Version classiqueVersion mobile

Emperors and Imperial Discourse in Italy, c. 1300-1500

Anne Huijbers


Anne Huijbers

Note de l’auteur

While preparing the conference and its proceedings, from 2018 to 2022, I have been affiliated to the University of Nijmegen, the École française de Rome, the University of Groningen, the University of Bern, the University of Basel, and the University of Neuchatel; from September 2022 onwards I will be a lecturer at the University of Fribourg.

Texte intégral

  • 1 Schramm – Fillitz 1978, p. 13: “sich von ihrer römischen Wurzel löste”; “das Idealbild des univers (...)
  • 2 Gregorovius 1900, vol. 7, p. 38 and 127-130. A similar rhetoric can be found in Paschini 1940, p.  (...)

1Describing the Holy Roman Empire after the death of Frederick II as a hopeless dream or an empty formula that is only Roman in name, historians have long minimized the impact of the imperial presence in late-medieval Italy. The German historian Percy Ernst Schramm, for instance, wrote that after Frederick II, the Holy Roman Empire had “detached itself from its Roman roots” and that “the ideal of a universal empire was long forgotten”.1 In his monumental History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, Ferdinand Gregorovius claimed that Emperor Sigismund “turned his back on the new era” through the act of his coronation in Rome. He presented Frederick III, the last emperor to be crowned in Rome in 1452, as a vain object of pity and a parody of an “extinct imperium”. His coronation in Rome was a meaningless usage “belonging to an age now fortunately at an end”.2

  • 3 Baron 1955; Skinner 1978. Cf. the introduction in Hankins 2000 and the article of Mabboux in this (...)

2There has been a longstanding tendency to view the political thought of Renaissance Italy as antithetical to the idea of empire. Associating humanism with republicanism, scholars silently suggested that the belief in the peace-bringing emperor faded away as the Renaissance unfolded. Especially Hans Baron and Quentin Skinner, who continue to enjoy considerable popularity, held that humanist political thought had republican liberty as its central theme.3 Consequently, the dominant paradigm was that, whereas medieval people still believed in a universalist ideal, critical humanists recognized that the medieval empire was a meaningless remnant of the past.

  • 4 Herzstein 1966, p. vii.
  • 5 See the discussion in Pertile 2002, p. 54.

3The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and its concentration on the Germanophone areas have thus been presented as an inevitable development. This fits well in the dominant framework that views the late Middle Ages as the period consolidating our modern nation states. Within this framework, the last kings who travelled to Rome to be crowned emperor in the Eternal City were naïve, their enterprise empty and unrealistic. As Robert Herzstein put it, they were “fools chasing the ghost of a dead Imperial dream among the hills and memories of alien Italy”.4 The nationalist historiography, on which we still largely depend, presented the Empire as alien to the very essence of humanism and modernity. Italian scholars held that Italians had little interest in the imperial concept: If they superficially demonstrated their goodwill toward the Holy Roman Emperors, this was only because they hoped to use the emperor to improve their own position. In order to create a national identity, the rhetoric of the Risorgimento presented the revolt of the Italian communes against the empire as “the beginning of the national movement towards unification and independence”.5 As a consequence, the hostility between emperors and Italian cities has been emphasized and imperial sympathies have been put aside as anachronistic irrelevance or outdated medieval universalism. No real humanist, so it was believed, could genuinely support the medieval construct that was the Holy Roman Empire.

  • 6 Hankins 2005, Celenza 2004, Miglio 1995.
  • 7 Nederman 1993.
  • 8 Lee 2018, p. 5: “almost without exception they [i.e. those inflamed with the spirit of humanism] w (...)
  • 9 Whaley 2011; Wilson 2016.
  • 10 Bonora 2014.
  • 11 A research line carried out at the École Française de Rome, entitled Imperialiter. Le gouvernement (...)

4Only recently has this historiographical framework really been challenged. As several scholars have pointed out, the traditional understanding of late-medieval and Renaissance Italy was based on a very small selection of critical and secular writings.6 By taking into account a larger source basis, it becomes clear that many humanists did not break with “medieval” traditions but continued them instead. Already in 1993, Cary Nederman argued that Renaissance humanism was perfectly compatible with imperialist political ideals and that it is false to suggest that support for the Holy Roman Empire was a “medieval” mode of thought.7 In his Humanism and Empire. The imperial ideal in fourteenth-century Italy, Alexander Lee has recently drawn attention to the ways in which fourteenth-century Italian humanists appealed to the Holy Roman Emperors as guarantors of liberties and as the embodiment of legal justice and peace.8 Moreover, Joachim Whaley and Peter Wilson have shed light on the continuing importance of the empire during the whole Early modern period,9 and Elena Bonora revealed the presence of an influential philo-imperial party in sixteenth-century Italy, which plotted to overthrow the pope with the help of Emperor Charles V.10 Also outside the lands of the Holy Roman Empire, imperial modes and themes remained influential.11

  • 12 See for more information the website, consu (...)
  • 13 Penth – Thorau 2016; Petralia – Santagata 2016; for more references cf. the introduction in Varani (...)
  • 14 Pontari 2016.
  • 15 Daniela Rando and Eva Schlotheuber organised the conferences on 22 and 23 May 2019 at the universi (...)
  • 16 Proske 2018.
  • 17 L’imperatore Federico III e il suo primo viaggio a Roma (1451/52), organised by Martin Wagendorfer (...)

5Since 2016, the Regesta Imperii has started the so-called Italienprojekt to shed light on unpublished sources that are kept in Italian archives.12 Simultaneously, historians have started to rethink the relation between the emperors and the Italian peninsula more broadly. Scholarship on Henry VII in Italy has received a significant boost by several scientific initiatives that celebrated the 700th anniversary of Henry VII’s Italian campaign (1310-1313).13 Paolo Pontari, for instance, includes a list of 85 historiographical sources on the death of the emperor in Buonconvento.14 Lorenza Tromboni and Gianluca Briguglia organised a conference entitled The making of political thought: ruptures, trends and patterns between Henry VII and Louis the Bavarian at the university of Strasbourg on 27 and 28 September 2018, which insists on the need for multidisciplinary research in order to understand the development of political thought in the fourteenth century and sheds light, among others, on the works of the jurist Ugolino da Celle in support of the empire. With two conferences entitled Carlo IV e l’Italia also the relation of Charles IV of Bohemia, the third emperor created in fourteenth-century Rome, with the Italian peninsula has benefited from fresh scholarly attention.15 Concerning the fifteenth century, the Romzug of Sigismund of Luxemburg has been the subject of a recent monograph by Veronika Proske,16 and the first Italian expedition of Frederick III, the first Habsburg emperor, has been newly approached during a conference at the Austrian institute in Rome.17 These recent and forthcoming publications offer leads to rethink the impact of empire in late-medieval and Renaissance Italy.

6The present volume, comprising the papers presented at a conference held at the Royal Dutch Institute in Rome, the Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo and the École française de Rome on 5, 6 and 7 November 2018, builds precisely on these revisionist trends. It aims to bring together new perspectives on empire and emperors in Italy and to highlight the continuing importance of the imperial ideal throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth century. The focus of the volume lays on imperial discourses in the writings of Italian historians, humanists, poets, jurists and notaries.

7The volume starts with an introductory chapter by Len Scales. He shows that the relations with the Italian parts of the empire have not been a primary concern in the scholarship on the Holy Roman Empire in the late Middle Ages. This period, however, saw an intensification of transalpine interactions on various levels. Cultural, diplomatic, trade and university contacts were rich and varied and impacted political culture. Scales acknowledges that the nature of empire as well as the emperors’ objectives in Italy changed in the fourteenth and fifteenth century but argues that this transformation does not have to be thought of as having been characterised by “decline”. Although emperors no longer aimed to exercise “true lordship” in Italy, they still legitimized and delegated political power. Military campaigns became less important and the readiness to fight decreased, so that one scholar speaks of a shift “from battle-cries to dance music”. This shift also meant that the emperors’ conduct did no longer conform to traditional expectations: Heroic campaigns and chivalric battles made way for diplomacy and ceremonial self-representation.

  • 18 Huijbers 2020.

8The first part of the book “Imperium and res publica: conflict or harmony?” explores the use and meaning of the terms res publica and imperium and copes with the question whether one can speak of imperialism or republicanism in late-medieval Italy. Elsewhere, I have noted that, when describing the imperial presence in Rome, fourteenth-century humanists connected the term res publica to the emperors and suggested that they were the guarantors of liberties and justice.18 This part of the book further explores what fourteenth-century figures meant when they used these pivotal terms and focuses on figures such as Cola di Rienzo and Fazio degli Uberti who have been characterized as supporters of “republican” forms of government.

9Carole Mabboux starts by re-evaluating the political discourse in fourteenth-century Italy more broadly. Concentrating on the key-concept res publica, she analyses the use and meaning of the term in both communal and pro-imperial texts. Instead of referring to a type of government, the term res publica was used to denote a political community with a collective goal, which specifically strove after justice and common good. Mabboux shows that the term should be placed within a longer medieval tradition, in which the Christianised Cicero was cited primarily as a moral authority.

10Anna Modigliani reconsiders the political vocabulary of Cola di Rienzo, concentrating on the letters he wrote between 1344 and 1347 and comparing them with chronicles, especially the account of the so-called Anonimo Romano. Analysing Cola’s use of the term res publica, Modigliani reminds us that the fourteenth-century understanding of the term should be distinguished from our modern understanding of republic as a form of government of the many. She explains that Cola di Rienzo did not try to revive the republican past of Rome. His tribuneship, she argues, was in fact intrinsically linked to his project of bringing the empire back to Rome. This project becomes especially visible during the ceremonies performed in Rome in August 1347, when he bathed in the baptismal basin of the Lateran Baptistery, and, during a ceremony in the Santa Maria Maggiore, received an orb and several crowns.

11Juan Carlos D’Amico discusses how Fazio degli Uberti, author of a long vernacular poem entitled the Dittamondo, coped with the imperial ideology. Encyclopaedic in content, the poem gives an interesting account of the history of Rome and the development of its empire. Like Martin of Troppau, whose chronicle he used as a source, Fazio degli Uberti believed in a bipartite world order, in which the emperor is responsible for the secular well-being and the pope takes care of the spiritual side and both work together harmoniously. Written in the middle of the fourteenth century, the poem refutes papal claims to plenitude of power and wants the papacy to renounce its secular ambitions. To prove his assertions, Fazio degli Uberti cited Christ’s words as recounted in the Gospel “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. Simultaneously, Fazio degli Uberti criticized the foreign emperors who did not take care of the Roman common good. He was disappointed in Charles IV and powerfully expressed that the Italians felt abandoned by him. Like his contemporaries Matteo Villani and Francesco Petrarch, he felt that Charles IV did not take the responsibility that belonged to the imperial office. He concluded that now an Italian emperor had to be chosen.

12The second part of this book is entitled “The imperial discourse of jurists and humanists” and departs from the insight that the descent of the “king of the Romans” (rex Romanorum) into Italy for his imperial coronation attracted the special attention of both Italians with humanist tastes and those interested in legal matters. The consideration that the imitation of Roman emperors is both a sign of the Renaissance and a central aspect in medieval political thought raises the questions how humanists described the contemporary emperors and their deeds and to what extent they broke with medieval modes of imperial representation.

13Daniela Rando examines the university as venue for political communication and sheds light on the ways in which an “imperial discourse” was communicated, received and discussed in academic contexts. Her analysis focuses on the transmission of legal doctrine and the way this stimulated political reflection. Rando shows that a systematic and comparative study of the manuscripts of students can greatly increase our understanding of the way in which political ideas were disseminated at Italian universities. Among others, Rando introduces the works of Raffaele Fulgosio, who wrote down comments on several legal discussions held at the council of Basel, for instance on the powers of an emperor-elect, who was not yet crowned by the pope; on the historicity of the Donation of Constantine; and on the vigour of imperial laws outside the lands of the empire.

14Veronika Proske revisits some of the arguments put forward in her recent monograph on Sigismund of Luxembourg’s Romzug, concentrating on humanist perceptions of the meeting between pope and emperor in Rome in May 1433. Preoccupied with Sigismund’s lack of power and resources, scholars have long undervalued the impact and symbolic value of his imperial coronation in Rome. The adventus and the imperial coronation offered both pope and emperor a powerful instrument of self-representation. Proske shows how the harmony that was performed between the highest secular and spiritual powers of the medieval West made a strong impression on contemporaries and was thematized in a variety of sources: from the oration dedicated to Sigismund by a representative of the Roman people to Guillaume Dufay’s motet Supremum est mortalibus bonum, which was staged during one of the ceremonies.

15After a historiographical introduction to Frederick III’s relation with Italy, Riccardo Pallotti introduces the many orations that prominent Italian humanists delivered before the first Habsburg emperor. Since most of these sources are unedited and remain largely unstudied, Pallotti has added a useful appendix with a list of manuscripts to his chapter. Pallotti shows that these texts confirm the continuing acceptance of the ideological and universalistic role of the empire in Renaissance Italy. Against the background of the Ottoman threat and the imminent fall of Constantinople, a recurrent theme in the orations was the emperor’s perceived obligation to defend the Christian world and mount a crusade against the Ottomans. As an example, Pallotti sheds light on the oration held by Bernardo Giustinian in the service of Venice. The articles of Proske and Pallotti show how fifteenth-century humanists added to the imperial myth by applying a classicizing vocabulary to the Holy Roman Emperor.

16The third part of the book, “The historiography of empire” includes four chapters that focus on the imperial histories that were read, copied, and written in late-medieval and renaissance Italy. Taken together these four chapters show, on the one hand, to what extent historiographers continued to promote the eschatological role of the (Holy) Roman Emperors on the Italian peninsula and, by doing so, remained greatly indebted to medieval traditions. On the other hand, they formulated clear idealistic models of behaviour that could easily discredit the rulers who were unable to meet the high expectations. Simultaneously, historians such as Giovanni Mansionario and Albertino Mussato started to introduce new historiographical methods and explored alternative, ancient models to imitate.

17Heike Johanna Mierau explores the fortune of traditional pope-emperor chronicles in late-medieval Italy. These popular chronicles are perhaps the most neglected sources for understanding the way in which the past in late-medieval Europe was approached. Since scholars have tended to regard specialized works as more laudable than (supposedly “medieval”) compendia and a regionalised (or national) perspective more laudable than a universal one, the way in which Italian authors and chroniclers used, copied and expanded on Martin of Troppau’s important reference work has remained underexplored. As historical handbooks, the pope-emperor chronicles demonstrate the continuing general acceptance of the framework of a universal Roman Empire – and simultaneously offered an influential discourse for political thought.

18Anne Huijbers focuses on two examples of imperial historiography written in fourteenth-century Italy: the extensive and detailed Ystorie imperiales by Giovanni Mansionario and Benvenuto da Imola’s concise manual Libellus augustalis. Their texts show how in the writings of these early humanist historians the ancient Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire still constituted an ideological unity. Writing during and after the Italian campaign of Henry of Luxembourg, Mansionario expressed his reliance on Henry as restorer of the Roman res publica on several occasions and even presented him as the fulfilment of a prophecy included in the ancient Historia augusta, which he used as a source. Whereas Mansionario’s monumental history remained unfinished, Benvenuto da Imola’s Libellus augustalis consisted of short entries on Roman emperors from Caesar to Wenceslaus – the son of Charles IV, whose imperial politics had disappointed the author as they had disappointed Fazio degli Uberti. Benvenuto’s imperial history was copied into many miscellany manuscripts, was illustrated and continued, and had considerable success in the fifteenth century and beyond.

19Rino Modonutti focuses on contemporary imperial history and analyses Albertino Mussato’s relation with Henry of Luxembourg. He shows that, although Mussato had a deep-rooted trust in the imperial institution and its laws, this did not prevent him from criticizing the individual figures who received the imperial insignia. Modonutti argues that, although Mussato firmly believed in the historical and sacred role of the imperial institution, he was well aware of its limits and weakness, and its incapacity of bringing back the lost liberties of Italian communes – most importantly of his hometown Padua. Modonutti suggests that Mussato also had literary reasons for his goodwill towards the emperor: Mussato addressed the emperor with great affection in the prologue to his De gestis Henrici and, in his Epistole I and II, Mussato established a direct link between the “triumph” of Henry of Luxembourg in Milan (where he received the iron crown) and his own triumph as poet laureate in Padua in 1315.

20In the last chapter of this volume, Alexander Lee continues this exploration of the humanist representation of Holy Roman Emperors and focuses on the figure of Ludwig IV, also known as “the Bavarian”. Crowned in 1328 by representatives of the Roman people against the will of the pope, this excommunicated emperor proved to be a rather controversial figure. Taking Flavio Biondo’s Historiarum ab inclinatione Romanorum imperii decades as his end point, Lee explores how humanist portrayals of Ludwig changed over the course of the fourteenth and the early fifteenth centuries. Lee shows that, while Ludwig was often rebuked for his perceived offenses against the Church and for having exacerbated party strife in Italy, the episodes on which humanists focused and the severity of their judgements varied considerably, as their own conceptions of empire evolved. As a consequence, he was stripped of his royal and imperial title, and was finally referred to merely as the “duke of Bavaria”.

21The different contributions make clear that the imperial ideal had not died in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Italy. The name of empire aroused high expectations in this period that saw the breakthrough of the humanist movement. Orations, histories, treatises, and letters show that many Italians, including important humanists, still generally accepted the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire. The contemporary Holy Roman Emperor was considered as the lawful leader of the Christian world and the supreme defender of peace. Far from being an endpoint, this volume hopes to stimulate the edition and study of sources that increase our understanding of both the emperors’ relations with the Italian peninsula and Italian attitudes toward the Holy Roman Empire.


Baron 1955 = H. Baron, The crisis of the early Italian Renaissance, Princeton, 1955.

Bonora 2014 = E. Bonora, Aspettando l’imperatore. Principi italiani tra il papa e Carlo V, Turin, 2014.

Brezzi 1947 = P. Brezzi, Roma e l’impero medioevale (774-1252), Bologne, 1947.

Burns 1991 = J.H. Burns (ed.), The Cambridge history of political thought, 1450-1700, Cambridge, 1991.

Celenza 2004 = C. Celenza, The lost Italian Renaissance, Baltimore, 2004.

Gregorovius = F. Gregorovius, History of the city of Rome in the Middle Ages, trans. Annie Hamilton, London, 1900.

Hankins 2000 = J. Hankins (ed.), Renaissance civic humanism: Reappraisals and reflections, Cambridge UP, 2000.

Hankins 2005 = J. Hankins, Renaissance humanism and historiography today, in J. Woolfson (ed.), Palgrave advances in Renaissance historiography, Basingstoke, 2005, p. 73-96.

Herzstein 1966 = R.E. Herzstein (ed.), The Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages. Universal state or German catastrophe?, Boston, 1966.

Houben 2001 = H. Houben, La componente romana nell’istituzione imperiale da Ottone I a Federico II, in P. Zerbi et al. (ed.), Roma antica nel Medioevo. Mito, rappresentazioni, sopravvivenze nella ‘Respublica Christiana’ dei secoli IX-XIII, Milan, 2001.

Huijbers 2020 = A. Huijbers, Res publica restituta ? Perceiving emperors in fourteenth-century Rome, dans MEFRM, 132-1, 2020,

Lee 2018 = A. Lee, Humanism and empire: The imperial ideal in fourteenth-century Italy, Oxford, 2018.

Miglio 1995 = M. Miglio, La cronachistica tardomedievale italiana (secoli XIV-XV): rilettura, in J. Hamesse (ed.), Bilan et perspectives des études médiévales en Europe, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1995, p. 23-34.

Najemy 2005 = J.M. Najemy, Politics and political thought, in J. Woolfson (ed.), Palgrave advances in Renaissance historiography, Basingstoke, 2005, p. 270-297.

Nederman 1993 = C.J. Nederman, Humanism and empire. Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Cicero and the imperial ideal, in The Historical Journal 36, 1993, p. 499-515.

Paschini 1940 = P. Paschini, Roma nel Rinascimento, Rome, 1940.

Penth – Thorau 2016 = S. Penth, P. Thorau (eds), Rom 1312: Die Kaiserkrönung Heinrichs VII. und die Folgen: Die Luxemburger als Herrscherdynastie von gesamteuropäischer Bedeutung, Cologne, 2016.

Pertile 2002 = L. Pertile, Dante looks forward and back. Political allegory in the epistles, in R.H. Lansing (ed.), Dante. The critical complex, New York, 2002, vol. 5, p. 51-67.

Petersohn 2010 = J. Petersohn, Kaisertum und Rom in spätsalischer und staufischer Zeit. Romidee und Rompolitik von Heinrich V bis Friedrich II, Hannover, 2010. 

Petralia – Santagata 2016 = G. Petralia, M. Santagata (eds), Enrico VII, Dante e Pisa, Ravenna, 2016.

Pontari 2016 = P. Pontari, Testimonianze storiche sulla morte di Enrico VII tra Medioevo e Umanesimo, in G. Petralia, M. Santagata (eds), Enrico VII, Dante e Pisa, Ravenna, 2016, p. 399-428.

Proske 2018 = V. Proske, Der Romzug Kaiser Sigismunds (1431-1433): politische Kommunikation, Herrschaftsrepräsentation und -rezeption, Wien, 2018.

Schramm – Fillitz 1978 = P.E. Schramm, H. Fillitz, Denkmale der deutschen Könige und Kaiser. Ein Beitrag zur Herrschergeschichte von Rudolf I. bis Maximilian I., 1273-1519, Munich, 1978.

Schramm 1929 = P.E. Schramm, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio: Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Erneuerungsgedankens vom Ende des karolingischen Reiches bis zum Investiturstreit, Leipzig, 1929.

Skinner 1978 = Q. Skinner, The foundations of modern political thought, Cambridge, 1978.

Varanini 2014 = G.M. Varanini (ed.), Enrico VII e il governo delle città italiane, in Reti Medievali Rivista, 15 :1, 2014,

Whaley 2011 = J. Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, Oxford, 2011.

Wilson 20116 = P.H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire, A thousand years of Europe's history, London, 2016.


1 Schramm – Fillitz 1978, p. 13: “sich von ihrer römischen Wurzel löste”; “das Idealbild des universalen Imperiums schon längst vergessen war”. Cf. Houben 2001, p. 47: “Il Sacro Romano Impero divenne una formula sempre più vuota in un mondo che era cambiato”. This assumption also explains why most studies that explore the relation between Rome and the emperors do not consider the late-medieval period: cf. Schramm 1929, Brezzi 1947, Petersohn 2010.

2 Gregorovius 1900, vol. 7, p. 38 and 127-130. A similar rhetoric can be found in Paschini 1940, p. 130 on Sigismund’s coronation: “non fu che una parata più o meno dignitosa e senza importanza”, and p. 178 on Frederick’s coronation: “come fatto politico questa fastosa incoronazione passò quasi inosservata”.

3 Baron 1955; Skinner 1978. Cf. the introduction in Hankins 2000 and the article of Mabboux in this volume. It is illustrative that John M. Najemy in his essay on political thought in the Renaissance does not mention the empire once: Najemy 2005. Likewise, discussing political thought in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Italy, Burn’s handbook concentrates on “humanism in the service of the city-states”. Burns 1991.

4 Herzstein 1966, p. vii.

5 See the discussion in Pertile 2002, p. 54.

6 Hankins 2005, Celenza 2004, Miglio 1995.

7 Nederman 1993.

8 Lee 2018, p. 5: “almost without exception they [i.e. those inflamed with the spirit of humanism] welcomed the Empire’s return both as a fulfilment of a cultural ideal and as a political panacea”.

9 Whaley 2011; Wilson 2016.

10 Bonora 2014.

11 A research line carried out at the École Française de Rome, entitled Imperialiter. Le gouvernement et la gloire de l’Empire à l’échelle des royaumes chrétiens, highlights the success of imperial ideology throughout the late-medieval and early modern period and shows how it influenced several European countries and institutions.

12 See for more information the website, consulted on 17 June 2020.

13 Penth – Thorau 2016; Petralia – Santagata 2016; for more references cf. the introduction in Varanini 2014.

14 Pontari 2016.

15 Daniela Rando and Eva Schlotheuber organised the conferences on 22 and 23 May 2019 at the universities of Pavia and Milan (Sacro Cuore), and on 25 and 26 September 2019 in Rome at the Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo and the Deutsches Historisches Institut in Rom.

16 Proske 2018.

17 L’imperatore Federico III e il suo primo viaggio a Roma (1451/52), organised by Martin Wagendorfer on 6 and 7 November 2017.

18 Huijbers 2020.

© Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2022

Licence OpenEdition Books

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search