slender colonnettes rising from square plinths to carved capitals, carrying a grid of groin vaults across what scholars describe as the most extensive Romanesque hall-crypt in Europe. The space is traditionally described as a forest of columns, and the designation that frames this study — the Crypt of the Seventy Pillars — encodes a numerological reading that diverges from every documented architectural count. Resolving that divergence opens onto the volumetric proportions and structural ratios that make this eleventh-century underground interior one of the most analytically rewarding spaces in Italian Romanesque architecture.

Key Takeaways

The Benedictine Abbey of Nonantola was founded in 752 by Abbot Anselm, former Duke of Friuli, on territory donated by the Lombard King Aistulf — one of the earliest and most politically significant monastic foundations in the Italian peninsula, serving as a cultural and strategic node between the former Byzantine Exarchate and the Lombard heartland.
The crypt is the most extensively documented surviving Romanesque hall-crypt in European ecclesiastical architecture, sheltering under the full three-aisled presbytery of a basilica whose Romanesque rebuilding campaign is dated by the portal inscription to the period after the 1117 earthquake.
The “Seventy Pillars” designation corresponds to no documented historical or popular epithet for this crypt; the Treccani Enciclopedia dell’Arte Medievale — the authoritative Italian scholarly reference — records the complete structural inventory as sixty-four free-standing colonnettes and twenty-two wall responds (semicolumns), with thirty-six sculpted capitals, totalling eighty-six load-bearing supports.
The sixty-four free-standing colonnettes carry the symbolic charge of 8² — the square of the medieval number of perfection and resurrection — and are exactly double the thirty-two colonnettes of the contemporary Modena Cathedral crypt, a numerical relationship the abbey’s own interpretive literature describes as architecturally and symbolically significant.
The capital inventory constitutes a chronological stratigraphy spanning the eighth through twelfth centuries, recording successive phases of Lombard, Carolingian, and Romanesque stone-carving; their current configuration reflects both medieval design intent and the substantial reassembly carried out during the early twentieth-century restoration directed by Canon Ferdinando Manzini.
Declared a National Monument of Italy in 1940, the abbey — not a UNESCO World Heritage Site — stands as the foremost architectural expression of Benedictine cultural hegemony in the Emilian Po plain, a heritage that shaped the crypt’s extraordinary scale and gave it the institutional mandate to become Europe’s largest Romanesque underground hall.

Introduction: A Forest Beneath a Basilica

The Benedictine Abbey of Nonantola does not announce itself from the Via Emilia with the pictorial drama of the Modena Cathedral or the vertical aspiration of the Parma Baptistery. Its brick facade, restored to Romanesque severity between 1913 and 1917, presents a measured horizontal profile across the flat Emilian plain: two-saliented gable above three blind arches, a bifora, the modest protrusion of a canopied portal. The sobriety is intentional and total. What the exterior conceals — what has been concealed for most of the past six centuries — is the spatial event beneath the presbytery that makes Nonantola unique among the major Romanesque churches of northern Italy.

The crypt at Nonantola is not a small reliquary chamber or a low-vaulted ambulatory corridor. It is a hall of exceptional lateral reach, extending under the full three-aisled presbytery of a basilica whose nave spans some twenty metres in width. Into this plan area, eleventh-century builders deployed a columnar grid of sixty-four slender colonnettes — each rising from a square plinth to a carved capital and carrying a pair of round-headed arches — producing the spatial phenomenon that every visitor since the 1913-17 restoration has described in arboreal terms: a forest, a grove, a colonnade of stone trees. The abbey’s official website uses the phrase “bosco di colonne”; so does the entry in the Enciclopedia dell’Arte Medievale; so do the pilgrims of the Via Romea Nonantolana who encounter the crypt at the end of their journey from Fanano across the Apennines.

This study takes the spatial experience of the crypt as its point of departure but insists on moving from experience to measurement, from the qualitative impression of multiplicity to the quantitative structure that generates it. The numerological puzzle embedded in the title — why “seventy” when no documented count reaches that figure — provides the initial analytical leverage. The argument extends beyond the discrepancy to examine the volumetric proportions governing the crypt’s height-to-width relationships, the structural ratios that determine how slender a colonnette can be before vault loads require a different solution, and the symbolic arithmetic that medieval builders encoded in a ground plan of sixty-four supports. The result is an architecture whose distinctive quality lies precisely in the tension between its countable elements and its uncountable spatial effect.

The Counting Problem: Resolving the “Seventy Pillars” Designation

Confronting the numerological discrepancy at the heart of this study’s title is the first analytical task, because it illuminates both the hermeneutics of medieval architectural description and the very real problem of what counts as a “pillar” in a complex Romanesque crypt.

The popular and institutional count for the Nonantola crypt is sixty-four columns. This figure appears in the official abbey website, in the VisitModena regional tourism authority’s description, in the Italian Wikipedia entry, and in virtually all heritage publications. The number is not wrong: there are sixty-four free-standing colonnettes in the central and lateral naves of the crypt. And the number carries its own symbolic freight — sixty-four is the square of eight, and eight was the medieval number of resurrection, of the octave, of celestial perfection, the number that structured baptismal fonts in their octagonal form across the Christian world. The abbey’s interpretive texts make this symbolic reading explicit: “Simbolicamente, 64 colonnine potrebbero indicare la perfezione, essendo 64 il quadrato di 8, numero della perfezione” — symbolically, sixty-four colonnettes could indicate perfection, being sixty-four the square of eight, the number of perfection.

The scholarly figure, however, is more comprehensive. The entry on Nonantola in the Treccani Enciclopedia dell’Arte Medievale — written by G. Zanichelli and representing the authoritative synthesis of the Italian art-historical literature through the mid-1990s — describes the crypt as “retta da sessantaquattro colonne e ventidue semicolonne, con trentasei capitelli scolpiti”: supported by sixty-four columns and twenty-two semicolumns, with thirty-six sculpted capitals. This figure of eighty-six resolves the long-standing discrepancy between the popular count of sixty-four and the Cathopedia Catholic encyclopaedia’s figure of eighty-six “colonne che sorreggono volte a crociera” (columns supporting groin vaults). Cathopedia is counting all structural supports that carry vault loads, including the twenty-two semicolumns engaged against the outer walls and the piers of the apsidal bays. Popular tradition counts only the free-standing colonnettes that create the visual and spatial effect of the “forest”; structural analysis requires counting every element that performs load-bearing work.

Neither sixty-four nor eighty-six is seventy. The “Seventy Pillars” designation corresponds to no single documented count in the Italian primary literature or the secondary scholarship. A systematic search of Italian-language sources for “cripta settanta pilastri” or “settanta colonne” in connection with Nonantola yields no results: the epithet does not appear to circulate as a standard historical or popular designation for this space. It is, rather, the analytical title of this study — and as such it requires scholarly justification.

That justification operates on two levels, one experiential and one numerological. The experiential argument is this: in the dim light of the crypt, moving among columns whose uniform slenderness prevents the eye from orienting itself along a single axis, the visitor confronts a spatial quantity that resists enumeration. The columns are not arrayed in the transparent linear procession of a colonnaded nave, where a count can be made from a single standing point along a clear processional axis. They fill a three-dimensional space across multiple aisles, around the curve of apsidal bays, against walls that recede into shadow. Under these conditions, the human counting faculty registers not “sixty-four” or “eighty-six” but “many” — a quantity that the cultural memory approximates with any large round number carrying connotations of sacred multiplicity.

The numerological argument is this: seventy is one of the most polyvalent sacred numbers in the Western biblical and patristic tradition. Moses appointed seventy elders to share the burden of governance over Israel (Numbers 11:16-25); Christ sent out seventy disciples ahead of him into every town (Luke 10:1-20); Genesis 10 records seventy nations descended from the sons of Noah; the authoritative Latin translation of the Hebrew scriptures is attributed to seventy (or seventy-two) scholars — the Septuagint. In the medieval Christian imagination, a space containing “seventy” structural elements would carry these typological resonances effortlessly, associating the columnar assembly with the apostolic community, the diversity of nations gathered under one vault, the council of elders convened before God. The “Seventy Pillars” designation, whether or not it circulated in medieval sources, performs precisely this typological function: it translates an architectural count into a theological claim about the space’s sacred character and its embeddedness in the history of God’s dealings with his people.

The specific count of sixty-four performs a different but equally legitimate symbolic operation: it encodes the designed arithmetic of the architecture itself. The “Seventy Pillars” title captures the visitor’s experience and the tradition’s numerological interpretation of that experience. Neither is more correct than the other; together they articulate the productive tension between what was built and what is felt — a tension that lies at the heart of Romanesque spatial design and that this study takes as its central analytical problem.

Foundation and Political Geography: Why Nonantola’s Crypt Had to Be This Large

The scale of the Nonantola crypt is not an accident of piety operating in isolation or of abbatial ambition unconstrained by programme. It is the architectural consequence of a specific political and territorial logic that determined the size of the basilica above — and therefore the extent of the space beneath the presbytery.

The abbey was founded in 752 by Anselm, formerly Duke of Friuli, who had recently taken monastic vows after surrendering his secular position and received from his brother-in-law Aistulf — King of the Lombards from 749 to 756 — a tract of land described in the founding donation as consisting mostly of marshland and forest at the edge of the former Byzantine Exarchate. The strategic logic of the foundation was explicit and deliberate. Nonantola was positioned to consolidate Lombard territorial gains in the Po plain following the conquest of the Exarchate of Ravenna; to provide a religious and administrative node on the route between the Lombard heartland and the newly acquired Byzantine territories to the east and south; and to project Lombard cultural power into a zone that had been Roman-Byzantine rather than Germanic in its political and ecclesiastical formation.

The rapidity with which the new abbey rose to institutional prominence was extraordinary. Under Anselm’s own abbacy (752 to 803), the monastery reportedly hosted approximately 1,100 monks at peak population — a figure recorded in the Treccani entry and consistent with the massive land grants and imperial patronage that the abbey attracted from the beginning. The archives assembled under successive abbots accumulated more than 4,500 parchments, 131 of them predating the year 1000, including charters bearing the monogram of Charlemagne, the signature of Matilda of Canossa, and diplomas of Frederick Barbarossa. The scriptorium at Nonantola was, as Maria Pia Branchi’s foundational 2011 study of the abbey’s manuscripts demonstrates, one of the principal centres of pre-Carolingian and early Carolingian script formation — the institutional context within which the distinctive Nonantola version of Carolingian minuscule was developed and disseminated.

Carlo Magno visited Nonantola; Pope Marino and the Emperor Carlo il Grosso met here in the 880s; Matilda of Canossa, the most powerful figure in northern Italy during the Investiture Controversy, wielded direct control over the abbey during the abbacy of Damiano (1086-1113). The abbey maintained commercial agents at Pavia, Piacenza, and Cremona — cities reachable via the water routes of the Panaro and the Po — and intervened in the periodic fairs of those cities as a buyer and seller of goods. This was not a small rural monastery of local significance; it was one of the great institutional centres of medieval European culture, with reach and influence comparable to Monte Cassino or the Swiss monasteries of the reform tradition.

This institutional scale determined the size of the church and therefore the size of the crypt. The crypt at Nonantola was not a small chamber carved out beneath an apse to shelter a single saint’s relics. It was a liturgical hall under the entire presbytery, accessible from both sides via lateral staircases and from the centre via the main stairway — a space designed to receive pilgrims in large numbers, to display the relics of six saints on an elevated altar, and to provide a subterranean counterpart to the elevated presbytery above. Six saints were venerated in the crypt: Anselm, the abbey’s founder (died 803); Pope Adriano III (died 884, buried at Nonantola during a journey to the imperial court); the martyrs Senesio and Teopompo (martyred in Nicomedia in 304 during the Diocletianic persecution); and the virgins Fosca and Anseride. An abbey of this institutional weight, venerating six saints of this significance, required a reliquary space commensurate with its status as a pan-European pilgrim destination.

The consequence was a crypt whose plan dimensions stretched under the full width and depth of a three-aisled presbytery. The three-nave plan above — seven compound pilasters (pilastri polistili) dividing the space, with the presbytery elevated on twenty-four steps — dictated a crypt of roughly equivalent floor area below, subdivided by the grid of free-standing colonnettes into the same three-nave schema. The result, when completed in the eleventh century, was the most extensive hall-crypt in Romanesque Europe: a distinction that both the official abbey sources and the VisitModena institutional guide describe as established among European Romanesque churches, and that the comparative evidence of major surviving crypts appears to confirm.

Building History: From Lombard Foundation to Romanesque Reconstruction

The structure visible today is not the first church built on this site. The abbey underwent several distinct construction phases before arriving at the Romanesque configuration whose crypt is the subject of this analysis.

The initial Lombard church of 752 was presumably a modest construction relative to what followed. Archaeological investigations during the 1913-17 restoration found carved Lombard-period fragments embedded in the basilica walls, particularly near the doorways accessing the crypt, demonstrating that an earlier church stood on or near the same site and was progressively absorbed into and surpassed by the Romanesque rebuilding. Some of the oldest capitals in the crypt — those assigned to the eighth century by Arthur Kingsley Porter in his 1917 Lombard Architecture survey, and to the eighth or eighth-to-ninth century by more recent assessments — either are salvaged from this first Lombard construction or were produced during the early decades of the abbey when Lombard traditions of capital carving still dominated stone-working in the Po valley.

A serious fire in 1013, during the abbacy of Rodolfo I (1002-1032), initiated a major Romanesque rebuilding campaign. The portal inscription, carved on the lintel below the Wiligelmo-attributed lunette, records a subsequent event in precise, if metrically constrained, Latin: “Silvestri celsi ceciderunt culmina templi / mille redemtoris lapsis vertigine solis / annis centenis septem nec non quoque denis / quod refici magnos cepit post quatuor annos” — the high vaults of the temple of the great Silvester fell when 1,170 years had elapsed from the Redeemer’s birth, which began to be rebuilt four great years later. The date is 1117; the rebuilding began around 1121. The inscription records the devastating earthquake that struck the Po plain in January 1117 — an event whose impact on Emilian Romanesque architecture is documented across the region from Modena to Ferrara.

The dating of the crypt within these construction phases remains one of the most contested questions in Nonantola scholarship. Porter (1917) placed the crypt in the post-earthquake reconstruction after 1121. Salvini (1966) and Gandolfo (1973) concurred with a post-earthquake dating. Against this consensus, Quintavalle (1969, 1984, 1991) argued for an earlier pre-1117 campaign, tied to the reformist building programme under Abbot Damiano (1086-1113) and motivated by the direct patronage of Matilda of Canossa, who brought Nonantola firmly into the papal camp during the Investiture Controversy. Gandolfo’s detailed analysis of the crypt capitals (1974-76) documented a dating range from the sixth to the twelfth centuries for individual elements, consistent with the complex multi-phase assembly that the 1913-17 restoration undertook. A five-phase reconstruction proposed by Montorsi (1988) — protolongobarda, anselmiana, teodericiana, 1090, and post-1121 — has not achieved consensus but reflects the genuine stratigraphic complexity of the site.

For the structural and proportional analysis of this article, the critical point is that the crypt as built responds to an eleventh-century design intention — whether executed before or after the 1117 earthquake, whether in one campaign or two — that was then physically realised in its current form during the 1913-17 restoration. The gross proportions of the space (its lateral extent, vault height, aisle width relationships, and columnar spacing) are constrained by the archaeological evidence of the original foundations and by the physical dimensions of the presbytery above. The design intention is, in these broad parameters, medieval; the physical realisation is, in its specific assembly of capital and shaft, substantially twentieth-century.

The Interment and the Long Burial: Four and a Half Centuries Underground

One of the most remarkable episodes in the Nonantola crypt’s history — and one that has profound implications for the interpretation of its current fabric — is the decision to bury the space entirely in the fifteenth century. For 469 years, from 1444 to 1913, the most extensive Romanesque hall-crypt in Europe was underground and invisible.

The immediate cause was chronic water infiltration. The Po plain sits on an alluvial formation with a high water table, and the Nonantola crypt, excavated below the level of the surrounding agricultural land, was subject to periodic flooding that made it unusable for liturgical functions. The crisis came to a documented head in late 1444. On 22 October of that year, Abbot Gian Galeazzo Pepoli presided over the solemn translation of the relics of the six venerated saints from the crypt altar to the elevated presbytery above. The relics of Pope Silvester I, which had rested in the crypt’s central apse since their arrival from Rome in 756 — nearly 700 years of continuous subterranean veneration — were relocated to a purpose-built elevated structure in the southern apsidal tribune of the presbytery, because the main altar above already housed the relics of Anselm and Adriano III. The lower church was then backfilled with earth and rubble and converted into a cemetery for the monastery’s dead.

The Cistercians who replaced the Benedictines at Nonantola from 1514 inherited the buried crypt as a known spatial and historical reality but not an accessible one. The seventeenth-century Baroque redecoration of the basilica’s interior — executed under the abbacy of Cardinal Alessandro Albani and covering the Romanesque fabric with plaster and illusionistic painting — proceeded without any engagement with the buried crypt below. By the early nineteenth century, the physical memory of the crypt had largely faded from active architectural consciousness, surviving in the historical texts of Girolamo Tiraboschi’s monumental 1784-85 history of the abbey and in the physical logic of the elevated presbytery, whose disproportionate height relative to the nave floor was explicable only by the existence of a substantial subterranean space beneath it.

The initiative that recovered the crypt was taken by Archbishop Natale Bruni, who appointed Canon Ferdinando Manzini to direct a comprehensive restoration of the basilica beginning in 1913. Manzini’s campaign — completed in 1917 and documented in a contemporary publication — removed all Baroque and later accretions from the church interior, returning it to a bare brick Romanesque character; excavated the buried crypt; and rebuilt both spaces in a Romanesque restoration style that drew on the best archaeological and art-historical understanding available in the early twentieth century. The excavation recovered a mixture of original medieval elements (capitals, shaft fragments, architectural stone) from beneath the fill of 1444 and later centuries, supplemented these with elements recovered from elsewhere in the abbey complex and from acquisitions, and assembled the current crypt from this composite inventory.

The Restoration Programme: Critical Implications for Architectural Analysis

Any honest structural or proportional analysis of the Nonantola crypt must take account of the 1913-17 restoration as the defining moment in the constitution of the crypt’s current physical fabric. The space that visitors and scholars encounter today is not an unmediated eleventh-century original. It is a twentieth-century scholarly reconstruction of an eleventh-century space, executed using eighth-to-twelfth-century elements combined with modern completions where originals were absent or destroyed.

The extent of the original survival is reported differently by different sources, reflecting both the genuine difficulty of dating individual elements and the possibility that “original” is defined differently by different observers. The official abbey website states that sixteen of the colonnettes are original; Esperienziando Vitae, drawing on guided tour information, gives the same figure. The Cathopedia entry states that eighteen of the capitals (not colonnettes) are ancient, with datings between the eighth and twelfth centuries. The Treccani records thirty-six sculpted capitals across the full eighty-six-support inventory. These variations are not contradictory: it is possible that sixteen colonnette-and-capital assemblies are wholly original, that a further two to twenty additional capitals were original but have been set on new shafts, and that the full thirty-six sculpted capitals include a mix of original elements in varying states of completeness.

What is beyond dispute is that Manzini assembled the current crypt from a mixture of elements: some found in situ beneath the fill of 1444, some recovered from elsewhere in the abbey complex (possibly from the destroyed earlier church or from accumulations in the monastery’s store), and some produced as modern completions. The Wikipedia note that the capitals “sono di diversa provenienza, recuperati e riutilizzati nel restauro del 1913-17” — are of diverse provenance, recovered and reused in the restoration — confirms the assemblage character of the current structure.

For structural and proportional analysis, the most significant implication is this: the gross spatial parameters of the crypt — its lateral extent, vault height, aisle width, and overall plan configuration corresponding to the presbytery above — are more reliably medieval, constrained as they are by the physical dimensions of the building above and by the archaeological evidence of the original foundations. The precise arrangement of individual colonnettes within that volume — their exact spacing, the degree to which they fall into a perfectly regular grid, the specific character of the module — reflects the restoration team’s interpretation of incomplete evidence. Proportional analysis of the space as a whole is accordingly more secure than analysis of specific structural intervals.

Plan Geometry and the Columnar Grid

The spatial organisation of the Nonantola crypt is best understood as a three-dimensional projection of the plan logic of the basilica above. The basilica’s nave is divided into three aisles by two rows of compound pilasters: the Treccani entry records seven such pilasters (pilastri polistili with semicolumns terminating in cubic capitals), creating the aisled nave that converges on the raised presbytery. The eastern end of the basilica is occupied by three apsidal bays extending into the three semicircular apses; below them, the crypt extends under the full lateral and longitudinal extent of this apsidal zone as well as under the raised presbytery’s three easternmost nave bays.

Within this plan extent, the sixty-four free-standing colonnettes distribute themselves in a grid that reproduces, in smaller module and lighter material, the columnar logic of the nave above. The number sixty-four is the product of eight times eight — a perfect square — and if the crypt plan is conceived as an eight-by-eight grid of column positions across its three-aisled width and eight-bay depth, the arithmetic works exactly. In practice, the three-aisled structure organises the columns in rows along the long east-west axis of the crypt, with the central nave — corresponding to the central nave of the basilica above — carrying the principal processional axis from the stair landings to the high altar. The lateral aisles flanking the central nave are narrower, and the twenty-two wall responds occupy positions against the outer walls of the crypt, stabilising the vault cells at their perimeter and completing the structural system at the boundaries of the floor plate.

The correspondence between the colonnette grid below and the compound pilaster system above has important structural implications. In Romanesque architecture, the transferred load from the nave vault passes down through the compound pilasters to the foundations; the crypt vault below carries the weight of the presbytery floor and its liturgical furniture, not the primary structural load of the upper nave system. This means the colonnettes of the crypt carry a much lighter and more evenly distributed load than the compound pilasters above — essentially the weight of the groin-vaulted ceiling and the stone pavement of the presbytery floor, not the full lateral thrust of the nave vault system. This structural difference is directly visible in the contrast between the slender, shaft-like quality of the crypt supports and the massive, bundled quality of the nave pilasters. The transition from one to the other — from the forest below to the rhythmic procession of compound piers in the nave — is one of the most dramatic sequential spatial experiences in Nonantola’s architecture.

Structural Ratios: Slenderness, Load, and the Logic of Sixty-Four Colonnettes

The fundamental structural question posed by the Nonantola crypt’s design is: why sixty-four slender colonnettes rather than sixteen or thirty-two heavier piers? The answer involves both mechanics and spatial experience, and the two are more intimately related than they might at first appear.

From a structural standpoint, the vault load above the crypt is borne by two cooperating systems: the free-standing colonnettes (carrying the groin ribs or web cells of the individual vault bays) and the wall responds (carrying the half-bays at the perimeter). A groin vault transfers its concentrated load to four points at the corners of each rectangular bay. If the bays are small — if the intercolumniation is narrow — then each arch span is short, the vault thrust is low, and each column carries a modest point load. This allows each column to be proportionally slender without risk of buckling or failure under the structural demands of the vault above.

Conversely, a design using fewer and more widely spaced columns would create larger vault bays with correspondingly greater arch spans and higher thrust forces. Under the height constraints typical of a crypt — where the floor-to-vault clearance is significantly less than in an upper nave — larger spans would require either substantially heavier columns or external buttressing to contain the lateral spread of the vault. Either solution would compromise the spatial character of the crypt: heavy piers would create a series of compartmentalised cells rather than a continuous spatial flow; external buttressing at crypt level would require major foundation modifications.

The choice of sixty-four slender colonnettes is therefore simultaneously a structural decision and a spatial decision that reinforce each other. Structurally, many short arches distribute vault loads efficiently and minimise thrust per column, permitting proportionally slender shafts. Spatially, the resulting proliferation of slim supports generates the “forest” experience — the multiplication of vistas, the suppression of any single dominant axis, the modulation of indirect light — that defines the crypt’s character as a distinctive architectural interior. The builder who chose sixty-four over thirty-two was not simply doubling the Modena Cathedral’s solution for the sake of symbolic arithmetic; he was choosing a structural and spatial strategy that converged on the same result from two independent directions.

The slenderness ratio of the Nonantola colonnettes — the relationship between shaft height and shaft diameter — is a key proportional determinant that published sources do not document with precision. Visual analysis of photographic evidence and the spatial scale of the crypt (whose vault height is estimated from the necessity of standing headroom and the archaeological record as approximately 2.5-3 metres to the crown of the groin vaults) suggests shaft heights in the range of 1.8-2.2 metres and shaft diameters in the range of 18-25 centimetres, yielding slenderness ratios of approximately 7:1 to 9:1. These figures are consistent with the proportions described for slender Ionic columns in Vitruvius and with the empirically documented ratios of comparable Romanesque crypt colonnettes — the Winchester Cathedral crypt (c. 1079-93) shows similar shaft proportions in a comparable hall-crypt context. The visual evidence supports the conclusion that the Nonantola builder was working within a well-understood Romanesque proportional system for underground hall spaces, at a scale that tested the upper limits of slenderness for this structural type.

Volumetric Experience: Height, Width, and the Production of Awe

The proportional relationship between floor area and vault height is the spatial dimension that most directly governs how a visitor perceives and experiences the Nonantola crypt. The hall-crypt typology operates in a register distinct from both the cathedral nave and the small reliquary chamber: it aims at intimate enclosure combined with lateral extent, at compression rather than aspiration, at a horizontal proliferation of elements rather than a vertical concentration of height.

The crypt vaults are groin vaults (volte a crociera) rather than ribbed vaults. Groin vaults concentrate their thrust at four points per bay and require no intermediate support between column and vault surface; they produce the characteristic cellular subdivision of Romanesque crypt spaces into a series of approximately cubic bays. When these bays are multiplied across the sixty-four-column grid, the effect is not of a single large vault but of a repeated, modular ceiling: each bay a small formal perfection, the whole composed of many such perfections arranged in the same visual pattern from every direction of view. There is no single spatial event visible from any standing point in the crypt; the eye moves continuously from one bay to the next, discovering that the same pattern recurs, that the space has no privileged vantage point, that it is isotropic in a way that no columned nave — with its clear directional flow toward the altar — ever achieves.

The light reinforces this isotropic, labyrinthine quality. The crypt receives its illumination indirectly, through small windows set high in the outer walls, filtered by the column field before it reaches the floor. The official abbey website describes the light as “tenue” — dim, restrained; the VisitModena guide speaks of “il gioco della tenue luce tra la selva delle 64 colonnine” — the play of dim light among the forest of sixty-four little columns. What this phrase describes architecturally is the interaction between a regular structural grid and a non-uniform, attenuated light source: because the columns interrupt and deflect the light at each position in the grid, the illumination varies continuously across the crypt floor in a way that is spatially unpredictable and optically complex. The “forest” metaphor arises directly from this interaction between structural regularity and optical irregularity: the forest is also dim, also regularly structured at the level of individual trunks, and also spatially disorienting precisely because the regularity of its elements does not translate into a legible spatial order at the scale of the whole.

The choreography between the crypt and the presbytery above is a deliberate architectural pairing that operates on the visitor’s experience as a sequence of contrasts. Descending from the presbytery into the crypt is to pass from the world of confident vertical gesture — the nave’s rhythmic pilasters converging on the altar, the space’s clear east-west axis, the relative brightness of windows high in the nave walls — to the world of intimate horizontal extension, dim light, and spatial multiplication. Ascending from the crypt into the presbytery, returning from the forest into the light, is an experience of release, of arrival, of the vertical reasserting itself after the horizontal. This choreography of ascent and descent, compression and release, multiplicity and singularity, is a structural and experiential programme that belongs to the deepest logic of the split-level Romanesque basilica. At Nonantola, it operates at a spatial scale that makes the contrast particularly legible and particularly affecting.

The Capitals: Chronological Stratigraphy in Carved Stone

The thirty-six sculpted capitals documented in the Treccani entry constitute one of the most significant concentrations of early medieval carved stone in Emilia-Romagna, and their significance as documents of architectural and sculptural history extends well beyond their structural function. They are a palimpsest: a layered record of successive stone-carving traditions accumulated over four centuries of building, rebuilding, and restoration at Nonantola and then reassembled in a single space by the 1913-17 restoration.

The oldest elements — those attributed to the eighth or eighth-to-ninth century by the most conservative scholarly assessments — are Lombard work broadly contemporary with the abbey’s founding period or its earliest decades of consolidation. Lombard capitals of this period characteristically feature schematic foliate patterns derived from late antique decorative conventions, interlaced geometric ornament reflecting the metalwork traditions of the Germanic world, and occasional animal figuration connecting the Lombard aesthetic to the pan-European repertoire of early medieval decorative art. Francesco Gandolfo’s detailed 1974-76 study of the crypt capitals — “I capitelli della cripta abbaziale di Nonantola,” published in the Annuario dell’Istituto di storia dell’arte — remains the foundational scholarly treatment of these elements and situates them within the broader context of Lombard and early Carolingian capital-carving traditions across northern Italy.

The intermediate group, dated to the ninth through eleventh centuries, reflects the Carolingian and post-Carolingian phases of the abbey’s cultural peak, when Nonantola’s scriptorium was producing manuscripts of European significance and its institutional reach extended from Pavia to Constantinople. Capitals from this period typically show more structured foliate programmes, with greater attention to the formal organisation of the carved surface and, in some cases, incipient figural elements that anticipate the Romanesque narrative tradition. The relationship between this carving and the manuscript illumination produced in the abbey scriptorium — a connection that would be expected on general art-historical grounds but that Cochetti Pratesi (1995) argued was less direct than previously assumed — remains a productive area for further investigation.

The latest elements — those assigned to the early twelfth century by Quintavalle — belong to the same cultural moment as the portal carvings attributed to Wiligelmo or his school, and their connection to that workshop is among the most debated questions in Nonantola’s art-historical literature. Quintavalle’s argument for Wiligelmo’s personal presence at Nonantola rather than merely his workshop turns on the quality of specific capital carvings that he argues exceed what a workshop could achieve without the master’s direct participation. The portal lunette with Christ in Majesty flanked by two angels, and the jambs with scenes from the foundation of the abbey and the infancy of Christ, are accepted by most assessments as school-of-Wiligelmo work; whether the master himself was present remains contested. If some of the crypt capitals belong to the Wiligelmic moment, they offer a rare opportunity to study this sculptor’s idiom in a structural context — as functional architectural members carrying vault loads — rather than the purely narrative relief context of the portal programme.

The 1913-17 restoration complicates any categorical attribution. Manzini’s team assembled the current capital inventory from elements found in situ beneath the fill of 1444 and from elements recovered or acquired elsewhere. The possibility that some capitals described as eighth-century are twelfth-century carving in an archaising style — or, conversely, that some apparently Romanesque capitals are genuinely Lombard survivals reinterpreted by subsequent carvers — cannot be excluded without systematic material analysis (petrographic study, technical examination of tool marks, photogrammetric comparison with securely dated parallels) that has not been published in accessible form. The scholarly literature acknowledges the dating range as eighth to twelfth century while leaving the specific distribution between periods open to refinement.

Numeric Symbolism and Medieval Architectural Intent: The Arithmetic of 64

The identification of the sixty-four free-standing colonnettes as 8² is not, in the abbey’s interpretive tradition, merely a post-hoc mathematical observation. The Nonantola crypt belongs to a broader practice of medieval architectural numerology — the encoding of symbolic number programmes in the countable elements of a building — whose instances are documented across the Romanesque and Gothic traditions from the Carolingian period onward.

In medieval Christian numerology, as codified from Augustine through Isidore of Seville and transmitted into the Romanesque exegetical tradition, eight was the number of resurrection and new creation. The eighth day — the day beyond the sabbath cycle of seven — was the day of Christ’s resurrection, the beginning of the new age, the temporal anticipation of eternity. The octave in musical theory carried the same resonance: the interval of the octave returns to the same note but in a higher register, as the redeemed soul returns to its origin but transformed by the passage through time and death. Baptismal fonts were regularly built in octagonal form to encode this symbolic programme in their architecture, making the shape of the font a theological statement about the new creation entered through baptism. The number eight structured the layout of major Carolingian centrally planned buildings, most famously the Palatine Chapel at Aachen (eight-sided octagonal plan), whose architectural programme was explicitly conceived as an image of the heavenly Jerusalem.

The square of eight — sixty-four — would intensify this symbolic reference, applying to the crypt (itself a space of burial and anticipatory resurrection, the underground parallel to the upper church’s celebration of Christ’s victory over death) a numerical signature of double perfection. The abbey’s interpretive tradition makes this reading explicit: the sixty-four colonnettes “potrebbero indicare la perfezione, essendo 64 il quadrato di 8, numero della perfezione.” The hedging conditional (“potrebbero,” “could indicate”) is appropriate: documentary evidence that the medieval designers consciously chose sixty-four for this symbolic reason does not exist, and the number may equally be the outcome of spatial planning constraints — the dimensions of the presbytery above, the module established by the vault bay proportions — that happened to yield this result. But the congruence between the symbolic reading and the structural fact is too exact to dismiss as purely coincidental, and the Romanesque tradition offers many cases of demonstrably deliberate numerical programmes in architectural design.

The doubling relationship with the Modena Cathedral crypt adds a further dimension. The relationship between the two crypts is not only numerical: they share an architectural culture, a structural system, and a sculptural tradition rooted in the Wiligelmo workshop. The fact that Nonantola has exactly double Modena’s columnar count suggests either a deliberate act of architectural statement — Nonantola, as the older and historically more powerful institution, asserting its primacy over the episcopal cathedral of the neighbouring city through the arithmetic of multiplicity — or a shared planning module that automatically generates double the columns when applied to double the floor area. Neither interpretation excludes the other; in the logic of Romanesque symbolic thought, intentional and functional reasons for an architectural choice were not considered alternatives but convergent confirmations of each other.

The Nonantola–Modena Relationship: A Shared Architectural Culture

The connections between the Nonantola Abbey and the Modena Cathedral run deeper than the coincidence of columnar counts. Both belong to the constellation of monuments produced by the cultural movement that historians of Italian medieval art have called the Emilian Romanesque, centred on the workshop of architect Lanfranco and sculptor Wiligelmo, both active at Modena from 1099.

The Modena Cathedral is today the acknowledged masterpiece of this tradition — the building that UNESCO recognised in 1997, that Porter placed at the origin of his “Lombard Architecture” tradition, and that the modern historiography of Italian Romanesque uses as its primary reference point. But the Nonantola Abbey preceded the Modena Cathedral in its Romanesque phase: the abbey’s building campaign under Abbot Rodolfo I predates the laying of the cathedral’s first stone by several decades. When Lanfranco broke ground at Modena in 1099, he was working in a regional architectural context already shaped by the Nonantola tradition of large-scale brick basilica construction with raised presbytery and hall-crypt below.

The relationship in the mature phase — the years around the portal carvings at both sites, c. 1100-1130 — is more complex and more contested. The lunette at Nonantola, with its Christ in Majesty, and the portal jambs with their narrative reliefs, are connected by most assessments to the school of Wiligelmo. The specific question — whether the Nonantola portal represents a direct commission of Wiligelmo himself (Quintavalle’s position) or a product of his workshop without personal direction — has not been definitively resolved and may not be resolvable on the basis of currently available evidence.

The architectural comparison between the two crypts is instructive for proportional analysis. The Modena Cathedral crypt is a more compact space, with thirty-two colonnettes supporting Lombard-style capitals from the late eleventh century, carrying three-aisled groin vaults beneath the presbytery. The Nonantola crypt has the same three-aisled structure but approximately double the floor area and double the colonnette count. Both use a similar proportional system — low vaults, closely spaced colonnettes, groin vault cells of approximately equal dimensions — but Nonantola achieves a spatial experience of much greater perceptual complexity because the column array is twice as deep in the direction perpendicular to the processional axis. At Modena, a visitor standing at the entrance to the crypt can see through the columnar field to the far wall without difficulty; at Nonantola, the depth of the column array exceeds the resolving capacity of the eye in the dim light, creating the “forest” effect that is absent or attenuated in the Modena crypt.

The Nonantola Crypt in European Romanesque Context

The claim that the Nonantola crypt is “the most extensive Romanesque hall-crypt in European ecclesiastical architecture” — asserted by both the official abbey website and the VisitModena institutional guide — requires some contextualisation within the wider typology of Romanesque hall-crypts before it can be properly assessed.

The hall-crypt, defined as a subterranean space extending under a wide presbytery and structured by free-standing columns in a multi-aisled layout, achieves its fullest expression in the tenth through twelfth centuries, driven by the cult of saints’ relics and the accompanying need for a large, publicly accessible undercroft capable of serving as both reliquary shrine and pilgrim gathering space. The type develops from Carolingian precedents — the crypt at Germigny-des-Prés (806) offers an early configuration — through Ottonian elaborations to the mature Romanesque solutions of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries.

The Winchester Cathedral crypt in England (c. 1079-93, begun under Bishop Walkelin) is frequently cited as one of the finest hall-crypt examples in northern Europe. It is a large, three-aisled space carrying groin vaults on short round columns, extending under the entire eastern arm of the cathedral including the presbytery and crossing. The Winchester columns are somewhat heavier in proportion than the Nonantola colonnettes — the English tradition favours more massive proportions than the Lombard-Emilian — but the spatial experience of the two crypts is comparable in character. Winchester is also, by an irony that resonates with Nonantola’s own flooding history, subject to periodic flooding from the high water table beneath the cathedral, and the flooded crypt has become one of Winchester’s most celebrated and photographed architectural spaces.

The crypt of Sant’Ambrogio in Milan offers the closest Italian parallel in cultural context and chronological proximity. The Milanese crypt is multi-phase, reflecting several centuries of building and rebuilding on the site of the martyrs’ shrine, and it is smaller in plan extent than Nonantola while comparable in the character of its colonnette proportions and groin vaulting. The connection between the Ambrosian Milanese tradition and the Nonantola tradition is confirmed by the broader historical fact that both belonged to the network of imperial monasteries built or reorganised under Charlemagne’s reform programme — the political-ecclesiastical framework that gave both sites their institutional mandates and their architectural ambitions.

The crypt of San Zeno Maggiore in Verona, rebuilt in the late eleventh century, is a major Romanesque hall-crypt with forty-nine columns — itself a numerologically charged figure: 7² = 49, the square of the number of completion and covenant. The contrast between San Zeno’s forty-nine and Nonantola’s sixty-four is instructive for proportional analysis: the San Zeno columns are somewhat heavier relative to their height, the vaults somewhat more generously proportioned in vertical clearance, and the spatial experience somewhat more monumental and less “forest-like” than at Nonantola. The difference in column count corresponds to a difference in proportional strategy — the San Zeno designer chose a larger bay module with heavier supports; the Nonantola designer chose a smaller module with lighter ones — and the spatial consequences of this difference are perceptible to a visitor who moves between the two spaces.

The crypt of the Speyerer Dom in Germany (c. 1030s, with later modifications) represents the Rhenish tradition of Romanesque hall-crypt construction and offers a transalpine comparison. The Speyer crypt is one of the largest in northern Europe and comparable to Nonantola in overall plan scale, though the Rhenish tradition favours heavier proportions and more massive piers than the Lombard-Emilian tradition. This contrast reflects the different material cultures operating on either side of the Alps: the Emilian builders worked primarily in brick with salvaged stone, which encouraged — and structurally permitted — lighter proportions; the Rhenish builders worked in the massive red sandstone of the Rhine valley, which invited proportions that expressed the weight and density of the available material.

Among these comparanda, Nonantola’s claim to the most extensive Romanesque hall-crypt rests on its plan area — the lateral spread of a three-aisled space under the full width and depth of a basilica of exceptional institutional ambition — rather than on any single linear dimension. The combination of scale and slenderness, of spatial multiplicity and structural economy, that this plan area achieves through sixty-four free-standing colonnettes is what distinguishes the Nonantola solution from all of its European parallels.

Conservation History: Seismic Damage and Recovery

The Abbey of Nonantola has a long and documented history of seismic vulnerability. Its position in the Po plain, in the seismically active zone between the Apennine chain and the flat alluvial belt of the Po basin, has subjected the complex to repeated earthquake damage over thirteen centuries of occupation. The portal inscription records the earthquake of 1117 as the event that precipitated the Romanesque reconstruction. Lesser earthquakes of the thirteenth and subsequent centuries required ongoing maintenance and structural intervention. And in May 2012, one of the most destructive seismic events in recent northern Italian history caused significant structural damage to the basilica’s fabric.

The 2012 Po plain earthquake forced the closure of the entire abbey complex. The basilica and museum were inaccessible to visitors from 2012 to September 16, 2018 — a closure of six years — during which a major structural reinforcement and restoration programme was carried out. The reopening on 16 September 2018 restored full public access to the basilica, the crypt, and the Museo Benedettino e Diocesano d’Arte Sacra.

The crypt’s survival of the 2012 earthquake with sufficient structural integrity to permit eventual reopening reflects a genuine structural virtue of the many-column hall-crypt type: redundancy. In a groin-vaulted space supported by eighty-six structural elements, the failure of any single element does not immediately precipitate progressive collapse of the vault system; the load is redistributed across the remaining supports, and the many joints and arches of the small-bay grid absorb and dissipate seismic energy across a very large number of structural connections rather than concentrating it in a few critical members. This quality — structural resilience through multiplication — is the architectural engineering counterpart to the spatial quality of the “forest”: the space that is most experientially complex is also, for this structural reason, most resistant to catastrophic seismic failure. The forest endures precisely because no single tree bears an irreplaceable load.

The Museo Benedettino e Diocesano d’Arte Sacra, situated in the former seminary and abbatial palace adjacent to the basilica, houses the abbey’s treasury and document collection. The treasures on display include the stauroteca of the True Cross (arrived from Constantinople in the early medieval period), the arm reliquary of Pope Silvester I, the silver casket containing the skull-caps of the martyrs Senesio and Teopompo, an eleventh-century ivory casket, and — displayed with particular care given their exceptional fragility — two Byzantine and Fatimid luxury textiles of the ninth-tenth centuries, discovered in 2002, that formed part of Silvester I’s funerary vestments and survive in extraordinary condition. The manuscript collection, including the Evangeliario di Matilde di Canossa (eleventh-twelfth centuries) and the Graduale (eleventh-twelfth centuries), is displayed in a dedicated room of the museum.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Nonantola Abbey Crypt and Its Architecture

What is the “Crypt of the Seventy Pillars” and where does the name come from?

The “Crypt of the Seventy Pillars” is the analytical designation used in this study for the crypt beneath the Benedictine Abbey of San Silvestro at Nonantola, near Modena. The name does not appear in medieval documentation or in standard modern descriptions of the crypt, which use the “forest of columns” (bosco di colonne) metaphor rather than a specific numerical designation. The “seventy” figure corresponds to neither the authoritative scholarly count (sixty-four free-standing colonnettes, eighty-six total structural supports) nor any documented intermediate figure. It functions as a typological designation drawing on the deep biblical resonances of the number seventy — seventy elders (Numbers 11), seventy disciples (Luke 10), seventy nations (Genesis 10) — that the overwhelming columnar density of the space naturally evokes in a visitor formed by the medieval Christian symbolic tradition. The actual arithmetic of the space operates on the number sixty-four (8²), the symbolic and structural logic of which is examined at length in this article.

How does the Nonantola crypt compare in size to other famous Romanesque crypts?

The Nonantola crypt is the most extensively documented surviving hall-crypt from the Romanesque period in European ecclesiastical architecture, distinguished by the total plan area it occupies under the basilica’s full three-aisled presbytery. Its sixty-four free-standing colonnettes exceed the forty-nine of San Zeno Maggiore in Verona (a 7² count) and are exactly double the thirty-two of the Modena Cathedral crypt. The Winchester Cathedral crypt in England (c. 1079-93) is a comparable hall-crypt in spatial character and structural type, though with heavier column proportions reflecting the English Romanesque tradition. The Speyerer Dom crypt in Germany rivals Nonantola in overall scale but employs the heavier proportions of the Rhenish sandstone tradition. The crypt of Sant’Ambrogio in Milan shares Nonantola’s cultural context and structural type but is smaller in plan extent.

Who were the architects and builders of the Nonantola crypt?

No historical documents survive identifying the individual architects or master builders responsible for the Nonantola crypt’s design. The eleventh and early twelfth-century building campaigns were directed by anonymous master builders working within the Lombard-Emilian Romanesque tradition — the same architectural culture that produced Lanfranco’s Modena Cathedral (from 1099) and the major Lombard churches of the same era. The sculptural programme of the portal is associated by most assessments with the workshop of Wiligelmo, the sculptor active at Modena, with Quintavalle’s detailed analysis arguing for Wiligelmo’s personal presence at Nonantola at some phase of the work. The 1913-17 restoration that produced the crypt in its current physical form was directed by Canon Ferdinando Manzini under the patronage of Archbishop Natale Bruni.

What relics does the Nonantola crypt contain?

The crypt altar houses the relics of six saints venerated at Nonantola: Anselm, the abbey’s founder (died 803 March 3); Pope Adriano III (died 884, buried at Nonantola during a journey from Rome to the imperial court); the martyrs Senesio and Teopompo (martyred in Nicomedia in 304 during the Diocletianic persecution); and the virgins Fosca and Anseride. These relics, translated from the crypt to the elevated presbytery in 1444 when chronic flooding made the crypt uninhabitable, were returned to the crypt after the 1913-17 restoration and are currently housed in a bronze and glass reliquary case made by sculptor Paolo Sighinolfi in 1991. The relics of Pope Silvester I, which resided in the crypt from 756 to 1444, remained in the presbytery after the restoration and are preserved in a separate reliquary at the high altar.

What architectural style is the Nonantola crypt, and what are its defining features?

The Nonantola crypt is Romanesque, specifically belonging to the Emilian variant of north Italian Lombard Romanesque that flourished across the Po valley in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Its defining structural features are: groin vaults (volte a crociera) carried on sixty-four slender round colonnettes organised in a three-aisled grid; wall responds (semicolumns) completing the structural system at the perimeter; round-headed arches connecting column to vault; and carved capitals displaying Lombard, Carolingian, and Romanesque programmes spanning the eighth through twelfth centuries. The Romanesque character of the space is defined by the horizontal emphasis of low vaults over a wide plan, the multiplication of support elements rather than their concentration, and the structural and spatial discipline of the groin-vaulted bay as the basic compositional unit.

Can visitors access the Nonantola Abbey crypt?

The crypt is accessible when the basilica is open — daily from 9:00 to 17:30, closed during celebrations — and entry is free. Access requires descending stairs from the presbytery level, either via the central stairway or via the two lateral staircases flanking the main approach. The stair-only access currently makes the crypt unavailable to visitors requiring level or ramped entry; the official abbey communications indicate that a barrier-removal project was planned but not yet realised. The adjacent Museo Benedettino e Diocesano d’Arte Sacra, entered from a separate door on the south side of the basilica, is accessible without steps. Guided tours of the basilica and museum are bookable by email at [email protected]. The abbey is located in Nonantola, approximately 10 kilometres northeast of Modena, served by the TPER bus line 551 from Modena’s bus terminal.

What is the numerical symbolism of sixty-four columns in medieval Christian terms?

In medieval Christian numerology, sixty-four is 8² — the square of eight, the number of resurrection and new creation. Eight was the day of Christ’s resurrection (the “eighth day” beyond the sabbath cycle of seven), the structural principle of the octagonal baptismal font, the musical octave returning to its origin transformed. Sixty-four, as the square of this number, intensifies the symbolic resonance, encoding a double statement of perfection and renewal in the arithmetic of the space. A crypt — the domain of burial and anticipated resurrection, where the dead rest in expectation of the eighth day — structured around sixty-four columns carries this numerological programme as a spatial and theological argument inscribed in stone. The abbey’s interpretive tradition explicitly acknowledges this reading while appropriately noting that it cannot be confirmed as conscious design intent from surviving documents.

What is the historical relationship between the Nonantola Abbey and the Modena Cathedral?

The two buildings share an architectural culture rooted in the Lombard-Emilian Romanesque tradition of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, connected most directly through the workshop of sculptor Wiligelmo, who is documented at Modena from 1099 and whose influence on the Nonantola portal sculpture is accepted by most scholarship. The Modena Cathedral (UNESCO World Heritage since 1997) is architecturally the more celebrated monument; Nonantola (National Monument since 1940) is historically the older and for several centuries the more powerful institution. Both crypts are three-aisled Romanesque hall-crypts with groin vaults on round colonnettes under raised presbyteries; Nonantola’s sixty-four colonnettes are exactly double Modena’s thirty-two, a relationship that the abbey’s interpretive tradition suggests may be neither accidental nor merely quantitative.

What scholarly controversies surround the dating and attribution of the Nonantola crypt?

Three principal debates dominate the scholarly literature. First, the timing of the Romanesque construction: the majority position (Porter, Salvini, Gandolfo) dates the crypt to after the 1117 earthquake and the rebuilding of c. 1121; Quintavalle argues for a pre-earthquake campaign under Abbot Damiano (1086-1113) connected to Matilda of Canossa’s reform patronage. Second, the attribution of the portal sculpture and some crypt capitals: whether Wiligelmo was personally present at Nonantola or whether the work represents his workshop operating without him. Third, the interpretation of the 1913-17 restoration: how many elements in the current crypt are original medieval survivals, how many were imported from elsewhere, and how many are early twentieth-century completions — a question that systematic material analysis (petrographic study, technical examination of tool marks) has not yet resolved.

What happened to the Nonantola crypt after the 2012 earthquake, and is it fully restored?

The 2012 Po plain earthquake caused significant structural damage to the basilica of Nonantola, closing the entire complex from 2012 until September 16, 2018 — a closure of nearly six years. A substantial structural reinforcement and restoration programme was carried out during this period, and the complex reopened in its full extent on the September date. The crypt, with its groin-vaulted system distributed across eighty-six structural supports, proved inherently resilient to the seismic event: the many-column grid distributes earthquake energy across a large number of structural joints rather than concentrating it in a few critical members, providing the structural redundancy that characterises well-designed hall-crypts of this type. The 2018 reopening was the latest chapter in a long conservation history whose major episodes include the 15th-century burial, the 1913-17 rediscovery and reconstruction, and the continuing maintenance demands of the Emilian seismic zone.

The Crypt of the Seventy Pillars: Volumetric Proportions and Structural Ratios in the Benedictine Abbey of Nonantola

Key Takeaways

People Also Ask About the Nonantola Abbey Crypt

How Many Columns Does the Crypt of Nonantola Abbey Have?

Is Nonantola Abbey a UNESCO World Heritage Site?

When Was the Nonantola Crypt Built, Buried, and Rediscovered?

What Makes the Nonantola Crypt Architecturally Significant?

Modena multi-day tours

Extended multi-day tours – 5+ days

Featured Modena Multi-Day Tour Packages

Modena 3-Day Discovery Tour

Modena 5-Day Highlights Experience

Modena 7-Day Cultural Journey

Modena 10-Day Complete Adventure