The exterior of the cathedral is a mixture of styles. The original Romanesque can be seen primarily in the sides of building at the clerestory level. The belt-tower was constructed in the fourteenth century in a Tuscan style of alternating black and white stone. The facade is the latest addition, dating to the Renaissance.
Internally, we find a typical Roman basilica layout of three naves separated by columns, an apse, cosmatesque pavement and an open truss timber ceiling. Originally the entire structure was covered in colourful medieval frescoes, however many of these were lost -- as was the basilica's pure Romanesque form -- when a remodelling took place in the sixteenth century which saw aspidal like side chapels installed along the length of the nave. In the seventeenth century, a baroque style ceiling was added, covering up the painted, open truss ceiling.
However, none of this is what you'll see a Viterbo's cathedral today, because after the cathedral was heavily damaged in a bombing during the Second World War, the decision was taken to attempt to restore the basilica back to its historical Romanesque form. However, had you walked into the cathedral in 1943, this is what you would have seen:
What one will note here, of course, is that the altar and sanctuary had more of a baroque appearance, with a frescoed apse and ceiling. One will also note that the roof trusses had been covered over by a ceiling and a sculptural group is present on the triumphal arch.
As mentioned, Renaissance era chapels had also been carved out along the length of the nave:
The end result of their restoration efforts can be seen here, and this is what you'll find in today in Viterbo were you to visit:
It goes without saying that archeologistic revivals such as this can be somewhat controversial. Evidently, a key bit of context here were the fact that it was war damages that spawned the project, not merely archeologistic ideology. Certainly it would appear that the damages that were sustained were not so great that the basilica couldn't have simply been repaired "as is" but there is certainly an appeal to be found in the revival that was undertaken here -- particularly when you consider that Italy already has absolutely no shortage of other Renaissance and Baroque architectural and artistic treasures seemingly everywhere one looks.
My only comment is that I believe more could have been done to revive the Romanesque presbytery in particular the altar where a ciborium would seem appropriate -- but I digress.
Turning our attention to some of the details of the basilica, located within a smaller, secondary apse within one of the side naves is a beautiful altar with frescoed figures to either side depicting St. Peter and St. Paul, framing a beautiful icon of the Madonna and Child.
 |
| St. Paul |
 |
| An image of St. Peter. To the right you can see the remnant of an image of St. Lawrence. |
 |
 |
| The Sacrament chapel |
We'd invite our readers to ask themselves whether they would have preferred to have seen the basilica repaired in its pre-1944 form, or whether they agree with the decision that was taken to seek to reclaim the building's Romanesque inheritance.
The reality is there are pro's and con's regardless of which way you go with it, demonstrating just how difficult such decisions can be. Still, given that it was precisely the pristine beauty of this basilica's present Romanesque form that caught my eye, I suppose it is fair to say that I find myself leaning toward the 'pro' argument in this particular instance.
