currents and undercurrents, and exceptions to the
rule. Fot example, thete is a large gtoup of truly
wonderful domed churches in central/southwestern
France actually never systematically explored and
explained ever since they were highlighted by Felix
de Verneilh some 150 years ago. This is because
they, as "deviant" buildings, do not ňt the scheme
of linear growth which stih plagues much of our
thinking. This is a brief summary of what I said in
1982 and elaborated further in the conclusion of my
1996 and 2006 books/
These proposais of mine were not received
with applause, but as time went by most among
distinguished Croatian students started to apply the
above mentioned "rules", as they proved to be a
good lead toward classification of buildings based
on empirical testing of hundreds and hundreds of
architectural works between ca. 800 and ca. 1200,
i.e., one can empirically test this model by applying
it to any mature Romanesque building, or, in fact,
realize that it fully matures in the High Gothic/ This
is, of course, a very, very abbreviated version of my
reasoning, so please accept it as such. I emphasize,
as I hâve always doně, that this systém should be
applied with maximum flexibility as we are dealing

^ GOSS, V. P.: Pn?-RwAz%&ry^ A CrozzAb. Zagreb
1996 and 2006. In particular 2006, pp. 211-220.
E.g., FISKOVIC, I.: Crkveno graditeljstvo dubrovacke regije
u svjedu povijesti, od IX. do XII. stolječa. In: Tdw&yGbM
Dubrovnik 2000, p. 420; jURKOVIČ,
M. - MARAKOVlC, N.: La nascita del primo romanico in
Croatia nel contesto delle grandi riforme ecclesiastiche del
secolo XI. In: CALZONA, A. et al. (eds.): ^
Tz/A A (Wiw Parma 2007, pp. 96-
102, especially pp. 96, 98-99, notes 2 and 8 (references to my
works); and GOSS, V P: What Josef Strzygowski did not
Know. In: Ibidem, pp. 583-593, especially p. 587 (SS. Peter and
Moses); MARASOVIC, T.: DAwzzA?Vol. 1. Split
- Zagreb 2008, pp. 11, 54. I would like to point out that T.
Marasovič (p- 54, note 75) has committed an error attributing
to P. Vežič the observation that my systém is not perfect, a
conclusion Vežic has reached analyzing the 12* centum church
of St. Krševan in Zadar. Vežic must have not read my texts
carefully, as I already in 1982 had used the same example as
a building that does not ht my systém, and listed the reasons
why. Please see my work cited in note 7, and VEŽIC, P:
Bazilika sv. Ivana Krstitelja (sv. Nediljica) u Zadru - prilog
poznavanju ranoromaničke arhitekture u Dalmaciji. In: RAoA
7/zrAzz/zz 23, 1999, p. 8, note 15.

not with sudden and clear-cut changes, but a ywmn
(I call it a process of structuralization) taking several
centuries (roughly from 800 until 1200), and def-
nitely not linear. If judged in that light, Carolingian
buildings quite regularly display all or some of the
characteristics listed above as Pre-Romanesque.
A dissenting voice has been raised, however, by
Magdalena Skoblar/" who has questioned my distinc-
fon between the Pre-Romanesque and the Roman-
esque without actually describing it, saying why, or
offering substitution of her ownf The architects
of the Pre-Romanesque and the Romanesque had
the right to express their concepts, feelings, and vi-
sions ("/A AAytyAG o/ A'Vor/', as once wisely said
by Ernst KitzingeF^), and they could express them
only through form, i.e., the architecture they pro-
duced. Yet my concept of style is not formalist, as
it embodies content
as nicely put recently by no one less than Arthur
DantxA) leading, eventually, to placing the work of
art within its material and spiritual (cultural) context.
I also repeat that my "tool" must be applied with a
high degree of flexibility, and it primarily measures
change, as for me a style is a dynamic, not a static
categoryT This needs to be reiterated as the main
SKOBLAR, M.: Još jednom o predromaničkoj arhitekturi u
Hrvatskoj. In: XM777A, 4, 2007, No. 3, pp. 25-28. The piece
does not warrant a response but as it cuts, most inexpertly,
into some important methodological issues, I feel obliged not
to "hide" it from the reader. An answer to some factual errors
in the text will be presented elsewhere when appropriate.
** M. Skoblar calls my reasoning "IRArAAzzzTZTZMpf I wonder
if she had ever read any works by Johann Joachim Winckel-
mann, but being a "IRArA/AzzTZTZzbTZ^ I consider a compliment
as Winckelmann was, as recendy demonstrated by Marko
Spikic, dealing exacdy with Croatian materials, one of the
hrst scholars who studied the work of art within its context.
- ŠPIKJČ, M.: Život i djelo antikvara Ivana Josipa Pavloviča-
-Lučiča. In: PřErA, 51, 2008, pp. 47-71.
KITZINGER, E.: Gregorian Reform and the Visual Arts:
A Problem of Method. In: RgyAAzz^, 22,
1972, pp. 57-102.
^ DANTO, A.: MAnt? gf Chicago 2006, in particular pp.
139-142.
^ May I just add that in a recent article two leading experts on
the Romanesque in Croatia, Miljenko Jurkovic and Nikolina

5