Compressed Meanings. The Donor's Model in Medieval Art to around 1300: Origin, Spread and Significance of an Architectural Image in the Realm of ... and Likeness (Architectura Medii Aevi) [Illustrated] 9782503528359, 250352835X

Citation preview

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

ARCHITECTURA

MEDII AEVI

Vol. II

Series Editor Pro£ Thomas CooMANS (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

Advisory Board Pro£ Caroline BRUZELIUS(Duke University) Prof. Paul CROSSLEY(Courtauld Institute of Art, London) Pro£ Christian FREIGANG(Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, Frankfurt am Main) Pro£ Dany SANDRON(Universite de Paris Sorbonne - Paris IV)

Compressed Meanings The Donor's Model in Medieval Art to around 1300: Origin, Spread and Significance of an Architectural Image in the Realm of Tension between Tradition and Likeness

EMANUEL

S. KLINKENBERG

BREPOLS

Translated with the financial support of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Translated by Lee Preedy Cover illustration: Church model on the tomb of the Saxon Duke Liudolf in the collegiate church of SS Anastasius and Innocent in Gandersheim, c.1270-1280 (photograph: author)

© 2009 Brepols Publishers n.v., T urnhout, Belgium and the authors.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2009/0095/20 ISBN 978-2-503-52835-9 Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

CONTENTS

9

Foreword and Acknowledgements Introduction 1. The Central ~estion 2. Methodological Shortfalls 3. A Partly New Methodological Basis 4. The Selection of the Material and the Structure of the Study

11 11 12 15 17

I.Rome 1.1 The Papal Tradition 1.2 An Imperial Origin? 1.3 From Emperor to Pope 1.4 Pope Leo I 1.5 From Pope to Noble Layman

19 19 23 28 30 32

2. Equals of the Pope 2.1 Ravenna 2.2 Poree 2.3 Galliano 2.4 S. Angelo in Formis 2.5Ausonia 2.6 Casauria

39 39 42 43 45

3. The Combination of Spiritual and SecularDonors 3.1 The Private Chapel ofTheodotus in S. Maria Antiqua in Rome 3.2 S. Susanna in Rome and St Benedikt in Mais 3.3 Piirgg 3.4 Aquileia 3.5 Moosburg

59 59 61 64 66

49 52

67

CONTENTS

5

4. Roma secunda 4.1 Trier 4.2 Goldbach 5. The Holy See as a Source of Protection and Privilege 5.1 Schaflhausen 5.2 Hesse 5.3 Petershausen 5.4 Millstatt

85 85 89 91 93

6. Power Struggles among the Clergy

97 97

6.1 Bonn 6.2 Hildesheim 6.3 Salzburg 6.4 Diffusion of the Model-bearer on Tympanums

7. The West: Burgundy, Reims and Wilderen

6

71 71 76

104 109

ll2 ll7 ll7 ll8

7.1 Lyon 7.2Reims 7.3 Charlieu 7.4Avenas 7.SAutun 7.6 Neuchatel 7.7 Wilderen

121 123 124

8. The Imperial Tradition 8.1 Magdeburg 8.2Aachen 8.3 Speyer 8.4 Schleswig 8.5 Goslar

135 135 142 150 152 154

9. The Imperial-Royal Tradition in the Archdiocese ofTrier 9.1 Priim 9.2 St Maximin 9.3 SS Matthias and Eucharius in Trier and St Liutwin in Metdach 9.4 Echternach 9.5 Connections and Origin

165 165

127 128

174 175 177 180

10. Poland 10.1 Olbin 10.2Wrodaw 10.3 Strzelno 10.4 The Tomb of Peter and Maria Wlast 10.5 The Origin of the Model-bearer

187 187 191 191 193 195

11. The Tomb of Henry the Lion, Nucleus of a FamilyTradition

197 197 199 201 203 205 206 209

11.1 Verden (Aller) 11.2 Brunswick 11.3 Gandersheim 11.4 Wechselburg 1 1.5 Hildesheim 11.6 Mallersdorf 11.7 llbenstadt

12. RoyalTombs in France 12.1 St-Germain-des-Pres 12.2 Soissons, Chalons-en-Champagne, Reims and Arras

13. Noble Tombs in the LateThirteenth Century 13.1 Maria Laach 13.2 Cologne 13.3 Marienfeld

14. Stained GlassWindows and Babenbergs 14.1 Ardagger 14.2 Heiligenkreuz 14.3 Steyr

IS.Summary 15.1 Origin 15.2 Diffusion 15.3 Rome as Reference Point 15.4 Likeness 15.5 Aspect and Symbolic Additions

213 213 215 221 221 224 226 231 231 235 239 243 243

244 246 247 249

In Conclusion

253

List of illustrations

255

Bibliography

265

Index

291

CONTENTS

-,

Introduction

In 1964 Gaborit-Chopin published a previously unknown pen drawing of the tomb of Charlemagne ( 768-814) with a church rising behind it (Fig. 64). 1 She discovered the drawing in a chronicle written around 1020-1034 by AdemarofChabannes, monk of Limoges and Angouleme. With a major exhibition on Charlemagne about to take place (1965) the discovery was extremely timely. Scientific and scholarly interpretations flowed thick and fast. One particular problem struck everyone: the church in the picture showed few if any similarities to the well-known Palatine Chapel in Aachen where the emperor was interred. The long nave with a rotunda on the left and a several-staged bell-tower on the right appeared to bear little resemblance to the architecture of the church that housed Charlemagne's tomb - a polygonal centrally-planned building with a small rectangular choir to the east and a westwork with three towers. Did Ademar have reliable information from Aachen or was his design an airy invention? Gaborit-Chopin left the question open. She did find parallels for the tower and rotunda in eleventh-century French architecture. Her German colleagues went a little further. Beumann pointed to the exaggerated proportions of the door in the rotunda directly behind the rectangular imperial tomb. He conjectured that by accentuating it in this way Ademar was indicating Charlemagne's resting place at the threshold of the church. 2 Kreusch urged the abandoning of the modern way of looking. 3 Only then would it be seen that the bell-tower represented the westwork, the nave the 'unrolled' octagon, and the rotunda the choir of the Palatine Chapel - from which it would follow that the tomb lay at the transition from the

octagon to the choir. Once the dust of debate had settled no single explanation proved really convincing. Heitz included the pen drawing in his book on Carolingian religious architecture; he shared Kreusch's opinion. 4 But in the next major exhibition about Charlemagne in 1999 Ademar's illustration went entirely unmentioned in the three-volume catalogue. 5 The investigation had reached an impasse.

l. The CentralQuestion Gaborit-Chopin's discovery is a clear illustration of the kind of methodological problems that go hand in hand with the study of medieval images of architecture. In the art-historical literature on the subject founder or donor figures bearing a model of the edifice their gifts have caused to be constructed, renovated or embellished occupy an important place. Such 'modelbearers' survive in the Christian !lft of western Europe from as early as the sixth century. In the course of the Middle Ages they materialize in ever more media: occurring first in early Christian mosaics they subsequently appear in wall paintings, miniatures, book covers, funerary monuments, architectural sculpture, fonts, shrines, seals, coins, textiles, freestanding statues and stained glass windows. This diverse material is central to the present study. Serving as the starting point for the research are representations of founders or donors that have already been discussed in art-historical writing. Although numerous model-bearers from England to Poland and from Denmark to Sicily from the period up to around

INTRODUCTION

}

J

1300 are dealt with it is not the idea to compile a cata-

logue. A chronologically and geographically organized survey would be little help in revealing links between works of art from different periods and places and in different media. Instead the focus will be on groups of model-bearers whose models are similar in appearance and were commissioned in a similar historical context. Earlier studies invariably turn on one question - to what extent do the models accurately represent an 'original'. Architectural historians hope to discover something about a vanished building or an early phase of construction in the edifice depicted. Where this can be checked, however, it often transpires that the 'faithfulness' of these iconographic sources leaves much to be desired, at any rate in terms of the 'photographic' accuracy to which we have become accustomed. Nevertheless, in what follows the accepted term 'architectural model' is used, not, indeed, in the sense of an exact scale model or architectural maquette, but to denote a representation of a specific building in miniature. Art historians study the degree of likeness in order to reveal the artists' methods. In addition to deriving elements from built architecture, artists were influenced by traditions and conventions in the way in which buildings were represented. Iconographic traditions developed because century after century those who viewed the images coupled a transmitted meaning to a representation with a typical structure. In the case of the model-bearer the basic form of the iconographic tradition, the iconographic pattern or formula, consists of two motifs, the founder or donor figure and the architectural model. Conventions play a significant part in the way in which the two are portrayed. They may be linked to a particular medium, or be the result of workshop practice, or even offashion. They may also reflect the sometimes tense relationships between the secular and the ecclesiastical, or operate as 'policy statements' by lords temporal and spiritual, as will become clear in the course of this study. Although the art-historical approach provides a more multifaceted image than a straightforward comparison of model and original, one very important conclusion seems never to have been drawn: medieval artists were not aiming to replicate the buildings in question but rather to represent them. Sculptors, goldsmiths, minters, mosaicists, painters, weavers and sealmakers did not replicate but represented. This is essen-

}2

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

tially why the representation and the building represented often look little or nothing like each other. There is also the additional problem that the degree of likeness is difficult to assess,given that the structures represented are seldom still in their original state. Evidently, therefore, donors' models cannot be explained exclusivelyby comparison with their built equivalents. Hence the central question of this study: how did the

iconographic form of the medieval donor'smodel originate, and what messagedid it convey.

2. Methodological Shortfalls The research that has already been carried out on donors' models in the realm of tension between tradition and likeness suffers from several methodological deficiencies. Certainly the majority of studies contain things of value but they all tend to approach the material too superficially and with insufficient system. This applies to the issue of the 'faithfulness' of an architectural image, to connections between images, to the origin and diffusion of the iconographic formula, and to the historical context in which patrons propagated their messages. Therefore, after a brief look at three publications that are important for their methodology, there follows an explanation regarding adaptations and innovations in research methods so as to avoid dead-end paths, as occurred with the interpretation of Ademar's Palatine Chapel drawing. In 1973 M 1czewska-Pilch published a survey of 12.6 donor and dedicatory images from the sixth to the early thirteenth century. 6 Her research was inspired by the discovery of a presumed lost tympanum in Wroclaw (Breslau) on which two donors present architectural models to Christ (Fig. 99 ). The book contains a catalogue preceded by an enumerative description on which basis the author establishes a number of constants and evolutionary threads. According to M 1czewska-Pilch the iconographic model-bearer formula perpetuates the foundation the donor endowed for posterity. It represents the hope of reward in the hereafter and emphasizes the donor's standing. It may also embody a moral-didactic aspect, as the benefactor appears in close proximity to God, on a par with the saints. The author maintains that donor portrayals were initially concentrated in the apses of churches and chapels. They were then relegated to the tympanum by the Second Council ofNicaea (787).

Unlike the East, where donors were mostly portrayed above their burial places, the West would have observed this rule fairly strictly in the twelfth and thirteenth century. However, gaps in the catalogue mean that there is something amiss with the picture M;iczewska-Pilch presents. The same can be said of her conclusion that the recipient of the model is usually Christ, sometime the Virgin and Child, and in exceptional cases a sainc.7In face the recipient is not always represented, as is the case on funerary monuments, for instance. M;iczewska-Pilch's most pronounced view appears when addressing the question of why it was possible for the medieval iconographic tradition to become so much more widespread in Germany than it was in France. According to the author the French king's power over his vassals was so extensive that local lords in France would have been less inclined co emphasize their aspirations by means of portrayal as a modelbearer than would their counterparts in the fragmented German areas. This, however, is to pose the wrong question. After all, as representatives of the old regime very many donor images were destroyed during the French Revolution, whereas the contemporary wave of destruction east of the Rhine soon subsided. The difference in the number of model-bearers now to be found in France and Germany is not therefore a consequence of feudal relationships but of events around 1800. Their effects can clearly be read in twelfth and thirteenth-century combs and funerary monuments that incorporate the iconographic formula. Assuming the modern borders, in French sculpture up to 1300 I know of three surviving examples and of a further six from iconographic sources. Germany, in contrast, has thirteen surviving tomb monuments and one drawing, an illustration of an effigy from Bonn chat was destroyed during the French occupation of the city in 1794-1814

When Lipsmeyer completed her doctoral dissertation The Donor and his Church Model in Medieval Art from Early Christian Times to the Late Romanesque Period (1984) in 1981 she was unaware ofM;iczewskaPilch's study. Her fundamental question concerns the origin of the model-bearer, the development of the iconographic tradition as a whole, and the evolution of the model. Her treatment of the first topic is based on literary research. 8 Although figures with architectural models appear in the Middle East from the eighth century BCE, and later become widespread, there is a

Fig. 1. Apollo and the emperor present a temple, coin from Philippopolis struck under the Roman emperor Elagabalus, 218-2.ll (from: PRICE & TRELL, Coins, fig. 416).

gulf of three centuries between the pagan and Christian traditions. The latest antique examples are found on coins minced between the lacesecond and lace third century CE in Asia Minor and the Thracian city of Philippopolis (Fig. 1).9 They document the senate's granting of the honorary tide of 'Neokoros' co cities chat had merited such an award for their promotion of the imperial cult. They were permitted to build and maintain temples for the worship of the city gods or, as was usually the case, for that of the emperor. On the coins the city god(dess) offers the emperor a temple. A number of deities bear not one but two models, while at a shared shrine they might present the temple together with the emperor. According to Lipsmeyer both formal and intrinsic threads span the three-hundred-year gap to the Christian donor representations, which survive in apse mosaics from the sixth century on: there is no hierarchic difference in scale between the figures, a mortal and a deity are combined, and the model-bearer expresses his privileged position. The direction of the transfer differs, however. On the coins the model goes from a god to the emperor, on the mosaics from the donor to God. Lipsmeyer therefore posits influence from three other quarters. Firstly, she points to the

INTRODUCTION

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

13

that of the founder in the distant, or not so distant past. By embedding the iconographic tradition in history it becomes more than a useful device for art historians to use in arranging images: it functions as a 'channel' along which 'messages' were conveyed. For creating links with motifs that were familiar to the intended beholder made an architectural representation comprehensible. Thus a visual tradition always incorporates a formal and an intrinsic aspect. By charting the former the understanding of the latter also increases. In arranging this way, national borders, rigid definitions per medium or limitations to certain iconographic contexts are less of a help than a hindrance. Indeed, such divisions are foreign to the character of medieval iconographic traditions. Naturally forms vary according to place, time, material used, the degree oflikencss aimed at, the skill of the maker and the purpose of the work. Their message, on the other hand, need not vary at all. The study of the iconographic tradition of the model-bearer focuses on the following points: a. The origin and diffusion of the iconographic tradition Although the loss of works of art and gaps in the documented material inevitably lead to distortions, the pattern of the iconographic tradition's diffusion by place, time and medium can still yield important information. For instance, a concentration of model-bearers depicted in early Christian mosaics in Rome provides clues for tracing the origin of the iconographic tradition in Christian art. Examining the earliest preserved examples can enhance the understanding of the role of the donor figure with an architectural model. For herein an artist crafted his carefully thought-out formulation of a patron's message,whereas an imitation or copy calls for simple repetition, the result routine and the eloquence of the original diminished. Ni. mentioned above, Lipsmeyer points to antique precursors of the earliest surviving model-bearers in Christian art. But she makes little enquiry into the historical circumstances in which the 'conversion' of the antique iconographic formula took place. This context could shed light on the motives and ideas underlying the first Christian model-bearer, for instance, and on the way these have influenced the diffusion of the iconographic tradition. Irregularities in the pattern of diffusion may attest to a preference linked to time and place, which could be understood when the historical circumstances are

16

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

taken into account. The large number of noble modelbearers on tombs in the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps from the period 12.35-1300illustrates this well (cf§ 11.2.-7). b. The role of the patron The example that inspired a patron to have himself portrayed as a model-bearer may more or less have determined the eventual appearance of the donor's model. In works of art that simply continued the prevailing iconographic tradition, without any appreciable change, the (rather unspecific) motives behind the choice of exemplar are usually a mystery. For instance, a workshop commissioned to produce the umpteenth tympanum portraying a church's patron saint and a donor figure would simply have repeated a generic composition. That does not airer the fact that the constantly reiterated representation of model-bearers in varying contexts could lead to shifts in form and meaning. Formal changes, from schemarizarion to embellishment and variation, are related either to the patron's wishes or to the artist's method. There is no sharply defined border between these two possibilities. The patron's voice seems to be heard in modifications to the iconographic formula that were unusual for that time or place. This can be observed primarily in the addition of significant elements - derails derived from biblical exegesis,such as the symbolic octagonal rower, or borrowings from other iconographic traditions that emphasize the parallel between the founded church and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, for example. The conspicuous individualizing of the architectural model would also be the result of an agreement between patron and artist. The portraitlike representation ofS. Agncsc in Rome, for example, is a far cry from the schematic character of most Roman donors' models and seems to be connected with the papal promotion of the veneration of St Agnes (cf§ 1.1). The changes a patron required to be made to the prevailing iconographic formula should make the intended beholder pay heed to the changed message. This could lead to the development of subtraditions within an iconographic tradition - the never-built roof turrets on church models are a good example. c. The artist's method Analyses of the way in which artists or workshops depicted buildings should include as many of their

architectural representations as possible, for only then does it become possible to perceive the distinction between elements that belong to a standard repertoire and the particular means the artist deployed - according to his commission - to convey a message. This might be a matter of degrees oflikeness, different types of perspective, inscriptions and adaptations of motifs derived from other iconographic traditions. An extensive study of standard motifs per se would go little way in supporting the interpretation, since work carried out by rote would obviously involve far less in the way of deliberate choices than the use of an individualized iconographic formula. Given that architectural drawings were common only from the mid-thirteenth century, 15 they can hardly have influenced the early and high-medieval donor images. The same applies to maquettes that presented a design for a building in three dimensions. They are only known thanks to three references in the ninth and twelfth century and do not seem to have been common. 16 Changes in the iconographic formula of the modelbearer for which the artist seems to have been primarily responsible proceeded from his competence, the rendering in a new style and the use of the formula in a new medium or on a support whose contours differed from those of the exemplar. As a rule such adaptations lessened the 'legibility' of the original. Significant details also changed or even vanished altogether. This process is illustrated by the seals of the Benedictine monastery in Deutz, for instance: on the first matrix the donor-bishop carries a church model that bears a clear resemblance to St Heribert's monastery church, whereas the model on the second matrix has lost its most characteristic features (cf§ 9.1). d. The function of the work of art Works of art ful61 diverse functions. Given their small size and sequestered repositories donors' models depicted in book illumination hardly lend themselves to the conveying of a message to wider circles. Monumental works of art, coins and seals are far better suited to that purpose. A tomb preserves the memory of a deceased benefactor in one particular place, while coins could cover great distances and seals repeatedly represent the seal owner legally in the authentication of charters. Moreover, the donor's model plays a different role as a component of a tympanum in which a secular or ecclesiastical ruler dedicates the church he has founded to a saint than it does as an element in

narrative images illustrating the history of the foundation. Such differences in function can therefore also determine the appearance of architectural representations. The tympanum and lintel above the door of the abbey church of S. Clemente in Casauria provide a case in point (cf§2..6). e. The combination of image and text Many donor portrayals are accompanied by inscriptions that identify the model-bearer and sometimes the model as well. In book illumination in particular the connection between word and image offers further clues to interpreting the image's meaning. But an interpretation of an architectural representation exclusively by means of the text that goes with it can run into difficulties. For instance, nothing in the text of the twelfth-century Vita Heinrici explains why Emperor Henry II and his consort Cunigunde offer Bamberg Cathedral together in the dedication miniature in the one manuscript while in the other the emperor carries the cathedral alone (cf §9.1). In the Liberaureus from the imperial abbey of Echternach the content of the charter below two model-bearers is equally unrevealing about why the abbey church is so pointedly represented with all its just rebuilt elements on proud display (cf §9.4). Iconographic traditions and texts naturally follow their own conventions and will there• fore always supply information in different ways. The written word may influence architectural schemes but does not necessarily do so. Especially when interpret• ing details for which no parallels survive in the visual tradition, exegetical, liturgical and historical writings may contain valuable data. This approach may advance the study of the tympanum of the Franciscan church in Salzburg, for example, in which one church seems to be represented in two different ways (cf§6.3).

4. The Selection of the Material and the Structure of the Study Carrying out a study according to the method outlined above requires a careful selection of iconographic material. Choices do not readily present themselves: the many model-bearers seem like a tangled skein of wool. Their analysis requires the cutting through of the right threaasin order to tease out the most mean• ingful organization. The way of arranging largely determines which iconographic motifs receive the

INTRODUCTION

)7

greatest emphasis because the connections between them appear to be significant. For instance, donors' models could be thematically grouped by churches, castles or city views, but equally well by the medium in which they are represented or the social position of the model-bearer. The iconographic material presented here dates largely from the west-European Middle Ages up to around 1300. In exploring the origin and meaning of the model-bearer in Christian art it is necessary to extend the horizon to encompass Late Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire. The year 1300 is based partly on practical considerations, as the further the Middle Ages advance the more numerous the surviving examples become. Moreover, the iconographic tradition of the model-bearer itself provides an intrinsic reason for taking the late thirteenth centuty as a stopping point. At this time artists began to represent buildings in an increasingly individual and therefore more portraitlike way, which led to changes in the old tradition. This transitional period will still be touched upon, but not what came after. From the many images of model-bearers groups have been composed that can explain various aspects of the iconographic tradition. Their arrangement is thematic and in principle each theme is dealt with chronologically, although not at the expense of clarity. The study begins with the early model-bearers in Rome and the question of their precursors. Then the application of the iconographic formula by ecclesiarchs in

Italy from the sixth to the twelfth century is considered. The simultaneous combination of spiritual and secular donors is next examined. This is followed by tenth to twelfth-century examples in the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps and in France as elements in the creation of a 'second Rome: appeals to papal protection, and competition among high clergy. Attention then turns to imperial and royal founders and donors, followed by secular model-bearers in Poland. The study ends with tombs that seem to evidence the potency of family connections and the influence of the iconographic tradition on Austrian stained glass in the thirteenth century. Thus this book aims to systematically arrange and interpret medieval donors' models as an iconographic and historical source. In doing so it turns away from the developmental line of thought that constrains the studies by Lipsmeyer and Gardelles: from the twelfth century onwards, through an increasingly portrait-like accuracy, artists struggled free of the limitation that characterizes the traditional, schematic donor's model. This kind of idea takes no account of the fact that the 'awkwardly' represented buildings could convey pointed meanings that have to be taken seriously even if their import is perhaps puzzling to the modem beholder who has little familiarity with the Middle Ages. As a means of conveying visual messages they fulfilled an essential role in a culture that was far better able to receive them than we are.

NOTES

1 Rome, BAY. Reg. la,. l63, fol. l)\: GABORIT·CHOPIN, "Un dessin~ p. llJ·l,S, fig. 1. Cf: GABORIT-CHOPIN, "Les dessins", p. ll8. 2 BEUMANN,"Grab~ p. 16-p. ; KREUSCH, "Kirche", p. 499. • HEITZ, L'architecturtreligieuse,p. 78-79, Ag. 58. 5 STIEGEMANN& WEMHOFF, 799: Kunst, held in Paderborn. 6 M}\CZEWSKA·PILCH, Tympanon,p. 61-95 (Polish text), 99-133 (catalogue), 146-148 (English summary) • FABRICIUS, "Die kirchenmodelltragenden Stiftergestalten", p. 185points out that up to the tenth century the saints arc not the recipients of the model but rather act as intcrtnediaries between the donor and Christ.

18

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

8 LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. 4-15. Cf: GALTIER MARTi, La iconogr,ifia,p. 180-184. 9 See also: SCHLOSSER, Btitriige, p. 36-39, Taf. II; GRABAR, L'empereur, p. 114-155; KocKS, Die Stifterdarste//ung, p. 41; FABRICIUS,•oie kirchenmodelltragendcn Stiftcrgesralten", p. 187· 188; PRICE & TRELL, Coins,p. 34, fig. 44, 416. 1 Cf: FUCHS, Architekturdarstellungen, especially p. 9-46. 11 LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 16-109. 12 LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 111-104 13 GARDELLES,"Les maquettes". p. 67-74. 14 GARDELLES,•Les maquettes~ p. 75-76. 15 BINDING, "Jn mento conceptum", p. 77-84. 16 HEYDENREICH, "Architekturmoddl", c. 9lJ; BINDING, "Architckturmodell", c. 901.

°

1. Rome

Nowhere do more images of model-bearers survive than in Rome. The explanation seems to be twofold. On the one hand is the durability of mosaic, the medium in which many Roman donors were immortalized up to the mid-ninth century; on the other is the presumption that Rome was where the iconographic formula made its entry into Christian art. To try to assess where its origins lie the following factors will be examined below: the constants and variables among the earliest Roman model-bearers, the written tradition, the possible patron of the first Christian example, representations that may derive elements &om this archetype, and the historical circumstances surrounding the earliest diffusion of the iconographic tradition.

I. I ThePapal Tradition

The first donor in Rome known to have had himself portrayed as a model-bearer is Pope Felix IV (52.6-530). His figure stands, albeit nowadays in a seventeenthcentury copy, on the far left of the mosaic that ornaments the conch of the apse of SS. Cosma e Damiano 1 (Fig. :z.). As the dedicatory inscription mentions Felix IV by name and the mosaic was twice carefully reprised under Pope Paschal I (817-82.4) in the early ninth century, there can be few doubts about the originality of the iconographic programme. With his hand reverently covered the pope presents a church, just as, on the far right, St Theodore proffers the martyr's crown. Both turn towards the central figure of Christ. He is flanked by Peter and Paul, who commend the unmercenary physicians Cosmas and Damian to him.

Portrayal in model-bearer mode became popular among popes who aspired to go down in history as builders. 2 From the eight centuries after Felix IV the following instances of the formula's use are known in either original or copied form: - Pelagius II (579-590) depicted in the mosaic on the triumphal arch ofS. Lorenzo fuori le Mura; 3 - Honorius I (62.5-638) in the apse mosaic in S. Agnese fuori le Mura (Fig. 4); 4 -John IV (640-642.) in the apse mosaic in the chapel ofS. Venanzio in the Lateran Baptistery, completed by his successor, Theodore ( 642.-649 ); 5 -John VII ( 705-707) in a mosaic in the oratory dedicated to the Virgin in Old St Peter's, now in the Vatican Grottoes; 6 - Leo III ( 795-816) in the apse mosaic in S. Susanna (Fig. 2.4), known only &om seventeenth-century copies and in a sketch of the lost apse mosaic in the Sala del Concilio in the Lateran Palace.7 - Paschal I ( 817-82.4) in the apse mosaics in S. Prassede (Fig. 3) and S. Cecilia in Trastevere; 8 - Gregory IV (82.7-844) in the apse mosaic in S. Marco; 9 - Innocent II (1130-1143) in the apse mosaic in S. Maria in Trastevere; 10 -Nicholas III (12.77-12.80)in a wall painting on the east wall of the Sancta Sanctorum (Fig. 61). 11 This list evidences a long tradition. Most of the mosaics were created in the sixth to ninth centuries, then, after a three-century hiatus, Innocent II and Nicholas III revived the formula. How far these time limits correspond to the actual use of the motif in Rome will be

ROME

19

Fig. l. Apse mosaic of SS. Cosma e Damiano in Rome, 5l6-530, and sevenceench-cencury restorations (from: WJLPERT, Die riimischen Mosaiken, Taf. 1ol).

discussed later. First there follows a glance at the consistent features of and variations in the early-medieval church models. The popes are all depicted on the left, towards the edge of the image. Most bear a single-aisled little church with a pitched roof (Fig. 3, l4). As a rule they hold the church so that the facade with a rectangular entrance is turned away from them. The side wall often has one or more windows and the building ends with an apse. Lipsmeyer includes the cloth that hangs in the doorway in sixth and seventh-century donor images among the symbolic characteristics and compares it with the curtain or veil chat closed off the entrance to the Temple of Jerusalem. 12 This kind of parci tion was part of a church's normal furnishing at the time, however. 13 The freestanding single-aisled models are far from portrait-like portrayals of the buildings themselves, which might have been a three-aisled basilica or a chapel in a church or a baptistery. Even so, inscriptions and the LiberPonspecifically cite the depicted popes as the foundtiji.calis ers of the churches in quescion. 14 Such limited diversity suggests that the prevalent type of model corresponds to an antique iconographic

20

COMPRESSED

formula. In Rome, the earliest known examples of architectural images in Christian mosaics occur in the biblical cycle that Pope Sixtus III (43l-440) completed in the nave and on the triumphal arch of S. Maria Maggiore. Among them are eleven images chat feature a little rectangular pitched-roof building set at an angle co the edge of the mosaic. 15 The rectangular opening in the front of the building, the side wall with sometimes one or more windows and the pitched roof are analogous to the models. Moreover, several have a curtain hanging in the entrance. A formula of this kind seems to have been the source for the Christian church models. Given the date of the cycle in S. Maria Maggiore the use of the 'Roman' type of donor's model may go back at least to the time of Sixtus III. Only the apse - which could now be added because the rectangular building was no longer attached to the edge of the image - makes it clear chat what the iconographic formula represents is a church. In a real church the apse, from which the laity was excluded, contained the seats of the clergy, in the first place that of the bishop. 16 The image on its vault usually represented Christ amid his heavenly court as the archetype

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

of the ecclesiastical hierarchy below. The papal donor figure linked the two realms. Looked at in this light the modification of the antique formula expresses the importance that the model-bearer would have attached to the apse as the clerical domain. The model basilica's entrance is traditionally turned away from the edge of the image and towards the beholder. Perhaps the great doorway alludes to Christ's words to the Pharisees, 'I am the gate' (Jn 10, 9), which influenced the way a church building was interpreted from the time of Bishop Paulinus of Nola (c.409-431) if not earlier. 17 By presenting a neutral architectural model without specific individual features a pope made himself a participant in two traditions. On one hand he associated himself with his predecessors, thus emphasizing the apostolic succession and showing himself to be a worthy successor to Peter, who gave his life to the spreading of Christ's Church on earth. A traditional design could better represent this unbroken line than an architectural likeness with specific and identifiable traits. On the other, he compared himself with a saint who presented to Christ an equally neutral martyr's crown or book. In doing so he not only placed his foundation under Christ's protection but also expressed the hope that his merits would earn him a place amongst the saintly host in the kingdom of heaven. Various dedicatory inscriptions articulate this aspiration in so many words. 18 The hope of heavenly bliss would resound down the centuries as the keynote of the medieval donor representations. It is rendered explicitly on a twelfth-century(?) panel depicting the Last Judgement from the convent of S. Maria in Rome's Campo Marzio. 19 In the bottom register are the two founders, one of whom, Abbess Constantia, on the right, carries a model of a church. They stand not in front of some kind of antependium, as Kocks suggests, 20 but before the gem-studded walls of the Heavenly Jerusalem. A number of the papal donors' models do not conform to the usual Roman type: three vary slightly, and one has an entirely different structure. The first small variation characterizes the model depicted in the chapel John IV (640-642.) added to the Lateran baptistery: here the pontiff holds the church so that the apse rather than the entrance is turned away from him. 21 John IV founded the chapel to house the relics of Venantius, patron saint oflstria and John's native Dalmatia, and other Dalmatian martyrs. 22 Matthiae notes that an eastern orientation is also expressedin Byzantine

Fig. 3. Pope Paschal I with a church model on the left of the apse mosaic of S. Prassede in Rome, 817-82.4 (from: W1sSKIRCHEN, Die Mosaikm, Abb. 12.).

influences on the iconography and style of the mosaics.23 These may likewise have determined the position of the model, witness a sixth-century parallel in Poree (Parenzo) (!stria, Fig. 11, cf §2..2.)and a latetenth-century one in Constantinople (Fig. 32.,cf§8.1). John IV was the first eastern pope after the emergence of the iconographic tradition in the pontificate of Felix IV, so this divergence from the Roman tradition is certainly no adventitious adaptation. 24 Moreover, it was another Greek.John's successor Theodore I ( 642.649 ), who completed the foundation. The motif was used in a chapel once again by John VII ( 705-707 ), who added to St Peter's an oratory dedicated to the Virgin in which he was also interred. 25 This was the first instance in the Roman tradition of the portrayal of a model-bearer in proximity to his own grave. The combination underscores the hope that the building of a place of worship will smooth the

ROME

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

21

Fig. 4. The model of Pope Honorius I on the left of the apse mosaic of S. Agnese fuori le Mura in Rome, 62.5-638(from: MATTHIAE,Mosaici medioeva/i,Tav.99).

way co heaven. Unfortunately, John's architectural model is known only from copies: one shows a basilica with a semicircular-arched entrance; the second is completely lacking in decail. 26 As no other Roman donor's model provides a parallel for the semicircular arch, che originality of chis motif is questionable. Equally unparalleled are che aisles on the church held by Pope Gregory IV (82.7-844) in S. Marco. The maker of the mosaic has seemingly added these as enhancements co the standard model. The south aisle in particular lacks any constructional coherence with the nave. Likewise for the first time the apse has two windows, which Kraucheimer regards as possible examples of'faichful' porcraicure. 27 Alterations co the church and its partial incorporation into the Palazzo Venezia in che fifteenth century hinder comparison of the model with che building icself.28 Arguing against Kraucheimer's conjecture, however, is che mosaicisc's curious placing of two small windows one above che other co the right of the entrance. In S. Agnese fuori le Mura Pope Honorius I ( 62.5-638)holds a completely different basilican church model with an apse (Fig. 4). The aisle, in which are two rectangular openings, segues into a narchex. This has an entrance with a rectangular window complete with crossed window-bars on either side. The clerestory has semicircular-headed windows, likewise with bars, as does the front facade. According co Lipsmeyer the model is a relatively accurate reproduction of the actual building, since in che time of Honorius I ehere was no more ambitious building project in Rome than chat of S. Agnese. 29 The new church was constructed over the catacomb burial place of Sc Agnes. The floor level was therefore below ground. The church was

22

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

entered by doors giving onto che galleries above the narthex and side aisles. If Lipsmeyer is correct, therefore, what on the model looks ac first sight like the aisle muse be a gallery, assuming chat the subterranean level is concealed by che donor's arm. The clerescory windows continue around the building as they do in reality, but their number is reduced. Lipsmeyer fails co ask whether a more frequently used iconographic formula might lie at the root of the basilican model and so does not mention chat che Louvre houses a Syrian (?) parallel, albeit in reverse, dating from che second half of the fifth or the early sixth century (Fig. 5). 30 Essentially it differs in only two points from Honorius's church: ic lacks a narchex and ic has two cowers flanking che apse. Duval calls the pair of towers a Syrian characceriscic. 31 Furthermore, both basilicas have a continuous clerestory with semicircularheaded windows, cwo rectangular openings in the aisle, and a large main doorway. In the Syrian mosaic this main portal is flanked not by windows but by smaller entrances. Perhaps, given chat the windows low down on the facade of Honorius's model are the only ones co share the rectangular shape of che entrances, che maker of che S. Agnese mosaic based his design on a similar example. Byzantine elements in the style of the apse mosaic also indicate an eastern influence, 32 and chis could be true of the type of architectural representation as well. The aisles and narthex or - assuming ehere is a floor below ground level - gallery reflect a significant characteristic of S. Agnese. Honorius builc a basilica uncommon in Rome, with a narthex and galleries around it so that worshippers would have an optimum view of Agnes's comb from all sides on both levels.33 The rebuilding of the church was intended to encourage the veneration of che martyr and pilgrimage to the place where her bones reseed. In this context che model's gallery seems to underscore the accessibility of the saint's comb. Perhaps che windows, represented as disproportionately large, serve the same purpose, suggesting as they do chat che church must be flooded with light. Having not only enough room buc also sufficient light was of essential importance for che viewing of the holy spot. In S. Lorenzo fuori le Mura, which Pope Pelagius II (579-590) had rebuilt wich galleries for improved accessibility co Sc Lawrence's grave, an inscription commends che great amount oflighc in the new church. 34 Although this praise is a copos,35 ic does describe che improved illumination of che martyr's

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

resting place. Sadly,the licclechurch held by the figure of Pelagius on che triumphal arch of S. Lorenzo has been over-restored, and it is no longer possible co cell whether it coo emphasized the large space and the flood of lighc.36 Ac most the relationship with S. Agnese raises che conjecture that the only strongly individualized donor's model co survive from early medieval Rome had a precursor in S. Lorenzo.

1.2 An Imperial Origin?

The origins of che Roman iconographic tradition are probably not co be found with Pope Felix IV, with whom the previous section began. In 1883 Frothingham drew attention co a cexc by Cardinal Dominico Jacobacci (1444-c.152.1) which described the triumphal arch of Old Sc Pecer'sshortly before the building of the new basilica began in 1506/07. 'Still in our time in the church of Sc Peter, on che front of the triumphal arch in front of che high alcar, Emperor Constantine was depicted on a mosaic, displaying with gold letters the church he built, co wit, the church of Sc Peter, co the Redeemer and the blessed apostle Pecer'37 UsingJacobacci's text as a basis, Frothingham reconstructed the triumphal arch, with Christ in the centre, Peter on the left and Constantine I (306-337) on the right. The 'gold letters' he cook co allude to the accompanying inscription. This text gave thanks to Christ, probably for Constantine's victory over Licinius in 32.4, after which the emperor built Sc Pecer's (q2.6-333): ~OD DUCE TE MUNDUS SURREXIT IN ASTRA TRIUMPHANS- HANC CONSTANTINUSVICTORTIBI CONDIDIT AULAM(Because under thy leadership the world has risen triumphant to the scars, victorious Constantine has founded this hall in thy honour). 38 In 1916 Wilpert suggested chat the mosaic dated from the reign of Constantine. 39 Given the hierarchy of the three figures mentioned, Christ would certainly have occupied the central position. Constantine would have presented a church co Christ and Peter from the side, for Jacobacci could have meant only this kind of presentation by 'displaying' (ostendens). Thus Wilperc exalted the lost triumphal arch mosaic co the status of first portrayal of a model-bearer in Christian arc - a supposition which subsequently grew into all but fact. 40 The historical background would seem to bear out Wilpert's suggestion. After all, it was Constantine, not the pope, who built the first churches in

Fig. 5. Church building in a Syrian(?) mosaic, second half of the fifth or early sixth century; Paris, Mus. du Louvre (photograph: author).

Rome after his defeat of Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge (312.),when freedom of worship was granted co Christians. 41 It is therefore entirely possible chat the iconographic motif had an imperial origin and from the very beginning had a place in a church's monumental decoration. But none of this is certain. Jacobacci's text contains no clue co che mosaic's dace. Only che dedicatory inscription definitely dates from che third or fourth decade of the fourth century, the period in which Old St Peter's was built. Wilpert does not substantiate his dating of che mosaic co che period of Constantine's rule. Nilgen points out chat the earliest mosaics in churches were not figurative and were purely decorative; figures made an appearance only in the second half of the fourth century. 42 According to De Blaauw the iconography identifies the image of the donor in Sc Pecer'sas a product of the Carolingian renaissance.43 Among the regularly occurring references to restorations, renovations and embellishings of the church where Peter was buried, however, is not a word about the creation of such an important representation in the eighth or ninth centuries. To gain some insight into the origin of Christian donor portrayals it may be useful co explore what could and could not have featured on a figurative triumphal arch mosaic in St Pecer's. The model-bearer formula per se was in use in lace Antiquity. Neokoros coins already associate the representation of a Roman emperor with a deity and an architectural model (see

ROME

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

23

introduction). In this way the divine emperor received a temple. A conversion of the recipient to the imperial God must already have been possible shortly after 3n, witness the frontally depicted Christ as Sol Invictus against a gold background on the vault mosaic in the Tomb of the Julii beneath St Peter's (c.32.0).44The antique city god(dess) may have lived on in the figure of Peter as the Christian personification of the city of Rome, although he is not mentioned in the triumphal arch's dedicatory inscription. But is a donor portrayal likely in the first half of the fourth century? Siigenbach has made a study of Constantine's building policy. 45 Written sources relate how Constantine imported the display of imperial splendour into the Christian basilicas he built. His lavish donations included altars, crosses, utensils, hangings, bibles - and images of saints. In the Lateran basilica, for instance, these adorned the Jastigium, a combination of altar ciborium and choir screen. 46 On the front and sides the twelve apostles each presented a crown to the central figure of Christ enthroned. On the back four angels with cross-staffs or lances flanked a second figure of Christ. The conversion of such imperial iconographic formulae reflected the function of the new basilicas as triumphal monuments commemorating Constantine's conquests in the name of Christ, the divine paragon of the imperial victor. The dedicatory inscription in St Peter's expresses this meaning. Yet this is not to say that the inscription already had a visual counterpart in the shape of a figurative donor mosaic in Constantine's day. Surviving artworks and texts rather tend to undermine this possibility, as appears from a glance at the three individual figures. The restricted space above the crown of the triumphal arch of St Peter's only allowed for a composition oflimited height. lfJacobacci was describing a central figure of Christ it would most likely have been a bust in a medallion. Warland has made a study of the diffusion of such Christ medallions in early Christian art. 47 The motif occurs in catacomb paintings from the third quarter of the fourth century onwards. An example on the apse vault of the Lateran basilica may date from the same time. Its placing above the top of the triumphal arch is characteristic. A Christ medallion above the triumphal arch in St Peter's conforms to this picture, providing it dates from after 350. Wilpert held the view that Constantine and Peter were portrayed full length on either side of Christ.• 8

24

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Like the medallion, however, this is also highly unlikely for the time of Constantine the Great. The tradition of wall and vault mosaics with large figures began only after 350, when written sources speak specifically of a new genre. 49 Constantine's son, Emperor Constantius II (351-361), very probably had the Traditio kgis depicted on the apse mosaic of Old St Peter's, for instance. 50 The dedicatory inscription in the apse suggests that the patron was a scion of the imperial dynasty. The verses express the hope that the fame of the son - Constantius, patron of the mosaics - might equal that of his father - Constantine, builder of St Peter's.51By the same rationale, Constantius II may have had a donor portrayal added to the triumphal arch. After all, this also offered him the opportunity to emulate his illustrious father and to magnify the glory of them both. Such a posthumous homage conflicts with the usual dating of early model-bearers to the lifetime of the patron. And yet, the apse mosaic ofS. Vitale in Ravenna perpetuates the church's founder Ecclesius (d. 531) with an architectural model some ten years after his death (see §1.1). The patron of the Ravenna mosaic did not appropriate the builder's mantle but rightly commended his predecessor. Constantius II may have proceeded in the same way. Do early images on triumphal arches display characteristics that might reveal more about the lost donor portrayal? The oldest surviving example in Rome was completed during the pontificate of Sixtus III (431-440) and is in S. Maria Maggiore. 52 Here, immediately above the crown of the triumphal arch, is the dedicatory inscription XYSTUS EPISCOPUS PLEB! DEI (Xystus the bishop to the people of God). Above this is the hetoimasia in a medallion, set between the fulllength figures of Peter and Paul. 53 Each apostle is flanked by two of the evangelist symbols. The central section of the composition partly corresponds to the reconstruction derived fromJacobacci's description: a central medallion for Christ - this time represented by his throne - between two figures, one of which represents Peter. Although Paul and Constantine are not to be equated, the emperor did have himself interred as the thirteenth apostle among the twelve in the imperial mausoleum in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (see §8.1). A second triumphal arch mosaic that has survived in Rome, albeit in a much restored shape, was added

during the pontificate of Leo I ( 440-461) to St Paul's Outside the Walls, a church that in many respects is a copy of St Peter's.54 The mosaic represents the Adoration by the twenty-four elders of the Apocalypse: twelve on either side, they offer their crowns to the figure of Christ contained in a medallion above the arch. Perhaps the triumphal arch mosaic in the church that housed the tomb of Rome's other apostle influenced the composition. This might explain why the image deviates from the biblical text by not showing the Lamb in the centre (Rev 5:6). The mosaic in St Paul's also reiterates the elements that surround the central medallion in S. Maria Maggiore: the four evangelist symbols, two on either side of Christ, with the two apostles in the spandrels. A third triumphal arch mosaic in Rome, known from a seventeenth-century copy, embellished S. Sabina. It may have been made when the church was built under Pope Celestine (42.2.-432.)and completed with the dedication by Sixtus III. 55 Warland conjectures that restoration took place in the pontificate of Leo III (795-816), Buchowiecki during that of Eugene II ( 82.4-82.7 ). 56 The copy shows a series of medallions following the curve of the arch. Christ occupies his traditional place at the centre; the other medallions contain apostles and evangelists. It is by no means certain that the whole series dates from the fifth century, as other early Christian triumphal arch mosaics in Rome all depict the flanking figures in full length. On the other hand, a contemporary medallion border once framed the now lost apse mosaic of S. Giovanni Evangelista in Ravenna (42.4-435).57 According to descriptions, emperors from Constantine I to Theodosius II (408-450) were represented in the medallions. The church's founder, Empress Galla Placidia (d. 450), is mentioned only in the dedicatory inscription on the triumphal arch. Finally, medallions have a conspicuous place in the only early-Byzantine mosaics to survive in the sanctuary of a church. They decorate the apse arch and girdle the adjoining apse mosaic in St Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai, founded by Emperor Justinian ( 52.7565) at the end of his life.58 Above the arch is the Lamb of God in a medallion. In medallions in the spandrels are John the Baptist and the Virgin. Two flanking archangels present the Lamb with orb and sceptre as symbols of world dominion. The medallion border around the Transfiguration mosaic in the apse is filled with apostles, evangelists, and prophets, with the

patrons -Abbot Longinus and Deacon John - in the terminal medallions. As these parallels outside Rome make clear, from the fifth century onwards not only Christ but other figures too were depicted in medallions on or around a triumphal arch. Among them are both emperors and founders. The figure of Constantine on the lost triumphal arch mosaic of Old St Peter's may have united these variants and so have been the origin of both. What is certain is that the first Christian emperor was the first in the series in S. Giovanni Evangelista. In brief, a visual equivalent of the dedicatory inscription on the triumphal arch of St Peter's could date from the third quarter of the fourth century. The patron could well have been Constantine's son Constantius, seeking to share his father's fame. Above the arch would have been an image of Christ contained in a medallion, perhaps accompanied by evangelist symbols. On either side, Peter and Constantine can be posited, corresponding to the flanking apostles Peter and Paul on the early Roman triumphal arch decoration. How they were depicted, in medallions or full length, remains a matter for conjecture. More essential than the precise design, however, is the question of whether the figure of the emperor may have presented an architectural model. Before the sixth century there is not a single trace of the model-bearer in Christian art. Wilpert - incorrectly - had the tradition begin with the crowned figure of Lucina on the conch of the apse of S. Lorenzo in Lucina in Rome. He dated her to the pontificate of Sixtus III ( 432.-440 ), whose portrait appeared opposite Lucina on the far right of the image.59 The composition as a whole followed that on the triumphal arch mosaic of S. Lorenzo fuori le Mura, an obvious choice given that the two churches shared the same patron saint. What the apse decoration looked like is known only from a drawing made around 1640 of a fresco of 1196, as appears from the year given in its dedicatory inscription. 60 But did the twelfth-century painters copy an early Christian precedent? If they did, it was at any rate not faithfully.61 Sixtus III could hardly have been represented as SANCTUS SIXTUS with a circular halo in his own lifetime. Equally inconceivable for the fifth century is the attribute of St Stephen - he has three stones on his head - who appears next to Sixtus Ill; likewise the bell-towers on Lucina's architectural model. An early parallel for the campanile is

ROME

25

St Peter's.77 But that is not all. The conch mosaics of the side apses in Monreale show monumental representations of the Roman apostles Peter and Paul. Peter, accompanied by scenes from his life, occupies the south apse, corresponding to the Peter cycle around the chair of the apostle in the south transept of St Peter's.78 Moreover, the iconographic programme as a whole, and in particular the Old Testament images, also follows the Roman tradition. 79 The link between Monreale and Rome was also apparent in the area of church policy.80 In 1174 William II obtained papal approval and protection for his new foundation. Alexander III conferred upon the abbot of Monreale the full array of insignia - mitre, gloves, sandals and pastoral staff. He also made the monastery completely exempt from Palermo's episco· pal jurisdiction. Thenceforth, the abbot could be consecrated by a bishop or archbishop of his own choosing, providing the king assented. In 1183 Lucius III complied with William's desire to have his abbey church raised to an archiepiscopal see and to grant the abbot the archiepiscopal pallium. Thus William achieved a significant goal: henceforth Monreale would be on a par with the neighbouring archiepiscopal see of Palermo. Its unsurpassed size and adornment was intended to make Monreale a fleeing mausoleum for the royal family.81 In this regard the parallel with Rome has thus far been overlooked. After a long period of papal interments in the Lateran basilica, Eugene III had been laid to rest in St Peter's in 1153.82 This revival of an old tradition would have come as no surprise. Eugene had already increased the incomes of the canons of S Peter's, renovated the Marian chapel built by Gregory III - where Eugene himself would be buried - and built a new papal residence in the Vatican. The same combination of church and palace would be built in Monreale shortly thereafter. Eugene's successor Anastasius IV (1153-1154)was interred in the Lateran, but Adrian IV (1154-1159)opted to follow Eugene in being buried in St Peter's, not least to express his bond with his erstwhile patron. The Norman dynasty had much for which to thank Adrian. 83 In 1156William I (1154-1166), fatherofWilliam II, had extracted Adrian's agreement to the treaty of Benevento. By its terms it was agreed that in return for liege homage the pope would formally recognize William I as king of Sicily and cede to him authority over a considerable part of southern Italy as well as

28

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

special rights over the church in Sicily. Papal recognition gave the kingdom an official place in the eyes of western Christendom. The connection between pope and king strengthened as Adrian's relationship with Emperor Frederick I cooled. The pope's death resulted in schism. The Norman faction in the curia drove through the election of Alexander III ( 1159-1181 ), who stood firmly on the side of the king of Sicily and survived four imperial antipopes. Looked at in this light the revival of St Peter's as papal burial place, particularly thanks to Adrian IV under whom the kingdom of Sicily gained official recognition, gave William II a valid reason for adopting elements derived from St Peter's in his dynastic mausoleum of Monreale. One of these could have been the position of the donor mosaic. Other donor or founder figures - whether or not represented on triumphal arches - also seem to derive an important part of their meaning from a reference to an architectural model in the hands of the figure of Constantine described by Cardinal Jacobacci in the early sixteenth century. They will be considered later in this chapter, as their meaning acquires greater relief in connection with the diffusion of the iconographic formula. But, like the triumphal arch decorations and the differentiation between imperial donor iconogra• phy in the east and papal donor iconography in the west, already discussed, they do not provide unassailable proof that the Christian iconographic tradition of the model-bearer began in Old St Peter's.

1.3 FromEmperorto Pope

In 1972 Kocks observed that the offering of a model to Christ, the Virgin or a saint represented a privilege.84 He maintained chat with a single exception, only extraordinary foundations by particular founders were commemorated in this way,though offered no opinion as to what 'extraordinary' might imply. In the Byzan• tine empire it would undoubtedly have involved some connection with or reference to the emperor. In the early western tradition, on the other hand, representa• tions of papal model-bearers predominated. Would prelates also have emulated the emperor? To find the answer to this question the best place to start is with the first image of a papal donor with an architectural model, since the pope in question could not be continuing a tradition that had yet to be established.

The series of papal donor portrayals in Rome begins with the (restored) figure of Felix IV on the apse mosaic in SS. Cosma e Damiano (Fig. 2). To determine whether this is also the first use of the iconographic formula in the papal context, we need to look at the history of the mosaic's creation. 85 The edifice that was to become the church of SS. Cosma e Damiano was originally an antique pagan aula located opposite the templum urbis in the Forum Pads and was possibly the headquarters of the city prefect. The Ostrogoth king, Theodoric I, ( 493-526), embellished the building, and he or his daughter Amalasuntha (d. 535) later gave it to Felix IV for the foundation of a church. All the pope had to do was adapt the interior: he ordered the church furnishings and commissioned the decoration of the apse with a mosaic. For the first time Christians had a place of worship in the political centre of Rome, and it was also the first time a former state building had been consecrated as a church. Raspe interprets this as part of the policy of Amalasuntha, who endeavoured to reconcile the Goth occupier, papal Rome and the Byzantine court with one another. 86 The three parties would be represented respectivelyby Theodoric's patron saint Theodore, the Romans Felix IV, Peter and Paul, and the two eastern physician saints. Christ, as peacemaker, would receive Cosmas and Damian into the bosom of the Roman Church. This interpretation disregards the fact that Theodoric had actually appointed Felix, known to be welldisposed towards him, as pope. Their collaboration is reflected in the mosaic's outermost figures: the donor, Felix, on the left and Theodoric's patron saint on the right commemorate the shared contribution to the renovation of the antique aula. Felix's good relations with the court may account for his adoption of the imperial donor motif. At the same time, in Ravenna, Felix'sfellow prelate Bishop Ecclesius,who was also on good terms with the king, had himself portrayed with an architectural model in his own foundation of S. Maria Maggiore (cf§2.1). Could it be that these prelates around the Goth court were the originators of the papal iconographic tradition? According to the Liber Pontiflcalis Felix was consecrated by order of the king.87 Although the Roman clergy opposed the Arian Theodoric where they could, the unhappy end of Felix's predecessor John I (523-526) discouraged any real resistance. Theodoric had forced John to lead the delegation he sent to Constantinople to secure the

suspension of Byzantine persecution and compulsory conversion of Arians. The pope succeeded in ending forcible conversion. He also obtained the return of confiscated Arian churches. But the emperor rejected the most important ofTheodoric's demands, that forcibly converted Arians should be allowed to revert to their original belief. This, together with the apparently cordial relationship between the pope and the emperor, expressed in Pope John's ceremonial Easter crowning of Justin I (518-527), incensed Theodoric. Perhaps it was his fear of betrayal and the threat of an end to peace with Constantinople that caused him to detain John when the delegation returned to Ravenna. Within a few days John was dead - in gaol, according to highly-coloured reports. After a miraculous healing had taken place at the papal deathbed, senators and people rushed to lay hands on a relic of the new saint. They bore his body out of the city in a jubilant procession. Thus John, seen as steadfast unto death, came to epitomize opposition to Theodoric, persecutor of orthodox Christians. Nevertheless, John's successor, Felix IV, proved a reliable partisan of the Goths. There was no revolt, despite the deep reluctance with which the largely anti-Arian curia had assented to the royal appointment and the greatly increased opposition among the Roman clergy to the Arian Goths after Theodoric's death. Peace seems to have been imposed, however: the exceptionally large number of priests Felixordained - fifty-five of them - in his short pontificate suggests a deliberate attempt to pack the clerical establishment and so neutralize opposition. When the next pope - whom Felix, against all custom, had already designated - came to take St Peter's Chair, orthodox clergy chose an alternative candidate who did not have close ties to the Ravennatic court. 88 These circumstances make it unlikely that Felix IV introduced the representation of the model-bearing pope in Rome. After all, the Goth-Arian associations that would have been attached to the image hardly tally with the frequency with which it was used in the following centuries. Moreover, Felixdid not found the building itself but only its conversion into a church. This distinction would not weigh heavily in an alreadyestablished tradition of the architectural model as a donor attribute. But that the first pope to assume the model-bearer formula was not actually a builder seems very unlikely. The apse mosaic ofS. Vitale in Ravenna (c.546-550) points in the same direction: it shows not

ROME

29

of the controversy between orthodox and Arian and his obligations to Theodoric. An exemplary case ofleo's influence on his successors was his choice of St Peter's as final resting place. This did not catch on immediately: it was Pope Symmachus (498-514) who really established the tradition, which would continue almost uninterrupted until the interment of Anastasius III (d. 913). 103 For Symmachus the imperial example was at least as important as it had been for Leo I. For instance, he converted a pagan rotunda near the imperial mausoleum attached to St Peter's into a church dedicated to St Andrew - the apostle's grave was in Constantinople adjacent to the mausoleum of the Byzantine emperors. The tradition of papal burial in St Peter's went more or less in tandem with the fairly continuous tradition of papal model-bearers. Symmachus may have already followed the example of Leo I to commemorate the foundation of St Andrew's next to St Peter's. There, not only the location and patronage but also the decoration would have had an imperial slant. It seems to be no coincidence that - insofar as is known - Innocent II (1130-1143) was the first pope after the mid-ninth century to take up the iconographic tradition again: he had himself depicted as donor on the apse mosaic in S. Maria in Trastevere, whose reconstruction he had begun. The composition is in close keeping with the mosaic in SS. Cosma e Damiano. On the far left Innocent offers a traditional basilica. Stroll regards the apse decoration as part of an imperial-style display of power and splendour. 104 Innocent appeared crowned at the Council of Liege in 1131, held a triumphal procession on his return to Rome, was the first pope to be buried in a porphyry sarcophagus and had S. Maria in Trastevere - the former titulus church of the defeated antipope Anacletus II rebuilt along the lines of Constantine's burial churches for Peter and Paul. The new basilica was both a triumphal monument and the Christian successor to the aula of classical-imperial Rome. 105 This is clear from the choice of exemplar for the apse mosaic. Furthermore, the builders used material from the ruins of the Baths of Caracalla, which in the Middle Ages was believed to have been an imperial palace. The reconstruction seems to express Innocent's claim to a secular empire and, in imitating St Peter's as the triumphal church of Constantine, his victory over Anacletus. Harking back to the iconographic formula of the model-bearer - with its imperial origin - fits well

32

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

within these ambitions. Given the exemplary function of St Peter's for S. Maria in Trastevere the pope may have been inspired by the (putative) portrayal of Constantine as donor on the triumphal arch. In any case he presents the model of his church in the Byzantine manner, with the apse turned away from him.

1.5 FromPope to Noble Layman The continuous series of papal donor portrayals came to an end with the crisis in the papacy in the later ninth and early tenth centuries. 106 That period produced scarcely any portraits of popes, whose patronage - as evidenced both by surviving architecture and written sources - failed to match that of their predecessors. 107 With the exception of John X (914-92.8) the bishop of Rome was little more than a puppet in the hands of local aristocratic factions engaged in a savage power struggle. The only tenth-century model-bearer known from Rome does not actually represent a pope. He appears in the paintings, which survive only in a fragmentary state, in the monastery church of S. Maria in Pallara on the Palatine. 108 Fortunately, there are seventeenth-century drawings of almost the entire iconographic programme. On the left of the apse arch the patron saint Sebastian accompanies a certain Dom(inus) Petrus (d. 987/99; Fig. 7). On the right of the arch was a figure identified as his wife Johanna, under the care of the church's other patron saint, Zoticus. Petrus offers his church to the Virgin, depicted in the centre of the lower register of the apse surrounded by angels and saints. The donor's architectural model is of the prevailing Roman type with windows added above and on either side of the entrance. S. Maria in Pallara underwent significant alteration in 162.4,109so a comparison of the model church and the building itself now produces little in the way of meaningful data. What is certain is that the original singleaisled structure of the building would not have been a reason for the painter to deviate from the established model type. The assuming of the papal iconographic formula by a lay donor reflects the changed balance of power in the Eternal City. The circumstances ofS. Maria in Pallara's creation, which took place in the wake of tenth-century monastic reform in and around Rome, offer a comparable picture. 110 The motivating force behind this spiritual renewal was not the pope but

Alberic II, ruler of Rome, who enlisted Abbot Odo of Cluny (927-942) to lead the reform of Rome's religious houses. His personal support of Odo set an example the aristocracy followed. For instance, the Petrus Medicus just mentioned, an eminent physician who lived in Seni, (re)founded S. Maria in Pallara (before 977 ). Stylistic influences from Lombardy and the Alpine region suggest that Petrus had connections with the upper levels of the Ottonian empire. 111 Indeed, in 1001 his monastery church became the venue for a synod attended by Pope Sylvester II (999-1003) and Emperor Otto III (983-1002), during which Bishop Bernward of Hildesheim (993-1022) prevailed in his dispute with Archbishop Willigis of Mainz (975-1011) regarding the right ofoffice over the convent of Gandersheim. 112 Through such connections the motif of the lay donor with an architectural model could have spread northwards. In the tenth century the only model-bearer depiction north of the Alps was to be found in St Sylvester'sChapel in Goldbach, on the German shore of Lake Constance (Fig. 34, cf §4.2). The relationship with S. Maria in Pallara is apparent in the portrayal of a donor couple on the apse arch, the two accompanying patron saints, and the man as model-bearer. But the reverse placing of the figures and especially the date - around the middle of the tenth century - make it highly unlikely that Petrus's foundation was its immediate source. Rather, the similarities indicate a common origin, most likely in one of the churches Alberic founded. Petrus could have copied this in emulation of Alberic, whose rule coincided with the earlier paintings in Goldbach. The question thus arises: in which church did Alberic have himself portrayed as a donor and what prompted him to revive the iconographic tradition? With Alberic's support Abbot Odo reformed a large number of monasteries. The ruler and his family also made rich donations. 113 But the only new monastery Alberic founded was in his former palace on the Aventine during Odo's first stay in Rome (936-937). This monastery church, called S. Maria in Aventino, seems the most appropriate place for the ruler's donor portrayal. Not only is the church's patronage the same as that of S. Maria in Pallara, but in both cases the hilltop location - the Aventine in the case of Alberic's church, the Palatine in that of Petrus's - is similar. This makes a relationship between the decoration of the two churches seem all the more plausible. Unfortu-

Fig. 7. Seventeenth-century drawing of the donors and saints on the left and right of the triumphal arch ofS. Maria in Pallara in Rome, last decades of the tenth century; Rome, BAY,Vat. !at. 9071, p. 234 (from: WAETZOLDT,

Die Kopien,Abb. 521-522).

nately nothing survives of S. Maria in Aventino's original interior. But Alberic's foundation must have been a source of considerable influence: it was very highly esteemed, being ranked third among Rome's most privileged monasteries. 114 The adopting of the donor motif seems to be connected with Alberic's continuous opposition to che attempts of Hugh, king of Italy (926-947) - his seep-father and rival for possession of Rome and temporal sovereignty of the Papal Seate - to obtain che imperial crown from the pope. 115 Invariably Alberic prevailed, as the successive popes could do nothing without his sanction. In 951 he refused Otto I of Germany entry to Rome, thus depriving him of the immediate prospect of emperorship. Alberic

ROME

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

33

Cf: LECLERCQ,"Porte", c. 1sos-1so6. See, for example: KocKs, Dit Stifterdarstellung, p. 40-41; fABRICIUS, "Die kirchcnmodellrragcnden Stiftergestalten~ p. 186: L1rSMEYER,Th, Donor,p. 1s-16; W1sSKIRCHEN,Das Mosailcprogramm, P· 19, J09-110; Ni LGEN, "Texte et image", p. •ss-1s6. 19 Rome, Pinacoteca Vaticana: KocKs, Die Stifterdarstdlung. p. 71, 111-113;CHRISTE.jugonmts derniers,p. j18-319, pl. 181. 211 KoCKS, Die Stijitrdarstellung,p. 71. 21 LIPSMEYER,Th, Donor,p. 133-134makes no note of this derail. 22 MATTHIAE,Mosaici mtdiotvali,p. 191;LIPSMEYER,TheDonor, p. 41-41. 23 MATTHIAE, Mosaicimediotvali,p. 191-197. " Sec the list of popes in: BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. ,. IC 18

'°

tuslcult,p. s7-13s.

p.44.

" NILGEN, "Texte et image", p. 1S4: NILGEN, "Die romischcn Apsisprogrammc", p. 541. 13 DE BLAAUW,Cultus et dtcor, p. 461-461. 44 BECKWITH, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, p. 19, fig. 1; SOSSENBACH,Christuslcult,p. 31-33. 41 SussENBACH, Christuslcult, especially p. 14-11, 36-s6. 46 NILGEN, "Das Fastigium", especially p. 1-18, 19.

25

47

WILPERT, Dit riimischmMosaikm, p. 388-389. NoRDHAGEN, Studies,p. 65-67, pl. VI, XIX. 17 KRAUTHEIMERet al., Corpusbasilicarum,vol. 1, p. 138. "' LIPSMEYER,Tht Donor,p. 138-139.On the history ofS. Marco's construction, see: KRAUTHEIMER et al .. Corpusbasilicarum,vol. 1, p. 118-147; BucHOWIECKl,Handbuch,vol. 1, p. 360-369; GAL· TIER MARTi, La iconografia,p. 319. 29 LIPSMEYER, Tht Donor, p. 119-131. On the history of the church's construction, see: KRAUTHEIMER et al .. Corpusbasilicarum,vol. 1,p. 17-38; DEICHMANN, Rom, p. 430-441; THANNER, PapstHonoriusI., p. 36-39. 30 Paris, Mus. du Louvre: DuvAL, "Une basiliquc", p. 36s-371, fig. 1; DUVAL, "Representations d'eglises". p. 44s-446, 448, fig. 4; PROVOYEUR& PROVOYEUR,Le tonplt, cat. 1;GALTIER MARTI, La iconografia,p. 173-17s, fig. 1s1. 31 DUVAL, ·une basilique~ P· 370; DUVAL, "Representations d'eglises", p. 446. Cf: PROVOYEUR & PROVOYEUR, Le tempi,, p. 36. 32 MATTHIAE, Mosaicimediotvali,p. 170-177; LIPSMEYER, The Donor,p. 40-41. '' KRAUTHEIMER et al., Corpus basilicarum, vol. 1, p. ,4-38; THANNER, PapstHonoriusi., p. S7·6o. 34 KRAUTHEIMER et al., Corpusbasilicarum,vol. 1, p. 10. 31 Cf: Prudentius's description of St Paul Outside the Walls (Ptristephanon11:49-s4) and the inscription on the apse mosaic in SS. Cosma e Damiano: VANDERMEER, Christus'oudstt gtwaad, p. 114, 114. 36 Only the upper part of the facade, a small section of the adjoining clerestory and the pitched roof are original: WAETZOLDT,Die Kopim, 47, Abb. 130; MATTHIAE, Mosaicimtdiotvali,grafici dei 16

restaun·. 17 Adhuc ttmporibus nostrisfaerit in ecdesiaSancti Petri in frontispitio maiorisarcusanta altaremaius Constantinus imperatorin musivo dcpictus, littcris aurcisoscendens Salvatoriet bearo Petro apostolo ccclesiam ipsam a sc aedificatam, videlicet ecclesiam Sancti Petri (FROTHINGHAM, "Une mosaique", p. 70 with the complete text). The description occurs in the posthumously published Duoncilio tractatus,Rome 1s38,783 {see: FROTHINGHAM, "Une mosaiquc~ p. 69-71). " KRAUTHEIMER et al .. Corpusbasilicarum,vol. I, p. 171-174; VAN DER MEER, Christus'oudste gewaad, p. 117; SOSSENBACH. Christuslcult,p. 14-1s; DE BLAAUW,Cultus et decor,p. 4SJ-454; CARPICECI & KRAUTHEIMER.Nuovi d,,ti, part 1,p. 5-6: N1LGEN, "Tcxtc et image", p. 11,-154.

36

w WILPERT, Dit riimischenMosailun, p. 319-361. KRAUTHEIMER et al., Corpusbasilicarum,vol. I, p. 171-171; BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 1, p. 110; MATTHIAE, Mosaici medioevali, p. 136; BELTING, "Die beidcn Palastaulen", p. 6s; CARPICECI & KRAUTHEIMER,Nuovi dati, part I, p. s-6. 41 On Constantine's building policy, see: SusSENBACH, Chris-

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

WARLAND,

Das Brustbi/dChris#,p. 16-41.

" WILPERT, Du riimischenMosaiken,p. 361; W1 LPERT& ScH u MACHER, Die riimischen!,fosaiken,p. 61. 19 SOSSENBACH,Christuslcult,p. 33-34. so KRAUTHEIMER, "A Note", p. 317-310; IHM, Dit Programme, p. 141; CARPICECI & KRAUTHEIMER, Nuovi dati, part 1, p. 6. Excavated coins also point to a completion of St Peters under Constantine's sons, probably in the time of Pope Liberius (351-363): KRAUTH EIMERet al., Corpusbasilicarum,vol. I, p. 171. SI Iustitiae sedes fidei domus aula pudoris / haec est quam cernis pictas quam possidet omnis / quae patris et fili virtutibus inclyta gaudet / aucroremque suum genitoris laudibus aequat. The most convincing translation of this inscription, which was lost around 1100, is given in KRAUTHEIMER,"A Note~ p. 317: 'This which you see and which Mercy undivided inhabits is the Seat ofJustice, the House of Faith, the Hall of Chastity (Awe), which delights in the virtues of the father and the son and equals its donor with the praise of his sire.' See: DE BLAAUW,Cultus et decor,p. 458-419. " WARLAND,Das Brustbild Christi,p. 1is: IHM, Dit Programme, p. 111-131. s3 VAN DER MEER, Christus'oudstegtwaad, p. 116; KARPP, Die fruhchristlichen und mittelalttrlichen Mosaiken,Abb. 1, 3; MAT· THIAE, Mosaicimtdioevali,p. 90-91, tav. 11; BRENK,DieJruhchristlichenMosaiken,p. 14-19; NILGEN, "Texte et image", p. 156-157. ,.. WARLAND,DasBrustbildChristi,p. 41-46, Abb. io-33. St Paul's Outside the Walls derives from St Peters the five-aisled basilican structure with a transept and an atrium at the front: the dimensions are also almost identical (KRAUTHEIMER et al.. Corpus basilicarum,vol. S, p. •s+·•ss, 184-181). " IHM, Die Programme, p. 111-113 {with bibliography). Cf: KRAUTHEIMER et al.. Corpus basilicarum, vol. 4, p. 71, 98; BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 3, p. 771,794. s• WARLAND,Das Brostbild Christi,p. SI, 146, Abb. 39; BucHO· WI ECKi, Handbuch, vol. 3, p. 774. 57 DEICHMANN, Ravenna, vol. 1.1, p. 94-95; 114-117;WARLAND, Das Brustbild Christi,p. 54; IHM, Die Programme,p. 169-171. " WEITZMANN, Studies,p. 5-18,especially p. IS, fig. 13, 17; WARLAND,Das Brustbild Christi,p. 49, s 3-54. 19 WILPERT, Die riimischenMo,ailcen,p. 360, 1161, Fig.13r: W11PERT& SCHUMACHER.Die riimischen,\fo,aiken, p. 61. Cf: WAET· ZOLDT, Die Kopim, cat. i96, Abb. 170; IHM, Die Programme, p. i41; SCHURR, Die Iko11ogr,zphir, p. 191. 60

This year argues against GANDOLFO,

.. Portr;irs", p. 140-141,

who suggests char Lucina rcphccdthe figure ofantipope Anaderus

II ( u 30-u 38), who had consecrated the church in u30. Anaclems's opponent Innocent II was probably the brain behind this damnatio mtmoriae. 61 Cf: MOREY,lost Mosaics, p. 8-15; SCHURR, Dit lkonographie, p.103. 6 ' W1LPERT, Dit romischen Mosaiken, p. 111,Abb. 36; WAET· ZOLDT, Di, Kopien, cat. 1015,Abb. 515; BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 3, p. 381-381;KocKs, Die Stifterdarsttllung, p. 65. ''~' KRAUTHEIMERet al., Corpus basilicarum, vol. 1, p. 180-183. 64 Cf: LtPSMEYER. TheDonor.p. S4, 66, 12.6. n. 60. ,,s LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 57-66, 147-151. 66 HAMILTON, "Two Churches~ p. 178, 181;ABEL, "Gaza, p. 11, 14-15; LIPSMEYER, Tht Donor, p. 16, 13-14, 31; IHM, Die Programme, p. 17, 193-194. 67 HAMILTON, "Two Churches~ p. 188; ABEL, "Gaza~ p. 13-17; IHM, Dit Programme, p. 194 (with bibliography). 68 SMITH, Tht Dome, p. 155.Other translations contain faults in the description of the architectural strucmre. 69 Cf: HAMILTON, "Two Churches~ p. 181. 7 Cf the index in: KIRSCHBAUM,ltxikon, vol. 8, c. 16•, 10'. • , Cf: SCHURR, Dit lkonographit, p. 176-180. -., GLUCKER.TheCity of Gaza. p. ss·s6. 73 IHM,Die Programme.p. 1J9. 74 WILPERT, Dit romischen Mosaiken, P· 11I, Fig. 35; HERMANIN, l'artt in Roma, p. 141, tav. CXXXVII (speaks erroneously of a ciborium with figures of donors); BucHOWIECKl,Handbuch, vol. 1, p. 476-477, 484; CLAUSSEN,Dit Kirchen, p. 189-190, 198, 113, Abb. 133. 75 DEMUS, The Mosaics, p. u8, 301-304, pl. 76A-B; KlTZINGER, I mosaici,p.17-15 (dating), IV.tav. 1-3;BECKWITH,Ear(y Christian and Byzantine Art, p. 171, fig. 134. Cf: §4.1. 76 DITTELBACH, "Der Dom in Monteale", passim, especially p. 491-493. Colour illustration in: BoRSOOK, Messagesin Mosaic, pl. VIII. ~ DtTTELBACH, ·oer Dom in Monrcalc", p. 476•479, Abb.4-5.

°

78 9 ~ 80

Cf: BoRSOOK, Messagesin Mosaic,p. 60. Cf: DEMUS, The Mosaics, p. 2.05, 2.09, 2.50, 155-2.57, 196.

Historical data derived from: DEMUS, The Mosaics, p. 91-98; MATTHEW, Th, Norman Kingdom, p. 191, 103-106; DITTEL· BACH, "Der Dom in Monreale", p. 469-470. 81 Cf: DEMUS, The Mosaics, p. 94, 151, n. 14; BoRSOOK, Messagesin Mosaic, p. 13. 82 On papal burials in the third quarter of the 11th century, see: BoRGOLTE, Petrusnachfolgt, p. 167-176. BJ Cf: MATTHEW, The Norman Kingdom, p. 61-67, 170, 171. ... Koc KS, Dit Stifterdarstellung, p. 4 3. BS Historical data derived from: KRAUTHEIMER et al., Corpus basilicarum, vol. 1, p. 137-143; BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol.,, p. 586-591; KRAUTHEIMER,Rome, p. 18, 71; BRANDT & EGGE· BRECHT, Btmward von Hildesheim, cat. IX-11; BAUER, Stadt, p. 54-57, 69-70; GANDOLFO, "Portriits", p. 139-140. 86 RASPE, "Apsismosaik~ p. 685. "' On relations between Church and king around 516,see: CASPAR, Geschichtetks Papsttums, vol. 1, p. 183-195;HALLER,Das Papsttum, p. 115-157; LLEWYLLYN,Rome, p. 48-49; RICHARDS, The Popes, p. 111-113, 119-114,153-114;SoRRIES, Die Bilder, p. 37-38. " For an extensive discussion of this topic, see: DUCHESNE, "La succession", p. 240-166.

89

BEUCKERS,"Stifterbild~ especially p. 64-66. For instance, at the springofJururna pagan worship continued into the 6th and 7th centuries. 91 W1ssKIRCHEN, Das Mosaikprogramm, p. 41. 92 For a rebuttal of the argument that both mosaics derive from another common exemplar, see: NORDHAGEN, Studies, 90

p. 331-345. 93 LIPSMEYER,Th, Donor, p. 50-51. 94 W1sSKIRCHEN,DasMosaikprogramm, especially p. II-11, 16-18, 23-16, 64, 109-111. 95 SOSSENBACH,Christuskult, p. 31-34; BELTING, "Die beidcn Palastaulen", p. 63-64; KRAUTHEIMER, "A Note", p. 319-310; W1SSKIRCHEN, Das Mosaikprogramm, p. 31-36; IHM, Dit Programme, p. 141. 96 WILPERT, Di, Malertien, p. 394-409. 97 FASOLA, le catacomb,, p. 101, tav. VI, fig. 69; SCHURR, Die Ikonographi,, p. 188. 98 EWIG, Spiitantikts undftiinkisches Gallien, vol. 1,p. 81-81. 99 CASPAR,Gtsehichtetks Papsttums, vol. 1,p. 558;DEMANDT,Dit Spiitantikt, p. 453-455. 100 BoRGOLTE, Pttrusnachfolg,, p. 49-58. 101 The Adoration by the twenty-four ciders on the facadc of St Peters and the triumphal arch of St Paul's Outside the Walls: GRISAR, Geschichtt Roms, p. 317-331;WAETZOLDT,Dit Kopien, cat. 835-839, 884, Abb. 453-456, 473; MATTHIAE, Mosaid medio· tvali, p. 104-105; WILPERT & SCHUMACHER, Dit romischen Mosaikm, p. 13-14, 65, 87-88; KRAUTHEIMER, Rome, p. 93-94; WARLAND,Das Brustbild Christi, p. 41-46, 134-136, 111-113,Ta£ 30-33. Stefanuskerk: GRISAR, Geschichtt Roms, p. 331; KRABBE, Epistula, p. 1-1, 6,101 n. 49 (Mass text that mentions Demetrias); KRAUTHEIMER et al., Corpus basilicarum, vol. 4, p. 141-113; KRAUTHEIMER,Rome, p. 14. 102 CASPAR, Gtschichtt des Papsttums, vol. 1, p. 476-556, 560; EWIG, Spiitantikts und ftiinkisches Gallien, vol. 1,p. 84. JOJ BoRGOLTE, Pttrusnachfolgt, p. 49-50, 58-76. Only when a pope died outside Rome and the translation of his body was problematic was he buried elsewhere. 104 STROLL, Tht]twish Pop,, p. 121-117.Cf: BoRGOLTE, Petrusnachfolgt, p. 161-165. 105 BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 4, p. 714-726 (with bibliography). Cf: KRAUTHEIMER et al., Corpus basilicarum, vol. 3, p. 67; KRAUTHEIMER,Rome,p. 163-164;BoRGOLTE,Pttrusnachfolge, p. 161. 106 ZIMMERMANN, Das dunk/, jahrhundert, passim, especially p. 15-18, 36-93. '°7 From the late 9th and early 10th centuries only likenesses of Popes Formosus (891-896) and John XII (955-964) are known. They were in a lost oratory in St Peters and above the entrance to the St Thomas oratory in the Lateran basilica respectively (LAD· NER,Die Papstbildnisse,p. 155-158,163-167). On the decline in papal patronage from the second half of the 9th century, sec: KRAUT· HEIMER, Rome, p. 108, 110. Buchowiecki mentions only one new papal foundation in Rome in the 10th century: Benedict VII (973984) built a monastery next to S. Croce in Gerusalemme (BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 1, p. 605). 108 WAETZOLDT, Dit Kopien, cat. 1011-1011, Abb. 511-511; BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 3, p. 837-841; BRANDT & EGGE· BRECHT, Bemward von Hildesheim, cat. IIl-15, fig. on p. 134;

Ro~n

37

MARCHIORI, Art and R,ji,rm, especially p. 1-l, 60-61, 64-65, fig. 4b. Nowadays the church bears the names of S. Sebastiano al Palatino and S. Scbastiancllo. 109 BuCHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. l, p. 8J8-8J9. 110 HAMILTON, "The Monastic Revival", especially p. 47-14, 57-58. 111 BRANDT & EGGEBRECHT,B'1'11wardvon Hildesheim, vol. 1, p.1J6. 112 GoETTING,Dasreich,unmittelbart: Kanonmemtift, p. 177-178.

Cf: §6.,. "' HAMILTON, "The Monastic Revival", 40-41, 47-51; LLEWELLYN,Rome, p. io8-J10; PARTNER, The land,, p. 84-85; ZIMMERMANN,Das dun/cl, Jahrhundm, p. 86, 98-90; PACAUT, l'ordre tk Cluny, p. 91

38

'" BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. l, p. 157, 161. The present interior was designed by Piranesi. 111 On this period of Roman history, sec: LLEWELLYN,Rome, p. J04-J1>; ZIMMERMANN, Das dun/tie Jahrhundert, p. 76-9;; PARTNER, The Land,, p. 8J-86. 116 BELTING,Studien, p. 111-114(with bibliography), Abb. 115. 117 For the dates ofLco's administration, see: SCHWARZ,Amalji. p. 89-95, 98. I IK BELTING,Studien,p. 9-10; SCHWARz.Ama/.fi, P· 4s-4;. 119 LLEWELLYN,Romt, p. JO\; ZIMMERMANN,Das dunlt/ejahrhuntkrt, p. 91; PARTNER, Th, land,, p. 8i·84. 120 BELTING, Studien, p. IIJ. 121 On Manso's rule, sec: SCHWARZ,Amalfi,p. l7-45. 122 BALARD,"Amalfi~ especially p. 85-91.

2. Equalsof the Pope

Outside Rome, until the end of the twelfth century, the Italian transmission of the iconographic tradition was concentrated in those areas where papal and impe• rial spheres of influence met, first in the north, later in the south. In the north the Byzantine emperor, and from 800 the Carolingian emperor opposed the pope. The south ofltaly belonged to the Byzantine Empire for a fairly long time. When the Normans established their rule there in the eleventh century the donor motifbegan to appear in that region too. The fluctuating balance of power seems to have given the top ecclesiarchs scope to present themselves - encouraged by imperial interference from east or west - as equals of the bishop of Rome.

2.1Ravenna Three sixth-cenrury mosaics in which episcopal donors appear are known from Ravenna: Bishop Ecclesius (521-532)was portrayed with a model in the apses ofS. Maria Maggiore (c.526-532)and S. Vitale (c.545), and Bishop Maximianus (546-552) in the apse ofS. Stefano (c.550). 1ln alllikelihood the first mosaic was the model for the others, but only the second has survived (Fig. 9 ). It depicts Christ in Majesty at his Parousia, enthroned on the orb of the world in a paradisal landscape. He is flanked by two archangels, one recommending St Vitalis, to whom Christ awards the crown of marryrdom, the other commending Bishop Ecclesius with his church model. His gift has counterparts in the mosaics on the apse's curving walls: on one side Emperor Justinian, on the other his empress, Theodora,

each with a splendid retinue, offer respectively a paten and chalice. 2 Ecclesius's church model is a centrally-planned domed building. Each of its three visible sides has a large rectangular opening between pilasters in the lower part, and a semicircular-headed window with cross bars in the smaller upper part. These specific characteristics render S. Vitale, which is built on an octagonal plan, more recognizable than the majority of Roman donors' models. 3 There is no sign of the rectangular entrances in the acrual building nowadays, but research by Deichmann has revealed that they were there originally.4 Even so, the model still differs essentially from the built architecture, as the real octagonal edifice has two levels, each with three semicircular-headed windows per side, a narthex and an apse, and a pyramid roo£ The date and interpretation of the donor mosaic were the subjects of debate 5 until Deichmann clarified a significant number of points in S. Vitale's building history. His findings can be summarized as follows. 6 Bishop Ecclesius began construction of the church with funds provided by Julianus Argentarius, a hugely wealthy Greek banker. Argentarius had also sponsored the foundation of S. Apollinare in Classe, commissioned by Bishop Ursicinus (532/33-536/38), and he probably bore the construction costs of two other churches built in Ravenna at the same time - S. Maria Maggiore: and S. Michele in Affriciso. Sorric:s points out that it would have been exceptionally uncommon for a single individual to command such financial resources at that time.7 He therefore: regards the banker as a member of the Byzantine secret service, whose

OF

THE

PorE

39

Fig. 9. Bishop Ecclesius of Ravenna with a church model on the right of the apse mosaic of S. Vitale in Ravenna, c.546-550 (photograph: author)

remit would have included supporting Bishop Ecclesius in his monumental pro-orthodox and anti-Arian propaganda. ln 547 Bishop Maximianus celebrated the consecration of S. Vitale. Since all the impost blocks on the capitals of the columns on the ground floor of the octagon and on those of the presbytery gallery bear the carved monogram of Bishop Victor (536/38-545), most of the construction work must have been completed during his episcopate, which coincided with the last and ultimately unavailing resistance of Ravenna's pro-Goth party to Byzantine forces, who conquered the city in 540. The unity of

40

COM

PRESSED

the building precludes the possibility of two building campaigns. The work on the mosaics must also have been fairly continuous, though the fact that glass tesserae were not used throughout the mosaics is an indicator that they were made in two phases, perhaps by two workshops, one very shortly after the other. 8 The mosaics in the apse belong to the first phase. In the emperor's procession, however, the head of the bishop and the inscription, MAXIMIANUS,above him, as well as the figure who appears on his right, were created in stone tesserae, suggesting that these were inserted shortly after Maximianus's appointment. By adopting the Roman iconographic formula the bishops of Ravenna were putting themselves on a par with the pope. From a historical point of view there were certainly grounds for such an assertion. 9 ln 402. Ravenna had become the new capital of the Western Roman Empire; in 430 it became the metropolitan of the province of Aemilia (even though the bishop of Ravenna remained a suffragan of the Roman see) and after the Ostrogothic conquest in 494 it became the capital of the new kingdom. The bishops maintained close contact with the royal court and mediated between the Arian Goths and the orthodox clergy. ln 52.4-52.6,as a trusted advisor of Theodoric I, Bishop Ecdesius took part in the already mentioned embassy to Constantinople led by Pope John I, who died shortly thereafter (cf §1.3). Ecclesius, on the other hand, busied himself on his return with the building of S. Maria Maggiore and S. Vitale. According to written tradition it was at this time, during Ecclesius's episcopate, that the Church in Ravenna emerged as ecclesia ravennatum et classicanum. This increased selfconfidence and determination to achieve independence from Rome was also clearly manifest under Bishop Maximianus. In 546 Emperor Justinian ordered his appointment; he received the pallium shortly afterwards and became the first bishop ofRavenna to rank as an archbishop. The dedicatory inscriptions of S. Vitale and S. Apollinare in Classe give Ecclesius and his successor Ursicinus the honorary tide of vir beatissimus, which according co imperial usage would have been coo lofty for either bishop but seems co express the desired promotion. The use of the tide papa points the same way. From the late fifth to the early sixth century it was given to the bishop of Ravenna, but with Justinian's structuring of the church hierarchy it came co be due solely to the bishop of Rome. ln fact, during Maximianus's episcopate the pope was in Constantinople, to

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

all intents and purposes a captive of the emperor, and in the absence of the archbishop of Milan, Maximianus effectively had the primacy ofltaly in his hands. This occurred while the Ostrogoth king, Totila (541-55l), retook the sadly ravaged Eternal City from the Byzantines in 546 and again 550.10 The competition between the metropolitans is further illustrated by Ravenna's acquisitions in !stria at the expense of the archbishop of Aquileia and the appropriation of the Milanese saints Vitalis and his two sons. Ravenna also obtained relics from Constantinople, among them those of Peter, Paul, Andrew, Stephen.John the Evangelist and John the Baptist, in order to rival Rome. It was in this competitive context that Ecclesius would have employed the papal iconographic formula of the model-bearer in S. Maria Maggiore. Indeed, as a confidant ofTheodoric I, bishop of the capital of the Ostrogoth kingdom and representative of the ecclesia ravennatum et classicanum in Constantinople he was virtually the equal of the pope. The Byzantine fostering of anti-Arian propaganda may also have given Ecclesius a solid backing, the more so as the iconographic formula had an imperial origin. Ecclesius's successors followed up on his ambitions: Victor had his influential predecessor portrayed with a church model in S. Vitale and Maximianus had himself represented in the same way in S. Stefano. The position of the figure of Ecclesius on the right or south edge of the surviving mosaic differs from the composition usual in Rome. This divergence from the norm has not yet been explained. Perhaps it relates to the south apse of the presbytery, where Ecclesius, Ursicinus and Victor were interred, supposedly opposite the grave of Julianus Argentarius in the north apse. 11 Thus S. Vitale became the founders' burial church, as was probably the original plan. Still in this line of thought, von Simson sees a connection between the centrally-planned building with ambulatories and galleries and the Anastasis Rotunda. 12 He interprets S. Vitale as both triumphal architecture and response to the tomb of Theodoric I: as the Anastasis recalls Christ's triumph over death, so S. Vitale would stand for the triumph of the orthodox Church over the Arian Goth. To this should be added that allusion to the Anastasis Rotunda would have represented the founders' hope of eternal life. The theme of the apse mosaic is in keeping with this: the returned Christ would reward Vitalis, Ecclesius and the imperial couple for their meritorious deeds. 13

Fig. 10. The women by the empty tomb, north-Italian ivory, c.400; Milan, Castello Sforzesco (from: SCHILLER, lkonographie, vol. 3, Abb. 11).

The same message seems to be conveyed by the donor's model. The simplification of the actual architecture creates a striking similarity with the way in which Christ's tomb was depicted on ivories at that time in northern Italy. Like the mosaic these represent

Eq_UALS

Digitized by

Google

OF

THE

POPE

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

41

Fig. 11. Church model on the left of the apse mosaic in the basilica of Bishop Eufrasius of Poree, mid-sixth century (from: TERRY & MAGUIRE, Dynamic Splmdor,fig.14).

a two-level building with a rectangular entrance below and semicircular-headed windows and a dome above (Fig. IO ). 14 Only the square groundplan differs essentially from the portrait-like polygonal edifice in Ecclesius's hands. Details such as the brick bond on the second story, the crossed bars in the trio of semicircular-headed windows and the four rows of pantiles on the dome are entirely in line with the north Italian iconographic tradition of the Holy Sepulchre. 15 Perhaps this parallel with the Anastasis Rotunda encouraged Maximianus's choice of S. Vitale as his own burial place, 16 rather than S. Stefano, where he himself appeared as donor in the apse.

2.2Porel In Poree - formerly Parenzo - on the lstrian coast Bishop Eufrasius ofporee (524-556) had himself portrayed with a church model on the apse mosaic in the basilica he founded (Fig. 11). 17 ln contrast to the simple Roman churches, he presents a three-aisled basilica with windows in the side wall and clerestory. The model has all the characteristics of the actual church, the li.kenessbeing very apparent in details such as the

42

COMPRESSED

red roof tiles and the crosses on the roof ridge, though the apse is represented as semicircular, not polygonal. Lipsmeyer suggests that Eufrasius copied the apse mosaic of S. Maria Maggiore in Ravenna. 18 In that church too an episcopal donor bore an architectural model and the Virgin Mary occupied the centre of the composition. Stylistic similarities between the mosaics in Ravenna and Poree strengthen this conjecture. 19 It was probably Ravennatic influence that also determined the un-Roman way in which Eufrasius offers his model, with the south side facing away from him so that his right arm supports the west end and his left arm the apse. Because he stands in the traditional place on the left of the mosaic, the most sacred part of the church is nearest to the Virgin and Child. This typically Byzantine orientation (cf §1.1)could have been borrowed from Ravenna, which had been under Constantinople's control since 540. Evidently Eufrasius placed himself not only in the papal but also in the imperial tradition. This would tally very well with Eufrasius's leading role in that part of the Latin Church that rejected Emperor Justinian's 543/ 44 edict anathematizing three theologians who had been accused of Nestorian tendencies but whose orthodoxy the Council of Chalcedon ( 451) had not questioned. Although, after holding out for as long as he could, the pope was eventually brought to subscribe the edict, the ecclesiastical province of Aquileia fiercely resisted imperial intervention in church matters. Eufrasius'sheavy involvement in this opposition seems also to have been inspired by his pursuance of autonomy in lstria.20 Between 535 and 544 Byzantine forces had taken this part of Italy from the Goths. Poree was incorporated into the newly established Exarchy of Ravenna. These changes meant the end of a flourishing period: the war wrought havoc and devastation, the greatly expanded army pillaged the land and the weight of taxation increased. Previously the local aristocracy, both secular and ecclesiastical,had been able significantly to enhance its power and possessions. As a countermeasure the central Byzantine government gave increased jurisdiction to the authorities in the Exarchy of Ravenna. As a result !stria was burdened with a dominant military presence, and insecurity among the inhabitants increased. This probably provided Eufrasius with a real opportunity to underline the independence of his see not only from the pope but also from imperial authority. To emphasize that the bishop of Poree was in no

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

way che inferior of che bishop of Rome Eufrasius appeared as model-bearer on che apse vault. His selfassurance is still further expressed in the likeness of the architectural representation, which is impossible co confuse with a Roman church model. Ac the same time Eufrasius presents the foundation in the imperial manner, with the apse cowards the Virgin and Child. In this way he alluded co his desire co put an end co Byzantine dominance in !stria.

2.3 Ga//iano On 2.July 1007 Ariberc oflncimiano (c.970/80-rn44), who began his career as a subdeacon ofMilan's cathedral, dedicated the church of S. Vincenzo in Galliano (near Cantu in Lombardy) and che adjacent bapciscery.21As custosof this proprietary church, which was among Aribercus's family possessions, he had commissioned the rebuilding and repainting of both. At the same time the relics of St Adeodatus (d. 52.5?)and three other saints were translated there. 22Ariberc was an inordinately ambitious character. From his consecration as archbishop of Milan in 1018 he was a vigorous defender of the Ambrosian tradition and constantly sought to expand che power and possessions of his see. His arch-rivals were the pope and che archbishops of Ravenna and Aquileia. Rome legitimated its pre-eminent place through its association with Peter, Ravenna with Apollinaris and Aquileia with Mark, and so Milan referred to Ambrose and Barnabas. 23 Ambrose had, among other things, given Milan its own rite. The city thus distinguished itself quite emphatically from Rome and asserted its autonomy from papal authoriry. The connection with Barnabas, St Peter's brother apostle, was used to reinforce this claim. According to legend, Barnabas brought the Gospel co Milan and consecrated St Anathalon as its first bishop. It was believed that in his will Anathalon had given Milan che rank of first see after Rome and authority over all che churches in northern Italy. Ambrosian assurance and an assertion of autonomy seem co have inspired Ariberc to adopt the papal iconographic formula in commemorating the rebuilding and refurbishing of his church (Fig. 12.).The apse ofS. Vincenzo has a painting of the fall and redemption of man: the conch is dominated by a powerful figure of Christ between the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, two archangels and flanking groups of saints. 24On the

Fig. 12.. Church model of Ariberc of lntimiano, wall painting on che right on the walls of the apse in S. Vincenzo in Galliano near Cantu, early eleventh century (from: LOMARTIRE, "Uc aula Domini", fig. 11).

walls of the apse, to the right of a cycle of St Vincent, are the figures of Adeodacus and Ariberc. 25 The donor holds a church model made up of three sections - from right to left are a pitched-roof basilica with a rectangular door in che front and one semicircular-headed window in the side, then a tower, then pare of an arcade beneath a steeply sloping roof. Interpretations vary regarding the lasetwo sections, which are tacked on to the Roman type of model. Perhaps the painter derived both from existing structures.26Originally the church had a tower at the southwest corner. This does not rally with the painting, which shows the entrance at che west and the tower at

EQ.UALS

Digitized by

Google

OF

THE

POPE

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

43

Fig.13. Abbot Desideriusof MonceCassino with a church model, wall painting on the left of the apseof the monasterychurch of S. Angelo in Formis,c.107l-1087 {from:GALTIERMARTI,La iconografia,fig. 186).

the ease end of the church. Lipsmeyer compares this with a similar discrepancy in S. Angelo in Formis, where the cower on the donor's model is likewise depicted in the wrong place (Fig. 13).27This, however, can be ascribed co the influence of an imitated example, as will appear below (cf §2..4). There seems tO have been no such influence at work in the exceptional combination of architectural sections in Galliano. Perhaps Ariberc's rower references the baptistery chat stands ro the south-ease of S. Vincenzo and has a dome carried on a drum. The representation of the 'rower' behind the church marches that of the church model in the hands at the of ARJBERTUS INDIGNUS ARCHIEP(ISCOPu)s foot of a crucifix chat Aribert gave to the monastery of S. Dionigi in Milan towards the end of his life.28 This model further consists of a basilican nave with a second low cower - perhaps a robustly rendered apse or a westwork - on the left and a third tower on the right. The demolition of S. Dionigi leaves the likeness of chis architectural representation an open question. The crucifix does follow the custom of commemorating the donor as a model-bearer in proximity co his tomb, as Ariberc chose the monastery church, at least part of whose rebuilding he had sponsored, tO be his last resting place. According to Rivoira the arcade depicted on the left of the basilica represents the baptistery's vescibule. 29

44

COM

P

Its built counterpart, however, has only a single arched doorway, while the baptistery itself has two pairs of niches on the west, which flank the vestibule. Lipsmeyer sees the arcading as the exterior articulation of the apse, which merited special attention as it was here chat the relics of Adeodatus and the other three saints were enshrined. 30 Bur surviving architectural images offer no parallels for the depiction of an apse at right angles tO the nave. Moreover, the openings in the arcade are filled with the blue of the background, which hardly creates an impression of blind arcading. Perhaps this puzzling bit of building represents the portico of the atrium, which was originally co the west of the church. By expanding che Roman formula in this way Ariberc could let it be seen chat he had buiJc not only the church but also che adjacent atrium and baptistery. The emphasis on the magnitude of his patronage would certainly be in keeping with his overweening character. Yet in 1007 Aribert was still at the bottom of the ecclesiastical ladder, which raises the conjecture chat the adoption of the papal iconographic formula was not solely an expression of personal ambition. In 998, the year in which Aribert became subdeacon, Rome gained a notable triumph in its power struggle with Milan. A council in Pavia led by Emperor Otto III deprived Aribert's predecessor, Archbishop Arnolf II (998-1018), of che 'nomen papae'.3' The meaning of this decision is unclear. The measure may have been connected with Milan's precedence over other metropolitans, or with encroachments on the position of Rome, or with abuse of a papal privilege. Archbishop Arnolf did nor take this demotion lying down. On Otto III's death Henry II (10o2.-102.4) and Arduin of lvrea (!002.-1014) clashed for the crown oflraly. ln the course of the conflict, in or shortly after IOOS, Henry forced Bishop Peter of Asri, Arduin's only real supporter, co abandon his see32 and handed it over co Adelrich, brother of the powerful margrave, OdelrichManfred II of Turin. Archbishop Arnolf strenuously objected co this proceeding: he cook up Perer's cause and refused to ordain Adelrich. Nothing daunted, Adelrich set out for Rome, where in 10o8, by a cunning ruse, he managed to have himself consecrated by the pope. Infuriated, Arnolf excommunicated Adelrich, raised an army with the aid of his suffragans and seized Asci. In a deeply humiliating though not unusual ceremony Adelrich and his brother OdelrichManfred II were forced to do public penance by voicing

RESS E D M EA N I N G S

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

confession of their guilt in Milan Cathedral. After which, in rhe presence of the archbishop, the clergy and all the people, peace was agreed and Adelrich got back the diocese of Asti from Arnolf. This display of power by rhe Milanese church seems to have been aimed at Rome rather than Henry II. Certainly Rome had infringed the rights of rhe archbishop of Milan by consecrating Adelrich, only ten years after the humiliating decision of 998. It was just in this period that the rebuilding and redecorating of S. Vincenzo in Galliano took place. Thus the appropriation of the papal donor motif seems not only to reflect Aribert's ambitions but also the flaring conflict over status between Milan and Rome.

2.4 S. Angelo in Formis Depicted on the left of the apse of the monastery church of S. Angelo in Formis near Capua is Desiderius, abbot of Monte Cassino (1058-1087), with an architectural model (Fig. 13).Desiderius was probably still alive when the fresco was painted, although the abbot's square halo is no guarantee of that. 33 Opposite the model-bearer is Benedict of Nursia, founder and patron of Monte Cassino. Between them is the Majestas Domini surrounded by the tetramorph. Desiderius's model shows the basilica of S. Angelo as seen from the south-west. A flight of steps leads up to a west-facing narrhex fronted by an arcade of five rounded arches, with the higher central arch supporting a pediment. Above rhe roof of the narthex the west wall of the church is pierced by three windows in a row with a fourth in the gable. To the left, beyond the basilican nave, is a bell-tower; on the right is what seems to be a second aisle, which Wettstein interprets as indicating the conventual buildings. 34 In reality, however, what little remains of the conventual buildings is on the north side of the church. 35 Lipsmeyer suggests that in comparison to the built architecture the model had become too high, due to rhe large windows in the facade, a fact the extra aisle was meant to disguise. 36 Such artifice seems rather untypical of the Middle Ages, however. Mopperc-Schmidt ascribes rhe outermost aisle and the pediment to an eighteenthcentury restoration. 37 The reconstruction of S. Angelo's narchex in 11501200 renders any comparison of Desiderius's model with the 'original' rather problematic. 38 However,

Fig. 14. Monte Cassino abbey seal, matrix from the last decades of the eleventh century(?) (from: CARBONARA, JussiDesiderii, 1979, cover iU.).

archaeological and arc-historical research shows chat rhe architecture of S. Angelo in Form is was influenced by the Monte Cassino abbey church, which Desiderius built in 1066-1071 and whose chief characteristics he repeated in S. Angelo. 39 This too had a narthex of five cross-vaulted bays with arches at the front, albeit as the east side of an atrium. The arrangement of the facade on the model corresponds to both churches: three round-headed windows above the narchex roof. and a fourth in the gable. The same is true of the basilican nave and the monumental flight of steps. Up to this point, Desiderius's model seems to be a likeness. This cannot be a result of an eighteenth-century restoration, for rhe painted narthex still has rounded arches, as opposed to the remodelled pointed arches it acquired in the twelfth century. Three details prompt questions, however. Firstly, S. Angelo's actual narrhex does not have alternating plain and spiral-fluted columns. On the other hand, differing shafts were a feature of the established repertoire of the painters who worked in the church. Spiralfluted columns separate the pictures on the walls of rhe nave and create an inner space in the Raising of Lazarus and the Incredulity ofThomas. 40 The ciborium above the empty tomb beside which the women meet the angelic messenger even has the same two plain and two spiral-fluted columns as the model's narthex. 41•

EQUALS

Digitized by

Google

OF

THE

POPE

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

45

.,.,!> ~

uiwmumd't~-v!c,;IDl9'4 ..

l'~'E1ftdi-~«~~-ardta----

. minlli'vr • 6l du:(.".

g(.onD1ilJimt n')'.fC dtfunJ e/t.

liq, .u>J,ini" "B"'-qufbs1i - -ms Latusff'I'•:

Fig. 15. East view of St Pcter's in Rome with the vineornamenred spiral columns and rhe high altar, royalbull of Henry IV, 1056-1084 (line drawing: Cuinira de Bondr).

Carpiceci and Krautheimer give no consideration to what may well be indications of the prothyron on eleventh-century representations of St Peter's, however. The oldest of these is the pediment beneath the three windows on Henry IV's royal bull. Additionally, the pen drawing in the Farfa manuscript depicting the east facade of St Peter's shows three small gables on the west side of the atrium. Given the comparative accuracy of the appearance of the facade with three windows surrounded by mosaics it is not impossible that the two outer gables are intended to represent the north and south sides of the atrium and the centre gable the prothyron. 57 A glance at other churches in Rome reveals that the prothyron was a regular feature possibly from the ninth but certainly from the late eleventh century. 58 The prothyron covering the entrance to the atrium of S. Prassede may still be partly Carolingian. Later, the prothyron might stand directly before the church door, as is the case at S. Cosimato (shortly after J069) and S. Clemente (consecrated in 1ll8), or in front of the narthex, as occurs at S. Maria in Cosmedin (1119-1114). These three churches were reconstructed during a tide of renovation that swept Rome under the influence of a reform movement whose first monumental materialization was the rebuilding of the abbey church of Monte Cassino, which was closely connected

48

COMP

RESS

ED

Fig. 16. East view of Sr Perer's in Rome, manuscript conrainingJohannes Diaconus'sVita S. Gregoriifrom Farfa,late eleventh century; Eron, Eron College Library, Jl4, fol. Ill (from: BRANDT& EGGEBRECHT, Bernward von Hildesheim, car. Ill-5).

with Rome. 59 Characteristics of this are the multicoloured marble floor, the campanile, the high transept - in imitation of St Peter's - and possibly also the nanhex. To these can be added the prothyron. The wave of building produced too many parallels for the high narthex arch and pediment ofS. Angelo in Form is for this to be dismissed as an eighteenth-century restoration. This part of the building is one of the elements intended to propagate the renovatio of early Christian Rome. The portrait-like depiction of the narthex in the apse painting underscores the importance of chis message.

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

Just as there are similarities in the architecture, the iconographic programme ofS. Angelo in Formis most likely also reflected that of Desiderius's lost abbey church. In turn the Monte Cassino mosaics link with early Christian examples in Rome. It is significant that the abbot placed his dedication inscription on the triumphal arch, and that it derives directly from Constantine's words on the triumphal arch of St Peter's: UT DUCE TE PATRIA IUSTIS P0TIATUR ADEPTA· HINC DESIDERIUS PATERHANC TIBI C0NDIDIT AULAM(So that, with thee as guide, the just may attain the house of our Father, Father Desiderius has built here this hall for thee). 60 Would he have adopted the motif of the model-bearer as well as the text? The composition of the apse painting in S. Angelo, in which two figures flank a central tetramorph-attended Christ, is entirely in line with early Roman triumphal arch mosaics. The moving of the image to the apse is no counterargument. This position was usual for donor portrayals in Rome, while the dedication inscription in S. Angelo is likewise not on the triumphal arch but on the lintel above the west door of the church. 61 Ladner points out that the facial features of the model-bearer in the S. Angelo apse painting are not unlike those of the abbot depicted in two miniatures from the Monte Cassino scriptorium. 62 This suggests that the painter in S. Angelo has followed a Cassinese example. The same thing may well apply to the donor's model. Desiderius's two foundations do resemble each other, but the bell-tower's position on the north side of the model church is shared only by the abbey church and seal. Andaloro comes ro a similar conclusion, albeit on rather flimsy grounds. 63 She contends that the S. Angelo painter could not have known of the narthex because Desiderius is portrayed with a square nimbus - as still alive, thus - whereas the dedicatory inscription in the narthex refers to the abbot as already deceased. Therefore, she thinks, the model probably represents the abbey church of Monte Cassino. But the square halo is not an absolutely certain criterion for the date and the inscription says nothing about when construction of the narthex began. Finally, the architectural depictions on the Cassinese seal, the apse painting, and the cartulary illustration ofS. Angelo allow the characteristics of a 'Desiderian' type of model to be inferred. The west facade is emphasized, there is a narthex with three or five arches, and a triangular gable. The sides of the building

are far less important and can be omitted. There may be a bell-rower on the left of the church. These characteristics are rooted in the new Monte Cassino abbey church that Desiderius built. He probably combined the iconographic formula of the model-bearer with a dedicatory inscription based on the example on the triumphal arch of St Peter's. ln this way he represented his aspiration for a revival of the Church as it would have been at the time of Constantine the Great. This renovatiooffers yet another indication that the Christian iconographic tradition of the donor with his church model reaches back to the fourth century.

2.SAusonia Around 1100 the Cassinese donor portrayal was imitated in the crypt of the monastery church of S. Maria del Piano in Ausonia, formerly Fratte (Fractae, Fig. 17).64 On the west wall, in a niche between the flights of steps that lead down to the crypt, a kneeling figure offers a church model to the patron saint, the Virgin Mary. A tonsure and a purple cloak decorated with birds in roundels characterize him as a highranking cleric. The model consists of a west facade and a narthex with three arches, analogous to the Monte Cassino abbey seal. It has no tower, the three windows above the narthex are reduced to one, but there is a window in the centre of the gable. These small variations pale into insignificance when compared to the exploded rendering of a cross vault that is shown in place of the narthex roo£ The two transecting groins - represented as intersecting arches - spring from the spandrels of the centre narthex arch and come to an abrupt halt at the corners of the west facade. The vaulting is coloured pink, which sets it off against the grey of the narthex and the green of the wall above. In the register below, the construction ofS. Maria is represented amid a procession of the Eucharist. 65 The masons have already completed the narthex, which also has three arches. Two laymen are depicted on the niche's soffit. Macchiarella has looked at how far the architectural model represents a likeness of S. Maria del Piano but makes no attempt to identify the donor figure.66 As nothing but the crypt remains of the building completed in 1100 the author has sought parallels in the church architecture of Latium and Campania. The narthex with three arches and cross vaulting occurred

EQ.UALS

OF

THE

POPE

49

Fig. 17. Bishop Reginald of Gaeta (?) offers a church model to the Virgin, and the construction of the monastery church, painting on the west wall of the crypt in the monastery church ofS. Maria del Piano in Ausonia, c.uoo (from: MACCHIARELLA,II ciclo,Tav. IIIa).

quite frequently in the twelfth century, likewise the gable with a single window, as already appears in S. Angelo in Formis. 67 Therefore, according to Macchiarella, the model seems to present a painstaking depiction of S. Maria's chief characteristics. He makes no comparison with related images of architecture, however, and so overlooks the fact that the model in Ausonia corresponds to the Oesiderian type. Moreover, the added vaulting tallies with the cross vaults of the fivebay-long east side of Desiderius's atrium at Monte Cassino. They were reprised in the narthex of S. Angelo in Formis and, reduced to three, in many churches in the surrounding area. 68 Undoubtedly, therefore, cross vaulting is one of the commonly occurring characteristics of south-Italian church architecture around I wo.

50

COMPRESSED

Why, then, did the donor wish co emphasize this architectural element in such a conspicuous fashion? It is usually thought that intersecting arches first appeared in the lace eleventh century in the church architecture of Calabria and Sicily, a result ofinfluence in from the western Islamic world: around 1090-1100 the main apse of S. Giovanni Vecchio di Stilo, near Bivongi, shortly before 1092 on the north wall of S. Maria in Mili S. Pierro, and around w93 on the south wall of SS. Pietro e Paolo in ltala. 69 The benefactor of these three Basilian monastery churches was Roger I He founded Mili and ltaJa and of Sicily (w72-1101). buried his son Jordan (d. 1092) in Mili. The connection with the Norman comical house could have brought about the rapid spread of the new arch motif - the painting in the crypt in Ausonia dates from around 1100. The date of the first example in Latium, the rower of S. Giovanni Battista in Subiaco (before 1114?),is debatable, however? 0 On two other cowers in Subiaco the intersecting arches appear to have been added lacer. Intersecting arches were first used to any extent in the cathedral at Cefalu, which was founded in 1130-1131 and has many northern characteristics. 71 Already in 1955 this led Bottari to speculate whether their origin should nor rather be sought in Anglo-Norman architecture. ln those examples chat pre-dace Cefalu the intersecting arches were probably lacer additions. 72 The church in ltaJa argues for the correctness of Bottari's proposition. Originally the south wall, like the present western facade, would have been articulated with blind semicircular-headed arches; later the tops of the arches were removed and a series of intersecting arches was set on the remaining springings. The east end of S. Giovanni Vecchio is now regarded as having been founded circa 1100-1120, later than S. Maria del Piano, that is.73 Only for the irregular decoration on the north wall of the much-rebuilt church in Mili does the late-eleventh-century date still - provisionally hold good. None the less, influential architecture with intersecting arches was certainly not seen in the south of Italy before Cefalu Cathedral. The cross vault depicted on the donor's model in S. Maria del Piano therefore did nor come by its particular design by this route. Does it perhaps follow a tradition from Catalan book illumination? In various eleventh-century manuscripts from Catalonia an arcade with imersectingarches consistently and exclusively characterizes depictions

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

of the Temple of Jerusalem. In a bible from the monastery of S. Pere de Roda (c.1050) this iconographic mocifoccurs five times (cf: Fig. 18).74 A bible from Sea. Maria de Ripoll (c.1000-1050) and a lace-elevenchcentury codex containing homilies by Bede each have one illustration of a temple with intersecting arches. 75 Manuscripts in Visigochic script in the Monce Cassino library bear early witness to cultural exchanges with Spanish monasteries, perhaps via the mercantile centre of Amalfi. 76 In the Ripoll library, on the other hand, are copies of texts chat have reference to Naples.n In the Salerno antependium, made around 1080-1090 in Amalfi, Bergman has identified a stylistic relationship with Spanish ivories dating from the second half of the eleventh cencury. 78 To this can be added an iconographic parallel: on a lace-eleventh-century Amalfican ivory depicting the Maries at the empty tomb Christ's sepulchre is represented as a two-storied structure (Fig. 19).79 Below are the cerements in a box-like space; on top of this colonecces support two staggered sees of arches, in which the crown of the lower arches forms the springing-point for the upper ones. A dome surmounts the mausoleum. Given the contacts between Monce Cassino and Amalfi in the eleventh century the monks muse have been familiar with the arc produced in the trading town. 80 A certain Laurencius, scion of an Amalfican comical house, was a monk at Monte Cassino before he came to occupy the archiepiscopal seat of his home town as Leo II (1ol9-1039). Duke Guaimar IV of Amalfi (1039-104l) gave the parish church of Sc Nicholas to Monce Cassino. At more or less the same time the nearby S. Crux came into the abbey's possession. The two churches provided the basis for a Cassinese secclemenc in Amalfi, which was enlarged by Robert Guiscard's donation of S. Blasio in 108l. Desiderius wanted for his new abbey church the same sore of bronze doors he had seen in Amalfi's cathedral in 1065. The immensely wealthy Amalfican merchant Maurus paid for the doors in 1066, was present at the dedication of the new church in 1071,and later became a monk at Monce Cassino. Cassinese-Cacalan ties were strengthened when Count Oliba Cabreta (d. 990) of Besalu-Cerdafta entered the Benedictine abbey in 998.81 Apparently the count rated Monce Cassino more highly than Ripoll, although Ripoll lay within the comical domain and had, thanks to significant donations, become increasingly closely connected with the house of Cabreta in

Fig. 18. Solomon's Temple, bible from S. Pere de Roda, mid-eleventh century; Paris, BnF, Lat. 6 II, fol. 12.9v(from: CAHN, Romanesque Bible Illumination, fig. 44).

Fig. 19. The women at the empty tomb, Amalfitan ivory, late eleventh century; Paris, Mus. du Louvre (from: BERGMAN,The Salerno Ivories, fig. 173).

the second half of the tench century. Oliba's son, who bore the same name as his father, even became abbot there (1008-1046). In his writings, and in the monastery church rebuilt during his period of office, which served as the family mausoleum, the commemoration

£Q.UALS

Digitized by

Google

OF

THE

POPE

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

SI

of the dead occupied a very important place. So the abbot would not have forgotten his father's grave in distant Monte Cassino. Perhaps it was through him that the temple motif with its intersecting arches, which the Ripoll scriptorium regularly employed at that rime, came to Larium. Moreover, at both Ripoll and Monte Cassino, Old Sr Perer's was the model for the rebuilding of the monastery church. Indeed, Abbot Oliba says as much in a letter, now sadly lost. 82 The five bays and the strongly projecting transepts culminating directly in the apse are the architectural evidence for this. 83Furthermore, Alfano of Salerno, a contemporary ofDesiderius, compared the latter's new abbey church with Solomon's Temple, in which everything was arranged by size and number. 84Against this background of contacts and parallels with Ripoll the painter of the niche in the crypt of S. Maria del Piano in Ausonia could have taken the temple motif of intersecting arches from Monte Cassino along with the Desiderian type of model. The historical circumstances surrounding the foundation in Ausonia point in the same direction. In 1065 Richard I of Capua and his son Jordan I (d.1090) had given Desiderius the castrum Fractaein its entirety. 85 Fratte lay in the north-eastern corner of the duchy of Gaeta, practically next to the Cassinese abbey's territory. In 1093/94 Duke Raynald Ridell of Gaeta seized the fortified sire. Abbot Oderisius I (1087-1105) of Monte Cassino appealed to Count Atenulf of Aquino for aid, and Fratte was retaken. The duke was defeated and was obliged to perform a humiliating penance for his greed in Capua, in the presence of the abbot and Pope Urban II. Around 1100 Richard dell'Aquila (d. 1111 ), count of SessaAurunca, had the castrumand that ofSuio in fie( His power and territory grew dramatically in these years, nor least by his acquisition of the duchy of Gaeta in 1105.He was on good terms with the pope, the bishop of Gaeta, Robert of Capua, the count of Aquino and especially with Monte Cassino: in 1107 he swore to protect the monastery lands. After his death the Dell'Aquila family held Fratte in fie£ Given these circumstances it seems likely that Richard was in some way involved in the founding of S. Maria del Piano. One of the two figures of laymen flanking the donor image on the soffir of the niche could therefore represent the count of Sessa Aurunca.86Possibly he stands opposite Arenulf of Aquino, who had freed Fratte from Raynald Ridell and was one

52

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

of Richard's allies. As for the kneeling cleric who holds the architectural model, both Abbot Oderisius as lord of Fratte, and the bishop of Gaeta, to whose see S. Maria de! Piano belonged, may be likely candidates. Yet the chronicle of Monte Cassino makes no mention of the foundation. It was certainly a noteworthy event, so this silence argues against the figure being that of Oderisius. The then bishops of Gaeta were not highprofile churchmen. In 1105Bishop Albert persuaded various mutually antagonistic magnates to refrain from harming ecclesiastical persons and property in his diocese in the course of their contests. 87 His predecessor Reginald, who had been a monk at Monte Cassino, was ordained bishop of Gaeta by Urban II in 1090.88 He died in 1098/1104. Reginald would certainly have known Desiderius and his new abbey church. Maybe it was he who employed the Cassinese model-bearer motif in Ausonia and bears the donor's model in the crypt.

2.6 Casauria In 1176Abbot Leonas (1155-1182.) laid rhe first stone of a new narthex for the abbey church of S. Clemente in Casauria. The tympanum above the church door shows the donor, and the lintel beneath recounts the history of the building of the monastery (Fig. 2.0 a-b ). Feller has made an extensive study of both reliefs. 89 The right half of the lintel records the secular donation: Louis II gives the island on which the monastery is to be built (851) and appoints the first abbot (871). On the left there follows the spiritual foundation: Pope Adrian II gives the relics of his distant predecessor, Clement, to Emperor Louis II, and these are conveyed by mule to the new monastery (872.). In the centre of the lintel is the west front of the church. It continues the Desiderian tradition and resembles the Monte Cassino seal: a narthex with three arches in front of the west facade and a bell-tower on the left. But there is a new element, the great oculus in the west wall. In the tympanum Leonas humbly approaches the enthroned patron of the monastery from the right and offers a model comparable to the church depicted in the lintel. Its narthex, however, has four bays rather than three, and it lacks a bell-rower. The tympanum as a whole is highly reminiscent of the wall painting in the crypt ofS. Maria de! Piano in Ausonia, except that in the painting there is no equivalent for Clement's

pupils Cornelius and Ephebus, who stand co the left of the patron saint on the tympanum. In his otherwise excellent study Feller pays little attention to the two architectural representations. He does not examine whether the church depicted in the tympanum might be a faithful copy of the actual building, overlooks the influence of Monte Cassino, and fails to ask why Abbot Leonas adopted the

Fig. lOa. Abbot Leonas offers a church model, tympanum above the west door of the abbey church of S. Clemente in Causaria, c.1180 (photograph: author)

Cassinese iconographic formula. Below, I shall try to fill these gaps. The narchex Leonas built has three arches, open co the wesr.90 Origina!Jy there was an oculus in the wall of the church above, as appears from remains in the monastery's lapidarium. 91 There is no bell-cower now, but one may have been planned or built on the north side of the church. 92 Wich its three narchex arches the church depicted on the lintel is in any case more of a likeness than the four-arch donor's model shown in the tympanum. At the same time as the narchex was under construction the Casauria scriptorium produced a chronicle dated I182.,the Chronicon Casauriense. lt contains one architectural illustration, which represents the abbey church as though seen from several sides (Fig. 2.1).93 On the left, where the west facade of the church is depicted, the gable is shown resting directly on top of the three arches of the narthex, leaving room for only a small oculus as a result. On the right is the basilican nave with an apse, seen from the south. A door in the south wall of the aisle may indicate an entrance co the conventual buildings chat once lay co the south of the church and so prevented a clear view of che church itself. Therefore the south aspect cannot be a likeness. The absence of a transept reinforces this conclusion: it is true that the present transept was built only after Leonas's death, but it replaced an earlier one. 94 Between the narchex and the church is tower, of which both the inside and outside are shown. The changing viewpoint and schematic grouping of che pares of the building relate co the four kings of Italy portrayed above the abbey church. The illustrator evidently wanted to accommodate che quartet in a symmetrical composition. To achieve this he put the cower in the centre of the pictorial space and a pair of rulers on either side - the two emperors, Lambert (892.-898) and Lorhair I (817-855) on the inside,

Fig. lOb. History of the foundation, lintel above the west door of the abbey church of S. Clemente in Causaria, c.1180 (photograph: author)

[Q_UALS

Digitized by

Google

OF

THE

POPE

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

53

Fig. 2.1. Four royal benefactors, chronicle of the abbey church of S. Clemente in Casauria, 1182.; Paris, BnF, Lat. 5411, fol. 12.9v {from: LEHMANN-BROCKHAUS,Abrnz:un, Abb. 167a).

directly next to the cower, and the two kings of Italy, Hugh (92.6-947) and Berengar II (950-964) on the outside. The space beneath them he filled with the narchex and the nave. While making the church subordinate co the kingly figures, he ensured char the various parts of the building were still recognizable. These three representations of S. Clemente dating from around 1180 show how the degree of dependence on the Desiderian model was determined by the function of the architectural representation. ln the tympanum the deliberate reference to earlier exemplars was the whole point. It allowed Leonas to show himself the equal of Monte Cassino's renowned Abbot Desiderius. Like Desiderius, Leonas presents the west side of his foundation with the narthex as its most salient feature. Moreover, the number of arches in the narchex lies spang between S. Clemente's three and Monte Cassino's five. The oculus suffices to identify the church. Possibly this element, like the narthex, references Desiderius's abbey church. Lehmann-Brockhaus surmises chat the oculus in the west facade of south Italian churches may have had its origin in Monte Cassino. 95 The church model on the lintel is a portraic-liJce variant of the Desiderian iconographic formula. It has three narthex arches, an oculus, and a cower on the north side, which certainly rallies with the Cassinese

54

COMPRESSED

ME?J.NGS

Digitized by

\.JOOS

I

e

concept inherent in Leonas's west end. The lintel does not depict the deeds of a great abbot such as Desiderius, but events specifically connected with S. Clemente. On one hand the relics of Pope Clement were now housed there. The donation made in 872. had finally been officially acknowledged in 1170, almost three centuries after the monastery was founded, when Pope Alexander III granted Leonas permission to celebrate the feast of Clement's translation on 2.7 May.96 The architectural representation needed to be easily recognizable in order to confound rival claims to possession of the relics. On the other hand Louis II had assigned to S. Clemente land to which no one else could lay claim. A merely schematic architectural representation would have supported the rightfulness and legality of these transactions less powerfully than a faithful likeness of the church. Finally, the illustrator of the Casauria chronicle abandoned the Desiderian model and gave the architectural representation a subsidiary role as a frame. The narthex identifies the church as S. Clemente, but there are no other clear characteristics. The monastery church is still certainly recognizable, as it needed to be in order to establish the connection between the abbey and the four rulers. But unlike the lintel and tympanum reliefs the miniature was not intended for public view and was not required to broadcast to all and sundry, so allusion to the Cassinese tradition or to the boasted ownership of the relics was unnecessary. This seems to have made a certain artistic freedom possible. The motivation for continuing the tradition of Desiderius and of papal donors in general can be inferred from Leonas's career. 97 The abbot belonged to the comical house of Manoppello and became a member of the papal curia. 1n 1140 Roger II of Sicily ( 1130-1154) replaced the then count, Robert of Manoppello, by the Norman, Boamund of Tarsia. In 1152., fearful of losing control of the county, both Roger II and Boamund of Tarsia strongly resisted Leonas's appointment at S. Clemente. But Leonas could rely on the support of Adrian IV (1154-1159) who, through the abbot, hoped to strengthen his position of power, which had been considerably weakened by the Normans. Even so, only in 1155, when local nobles had driven Boamund out, was Leonas able to enter his monastery. Adrian IV then travelled to S. Clemente with a train of cardinals, ordained Leonas as abbot and granted him the right to wear the mitre, as can be seen

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

on the tympanum. Unrest in the county persisted and resulted in the ousting of Robert ofManoppello's son and his allies by William II of Sicily {1166/7l-1189). Leonas sought refuge with the pope, who brought about a reconciliation between the abbot and the king. However, Boamund's successor looted abbey property until he was driven out himself. but in 1157 Leonaswas also forced to flee. In Sicily the abbot called on the aid of William II, who relieved the abbey, making it possible for Leonas to return. After 1160 there came a period of peace and prosperity in which the power and prestige ofS. Clemente increased. In 117l Leonas commenced an extensive building campaign. Many gifts and privileges attest to the good relations he maintained with William II and the pope. For example, a privilege granted by Alexander III in 1166exempted S. Clemente from episcopal authority, a privilege that according to an inscription on the lintel of the narthex had already been given by Emperor Louis II. This sole legendary detail in the image was probably intended to justify the monastery's preferential position. 98

Against this background the programme above the church's main portal was probably intended to consolidate S. Clemente's new status. The lintel commends the monastery as an imperial foundation and accredited repository of Clement's relics. It emphasizes the direct association with the pope and emperor, who deprived regional magnates of any grounds to claim right or title over the abbey lands. The import of the privilege of 1166 was much the same. It was intended to prevent S. Clemente from being sucked into the local power struggles that had plagued the monastery around the middle of the century. By making a link with the abbey church and donor representation of Abbot Desiderius {the later Pope Victor III), Leonas could show the height to which he had climbed. His excellent relationship with the Holy See and the exemption ofhis monastery made the adoption of the model-bearing donor motif virtually a matter of course. The example of St Peter's triumphal arch, with which Leonas, as a former member of the Curia, could certainly have been familiar, probably played a background part.

NOTES 1 DEICHMANN.Ravenna, vol. 1,p. •31, 141-•43; vol.•·•• p. 141-14• (restorations), 165-166, 178-180, 343-346, 37>-374; vol. t.3, p. 316; vol. 3, Abb. 311, is•-357; IHM, Die Programme,p. •6·>7, 163-161, p. t85-t87, fig. 159. 173-174; GALTIER MARTI, La iconografza, ' DEICHMANN, Ravenna, vol. 3, Abb. 358-375. 3 For instance, also: LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 125-119.

MANN, Ravenna, vol. 1, p. 4-8, 11-15.41•4•; vol. t.2, p. 12-11:vol. 2.3, p. 170-171; VASINA,"Ravenna•, c. 481. Cf: SoRRIES,Di, Bilder,p. 43-49; DEMANDT,Die Spiitantike, p. 106. 11 On these tombs, see: DEICHMANN, Ravenna, vol. 2.t,

• DEICHMANN, Ravenna, vol. •·•• p. 74; vol. t.3, Plan 33, 37. 5 For example, LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. 36 put forward two possibilities without expressing a preference for either. If the mosaic was created under Ecdesius around 5•6-53• it would attest to Ecdesius's obtaining ofimperial permission to complete the church founded by Justinian. A creation around 540-541, at the same time as the mosaics representing the imperial couple, would point to a message from the see of Ravenna to the Byzantine ruler, who had conquered the city in 540. 6 DEICHMANN, Ravenna, vol. 1,p. u6-u7; vol. t.1, p. 48-49. Cf DEICHMANN, Ravenna, vol. •·•• p. >34 for the foundation of S. Apollinare in Classe. 7 SciRRIES,Die Bilder,especially p. 125-131,147-151. 8 ANDREESCU-TREADGOLD & TREADGOLD, "Procopius", p. 708-7>3. 9 Historical details derived from: VoN SIMSON, SacredFortress, p. 11-u; Bov1N1, "Massimianodi Pola".especially p. 17-18; DEICH-

12 VON SIMSON,SacredFortress,p. 4-5. Cf: VON SIMSON,SacredFortress,p. 35-36. 14 SCHILLER,lkonographit,vol. 3, p. 21, Abb. 4, 11-11. 15 Cf in particular the ivories dating from c.4>0-430 in London (British Mus.) andqoo in Milan (CastelloSforzesco): SCHILLER, lkonographie,vol. 3, Abb. 4, 11. 16 Cf: DEICHMANN, Ravenna, vol. 2.3, p. 173. 17 MoLAJOLI, La basilicaEufrasiana,p. 16->8, 36, pl. 34, 11; LIPS· MEYER, The Donor, p. 112-125; IHM, Die Programme,p. 56-57, 167-169; GALTIER MARTI, La iconografla,p. 187-290, fig. 161; TERRY & MAGUIRE, Dynamic Sp/endor,p. 3·1, 109-111, 159-160 (restorations), fig. 24. Historical details derived from: SCHUBERT, "Der politische Primatanspruch~ p. 201-202; SCHUBERT,"Chrisms",p. 102-206, >11-118. 18 LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 37-38. 19 Cf: MoLAJOLI, La basilica Eufrasiana, p. 18; TERRY & MAGUIRE, D_ynamicSplendor,p. 59-69.

'°

p. •7-29. 13

EQ.UALS OF THE POPE

55

'" FERLUGA,"Obcrlegungen", p. 165-166, 168. On the lstrian situation around 540, sec also: DEMANDT, Dir Spatantike, p. wsw6. " Biographical data in: MARZORATI, "Aribcrto", c. 144-151; COWDREY, "Archbishop Aribcrt", p. 4-11: BIANCHI & WEATH· ERILL& TESSERA, "Ariberto", p. 13-13. " ANSALDI, G/i ajfreschi,p. 71-73, n. 6, 89-90, n. H. On Adeodatus, sec also: MoTTJRONI, "Adcodato di Galliano", c. 149 (with bibliography). '' COWDREY, "Archbishop Aribcrt", p. 1-3. ,. ANSALDI, Gli ajfrrschi,p. 1S·H, fig. after 3,: SCHRADE, Vi,rund .fruhromanischeMalerei, p. 95, 146-148, 181-183, Taf. 45: DEMUS,Romanische W.,ndmalerei,p. 111:LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 69-71. " The figure of Aribert is a copy: the original is now in the Pinacotcca Ambrosiana in Milan. 6 ' On the history of the building of the basilica and baptistery, sec: PORTER, Lombard ,1rchitecture,p. 437-445, pl. 95-99 fig. 1-1 (calls into question the relationship between the model and the actual architecture): RIVOIRA, lombardic Architecture,p.116-118 (the model represents both basilica and baptistery): LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. ISJ-IS6 (the model represents only the church); BRUCHER,Di, sakrak BaUkunst,p.14-16, 99-100, Abb. s-6, 54-55: Rossr, "[I rinnovamento~ p. 87-99 (the model represents the church and the atrium). ,- LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. 156, 148 n. 61. Also LOMARTIRE, "Ut aula Domini", p. S3 identifies the tower as a campanile. " Milan, Mus. dcl Duomo. CfVERGANI, "Aribcrto", p. 89-97, Hg. 1; LOMARTIRE,"Ut aula Domini~ p. 60-61, fig. 16: ScHJAVJ, "Ubi clcgans", p. 100-107. ,. R1VOIRA,LombardicArchitecture,p. 117. LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. 156. " FASOLA,"Arnulfll.~ c. 1018: WOLTER, Die !,:ynoden, p. 161. p HIRSCH, PABST & BRESSLAU,jahrbucher, vol. 1, p. FO· FJ; FASOLA,"Arnulfll.~ c. 1018: WOLTER, Die Synoden,p. 153-155. .n SCHRADE, Die romanische Malerei, p. 16-17, frontispiece: WETTSTEIN, San/Angelo,p. 17-19,31-34: MoRISANI, Gliajfreschi, p. 34-36, fig. 11:MOPPERT-SCHMIDT, Die Fmken. p.19-41: LIPS· MEYER,The Donor,p. 75-78. " WETTSTEIN, San/Angelo.p. 16. " A walllcftofthcwcst facadc: MOPPERT-SCHMIIJT,Dfr Fmkm, p.19. "' LIPSMEYER,71,, Donor,p. 157-160. r MOPPERT-SCHMIDT, Die Fresken,p. 10. " On the building history, sec: DE FRANCOVJCH, "Problemi", p. 48,-484: WETTSTEIN. Sanr:4ngelo,p. 14-16; MoPPERT· SCHMIDT, Die Fresken, p. 10-11; BLOCH, Monte Cassino, p. 61-63. w On the building history and reconstruction, sec: WILLARD & CONANT, "A Project~ p. 144-146, pl. I; CONANT, Carolingianand Rom,mesque Architeaure, p. 1u-u3, pl. VIIIA: URBAN, "Die Klosteranlagc", p. IJ-18: CARBONARA, JussiDesiderii,especially p. 47-97; COWDREY, The Age,p. 13-15:ANDALORO, "L'abbaycdu Mont Cassin", p. 11-11,fig. 2. "' MORJSANI, Gli.l{frschi,p. 40-41, 49-50, fig. 11, 14: MoPPERT· SCHMIDT, Die Fmkm, p. ,6-~~. Abb. 14,, MORISANI, G/i ,,j/i-esrhi.p. 58. fig. II: MOPPERT-SCHMJ[)T, Die freskm, p. 87-88, Abb. 11.

'°

56

.,, Sec, for example: URBAN, "Die Klosteranlagc~ Abb. 4: CAR· BONARA, Jussi Desiderii, tav. 14-17: GANDOLFO, "La fa~ade romane, p. 311-311. H Monte Cassino, Archivio dell'Abbazia, Reg. 4, fol. ,,, WETTSTEIN, San/Angelo,p. 16, pl. IC. For the date of the illustrations and a bibliography, sec: DELL'OMO, J Fiori,cat. 47. +> Cf: MOPPERT-SCHMIDT, Dit Frrsun, p. 11-u. DE FRANCO· VICH, "Problcmi", p. 483 accepts the model without further question: the bell-tower would originally have stood on the north side of the church and its collapse would have destroyed the 111hcentury portico. ➔'\ CARBONARA, Jussi Desiderii, cover illustration. 16 Historical details derived from: WETTSTEIN, SantAngelo, p. 14; MoPPERT·SCHMIDT, Di, Frrskm, p. 9-17; CARBONARA, JussiDesidrrii,p. 23; COWDREY, TheAg,,cspecially p. xxxii-xxxiii, 17,66-67, 79-83, 115-117,12l·l1S, 118-130,134,144, 154-165,171,181187; LOUD, Churchand Society,p. 18-51,66-,,, ,7-81, 111-11;,117· 1w, 117: BLOCH, Monte Cassino,p. 40. •· COWDREY, The Age,p. 73-79. .,, COWDREY, The Ag,, p. i;-14, 79; AVAGLIANO, "Roma", p.7l·7l. 49 Cf: DEMUS, The Mosaics,p. 106-108: CONANT, Carolingidn and RomanesqueArchiteClure,p. 112-12;; URBAN, "Die Klostcranlagc". p. 17-18; CARBONARA, lussi Desiderii,p. 24-16; KRAUT· HEIMER, Rome, p. 178-179; MACCHIARELLA.// ciclo,p. 17, 41; COWDREY, TheAge,p. 1s: BLOCH, Mont, Cassino,p. 43: ANDAL· ORO, "L'abbaye du Mont Cassin~ p. 68. 10 On the built architecture of the east facade, sec KRAUTHEJMER et al., Corpusbasilicarum,vol. S, p. lll; CARPJCECJ & KRAUT· HEIMER, Nuovi dati, part 1, p. 60-61, fig. 91-93; part 1, p. 51, tav. 5. " The bulls of 1065 and 1018 survive: POSSE, DasSirgelwesrn, vol. 1,p.11, Taf. 16.6, 17.1:vol. S,p. H; SCHRAMM & M0THERJCH,Dir deutschenKaiser,p. 115,238, Abb. 170 on p. 419. ~1 On these columns. nine of which still remain in St Peter's, see: ScH0LLER-PIRou. woojahre, p. 88-89, 97-99: BucHOWIECKI. Handbuch, vol. 1, p. 105-I06, 113; KRAUTHEIMER et al.. Corp11s basilicarum,vol. S, p. 171, 171, 119-161; SCHMIDT, Die gewundme .\:iule,p. 14-18. 11 · BANDMANN,MittelalterlifheArchitektur,p. 101 interprets the diagonals as part of the city wall, seen in perspective. At the same time, however, coins minted in Speyer and Duisburg bearing a

comparablearchitecturalrepresentationhave a window or doorway below the diagonals, which consequently give no suggestion of depth (DANNENBERG,Dicdeutsd,en Miinzen, no. 318-319,839; KLUGE, DermcheMiinzgeschichte.no. 166-167 ). Cf also the building depicted in the miniature at Tob 1:1-1in the first bible Sancho VII the Strong of Navarre (1194-1214) had made by Petrus Fer• randus in Pamplona: Amicns, BM, Lat. w8, fol. 147 (BUCHER, The PdmplonaBible. CARPJCECI & KRAUTH EIMER. Xwvi. i d,ai. part 1, p. 22-25, 1

64·6:',

fig. 16,

~8, \0, I00-10~.

,. CARPICECI & KRAUTHEIMER, Nuovi dati, part I, p. 51-53. 60-61, fig. 78, 91-93; part 1, 53-55, fig. 61-69 (reconstructions). ,- GANDOLFO, "La fa~ade romanc", p. 311points to the similarity the drawing of St Peters displays in this respect with the three gables on the roof above the Virgin and Child in the miniature depicting the Adoration of the Magi in the Pericopes of Henry II (Munich, BSB, Clm 4451, fol. 18: FJLLITZ, KAHSNITZ & KUDER, Zierde, p. 116-117,Taf. 15). The similarity between the two architectural representations docs not, however, lessen the possibility that the reason for the three gables below the portrait-like rendering of the east facade of St Peters may lie in the three-fold structure of the built architecture. 18 KRAUTHEIMER et al., Corpusbasilicarum,vol. 3, p. 140-141, 143, 156-157, fig. 105; BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 1, p. 551; vol. l, p. 591-591,598-599; vol. 3, p. 600,753; vol. 4, p. 354; CLAUSSEN,Die Kirchen,p. 108, 315with n. 67, 349-314, 410, 418. " BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 4, p. 368-369, 374-377; CAR· BONARA, Jussi Desiderii, p. 31, 65; KRAUTHEIMER, Rome, p. 180-181; CLAUSSEN,Di, Kirchen,p. 13. 60 COWDREY,The Age,p. 15-16;BLOCH, Monte Cassino,p. 53-54; ANDALORO,"L'abbaye du Mont Cassin~ p. 68; NILGEN, "Texte et image~ p. 158. 61 Text with English translation in: BLOCH, Monte Cassino, p.61. 62 LADNER,Di, Papstbildnisst,p. >19-u8, Taf. XXI-XXII. 6 .\ ANDALORO,"L'abbaye du Mont Cassin", p. 66-68. 6-1 MACCHIARELLA,II cic/o,p. 59-60, 88-89, 119-147 (style), Tav.

Illa. MACCHIARELLA,II cic/o,p. 60-61, 89-90. MACCHIARELLA, II ciclo, p. ll, 19-44, especially p. 36-37, 41-44. 67 Macchiarella finds parallels for the narthex in the cathedrals of Carinola and Sessa Aurunca, which date respectively from the early and later uth century. Furthermore, in the front elevation of the model the painter would have used the proportions 1:>: ✓ 3 of the crux d,cussataand so, like Desiderius with his new abbey church, would have referenced the proportions of the basilicas dedicated to St Peter and St Paul that Constantine built in Rome. (On the cruxdtcussataseealso:URBAN,"Die Klosteranlage",p.13-13). The drawing of the donor's model is far from neat, however, and the colours overlap the contours, making the proportions impossible to determine with any accuracy. 68 There are other examples in addition to those Macchiarella adduces. In the late 11th century S. Pietro ad Montes near Cases ta Vecchia, S. Maria delta Libera in Aquino and possibly S. Liberatore alla Majella near Serramonacesca also each acquired a narthex with three cross vaults supported on arches, followed in the 11th century by the cathedral of S. Agata dei Goti ( CARBONARA, Jussi Desiderii,p. 93-94, 101,161-164, 183 n. 19, pl. X, XVII, tav. 43-44, 46-46, 91, 95). LEHMANN-BROCKHAUS,Abbruzen, p. 115dubs the narthex with three arches 'the Cassinese type'. MACCHIAREL· LA,II ciclo,p. 41-41 stresses the differences between the narthex of S. Maria de! Piano and that of S. Angelo, but wrongly so, as the latter was rebuilt in the second half of the 11th century. 69 SCHWARZ,"Die Baukunst~ p. 19-11, 69, Abb. 8, 50; SALVINI, "Monuments", p. 80-81; EWERT,Spanisch-islamische Systtme,vol. 3.1, p. 146, cat. 161-163, 388, Abb. 46, 55. Cf: ROMANO, Calabre, p. 197-101, pl. 58; CASSATA & COSTANTINO, Sicile romane, 6S 66

p. 45-46, 155-157,pl. 107-108; BELLAFIORE,Architetturain Sicilia,

p. 100,102.. 0

EWERT, Spanisch-islamische Systtmt, vol. 3.1, p. 171, 147, cat. 181. 71 SCHWARZ, "Die Baukunst~ p. 69. On Cefalu see also: CAS· SATA& COSTANTINO, Sicile romane, p. 169-175, 313-319;BoRsooK, Messagesin Mosaic,p. 6-16. 72 BOTTARI, "I rapporti", p. 9-11. 3 ' ROMANO, Calabr,. p. 199. 4 ' Paris, BnF, Lat. 6 II, fol. 109; lll, fol. 1v, 77v, 143v, 144: NEU SS, Dit katalanischeBibelillustration,p. 84-85, 94, 106, fig. 90, 111, 130-131:AVRILet al..Manuscritsenluminis,cat.36; CAHN,Romanesqu, Bibi, Illumination, cat. 148, fig. 44; DE DALMASES & I PIT ARCH, Historiade /'art, fig. on 161. 71 Rome, BAV.Pal. lat. 5719, fol. 95 (Nwss, Diekatalanisch,Bib,lillustration,p. 78, fig. 16; CAHN, RomanesqueBibk Illumination, cat. 150); Girona, Mus. d'.Art, [no signature,] fol. 36v (DE DAL· MASES& I PIT ARCH, Historiad, /'art, p. 167 with fig.). 6 ' DIAZ Y DIAZ, "La circulation~ p. 139-140; MENTRE,La peinture mozarabe,p. 48. BEER, Die Handschri.ften,p. 43-44, 96. 78 BERGMAN,The SalernoIvories,p. 89 (with bibliography). 9 ' Paris, Mus. du Louvre: BERGMAN, The SalernoIvories,p. 141143, fig. 173. The upper register of the ivory depicts the Crucifixion. 80 On these contacts, see: SCHWARZ,Amalfi,p. 47, 49-50, 56-57, 61; ANDALORO,•L'abbaye du Mont Cassin", p. 67. 81 On Oliba Cabreta and his son of the same name, see : BEER, Die Handschri.ften, p. 77-83, 96-97; ENGELS, Schutzgedanlce, p. 90-91, 98, 106, 109, 116-117; ZIMMERMANN,Das dunkkjahrhundert, p. 135; BONASSIE,La Catalogne,p. 330-331;CzucHRA, Abt O/iba,p. 4-9. 82 CzuCHRA,Abt O/iba.p. 19-30. 83 For an overview of Ripoll's architectural history and of the research carried out to date, see: CzucHRA,Abt Oliba,p. 14-30. •• URBAN, "Die Klostcranlagc", p. 11, 11. •s Historical details derived from: MERORES, Gaeta, p. 49-51; MACCHIARELLA, II ciclo,p. 7-17; LOUD, Church and Society, p. 91-91, 99; BLOCH, Monte Cassino,p. 181-183,633; SKINNER, Family Power, p. 171, 186-187. In 1058 Monte Cassino already owned a quarter of the castrum. 86 MACCHIARELLA,II ciclo,p. 61-61, 90-91, tav. 77, 79. Macchiarella does not identify the lay donors. 87 MERO RES,Gatta,p. 51; LOUD, Churchand Society,p. 91; SKINNER, FamilyPower,p. 159. 88 LOUD, Church and Socitty, p. 46; BLOCH, Monte Cassino, p. 119. 89 FELLER, "La fondation", p. 713-716, fig. op 710-711. Cf: CALO RE, "L'abbazia di San Clemente~ p. 11-19;LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 93, 175-177; LEHMANN-BROCKHAUS,Abruzzen, p. 77, 136, 174-175,Taf. 118; BLOCH.MonteCassino,p. 580-583; fAVOLE & DEL V1TTO, Abruzzes, p. 53-54; PoESCHKE, Di, Skulptur, p. 171-171,Taf. 198-199. 90 On the building history, see: CALORE, "L'abbazia di San Clemente", p. 10-36; WAGNER-RIEGER, Die italimische Baukunst, p. 100-m; LEHMANN-BROCKHAUS,Abruzzen,p. 116,119,111-11J, 139-140, 144, 148, 151, Taf. 43-44; FAVOLE & DEL V1TTO, Abmzzes. p. 14-59. '

57

91

LEHMANN-BROCKHAUS, Abruzun, p. 111. n WAGNER-RIEGER,Di, italienischeBaukunst, p. 106 surmises that 'iibcr dem an der Nordseite der Fassade in Resten erhaltenen tonnengewolbten Raum geplant gewesen sein [konnre).' LEH· MANN·BROCKHAUs,Abruzun, p. 113is convinced that there was a tower there. 91 Paris, BnF, Lat. 1411, fol. 119v: LEHMANN-BROCKHAUS, Abruzun, p. 199-100, Taf. 167a.. 9 • WAGNER-RIEGER,Die itauenischeBaukunst, p. 108. 9 ' LEHMANN-BROCKHAUs,Abruzzen, p. 113-u4, 111.Cf: WAG· NER-RIEGER,Die italienischeBaukunst, p. 100, 101.

58

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

96

BLOCH.MonteCassino,p. 577-579. As an incentive or response to this an account of the translation was written, which was later elaborated in the Casauria chronicle. 97 Historical details derived from: FELLER, "La fondation", p. 711-711: BLOCH, Montt Cassino,p. 574-579. •• FELLER,"La fondation~ p. 713-714. CALORE,"L'abbaziadi San Clemente~ p. 13-14 mentions a protective papal privilege that Abbot Dominicus had already acquired around 1050, but it contains no referenceto exemption.

3. The Combination of Spiritual and Secular Donors

The portrayal of a spiritual and a secular donor together, with one of the two offering the architectural model, is a sub-branch in the iconographic tradition of the model-bearer. In disguised form this combination already occurs in the apse mosaic in SS. Cosma e Damiano, where St Theodore, as patron saint of King Theodoric, stands opposite Pope Felix IV, who presents the church model. The development of this theme in the following centuries has left its traces both south and north of the Alps.

3.l The Private Chapel o/Theodotus in S. Maria Antiqua in Rome

In the middle of the eighth century Theodocus, a highranking papal official from a leading Roman family, founded a private chapel in S. Maria Antiqua in Rome. 1 The chapel is on the left of the presbytery, at the southeast corner of this south-orientated church. Theodotus placed his foundation under the protection of Saints Cyricus and Julieta, and had himself portrayed as the chapel's model-bearing donor on the wall behind the altar {Fig. 2.2).The model is a traditional Roman basilica, to which has been added a second entrance along the side and a curved tiled roo£ Both departures from the norm are features of the built architecture. 2 The chapel can indeed be entered from both the end of the east aisle and the presbytery and is covered by a barrel vault. Which prompts the question of whether this likeness perhaps reflects the self-assurance ofTheodocus, who - as the first to do so?- appropriated the papal iconographic motif under the pope's very nose.

THE

Theodocus, unlike the prelates of the Church, stands on the far right of the group. Pope Zacharias (741-752.) retains the ecclesiarch's usual position on the far left. In the centre are the enthroned Virgin and Child between Peter and Paul, flartked in cum by the two patron saints. The composition as a whole is probably a direct copy of the apse mosaic in SS. Cosma e Damiano commissioned by Felix IV {52.6-530). There are several reasons for supposing this to be the case. In the first place S. Maria Antiqua stands just across the Forum Romanum from the earlier church on the Via Sacra. Secondly, both churches were originally antique secular buildings. Thirdly, like the holy physicians Cosmas and Damian, Cyricus and Julieta are of eastern origin. And fourthly, as a founder oflofty official status Theodotus could put himself in the place of Theodore, who represented the secular benefactor of SS. Cosma e Damiano. Neither Theodotus nor Theodore ousted the pope from the place of honour on Christ's right, however. Although the depiction of Zacharias confirms his involvement in the foundation, the architectural model identifies Theodotus as the actual donor. Moreover, Theodocus, his wife and their two children were a11interred in the chapel. This dual role of private chapel and tomb may have been inspired by the Marian oratory in St Peter's, in which John Vil ( 705-707) was portrayed as model-bearer and subsequently buried. The oratory's exemplary function is also illustrated by the fact that its image of the Crucifixion was taken over and used in Theodotus's chapel above the register in which the donors appear. 3 The dedicatory inscription on the rear wall refers to Theodotus as primicerius of the defensoresand

COMBINATION

OF

SPIRITl/.AL

ANQ

~ECULAR

ur1q1narrrorn

DONORS

59

Fig. ll. Wall painting behind the altar in the chapel of SS Cyricus and Julieta in S. Maria Antiqua in Rome, mid-eighth century (line drawing from: BELTING, "Eine PrivatkapelJc", Abb. l).

dispensator of the diaconia of S. Maria Antiqua. 4 ln the first of these roles Theodotus was a high-ranking civil servant of the papal administration. As dispensator manager or steward - he administered the diaconia of S. Maria Antigua, which he may have founded or backed financially, overseeing the distribution of food and other necessities to the poor and to pilgrims. Before he took up his ecclesiastical offices, however, Theodotus already had a lay career behind him: between 718 and 739 he ruled as consul and duxof the Byzantine duchy of Rome. In 753/ 55 he became primicerius of the papal notaries and thus the Holy See's most important advisor. The primicerius also undertook important diplomatic duties, supervised the archive, led, jointly with the librarian, the papal cartulary organization, and with the archpresbyter and archdeacon administered the business of the Holy See during rhe sede vacante. 5 The dedicatory inscription makes no reference to this extremely powerful position. Nevertheless, the adoption of the papal donor motif underlines the fact that Theodorus already belonged to the highest Roman circles well before 753/55.

This does not, however, explain why John Vll's chapel should have been the model for Theodotus's. Perhaps the choice was based on a shared connection with S. Maria Antigua. This originally antique building was at the foot of a ramp leading up to rhe palace on the Palatine chat in the sixth century had become the residence of the dux Romae - the Byzantine governor

60

COMPRESSED

of Rome. 6 It had apparently become a guardroom, its decoration citing that of the Chalke, the guardroom of the imperial palace in Constantinople. In the reign of Justin II (565-578) it was converted into a church, thus becoming the second public building in Rome to undergo such a transformation: SS. Cosma e Damiano had been the first. John VII had a particular association with it, since as the son of the curator palatii - governor of the imperial palaces - he had grown up in the palace on the Palatine. He had the walls of S. Maria Antigua embellished with new paintings, including the Virgin as ~een of Heaven in the apse and a portrait of himself on the left of the apse arch.7 Theodotus also had a link with the place, as he too had lived on the Palatine as consul and dux of Rome. When he took charge of the diaconia of S. Maria Antiqua his connection with the church would certainly have increased. This parallel may have determined his decision to found a private chapel which in time would also become his final resting place, like John VII's Marian oratory. That the Byzantine influence which pervaded Rome under John Vll was still strong in the mid-eighth century may also have been a contributing factor. 8 It was, after all, the prevailing custom in the Ease to depict worldly rulers as model-bearers. Even so, it is nor as consul and dux of Rome that Theodotus presents his chapel, which would be entirely in rhe Byzantine tradition, but as papal functionary. A comparable deflection of eastern influence has occurred with the figure of the Virgin to whom

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

Fig. l3, Count Hunfried of Rhaetia and Bishop Remedius of Chur, paintings on the walls between the central and side apses at the east end of the church of St Benedikt in Mais, early ninth century (from: NOTHDURFTER, St. Benedikt, fig. on p. ll-l3).

Theodotus offers his foundation. Enrobed as a Byzantine empress she replaces the imperial Christ figure.9 This was too great an embodiment of Byzantine authority to reconcile with the Roman desire for greater autonomy that had become manifest under John VII. In this way Mary could develop into Rome's new city goddess. ~ice apart from the patronage of S. Maria Antiqua, this is likely the very reason why Theodotus opted not to take over the figure of Christ from SS. Cosma e Damiano in his chapel. In itself his choice of exemplar already underscores the papal court's pursuit of independence. Indeed, SS. Cosma e Damiano epitomized the triumph of the Church in the imperial heart of the Eternal City. The second church to arise ( 538-545) in the antique centre was dedicated to Saints Cyricus and Julitta. 10 This probably inspired Theodotus's choice of patronage for his private chapel.

3.2 S. Susanna in Rome and St Benedikt in Mais As far as is known, the church of St Benedikt in Mais im Vinschgau (Mailes Venosta) has the only Carolingian representation of a donor with an architectural

THE

Digitized by

Google

Fig. l4. Tinted drawing of Pope Leo III and Charlemagne from the lost apse mosaic of S. Susanna in Rome, c.799-800; Rome, BAY, Vat. !at. 10545, fol. l3S (from: NILGEN, "Die romischen Apsisprogramme", Abb. l).

model outside Rome. 11 The little church, which dates from the middle of the eighth century, has three apses at the east end. 12 Around 800, painters depicted Christ between two angels in the central apse, Pope Gregory the Great in the left apse, and St Stephen in the right apse. On the walls between the apses are two donor figures. On the left of the central apse is a nobleman in Frankish court costume, on the right a tonsured cleric holding a church (Fig. 2.3).This has two roundheaded windows in its side wall, and in its end wall a single round-headed window, with a square window in the gable above it. The simplicity of the model follows the Roman tradition and also corresponds to the main lines of the real church. But given the articulation of the facade this likeness may be purely accidental. The roundheaded window in the end wall tallies neither with the original blank west facade, which acquired a doorway in the twelfth century, nor with the east facade, which has three windows. 13 The two windows in the side wall are equally fictive: the south wall has a doorway, the windowless north wall has scenes from the lives of St Benedict, Gregory the Great and St Paul depicted on the inside. 14

COMBINATION

OF SPIRITUAL

AND

SECULAR

DONORS

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

61

Lipsmeyer notes the relationship between the donor portrayals in Mais and the apse mosaic of S. Susanna in Rome. 15 That mosaic was lost when the church was rebuilt in 1595but is known from a description and from copies of the outermost figures (Fig. 2.4). The mosaic depicted Christ and the Virgin berween Peter and Paul, as well as the church's patron saint with her saintly family, flanked by the model-bearing Pope Leo III and Charlemagne. According to Lipsmeyer this representation of the equality of Church and State would have greatly appealed to the Carolingian rulers and would have been a determining factor in the northwards diffusion of the iconographic tradition. But why the donor motif should be encountered in Mais, the author does not conjecture. Moreover, there are formal differences berween the apse mosaic and the wall painting. For instance, Charlemagne is portrayed on the right, the Frankish nobleman on the left. The former wears his sword at his side and gestures towards the centre of the image, the latter uses both hands to hold his sword point down in front of him and is depicted frontally. In contrast to the forward-facing Pope Leo III, the cleric in Mais turns in three-quarter proflle to offer his foundation to Christ. The architectural models differ too. The most painstaking copies of the figure of Leo lil show him holding a basilica with a pitched roof. a rectangular doorway in the front facade, and in the side two rectangular windows above and one below.16 There are no Roman equivalents for this arrangement of the side wall, which raises doubts about the copyists' accuracy. Closer examination of the relationship berween the rwo pairs of donors raises three points that merit particular attention. Firstly, why do Leo III and Charlemagne appear together in S. Susanna? Secondly, were circumstances in Mais comparable to those that prevailed when the apse mosaic in Rome was created? And thirdly, can the imitation be explained by the identity of the donor figures? On becoming pope, Leo lil (795-816) had S. Susanna, his former titulus church, completely remodelled. 17 In 799 certain Roman aristocrats hostile to papal policy had him seized and shut up in a monastery. Leo made his escape, however, and with Charlemagne's aid regained the papal throne that same year. In return he crowned Charlemagne emperor. The double donor portrayal is therefore seen as documenting Charlemagne's joint responsibility for the welfare of the Church.

62

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Luchterhandt maintains that the apse mosaic reflects not so much the Frankish protection of the Church or the papal-Frankish pact of friendship but rather the liturgy. 18 Around 796-800 Leo III had included in the liturgy a ceremonial form of the Laudes regiae,a set of acclamations and responses sung in honour of, and in the presence of. the pope, Charlemagne and his Frankish retinue. A hierarchically ordered litany of saints was invoked for each of them. The papal litany opened with Christ, Peter and Paul, the imperial litany with the Virgin Mary. As it is precisely these four who occupy the centre of the mosaic, Luchterhandt concludes that the addition of the Virgin and Charlemagne to the traditional Roman apse formula harks back to Leo's liturgical innovation. This opinion, however, does not disallow the possibility that the inclusion of the Laudes regiae was closely related to the accord between Leo Ill and Charlemagne. The established interpretation of the apse mosaic is therefore still a valid one. Leo Ill and Charlemagne both appear as donors in the same way as Felix IV and Theodore, and thus bear jointly the care of the Church. In S. Susanna the papal donor stands in his customary place on the far left, just as he does on the related apse mosaic - now known only from a sketch - of Leo's Sala de! Consilio in the Lateran Palace. 19 The paintings in Mais diverge from the Roman tradition for here the Frankish ruler occupies the place of honour on Christ's right hand. Nevertheless, the attitudes of the rwo donor figures have not appreciably changed. Leo's virtually frontal posture recurs in the Frankish ruler and as Charlemagne turns towards the centre in Rome so too does the cleric in Mais. This permutation suggests that the nobleman took the lead in commissioning the painting. But what would have caused a nobleman in Mais to make this allusion to Rome? At that time Vinschgau (Venosta) was part of Chur-Rhaetia. 20 It was ruled by the bishop of Chur, who, as praeses,wielded both temporal and spiritual power there. From 772./74 Charlemagne progressively separated the two functions. First he took Bishop Constantius and the people of Rhaetia under his royal protection - thenceforth the prelate could hold his temporal office only with the king's approval. After Constantius's death Charlemagne appointed Remedius (before 796-c.82.0 ), one of his courtiers(?), as the bishop's successor. Around 806 he flnalized the separation of ecclesiastical and

secular authority. He made a certain Hunfried (d. after 82.4/2.5), another member of the court aristocracy, count of Rhaetia. Hunfried was a benefactor of Reichenau Abbey and in 808, together with Count Helmgaud, had travelled to the south as the emperor's representative to settle a quarrel between Pope Leo III and King Pepin ofltaly ( 781-810). One of his rewards was the government of Miistair and Vinschgau as Carolingian royal possessions. Remedius seems to have accepted this new situation without demur, possibly because Hunfried's lands were only on the very edges of his bishopric. The count dealt out justice in Rankweil (Vorarlberg), in the extreme north-east, for instance. Moreover, he succeeded Duke John in lstria, which no doubt diminished his interest in expanding his Rhaetian territory. Wirth makes a convincing case for identifying the Frankish nobleman as Hunfried of Rhaetia. 21 The sword characterizes the count as a high law lord, which is consistent with his actions in Rankweil as attested by written sources. It could be that while in Rome in 808 Hunfried actually saw a Carolingian mosaic such as the one in S. Susanna. The reproduction back in Vinschgau of a symbol of papal-imperial alliance very likely reflects his friendly relations with the bishop of Chur. That Hunfried sought the exemplar for the donor portrayals in the highest circles is certainly in accord with the importance of Mais. Lying at the junction of the routes over the Ofen Pass and the Reschen Pass it formed a strategic crossroads in the new county. Loose has posited a Carolingian court there, while according to Rasmo the church of St Benedikt served as a palatine chapel. 22 Stylistically the donor figures bear some relationship to the miniatures in the Godescalc Evangelary produced in the Carolingian court school (781-783) and the Eginus Codex created near Verona (c.796-799 ), where Pepin of Italy resided. 23 This style was influenced by Rome and has particular parallels in the decoration of S. Maria Antiqua dating from around 757-767.24 Since the other paintings on the east wall of St Benedikt follow the local Lombard stylistic tradition, the iconography of the two donors appears to have gained an extra 'Roman' accent through the choice of the workshop. It would seem that in Mais Hunfried purposely sought allusion to Rome in order to propagate his new rank and his amicable understanding with the emperor, the pope and the bishop ofChur.

THE

Because a Carolingian Urbar,or register of properties and revenue, lists the church of St Benedikt among the possessions of Bishop Remedius, it would seem to be he who, with the church model, is depicted opposite Hunfried. 25 Wirth suggests that Remedius had the church (re)built and looked for a Lombard workshop to paint the east wall before Hunfried commissioned the donor figures from Roman-orientated painters. 26 The first sounds rather implausible, as the church building dates from the middle of the eighth century. Stylistically, the paintings certainly match the time of Remedius's episcopate. 27 Wirth, however, does not adequately explain what influence the spiritual lord of Mais may have exerted on the iconographic programme. 28 In Mais, in the apse to the right of the model-bearer, St Stephen is depicted. His cult was particularly popular in Chur. 29 Milan, the capital of the ecclesiastical province to which Chur belonged in the early Middle Ages, acquired relics of the first martyr in 431. These were probably translated to the episcopal tomb in Chur not too long afterwards. In the years that followed a church dedicated to St Stephen was built over the tomb and took on the role of mausoleum. Although in the eighth century the local family who held the office of bishop, the Victorides, appointed the new church of St Lucius to be their mausoleum, St Stephen's was still important. Nor was the older episcopal tomb allowed to fall into disrepair: new paintings and alterations to it probably date from the ninth century. It is worth considering whether these renovations coincide with Remedius's term of office. Since Charlemagne's episcopal appointee had no family connection with St Lucius he may have turned to Stephen as Chur's traditional patron saint. The painting in Mais is not the only evidence for this. It was executed by the same Lombard workshop that just a short while previously had been active in the neighbouring monastery church of Mlistair - which Remedius had founded, according to Sennhauser-Girard 30 - where a figure of St Stephen had also been painted in the south apse. The Roman apostles Peter and Paul are depicted in the north apse opposite. 31 The choice for Stephen's pendant in Mais probably proceeded from the interest felt at that time in the writings of Gregory the Great (590-604). In his letters the renowned scholar Alcuin of York (d. 804) urged priests and bishops to read and meditate unceasingly on the pastoral rule of this pope. Gregory's works

COMBINATION

OF SPIRITUAL

AND

SECULAR

DONORS

63

Fig. 25. Abbot Gottfried of Admont with a church model on the left of the triumphal arch of St John's Chapel in Piirgg,shortly before 1163 (from: LANC, Diemiuelalrerlichen Wandmalereien, Abb. 472).

provided the only practical guide to preaching in diverse difficult circumstances. The Frankish legislation of 805 and the decrees of the 813 synod even raised Gregory's rule to the status of required reading for secular clergy.32 Bishop Remedius of Chur belonged to Alcuin's circle of friends. 33 When on his deathbed the scholar besought the bishop to have every member of every religious house in the diocese ofChur pray for his soul. In the light of this friendship and the 805 legislation Gregory seems to have been given a place in the iconographic programme in Mais.

64

COMPRESSED

Would Remedius also have influenced the choice of a Carolingian donor mosaic in Rome as the exemplar for the donor portrayals in Mais? The Li.faof St Lucius, written around 800 offers a clue.34Its author tells how in Rome Paul instructed Timothy to spread the Gospel. Timothy travelled via Bordeaux to England, where he converted King Lucius, who in turn undertook missionary work from Augsburg and as an apostle of Chur-Rhaetia found his final resting place in Chur. Four points in Muller's study of the Li.faofSt Lucius seem of importance for the interpretation of the paintings in Mals.35 Firstly, it emphasizes that Rhaetia's Christianization stemmed from Rome in order to demonstrate the apostolicity of Chur Christianity and its Church. Secondly, and very exceptionally, Paul, not Peter, appears as initiator. Thirdly, the detour through distant England underscores Chur's independence from the archbishop of Milan. Fourthly, in the church of St Lucius in Chur Old St Peter's ringcrypt is cited. Thus the paintings in Mais and the Li.faofSt Lucius, both of which were created under Remedius's rule, forged a link between Chur-Rhaetia and Rome. In the same way, scenes from the life of St Paul were depicted on the north wall of St Benedikt's, tracing back the tradition of the origin of the Chur church co that apostle.36Just as the ring-crypt in St Lucius's makes a link with St Peter's, so the two donors in Mais hark back co the iconographic scheme known from S. Susanna. The donor figures symbolize the bond between bishop and count, mirroring the alliance between pope and emperor. In each case the allusion to Rome also underlined Chur's independence from Milan. At the very least, therefore, Remedius would have supported the use of the Roman iconographic motif. The actual initiative for doing so seems rather co have been Hunfried's, whose portrait takes the place of honour usually reserved for the pope and so immortalizes the pre-eminent position of the new count.

3.3 Pi,rgg St John's Chapel in Pi.irgg(Stiermarken/Styria), whose wall paintings probably date from shortly before 1163, contains a parallel for the two donors in Rhaetia. 37On the triumphal arch Cain and Abel present their offerings co a central figure of Christ. They prefigure the images of the donors: on the left, below Cain, a cleric

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

presents a church model (Fig. 25); on the right, below Abel, a worldly ruler joins his hands in adoration of Christ. Weiss has convincingly identified them as Abbot Gottfried of the Benedictine Admont Abbey (1138-1165)and Margrave Ottokar III of Traungau 38 (1129-1163). Perhaps their joint portrayal is connected with a donation of land near Piirgg to Admont by Ottokar in 1160.The margrave also owned the castle of Gruscharn in Piirgg, which lay opposite St John's Chapel, though nothing remains of it nowadays. As the most powerful individual in Traungau he participated in imperial policy, liberated Patriarch Pilgrim I of Aquileia (1130-1161)when in 1150that prelate was imprisoned by Count Engelbert II of Gorz, who - as advocatus (Vogt) of the patriarchate of Aquileia rather owed a duty to protect the patriarch against enemies, and his travels included a journey to Rome in 1155to attend the imperial coronation of his cousin and brother-in-law Frederick I (1152-u90). Ottokar expanded his power base so adroitly that by u58 all Styria was in his hands. 39 He was also an active supporter of the papal party in the archdiocese of Salzburg, which was coming under great pressure from Frederick. 40 Like Abbot Gottfried he was on good terms with the Salzburg archbishops Conrad I (1106-1147)and Eberhard I (u47-u64). The latter was the most important supporter of Pope Alexander III (1159-u81) north of the Alps during the schism with the imperial antipope Victor IV (u59-u64). For the good of his soul and in support of contemporary church reforms Ottokar founded the Chapel of St John in Piirgg, in addition to a hospital on the Semmering Pass (1160), an Augustinian monastery in Vorau and a charterhouse in Seitz (u64). 41 Perhaps this historical background sheds some light on the meaning of the donor portrayals in Piirgg. Here, in contrast to Mais, the cleric with the church model is in his traditional place on Christ's right. And, again unlike Mais, the lay donor is depicted not frontally but in profile, with raised hands, analogous to the imperial figure on the apse mosaic ofS. Susanna. The iconographic formula does not seem to have been borrowed from Vinschgau, therefore. Whether the Piirgg triumphal arch owes its organization to Rome, to an exemplar that Ottokar III had seen there in 1155,or to Aquileia, where he would have seen the apse paintings in the cathedral in u50 (cf §3.4), or to some other place, will have to remain a matter for speculation. Perhaps Abbot Gottfried influenced the arrangement

THE

of the iconographic programme. Admont had close links with Michelsberg, where Gottfried's brother Irimbert was at that time abbot (u60-1172.)42 and whose scriptorium regularly used the model-bearer motif for spiritual and temporal donors around the third quarter of the twelfth century. Of the three surviving examples, one is known to have arrived in Austria before u67 (Fig. 88, cf§9.1). The model in Piirgg is barely more complex that the one in Mais. It represents a single-aisled edifice with one row of windows and a pitched roof, which corresponds to the actual building, but the chapel never had a tower. Here the painter is following a prevailing formula that originated in Salzburg. The same kind of little buildings fill the spandrels of the arch under which Jacob receivesJoseph in the land of Goshen (Gen 46:2.8) in a miniature in the giant Admont Bible ofaround u45-u50 from St Peter's monastery in Salzburg, for instance.43 The relationship is evident in details like the lozenge-shaped tower top and is consistent with the stylistic parallels Weiss has established between the figures in the manuscript and those in Piirgg.44 Like the church of St Benedikt, St John's Chapel in Piirgg is sited at an important crossroads of spiritual and temporal influence. In Mais there was probably a royal court on Carolingian territory, but the church was founded by the bishop of Chur. On one hand Piirgg was rhe sovereign seat in the Enntal, where the margraves ofTraungau had built their castle at Gruscharn. The chapel of St John next to it would originally have served as the castle chapel.45 On the other hand Ottokar gave land to Admont Abbey and the priest of the Piirgg parish church was archdeacon in the late twelfth century.46 The similarity between Piirgg and Mais is further expressed in the local relationship between the spiritual and secular powers. In the early ninth century Bishop Remedius and Count Hunfried compared the partition of their power with the alliance between Pope Leo III and Charlemagne. The same balance appears in a sermon preached on the feast day of the CathedrasanctiPetri by Abbot Gottfried of Admont, or possibly by his brother Irimbert, on the topic of the so-called Donation of Constantine.47 According to this later-eighth-century fabrication, Constantine conferred on the pope imperial authority over Rome. The homily did not regard the document as the basis for the superiority of the Church, but interpreted the

COMBINATION

OF SPIRITUAL

AND

SECULAR

DONORS

65

Fig. 2.6. Saints and donors in the apse painting in the patriarchal basilica of Aquileia, und Herrschaftsverstandnisn, Abb. 1).

emperor's marshal service - his holding of the stirrup of the pontiff's horse - as proof of his veneration of the pope. This would certainly have struck a chord with the secular founder of Piirgg. Ottokar's desire for church reform, which was entirely lacking in the antipapal policy of Frederick I. would have suited Gottfried very well. At the same time it was evident chat Occokar was eager co be part of a tradition that began with Charlemagne. The margrave was very well aware of his newly acquired power and position, as appears from the language he used and the titles he bore. 48 He adorned himself with the epithet Deigratia and from 1158the emperor addressed him as princeps.In addition to supporting the church, therefore, Occokar seems to have expressed his new status as sovereign in the donor figure on the triumphal arch in Piirgg.

3.4 Aquileia In contrast to Mais and Piirgg, in the patriarchal basilica of Aquileia the temporal and spiritual donors are 9 Here the Virgin painted on the apse conch (Fig. 26).-1 with the Child in her lap is enthroned in a paradisal landscape. On either side local saints not only commend Patriarch Poppo of Aquileia (1019-1042), who, following tradition, offers his church from the left, but also

66

COM

PRESSED

c.1031

(line drawing from: SCHMID, "Zurn Haus-

accompany the imperial family: in front of the modelbearer, is a figure who probably represents Henry II (1001-1024); on the right are Conrad II (1024-1039), his wife Gisela and their young son Henry III. The architectural model represents a pitched-roof basilica with two windows. 50 His hand supporting the short side, the model-bearer holds the little church with the entrance towards him, thus following the Byzantine tradition. Poppo also had an image of the cathedral struck on his coins. These date from 1018 at the earliest, when Conrad II conferred on the patriarch the prerogative of coinage. 51 The image shows a facade with a portal on the far right and above it a gable with a knob. The coins may have been struck to mark the consecration of the cathedral in 1031 (cf §8.3), just as the west view depicted on the first architectural coins from Speyer commemorates the laying of the foundation scone of the Salian cathedral in 1030. Poppo made very explicit reference co the Roman iconographic formula as known from S. Susanna: he adopted not only the combination of donors but also the place where they were depicted in the apse conch and the rank of the worldly donor. His choice undoubtedly proceeded from his good relationship with the emperor, reminiscent of the collaboration between Leo III and Charlemagne around Soo. The patriarch owed his appointment to the throne of Aquileia to the

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

Ottonian emperor Henry II. 52 He also maintained close contacts with Henry's Salian successors. His patriarchate was coloured by repeated efforts to have the church of Grado made subject to Aquileia. Poppo made very deliberate allusion to Charlemagne, who had raised Aquileia to a patriarchy. The mission to Aquileia of Peter's foremost disciple Mark - recorded in writing at the time of Charlemagne at the request of the emperor and others - validated this status. At the Synod ofMantua in 82.7 the legend of St Mark was used to underpin the formal recognition of Aquileia's jurisdiction over Venice and !stria. As an ally of Grado, Venice reacted the following year by stealing Mark's 'true' relics from Alexandria and bringing them to the Republic. This counterstroke undermined Aquileia's apostolic origin; thenceforth Venice had to be acknowledged as an equal. In 102.4, however, this equilibrium was brought to an end when Poppo entered and sacked Grado. When PopeJohnXIX (102.4-1032.) learned of this he called a synod. The patriarch was forced to withdraw, and the legitimacy of Grado's archiepiscopal throne was established. But the tide turned yet again. Poppo had the support of Conrad II, who lavishly endowed the church of Aquileia: the pope was obliged to bow to imperial will and rescind his earlier decision. A new synod in 102.7 returned Grado to Poppo's jurisdiction on the basis of the Mantua synod's decrees, and at the same time granted Aquileia the titles of'metropolis of all the churches of Italy' and 'second after the Roman See'. Shortly thereafter, John XIX allowed the patriarch the place of honour at his right hand side. In 1031 he sent rwo cardinal bishops northwards to attend the consecration of Poppo's new cathedral. 53 Aquileiis endeavours to be acknowledged the equal of Rome was not limited to an expansion of power, titles and places of honour. Buchwald has discussed their architectural repercussions. 54 The strongly projecting transepts with arcades in line with the outside walls of the aisles and the Corinthian capitals of the nave arcades reference Old St Peter's. They underline the fact that the church of Aquileia drew its apostolic authority from St Mark, whose mentor, Peter, had brought Christianity to Rome. The apse decoration strengthens this link with the Eternal City. Here, Peter and Paul have made way for Mark and his successor Bishop Hermagoras, Charlemagne for the Salians and the pope for Poppo with the donor's model, whose simplicity is also in the Roman tradition.

THE

3.5 Moosburg Finally, a spiritual and a temporal donor flank the saints carved on the tympanum above the west door of the minster of St Castulus in Moosburg (Upper Bavaria, Fig. 2.7). There is a report about the rebuilding of this church that dates from 1171.This, together with stylistic evidence, causes Budde to date the tympanum to the late rwelfth century. 55 The building may have been damaged in 12.07 when the comital castle to the south of the church burned to the ground. The church's reconsecration in 12.12.also provides a possible basis for the dating of the west door and the tower beside it. 56 In the centre of the tympanum the blessing Christ is enthroned berween the church's patron saints, the Virgin Mary and St Castulus with the martyr's palm. On the far left kneels HAINRICUS IMPERATOR, holding a liturgical candle. The halo reveals the emperor to be St Henry II. Sauerlander interprets him here as the 'restorer of the light: under whose rule the chancellor and bishop of Freising, Egilbert of Moosburg (1006-1039 ), transformed the original Benedictine monastery into a collegiate church after a period of decline. 57 This is the stuff oflegend, however: when Arnulf of Carinthia (887-899) gave St Castulus to bishop Waldo ofFreising (884-906) in 895 canons had already replaced the monks. 58 As far as is known, the tympanum contains the earliest attribution of the refounding of the church to Henry II. 59 On the farright kneels ADELBERTUS EP(IS )c(OPUS). As the bishop bears the church model he probably represents Adelbert II of Freising (1158-1184), who rebuilt the minster as a three-aisled basilica. The donor's model consists of a single-aisled church with rwo windows beneath a pitched roof, a straight end wall in the east and a west tower, which the donor holds turned away from him. Thus the beholder is presented with the south facade, which faces the adjacent marketplace and is still St Castulus's most representative side. The conventual buildings abutted the north aisle. Because the open space to the south was created only in 12.07,by the fire that destroyed the castle,60the aspect represented would seem to support the late date of the tympanum. The model church's tower has three windows one above the other (though the lowest could be seen as belonging to the nave) and a slight wesrwards bulge at the bottom. Perhaps this is meant to indicate the west door - which in reality is to the north of the west tower. The single tower illustrates

COMBINATION

OF SPIRITUAL

AND

SECULAR

DONORS

67

Fig. 2.7. Christ enthroned between Emperor Henry II, the Virgin Mary, St Castulus and Adelbert II ofFreising, tympanum above the west door of the church of St Castulus in Moosburg, early thirteenth century (photograph: author).

an important characteristic of the minster, being one of the features derived from Freising Cathedral, which was also rebuilt by Bishop Adelbert II after a fire in 1159.61 By including this stone citation in Adelbert's architectural model the sculptor underscores the connection between Moosburg and Freising. The reasons underlying the use of the donor motif are obscure. Moosburg was the dynastic stronghold of the lords who held the advocacy of St Castulus in fief from the diocese of Freising. 62 In 1179 Conrad of Moosburg ( 1162.-12.18)inherited, in his wife Benedicta's name, property from the estate of the count of Roning, and thenceforth bore the tide of count. Emulating kings and dukes the counts of Moosburg appointed court functionaries, indicating, perhaps, their sense of dynastic grandeur. Wedged between the great blocs of Wittelsbach and Ortenburg power, however, they were not destined to play a significant role. In 12.81the house died out. The tympanum, like the court functionaries, seems to be a means of giving Moosburg greater standing through the referencing of an august iconographic formula chat had represented no lesser personages than the Emperor Charlemagne and Pope Leo Ill. Just as on the Roman apse decorations, the foundation's patron saints accompany the two donors. The circumstances in which this choice of iconographic scheme

68

COM

PRESSED

came about were similar to those in Mais and Piirgg. Next to Sc Casculus stood the comical castle, just as Gruscharn castle was adjacent to the chapel of ScJohn in Piirgg and as the palatine palace perhaps stood beside Sr Benedikc in Mais. During the schism of 1159 the donors of Piirgg supported Alexander III. In this minority view they were at one with Bishop Adelbert II of Freising, who bears the model in Moosburg. 63 In one notable respect the Upper-Bavarian relief differs from its predecessors: the secular donor is a figure from the fairly distant past. As a saint, Henry II naturally occupies the place of honour on Christ's right. His legendary involvement in the monastery's history certainly merited him a place on the tympanum. Bur why did Conrad, as advocate of Sc Castulus, not continue the series of contemporary benefactors from Charlemagne to Octokar III of Traungau? Perhaps there is a causal connection with the way in which the lord of Moosburg had acquired the Roning possessions and the tide of count in 1179. Trotter points to the increasing tensions in Bavaria, which on 13January 1180 culminated in the downfall and outlawing of Duke Henry the Lion (1156-1180). 64Conrad ofMoosburg may well have received the imperial fief of Roning as an upshot of the attendant upheavals rather than from che beleaguered duke. Even so, Henry's successor, Louis I ofWittelsbach (1183-12.31)still forced Conrad

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

to acknowledge

that he owed

came to an agreement, part of his territory.

whereby Against

him vassalage. the new count this background

II - previously of Emperor Henry 65 Bavaria - to founder of the St Castulus

vation

The two

seems

a means

gave up

between

the ele-

thus taking

duke

of

of underlining

the lords

the direct

of Moosburg

some of the wind

connection

and the empire

and

out of the Wittelsbach

sails.

minster

NOTES

1 McN. RusHFORTH. "The Church ofS. Maria~ p. 38-54. especially 41-45; DE GRONEISEN, Sainte Marie Antique, p. 118-133, especially p. 119-111;KocKs,Die Stifterdarste/iung,p. 55-56; LIPS· MEYER,The Donor,p. 44-45; BELTING,"Eine Privatkapdle", espe· cially p. 11·17, 67, 69, fig. 1-1: GANDOLFO, "Portriits", p. 146. 1 On the building's architectural history, see: KRAUTHEIMERet al., Corpusbasi/icarum,vol. 1, p. 110, 111, 161-161; BAUER,Stadt, p. 66-68. LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. 134-135 notes the realistic depiction of the two entrances but not of the barrel vault. 3 McN. McN. RUSHFORTH, "The Church ofS. Maria", p. 41. 4 McN. McN. RusHFORTH, "The Church ofS. Maria", p. 43-44; DE GRONEISEN, Sainte Marie Antique, p. 118, 110: BucHO· WIECK!, Handbuch, vol. 1, p. 438-439; BAVANT, "Le duche byzantin", p. 76-77; KRAUTHEIMER, Rome, p. 104; BELTING, "Eine Privatkapelle", p. II, 69. s On the office of primicerius,sec: RABIKAUSKAS,"Primicerius~ c. m (with bibliography). 6 On the building's changing function, see: KRAUTHEIMERet al., Corpusbasilicarum,vol. 1, p. 149-150, 163-168; BucHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 1, p. 434-438; KRAUTHEIMER,Rome, p. 71 • Cf: KRAUTHEIMER, Rome, p. 100: GANDOLFO, "Portriits", p. 140. Pope Paul I (717-767) replaced the apse decoration. • KRAUTHEIMER, Rome, p. 103. Despite the iconoclasm Zacharias was on such good terms with the then emperor Constantine V ( 741-776), that he received from him two estates to the north of Rome as gifts (RICHARDS, The Popes,p. 117-118). • BELTING, "Eine Privatkapdle", p. 57. On the historical context. see also: KRAUTHEIMER,Rome, p. 106-107. 10 KRAUTHEIMER.Rome. p. 75. 97. 11 GRABAR, "Die karolingische St. Benediktkirche", p. 4-31; GRABAR, Die romanischen Wandgemii/de, p. 46-47, 10-13; ScHRADE, Vor-und fruhromanische Ma/erei, p. 15-17; RASMO, "Gli affreschi carolingi", especially p. 193, 195-199;RASMO, Ajfreschimedioeva/i,p. 14-18; GATTEI et al., Trentino,p. 106-111,fig. 91; EMMENEGGER& STAMPFER,"Die Wandmalereien", p. 147-168; ROBER, St. Benedikt, p. 117-119, 130-161; SPADA PINTARELLI, Fresken,p. 8-9, 41-49; GALTIERMARTI, La iconografia,p. 311-316, fig. 184; NoTHDURFTER, St. Benedikt,p. 14-16. 11 On the church's architectural history, see: ROBER.St. Bentdikt, p. 15-111. 13 LIPSMEYER,The Donor,p. 139-141 assumes there was an original entrance in the north wall and on this basis supposes the church is seen as if from the south-west. However, the door in the north

wall was part of the twelfth-century restoration of the church: ROBER,St. Benedikt,p. 66, 69, 75-76. 14 On these paintings, see: ROBER,St. Benedikt,p. 163-315. 15 LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 46-10. See also: ROBER, St. Benedikt, p. 111· 16 According to Davis-Weyer Leo III and Charlemagne are the most carefully rendered figures in Jacques Spon's engravings, published in 1681, which were based on several drawings by Bagarris and one by Claude Menescrier (DAVIS-WEYER, "Das Apsismosaik", p. 180-189, Abb. 8-9, 11).The engravings appeared in Misc,/laneaeruditaeantiquitates,Menestrier's drawing is in: Rome, BAV. Vat. !at. 10141, fol. 135. Davis-Weyer does not include Leo's architectural model in her study. 17 KRAUTHEIMER et al., Corpusbasi/icarum,vol. 4, p. 114-178; BUCHOWIECKI, Handbuch, vol. 3, p. 995-999; KRAUTHEIMER, Rome, p. 101: BAUER, "Die Bau- und Stiftungspolitik~ p. 111-113. The apse mosaic was probably created in 799 or 800. STIEGEMANN & WEMHOFF, 799:Kunst, cat. [X.13. DAVIS-WEYER,"Das Apsismosaik~ p. 189-190 dares it to after 803. From chat year Charlemagne appears on his imperial bull in a type of helmet chat he also wears in the mosaic. There arc,however. too fewsurvivingportraits of this type to make 803 an irrefutable terminuspost quen1. 18 LucHTERHANDT, "Farnulus Petri", p. 11-58. 19 Cf: BELTING, "Die beiden Palastaulen~ p. 73, fig. 1, Abb. 8. 10 Historical derails derived from: MEYER-MARTHALER,Riitien, p. 16-68, 75-77; CLAVADETSCHER,"Die Einfuhrung", especially p. 78-90; HLAWITSCHKA, Franken, p. 106-107; BRUCKNER, SchweiurischtKardinii/e,p. 450,470; BILGER!, GtschichteVorar/berg.,,p. 63-66; MOLLER,GeschichttdesKlostm, p. 11; BoRGOLTE, Geschichu der Grafichaften, p. 119-112: ROBER, St. Ben,dikt, p. 17-13; WOLFRAM, Osterreichische Geschichtt,p. 143-144 21 WIRTH, "Die Bildnisse~ p. 76-81. 21 LoosE, "HistorischeTopographie~p. 37 (cf: ROBER.St. Benedikt, p. 16-17 ); RASMO, "Gli affreschi carolingi", p. 191; RASMO, Ajfreschimedioevali,p. 14. 23 ROBER, St. Benedikt, p. 341-360 gives an extensive stylistic analysis and discusses earlier opinion, but does not consider the Eginus Codex. On this codex, sec especially: RASMO, "Gli affreschi carolingi", p. 195-199;FILLITZ, "Die italienische Kunst", especially p. 795-801; GATTEI et al., Trentino,p. 111;MITCHELL, "Karl der Grofk", especially p. 97, 104. " RASMO, "Gli affrcschi carolingi", p. 197-198; ROBER,St. Benedikt, p. 357-358.

THE COMBINATION

OF SPIRITUAL

AND SECULAR

DONORS

69

" LOOSE,"Historische Topographie~ p. 40; ROBER,St. Broedikt, p. 15-18, 310-311; WIRTH, "Die Bildnissc~ p. 80. Around 1170 Bishop Egino (1163-1170)gave rhe church ro rhe monastery of Sr John in Mtisrair. ROBER,St. Benedikt,p. 148, 151-1S4also considers that rhe figure could be identified as Consranrius, bur rhe mention of Consrantius around 773 does nor rally with the daring of the painting ro around 800. 26 WIRTH, "Die Bildnisse~ p. 79. 27 ROBER, St. Benedikt, p. 346-348, 3SS-317•They arc related ro rhe paintings in the nearby monastery church of Mtisrair, which Remedius may also have founded, according to WIRTH, "Die Bildn isse•, p. 79. 28 Cf: ROBER, St. Benedikt,p. 141-143, 161-161, 363, who briefly touches on the episcopal influence on rhe choice of saints. 29 On rhc veneration, tomb and church of Sr Stephen in Chur, see: SULSER & CLAUSSEN,Sankt Stephan, especially p. 97-to6, 136-114, 159-171;JACOBSEN, SCHAEFER & SENNHAUSER, VorromanischeKirchenbauten,p. 78. JO Cited in: EMMENEGGER& STAMPFER,"Die Wandmalereien~ p. 164. " MOLLER, Geschichtetks Klosters,p. 19. On rhc technical similarities between rhe paintings in Miistairand Mais.sec: EMMENEG· GER & STAMPFER,"Die Wandmalcrcicn~ P· 114-161. ·" HORTEN, "Gregor der Gro8e~ p. 16-18. .n On Akuin and Remcdius, see: KLEINCLAUSZ,Alcuin, p. 13, 117-118,111,138, 176; WIRTH, "Die Bildnisse~ p. 79-80. 14 On the Life of St Lucius, see: MOLLER, "Zur karolingischen Hagiographie", passim. " MOLLER, "Zur karolingischen Hagiographie~ p. 6-8, 15-16. 36 The episodes from rhe lives of Benedict and Gregory that share rhe north wall are of course connected with rhe patron saint and rhc image of Gregory painted in rhe norrh apse. 37 WEISS, "Der Freskenzyklus", p. 7-41; DEMUS, Romani,che 14,,ndmalerei,p. 97-98, 108-109, Abb. 133; METZLER-ANDEL· BERG, "Kirchenrcform", p. 154-156; FJLLJTZ, Geschichte der bildenden Kunst, car. 166, fig. on p. 108; LANC, Die mittelalterlichen 14,,ndmalereien,p. 357-370, 374, Abb. 451, 471. The dating and interpretation of STEINBERG& STEINBERG-VONPAPE,Die Bildnisse,p. 79-80, 135have been superseded. ... WEISS, "Der Freskenzyklus, p. IO·ll, 31-33, 40-41. 39 Cf: PoscH, "Die Entstehung", p. 109-117. ,o Cf: FAUST, "Gottfried von Admont~ p. 179-180; DOPSCH, "Salzburg im Hochmirtdalter~ p. 177-183, 185. " POSCH, "Die Entstehung~ p. 116; METZLER-ANDELBERG, "Kirchenreform", p. 144, 110-151. 2 • BRAUN, Das BenediktinerklosterMichelsberg,p. 45-46; FAusT & KRASSNIG, Die BenediktinischenMiinchs-und No11nenkliister, vol. 1,p. 79-81. •J Vienna, Osrerreichische Nationalbibl., Ser. nov. 1701, fol. 15v: FlLLITZ, Geschichteder bildendenKunst, cat. 108, fig. on p. 501. "" WEISS, "Der Freskenzyklus", p. 16, Abb. 45-46. DEVER, "Abt Heinrich", p. 315 regards the model as representing the parish church of Sr George, built around 1180-1100 in Purgg, which docs have a rower. ~ire apart from the chronological difficulry, there are no parallels for a single donor figure who carries a diff«cnt church ro rhe one in which his donor-portrait appears. ·11 Cf: LANC, Die millel,,lterlichenHimdmalereien,p ..119·

70

46 METZLER-ANDELBERG,"Kirchenrcform", p. 154. ·•· FAUST,"Gottfried von Admont~ p. 180-181; BORGEHAMMAR, "Whowrore the Admont sermon",p. 47-51; FAUST& KRASSNIG, Die BenediktinischenA4iinchs-und Nonnenldiister,vol. 1,p. 80. 48 PoscH, "Die Entsrehung~ p. 116. 49 DALLA BARBABRUSIN & LORENZONI,L'artede!patriarcato, p. 36, 41-49, fig. 97, 99; DEMUS, Romanische14,,ndmalerei,p. 111, Abb. 8; L!PSMEYER,The Donor,p. 71-74; SCHRAMM& MOTHE· RICH, Die deutschenKaiser,p. 107-109, n6, Abb. 141 on p. 391; TAVANO, Aquileia, p. 178-188; SCHMID, "Zurn Haus- und Herrschafrsversrandnis~ p. 16-31, Abb. 1; DALE, Relics,p. 30, fig. 14-15. 10 The 1911 restoration had no drastic consequences for rhe donor's model. cf: MORASS!, "II resrauro•, p. 80, fig. on p. 86-97. " Corpusnummorum italicorum,vol. 6, p. 1,tav. I, no. 1;SCHRAMM & MOTH ERICH, Die tkutschen Kaiser,p. 109. 12 Historical derails derived from: SCHMIDINGER,Patriarch,p. 8, 11-14, 34, 49-13; BUCHWALD,"Eleventh CenruryCorinrhian Palmcrte Capitals", p. 155-156;HERRMANN,Das Tusku/anerpapsttum, p. 89-100; DALE, Relics,p. 9-10. 13 Aquileia's triumph was short-lived, however. After Poppo sacked Grado yet again in 1041 and shortly thereafter died, Pope Benedict IX in 1044 declared the granted privileges invalid and gave the title of patriarch to Grado "' BUCHWALD,"Eleventh Century Corinthian Palmettc Capitals", p. 147-148, 153-156. " BUDDE, DeutscheRomanischeSlculptur,p. 73, Ta£ 140. On rhe iconography of the rympanum, see also: SAUERLANDER,review ofBuDDE, DeutscheRomanischeSlculptur,p. 160; SAUERLANDER & WoLLASCH, "Stiftergedenken•, p. 375. 6 ' HAAS & PFISTERMEISTER,Romanik, P· 303,Abb. 76-77; ALTMANN,l\,loosburg, p. 4. KARLINGER,Die romanischeSteinpl.utik. p. 31-34 and STROBEL& WEIS, Romanik, p. BI, 313-314give no exact dates.

17 SAUERLANDER,reviewofBUDDE,Deutsche RomanischeSkulptur, p. 160. Cf: ALTMANN,Moosburg,p. 1-3. S8 Cf: HOLZFURTNER, Grundung,p. 101-105. 19 On textual rekrences, see: HIRSCH, PABST& BRESSLAU.j,,hrbucher,vol.,, p. 100, n. 1; vol. 1, p. 133-134, n. 3. 60 HAAS & PFISTERMEISTER,Romanik, p. 303. 61 HAAS, "Kirchenbau~ p. 410-411; MASS, Das Bistum Frei,ing, p. 176-177. In Freising two west towers were indeed planned, but the south one was not built until long after the consecration in ll05. 62

On the history of St Castulus, see: PRINZ, "Bayerns Add", P· 71-71; STAHLEDER,Hochstift Freising,P· 474-475; PosTERL, Mallersdorf.p.17-31; PRINZ, "Die haycrischcn Dynasrengcschlechter", p. 157, 161; HI ERETH,Afoosburg,p. 9-16. 6 -' The archbishop of Salzburg and the bishops ofBrixen and Gurk also belonged ro the papal party in the ecclesiastical province of Salzburg. 64 TROTTER, "Die Grafen van Moosburg", p. 165-166. 6 ' Cf: WEINFURTER, Heinrichll., p. 11-36.

4. Roma secunda

St Castulus in Moosburg, discussed in the previous chapter, does not have the earliest tympanum with an image of a model-bearer incorporated in it. The tradition of the iconographic motif in this medium begins in Trier. Here too the allusion to Rome was crucial, but in a way that differed from the representations considered thus far. In Trier it was not a matter of a donor putting himself on a par with the pope or of reference to the collaboration between the emperor and the Holy See, but rather that the city sought to present itself as a second Rome. In this respect it was certainly not alone, although elsewhere the tradition is less well documented, which is why, below, Trier's twelfth-century tympanum will be discussed before the tenth-century paintings in Goldbach. These paintings do not themselves belong to the realizing of a New Rome, but reflect this aspiration in the neighbouring episcopal city of Constance and in Reichenau Abbey.

it was most probably made for the first Neutor. It shows in relief the standing, frontally portrayed figure of Christ, with outstretch arms, blessing with his right hand and holding in his left an open book. On Christ's right, beneath his blessing hand, is Peter, turned towards the centre and holding two keys whose bits form the letters PE. On Christ's left a bishop offers a model of a city. It has embattled walls with three towers at the front and one at the back. There is no consensus regarding the bishop's identity. Some argue that the figure represents Eucharius, first bishop of Trier (second half of the third century), this on the basis of the similarity to the Trier seal

4.1 Trier

Nowadays the Trier tympanum (Fig. 2.8) is in the municipal council chamber. Originally it adorned the field side of the Neutor (New Gate), the city's south gate, built in the mid-thirteenth century at the latest and demolished in 1877. 1 The Neutor had a predecessor that was part of the earliest town walls, which lay slightly more to the north. They were probably built in 1141-1143 in response to an assault by Count Henry III of Namur (1138-1196) and the conflict that ensued, which was not resolved until 1147. 2 As the tympanum conforms to the stylistic norms of the eleven-forties,3

Fig. 2.8. Christ between Peter and Eucharius, tympanum of Trier's south city gate, the Neutor, 1147; Trier, Rathaus (from: STEINBERG & STEINBERG-VON PAPE, Die Bildnisse, Abb. 117)

ROMA

Digitized by

Google

SECUNDA

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

7]

72

Fig. 29. Trier town seal, matrix of c.1147 (line drawing from: DR6s &JAKOBS, "Die Zeichen", Abb. 17).

Fig. 30. The Heavenly Jerusalem, champleve enamel panel on the Klosterneuburg Altarpiece by Nicholas of Verdun, 1181(from: DAHM, Studien, Abb. 71).

(Fig. 29), 4 which shows the bishop saint on the right, Peter on the left, and Christ in the middle. Tradition has it chat Eucharius was ordained by Peter in Rome and sent co bring Christianity to Gaul and Germania. His culc became particularly popular in the first half of the twelfth century. Others identify the modelbearer on the tympanum as Archbishop Albero (1131-1152), during whose episcopate the earliest town walls were builc. 5 Which is the most convincing? The similarity between the tympanum and the seal lies mainly in the three figures. The wax image is much more involved than the one on the tympanum. For instance, the blessing Christ stands on a spherical cap representing the cosmos and he, not Peter, holds the key. Before him are three sides of an embaccled town wall with cowers at the corners, an iconography that perhaps represents che Heavenly Jerusalem, as it does, for instance, in the extreme right panel in the upper register of the alcarpiece by Nicholas of Verdun (u81) in Kloscerneuburg (Fig. 30). 6 Here, angels surround the souls in Abraham's bosom behind three sides of an octagonal town wall with a central gate and four corner cowers. The inscription below che wall elucidates: CELEST(1)s lttR(usA)L(E)M. This meaning undoubtedly had some bearing on the design of the town seal, as the inscription SANCTATREVERISalso puts Trier

on a par with holy cities such as Jerusalem and Rome.7 Jakobs, moreover, points co its reliance on the Roman senate seal, which was brought into use with the revival of the senate in 1143-1144 and is known from descriptions. 8 This showed the personification of Rome standing above a city gate with the inscription URBS.The Trier seal cutter transformed her into the standing Christ behind the walls of SANCTATREVERIS. Boch mages follow the same iconographic formula as the golden bulls of Lochair III (1125-u37) and Frederick I (1152-1190), on the front of which the emperor appears behind the walls of AUREAR0MA.9 Behind the city walls on the Trier seal six figures reach out co the key. The two largest figures stand on either side of Christ and are accompanied by the inscriptions s. PETRUSand s. EUCHARIUS.As Peter couches the key, while Eucharius's gesture is one of receiving, the apostolic succession of Christ, via Peter, co Eucharius is represented. The four little figures between chem stand in for the inhabitants of holy Trier. Horstmann notes chat the Trier seal cutter derived the city wall direccly from the image on Henry II's imperial buU of 1014, which shows Pecerwith two keys inside che walls of Rome (Fig. 31).10Even the number of merlons is the same. The buU may also have influenced

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

the relief, as the keys' bits form the letters PR, comparable with the PE on the city gate's tympanum. Thus both the seal and the tympanum seem to have been made in collusion to endow Trier with the status of a new Rome. None of this precludes the possibility that the model-bearer on the tympanum is meant to be Albero, however. As the city's second founder he could justifiably compare himself with Eucharius, its first. When he assumed office he found Trier in a dismal state: many of its possessions had fallen into foreign hands and the archdiocese was ravaged by feuds, war and looting. 11 Albero bought back practically all the pledged or enfeoffed possessions, curtailed the power of the local nobles and vigorously supported religious reform. Yet it is unlikely that he would have had himself represented with a model of the city at the time the battlements were built. Indeed, he was not in Trier when Henry of Namur attacked in 1141, and it was not he but Trier's townsmen who decided to improve and extend their city's fortifications. 12 It would seem more likely, therefore, that the model-bearer on the tympanum is Eucharius. He, moreover, was the patron of the abbey which lay on the road from the south that entered the city by the Neutor. It may be chat Albero regarded himself as alter Eucharius, as he had restored the archdiocese's ancient splendour. 13 There is, however, a dearth of compelling arguments for coupling this archiepiscopal propaganda with the building of the city wall. In contrast to the question of the model-bearer's identity, the source of the innovatory image on the city gate's tympanum and the historical circumstances in which the choice of exemplar was made have attracted little attention. It is immediately striking chat the donor does not offer his model humbly, as on comparable tympanums created in the following decades (cf §3.5/6.3/8.4). On the contrary, the bearer of the Trier model has the same status as Peter. Only in Rome, at more or less the same time, did Pope Innocent II have himself represented as model-bearer on the same scale as the saints in the apse mosaic of S. Maria in Trastevere, thus - like the Neutor figures - placing himself squarely in the early Roman tradition. This underscores the fact that already on one of its gates Trier presented itself as Nova Roma. None of the donors in Rome holds a model of a city, however. As far as is known the mid-twelfthcentury Trier tympanum is the first western example.

Fig. 31. Peter inside the walls of Rome, Henry !I's first imperial bull, 1014 (from: SCHRAMM & MOTHERJCH,Die deutschen Kaiser, Abb. 118bon p. 368).

There are a number oflate-nvelfth and early-chirteenchcentury shrines from the Rheno-Mosan region on which apostles hold cities as symbols of the places of their missions (Fig. 67, cf §8.l). They can be equated with the tympanum's figure of Eucharius, who brought Christianity to Trier. A similar representation with a city-model-bearer is not seen in western Europe until the tombstone of Bishop lso ofVerden (d. 1l31, Fig. 106, cf §11.1). On the other hand, around the year 1000 the Byzantine tradition provides a parallel in the tympanum mosaic above the south entrance to the narchex of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Fig. 3l). This doorway was opposite the emperor's Great Palace and next to the entrance to the patriarch's palace. 14 Above the door the Virgin with the Child in her lap sits enthroned between the imperial donors Justinian and Constantine, who offer in turn the church and the city. The city model strongly resembles the one in Trier. Both have four-sided embattled walls with towers at the corners, represented obliquely and as if from above, and slightly lozenge-shaped. The differences, such as the buildings within Constantine's walls and the rear tower peculiar to Eucharius's model, are not so significant. Moreover, the similarities are not confined to the models. Boch images are in semicircular tympanums

ROMA

Digitized by

Google

SECUNDA

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

73

Fig. 32.. The Virgin and Child between Justinian with the Hagia Sophia and Constantine with Constantinople, tympanum mosaic above the south entrance to the narthcx of the Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, c.1000 (from: CHADZIDAKIS, Greek Art,

flg.34).

and incorporate three main elements - a frontaHy rendered Christ and two flanking figures who turn towards him, with the one on the right bearing a model of Nova Roma. This name, coveted by Trier, was commonly applied to Constantinople in the written tradition of the western Middle Ages. 15 The iconographic programme of the city gate tympanum probably harks back to the circle around Albero, who had emerged at the time of the investiture controversy as a staunch advocate of the papal cause. 16 The message expressed in the relief carried on a long tradition. Archbishop Eberhard (1047-1066), for example, had put the tide Roma secunda on his coins, 17 a parallel Trier deployed in the battle for status waged against the archbishops of Cologne and Mainz. The apostolic origin of its church, which was to underpin Trier's primacy over Germania and Gallia Belgica, was

74

COMPRESSED

another useful weapon. In 1137 Pope Innocent II had recognized Trier's claim and appointed Albero as a legate of the Holy See for the whole of the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps. 18 By 1147-1148 Albero's Roman policy seemed set to reap its reward. On 2.0 April 1147 he joined Eugene III (1145-1153) in celebrating Easter in Paris, at which time he invited the pope to visit Trier. 19 On 7 May Eugene confirmed Albero's primacy over Germania and Gallia Belgica, then the archbishop hurried home to prepare for the pontiff's visit. On 29 November Eugene arrived before the gates of Trier, spending the night at the abbey of SS Matthias and Eucharius. The following day, the first Sunday in Advent, he entered the city in a glittering procession, with Albero on his right and Archbishop Arnold I of Cologne on his left. The pope remained in Trier until mid-February, during which time he

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

consecrated the SS Matthias and Eucharius abbey church and the monastery church of St Paulin us. Then he travelled on to Reims, where he had convoked a council. There, Albero's ambitions foundered when the participants refused co recognize the fiercely advocated primacy of Trier. Jakobs maintains chat both the city seal and the tympanum were made for the papal visit co Trier. 20 Although written sources are silent on this point, Eugene would have passed through the Neucor as he made his triumphal entry co the city from the south - he had, after aJI, spent the previous night at the abbey of SS Matthias and Eucharius, south of the city walJ. There on the tympanum were Peter and Eucharius, watching over their successors as they entered beneath them. Four arguments may support Jakobs's dating of the tympanum co 1147. Firsdy, Albero's biographer celJsus chat the archbishop sec in train sweeping preparations for the papal visit: an old ruined house was rapidly repaired and a three-storey dwelling builc from scratch in just six weeks. 21 With this kind of dispatch there would certainly have been enough time between May and November 1147 to have a tympanum for the city gate made. Secondly, the tympanum adorned the field side of the Neucor, so chat the approaching guests could hardly fail co note the parallel between the principal figures on the relief and chose in the procession. Later the image would both commemorate the event and be a reminder co the world of the city's status as Roma secunda. Thirdly, entry through the Neucor bore a resemblance co the ceremonial route co the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. 22 Just as Eugene III had spent the night to the south of Trier, so the patriarch of Constantinople resided due south of the Hagia Sophia and che Byzantine emperor a licde further off. On feast days the latter entered Hagia Sophia with his retinue by the south door of the narchex, where the patriarch awaited him and where the tympanum portrayed the founders of both city and church. Analogously, Eugene III and Albero rode from the south into the city through the gate above which Peter as founder of the Church of Rome and Eucharius as founder of Christian Trier were represented Fourthly, it was not only on che tympanum chat the iconographic formula of the model-bearer was adopted. Around the middle of the twelfth century the Sc Paulinus scriptorium made a copy of Amalarius Fortunacus'sLiberofficiorum which opened with a portrait

Fig. 33. Amalarius Forcunacus with the first and second Rome, author's portrait in a Trier manuscript containing the Liber officiorum, mid-twelfth century; Trier, Stadtbibl., 1736/88, fol. 1v (from: PLOTZEK, "Zur rhcinischcn Buchmalerci", Abb. 15).

of the author (Fig. 33).23 Amalarius, depicted as archbishop of Trier (809/10-816), holds an unrolled scroll and two church models. In his left hand he bears PRIMA ROMA, in his right S(E)cu(ND)A ROMA, or TREVIR(1s).Archiceccurally,Rome the first and Rome the second are virtually indistinguishable. They are shown as mirror images of each other, with their east ends turned cowards Amalarius. Each consists of a single-aisled church with a prominendy vaulted apse and cwo west cowers. Sc Pecer's Cathedral in Trier cannot have been the exemplar, since in the twelfth century this had a west choir, four corner cowers and a crossing cower.24 Perhaps the iJluscracor depicted his own church of St Paulin us, which had been completely rebuilc after a fire in 1093 and was consecrated by Pope Eugene III in early 1148.25 The new church was

ROMA

Digitized by

Google

SECUNDA

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

75

Fig. 34. St Marcian accompanies Winidhere who carries a church model, painting on the right of the triumphal arch of St Sylvester's Chapel in Goldbach, mid-tenth century (from: KONST LE, Die Kunst, Taf. IV).

characterized by a pair of west towers and a large apse at the east end. The aisles with their side apses and the staircase turrets at the west end are missing, however. Possibly, by means of a simplification that recalls the papal donor models, the architectural representation was meant to symbolize the Church as an institution, to emphasize the para!Jel between Trier and Rome. Schiel and Plotzek associate the author's portrait with forged letters in which Emperor Frederick I appointed Archbishop Hillin of Trier (1152.-1169) as primate instead of his opponent Pope Adrian IV (1154-1159 ). 26 Thenceforth, north of the Alps, in matters ecclesiastic one turned not to Rome but to Trier as the second Rome. The use of the papal iconographic formula would certainly be in keeping with this claim. The forgeries originated somewhere other than Trier, however, and there is no reference to such letters in contemporary writings, 27 so a connection with the Amalarius miniature seems hard to maintain. A connection with the papal visit to Trier, on the other hand, seems obvious. A document relating to the

76

COMPRESSED

consecration of the altar and church performed by Eugene III in 1148 makes the first mention of the presence of relics of Amalarius in St Paulinus: apparently the corpusFortunati episcopithen lay beneath the high altar. 28 It may be that this corpusconsisted of no more than a piece of thigh bone, translated there especially for the occasion, for later written sources mention no more than chat. The relic was undoubtedly intended to promote the veneration of the archbishop. And presumably this was likewise the aim of a legend written after 1072. whose textual transmission began in the first half of the twelfth century, according to the palaeography. 29 Its author relates how the Carolingian archbishop was interred in a shrine he had ordered for the relics of Paulin us shortly before his death. In aUprobability the increasing importance of Amalarius in the monastery of St Paulin us led to the making of the Uber officiorumwith its author's portrait. The manuscript can therefore be dated to 1148 or shortly thereafter. Eugene III's visit to Trier at that time actua!Jyelevated the city to the status of Nova Roma, at least for a while. This had important consequences for Sc Paulinus too, for the pope consecrated the monastery church in person. This event seems to have a repercussion in the pope-like portrayal of Amalarius bearing the models of the first and second Rome, whose architecture is possibly based on chat of the St Paulinus church itself. The miniature thus forms a pendant to the city gate's tympanum. For this faced the other church Eugene consecrated - chat of SS Matthias and Eucharius - and it too depicted one of the saints, architectural model in hand, whose bones lie buried there.

4.2 Goldbach The oldest surviving model-bearer north of the Alps is portrayed on the triumphal arch of the chapel nowadays dedicated to St Sylvester in Goldbach on che German shore of Lake Constance. 30 Above the crown of the arch the Majestas Domini seems once to have been enthroned. On either side, the patron saints commend a woman and a man to the now lost central figure. According to the inscriptions, on the left MARTI •.. guides a certain IHLTEPUR ... who has a reliquary(?) in her hands. On the right ...CIANUS accompanies WINIDHERE, who carries a church model (Fig. 34). Winidhere's family kept up close ties with che island monastery of Reichenau. The monastery's Liber

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

confraternitatum (confraternity book) names 'Hiltepurc: together with Abbot Thieting {913-916), among the living, while a 'Winidhere' occurs in a list of the dead that was drawn up during the abbacy of Alawich I (934-958). These data place the Goldbach wall painting in the middle of the tenth century or a little earlier. 31 Although recent stylistic study sup• ports this, a date in the late tenth century is also accepted. 32 Since the monks of Reichenau accepted only distinguished benefactors into their prayer confraternity there can be little doubt that Winidhere and Hiltepurg were of noble descent. They were not, however, the Goldbach chapel's actual founders. Berschin has discovered that the text of a worn inscription, which together with a perspectival meandering border belongs to the oldest paint layer on the south wall, appears in its entirety in a mid-ninth-century Fulda manuscript. 33 It is a passage from a poem by Walafrid Strabo, who lived on Reichenau from 82.2.at the latest and led the abbey from 838 to 849. According to the manuscript the poem was intended for the chapel at Goldbach: IN ECCLESIA SANCTI MARTIANI IN GOLDHBAH. In it, Walafrid describes the life of St Marcian of Tortona, and refers to a certain Count Alpger, who was included among the living members of the prayer confraternity in the Reichenau Liber conJraternitatum in around 82.4, as founder of the chapel. It appears that in the early ninth century this Alpger stayed in Italy as councillor to Adelaida, daughter of King Pepin {781-810 ). 34 Later he spent a long period on assignments for the imperial court. He was rewarded with the county ofHegau to the west of Lake Constance, probably with Goldbach, which may have belonged to the palatinate ofBodman. 35 Between 82.0 and 840 in Milan he successfully proceeded against one Deacon Ragipert and his brother Melfrit, who had appropriated lands belonging to him in the counties ofSeprio and Stazzona to the south of Lake Maggiore. He made more than one donation from his regained possessions to the monastery of St Ambrose in Milan, where King Pepin was interred. According to Berschin the count would have founded the St Marcian chapel in around 840, the patronage giving expression to Alpger's ties with northern Italy and the Carolingian court. This quick biographical sketch sheds light on the context of the perspectival meandering border in Goldbach, which has a striking parallel in St Benedikt

in Mals.36 From a historical point of view, the relationship shows that Alpger, as councillor to a king's daughter, moved in the same court circles as Count Hunfried of Rhaetia, who was also a benefactor of Reichenau Abbey. Whether the model-bearer also came to Goldbach from the south, along with the perspectival meander, as early as the ninth century must remain a matter for conjecture. It seems not impossible. As part of the palatinate of Bodman or of Alpger's comital possessions, the foundation of St Marcian/St Sylvester may - like St Benedikt in Mais - have fulfilled the function of palatine chapel. During a second building phase, in which the height of the nave was increased, the chapel walls received new murals. 37 Winidhere and Hiltepurg appear to have commissioned this enlargement and refurbishment. In doing so the couple was following in the Roman tradition: just as in Rome Peter and Paul usually conduct the titular saints and donors to Christ, in Goldbach the local patron saints Marcian and ... CIANUS {Priscianus?) perform the task. 38 The nearest parallel is provided by the tenth-century paintings on the apse arch of S. Maria in Pallara {Fig. 7, cf §1.5), as discussed earlier. Before examining the motive for adopting the Roman iconographic formula, a particular detail of the donor's model merits attention. The basilica in Winidhere's hands differs little from the Roman model type. Its box-like shape corresponds to the built architecture, but the likeness seems coincidental, as was also the case in Mais. The painter has depicted neither the narthex at the west end, nor the apse-less choir. He puts four windows in the long side wall and two in the end wall. Despite the chapel's Gothic renovation it is still clear to see that this arrangement does not correspond to that of the tenth century. 39 Originally, in the upper part of the north and south wallsof the nave,there were three semicircularheaded windows; in the second building phase an extra one was added immediately above the centre window in the south wall. The east wall was blind; the west wall contained the door. Notwithstanding, at the beginning of the last century Kiinstle and Hecht considered the model to be such a good likeness that on the basis ofits representation in the wall painting they reconstructed an apse with two windows. 40 The little turret rising from the roof is an entirely novel element in the donor's model tradition. It corresponds not at all to the actual architecture; the present Gothic fleche had no tenth-century predecessor.4 1

ROMA

SECUNDA

Fig. 35. Christ mourning the coming destruction of Jerusalem, Reichenau evangelary for Occo Ill, 998-1001; Munich, BSB,Clm 4453, fol. 188v (from: MESSERER,Der BambergerDomschatz, Abb. 27 ).

The roof turret on the model has two stages, the top one being narrower and supporting a pavilion roof. Hecht compares this construction with the church turrets in the dedication miniature in the Carmen de gestis Witigowonis abbatis, a biography written around 995 by the Reichenau monk Purchard at the behest of his brother monks to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the abbacy of Wicigowo (985-997 ). 42 The miniature depicts the dialogue between the poet Purchard and Augia, the personification of Reichenau. In the centre the Virgin Mary, the monastery's patron saint, is enthroned; on either side are Abbot Witigowo, the donor Pirmin, and the monastery. The buildings encircling the figures allude to the girdle of churches and chapels Witigowo caused co be constructed around the church dedicated co the Virgin. The image records this mammoth building activity and included are two staged roof turrets. Apart from Purchard's dedication miniature the Reichenau scriptorium seems co have used this type of roof turret on only one other occasion, co adorn the Temple of Jerusalem, at least as far as can be ascertained from surviving manuscripts. A first example appears in the evangelary of Otto III, which dates from 998-1001 (Fig. 35).43 The miniature, which portrays Christ mourningJerusalem, shows the city as it was at cop right and its coming destruction below. Snug within the walls of the as yet unassailed city is a long building with an entrance in the end wall, a

78

COMPRESSED

clerestory, and a pitched roof with the turret rising from the ridge. The striped dome that crowns it is one of the standard motifs in Reichenau illumination. As the only building within Jerusalem's walls this little 'house' must represent the Temple of the Old Testament, an identification supported by a comparable, twice-occurring architectural representation of the heavenly temple in the slightly later Bamberg Apocalypse.44From this usage - influenced by Reichenau images of churches as successors to the Temple seem to have been given the same two-stage roof turret in other scriptoria too. 4S The origin of the motif is probably co be found south of the Alps. On a north Italian ivory of around 400, for example, Christ's empty tomb has two levels (Fig. 10). 46 The first has a square foundation and a pent roof; the second, narrower section is cylindrical with a conical roof. This construction harks back co Romano-Hellenistic combs and became quite popular in the early Middle Ages, particularly in book illumination.47 The simplifying of the cylinder co a block with a triangular gable is not an isolated example, as appears from the image of Christ's comb on the gold antependium, made in Fulda around JOlO, in Aachen's palatine chapel. 48 In an evangelary from the monastery of Sc Peter(?) in Salczburg, made at the same time, the staged structure characterizes the turrets on both che Temple roof and the Holy Sepulchre. 49 A ninth or tenth-century ivory book cover, traditionally deemed to have adorned a manuscript from Toul, has a twostage turret on the roof of the comb.so This structure bears a strong resemblance co the one on the donor's model in Goldbach. Embroidering on the connection between Jerusalem's Temple and the Anascasis Rotunda the Reichenau scriptorium seems to have placed a 'comb cower' on the images of temples and churches. This connection has a long hiscory. s 1 The uncovering of Christ's sepulchre on Golgotha in 32.6 already evoked comparisons with the Temple: Eusebius described the discovery as the holy of holies, on which Emperor Constantine built the New Jerusalem. His contemporaries likened the emperor co the temple builders of the Old Testament. Eusebius's homily at the consecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been lost but there are indications chat he praised the sanctuary as the new Temple of the Christian Jerusalem. le also seems to have been Eusebius who shaped the liturgy of the 'new temple' on the basis of the Jewish temple worship.

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

The consecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was deliberately planned to take place on the date on which Solomon had consecrated the Temple. Running from east to west the complex on Golgotha included a five-aisled basilica - also called the martyrium - an atrium, and the rotunda built over Christ's tomb. This axial arrangement was probably derived from the Jewish Temple in which, from east to west, were the sacrificial altar, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Last but not least, many Jewish traditions associated with the Temple moved over to Golgotha. This process had already largely taken place before Constantine began his building activities and was complete by the sixth century. 52 Golgotha was now the centre of the world, the axis mundi, where the rivers of Paradise rose, where Adam was created and buried, where Melchizedek made his sacrifice, where Abraham had offered up Isaac, where Solomon's ring and the horn of anointing were kept, where Zachariah's blood had flowed, where Christ was presented in the temple and where he had driven out the traders. Guides related all this to the flocks of pilgrims, by whose means the wonders of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the new Temple spread in all directions. A parallel for the placing of the Holy Sepulchre on top of a representation of a temple is provided by the illustration of the enthroned Sapientia in an earlyeleventh-century Psychomachia from St Gallen (Fig. 36). 53 In contrast to the text, which describes how the personification of Wisdom sits within square walls before a sanctuary with seven pillars, the illustrator places on top of Wisdom's temple a cylindrical domed tower between two pairs of smaller towers. Abutting the centre tower he adds a building with a pitched roof. This combination of cylindrical and rectangular parts could represent the Anastasis Rotunda with the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre complex in Jerusalem. 54 However, the staged tower or turret was more commonly used to characterize a temple, especially in images of the Presentation in the Temple. Around 995 an illustrator in Priim employed this motif on the roof of a basilican temple building when he illuminated a troper. 55 Two centuries later a staged roof turret surmounted the Temple in a pericope book from St Peter in the Black Forest. 56 In actual built architecture, too, a staged crossing tower, particularly one above a tomb or devotional spot, cites the Anastasis Rotunda.57 In the Goldbach architectural model the staged turret, as an allusion to Christ's tomb, probably

Fig. 36. Sapientia enthroned before the Temple ofWisdom, manuscript containing Prudentius's Psychomachiafrom St Gallen, early eleventh century; St Gallen, Stiftsbibl., 135,p. 438 (from: SCHILLER,Ikonographie, vol. 4.1, Abb. 168).

emphasizes the founders' hope chat their good deeds would merit their sharing in the life hereafter. The written tradition supports this interpretation. Winidhere and Hiltepurg were, after all, accepted into the Reichenau prayer confraternity, and so the monks prayed for the salvation of their souls. It is not known whether they were actually buried in the Goldbach chapel. It does not seem impossible, for the combination of model-bearer and donor's tomb had a long tradition stretching back to S. Vitale in Ravenna. The iconographic tradition of the roof turret may shed light on the already mentioned architectural model of William II of Sicily dating from around u80-u90 (Fig. 6, cf §1.i) in Monreale Cathedral. William II presents the west view of the church with a two-story aisle on the right. In the facade are the bronze doors he commissioned, set not on the axis of the nave, as they are in reality, but to the left of two windows. 58 Above a pent roof is a second, slightly recessed story which has four windows and supports a domed turret or tower. Dittelbach regards this 'crossing tower: which appears on the Monreale seal together with the west towers(, 177), as an allusion to a first, quickly rejected building plan. 59 This kind of true-tolife depiction seems rather unlikely, however, since the Monreale mosaicists provided several representations of cities and entrances of separate buildings with similar towers. 60 The use of the turret on top of the architecture can best be compared to William's donor's

ROMA

Digitized by

Google

SECUNDA

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

79

model. The motif surmounts the Temple of Jerusalem in Christ's Presentation, and the synagogue where he healed the man with the withered right hand (Lk 6:6-11) and the woman crippled by a spirit (Lk 13:11-13).61 Thus, in Monreale, just as in Reichenau, the roof turret seems to characterize an image of a building as a Jewish or Christian sanctuary. The allusion to the Anastasis Rotunda or the Heavenly Jerusalem may also be apposite, for William II had founded the cathedral to be his family mausoleum and would be buried there himsel£ 62 Both the relationship between the couple in Goldbach and the monks of Reichenau and the stylistic relationship between the Goldbach wall paintings and the Reichenau miniatures make it likely that the island monastery influenced the use of the Roman iconographic formula on the triumphal arch of the St Sylvester Chapel. This raises the question of whether the abbey followed a Roman course. In the early Middle Ages the tie with the Eternal City does not seem to have been particularly close.63 Adrian I ( 772.-795) may have been the first to confer a papal privilege. A document of Otto III mentions privileges apparently issued by Stephen IV (816-817) and John VIII (872.-882.). Only from the time of Gregory V (996-999) do written sources offer any certainty: like his predecessor Witigowo, Abbot Alawich II travelled to Rome in 998, where he was consecrated by the pope. His successors would continue to enjoy this privilege. Moreover, they were granted the extraordinary privilege of wearing a dalmatic and sandals at every service. The Holy See also took the island monastery under its protection. The late-tenth-century dating of the Goldbach wall paintings would be in line with the intensified contacts between Rome and Reichenau. Arguing against such a late portrayal of Winidhere and Hiltepurg, however, is the custom - which prevailed up to 1100 - of representing donors only during or shortly after their lifetimes. The privileges of 998 were also not a

80

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

gift of God but the fruits of deliberate endeavour. Maurer points to the fact that in the first half of the tenth century the Reichenau abbots began to promote their monastery as a religious centre. 64 They commenced a large-scale acquisition of important relics, then had reports of translations and miracles written to spread the abbey's fame. In such a context Hiltepurg's offering of a reliquary in the triumphal arch painting is highly apt. The abbots of Reichenau also strove to hold thc:ir own with nearby Constance, where bishops Conrad (934-975) and Gebhard II (979-995) were virtually replicating Rome. 65 Corresponding in patronage and location inside or outside the city walls the five patriarchal churches of Rome acquired counterparts in Constance. It is therefore unsurprising that the latetenth-century church of St Adalbert on Reichenau should reference Old St Peter's. Already shortly after 850 a new chapel on the island was consecrated to Cosmas and Damian, following the sixth-century Roman example.66 Unfortunately, material and written sources are unforthcoming about the decoration of these 'Roman' churches north of the Alps. For example, would that last-mentioned chapel have had a donor portrait in the style of the apse mosaic in SS. Cosma e Damiano, which was copied several times in Rome in the first half of the ninth century? Only the triumphal arch in Goldbach preserves an impression of the lost paintings. The image including Winidhere and Hiltepurg could certainly date from the mid-tenth century, since under Bishop Conrad the turning of Constance into the Rome of the Upper Rhine had already begun. The likelihood of influence from Constance, whether or not it came via the island monastery, is strengthened by the fact that until 12.65Goldbach belonged to the Constance cathedral chapter. 67 Nothing more is known about this, but the evidence supports the suggestion that there was a connection between the church decoration in Constance and Goldbach.

NOTES

1

EMBERS,"Die figurale Steinskulpmr", p. 11-40, Taf. 6-7. HAVERKAMP,"HeiligeSriidtc~ p. 111:)AKOBS,"Nochmals Eugcn Ill.~ p. 101-101:PUNDT,"Erzbischof~ p. 145-146, 148-151. 1 EMBERS,"Die figuralc Steinskulptur", p. 39-40; BUDDE, Deut,cheRomanischeSkulptur, p. so, Abb. 75 untcn. ·• E.g.: HORSTMANN, "Das Tricrcr Stadtsicgd", p. 88-89, Abb. 1, 1: HAVERKAMP,"Hciligc Stadtc~ p. 111-111:)AKOBS,"Nochmals Eugcn Ill.", p. 103-105;RODER, "Romnachfolgc~ p. 86-87. On the Trier seal, sec also: DIEDERICH, RheinischeStiidttJiegel,p. 33Vi 36, Abb. 89: HAVERKAMP,"Hciligc Stadtc~ p. 111-114:DIEDERICH, "Stadtpatronc", p. 43; RODER, "Romnachfolgc", p. 69-108. The inscriptions on the tympanum were renewed in 1851-1857.Whether they replicate their medieval predecessors is uncertain: )AKOBS, "Nochmals Eugcn Ill.~ p. 101-103. ' E.g.: EMBERS, "Die figuralc Stcinskulptur", p. 31-n: DIEDERICH, "Stadtpatronc~ p. 44. • BuscHHAUSEN,Der VerdunerAltAr,p. 84, Ta£ 49 and p. 98-110, 117-114 on the altarpiece in general: DAHM, Studien, p. 161-163, Abb.71 . • Cf: HAVERKAMP,"Hciligc Stadtc~ p. 111-113. ' )AKOBS,"Nochmals Eugcn III.",p. 109-114. • On the imperial bull ofLothair III, sec: PossE, Das Sirgelw,sen, vol. 1,p. 16,Taf. 10.5-6: SCHRAMM& MOTHERICH,Diedeutschen Kaiser,p. 114,154, Abb. 194 on p. 447. On the bulls of Frederick I. sec: POSSE, Das Siegelw,sen,vol. 1, p. 17,Taf. 11.3-4, 11.;-4; vol. S, p. 15; SELLA,Le bolled'oro,p. 41, tav. l.1; DEtR, "Die Siegel~ 54-71, 76-77, 81-85,Abb.11-11, 18-19; HAUSSHERR,Die Zeit derStaufer, vol. 1,cat. 19, 31:vol. 3, Abb. 1, s: SCHRAMM& MOTHERICH, Die deutschenKaiser,p. 118-119,161-161, Abb. 108-109 on p. 460. IO HORSTMANN, "Das Tricrcr Stadtsicgcl~ p. 81; HORSTMANN, vol. 4, Taf. 73-7-8; vol. "Koln~ p. 141. Cf: PossE, Das Siegelwesen, S,p. 17; SCHRAMM& MOTHERICH,Diedeutschen Kaiser,p. 91-93, 211, Abb. 118on p. 368: WEINFURTER, Heinrich II., p. 140; KIR· MEIERet al.. KaiserHeinrich II., cat. 77. 11 PROMERs,AlberovonMontreuil,p. 14, 17-18,10, 14-33, 86 and passim; PAULY,Aus der G,schichte,p. 80-81. 12 PUNDT, "Erzbischof~ p. 146. 11 Cf: )AKOBS, "Nochmals Eugcn IIC p. 105. " CORMACK, "The Emperor~ p. 1;7, fig. 8. On the mosaics, sec further: RlcE,Art, p. 100, fig. 88; BECKWITH,Ear(r Christianand ByzantineArt, p. 114, fig. 190: MAIN STONE, Hagia Sophia,p. 19, fig. 19-30; CHATZIDAKIS, Gretk Art, P· 133, pl. 34; GALTIER MARTI, La iconografi,,,p. 330-331, fig. 190-191. " BEUMANN, "Das Kaiscrtum·, p. 547; KoDER, "Byzanz", p.143. 16 PROMERS,Alberovon Montreuil, p. 18-19: PAULY,Aus der Geschichtt,p. So; PUNDT, "ErzbischoC p. 141-144. " DANNENBERG,Die deutschenMunzen, no. 476: KLUGE,Deut• scheMunzg,schichtt,no. 346. 18 PROMERS, Albero von Montreuil, p. 41; PAULY,Aus der Geschichte,p. 81. •• On Albero and Eugcnius III in ll47-1148, sec: PROMERS, AlberovonMontreuil,p. 75-8;; PAULY,AusderGeschichte, p. 81-81; PUNDT, "Erzbischof", p.147-148. 2

20 )AKOBS, "Nochmals Eugen III.",p. 105-107,109-110.The inter• prctation of the relief as symbolizing the Trier townsmen's selfassurance by HORSTMANN, "Das Tricrcr Stadtsicgd~ p. 87-91 is has been superseded. 21 PROMERS,Alberovon Montreuil,p. 76. HAUSSHERR,Die Zeit der Stauftr, vol. 1, p. 88-89 also dates the building of the gate to 1147 (cat. text by Rainer Kahsnitz). 22 Cf: EBERSOLT,Sainte-Sophie,p. 1-s: STRUBE, Die westliche Eingamseite,p. 49-51: MAINSTONE, Hagia Sophia,p. 16,110, fig.

12.. 23

Trier, Stadtbibl., 1736/88, fol. 1v: SCHIEL, "Die Buchmalcrei", p. 106-107; PLOTZEK,"Zur rhcinischcn Buchmalcrci~ p. 311,Abb. 15on p. 313. 2 ' KUBACH & VERBEEK, RomanischeBaukumt, p. 1088-1103,

no8-1uo. On the rebuilding of the church, sec: KuBACH & VERBEEK, Romanische Baukunst, p. 1131-1134; FISCHER, Die St. Paulinuskirche,p. 6-8, Abb. 1-6. 26 SCHIEL, "Die Buchmalcrci~ p. 106-107; PLOTZEK, "Zur rhcinischcn Buchmalcrci~ p. 311,Abb. 15on p. ;13. Cf: HORING, "Die Trierer Stiliibungcn~ part 1, p. 159-160; GoEZ, Translatioimperii, p. 141-143; 0PLL, FriedrichBarbarossa,p. 105. 27 HORING, "Die Tricrcr Stiliibungcn~ pan 1,cspeciallyp. 181-181, 191-301: part 1, especially p. 194-119. Horingascribes the letters to Bishop Eberhard II ofBambctg (1146-1171) and arrives at the date of 1158.GOEZ, Tramlatioimperii,p. 141-156 has strongly contested these conclusions and places the forgeries around 1!61-1164 in papal circles. 28 HEYEN, Das Stift St. Paulin, p. 199-;oo. 29 HEYEN, Das Stift St. Paulin,p. 174-175. 30 HECHT & HECHT, DiefruhminelalterlicheWandmalerei,cspe• dally p. 37-38 (with bibliography), 48-49 (triumphal arch painting), 168, Abb. 61, 69-70. On the donor figures, sec also: LIPS· MEYER,The Donor, p. 67-69 31 HECHT & HECHT, DiefruhminelalterlicheWandmalerei,p. 38. MEYER,Atkl, p.181 refers to a Winidhcrc and Hiltcpurgof the first half of the 9th century, who had ties with the monastery at St Gallen. As Goldbach is much closer to Rcichcnau than to St Gallen, Meyers suggestion is less plausible than Hecht & Hccht's . .12 KoSH1, Diefruhmitttlalterlichen Wandmakreien, p. 194-195, 101-101, 107-109, 149-154: Goldbach's decoration would have been crcarcd after the St George cycle in Oberzcll, executed during the abbacy of Hatto Ill of Rcichcnau (888-913), according to Koshi. KONSTLE,Die Kunst, p. S9 had already arrived at a similar date. Arguing for a later creation are, e.g.: DEMUS, Romanische in Europe,p. 49;)ACOB· Wandmakrei,p. 177; DODWELL.Painting SEN, SCHAEFER& SENNHAUSER,Vorromanische Kirchenbauten, p. 151(on the basis of the window shape). n Rome, BAY, Vat. rcg. lat. 469: BERSCHIN, "Voll Neid", p. ;1: BERSCHIN, Mittellattinische Studien, p. 157-168. On Walafrid Strabo, sec: BERNT,"Walafrid Strabo~ c. 1937-19;8 (with bibliography). On the meandering border and inscription, sec also: HECHT & HECHT, Die fruhmittelalterliche Wandmalerri, P· 40-41. 2 '

ROMA

SECUNDA

81

4 ' Biographical data in: HLAWITSCHKA, Franken, p. 1w-121; BoRGOLTE, Die Graftn Akmanniem, p. 46-47. 35 MEYER,Adel, p. 41. 36 ROBER,St. Benedikt,p. 311mistakenly compares the perspectival meandering border in Mais with the 10th-century paintings in Goldbach. 37 On the building's architectural history, sec: KONSTLE, Die Kunst, p. 37-40; HECHT, Die rom,ini5cheKirchenbau,p. 364-371; KirchenOSWALD, SCHAEFER& SENNHAUSER,Vorrom,inische bauten,p. 101; HECHT & HECHT, DiefruhmittelalterlicheHandmakrei, p. 40:JACOBSEN,SCHAEFER& SENNHAUSER,Vorrom,ini5cheKirchenbauten,p. 151 J8 Cf: SAUER,·Die Monurncntalmalerei~ p. 913-914. MARTI... has long been completed as Martinus and ...CIANUSas Priscianus (e.g.: KONSTLE, Die Kunst, p. 11-13; HECHT, Die romanische Kirchenbau,p. 369; OSWALD,SCHAEFER& SENNHAUSER,Vorrom,inischeKirchenbauten,p. 101; HECHT & HECHT, Diefruh· mittelalterlicheHandmakrei, p. p-38, 49). In 874 the Reichcnau monastery had acquired relics of St Fortunata and her brothers Carponius, Eugaristus and Priscianus. Under Abbot Martin of Wcilknburg (1491-1508) the monk Gallus ◊hem (c.1445-1511) mentions in his chronicle of Rcichenau Abbey that an altar was dedicated to these saints and that a shrine contained relics of the first three. This suggests that the relics of Priscianus had meanwhile been given to Goldbach. The translation may well have provided the occasion for the remodelling of the chapel and may also explain why Hiltepurg carries a reliquary. No record of such a translation survives, however. Moreover, it seems unlikely that Priscianus would not then stand next to Hiltcpurg, accompanying his own relics. Conversely, the inscription on the south wall, identified by Berschin, is derived from a poem about St Marcian ofTortona. This would argue for the completion of ...CIANUS as Marcianus. Bersch in also suggests that MARTI... should be completed as MAR· TIANUS or perhaps to start from a mistaken restoration. In which case, like Dehio, he reconstructs MARCUS(DEHIO & PIEL, Handbuch, p. 166; BERSCHIN, "Voll Neid", p. 31). But neither ofBerschin's variants arc particularly convincing. On one hand there are no parallels for a doubling of the patron saint. On the other the different inscriptions refer to different characters. As Walafrid uses the form Marrianus in his poem, MARTI... will undoubtedly be the remains of MARTIANUS.The saint's position on Christ's right, a place of honour befitting the principle patron, also supports this. The completion of... Cl ANUSas PRISCIANUSstill awaits convincing underpinning, or an alternative identification. 39 Cf: L1PSMEYER,The Donor,p. 151-151. 40 K0NSTLE, Die Kumt, p. 39, 51, Bild 15;HECHT, Die romanische Kirchenbau,p. 368. 41 L!PSMEYER,The Donor, p. 151 Lipsmeyer erroneously com• paresthe turrets. " Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. CCV, fol. 71: HECHT, Die rom,inischeKirchenbau,p. 369-371. Cf: MAURER, "Rechdicher Anspruch", p. 158-159; WEIS, "Die spiirantike Lektionar-Illustration", p. 360-361; LEGNER,Ornamentaecdesi4e, cat. B 46-47; BERSCHIN & STAUB,Die Taten,p. 13-16,Abb. 1. 4 ·' Munich, BSB, Clm 4453, fol. 188v:MAYR-HARTING,Ottonian BookIllumination, vol. 1,p. 166, fig. 93. 44 Bamberg, Staatsbibl., Bibi. 140, fol. 15v,19v: SCHILLER,Il.:onographie,vol. 4.1, 79, Abb. 191; vol. 1,1, p. 81, 99-100. Abb. 321. In

82

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

the second miniature the building has gained a side aisle. Crosses surmount the roof turret domes. ., E.g. in the presentation miniature in an Augsburgsacramentary of around 10>0-1050 (London, BL, Harley 1908, fol. 8: KlRMEIER, Sc HOTZ & BROCKHOFF, Schreibkunst, cat. 16, fig. on 19). Reichenau also influenced scriptoria in Salzburg and Zwiefaltcn, as will appear below. 46 Milan, Castello Sforzesco: SCHILLER,Ikonographie, vol. l, p. 21, Abb.11. 47 SCHILLER,Ikonographie,vol. 1, p. 181-181,Abb. 146-147; vol. 3, p. 21, 91-93, 95-96, Abb. 16,171,198. 18 SCHILLER,Ikonographie,vol. 3, p. 16-17, Abb. 17. 49 New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, M. 781, fol. 85, ,;3v: SWARZENSKI, Die Salzburger Malerei, p. 30-35, Abb. 14, 58: HARRSEN, Central EuropeanManuscripts,cat. 9; FILLITZ, Geschichteder bildn,den Kumt, cat. 196. so Nancy, Tresor de la cathedralc: GOLDSCHMIDT,Die Elftnbeinskulpturen,vol. 1, cat. 137; KozoK, Der Tristegum-Turm,p. 166, Abb.108. " On the parallels between the Temple of Jerusalem and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, sec: N!BLEY, •christian Envy", p. 111; WILKINSON, ·Jewish Influences, p. 347-359; SCHEIN, "Between Mount Moriah", p. 175; BussE, •Tempel~ p. 7-8. 12 WILKINSON, •Jewish Influences", p. ¼11:SCHEIN, "Between Mount Moriah~ p. 175-177;BUSSE,"Tempel~ p. 8; KRETSCHMAR, •Festkalcndcr", p. 81-111;KOHNEL, From the Earthly, p. 81-84; MANNS, ·De literairc traditic~ P· 11-19. 13 St Gallen, Stiftsbibl., 135,p. H8: MERTON, Die Buchmalerei, p. 67-68, Taf. LXVl.1; BLOCH, "Ekklesia", p. 377, Abb. 7; ScHIL· LER,Ikonographie,vol. 4.1, p. 71, Abb. 168. 14 DE WALD, The Illustrations,pl. CXLII: Utrecht, UB. 31, fol. 90; SCHILLER, Ikonographie,vol. I, p. 100-101, Abb. 107, HI: STIEGEMANN& WEMHOFF, 799: Kunst, cat. X.28. A number of other Psychomachi4manuscripts depict the TEMPLUMDOMIN! as a tholos attached to a three-aisled basilica: Leiden, UB, Burm. Q 3, fol. 147v; Brussels, KBR, 9987-9991, fol. 114v; Paris, BnF, Lat. 8085, fol. 69; Valenciennes, BM, 561, fol. 39v: STETTINER, Die illustrierten Prudentius-Handschriften,p. 194·391, Taf. 107.1/6, 108.10/J3. ~~ Paris, BnF, Lat. 9448, fol. 18: KOHNEL, From the Earthly, fig. 94; HoHL, OttonischeBuchmalerti,p. 11-51,154-159,Abb. 18. 16 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, St Peter perg 7, fol. 3v: HOHL, OttonischeBu,-hmalerei,p. 158-159,Abb. 18. ;, KozoK, Der Tristegum-Turm, especially p. 15-16, 56-58, 181-193. 18 Cf: LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 90-91, 178-179. KITZINGER, / mosaici,p. IV suspects that the model has been restored, basing this on the suggestion oflight and shade, which rarely occurred in the 12th century. There are no technical indications of restorations, however. 19

DITTELBACH, "Der Dom in Monreale~ p. 481, Abb. 8. DEMUS, TheMosaics,pl. 65A, 68, 71A-B, 77A, 79, 81A, 91B, rn1, in ,\losaic,fig. 79-80, 83, 85, 88-90, 107. 107; BORSOOK,Messages 6 ' BoRSOOK, Messages in Mosaic,fig. 101,115. 6 ' The present tomb of William II is in the south transept and dates from the late 16th century. It replaced an earlier tomb, which has not been idenrifted with any certainty (BORSOOK, Message.< in Mos.iic,p. 69 ). 60

" GOLLER,"Die Rcichcnau•, especially p. 438-441. Cf: MAURER, "Rechclicher Anspruch", p. 160, 163-166. ., MAURER, "Rcchclicher Anspruch~ p. 157-158. 61 MAURER, Konstanz, p. 57-76; MAURER, "Rechclicher Anspruch", p. 170-,74. 66 MANSER & BEYERLE,"Aus dem liturgischen Leben•, p. 383. Rcichenau had relics of both physicians. Manser and Beyerlealso

associate Reichenau's patronage of the Virgin, Peter and John with Rome, though without demonstrating that a deliberate mirroring of Rome was sought with these very generally venerated saints. 67 DEGLER-SPENGLER,Das Bi,rum Komtanz, p. 781. In 1165 the cathedral chapter transferred Goldbach to the Order of St John at Bubikon.

ROMA

SECUNDA

83

5. The Holy See as a Source of Protection and Privilege

A model-bearer could not only convey a donor's ambition but also carry a warning. When a worldly ruler laid grasping hands on the possessions of a spiritual community that had the protection of the Holy See, the iconographic motif admonished the miscreant to respect the papal privileges. The earliest example of this appeared, not coincidentally, at the time of the investiture controversy. During later crises, too, the figure of the donor with his architectural model assumed the force of a warning. But this was not the only example of the widening of the use of the iconographic formula, as will appear below.

5.1 Schajfhausen The early-twelfth-century tomb of Count Eberhard of Nellenburg (d. c.1078) in the Benedictine monastery of All Saints at Schaffhausen (Fig. 37) is a milestone in the iconographic tradition. 1 Here, as far as is known, the model-bearer makes his first appearance in funerary sculpture. As a further novelty the donor is no longer portrayed during his lifetime or shortly thereafter, but together with members of his family who died a good quarter of a century later. It may be that the loss of early-medieval tombs casts this innovation in an overly dramatic light. Indeed, the associating of the model-bearer with the donor's tomb had already occurred, in the cases of Bishop Ecclesius ofRavenna in S. Vitale and Pope John VII in Old St Peter's. That does not alter the fact that a generation after Eberhard's death the monks of All Saints were no longer content with wall paintings such as those in Mais or

HOLY

Goldbach: instead they ordered expensive sculpted tombs, not only for the donor but also for his son Burkhard (d. 1101), and for a woman, probably Eberhard's wife lta (d. c.1105). What could have prompted this remarkable decision? Eberhard's tomb originally stood in front of the crucifixion altar (Kreuzaltar) on the west of the crossing, on the axis of the monastery church. 2 The three individuals interred there are portrayed in full-length effigy, side-by-side. As the monastery's founder, Eberhard takes centre place; his graveslab is the widest and rises above the other two. On his right is Burkhard, who holds a little tree. This symbol was handed over to validate the transfer of tides and alludes to Burkhard's many donations to All Saints.3 All that remains oflta's graveslab is the head. Eberhard holds the church model in his left hand. A pitched roof covers a long, frontally rendered facade with a clerestory. The third window from the left is inside the damaged contours of a triangular pediment which may once have had a doorway beneath it. To the right of this are the remains of a badly worn side entrance - chiefly a bulge with a triangular gable in which is an oculus. Above this, rising from the roof. is a turret pierced with small windows, its second stage narrower than the first. The end wall is blind in the bottom half but above this has first a round-headed window then two oculi and, within the apex of the gable, a cross. Vestiges of joins and roof tiles engraved in the stone attest to the original careful finishing. A comparison between the model and the monastery church, which was undergoing reconstruction from the late eleventh century, reveals few points of

SEE

AS A SOURCE

OF PROTECTION

AND

Ortqinaf f'rorn

PRIVILEGE

85

Fig. 37. Eberhard of Nellenburg with a church model, tomb from the church of All Saints monastery in Schaffhausen, early twelfth century; Mus. zu Allerheiligen, Schaffhausen (photograph: Mus. zu Allerheiligen).

similariry. 4 The church Eberhard presents is nor a three-aisled cruciform church bur a little basilica. The present church cower dares only from around 12.00 and is not in stages. Given the doorway in the north transept and the cloisters on the south side of the church, the model's sculptor seems co be showing the church from the north. What the shore end wall might be is unclear, however. If it is intended co represent the west end of the church, it lacks an entrance; if the east end, it lacks the apse chat at one stage preceded the present straight end wall.5 While there appear co be no convincing parallels between the model and the actual monastery church, comparison with the church model in Goldbach

86

COMPRESSED

produces a clearer picture. Eberhard's model is virtually the twin ofWinidhere's. Only the number of windows differs slighcly, and Winidhere's church has no entrances. The most conspicuous similarity is the staged turret above the straight end wall. Perhaps the explanation for this relationship lies in the connections between Schalthausen and Goldbach. The Reichenau scriptorium, which seems co have been Goldbach's source for the type of roof turret, may have been the link. The Nellenburgs had close contacts with the island monastery: in 983 Eberhard's grandfather Burkhard is mentioned as Vogt or advocatus - as advocate or lay protector - of Reichenau, and he and his sons were buried there. Before 1056 Eberhard founded a funerary chapel for his family in the cemetery there and from 1070 to 1088 his son Eggehard II held the office of abbot. 6 Three documents dating from the early twelfth century even hint at direct connections between Schalthausen and Goldbach.7 When Count Burkhard of Nellenburg gave his lands in Hemmenthal to All Saints in 1100, the first witness without a noble tide co put his name to the deed was the advocate ofReichenau Arnolf of Goldbach: 'signum Arnolfi advocati Augiensis de Golchbach'. ln 1108 Arnold of Goldbach made a gift co All Saints, and in 1112.his name headed the list of witnesses to a deed of gift chat was likewise intended for the Schalthausen monastery. A donor's model akin to the one at Goldbach was a fitting choice for the Nellenburg tomb. As an allusion to the Anastasis Rotunda the two-staged roof turret would have been a constant reminder to the monastic community of their task of eternal prayer for the souls of the departed donors in the hope of deliverance from death. The use of staged roof turrets in the Stuttgart passionale from Zwiefa!ten (c.112.0-1135) probably served the same purpose. According co Reinle the passionale illumination displays a stylistic relationship to the Nellenburg tomb 8 It is true that in the manuscript the turrets are three-staged, but the same variation occurs in representations of Christ's tomb, for instance in the precious gospel book of Bern ward of Hildesheim (993-102.2.), dating from 1015.9 The first roof turret in the passionale appears on the church in which the Apostle Andrew is buried. 10 This funerary context corresponds to Eberhard's church model. Just as in Purchard's miniature, the Zwiefalten scriptorium used this type of tower further on in the passionale as a standard motif. Hence it appears not only on the burial church of John the Evangelist and in the

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

martyrdom of Stephen but also on the churches in which Pope Sylvester baptizes Constantine, Basil converts a pagan, and Aurelius blesses three monks. Kozok associates these staged turrets in a general sense with the commemoration of the dead and the veneration of saints in the monastery at Zwiefalten. 11 The significance of the Schaffhausen architectural model gains greater relief through the Lamb of God carved above Eberhard's head. According to Sauer the Lamb, pre-eminent symbol of Christ as Redeemer and central to the readings for the feast of All Saints, alludes to the monastery's patronage. 12 The effigies of both father and son would thus be offering their gifts to the Lamb. In this way, Sauer maintains, the Nellenburg tomb documents Eberhard's foundation of the monastery and Burkhard's donation as rightful and legitimate deeds. The author compares the iconographic formula of the model-bearer with miniatures in tradition books. 13These collections of notices concerning the conveyance of individuals and property to a monastery or convent were compiled mainly during the twelfth century in south German regions. On this point, however, Sauer's interpretation is less than watertight. While it is true that tradition books have a function comparable to the funerary monument, a direct influence is unlikely as these manuscripts rarely contained miniatures. They may have the occasional decorated initial. 14Figurative illumination first appears in the tradition book compiled in the Bavarian monastery of Ebersberg in the time of Abbot Williram ( 1048-1085). 15 Here, the ancestors' heads are depicted above the Carolingian and Ebersberg genealogies. The tradition book dating from 1148-1149 from the Bamberg convent of St James contains what seems to be the first iUustration of a model-bearer (Fig. 38). 16The manuscript was produced in the neighbouring monastery of Michelsberg, whose own tradition book has been lost. Depicted in the St James book is the founder-bishop Hermann I (1065-1075) offering a basilican church model to Christ, portrayed on the previous folio. Unlike the two east towers, which flank the apse as they do in reality, there are no buildinghistorical indications that the west tower ever existed.17Hermann bears his foundation in papal style, with the west end turned towards Christ, although in reality the conventual buildings obstructed such view of the south side of the built architecture. The tiny plants at Hermann's feet, which allude to paradise, also follow the Roman tradition. It is not until a good century and

THE

Digitized by

G 008 Ie

HOLY

Fig. 38. Bishop Hermann I of Bamberg with a church model, tradition book of the convent of St James in Bamberg, produced in the neighbouring Michelsberg monastery, 1148-1149; Bamberg, Staatsarchiv, Rep. B 101, No. 1, p. 8 (from: PETZET, Bayern,cat. 100 ).

a halflater that two miniatures from Zwetcl ( 1310-1311) portray worldly counterparts to Bishop Hermann I: Hadmar I of Kiinring (d. 1137) and his wife Gertrud are depicted carrying a church in both a family tree and a separate miniature and, also in the family tree, Albero II (d. 1182) presents two models.18 This very small number of early examples argues against Sauer's suggestion that the iconography ofEberhard's monument has any association with illustrations in tradition books. The source of inspiration must therefore lie elsewhere. As partisans of the pope, Burkhard of Nellenburg and his brother, Abbot Eggehard of Reichenau,

SEE

AS

A SOURCE

OF PROTECTION

AND

PRIVILEGE

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

87

had supported the German antiking, Rudolph ofSwabia.19When Rudolph died in 1080, barely a day after defeating Henry IV (1056-1106) at the Battle of Hohenmolsen, his adherents caused a tomb to be made for him in Merseburg Cathedral on which is his full-length effigy with orb, sceptre and crown. 20 In the political circumstances the Nellenburg tomb may well reference the portrait of Rudolph ofSwabia, although the antiking does not carry a model. Before 12.00 model-bearers on tomb monuments are known only in Hesse (c.u50, cf§p), Bonn (c.1169,cf§6.1) and StGermain-des-Pres in Paris (c.1170-1175,cf§12..1)- too few examples to regard All Saints as coincidentally containing the first witness of an established tradition. So was it perhaps the monks who opted to adopt the papal formula for Eberhard's effigy? There are no iconographic objections to such a notion. Just as in Rome the popes offer their models to the enthroned Christ, Eberhard presents his church to the Lamb of God above his head. The paradisal surroundings represented by a landscape in Roman mosaics find their equivalent in the arcade beneath Eberhard's feet. Similar arcades run right around the edge of his graveslab and also ornament the ends of the other two. Despite some minor damage it can still be seen that the arcade along the bottom edge of Eberhard's slab contains twelve arches, the one at the top has thirteen, while those along the sides have thirty-three. Burkhard has six arches at his feet and seven at his head; in Ita's case, only the arcade at her head remains, and this has six arches. These numbers are too specific for the arcades to be dismissed as merely decorative, the more so as a rare funerary monument with full length figures would have caused quite a stir in the early twelfth century. 21 The twelve arches at the bottom of Eberhard's slab probably represent the Heavenly Jerusalem, the architectonic counterpart of paradise on the Roman mosaics. There is an arch or gateway for each apostle. As Christ himself appears at the head of the tomb, in the shape of the Agnus Dei, he receives his own thirteenth gateway in the arcade on the top edge. The number thirty-three refers to the years of Christ's life, his sacrificial death and the thirty-three hours he lay in the tomb, 22 a symbolism highly appropriate to a funerary monument. The sum of the arches at the tops and bottoms of the graveslabs on either side reprises these numbers: at the top seven plus six, at the bottom six plus what was probably six. Thus the donor figures'

88

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

surrounding expresses the hope that once resurrected they will be allowed to enter the Heavenly Jerusalem. This meaning also tallies with the arcade beneath Eberhard's feet and the staged roof turret on the model. Why, though, did the Schaffhausen monks follow the Roman iconographic tradition? The historical background against which they took their decision carries back to the monastery's foundation in the mideleventh century. 23 In 1047 Eberhard accompanied Emperor Henry III to Rome. There, according to the All Saints tradition book, he asked the apostles to show him where he should site his future monastery. The ferryman who carried the returning count across the Rhine near Schaffhausen had seen a madder plant with a gold cross grow up to heaven. On the spot where this sign had appeared Eberhard carried out his plan. On 2.2. November 1049 Pope Leo IX (1049-1054), a cousin ofEberhard's mother, dedicated the first altar to Christ's Resurrection. Fifteen years later, when Bishop Rumold of Constance (1051-1069) dedicated it to Our Saviour and All Saints, the Nellenburg proprietary monastery (Eigenkloster) was largely complete. Pope Alexander II (1061-I073) placed it directly under the protection of the Holy See. Eberhard, whose support of the papal cause had lost him significant possessions, eventually entered it himself. Whether the construction of a new five-aisledmonastery church had begun before his death around 1078 is not known. What is certain is that the planned doubling of the side aisles was eventually abandoned. Burkhard succeeded his father. In 1079 he asked Abbot William of Hirsau (1069-1091) to reform All Saints, upon which the count and his mother relinquished their rights of ownership. Thus Eberhard's foundation could grow into a leading Gregorian bastion in the investiture controversy. Dark clouds gathered in 1097 with the reconciliation of Berthold II of Zahringen (d. 1111)with Emperor Henry IV and Duke Frederick I ofSwabia (1079-1105).Burkhard lost both the county ofNellenburg and the monastery advocacy to members of the family who had taken the imperial side. Bishop Gebhard III of Constance (1084-mo), who had been driven from his see by the pro-imperial antibishop Arnold of Heiligenberg in uo3-uo5, consecrated the new monastery church during his exile. In revenge for this slight, Arnold and his imperial allies carried out a violent attack on Schaffhausen, whereupon Pope Paschal II called on the lords ofSwabia and

Bavaria, as well as the bishops of Constance and Passau, to protect All Saints. But Arnold was not the only threat to peace. In 1098 the monks complained of their new pro-imperial advocate Adalbert ofMorsberg (d. 1124/25). It seems he treated them badly, failed to give any kind of lead in difficult circumstances, built a stronghold near the monastery, and purloined abbey property. The disagreements dragged on. They were settled only in 1122, with the monks appealing to their papal privileges on one hand and to regulations the founder had laid down regarding the advocacy on the other. In addition, in 1102, quarrels broke out with the dukes of Zahringen, who demanded the return of properties Eberhard had exchanged with them in order, later, to give them to All Saints. The tension seemed to relax when King Henry V (1106-1125)confirmed all the monastery's possessions and papal privileges in 1111, but in 1120 Duke Conrad of Zahringen once more seized the monastery. As shortly before this Pope Callistus II (1119-1124)had once again confirmed the privileges of All Saints, Henry V had little option but to take the side of the monks. Duke Conrad was forced to withdraw, though he still managed to wring a sum of money out of the business. Sauer connects this crisis with the creation of the Nellenburg tomb and two other objects that commemorated the comical family, a tradition book and a memorial plaque. 24 All three emphasized the unremitting validity of both the foundation and the transfer of properties to the monastery. The bones in the tomb reminded the monastic community of their duty towards the dead to maintain and defend All Saints, while the effigies exhorted the advocates to match their good example. Sauer rightly draws parallels with fraught situations elsewhere, that also led to the commissioning of a figurative founder's tomb. Yet these monuments rarely represent the founder as a model-bearer, certainly in the twelfth century. By failing to include this 'Roman' iconographic motif in her analysis Sauer overlooks a significant aspect: the architectural model points to the close ties between All Saints and the Holy See. The pope was involved with the monastery from the very start, not just from the Gregorian reform ofBurkhard's day. The idea for the foundation may have matured in Rome when Eberhard met his relative Leo IX, who would consecrate the first altar in 1049. Even though their pro-papal stance resulted more than once in a

THE

HOLY

loss of possessions, the Nellenburgs remained loyal to the papal cause. The pope and the privileges he conferred between 1098 and 112.2also played a major role in the settling of the many disputes. By portraying Eberhard in the papal donor tradition the monks made it clear that to lay hands on possessions and privileges of the monastery was not only to disregard the lawful provisions of the founder but also their apostolic protection. In this way the relationship between All Saints and Rome, which was originally manifested in the planned five-aisled reconstruction of the monastery church that referenced St Peter's, was given new and innovatory shape in the tomb monument.

5.2Hesse The idea of the 'stone foundation charter' was seized on by religious houses that wanted to deliver a similar message. Twelfth-century survivals offer the possibility to examine two of these more closely - a funerary monument in Hesse and a carved door jamb from Petershausen. The former Benedictine convent in Hesse (Hessen) near Sarrebourg (Saarburg) contains the tomb of a male member of the Egisheim-Dagsburg family, by whom the convent was founded. On stylistic grounds 25 the tomb can be dated to around 1150-1160. Collin, however, ascribes it to the patronage of Countess Gertrudis (1204/06-1225) 26 who, he suggests, had the church rebuilt as a family monument, and it goes without saying that the founder himself would receive a place of honour in it. The donor's architectural model (Fig. 39) argues against Collin's theory, however. He holds it in his left hand as he raises his right hand in prayer. His little church sits behind a crenellated wall, which probably represents the nuns' clausura. Parallels for such walls are known from the Trier city gate tympanum of 1147 (Fig. 28, cf§4.1). The church toweron the left has two rows of windows beneath a triangular roof. The adjoining nave has three windows and ends in a narrow, damaged part of the building that is very small for a transept, but neither does its large closed door evoke the idea of a choir. The rebuilding of the convent church started at the east end in around 1200 and worked westwards. 27 The choir and the transept with its two apsidioles in the east wall were only just

SEE

AS A SOURCE

OF PROTECTION

AND

PRIVILEGE

89

Fig. 39. Donor's modelof the effigyin the formermonastery church of Hesse, mid-twelfth century {photograph: author).

finished when Gertrudis died. Furious conflict over the inheritance brought construction to a standstill - the completion of the church had to wait until 1277. If the tomb dates from the early thirteenth century, Gertrudis would presumably have wanted to see at least something of the already-accomplished part of her family monument to be reflected in the model. The effigies from Bonn and St-Germain-des-Pres, for example, explicitly present the just rebuilt east ends of their foundations (Fig.43,114, cf §6.1/!2.1). The sculptor in Hesse, on the other hand, has greatly simplified that part of the building, making the date suggested by the stylistic evidence rather more convincing than a date in Gertrudis's lifetime.

90

COMPRESSED

The tomb displays a clear iconographic affinity with the Nellenburg monument in Schaffhausen. This is not confined purely to the model-bearer: the anonymous founder in Hesse stands on a hill, a landscapelike variation of Eberhard's paradisal arches, and an arcade runs around the edge of his graveslab as well. These similarities may be attributable to family connections, for Pope Leo IX was a cousin of Eberhard's mother and his ancestors founded the convent in Hesse. 28 The sanctity of Leo IX and his reform policy made the Egisheim-Dagsburgs loyal partisans of the pope. 29 The Alsatian counts were thus on the same side as the founder of All Saints. But this changed drastically under Hugo IX (1137-c.1178).As the husband of Liutgard of Sulzbach, whose sister Gertrude was married to King Conrad III, Hugo IX transferred his loyalties to the Hohenstaufens. In 11s3 Frederick I rewarded him with the county of Metz, which brought the family to the peak of its power. 30 What the reaction to this comital volte-face might have been within the convent walls is unknown. 31 Perhaps it was at this time that the false bull purportedly promulgated by Leo IX on the consecration of the high altar in Hesse on ll November 1049 - the very date of the consecration of the first altar in Schaffhausen - was produced. 32 In this forgery the pope confirms the rights, privileges and possessions of the ancestral foundation. By a similar resistance to rulers who flouted the pope's will and aimed only at the increase of their own power and possessions, the parallel with All Saints is inescapable. Perhaps the nuns commissioned the tomb at that time as a monumental equivalent of the bull and an adamantine warning against any violation of once granted privileges and property. An eleventh-century manuscript containing the Vita S. Leonis IX papae from the abbey of St Arnulfin Metz reinforces the idea that the iconographic motif of the model-bearer has papal connotations. 33 In the dedication miniature Leo IX and Abbot Warinus (d. before 1063) hold between them a church model that bears the inscription basilica sancti Arnul.fi (Fig. 40). The doorway sits on a high masonry base that also seems to become part of the aisle. This construction is akin to the wall of the Hesse model. The position of the church tower on the left and the nave with a number of windows also correspond, while an east end is even missing entirely. The miniature records the pope's consecration of the abbey church, which according to tradition took place on 11October 1049.

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

.J!l~ .,.~ (i. "'~

fvwu.,1;v:lrunnou::bc&)t·

ua-rumuf1.col,c;,tdi

=

Atm:v~•

Fig. 40. Pope Leo IX and Abbot Warinus of St Arnulf's in Metz present a church model, manuscript containing the Vita S. Leonis papae from Metz, second half of the eleventh century; Bern, Stadt- und UB, 2.92.,fol. 73 (from: WAGNER, "Acti sancti Leonis", fig. on p. 38).

Fig. 41. Model of Bishop Gebhard II of Constance from the east portal of the monastery church of Petershausen, c.1173-1180;Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmus. (photograph: author).

In this respect St Arnulf could look back on a similar

(979-995), which once flanked the eastern entrance. 34

tie with Leo IX as the monastic communities in Schaffhausen and Hesse.

They were probably made between the laying of the east portal's first stone in 1173 and the consecration of the church in 1180. Pope Gregory was its patron saint, Bishop Gebhard was its founder, and therefore carries an architectural model (Fig. 41). Two pictures of the monastery church, both dating from shortly before it was demolished, allow us to assess how much of a likeness the model is.35 All three images show the representative south aspect of the church - the cloister lay on the north side. However, the sculptor turned the three-aisled cruciform building into a modest basilica and the round-headed clerestory windows into oculi. The nineteenth-century pictures show at the south-west corner of the church

5.3 Petershausen From 1162.work was underway on the rebuilding of the monastery church of Petershausen, near Constance, as a cruciform basilica with its choir to the west. When the church was demolished in 1831-1832. only the sculpture of the east portal was spared, and is now to be found in the Badisches Landesmuseum at Karlsruhe. Among these few remains are the figures of Pope Gregory and Bishop Gebhard II of Constance

THE

Digitized by

G OOg IC

HOLY

SEE

AS A SOURCE

OF PROTECTION

AND

PRIVILEGE

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

91

the all but free-standing tower, rebuilt around 1160-1170 (?). On the model, however, it rises from the left end of che roof. above and marginally to the left of a slightly projecting pare of the building with a gable which may represent a transept, albeit one much reduced in size. Given the differences between the three south views it would seem that a medieval iconographic tradition was also a determining factor in the composition of the donor's model. In fact, Gebhard's little church repeats the salient features of Eberhard's model in Schaffhausen, although in reverse. This may explain the unportrait-like position of the tower. The 'transept' with its oculus in the gable also corresponds to the All Saints model. Certain simplifications have been made, however: the Petershausen model lacks an end wall and its nave has only two bays. And the sculptor seems to have taken the model's reversed position and the shape of the tower, uninterrupted by stages, from the built architecture. The relationship between the donor-models reflects the close ties between the two monasteries. 36 In 1092. the monks entered into a mutual prayer confraternity. Bishop Gebhard III of Constance, who consecrated the new church of All Saints, brought the Hirsau Reforms to Petershausen, which also embraced Gregorian thought. The monasteries received donations from the same, generally pro-reform noble circle. Part of Petershausen's relic collection and the associated veneration of saints came from Schaffhausen. Finally, Constance Cathedral's necrologium of 12.59-12.74refers, for 30 July, to an Ebirhardusl(aicus) J(.rater)pape, who can be identified as a son of the founder of All Saints. 37 Evidently this relation of Pope Leo IX was so esteemed that he was commemorated annually in Constance. These connections suggest that Eberhard's tomb had a direct influence on the Petershausen portal sculpture. Is there perhaps any similarity in the circumstances surrounding the models' creation? In the second half of the twelfth century, Hohenstaufen policy increasingly imperilled Petershausen's status as a proprietary episcopal monastery. 38 The instigator of this change was Frederick I (1152.-1190), who appropriated the advocacies of several monasteries in the southern Ger· man regions in order to extend his power to the south. The Untervogte or sub-advocate he appointed to act in his name violated the privileges and possessions of the abbeys in increasing measure. All Saints also felt Hohenstaufen influence. From the eleven-sixties

92

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Count Rudolph of Pfullendorf (d. u81) turned covet· ous eyes on Petershausen's possessions because of their favourable situation. In tandem with the emperor, by whom he was greatly valued as a confident, Rudolph endeavoured to augment his power in the Lake Constance region. 39 In u63-u64, having acquired the castle at Rheineck, he received the neighbouring lands of Petershausen in fief for his lifetime. The following years were dark ones indeed for the monastery. Abbot Gebhard III (1164-1170) was removed, the monastery came under great oppression, its possessions and furnishings were looted. According to a lacer report, in u70 antipope Callistus III (u68-u78) would have ordered the bishop and the entire chapter of Constance to cake action against the local nobles who were harassing Petershausen; the following year he would have taken the bishopric with its lands as well as Peter· shausen into his protection. 40 Finally, under the bishop of Constance, Diethelm ofKrenkingen (u89-12.06), the transfer of Pecershausen to the Hohenstaufen Duke Frederick VI ofSwabia (c.u71-1191) began. Asa result the monastery lost its episcopal protection against aggressive sub-advocates. So great had the threat from this quarter become in the course of the twelfth century that the monks drew up an undated but possibly early-chirceenth-cencury forgery, in which Bishop Gebhard II established the free choice of the monastery advocate, forbade the appointing of a subadvocate without the abbot's consent, and set out the sub-advocate's rights and duties in meticulous detail. All these woes gave reason enough for portraying the founder in the east portal. Like that of the Nellenburg count the portrait of the bishop alluded to the legality of the privileges and possessions that had been given to the monastery. Bue it is not only in imitation of Schaffhausen that the figure of Gebhard carries an architectural model in the papal fashion. Petershausen, too, had every reason to feel closely allied to the Holy See.41 Firstly, the monastery was dedicated to Pope Gregory, whose portrait faced that of the founder on the east portal. Secondly, both the old monastery church and the new one begun under Abbot Conrad (112.7-u64) had the choir at the west end, following the example of Old St Peter's. Moreover, the Petershausen church's location on the far bank of the Rhine corresponded to the location of Sc Peter's on the far bank of the Tiber. This parallelism continued in the name 'Petershausen' - 'Peter's house'. Furthermore, the skull of the principal patron was enshrined in an altar

dedicated to St Peter on the south side of the old church, analogous to the position of Gregory's grave in Rome. Thirdly, Petershausen had been under papal protection since 989. During the investiture controversy the monastery was emphatic in its support of the pope and developed inro a cenrre for the cult of St Gregory. Fourthly, Abbot Alawich II (997-1000) gained for himself and his successors two notable privileges: the abbot was permitted to receive his consecration from the pope himself and to wear the episcopal insignia. Fifthly, the monastery preserved relics of popes Alexander, Callistus, Clement, Cornelius, Felix, Leo, Sylvester and, most important of all, the head of Sc Gregory, acquired in 989. By representing Gebhard II with an architectural model in the papal donor tradition, the monks of Petershausen emphasized the significance of their church as St Peter's on the Upper Rhine, and all the associated privileges.

5.4 Millstatt In the western narthex of the former monastery church in Millstatt ( Carinthia), above the entrance to the nave, is a marble tympanum in which is depicted a kneeling abbot offering a church model to Christ (Fig. 42.).42 The inscription on the archivolt identifies the donor as HEINRICUS ABBAS. This is not the only clue to the period of the tympanum's creation: on stylistic grounds too it can be dated to the abbacy of Henry I (1166-afcer 1177). That he should appear in the guise of model-bearer is remarkable, for Henry I merely completed the rebuilding his predecessor Otto I (1122./2.4-1166)had begun. 43 Only the west end ofche church, consisting of a narthex beneath a gallery between two towers, dates from the time of Henry I. The tradition offers virtually no parallels for a modelbearer who appropriates someone else's laurels. Rare examples are perhaps the depictions of Pope Paschal II in a mosaic in St-Martin d'Ainay at Lyon and the Danish King Waldemar I on the south tympanum of Schleswig Cathedral (Fig. 71). In the first case the dispute over the primacy of Gaul was a determining factor; in the second, political and dynastic interests were involved (cf §7.1/8.4). Bue what moved Abbot Henry I to employ the donor motif in this exceptional way? Henry's church model looks like a regular miscellany of architectural elements. The nave and the adjoining apse each have two windows, and the

THE

Digitized by

G 008 Ie

HOLY

Fig. 42. Abbot Henry I with a church model on the tympanum in the west portal of the monastery church of St Saviour's in Millstatt, c.1166-1177 (photograph: author).

beholder views chem as if from the south, the side on which, in reality, the claustral buildings abut the church. Rising behind the nave are the two west cowers, as if the sculptor had intended to represent the church seen from the east. Their position in the background is surprising, as this was the very part of the church the model-bearer built. Each cower does contain two high windows, giving chem a likeness co the real thing. Taken as a whole, the model gives the impression that the sculptor was required to represent all the characteristic parts of the building - or put another way, chat Henry I presented himself as the founder of the complete church. Given the circumstances then prevailing, this message seems deliberate. 44 The actual founders of the monastery were the brothers Aribo II (d. 1102.)and Poto (d. 1104) of the Bavarian-Noric Aribonids. Around 1070-1077 they decided co found a Benedictine monastery on the north shore of Lake Millscatt, where two of their proprietary churches scood. In 112.2. their descendant Engelbert of Gorz, count palatine of Bavaria (1099-112.2.),transferred the foundation co the

SEE

AS

A SOURCE

OF

PROTECTION

AND

PRIVILEGE

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

93

Church of Rome in return for the annual tribute of one gold coin. Pope Callistus II placed the monastery under the protection of the Holy See and granted the monks the privilege of choosing their own advocate, provided that they were charged to do so. Similar charters granted by Innocent II and Eugene III have been lost. An extension of the privileges followed in the privilege of Alexander Ill of 1177: thenceforth the monks could dismiss their advocate ifhe had become 'useless' (inutilis ).45 The supplementary provision was clearly aimed at the monastery advocates of the time from the noble house of Gorz. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries these counts enhanced their power at the expense of the very churches they were meant to protect. It is true that only from 1101do written sources provide evidence of disputes between Millstatt and its advocate,46 but Abbot Henry I would certainly not have been blind to comical ambition. At the same time dislike of the advocates is shown by an increasing interest in Duke Domitian of Carinthia. 47 Domitian was commemorated as the founder of the first church in Millstatt, whereas the Aribonid family could lay claim only to the founding of the first monastery. The monks probably endeavoured in this way to diminish the role of the comical house and thus undermine the claims of the advocate.48 The first steps in this direction seem to have been taken place during

94

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

the abbacy of Henry's predecessor Otto. Possibly the monks 'found' Domitian's grave; they included the duke in the calendar of saints, and wrote the first part of his Life.Subsequently Abbot Henry exploited the new legend of Domitian as a ploy in his ecclesiastical policy: he obtained the extended privilege from Alexander Ill and, by means of the papal iconographic motif. had himself portrayed on the tympanum as the founder of the new monastery church. That he did not share the presentation of the church with a single member of the Aribonid family goes without saying. But neither was this the moment to depict Domitian: his elevation from church founder to monastery founder so soon afrer the fostering of his cult would not yet have been opportune. There is a parallel in the Benedictine monastery of St Peter at Erfurt, where from the first half of the twelfth century the monks claimed King Dagobert I (619-639) as their founder, but only under Abbot Andrew (1254-1300,d.1301)did the Merovingian monarch appear as model-bearer in one of the church portals. 49 The choice of an image of the Millstatt abbot may even have been influenced by the painting on the triumphal arch, executed just a short while before, in St John's Chapel in Piirgg (cf §3.3). This chapel was among the possessions of Admont Abbey, whence Henry had been called to lead the monastery in Millstatt. 50

NOTES

1 MosEL, Die Anfangen, p. 18-30, 31-36: REIN LE, "Das Schaffhauser Sriftergrab~ p. 7-1s: SEELIGER,Die Grabplatten,passim: BAUCH, Das mittelalterlicheGrabbild, p. 10, 11, Abb. 1s: LIPS· MEYER,The Donor, p. 79-80; SAUER,Fundatio,p. 91-101, Ijj•118, Abb.10. 2 SAUER,Fundatio,p. 94-95. LIPSMEYER,The Donor, p. 161-164 erroneously starts from a position in the crypt, which Eberhard's effigy would indicate by pointing with his right hand to the place underneath the church model. 3 SEELIGER, Die Grabplatten, p. 17-19: SAUER, Fundatio, p. 97-99. • On the building's architectural history, sec: FRAUENFELDER, Die Kumtdenkmaler, p. 71-93; KNOEPFLI, Kumtgeschichte, p. 117-140: GUYAN,"Das Salvator-Klostcr~ p. 111-104. ' Cf: GuYAN, "Das Salvator-Kloster~ fig. 64. 6 BEYERL£,"Zur Einruhrung", p. 111-113;MANSER & BEYERLE, "Aus dem liturgischen Leben~ p. 191. 7 BAUMANN,Die iiltmm Urkundm. no. 14, 46, 50. 8 Stuttgart, WLB, Hist. 1° 57, 56, 58 (VON BORRIES·SCHULTEN, Dieromanischm Handschriften,cat. ,4-16): REINLE,"Das Schaffhauser Stiftergrab", p. 11-14. 9 Hildesheim, Dom-Mus., DS 18, fol. 175: KOHNEL, From the Earthly, p. 107: BRANDT & EGGEBRECHT, Bernward von Hildm1tim, cat. Vlll-30: BRANDT,DaskostbareEvangeliar,p. 47-48, Taf. 18: HoHL, OttonischeBuchmalerei,p. 168, Abb. 15. On the three-part structure of images of the Holy Sepulchre, which also occurs with the Anastasis Rotunda itself and in built imitations, sec: KozoK, Der Tristegum-Turm,passim. '° Stuttgart, WLB. Hist. 1° 57, fol. 4: VON BoRRIES-SCHULTEN, Die romanischmHandschrifien,p. 58, Abb. 4. 11 KozoK,Der Tristegum-Turm,p. 105-108:Stuttgart, WLB, Hist. 1° 57, fol. 11(John the Evangelist), 167v (Sylvester), 181 (Basil): 56, fol. 49 (Stephen): 58, fol. 36 (Aurelius). See: BoECKLER,Das Stutt• garter Passiona/e,p. 3-6, Abb. 11, 8, 11, 79, 131; VON BORRIES· ScHULTEN, Die romanischenHandschrifien,p. 58, 60, 61-61, 67. 12 SAUER,Fundatio,p. 98-101. 13 SAUER,Fundatio,p. ,4-41. " E.g. in the tradition book from Miinchsmiinstcr (1076-c.1110) and in the I uh-century manuscripts from Windberg in which notices regarding property arc included: Munich, Baycrischcs Hauptstaatsarchiv, Kl.-Lit. 30 (TIEL & ENGELS,Die Traditionen, p. 11-, 17•-17•: Munich, BSB, Clm 11101, 11110, 11111, 11104 (KLEMM,Die romanischenHandschriften,vol. 1,cat. 158,166, 176, 183;HoPFENM0LLER,DasAnkunftsbuch, p. •41-• 45). On the usually frugal execution of tradition books,sec: WANDERWITZ,"Traditionsbiichcr", p. 171. ,s Munich, Baycrischcs Hauptstaatsarchiv, Kl.-Lit. Ebcrsberg, no. 1, p. i-k: Jo HANEK, "Zur rcchdichen Funktion~ p. 147-150, Abb.1. 16 Bamberg, Staatsarchiv, Rep. B 101,no. 1, p. 1: PETZET, Bayern, cat. 100: SUCKALE-REDLEFSEN,Die Handschrifien,p. XXXI. 17 TUNK,DieSt.jakobskirche,p. 11, 6-10: DEHIO et al.. Handbuch, p. 118-110.

18 Zwctd, Stiftsarchiv, 1/I. fol. 8, 18: SEELIGER,Die Grabplatten, p. 18, Taf. 8: BRUCHER, GeschichtederbildendenKunst, cat. 141, fig. on p. 144. 19 BEYERLE,"Zur Einftihrung~ p. 113-118. 20 MosEL, Die An.fongen,P· 18-11: SCHRAMM& MOTH ERICH, Die deutschen Kaiser, p. 117-118,145-146, Abb. 177 on p. 433: HINZ, Das GrabmalRudo!fi, passim. 21 Cf: MosEL, Die An.fongen,p. 18-19. 22 Cf: MEYER & SUNTRUP,Lexilwn, c. 701-707. 23 Historical details derived from: KNOEPFLI, Kumtgeschichte, p. 1,4: SEELIGER,Die Grabplatten,p. 11-11:BORST, Miincheam Bodemee,p. 111-134: GuYAN, "Das Salvator-Klostcr", p. •H·•ss: GILOMEN-SCHENKEL,FruheKloster,p. 1490-1498: SAUER,Fundatio, p. 93-94, 1n-111: GALLMANN, Das Stifierbuch, p. 10-11, 19-57. 2 • SAUER,Fundatio,p. 111-118. " BAUCH, Das mittelalterlicheGrabbild,p. 14, 309 n. 74, Abb. 19-10: SAUERLANDER,"Salisch", p. 160-166. Muller-Dietrich puts the effigy at around 1010 (MOLLER-DIETRICH, Die romanische Skulptur, p. 17-16, Abb. 14-15. Cf: COLLIN, Les tglisesromanes, P· u8: MARSCHALL & SLOTTA, urraine romane,p. 139). This he bases on the style and the report that in 1049 Pope Leo IX consecrated several altars in Hesse that were founded by his sisterin-law Mathilde and her son Henry. But the consecration of an altar docs not necessarily have to be connected with renovations to the architecture or furnishing of the monastery church. HOTZ, Handbuch, p. 70, who deems the arcade along the edges of the gravcslabs to be a hallmark of the late nth century, is apparently unfamiliar with the Ndlenburg tomb. 26 COLLIN, Les t!glises romanes,p. 111-111. 27 COLLIN, Les,glisesromanes,p. 119-111: MARSCHALL& SLOT· TA, Lo"aine romane, p. 137. 28 BAUCH, Das mittelalterlicheGrabbild,p. 309, n. 74. 29 BACHELARD, Dabo, p. 114; PARISSE, La noblesseLorraine, p. 111. PARISSE,La noblesselorraine, p. 511,716-717; PARJSSE,Noblesse,

·'°

P· 91· ·" The most extensive study of the monastery's history still seems to be KUHN, Hesse;he does not discuss the 11th century, however. 32 KUHN, Hesse,p. 15,17-13, 71-75 (Latin text) considers the bull as genuine. PARISSE,La noblesselorraine,p. 119 negates this by pointing out the very improbable granting of the right to mint coins and the reference to Lco's nephew as dead, whereas in 1049 he was still alive. JJ Bern, Stadt- und UB.191, fol. 71: LADNER.Die Papstbi/dnisse, p. 180-186, Taf. XV!Ila: WAGNER,"Acti sancti Lconis, p. 17·19· 34 BUDDE,DeutscheRomanischeSkulptur,p. 10-11,Taf. 77. On the building's architectural history and early iconographic sources for the east portal, sec: HOMBURGER, "Matcrialicn~ p. 153-164, Taf. 75.1, 76-79; KNOEPFLI, Kumtgeschichte,p. 141-148. 3' The vignet on the tide page of H. Schreiber, Denkmaler der BaukunstdesMittelaltersam Oberrhein,vol. 1:Bautm zu Konstanz. Freiburg, 1811:and a lithograph by Nicolaus Hug, published in a

THE HOLY SEE AS A SOURCE

OF PROTECTION

AND PRIVILEGE

95

series of reproductions ofold monuments ( no. 18), Konstanz 18l >: HOMBURGER, "Matcrialien~ p. 159-169,Abb. 1,Taf. 74. 16 · M1sCOLL·RECKERT,KlosterPetershausrn,p. 115-140, 148-151, 116-157. " MAURER, "Eberhard~ especially p. 187-191 38 MISCOLL·RECKERT,KlosterPetershausm,p. 116-11i: FEGER, Die Chronik,p. 114-159. 19 · On Rudolph of Pfullendorf, see: SCHMID, Graf Rudolf. p. 64-88, 106-m and passim . .., MAURER, Die Konstanur Bischiift,p. 356. 11 HOMBURGER, "Materialien", p. 156; MAURER, Konstanz, p. 19-30, 64-69; MISCOLL-RECKERT, Kloster Prtershausen, p. 66-74, 151-158;FEGER,Die Chronik,p. 111•>15,i40-141. 42 LIPSMEYER,Thr Donor,p. 99-100, 177; FILLITZ, Grschichteder bildendrn Kunst, cat. 99, fig. on p. 77, 349. 43 On the building's architectural history, see: FILLITZ, Geschichte derbildrndrnKunst,cat. 39; FAUST& KRASSNIG,Die BrnediktinischrnMonchs-und Nonnenkloster,vol. 1, p. 766-767, 79 3-795. On Abbot Henry, see: DEUER, "Abt Heinrich", p. i19-333. +1 Historical details derived from: WEINZIERL-FISCHER, Geschichtedrs Brnediktinerklostrrs,p. 14-57, 109-uo; N1KOLASCH,

96

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

"Domitian von Millstatt", p. 1J5•113; DEUER, "Abt Heinrich", p. i17-i18; FILLITZ, Grschichte der bildendrnKunst,p. 144: FAUST & KRASSNIG, Die BenediktinischenMonchs•und Nonnenldoster, vol. 1, p. 76i-766. 45 NIKOLASCH, "Domitian von Millstatt", p. 141-143 Nikolasch poinrs to the legal inefficiency of this term, for nowhere is it stated who can determine the uselessness. "" EISLER, "Die Legende~ p. 85-87. " The question of whether Domitian is a historical individual has been extensively treated and affirmatively answered by KAHL, Die Millstaffer Domitian. On the present state of the research, sec: Monchs-und NonnrnFAUST& KRASSNIG,Die Benedi!ttinischrn kloster,vol. 1, p. 760-761. •• EISLER, "Die Legende~ p. 73-101 has gone very far in this rea• soning, but his arguments have been largely negated, cf NIKO· LASCH,"Domitian von Millstatt", p. 135-153. 49 The sculpture is known from a drawing and an engraving dating from c.1719: SAUER,Fund,,tio,p. 169-176, Abb. 37. 5 FAUST,"Gottfried von Admont", p. 178; ARNOLD, "Admont". p. lll, 353,

°

6. Power Struggles among the Clergy

Besides alluding to far removed powers such as the emperor, the pope, or the Eternal City, the spiritual donor with his architectural model was often deployed as a weapon in local power struggles between churches or monasteries. The model-bearers are not, in these cases, opposed to grasping temporal lords but to rivals within the spiritual estate. Reference to the Apostolic See may play a background role. Four examples from the Holy Roman Empire will be discussed below.

6.1 Bonn In 1794, during the occupation of the Rhineland by French revolutionary troops, the funerary monument of Gerhard of Are, provost of the minster of SS Cassius and Florentius in Bonn (1124-1169), was destroyed. Fortunately, in 1788Joseph Laporterie (1745-1798)had made a drawing of the effigy on the tomb (Fig. 43). 1 The head rested on a pillow, the right hand held a model of a church, and the left a book. In so far as the drawing allows stylistic analysis, the tomb would seem to have dated from the eleven-sixties. The effigy has the same somewhat angular jawline, small mouth and large, staring eyes beneath well-delineated eyebrows as the wooden figure of a seated angel chat was carved around 1160-1170in a Cologne workshop. 2 A series of slightly rounded V-shapcd drapery folds runs from top to bottom of Gcrhard's robe. The same folds characterize the loincloth of the Frauenberg crucifix, made in Cologne at about the same time. 3 In terms oflikeness to the church it represents, the cast view of the church of SS Cassius and Florentius in

Fig. 43. Drawing of Provost Gerhard of Arc's lost tomb of c.J160-1167 in Diisseldorf, Landesarchiv NordrheinWestfalen, Abteilung Rheinland (from: STEINBERG & STEINBERG-YON PAPE,Die Bildnisse, Abb. u5).

POWER

Digitized by

Google

STRUGGLES

AMONG

THE

CLERGY

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

97

Laporterie's drawing exceeds all the donor-models from before 1160-1170. It portrays in scrupulous detail a dwarf gallery above the original three windows of the apse, stepped round-headed niches in the gable beneath the pitched roof. two flanking east towers and a third tower at the crossing. Gerhard of Are was the founder of this characteristic choir, which was consecrated in 1153.4 At the same time, a new cloister was built. As Gerhard later built a double chapel on the eastern cloister as his future mausoleum it is likely that he commissioned the funerary monument himself. Building work at the minster church continued into the first half of the thirteenth century. The vaulting of the choir around 12.00 entailed the heightening of the east gable of the chancel, which would thenceforth contain three great round-headed arches between three oculi. The east towers originally had four stages with windows in the upper two, comparable to the model. A fifth stage was added later, possibly after a fire in 12.39.Whether the church already had a crossing tower in Gerhard's day is not certain. The tower on the drawing is square in plan, has one stage rising above the ridge of the roof. and proportions in keeping with the rest of the model. It lacks symbolic characteristics, such as stages diminishing in width or an octagonal plan (cf §4.2./6.2.), which suggests that this part of the building may be portrait-like. In any case, when making his drawing Laporterie was not influenced by the tall, octagonal crossing tower that dates from the thirteenth century, or by the number of windows in the apse, which was increased from three to seven around 1300. This accuracy argues chat the five niches in the chancel's east gable also correspond to the church's twelfth-century appearance. As far as is known no earlier donor's model shows the east view of a church. The Bonn model's high degree of recognizability indicates Gerhard specifically as the builder of the ease end of SS Cassius and Florentius. An almost contemporary parallel is provided by the tomb of King Childebert in Saint-Germain-des-Pres (cf § 12..1). Childebert, however, lived in the distant past, whereas Gerhard built his own monument in Bonn. The model will therefore be related to the message that the provost desired to convey in the finished building, even though the two commissions were separated by about thirty years. This raises three questions. Firstly, why did Gerhard choose a model-bearer as effigy? Secondly, what was the significance of the cast end of Bonn minster? And

98

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

thirdly, to what extent does the model reflect this symbolism? Gerhard of Are was one of the most influential Rhineland clergymen of his time. 5 Besideshis forty-five years as provost in Bonn he is recorded as provost of the church of St Servatius in Maastricht in 1154-1160 and in 1169 as provost of the church of St Lebuinus in Deventer. He vigorously sought to enhance his own position and that of his family. He systematically set about extending his property, rights and liberties and endeavoured to safeguard them in the longer term. For instance, he brought about a favourable separation of the possessions of the chapter and provost in Bonn, after which, in 1143, he determined that the property pertaining to the provostship and any newly acquired estates would thenceforth be free of advocacy. In 1138 he managed to have a precedence dispute within the Cologne college of priors settled in his favour. This body, consisting of the provosts and deans of the most important foundations in the archdiocese, was at odds over which members were entitled co precedence - the provosts of Bonn and Xanten or the provost of St Gereon's in Cologne. The college of priors not only awarded precedence to Gerhard, in April 1156 it even elected him as successor to Archbishop Arnold II of Wied (1151-1156). Gerhard, however, was obliged to withdraw in favour of Frederick II ofBerg ( 1156-1158), the candidate preferred by the cathedral chapter and the emperor. It may be presumed that Philip ofHeinsberg influenced the voting of the cathedral chapter, as after his election Frederick II appointed him dean of the cathedral. Gerhard's close ties with the pope may also account for imperial prejudice, as it was precisely in 1156 chat Frederick I's relationship with Rome soured. Although Gerhard made no second bid for the archdiocesan throne, he did attempt, as first member of the college of priors, to keep his foot in the door of Cologne's cathedral chapter. In a charter from 1168 he appears as cathedral provost elect. Bue once again Gerhard was bested by the House of Berg: thanks to the support of Philip of Heinsberg, who had meanwhile become archbishop himself (1167-1191), the appointment finally went co Bruno of Berg. In his indefatigable pursuit of power - in 1168 Gerhard would have been about seventy - the provost of Bonn could consistently count on Rome's backing. He obtained no fewer than eleven papal bulls in favour of SS Cassius and Florentius, a situation that changed

radically under his successors. The pope confirmed the possessions of the collegiate church, granted Gerhard the privilege of excommunicating any one who infringed his rights of visitation as archdeacon, granted him the privilege of always being permitted co appeal to the Apostolic See, and as early as 1135 took him under papal protection as specialem fllium St. Ecdesiae Romanae. In 1148, after the deposition of Arnold I as archbishop of Cologne, Pope Eugene III even offered him the expectation of'still richer grace'. There could be no doubt that in the archdiocese of Cologne only one position was of'richer grace' than that of the provostship of Bonn: the archiepiscopal throne itself This outline of Gerhard's career makes it clear that, just as in Schaflhausen and Hesse, the patron of the founder's tomb with the model-bearer effigy maintained close ties with Rome. It may even be that Gerhard was familiar with the Hesse tomb: around 1151 his nephew Dietrich of Are-Hochstaden {d. 1195) married a daughter of Count Hugo IX ofDagsburg. 6 One difference is apparent: the reference co papal support and protection was coupled with the pursuit of one of the highest ecclesiastical positions. The use of the iconographic formula clearly reflects Gerhard's ambitions. In compensation for the defeats of 1156and 1168,when he failed to become archbishop or cathedral provost, on his funerary monument Gerhard holds an architectural model in the Roman donor tradition. The prospect of 'still richer grace' held out by Eugene III, was now only to be enjoyed beyond the grave. Without noting this papal connotation, Mose! suggests that Gerhard's tomb is a reaction to the now lost monument of archbishop and imperial chancellor Rainald of Dassel (d. 1167) in Cologne Cathedral.7 Actions such as the canonization of Charlemagne had made Rainald a leading proponent of the imperial cause. Once rid of this troublesome antagonist, Pope Alexander III would only confirm the appointment of his successor on one condition - that Rainald's funeral effigy be removed from the cathedral. Mose! therefore interprets the monument as a demonstrative proimperial statement. But he overlooks the fact that Gerhard got on very well with Rainald and was closely involved in his administration. 8 The view that the two effigies were the final statements in some sort of rivalry is thus a little coo simplistic. It is possible that Gerhard drew a parallel between the most important

and the next most important ecclesiastics in the archdiocese. Nothing survives in the records to indicate that a status symbol of this nature given to a 'special son of the Holy Church of Rome' in a 'modest' burial chapel elicited any papal protest. But the message in Bonn seems to be directed primarily at the then archbishop, Philip of Heinsberg. It was, after all, at his door chat the two great failures in Gerhard's career could be laid. The architectural model casts additional light on the nature of this show of power. Curiously enough, no one has ever connected it to the various conflicting interpretations of the east end of Bonn minster. The accepted reading ties the extension of SS Cassius and Florentius co the victory in the precedence dispute with St Gereon's: the new choir would triumphantly symbolize Gerhard's position as first member of the college of priors. 9 In response to this, Provost Bruno of St Gereon's {1138-1149)more or less simultaneously added a comparable east end to his own church. 10 In 1153Gerhard's victory received confirmation from the papal legates and Archbishop Arnold II. 11 But how relevant was this affair by the time of his death fifteen years or so later? The provost of Bonn certainly did not regard the premier place in the college of priors as the ultimate goal of his career. While it is possible that 1138provided the immediate occasion for the renovation, the architecture should be seen as expressing Gerhard's ambition in broader terms, and this will also be true of the donor's model. Mekking and Den Hartog have developed contradictory ideas about the meaning of the east apse with its dwarf gallery and flanking towers. Mekking considers Gerhard's foundation as one of a group of related east ends. 12 The first of these to appear north of the Alps was at Speyer Cathedral, rebuilt at the end of the eleventh century at the behest of Emperor Henry IV. As the mausoleum of the Salian dynasty this church was highly influential. The House of Are imitated the imperial east end on three occasions: Countess Hedwig of Are commissioned just such an addition to the abbey church of Maria Laach {consecrated in 1156); Provost Gerhard did likewise in Bonn and at ScServatius in Maascricht. Although there are no written sources for the last attribution, the relationship with Bonn and Gerhard's provostship in Maastricht perhaps make it plausible. Mekkingsees in the threefold imitation a strong desire

POWER

STRUGGLES

AMONG

THE

CLERGY

99

for independence from feudal overlords, in particular the archbishop of Cologne. In this context he points to a forged charter that probably dates from Gerhard's time as provost ofMaastricht. 13 According to the forgery, in 1087 Emperor Henry IV determined that advocacy over the church of St Servatius was to be retained by the king or emperor and in so far as possible exercised on his behalf by the provost himself, who should also be imperial chancellor. This enabled Gerhard to stake a claim to the position of imperial chancellor, which had been held by his predecessors in Maastricht, while asserting freedom from advocacy and direct imperial dependency for St Servatius. Citing the Salian cathedral would have strengthened these claims. Although the east ends of Speyer and Maastricht are clearly related, Mekk.ing's interpretation does not entirely convince. If Gerhard is regarded as the patron in both Bonn and Maastricht, the question then arises of which he commissioned first. The east end in Bonn was consecrated in 1153.To be set against this is the fact that late 1151is the earliest that Gerhard could have taken over the provostship of St Servatius from Arnold of Wied, who became archbishop of Cologne in that year but continued to exercise his functions as provost and chancellor up until the November. 14And Gerhard may not have been Arnold's immediate successor: in 1151-53Arnold ofSelehofen was working as chancellor and it is possible that he united this position with that of provost of St Servatius, as was customary at that time. 15Whatever the case, Gerhard's arrival in Maastricht was so close to the consecration of the east end in Bonn that the new choir of St Servatius must be the later of the two if it was indeed Gerhard who had it built. The strong similarities between the two east ends suggest that for Gerhard, as patron of them both, each bore the same significance. Given the probable chronology the provost must first have formulated his message in Bonn. Advocacy of SS Cassius and Florentius was, however, not in royal hands, the foundation enjoyed no imperial immunity (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) and there is no indication of any attempt to acquire such status. The archbishop of Cologne held the position of abbot, and not one provost made the slightest attempt to extract himself from his authority. 16 In contrast to Mekking, Den Hartog ascribes the east end of St Servatius to Arnold of Wied, provost of Maastricht from 1138to 1151.17She points out that the

JOO

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

vertical proportions correspond to those of the lateeleventh-century east end in Speyer and its direct imitation at Mainz Cathedral, whereas examples from the Rhineland are dominated by a horizontal articulation. This argument is not in itself persuasive. Steep proportioning was, after all, required if the new choir was to connect with St Servatius's existing, relatively high and narrow structure. 18Also in favour of Arnold as patron is the fact that in 1139 King Conrad III (1138-1152) awarded the toll on the bridge over the Meuse to the provost and chapter, which would have provided considerable funds for new building projects. For instance, Arnold built the double chapel in Schwarzrheindorf (consecrated in 1151), whose choir also has a dwarf gallery, and the east end of St Gereon's in Cologne (before 1156).Den Hartog links the building of the east end in Maastricht to a bitter dispute between the churches of St Servatius and Our Lady in Maastricht: one of the two was the former cathedral, but which? St Servatius backed up its claims with a forgery 'of 1087'. by which the chapter sought to assert direct dependency on papal and imperial jurisdiction. It was also stated that no fewer than twenty bishops had had their see in St Servatius. The choir expressed the chapter's relationship to the emperor. This would then have been the model for Bonn, since Gerhard of Are knew the Maastricht choir through family ties: from at least 1121the House of Are had been lords of nearby Heerlen, and Gerhard's father, Count Theoderich I (1087-1126), may have been advocate of the possessions of St Servatius.19According to Den Hartog these links influenced the chapter's decision to elect Gerhard as its leader after a series of provosts who had been career ecclesiastics at the imperial court. The weak spot in Den Hartog's interpretation is the connection between the charter 'of 1087' and Arnold of Wied. Deeters makes a good case for the forgery having been created only after Gerhard of Arc's installation. 20 One indication of this is the demand that the provost also be imperial chancellor, a linking of offices that was still a matter of course in Arnold of Wied's day. The fear of any advocate other than the king also seems to stem from the actions of Gerhard's powerful brother, Count Otto of Are-Hochstaden (d. c.1162). Furthermore, Den Hartog does not question why Gerhard should have found the east end with a dwarf gallery and flanking towers appropriate for SS Cassius and Florentius in Bonn. On the one hand, St Servatius had nothing to do with the conflict of

precedence between Bonn and St Gereon's. On the other, there was no reason in the case of SS Cassius and Florentius, directly dependent on the archbishop of Cologne, to suggest a special link to the emperor by imitating Speyer. The key to a solution of this problem lies in the charter 'of 1087', Gerhard's understanding with Arnold of Wied, and the connection between the east ends of Speyer, Mainz, Maastricht and Bonn. The forgery claims direct ties with the highest temporal and spiritual rulers. Imperial immunity and royal advocacy fit a reference to Speyer. Besides this, however, is the claim that St Servatius was also directly dependent on the pope. This assertion could reflect Gerhard's good relationship with the Holy See. Given the document's double claim, the provost would seem to have had a significant influence on its content. The authentic charter from which the forger worked was drawn up in 1087 while Emperor Henry IV was holding Hoftag at Aachen. 21 A royal court of law found that Count Gerhard I ofWassenberg {1085c.111.9) had improperly alienated the church ofEcht from the chapter of St Servatius. 22 Henry IV thereupon deprived the count of advocacy over Echt and granted it to Gerhard's father Theoderich I, who shortly thereafter was enfeoffed with the county of Are. These events seem to have determined the choice of model for the forgery. They mark the rise of the House of Are thanks to a decision by Henry IV. on which Gerhard, as provost of St Servatius, tried to build. Gerhard I of Wassenberg's defeat would ultimately be avenged, in 1156 and 1168, by his relative Philip of Heinsberg, 23 who blocked Gerhard's rise to even higher dignities. The harking back to Henry IV's charter is paralleled by the choice of exemplar for the new east end of the church of SS Cassius and Florentius. Gerhard's choir so clearly imitates that of Henry IV at Speyer, that it is just as much an allusion to the emperor who endowed the House of Are with its powerbase. At the same time it legitimized Gerhard's desire to increase his property, power and dignity. This symbolic value was not related to a specific success, such as the victory in the precedence dispute with St Gereon's, but established the status and imperial connections of the comital house for future generations. That also explains why the same architectural scheme was used by Countess Hedwig of Are in Maria Laach, and why it was as valuable to Gerhard

on his tomb as in the building of the east end in Bonn. The architectural model makes one reference to the Salian mausoleum that is (now) lacking in the built imitations in Bonn and Maastricht: the five stepped niches in the east gable of the chancel. These occur in the east gables of Speyer and Mainz cathedrals, 24 but after the vaulting of the choir the church of SS Cassius and Florentius retained only three, as has already been mentioned. In Maastricht the original articulation of the gable vanished with the application of Gothic blind tracery and the total reconstruction in 1870-1877 did away with whatever vestiges might have remained. 25 Gerhard of Are was not the first to cite Henry IV's choir. Besides the east end in Mainz, which lacks the flanking towers, he could have been inspired by the church of St Servatius in Maastricht. In this respect Gerhard's family connections, referred to by Den Hartog, seem less important than his friendship with the then provost, Arnold ofWied. According to Bader the two men were on friendly terms. 26 Their amity was not, however, unwavering. Gerhard and Arnold were both exceptionally ambitious and both had eyes on the archiepiscopal throne. 27 Arnold was appointed to the provostship of St Georg, in Limburg an der Lahn, by Archbishop Adalbertl of Mainz ( 1109-1137) in mi.at the outside, became cathedral provost in Cologne in 112.7,and from 1138 combined the two offices with the functions of imperial chancellor and provost of St Servatius. He played a leading part in settling the struggle for precedence between Bonn and St Gereon's. It is possible that in 1140 Arnold and Gerhard travelled together to Rome, where Innocent II issued bulls, two days apart, in favour of each of them. They were also at one in their hostility to the House ofBerg. This becomes apparent in Gerhard's case in the eleventhirties, when Frederick of Berg - then provost of St Georg - denied his archdiaconal right of visitation in the Ahrgau. 28 In 1148 Gerhard obtained a definitive ruling in his favour form Eugene III, but this paled in the light of the defeats in 1156 and 1168. Neither he nor Arnold supported Frederick of Berg in the disputed episcopal succession in Utrecht in 1150, which put further pressure on mutual relations. 29 Initially both provosts belonged to the narrow circle around Archbishop Arnold I {1137-1151), who did nothing to prevent the local nobility from carving out their own territories in the archdiocese. This new

AMONG

THE

CLERGY

101

development aroused great disquiet among those with ties to the Hohenstaufen court, especially Arnold of Wied. The tension was expressed at the Synod of Reims (1148) by the temporary deposing of the archbishop for negligence in his office and disobedience to the pope. With the same goal before them, Gerhard and Arnold must now have regarded one another as rivals. They chose opposite paths to attain the see of Cologne. Gerhard, the only clergyman from the diocese of Cologne to have attended the synod, became a highly paid mainstay of the archbishop. 30 Arnold I rewarded him with favours for SS Cassius and Florentius, the castle ofDrachenfels and an oratory in Hersel, which meant considerable gains for Gerhard at the expense of his superior. His brother, Hugo of Are, appears from 1149 as custosof the cathedral. In 1149 the archbishop was also ready to give yet another of Gerhard's brothers, Frederick, the provomhip of Xanten, which had fallen vacant. This post, however, went to Provost Thiebald of St Severin's, who could rely on the support of Arnold ofWied. 31 This illustrates the latter's alternative strategy: the cathedral provost adopted a stance of opposition to the archbishop. He did his utmost to prevent Arnold I's reinstatement. It would appear that he was the driving force behind Cologne's college of priors petitioning to the archbishop to resign voluntarily. 32 In these years Arnold of Wied never left Cologne, so that he could strike whenever the chance arose. His rivalry with Gerhard is also apparent from his obtaining the advocacy of the villa ofWorringen. 33This was a first step towards reducing the difference in incomes - that of the provost of SS Cassius and Florentius was twice that of the cathedral provost. After Arnold I's death in IISI, Arnold of Wied could reap his reward. The new archbishop quickly repaired his relationship with the Are brothers: he appointed Frederick dean of the cathedral chapter and shortly thereafter bishop of Miinster, while Hugo received the provostship of Sancta Maria ad Gradus, and it was probably through Arnold ll's influence that Gerhard became provost of St Servatius. 34 In summary, the careers of Arnold and Gerhard display remarkable similarities. Arnold combined the positions of imperial chancellor and provost of St Servatius. That Gerhard, as Arnold's successor in Maastricht, felt he had just as much right to this combination is apparent from the false charter 'of 1087'. For Arnold, both positions had been stages leading to

102

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

his ruling the archdiocese of Cologne. Gerhard hoped to follow the same path. Most probably, therefore, the forgery dates from before the disappointment of 1156. Given that as chancellor Arnold belonged to the reichsadel,he was clearly in a more favourable starting position than Gerhard. The cathedral provost always remained one step ahead, both in extending his power and in his architectural patronage. At Schwarzrheindorf he founded the double chapel as future mausoleum.35Shortly thereafter Gerhard had the two-aisled chamber on the east cloister in Bonn converted into a burial chapel. The same chronology seems to apply to the closely related east ends in Maastricht and Bonn. Probably Arnold first cited the Speyer cathedral choir when provost of St Servatius, and Gerhard followed his lead at SS Cassius and Florentius. This connection reveals a second aspect of Gerhard's architectural message: the desire for the highest office in the archbishopric of Cologne. The origins of both building campaigns probably lie in 1138, when Arnold became provost in Maastricht and under his leadership Gerhard won the precedence dispute with Provost Bruno of St Gereon's. Arnold, having ascended Cologne's archiepiscopal throne, confirmed Gerhard's position as the first member of the college of priors, but the written record does not reveal whether the occasion for this was the archbishop's consecration of the renovated church of SS Cassius and Florentius. That Arnold was meanwhile commissioning a new east end for the 'loser: St Gereon's, seems almost a form of compensation. Archbishop Arnold I apparently had nothing other than this in view when he gave the provostship ofXanten to Bruno around 1141-1143. This meant that the latter still enjoyed the same privilege as his great rival in Bonn. 36 Despite repeated defeats after Arnold's death, Gerhard was still bent on greater power and dignity. At his request, Archbishop Rainald ofDassel (1158-1167) in 1166 elevated the bones of the holy martyrs Cassius and Florentius. According to Groten this ceremony mirrored the translation to Cologne of the relics of the Three Kings in 1164. 37 This could, indeed, explain why it suddenly transpired that not only the two patron saints but also Mallusius were buried in Bonn minster. 38 Gerhard probably sought to give the old Cologne saints a new lustre by presenting them as a trio to complement the three newcomers. The same urge to put Bonn on an equal footing with Cologne is evidenced in the lost funerary monument, the

counterpart to Rainald of Dassel's. For centuries it bore witness to Gerhard's role as a builder, a candidate for the archiepiscopal dignity, a special son of the Church of Rome, and a member of the House of Are that owed its rise to Henry IV. A final aspect of the architectural scheme is worth not• ing - albeit briefly, as it digresses from the church model: the message that Arnold of Wied sought to convey via the east end in Maastricht and that probably had an echo in Bonn. Kunisch laid the basis for an interpretation in his study of Arnold's double chapel in Schwarzrheindor£ 39 His premise - that it was somehow related to the role that Archbishop Adalbert I of Mainz (1109-1137) supposedly played in Lothair III's election to the kingship in 112.5- is now outdated, 40 but it in no way invalidates his associating of Adalbert's patronage with his hunger for power and the creation of a large, continuous territorial lordship. So long as supporting Henry V furthered this goal, Adalbert loyally did so. When their interests collided in 1112.,he went over to the papal party. The competition for the archiepiscopal throne in Cologne led Arnold ofWied to take a similar line with Conrad III. Kunisch sees Adalbert's ambition translating into the building of a lordly double chapel as a mausoleum adjacent to Mainz Cathedral. 41 The same motivation would lie behind Arnold ofWied's foundation of a double chapel to be his mausoleum in Schwarzrheindor£ One important factor underlying the exemplary role of Adalbert's power-building for Arnold's goes unremarked by Kunisch: in 1106-1112.Adalbert pre~eded Arnold as imperial chancellor and as provost of the church of St Servatius. 42 He not only came to be archbishop of Mainz, the largest ecclesiastical province in the Holy Roman Empire, but also archchancellor, and from 1118papal legate as well. Under Lothair III he appears to have headed the imperial chancery again. It is possible that he simultaneously drew the revenue of the provostship of St Servatius, which from 1109 at the latest was tied to the office of imperial chancellor and remained vacant under Lothair III. These exceptional circumstances made Adalbert Arnold of Wied's direct predecessor in one or even both of these functions. Just like Adalbert, Arnold aimed to extend his powers as a temporal lord. He got Conrad III to enfeoff him with ducal power over Lotharingia, probably shortly before his nomination as archbishop in 1151.Only his distant predecessor

Bruno I (953-965) had officially combined both offices.43 The desire for territorial rule found architectural expression not only in the double and burial chapels in Mainz, Schwarzrheindorf and, on a more modest scale, in Bonn. The same motivation probably lay behind the imitation of the imperial east end of Speyer. Around 1100, Henry IV had the choir with a dwarf gallery added to Mainz Cathedral. 44 Archbishop Adalbert saw to its completion. Although the east towers are lacking - there are only staircase towers at the ends of the transepts - the figure of St Martin on the tym· panum (after 12.2.0)above the (now bricked up) passage from the south aisle to the former chapter house shows the choir of Mainz Cathedral with flanking towers. 45 This architectural representation looks significantly similar to the one on Gerhard's funerary monument, so it is not impossible that as well as alluding to the imperial cathedral in Speyer, Arnold's east end in Maastricht also referenced the territorial power-building of the archbishop of Mainz. The idea could have been born when Arnold succeeded Adalbert as imperial chancellor and provost of St Servatius in 1138.

That Gerhard of Are also tried to increase his own property-holdings can be seen from the separation of the provost's and the chapter's possessions and his numerous successes in acquiring new rights and properties. The forgery 'of 1087' claims a status of imperial and papal immunity for the church of St Servatius. This claim is entirely in line with the policies of imperial bishops who supported first emperor then pope to satisfy their territorial hunger. The east end in Bonn and the donor's model on the funerary monument therefore seem to represent three closely related aspects: Henry IV's conferral of a power base on the House of Are, the seeking of the highest possible position in the archdiocese of Cologne, and the ambition to build a territorial lordship. The expression of a personal struggle for power was at the core, just as in the east end in Maastricht. The institutional question at issue between the churches of St Servatius and Our Lady may have been an additional factor, but it was not the main one.

POWER

STRUGGLES

AMONG

Odqinal frorn

THE

CLERGY

JQ3

Fig. 44. Church model ofBishop Bernwardof Hildesheim on the north choir screen in the former monastery church of Sc Michael in Hildesheim, c.1193-1197 (photograph: author).

Fig. 45. Church architecture in the spandrel on the left above the figure of Bernward of Hildesheim on the norch choir screen in the former monastery church of St Michael in Hildesheim, c.1193-1197 (photograph: author).

6.2 Hildesheim

erarion of the new saint, the west crypt was extended below the crossing of the west transept and the rwopart choir screen was installed. The works may have been completed by the dedication of the crypt altar in 1197. The renovation was carried our under Abbot Theoderick (1181-12.04), who had gone to greatlengths to bring about the canonization of the monastery's founder. The screen relief depicts Mary amid six saints under an arcade. On the far right is Bishop Bernward holding a church model, on the far lefr Sr Benedict. The remaining figures represent aposdes. The arches above their heads are crowned with melon-domes. The spandrels contain a great variety of architectural representations. These Reuther has attempted co identify by comparing them with existing buiJdings: 18 He succeeded only in the case of the spandrel to the left of the founding

Around 12.00, sculptors in Hildesheim carved plaster reliefs of two model-bearing bishops, one in St Michael's, the other in St Godehard's. The second was probably a response to the first, but there has been no previous research into the relationship between them. This section examines the message that the two carvings conveyed and the impact this had on the architectural representations. The first model-bearer is on the choir screen on the northern side of St Michael's west choir (Fig. 44). 46 Together with its lost counterpart on the southern side, the screen was built following the canonization in 1193 of Bishop Bern ward I (993-102.2.), who was buried in front of rhe altar dedicated co the Virgin in the west crypt. 47 To provide a suitable space for the ven-

}04

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

bishop, which recognizably portrays the west end of St Michael's {Fig. 45). From the bottom upwards can be seen the entrance to the west crypt, the choir, the west front of the nave with the arms of the west transept on either side and the west crossing tower between rwo cylindrical staircase towers. Likeness does not extend to the far too numerous windows, for which there seem to be rwo reasons. On one hand, a large number of windows is a standard motif of all the spandrel buildings. On the other, the sculptor had to stretch the proportions of the parts of the building to fit the high and narrow spandrel, and the resulting large areas of wall gave plenty of scope for fenestration. In one respect the architectural representation in the spandrel differs significantly from St Michael's as built: the crossing tower is not square but octagonal. Octagonal towers also crown two other spandrel buildings, yet in the model church in Bernward's hands the crossing tower is accurately represented. 49 This donor's model corresponds to the west view of the church in the spandrel in every respect except the choir. As there is also no sign of the built architecture's two eastern side apses, the edifice held by the bishop could be regarded as an eastern or a western aspect of the monastery church. 50 It is certainly not the representative south side, held by Bernward on the first monastery seal in 12.40.51The choice of view probably relates to the place of the founder's tomb in the church, something emphasized in several twelfth-century models. Childebert, for instance, presents the choir of St-Germain-des-Presas royal mausoleum, and Henry II holds the east end of Bamberg Cathedral - where his tomb stood - towards himself {cf §12..1/9.1).Following this tradition, Bernward's model should represent St Michael's from the west. After all, the new saint rested in the west crypt and it was precisely as a result of the extension of his cult space that the choir screen was made. Thus rwo western views of the monastery church are rendered here with varying degrees of rep· resentational accuracy. It may be that different traditions account for the differences berween the rwo architectural representations, as was the case in the comparable double portal sculpture of San Clemente in Casauria (cf §2..6). In accordance with the customary posture of founders or donors on funerary monuments, Bishop Bernward carries his church model in front of him at waist level. The west view above him, on the other hand, follows the convention of representing figures beneath an arch

crowned with buildings {seefigs. 40, 79, 81). The individual character of the spandrel buildings suggests that not only Bernward but each saint on the choir screen is accompanied by his 'own' church. The same individualization is apparent in the city models held by the apostles on late rwelfth and early thirteenth-century reliquaries {cf §8.2.).These cities represent the place where the apostle preached the Gospel and usually also where he was buried. In the same way, the buildings in the spandrels could be churches associated with the saints, with St Michael's emphasized by its recognizability. Ifthere were ever plans to build an octagonal tower above the new saint's tomb there is no trace of them now. Interestingly, the model on the funerary monument in the collegiate church ofWechselburg also has an octagonal tower - never actually built - above the place where the founder's grave was located {Fig. 109, cf§11.4). This suggests that both had the same meaning.52The number eight symbolized eternal bliss, the spiritual cosmos and the new age of resurrection following the seven days of the week of Christ's Passion. 53 Hence the octagonal city wall, representing the Heavenly Jerusalem, surrounding the evangelists in the Gospel of Ste-Aure produced at the court school of Charles the Bald {838/ 40-877) around the middle of the ninth century {Fig. 46). 54 The same concept informs the octagonal superstructure of the altar ciboria in S. Nicola in Bari and S. Lorenzo fuori le Mura in Rome, for example. 55Thuribles, which in their architectonic shape clearly represent the heavenly city, could also have an octagonal upper part. 56An illustrator likewise portrayed Christ's tomb as a polygonal, tower-like structure in a sacramentary produced in Freising for Bishop Abraham (957-993/ 4) shortly after 948 {Fig. 47 ).57These parallels reinforce the interpretation of octagonal structures as symbols for the life of the world to come. In this light, the octagonal crossing tower on the donor's model probably expresses the hope that the model-bearer will be admitted to the city of heaven. In Bernward's case this hope had just been fulfilled - according to the medieval view - thanks to his recent canonization. The message conveyed by the octagonal tower on top of the church structure corresponds to that of the staged roof turrets and is probably already expressed in the sixth-century donor's model in San Vitale in Ravenna (cf§2..1). The other Hildesheim model-bearer appears on the tympanum in the portal on the north side of the nave

POWER

STRUGGLES

AMONG

Oriqinal frcrn

THE

CLERGY

105

Fig. 46. Matthew in the Heavenly Jerusalem, Gospel ofSte-Aure from the court school of Charles the Bald, mid-ninth century; Paris, Bibi. de !'Arsenal, 1171,fol. 17v (from: VAN DER HORST, NOEL & WOSTEFELD, The UtrechtPsalter,cat. 21).

Fig. 47. The women at the empty tomb, evangelary from Freising, shortly after 984; Munich, BSB, Clm 6421, fol.11,v (from: PuHLE, Otto der Groj!e,cat. IV.Go).

of the former monastery church of St Godehard (Fig. 48). 58 There, two bishops flank a figure of Christ whose right hand is raised in blessing and whose left hand holds a book. The bishops, whose attributes are, respectively, a book and a church, are generally identified as the church's patrons: on the left Epiphanius of Padua, whose relics came to Hildesheim by theft in 962, 59 on the right Godehard of Hildesheim ( 1022-1038). The latter figure could, however, also represent the founder, Bernhard I (1130-1153), who had made great efforts to formalize Godehard's canonization in 1131.His final resting place was in front of the main altar in the monastery church's right choir bay. Already by the late twelfth century he was locally regarded as a saint and as such - like the three halflength figures on the tympanum - was represented with a halo. 60 This second identification is undoubtedly to be preferred. After all, the model-bearer is on Christ's left, a position unworthy of the church's most important patron. It likewise follows that the figure

so long taken to be Epiphanius actually represents Godehard. Bernhard's model shows the church of St Gode hard from the north. This is the representative side which faces the city and which, unlike the south aspect, is not obscured by the monastery buildings. Portrait-like, the little church is depicted as a three-aisled cruciform basilica with ambulatory, radiating chapels, an entrance in the facade of the north transept and a west end with two towers. The apsidioles in the eastern transept wall, the crossing tower, the north portal in the nave and the upper stage of the west towers are absent, however. The building history offers no explanation for this. 61 Perhaps at the time of the church's final consecration in, 172 the upper levels of the west end were still unfinished. The weak, twelfth-century vaulting of the crossing might not have been able to bear more than a simple, square tower. In d1e first half of the thirteenth century relieving arches were added and supported an octagonal crossing tower. The tympanum also dates

106

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

Fig. 48. Christ between Godehard and Bernhard, north tympanum of St Godehard's in Hildesheim, BUDDE, Deutsche Romanische Skulptur, Abb. l46).

from this period. The north portal - except for the relief - and the apsidioles of the transept, however, date from the building campaign that ended around 1171.

The discrepancies between the model and the built architecture have given rise to several conjectures. The missing crossing tower as well as stylistic considerations lead Budde to the view that the tympanum should be dated to around 1100. 62 This, however, would not explain the absence of the portal and the apsidioles. According to Niehr, the sculptor made simplifications, including the reduction of the number of windows in the nave from eight to six.63 Yet the cast end of the model, less easily seen by the beholder than the northern aspect, is lovingly detailed. Could it be that the sculptor neglected the representative side of the church? He certainly had the technical capacity to represent the north portal; moreover, the wall of the nave gave plenty of space to do so. The same is not true of the transept, where even on the accurately detailed

Digitized by

Google

c.12.l5-1l30

(from:

donor's model in Wcchselburg the apsidioles are lacking (cf §11.5). Thus there would seem to be reasons other than lack of space for leaving out the north portal, the crossing tower and the upper stage of the west towers. According to Lipsmeyer the east end of Bernhard's model is so detailed because it was the first adoption of the 'French type' in the Holy Roman Empire. 64 It may be that Bernhard first admired a choir with ambulatory and radiating chapels when he attended the Council of Reims in 1131, where the pope canonized Godehard. 65 Unfortunately these speculations do little to advance our understanding of the architectural model. If the choir of St Godehard's was so significant, Bernhard would have presented the church with the cast end towards the viewer, analogous to Gerhard's model in Bonn and the emphatically founder-related west end at St Michael's in Hildesheim. The tympanum, however, follows tradition in showing the representative aspect. 66 At the same time, not a single part

POWER

STRUGGLES

AMONG

Original from

THE

CLERGY

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

107

of the building stresses the link between Bernhard and his church: no tower rises above the founder's grave and there is no sign of the north portal, the place where the model-bearer is represented, in the miniature architecture. Given the contrast between the two donors' models in Hildesheim, the tympanum could be a response to the screen relic£ Inevitably there was rivalry between St Michael's and St Godehard's. Bernward himselfhad already declared his desire to win a place among the saints. 67When his successor gained this honour more quickly, the monks of St Michael's could not stand idly by. The lustre of their monastery and the fame of their founder were threatened with eclipse by St Godehard.68 In 1150the archbishop of Mainz gave official permission for Bernward's veneration, but tensions between emperor and pope meant that the canonization did not take place until the turn of the year from 1192.to 1193.Cardinal Cinthius played an important role. In 1192.he stayed at St Michael's Abbey, particularly admiring the church, which according to the monks had been built, consecrated and furnished 'before the time of St Godehard'. 69 Although correct, this temporal reference was a sort of side-swipe: Godehard had lived at a time when Bernward's foundation already existed, which made it not only older but more venerable and more important than the Godehardkloster. With the same aim, at the time ofBernward's local veneration a monk of St Michael's added to the vita of the future saint. 70 Rivalry can also be read in the architecture of the two monastery churches: that of St Godehard not only cites elements from St Michael's, but does so on a larger scale.71 Bernward's canonization lost the monks of St Godehard's their trump card. If they could succeed in adding Bernhard to the roll of officially venerated saints, they would have two holy bishops to St Michael's one. Thus, from the late twelfth century they began to venerate Bernhard and portray him as a saint. A portable altar founded by Abbot Theoderick (1181-12.04) shows both Godehard and Bernhard as haloed bishops.72 The iconographically related tympanum announces on the representative exterior of the church - not just in a corner of a choir screen - that St Godehard's could pride itself on a holy founder every bit as much as could St Michael's. The same emphatically overt propaganda is expressed by the octagonal crossing tower built in the first halfof the thirteenth century diagonally above Bernhard's grave as a monumental

108

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

counterpart to the one that graces the west aspect of the miniature St Michael's in the spandrel. But why, then, is the donor's model so traditional and apparently unrelated to the promotion of'Saint' Bernhard? As far as is known, the tympanum with the half-length figures of Christ with two flanking saints only has one precursor, in Gandersheim. There, Peter and Paul occupy first and third place. Around 1150this image was set above the south entrance to the church of SS Anastasius and Innocent, and was reused before 1345 in the chapel of SS Peter and Paul. 73 Neither of the two apostles holds a church, however. A modelbearer is among the three monumental tympanum figures on the Neutor relief in Trier (Fig. 2.8,cf§4.1). This displays other parallels too with the trio on St Godehard's: the model-bearer is to the right of the blessing, book-bearing Christ while his pendant holds an attribute in his crooked right arm and honours Christ with his left hand. Moreover, the allusion to Roman in the Trier relief is also implicit in the Gandersheim tympanum. The church has two papal patron saints, Anastasius and Innocent; it stood under the protection of the Apostolic See from 948; and in 12.06managed to obtain full exemption.' 4 The depiction of Peter and Paul represents one of the milestones along this road. The relationship between the two Lower Saxony tympanums probably reflects that between Hildesheim and Gandersheim. For a good two centuries the bishops of Hildesheim had resisted the withdrawal of Gandersheim minster from their authority, particularly having to make their case to the archbishop of Mainz and to the pope. 75 For the diocese, the granting of exemption in 12.06meant the loss of an important episcopal proprietary monastery. The tympanum with Godehard and Bernhard may have been a reaction to this: two saintly bishops of Hildesheim take the same place as the Apostles of Rome in Gandersheim. Without accurate dating it remains unclear how the exact tendency of this response played into the prevailing circumstances, though it is certainly worth noting that the predecessor in Gandersheim dates from around the time ofBernhard's death (1153).It could be that by looking back to this time the Hildesheim relief conflates two periods, for which an altar in Avenas and a capital in Autun might offer parallels (cf§7.4-5). The thirteenth-century tympanum of St Godehard's could then operate as a forged document 'of the mid-twelfth century' to show that the veneration of the founding

Fig. 49. Christ between Peter and Rupert in the tympanum in the south portal of the Franciscan church in Salzburg, c.12.20 (photograph: author).

bishop was almost as old as the permission for the veneration of Bern ward. This would have been a way for the monks to uphold Bernhard's sanctity. The 'old' tympanum in this case bore witness to the venerable tradition of the veneration of the founder. To suit this purpose a traditional architectural model would be needed, one that clearly differentiated St Godehard's from St Michael's but whose 'incomplete' state underscored the age of the carving and the cult of St Bernhard. By leaving out the north portal, the sculptor avoided the suggestion that the founder had had himself commemorated as a saint in his own church.

6.3 Salzburg A tympanum with two bearded model-bearers surmounts the south doorway of Salzburg's church of Our Lady, now the Franciscan church, which was rebuilt after fires in 12.00 and 12.03 (Fig. 49 ). 76 On stylistic grounds the relief can be dated to around 12.2.0, which is in line with the reconsecration of the church in 12.2.1. In the centre of the tympanum the blessing Christ is enthroned. Above the little building held by the model-bearer on the left is an object shaped like angular letter P, perhaps intended as the bit of a key, which would identify the figure as St Peter. The Apostle's key on the tympanum in the west narthex of the nearby St Peter's Abbey church provides a richly executed variant (c.12.2.5). 77 The saint's short beard and

curly hair also match. The model-bearer on the right is characterized by mitre, pallium and gospel book. According to the accompanying inscription, this is St Rupert, bishop in Salzburg around 700. 78 The architectural models mirror each other. They are both single-aisled churches with two windows in the nave and one in the apse, which is turned towards Christ. As a counterpart to Peter's key, a tower rises above Rupert's church, with two windows beneath a spire indicated by a triangle. This side view is reminiscent of the model in Millstatt, which Abbot Henry I presents with the apse likewise pointing away from himself. It is rare to find two model-bearers together. There are parallels for such doubling in the tenth-century donor's mosaic in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Fig. 32.) and theJaxa-rympanum in Wroclawofaround 1176 (Fig. 99, cf §10.1). In both, inscriptions and variations in the architectural detail emphasize the fact that different buildings are represented. The Salzburg relief does not offer such a clear distinction. In this respect it resembles the fragments of a donor's tympanum from a Benedictine convent that was destroyed in 152.5, St Mary's in Holzzelle, Saxony, in which two half-length figures each offer a model tower. 79 The towers have an entrance at the bottom, with two round-headed windows above it and a third opening in the triangular spire. For stylistic reasons the tympanum is dated to around 12.00, but the history of its origins is too vague for the representation of the donors to be interpreted with any conviction. 80 All

POWER

Digitized by

Google

STRUGGLES

AMONG

THE

CLERGY

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

109

Fig. 50. Donor figuresin the choir of the former monastery church of St ~irinus in Neuss,after 12.09 ( watercolourof 1902 from: CLEMEN, Die romanische Monummtalma/erei, Fig. 341).

that survives of the architecture as built is the base of a south cower.81 If it once had a counterpart on the north side, the models might allude together co this pair of towers. A comparable doubling appears a short while later on the north-east tympanum of Bamberg Cathedral, where simple little basilicas in the hands of Henry II and Empress Cunigunde show the imperial couple as cathedral founders (cf §9.1). Apart from the portal sculpture, a parallel for the Salzburg pair can be found in the murals painted on the south wall of the choir of the church of St ~irinus in Neuss in 12.09. Copies made it 1902. document their state before modern overpainting (Fig. 50). 82 The donor figures fill two lunettes. A standing nobleman in the left lunette and the crowned principal figure of a trio of kneeling women in the right one each bear an apse flanked by towers. These are mirror images of each other and cite the early thirteenth-century east end of St ~irinus, which is characterized by a cloverleaf ground plan with four cowers at the corners of the crossing. 83 The two figures appear co be offering the same church.

110

COMPRESSED

Clemen identifies the donors as Count Eberhard of Cleves and his wife Bertha. 84 According to a now lost inscription the couple founded the Benedictine monastery at Neuss in 82.5 - a year that should be amended to 855. This, however, was recorded only around 142.0 in the chronicle of the collegiate church in Wissel. 85 Moreover, there were no counts of Cleves prior co the eleventh century, and their involvement with Neuss was negligible in the two centuries thereafter. The archbishop of Cologne did have relations with St ~irinus at a very early stage, possibly even from its foundation. A forged charter in the name of Anno II (1056-1075) does mention a donation oflands by the count and countess jointly with the archbishop. 86 The circumstances described in the forgery 'of 1074' fit the late twelfth or early thirteenth century. The donor figures in the choir murals coincide with this daring remarkably well. Do they evidence an (emerging) legend? On one hand their message was aimed at potential benefactors of St ~irinus, who should thus be encouraged co follow the example of the comical family

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

by contributing to the costs of the building campaign. Among them would have been many pilgrims visiting the relics of St ~irinus in their impressive new setting.87 On the other, the aristocratic donors seem to overshadow the bond between St ~irinus and the archbishops of Cologne. This economy with historicity is likely related to a transition in lifestyle from Benedictine monasticism to the more worldly state of canonesses, which took place at the same time as the rebuilding. 88The changes occasioned some tensions, as can be seen from the election of two different abbesses in 1215.There was probably some resistance to the softening of the house's rule and the consequent spiritual slackening. In this context, the legend of foundation by the counts of Cleves must have served to justify the alterations. The Wissel chronicle reports that Count Eberhard and his family simultaneously founded a house of canons in Wissel and one of canonesses in Neuss.89There is not a word about Benedictines. By keeping silent about the Benedictine origins of the foundation, and by replacing the archbishop of Cologne with a secular lord in its early history, the new legend glossed over the decline in the house's spiritual status in both word and image. In contrast to the pair of founders in Bamberg and Neuss, the tympanum in Salzburg commemorates two ecclesiastics. A miniature in a Matins book from the monastery in Scheyern (c.12.2.0-1235), part of the ecclesiastical province of Salzburg, does the same.90 Like the Salzburg relief, folio 2.4v shows a bishop - this time Martin of Tours - and St Peter with his keys (Fig. 51). Each holds an exaggeratedly high nave with pitched roof and on the left two domed towers. Only the windows vary: Martin's church has three just below the roof, while Peter's has one in each tower. The miniature reflects the history of the abbey, which was founded shortly after 1050 in what is now Bayrischzell.91Before 1087 the monks moved to the more fertile Fischbachau. There, the new conventual church was dedicated to Martin of Tours and the corresponding parish church to Mary. A second move, now to Petersberg near Eisenhofen, took place before 1104. Here the main altar was dedicated to Peter and the west altar to Martin. After fires in 1171and 1185the wooden building was replaced by one in stone. On its consecration in 12.15,Mary became the new church's patron. The illuminator has not indicated whether Martin and Peter are holding the churches of Fischbachau and

Fig. 51. Martin and Peter as model-bearers, Matins book of the monastery in Scheyern, c.122.o-1l35;Munich, BSB, Clm 17401, fol. l4v (from: GLASER, WitteLsbach, vol. Li, cat. 157).

Petersberg respectively, or whether the doubling alludes to the east and west altars in Petersberg. The position of the models strongly suggests the latter: Peter holds the choir towards himself, Martin the west towers. However this may be, institutionally this was the same church. The architectural representation in the hands of Mary, the new patron saint, on folio 2.5 supports this conclusion. 92 This has the same structure, but a double row of windows in the nave gives the building increased splendour. Mary turns the two west towers towards herself, probably because in this way they fit beneath the arch above her head. Notwithstanding the formal similarities between the Salzburg tympanum and the almost contemporary miniature from Scheyern, the content of the two images is very different. The miniature represents patron saints, whereas Mary is absent from the tympanum. Rupert, the founder of the archdiocese and patron of Salzburg Cathedral, had founded the church

POWER

Digitized by

Google

STRUGGLES

AMONG

THE

CLERGY

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

111

of Our Lady in the early eighth century. 93 The architectural model on the right could therefore represent this church. Peter, however, was neither founder nor patron. But the church of Our Lady did stand next to St Peter's Abbey land. Might the apostle be offering the abbey church? The models' symmetry and simplicity do not allow identification by comparison with the built architecture. Only the tower gives Rupert's church any individuality. In fact, the church of Our Lady does indeed have only one tower, but it dates from the fifteenth century. 94 There is nothing to be gleaned from the sources regarding a predecessor. Nor do the two towers of Salzburg Cathedral, which as the cathedral's patron Rupert might reasonably be thought be carry, provide a solution. 95 By analogy with the wall paintings in Neuss, the Bamberg tympanum, the fragments from Holzzelle and the miniatures from Scheyern, could the tympanum represent what is institutionally a single church by two different models? Around 1130 the church of Our Lady had been given a dual function. 96 On the one hand it was assigned to the convent recently founded by the St Peter's Abbey, on the other it acquired parochial rights. The 'Petersfrauen' used the choir chapel for their offices and masses, the parishioners went to church in the nave. Because the church of Our Lady depended on the cathedral chapter, one of the cathedral canons acted as priest from the mid-twelfth century at the latest. Until that time Salzburg had a second church with parochial jurisdiction. This was St Michael's, originally a palatine chapel and from 987 in the possession of St Peter's Abbey. Around 1168 the cathedral chapter produced a forged charter 'of 1139' laying claim to the church of Our Lady and all its chapels, including the church of St Michael. There seems to be no record of the monks protesting against the loss and reduction in status of St Michael's. Only when the church of Our Lady was rebuilt did a quarrel break out. The cathedral chapter's attempt to deny the priests of the 'Petersfrauen' access to the church of Our Lady was met with fierce resistance from the monastic institutions. Furthermore, the rebuilding of the church on a grander scale meant it encroached on abbey land. In 12.08 Archbishop Eberhard II (1200-12.46) settled the dispute. The nuns of St Peter's were given permission to use the now completed new choir of the church of Our Lady for their offices; their priests would have access to the whole church once the rebuilding was finished,

112

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

but the right to administer the sacraments to parishioners was reserved to the cathedral chapter. In summary, the parochial and monastic functions of the church of Our Lady were exercised by two different spiritual institutions: the cathedral chapter and the Abbey of St Peter. The combination might have arisen when St Michael's was changed from a parish church to a dependency of the parish of Our Lady. How else could the abbey have so successfully defended its rights of access to the church of Our Lady? Such arrangements perhaps explain the lack of protest at the loss of St Michael's. In any case, the double use of the church of Our Lady seems to be referenced in the representation of two model-bearers on the tympanum. Rupert presents his model as founder and representative of the cathedral chapter, which owned and rebuilt the church. Peter documents the rights of his abbey and alludes to the donation of the land required. In this light both models represent the church of Our Lady. The apostle bears only the east end of the church, the part used by the 'Petersfrauen'. Rupert, in contrast, holds the entire building, the property of his cathedral chapter.

6.4 Diffusion ofthe Model-bearer on Tympanums Unless survival rates are distorting the picture, it was more common for architectural patrons to employ a donor motif on a church tympanum in the thirteenth century than was the case before 12.00. In out-of-theway places in particular such model-bearers occur to attest to a tradition that destruction and rebuilding have long obliterated in important centres. The historical circumstances surrounding their creation are often obscured by the passage of time. There is a Bavarian example in Herrnwahl. 97 In this hamlet south of Kelheim, where Margrave Henry of Regensburg donated land to Regensburg's monastery of St Emmeram around 1070, the parish ofWald developed. In the first half of the thirteenth century, a chapel was built at the north-eastern corner of the curtis next to the parish church. In the chapel's south wall is an entrance beneath a tympanum in which three half-length figures are portrayed. A saint on the left and a small model-bearer on the right flank the Virgin and Child. Chasuble and tonsure (?) probably identify the donor as a clergyman. He holds the tower of his single-aisled church towards himself, in the same

posmon as the donors' models in Millstatt and Salzburg. The peripheral diffusion is also evidenced by the aforementioned fragments from Holzzelle in Saxony, a little less than ten kilometres south of Eisleben (cf §6.3). Twenty-five kilometres or so further south lies Rcinsdorf an der Unstrut. Here is preserved a tympanum from a Benedictine convent dedicated to the Virgin and John the Baptist, that was moved from nearby Vitzenburgin I1ll-l4. 98 The donor image was made during renovations to the monastery church, (1lOI-1lo8) in consecrated by Conrad ofHalberstadt

Ilo6. Nowadays it is built into the west wall of the transept, the only Romanesque part of the building still standing. Just as in Hernnwahl and Holzzelle, the Virgin and Child occupied the centre of the arched space. Although the flanking figures are different, 99 the combination with a model-bearer points towards a certain degree of standardization. This would seem to diminish the specific eloquence of the motif as a weapon to be deployed in ecclesiastical rivalries. The message of the tympanums will accordingly have become focused primarily on commemorating the foundation.

NOTES 1 Diisseldorf, Landesarchiv Nordrhein-Westfalen, Abteilung KunstdenkmalerderStadt, p. 89-90,fig. Rhcinland:CLEMEN.Die 41;STEINBERG & STEINBERG-VON PAPE.Di,8i/dnisse,p. 94-95, 140,Abb. 111:MosEL,Di, Anfong,n, p. 66-67. 2 Berlin, StaatlichcMuseen PreuBischerKulturbesitz: LEGNER, Rheinund Maas,cat.) 31,fig.after p. 308.AlsoMos EL, Die Anfongen, p. 66 dates the tomb to around 1170or a little later,although givesno reasonsto support this. Rhein und Maas, cat.J l4, fig. ; Frauenberg,Sr. Georg: LEGNER, beforep. 309. Kunst• On the building'sarchitecturalhistory,see:CLEMEN.Die denkm.iler der Stadt, p. 11-77,especiallyp. 57-58;KuBACH& VERBEEK, RomaniJCheBaukunst, p. 107-119,Taf. 40; VERBEEK, Das Munster in Bonn, p. 1-8.HoROLDT,Das Stift St. Cassius, p. 161-163datesthe consecrationof the choir to before14September 1151.As docs: SCHAFKE, "St. Gcrcon~p. 183. ' Biographical data in: BRACKMANN,"Niederrheinischc Urkunden",p. 111-117; H6ROLDT,Das Slift St. Cassius,p. 81-81, des 86-87,144, 157,161-163,170;NEuss & 0EDIGER,GeJCbichte Erzbistums, p. 113; BADER,Geschichteder Graftn, p. 188-190, 113-111, 139-143;GROTEN,Priorenkolkg,p. 67-70, 141,147,149, 154,115,143;PETERS,"Die Bcziehungen~p. 39-41. 6 Cf BADER,Geschichteder Graftn, p. 169-171. 7 MosEL, Die Anfangen, p. 18-19,34, 66-67. Mose!is wrong in thinking that Gerhard competed with Rainald for the archiepiscopal sec. • BADER,Geschichteder Graftn, p. 118-111.FICKER,Reinald von Dassel,p. 115alsomentionsthat Philipleft the removalofRainald's funerarymonument to papal legates,knowingthat the people of Cologne would not accept it. The monument wasonly destroyed in the late 18thcentury. 9 E.g.in Ku BACH& VERBEEK, RomanischeBaukunst,p. 111,138; GROTEN,Prior,nkolleg,p. 70; SCHAFKE, St. Gereonin Kiiln,p. 13; SCHAFKE, "St.Gereon",p. 183;BEHREND-KREBS,Dieollonischen und romanischenl#mdmalereien. p. 11.

10 BEHREND-KREBS, Die ollonischenund romanischen l¼ndmalereitn, p. 13-14counters the arguments for a late dating. See GRAF,"Die Bautatigkeir",p. 41-43. 11 HOROLDT,Das Stift St. Cassius,p. 87,161-163(puts the consecration in 1111);GROTEN,Priorenkoll,g,p. 70. 12 MEKKING, D, Sint-Servaaskerk,p. 38-39,48, 114-144,179. 13 See DEETERS,Servaliusstift,p. 41-41;BADER,Geschichteder Graftn, p. 140. 14 WOLTER, Arnold von Wied, p. 79. See BADER,Geschichteder Graftn, p. 115. Servaliusstift,p. 58. " DEETERS, 16 H6ROLDT,Das Sti_ftSt. Cassius,p. 47-48,88. 17 DENHARTOG,RomanesqueArchittcturt, p. 56-61:DENHARTOG,RomanesqueSculpture,p. 140-146. 18 KUBACH & VERBEEK, Romanisch,Baukunst,p. 737. 19 SecDEETERS, Servaliussri_ft, p. 58-59. 20 DEETERS, Servatiusstift,p. 41-41,19 (where Otto is mistaken for Theodcrich): BADER,Geschichttder Graftn, p. 157-160. 21 VONGLADISS,Heinrici IV. Diplomata, no. 394 (real), 391 (forged). 22 DEETERS, Servaliusstift,p. 39-40:BADER,GeschichtederGraDie Graftn von Gefdn-n,p. 11-13. ftn, p. 57;SCHIFFER, B SCHWENNICKE, Europ.iischeStammtaftln, N.F. 18,Taf. 14A, 16: Philip's great grandfather and Gerhard of Wassenbergwere brothers. For the rival interests of the two houses, sec also: Die Graftn von Ge/dn-n,p. 46-47. SCHIFFER, 2 ' The east front in Speyerwasdemolishedaround 1700and has since been reconstructedon the model of Mainz,which is itselfa reconstructionthough on the basisof reliablehistoricaldata: VON WINTERFELD, Di, Kaiserdom,, p. 131:KUBACH,Der Dom zu Speyer,p. 64. " MEKKING, D, Sint-Servaaskerk,p. 110,114,fig. 11-13,31. 26 BADER,Geschicht,der Graftn, p. 115. 27 For biographicaldata concerningArnold of Wied, see: HAUS· MANN,Reichs/eanzlti,p. 98-11>;NEUSS& 0EDIGER,Geschichte

POWER STRUGGLES AMONG THE CLERGY

113

des Erzbistums, p. 110-113; KUNISCH, Konard Ill .. p. 56-74; GREBE,Erzbischof Arnoldl .. p. 113-114,130-131;WOLTER.Arnold von Wied, passim, especially p. 6-9, 14-18, 17-19; GROTEN, Priortnkolleg,p. 43, 68-70, 137,139-146. '" Ho ROLDT,Das Stift St. Cassius,p. 170; WOLTER, Arnold i•on Wied, p. 19-31. 19 WoLTER,Arnoldvon l½ed,p. 108, 119-110,131-131. 0 ·' GREBE, Erzbischo/Arnold [., p. 117-113, 115-118; WOLTER, Arnold von Wied, p. 36-37; BADER, Geschichtt der Graftn. p. 113-114; GROTEN, Priorenkolleg,p. 71; SCHIFFER, Die Graftn von Geldern,p. 100-101. 31 HAUSMANN,Reichskanz/ei,p.107; WoLTER,Arnoldvon Wied, p. 34-39; GROTEN, Priorenkolleg,p. 74·71, 139-140; GRAF, "Die Bautiitigkeit", p. 37-38. It is possible that Arnold I later gave Frederick the provostship of St Apostdn. '' WOLTER, Arnold von 1f/ied,p. 41-49. 33 KNIPPING, Die Regesttn,no. 490 (1141-1111).Sec GRAF, "Die Bautiitigkeit~ p. 36-37, 41. H WotTER,Arnoldvon Wied, p. 81, 109-110, 113-116,118,135-q6; p. 141,141. GROTEN, Priorenkolleg, ·15 On Schwarzrheindorf see, inter alia, HAUSMANN,Reichsleanzlti, p. 111;KUNISCH, Konard Ill., especially p. 81-91: WOLTER, Arnold von Wied, p. 11; KUBACH& VERBEEK,RomanischeBaukunst, p. 1006-1010: MEKKING,De Sint-Servaaskerk.p. 130;GRAF, "Die Bautiitigkeit", p. 35-36, 39-40; DEN HARTOG, Romanesque Architecture,p. 63-64. On Gerhard's burial chapel. see Ku BACH& VERBEEK,RomanischeBaukunst, p. 118;VERBEEK,Das Munster in Bonn, p. 19. 6 ·' See GROTEN, Priorenkolleg, p. 74. r GROTEN, Priorenkolleg,p. 149. " See HoROLDT, Das Stift St. Cassius,p. 161. 39 KUNISCH, Konard ///., especially p.17-40, 96-131. '° The most convincing interpretation of the royal election in 1111 is given by VoNES, "Der gcschcitertc Konigsmachcr", p. 81-114. On Adalbert's policy, see also HAUSMANN,Reichskanzlei,p. 9-43, especially p. 17-31, 41: JORGENSMEIER, Das Bistum Mainz, p. 80-83, 86-87. HAUSMANN,Reichskanzlti, p. 111also draws parallels between Adalbcrt and Arnold. ,i A possible exemplar forche chapel in Mainz, which in 1137was dedicated to St Godchard, was built at the same time as the new cathedral in Speyer on the south side of the Salian mausoleum (c.1080-1100 ). See FELLENBERGGEN. REINOLD, Die Verehrung, p. 10: GOETTING, Die HildesheimerBischo(e.p. 346; KUBACH, Der Dom zu Speyer,p. 91-93,, HAUSMANN, Reichskanzlei,p. 16-17, 16-17; DEETERS, Sen•.:-

tiusstift,p. 41, 47-48. '-' See WoLTER,Arnoldvon fVied,p. 53-65;GROTEN,l'riorenkolleg,p. 43, 141-145. ·H VON WINTERFELD.Die Kaiserdome,p. 111-1», 164 (with bibliography).

·•• ARENS,DerDomzu Mainz, p.10; fig. in:JORGENSMEIER,Die BischofikircheSankt M.:rrin, next top. \7. "' BUDDE.Deutsche RomanischeSkz,/ptur, p. 96-98, Abb. 241-244; L!PSMEYER.The Donor, p. 100-101, 182-183;NtEHR, Die mitteldez,tscheSkulptur, p. 171-271,Abb. 122-126. •· BESELER & RoGGENKAMP, Die Afid,,,c/iskirche. p. 22, l') (Bcrnward's grave), 47-48 (rebuilding). " REUTHER, "Die Chorschrankc", p. 118-n\.

114

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

·•• The model was probably damaged during the Second World War or during the rebuilding of St Michael's after 1945: REUTHER, "Die Chorschranke", p. 134, n. 39, Abb. 8. so REUTHER, "Die Chorschranke~ p. 114 speak., of a represcnta· tion from the cast without giving reasons for thinking it such. LIPSMEYER,The Donor,p. 182-183follows suit. 51 DINKLER-VONSCHUBERT,Der Schrein,p. 18, 190, Abb. 81.The seal was lost in 1945, but a drawing ofit survives. p. 204-201 has investigated the sym" REINLE, Zeichensprache, bolism of the crossing towers. He sees predecessors in the lace antique and early medieval centrally-planned structure of mausoleums, baptistrics and imitations of the Anastasis Rorunda. On one hand the crossing tower could serve as ciborium above an altar, a saint's tomb. or a similar place of ritual activity, although in general an altar or a grave was not located in the middle of the crossing. On the other, Rcinlc interprets the crossing tower, at the mid-point of a cruciform church, as the dwelling place of God. This association can be supported from medieval texts and from images of the Heavenly Jerusalem, in which the Lamb of God tops the central tower. Rcinle docs not, however, discuss the octagonal crossing tower.

" BANDMANN, "Achtcck", c. 40-41: MEYER & SuNTRUP.

Lexikon,c. 565-570. " Paris, Bibi. de !'Arsenal, 1171,fol. 17v, 71v, 108, 164v: KOEHLER & MOTH ERICH, Die Karo/ingischeMiniaturtn, vol. I, p. 9-12, .Jl. 67, 144-156,Ta£ V.34-35;VANDERHORST, NOEL& WOSTEFELD, The UtrechtPsalter,cat. 11. ss BRAUN,DerchristlicheAltar, p. 213-119, Tab. 161-165with further examples. '6 GoussET, "Un aspect", p. 88, 90, 95-96, fig. 13, 16, 11-21. " Munich, BSB, Clm 6421, fol. mv: MASS, Das Bistum Freisir,g, p. 117-118,Abb. s after 8; PuHLE, Otto der Gro.fe, cat. IV.60; KLEMM,Die ottonischtnundfruhromanischtn Handschrifttn,cat. 47, Tab.X. " In 1984 the original was moved to the inside of the north portal and a copy was installed on the outside. Sec GRZIMEK, Dtutsdu Stuckplastik,p. 64, Abb. 77; BUDDE,DeutscheRomanischeSlculptur, p. 98-99, Abb. 146; LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. 101-101, 183-184; NIEHR, Die mitteldeutscheSkulptur, p. 166-168, Abb. 119. 59 GOETTING, Die HildesheimerBischiift,p. 148, 150-151. 6 " GoETTING,Die HildeshtimerBischof,,p. 381-381;NI EHR, Dit mitteldeutscheSkulptur, p. 267. For the location of Bernhard's tomb, sec KozoK, Der Tristegum-Turm,p. 16. " HOLSCHER, "Die Godchardikirchc", p. 11-11,17-18, 18, 34, 18, 40. The west towers on the model have suffered damage, but the relatively good state of the other parts of the building make it unlikely that the towers were originally taller. 62 BUDDE,DeutscheRom,mischeSkulptur, p. 99. ''' NIEHR, Die mitteldeutsd,eSkulptur, p. 268. i,., LIPSMEYER,The Donor,p. 183-184. " HOLSCHER, "Die Godchardikirchc~ p. 32-34: HAMANN· MACLEAN,"Die Rcimscr Dcnkmalc~p. 151:KozoK,DerTrist,g,unJimn, p. 56, 194. t>

For the tradition of representinga church from its reprcscnta·

rive side. see e.g. the models in Pctershausen, Moosburg, Brunswick. Wcchsdburg and Gandershcim. ,.- ScH L'HELS. "Die Erhcbung Bcrnwards", p. 407.

6

STEINBERG,"Die altesten Bildnisse~ p. ,77-,79; BESELER& RoGGENKAMP,Die Michaeliskirche,p. 47. 69 SCHUFFELS,"Die Erhebung Bernwards", p. 408-409. ·o ALGERMISSEN,"Die historischen ~ellen", p. 6. ., KUNST, "Aspekte~ p. 340-341. See EICHWALDER,"St. Godchard~ p. ,1. ·, STEINBERG,"Die iiltesten Bildnisse•, p. ,81-,83 with fig. '' GOETTING, Das reichsunmittelbareKanonissenstifi,p. l4, 3l; BUDDE,DeutscheRomanischeSlculptur,p. 40, Abb. 56. For (possible) imitations of the tympanum of St Godehard's, see NIEHR, Die mitteldeutscheSkulptur, p. ,18-110, ,83-,84, Abb. 53, 139. ·., GOETTING, Das reichsunmittelbareKanonissenstifi,p. 85-87, 98-IOl, !l6-110. ·s For Gandersheim's struggle with the archbishop of Mainz, see GOETTING, Das reichsunmittelbare Kanonissenstifi,p. 87-90 and the previous note. 6 ' KARLINGER,Die romanischeSteinplastik, p. 65-67, Abb. 98, der bildendenKumt, cat. 35, 130. 100-101; FILLITZ, Geschichte - FILLITZ, Geschichteder bildendenKunst, cat. 13,. " 8 See FAUST& KRASSNIG, Di, Benedilctinischen Monchs-und vol. 3, p. ,66-,70. Nonnenlcloster, 9 ' The two largest fragments can be found in the Regionalgeschichtliches Museum in Luthemadt-Eisleben; the right comer of the tympanum is in Holzzdle, built into the west wall of a house: NI EHR,Di, mitteldeutscheSlculptur,p. 75, ,8,-,83, Abb. 138.The model-bearers are in the comers. In the middle is the convent's patron carrying her Son. On the left is a figure in episcopal vest· ments. Neither the book in his hand, nor the inscription ARCHIEP(Is)c(oPus) help ro identify him. Behind the archbishop a man lays his hand on the shoulder of a kneeling woman (?). They probably represent the founders. The veiled figure with a book and the priest on Mary's right might represent the abbess and the provost of the house. 80 Although the first mention dates from 1147,the first explicit reference to a convent of nuns dates from 1117.NIEHR, Di, mitteldeutscheSlcu/ptur,p. 189,,81-183 puts the completion of the conventual buildings towards 1150.The tympanum would have been made for the main entrance to the church during a new building programme in 1100. Niehr interprets the relief as a deliberate 'forgery' aimed at emphasizing the house's independence. The tympanum would then be a reaction to the forged foundation charter 'of 877' of the college of canonesscs at Driibeck in the Harz, bywhich Driibeck laid claim to possession ofHolzzelle in the 11th century. The distance in time between the two makes this unlikely. 81 NEUBAUER,Die romanischenskulptiertenBogenftlder,p. 111111.Neubauer also mentions two tympanums from the vicinity of Yienne, in Condrieu and St-Alban-sur-Rhone, where two towers in the corners arc likewise portrayed. These are not carried, however. '

82

CLEMEN,DieromanischeMonumentalmalerei, p. 47,-474, fig. 341. 83 On the building's architectural history, see BADER,St. Quirin, especially p. 113-135:KUBACH& VERBEEK,Romanische Baukunst, p. 830-835. 84 CLEMEN, Die Kunstdenlcmalerdes KreisesNeuss, p. 67-68: CLEMEN,Die romanischeMonumentalmalerei,p. 470,474. " KoTTJE, Das Stifi St. Quirin, p. 11-17,30-40. 86 KOTTJE, Das Stifi St. Quirin, p. 13-14: BADER, St. Quirin, p. 44-45: LANGE, Neuss, p. 67; STENMANS, "Das erste Jahrtausend", p. 44. 87 KoTTJE, Das Stifi St. Q},irin,p. 153-154. 88 For this transition, see KOTTJE, Das Stifi St. Quirin, especially p. 41-51. 89 The possibility cannot be excluded that one of the foundations represents the collegiate church in Wissel, where two towers flank the apse (KUBACH & YERBEEK, Romanische Baukunst, p. 1156-1158).This is not, however, terribly likely,because the models mirror one another exactly and arc certainly expressions of pride in the new St ~rinus. 90 Munich, BSB, Clm 17401, fol. l4v: GLASER, Wittelsbach,vol. Ll, cat. 157; HAUKE & KROOS, Das Matutinalbuch, p. 7-8, 14-15, 45, 78; KRoos, "Die Bildhandschriften~ p. 477-479, 484-486. 91 See previous note, and also HEMMERLE, Die Benediktinerkliister,p. 173-174, 179-180 (with bibliography). 92 Munich, BSB, Clm 17401,fol. 15: GLASER,Wittelsbach,vol.1.2, Taf. 8. 93 FUHRMANN,"Die bildende Kunst~ p. 1108-1109. 94 FILLITZ, Geschichteder bildendenKum/, p. 140. 9S An overview of the building history of Salzburg Cathedral is der bildendenKumt, cat. 17. given in FILLITZ, Geschichte % Historical details derived from: MIERAU, Vita communis, p. 315-317;FILLITZ, Geschichtederbildenden Kumt, p.140; FAUST & KRASSNIG,Die BenediktinischenMonchs-und Nonnenkliister, vol. 3, p. 409-411, 414, 411-413. "' MADER,Die Kunstdenkmiikr,p. 146-148, fig. 119:KARLINGER, Die romanischeSteinplastik,p. 91-93, Abb. 140. 98 NEUBAUER, Die romanischen skulptierten Bogenftlder, p. 107-109, Abb. 160-163; NIEHR, Die mitteldeutscheSkulptur, p. 343, Abb. 107. 99 In Reinsdorf the angel Gabriel stands on the right. Behind him a half-length figure of a monk gestures towards the inscription on the arch, as though it stood on a banderolc. On the left a kneeling priest, with chasuble and tonsure, offers the church's patron saint a model of the church. The central part of the building has a door with two windows above it under a triangular spire. On the right is an adjoining apse with one window, on the left a narrow annexe under a pitched roof.

POWER STRUGGLES

AMONG THE CLERGY

115

7. The West: Burgundy,Reims and Wilderen

From the second quarter of the twelfth century the iconographic tradition of the model-bearer is traceable in France. In Burgundy in particular there are comparatively rich remains. Lipsmeyer seeks the reason for the motif's uneven occurrence in the political connection between the duchy and the Holy Roman Empire, and she also posits an influential example in Cluny. 1 The latter argument sounds reasonable, given the abbey's great reputation and influence. But the part played by the political connections between Burgundy and the empire is not necessarily relevant to the donormodels. The determining factor was rather the direct link between Cluny and Rome. Its origins go back at least to the shared endeavour of Abbot Odo of Cluny and Alberic II, ruler of Rome (932.-954), to achieve monastic reform (cf §1.5). A further tie to the Eternal City is provided by the archbishops of Lyon and Reims, who both used the papal donor motif as one means of buttressing their respective claims to primacy in France's ecclesiastical hierarchy. As the earliest extant examples belong to this second group, they will be discussed first.

7.lLyon Lyon lay just within the border of the Holy Roman Empire but was the capital of the ecclesiastical province to which the French duchy ofBurgundy belonged. Here a model-bearer with mitre and pallium was once portrayed in the floor mosaic before the steps of the altar in the choir of the abbey church of St Martin d'Ainay.2 Since 1934 the figure has been preserved in

the side chapel of St Blandine. The mosaic portrays either Archbishop Josserand (1107-m8), the former abbot of St Martin, or Pope Paschal II (1099-m8), who according to the accompanying inscription had consecrated the church. This memorable event took place on 2.7January 1107. At that time the rebuilding of the abbey church, begun by Josserand's predecessor, must still have been underway, for it was not com· pleted until 112.0at the earliest. The floor mosaic cannot have been made much before this, so Josserand's pallium, which he received in 1110,provides no due as to its date. Overzealous restorations in 1852. and 1934 have made interpretation of the model-bearer problematic. For instance, the model he carries has been made to match the present exterior of the church. The pontifical attire would be appropriate to Paschal II, but it is not known whether the pope made donations that would justify his portrayal as a donor - although the consecration may in itself have been considered reason enough to adopt the Roman iconographic formula of the papal donor and even to execute it in the traditional mosaic. Moreover, a picture of the 'pope of Lyon' would be an apt visual reference to the archiepiscopal title primas Galliaeas well as the regular papal visits to Lyon in the late eleventh century and the first decades of the twelfth. 3 Perhaps the mosaic had a subtle part to play in the dispute then raging around the issue of primacy over Gaul. 4 In 1079 Archbishop Gebuin (1077-1082.) had successfully petitioned Gregory VII to confirm his rank asprimas Galliae.Renewed confirmation by Callistus II followed in 1095, when Archbishop Richerius

THE

WEST:

BURGUN/>J,!/,~~(/'fsl~':"l,~D 1

i1~yiilCH

i'd

WJLDEREN ii

117

Fig. 5:z..Eighteenth-century drawing of the relief on the front of the cenotaph of Archbishop Hincmar of Reims, c.11 ,o; Paris, BnF,Fr. 15634. fol. 102 (from: HAMANN-MCLEAN, "Die Reimser Denkmale",Abb. 143).

of Sens (106:z.-1096) refused co submit co Lyon's authority. Josserand and his successor Humbaud ( 1118-1118)were also able to secure ratification of their position as primate of Gaul in 1116and u2.1respec• tively. King Louis VI (1108-1137),on the other hand, protested to the Holy See, because Lyon, as a city outside his realm, could never have primacy over Sens. The floor mosaic in the abbey church of St Martin d'Ainay in the meanwhile seems to support the right of Lyon.

7.2Reims Before the French Revolution the cenotaph of Archbishop Hincmar (845-881) stood in the crossing of the abbey church of St Remi in Reims. 5 In 1914 a few fragments resurfaced, but the only record of the relief on the front is contained in an eighteenth-century drawing (Fig. 51) and a couple of engravings. 6 Interpretation of the image varies. ln the centre is a crowned figure bearing a banner in the right hand and a church model in the left. Prache identifies this as Charles the Bald with the Carolingian cathedral ofReims, whose consecration he attended.7 But the 'emperor' differs significantly from the sovereign who is anointed on the right of the relief and from kings represented in contemporary French sculpture: the figure wears a voluminous cloak, is beardless, and has long hair falling to the shoulders. These chatactcrisrics lead Hamann-Maclean to regard the mystery figureas the personification of the Church, and he draws attention to the similarity to the figureof Ecdesia on the key-

118

scone of a pier arch in the church of St Madeleine in Vezclay (c.n10-u35). 8 Running around this female model-bearer are the words SUMMODO FUMOSASED ERO POST HEC SPECIOSA('now I am blackened, but hereafrer I shall have great beauty'), playing on verse 1:4 of the Canticle of Canticles, in which the bride says 'I am black but beautiful'. The inscription probably alludes to the fire that destroyed the Carolingian nave of St Madeleine in 1110,and to its splendid rebuilding. Arguing for an interpretation ofEcdesia as the patron of the church is the comparison of Mary Magdalene - who after the entombment vainly searches for the dead Christ and is consequently the first to see the risen Christ - with the bride of the Canticle of Canticles, who goes in search of her beloved (Christ) and by finding him symbolizes the Church. 9 In the funerary context a miniature from the St Bertin scriptorium (c.1115-u35)appears to bear a rather significant relationship to Hincmar's relief. 10 It shows the deceased Abbot Lambert (1095-m.5), his soul ascending to God between two pairs of figures in half-medallions. The model-bearer in the lower left medallion represents the Virgin as patron saint of the chapel Lambert founded. Thus, once again, the patron rather than the founder appears in the model-bearer's role. Hamann MacLean's interpretation is th.erefore the more convincing and its main lines will be followed below. 11 The enthroned Ecclesia on Hincmar's cenotaph represents the church of Reims and at the same time the church's patron, the Virgin Mary. On her right the kneeling Remigius (d. 533) is the only one of the depictedbishops ro carry not a crosier but the older

Ori~Jtnai frnrn

UNIVERSITYOF [,!ICHIGM·~

tau staff. This is probably meant to be the staff received by Remigius on his appointment by Pope Hormisdas and left by him to the monastery of St Remi. (514-s:1.3) The relic was adduced as proof ofReims's preferential position within the West Frankish Church. In his right hand Remigius may have held the ampoule of holy chrism that was brought by a dove when he baptized Clovis I (481/82.-511), according to Hincmar's final version of the Vita S. Remigii, which was written no earlier than 877.12 He is followed by an abbot and a monk from the monastery of St Remi, where the holy phial was kept. They make their way to Clovis's anointing, depicted on the far right of the relief Between the anointing and the architectural model are figures who, so Hamann-Maclean suggests, represent the archbishop of Sens and the abbot of St Denis. These were the greatest rivals of Reims, which had claimed the exclusive right to anoint the king since Hincmar's day and supported this assertion with the sacred heavensent chrism. By their presence on the relief. Sens and St Denis would be shown to acknowledge that this privilege rightly belonged to Reims. 13 Hamann-Maclean uses the rivalry to date the cenotaph. Despite Hincmar's efforts it was the eleventh century before Reims was gradually able to make good its claim to this most important prerogative. 14 Even in uo8 it was still the archbishop of Sens who crowned Louis VI in Orleans. But from the consecration of Louis's son Philip in u2.9, the anointing and coronation of the king took place in Reims Cathedral. When Philip died two years later his brother Louis VII was crowned, as joint king with his father, at a council in Reims, the consecration being performed by Pope Innocent II. According to Hamann Maclean, this success was the fruit of an active propaganda campaign following the failure of uo8. Reims's triumph would be reflected in the cenotaph of Hincmar, who had paved the way for winning the privilege of consecrating France's kings. The immediate occasion for the making of this monumental victory symbol was perhaps the announcement in 1130 of the impending papal visit. Hamann MacLean's argument has one weak point: Hincmar himself is not among the figures on the relief! Yet the archbishop merits an important position. So perhaps it is he, not his confrere from Sens, on Ecclesia's left. A book is a fitting attribute for the author of the Vita S. Remigii. Furthermore, the figure reaches out his hand to the Carolingian cathedral,

which Hincmar consecrated in 862..15 His companion, whom Hamann-Maclean somewhat tentatively identifies as the abbot of St Denis, might then represent the rival from Sens, adorned with mitre, crosier and pallium consistent with his archiepiscopal dignity, especially as the abbot of St Denis was still awaiting the pallium around u30. 16 Both Prache and Hamann-Maclean have rightly identified the architectural model as the Carolingian cathedral ofReims, which would undergo no fundamental alterations until Archbishop Samson of Mauvoisin (1140-1161)set to work.17 The westwork and crossing tower preclude the possibility that the model represents the St Remi abbey church itself The westwork, which Mary-Ecclesia holds towards herself. has three stages: a blind bottom stage, then two stages with windows, the top one being narrower than the one beneath. The nave has a clerestory, the apse has two windows and the crossing tower has three fenestrated stages decreasing in width as they rise. The model does not have the real cathedral's aisles, transept and staircase towers - two on either side of the west doorway and two at the transition from transept to choir. Thus the cathedral can actually be recognized only from the westwork and the crossing tower, for an apse and a nave had, after all, been components of the iconographic tradition since the sixth century. This raises the questions of just how portrait-like the representation of the westwork and the crossing tower is and what role these particular parts of the building played in the message the relief conveyed. From written and archaeological sources it appears fairly likely that the design of the Carolingian cathedral of Reims was based on that of the now demolished St Riquier in Centula (Picardy), built in 790-799. 18 According to seventeenth-century engravings based on a lost eleventh-century drawing the monastery church had three-staged turrets both as part of its westwork and rising above the crossing (Fig. 53). The same type of turret crowns the crossing of the cathedral model on the cenotaph. The west tower on Hincmar's monument, however, differs from the Centula turrets by the absence of a third row of windows and by its massive structure. These differences lead Hamann-Maclean to interpret this part of the cathedral building as the tower built by Archbishop Adalbero (969-989) in 976. 19 Bur, however, infers from diverse chronicles, liturgical sources and a groundplan dating from 1789 that Adalbero's

THE

WEST:

BURGUNJ:iY,,

REIMcli

AND

urri;Jtnatrrcrn

WILDEREN

119

,:f"CCLISl.-\l)/AO ANGIU!(.l'.TO-APVO C(N'lVLAM•A"N· DCC. X C.JX _ ::C'?.~TRVC.T~V~ £.·SC!°'l~TO · COOICL __I..K.MAJE.ION __ ~

..

Fig. 53. The abbey complex of Centula seen from the south, 790-799; seventeenth-century engraving (from: STIEGEMANN & WEMHOFF, 799: Kunst, vol. 3, Abb. 16 on p. 63l).

alterations to the westwork were all on the inside. Apparently the archbishop had the first two levels knocked into one so the nave could be extended to the west.20 The galleries on the north, west and south sides of the westwork remained. In the west gallery, which was above the portal, Adalbero probably installed the relics of Pope Callistus. Before that the Easter Vigil mass had been celebrated at the altar dedicated to the Saviour in the upper chamber of the westwork. Bur suggests that this function was transferred to the canons' cemetery church, which was dedicated to Dionysius and lay opposite the cathedral with its choir orientated to the west, thus creating an arrangement that resembled the linking of the Anastasis Rotw1da, atrium and Holy Sepulchre basilica on Golgotha.

120

COMPRESSED

Digitized by

In line with Bur's research the model's westwork has a blind first stage with the windows of the galleries above it. The decrease in width in the upper stage tallies with Centula. Essentially, therefore, the westwork is no less portrait-like than the crossing tower. The similarity to the built cathedral was probably intended to convince the beholder that only Reims had the right to consecrate a king. Without specific characteristics the model would have fulfilled this function very indifferently. In this respect it seems significant that no architectural models with a west tower and a crossing tower are known from a time prior to this period. The choice of the south view is possibly the result of Hincmar's position on Mary-Ecclesia's left: in the Roman tradition the apse containing the carhedra is turned towards the archbishop. In addition to their aim of propagating ecclesiastical policy the staged turrets may also allude to Christ's tomb (cf §4.2/5.1). The celebration of the Easter Vigil mass in the westwork, which Adalbero expanded with an architectonic allusion to Golgotha, chimes with this notion. Furthermore, the westwork housed the relics of Pope Callistus, while the Lady altar stood beneath the crossing tower. 21 The double emphasis on pope and patron saint seems fitting in view of the connection between Rome and Reims, which was expressly highlighted on the occasion oflnnocent Il's visit in 1131.The adoption of the papal iconographic formula also points in this direction. There is, however, no question of a spontaneous reaction to contemporary events. The chronicler Flodoard (894-966) laid the foundations for the legend of the apostolic origins of the Church of Reims, according to which Peter himself sent the first two bishops to the Gallo-Roman city of Durocortorum.21 Th is connection between Reims and Rome was a cornerstone of the archbishop's primacy claim. In 1089 Pope Urban II (1088-1099) confirmed Reims's primacy over the province of Belgica Secunda. The precedence over other archbishops - in particular in the case of the West Frankish coronation rights - was traced back to a forged bull made in the circle around Hincmar, which was recognized by Pope Victor II (1055-1057 ). According to this 'bull: Pope Hormisdas (514-52.3) had appointed Remigius as his vicar in the empire of Clovis (481/82-511) and had given him the bishop's staff - the tau staff on the relief - as a symbol of this. Hincmar put the ampoule of holy chrism in this perspective: because the archbishop of Reims

MEANINGS

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

anointed the West Frankish king with the holy chrism, he acquired at least the same rank as the pope who crowned the emperor in Rome. Gregory of Tours (538/39-594) had already compared the baptism of Clovis by Remigius with that of Constantine by Pope Sylvester.23 The comparison found further expression in the mosaic that decorated the west facade of the Carolingian cathedral. Here were depicted Pope Stephen IV (816-817) and Louis the Pious (814-840), who received the imperial crown from Stephen in the cathedral. The pairing of Stephen and Louis is strongly reminiscent of that of Leo III and Charlemagne in the Lateran Palace and S. Susanna in Rome. The medium - mosaic - and the accompanying dedicatory inscription are also in the Roman tradition. 24 In the same context, in 898 Reims acquired the relics of Pope Callistus, and their veneration was still undiminished in the twelfth century. 25 These ties with the Eternal City underpin the idea that the announcement in 1130 of Innocent II's impending visit to Reims, where the pope would once more anoint a king, led to the making of Hincmar's monument. Moreover, as far as is known Innocent himself was the first pope in three centuries to display an interest in the Roman iconographic tradition: he had himself represented as a model-bearer on the left of the apse mosaic of S. Maria in Trastevere in Rome (cf§1.4).

7.3 Charlieu In Burgundy, the great abbey of Cluny, which was under the direct authority of the Apostolic See and had close connections with the papacy, probably acted as a conduit for the iconographic tradition of the donor with his church model. 26 From 102.5the bishop of Macon, who was suffering an increasing loss of power and property as a result of the abbey's exclusion from diocesan authority, protested against Cluny's exemption. 27 He was supported by his metropolitan, the archbishop of Lyon, but their successes were few and short-lived. With Rome's backing, Cluny invariably prevailed. Pope after pope confirmed, refined and enlarged the abbey's privileges and freedoms. Callistus II (rn9-112.4), who was consecrated at Cluny, gave these a definitive shape. In doing so he also compromised with the bishop of Macon by reinforcing his rights in the parishes and so repairing the diocesan structure. Gradually the quarrel died down.

Digitized by

Google

Fig. 54. King Boso with a church model, donor figure on the left of the tympanum above the great north door in the narthex of St Formnatus in Charlieu, shortly before 1150 (photograph: author).

While the dispute over their papal privileges was going on the monks of Cluny would have expressed their ties with Rome not only in words but in images too. Whether they would have had a model-bearer portrayed in the now demolished abbey church can only be conjectured. But some examples do survive in the immediate vicinity.Two of these appear among the carvings executed towards the middle of the twelfth century in the narthex of the former monastery church of St Fortunatus in Charlieu. 28 Represented in the tympanum above the great north door is Christ in Majesty surrounded by a cherub, a seraph and the tetramorph. On the lintel beneath, arrayed before the walls of the Heavenly Jerusalem, angels and apostles flank the Virgin as the ~een of Heaven. Portrayed on the imposts on both left and right are, from outside co inside, a prophet, a donor, and a patron saint. On the far left is King David as an ancestor of Christ. The inscription ECCE AGNUS DEi on the banderole of John the Baptist, his counterpart on the far right, also

THE

WEST:

8URGUNDX,

,REI

Original

SAND

rom

WILDEREN

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

121

alludes to the central figure in the tympanum. Next to David, Duke Boso ofBurgundy (d. 887) holds a model of the small monastery of St Martin in Regny (Fig. 54), which he had given to Charlieu shortly before his coronation as king of Burgundy and Provence in 879.29 In memory of this lordly benefactor the monks kept up the tradition that Boso had been buried in the monastery church. 30 Next to John the Baptist is Bishop Radbert ofValence (859-879), who with his brother Eduard had founded the Charlieu monastery in 87l. Therefore he too offers a church model. The church's patron saints, Stephen on the left and Yenantius Fortunatus on the right, accompany the donors along the grassy path to the heavenly city. Despite its arrangement in different registers, some elements of the portal sculpture manifestly reference Roman apse decorations: the patron saints commending the donors, the papal motif of the model-bearer, and the paradisal surroundings. The division between left and right is organized according to the identity of the figures depicted: King Boso stands beside King David, Bishop Radbert beside St Fortunatus, who was martyred in his episcopal city of Valence. The 'Roman' programme is appropriate in view of the monastery's history, for the connection between Charlieu and Rome dated from the house's foundation in 87l. 31 Initially the monastery was under the direct jurisdiction of the Apostolic See; it was then taken under the protection of Pope John VIII (87l-88l) in 878, and was transferred to Cluny by Pope John XI (931-935)in 93l. The Charlieu monks often called on Cluny's aid when temporal rulers encroached on their rights. Having twice temporarily lost control of the monastery, the abbey took permanent possession ofit during the abbacy ofOdilo (994-1049). It was at this time that the rebuilding of the monastery began, and it would probably have been completed by its consecration in 1094. The first reference to the foundation as a priory dates from 1109. In the first half of the twelfth century the relationship between Charlieu and Cluny remained a very close one - William ofRoanne (d. 1145)was both Grand Prior ofCluny and prior of Charlieu, for instance. 32 It is therefore not unlikely that the monks of St Fortunatus became acquainted with the papal iconographic formula via Cluny. In the destruction of the late eighteenth century Radbert's architectural model suffered particularly badly. Sunderland assumes that the bishop held a representation of che tenth-century monastery church.''

122

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

But how could the twelfth-century sculptor have managed to produce a likeness of that building, which had long been replaced by a successor? Moreover, there are no known parallels for a donor's model that port:rays the building as it looked in an earlier phase. Boso holds his model with its two-windowed apse turned away from him. The apse is attached to a choir that has one high window beneath projecting eaves. Above the transept, which has two fenescraced zones, rise the crumbling remains of a crossing cower.Next to this is a nave, two windows wide. What the church of Sc Marcin in Regny actually looked like at that time is now unknown. Sunderland skips over this problem and uses Boso's model co reconstruct Charlieu's now largely demolished eleventh-century monastery church. 34 She points to a parallel for the high window in the choir in the church of the nearby Semur-enBrionnais. The projecting eaves are also a feature of the church in Anzy-le-Duc, built in imitation ofCharlieu. Archaeological excavations have shown that the buttresses on either side of the transept facade are correctly represented and an early-nineteenth-century drawing of the ruin confirms that there were indeed high windows in the nave.35 Only for the three windows in the transept facade does Sunderland cite no comparison, yet she terms chem portrait-like. This selective approach is not entirely convincing. Why would the sculptor meticulously use details like the eaves from the monastery church while ignoring the stepped choir with its five apsidioles, which archaeological excavation has shown to have existed? Why would he have carefully counted the transept's windows yet completely omitted two bays of the nave? Probably he sought in the first place to distinguish Boso's model from the model of St Fortunatus Radbert holds. In other cases in which the donor's 'own' church is represented together with another one, the donor's is generally finer or more of a likeness than the other (cf§9.13/io.1/ll.l). Sunderland's reconstruction of the eleventh-century monastery church using an architectural model that represents the church of St Martin in Regny is therefore difficult to sustain. What her comparisons do make plain, however, is that the sculptor used elements from contemporary Burgundian church architecture. Fragments of a wall painting from the refectory of the Charlieu priory bring the question oflikeness no nearer a solution. They date from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century and are iconographically

related to the sculpture in the north portal. 36 In one fragment Boso carries a little basilica with the entrance in the west end turned towards himself. On the southeast of the church is a tall bell-tower. This church and the model on the tympanum have not a single characteristic in common. On the other hand, Boso's model in the north portal does resemble the cathedral of Rei ms that once rested on the palm of Mary-Ecclesia in the relief on Hincmar's cenotaph. Both represent a church seen from the south and have a vaulted apse with two windows that the model-bearers hold turned away from themselves. These characteristics are shared by other Burgundian donors' models in Avenas and Aucun, suggesting that they were standard motifs. But just as the portrait-like towers made the architectural representation in Reims recognizable, the transept beneath the crossing tower could have served the same purpose in Charlieu. Not only are there apparently no prior examples of this building section on donors' models, the contemporary parallel in Avenas also appears to be very portrait-like.

Fig. 55. Louis II/VI presents a church model to Sc Vincent, relief on the south side of the alcar in the church of Our Lady, Avenas, 1137 or slightly lacer (photograph: author).

7.4Avenas The model-bearer in the church of Our Lady in Avenas (formerly diocese of Macon) appears on the south side of the altar, which is decorated on three sides with reliefs (Fig. 55). 37 On the front is the Majestas Domini surrounded by the twelve apostles. The north side illustrates four episodes from the life of the church's patron: the Annunciation, che Presentation of Christ in che Temple, and the Birth and Dormition of the Virgin. The model consists of an apse with two windows, a transept with a crossing tower, and a singleaisled nave beneath a pitched roof. The sculptor has represented the church accurately in almost every respect, right down to the three windows in the nave and che single one in the south transept. 38 The sole discrepancy is the pair of windows in the south face of the crossing tower: in the built architecture there are cwo windows on the cast and west sides, but the north and south sides each have only one. 39 The realism of the model has a textual counterpart in the historically accurate content of the inscription below the relief: R(EX)

LUDOVJCUS

OFFERT

AECCLESIAM

LAMPADE MORS

PIUS ET VJRTUTIS RECIPIT

BISS ENA FLUITURUS

FUGAT OBPOSITUM

AMICUS

VIN(CEN)TIUS JULIUS

!STAM

!BAT

REGIS AO INTERITUM.

Digitized by

Google

The most recent and convincing reading of this text, which has led to various interpretations of the altar, is the following: 'l(jng Louis, pious and friend of virtue, offers this church which Vincent receives. On the twelfth day, asJuly went by, death overcame the resistance of the king before his deceasci4o The death of a king described here corresponds exactly to that of Louis VI of France, who died on I August 1137after a twelve-day bout of dysentery. The model-bearer should therefore represent Louis. With the apse turned away from him he hands over the Avenas church co St Vincent, patron saint of the Church of Macon. The inscription cannot have been added much after 1137,for both the uncial V and M and the style of the relief belong to the second quarter of the twelfth century. 41 What were the circumstances that led to the making of this altar? Surviving documents record not a single instance of contact between Louis VI and the Church of Macon, let alone with Avenas. Though his predecessors had involved themselves in the appointment of bishops in Macon, Louis had not intervened in local power politics. 42 Around 1140 Abbot Petrus Venerabilis (1122-1156) of Cluny had seated, in the words of Hosea 3:4, that Burgundy, like Israel, was a

THE

WEST:

BURGUNDYDR.ElMSI

ngina

ND

WILDEREN

rom

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

123

land 'without king or prince'. 43 Since 951 no French king had set foot in the diocese.44 Regardless, here too he was seen as the most important protector of the Church in his kingdom. Without him it was difficult to maintain peace and safeguard church property. Around 1140 both came under threat, particularly from the predatory viscount of Macon, whom Petrus Venerabilis dubbed 'the wolf'. 45 At the same time the bishop had to contend with the expansionist opportunism of Count William IV of Macon (1127-c.1156).46 In 1120 Pope Callistus II had already excommunicated 'certain knights' who had looted the cathedral of St Vincent." In the eleven-thirties Guichard III ofBeaujeu (d. 1137), in whose territory Avenas lay, also emerged as a formidable antagonist, as appears from his increasing quarrels with the archbishop of Lyon.48 In this context the royal donation depicted in Charlieu's north portal seems highly significant. The small monastery in Regny would not in itselfhave contributed greatly to St Fortunatus's lustre, but, according to tradition, King Boso had gone to such lengths to maintain and repair the church's property that the pope chose him as its protector. 49 Acquiring a royal protector could also be the reason behind the Avenas altar's donor image. The village lay close to the Col du Fut, the first pass that linked the Saone valley with the hill country beyond. Through it ran an important road that branched off from the main route along the Saone at Belleville and led to Cluny, Autun and the Loire. 50 The bishop of Macon would have attached great strategic value to Avenas given the virtual division of his territory into two: the north-eastern Maconnais to the west of the Saone and the southwestern Brionnais to the east of the Loire. 51 The route through Avenas crossed a narrow strip that joined the two parts. To the north-west of it lay the bishopric of Autun, to the south-east, the archbishopric of Lyon. Needless to say, the bishop sought to keep control of Avenas as a territorial link. Therefore the 'stone charter' on the altar would likely have been intended as confirmation of the royal transfer of Our Lady to the Church of Macon. In much the same way,for example, the Stavelot altar retable ordered by Abbot Wibald (1130-1158) documented the names of sixty-three places in the abbey's possession.52The transaction depicted on the altar relief had a core of historical authenticity: among the donations King Louis II (877-879) made to Bishop Lambert of Macon was the church of

124

Our Lady in Avenas, so states a royal document of 878. 53 According to the relief. Louis VI confirmed the donation of his distant predecessor. This purported event seems to offer a counterweight to the threats posed by local magnates, on whom were few constraints in a land 'without king or prince'. To give the false stone charter a convincing air of authenticity the inscription pointedly mentions the date of Louis VI's death and the model meticulously reproduces the actual architecture. Furthermore, the king does not offer his gift to Christ or the church's own patron saint, as had been usual up till then, but to St Vincent, the patron saint of Macon Cathedral. This break with tradition turned the act represented in the relief into a vindication of the right of possession. Moreover, in the: twelfth century altars were seldom provided with such rich carving, 54 which underscores the importance of the donor portrayal. In Avenas, just as in Charlic:u, the iconographic formula of the model-bearer would have been known via Cluny. After Pope Callistus II (1119-1124) had ended the dispute between the abbey and Macon, the then bishop Josserand ( 1128-1140) need no longer have been affronted by the papal connotations of such an image. On the contrary: Callistus had curtailed the rights of Cluny and in doing so had gone a considerable way towards meeting the episcopal point of view. There is also no indication of discord between Cluny andJosserand. 55 The accent on ownership in the presentation of the model to the representative of the church of Macon has points of contact with the import of Hincmar's cenotaph. After all, this commemorates the archbishop principally as founder of the claim to the prerogative of anointing the king. It establishes the possession of a privilege, just as the possession of Avenas was commemorated on the altar, which as a halidome - a sacred object on which oaths were sworn emphasized the legality of the deed.

7.5Autun Around 1100 a sculptor employed the iconographic formula of the model-bearer on a capital of the church of St Lazare in Autun: the original is nowadays in the chapter house (Fig. 56). 56 As is also the case in Avenas, it is not the local patron saint who receives the donation: Lazarus's role is to appear from a cloud to bless the presentation of a church by a young nobleman to

Fig. 56. Donor's capital from the church of St Lazare in Autun: nowadays in the chapter house, c.1130 (photograph: author).

a bishop. Once again the model consists of a south view with two apse windows, which seems to imply a local, east-French type of church model. The part of the building adjoining the apse has one large roundheaded opening beneath a pitched roof and the stump of a tower above. Lipsmeyer, like Grivot and Zarnecki, interprets this as a transept and crossing tower.57 In which case the model represents the church in the phase of building it had reached when the capital was carved. There are three objections to this interpretation. Firstly, the fragment of tower is not directly above the large arch but on the left half of the roof, an asymmetry that argues against it being a crossing tower, which in the related models in Charlieu and Avenas does indeed rise above the centre of the crossing. Secondly, the image of the built architecture seems to have been abbreviated due to lack of space (cf §8.1), so the 'transept' could equally well represent a nave. Thirdly, no known donor's model portrays a building under construction. In Bruns-

wick and Ardagger, for instance, an uncompleted church was represented with its planned and (still) unfinished parts included (cf §11.2./i4.1). Taking all this into account, perhaps the model should be interpreted from a different angle which considers the place of the capital in the iconographic programme, the historical circumstances and the legendary foundation. The three apses of the cruciform basilica of Sc Lazare are more or less south-facing. This orientation is a consequence of che position of che old cathedral of Sc Nazaire, which was pulled down in the eighteenth century. The main entrances of both churches lay opposite each other, 58 in che west face of the cathedral and the case transept of Sc Lazare. Anyone entering Sc Lazare this way would see immediately to the right the donor's capital - nowadays a copy - on the north-ease crossing pier. Behind the bishop, on the capital's north side, an enthroned king sleeps, his head resting on his right hand. All that remains of the character who once appeared before the throne is a pair of feet.

THE

Digitized by

Google

WEST:

BURGUNDY,

REIMS

AND

WILDEREN

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

125

Seidel points to the similarities between the king and the figure of Joseph on the wall capital opposite the south-east crossing pier. 59Joseph also supports his head with his right hand. His position 'round the corner' - this time of the Adoration of the Magi - also matches the king's. When the visitor turned, having looked at the donor's capital on entering, his eye would fall on the Adoration. But the two side figures are not as alike as Seidel would have it appear, for Joseph's eyes are open. Moreover, the author fails to mention the more obvious correspondence between the capitals' principal images: just as the nobleman offers his architectural model to the bishop, so the Magi offer Christ their gifts. In the second half of the twelfth century Danish painters employed this same combination in the churches ofFjenneslev (Fig. 74, cf §8.4) and Slaglille on Sjaelland {Zealand): in Fjenneslev on the triumphal arch, in Slaglille the donor and the receiving hand of God appear on the triumphal arch and the three kings on the vault. 60 According to current opinion the donor's capital documents the presentation of the western part of the castrum in Autun by Duke Hugh II of Burgundy {1102-1143) to Bishop Stephen I ofBage {1112-1139) around 1120. 61 Hugh's uncle, Pope Innocent II, confirmed the donation in 1132.62 On the newly acquired ground the building of St Lazare began at once, and to it, in 1146/ 47, were brought the relics of the patron saint, which up to then had been kept in the cathedral. Seidel rejects this interpretation, 63 suggesting instead that the little building-like image represents a reliquary, since in the crossing - right next to the donor's capital - was St Lazarus's tomb, and that, in proportion to their donor, church models were portrayed on a much larger scale than Hugh's gift. She cites the donor's model in Avenas as an example. The transaction, she proposes, probably confirms a donation by the sleeping king or was made in his memory. Seidel's interpretation falls short in three respects. First, the size of the architectural representation in Autun is quite normal - it is the model in Avenas that is out of the ordinary. Secondly, the capital dates from around 1130, whereas the tomb was not built until 1135-1150.64 Thirdly, the model Ecclesia bears on the more or less contemporary keystone in St Madeleine in Vezelay is strikingly similar to the one in Autun. It has the same proportions vis-a-vis the donor and, as Ecclesia's attribute, certainly represents a church.

126

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Nevertheless, Seidel's study does offer clues to a better understanding of the donor's capital. 65 The church of St Lazare was built within the walls of the castrum that Charles the Bald had given to Bishop Adalgarius of Autun ( 867-875) in 875.66The cruciform basilica replicated Lazarus's burial church in Bethany to underline the fact that Autun was the only true repository ofLazarus's bones. This monumental message was directed at Marseille, the Rhineland, and the collegiate church of Our Lady in Avallon, which also claimed to possess Lazarus relics. Avallon, which was within the borders of the diocese of Autun, was St Lazare's most dangerous rival. Hugh I the Blind, duke ofBurgundy ( 1076-1079 ), had given the church there to Cluny {1078), and Cluniac monks soon moved in. They began reconstruction work, and in 1106 Pope Paschal II consecrated the rebuilt church to the Virgin Mary and Lazarus. Ten years later the pope confirmed the return of the church to the bishop of Autun, whose rights had been infringed by Hugh's donation. In 1120 Louis VI ratified the papal charter. At the same time the building of St Lazare began in Autun on ground that Hugh had not in fact given but given back: Bishop Adalgarius had already received the castrumfrom Charles the Bald in 875, and after a period of argument the donation was confirmed by Duke Robert I ofBurgundy {1031-1076). Seen against this historical background, the sleeping king on the donor's capital could be Louis VI. By ratifying the return of Avallon he made a vital contribution to the elimination of the most important rival Lazarus shrine. Furthermore, French kings seldom intervened in the comparatively independent diocese of Autun and Louis issued a charter for not one other spiritual community in Burgundy. 67 But why is the king sleeping? Three things suggest that the event of 1120 is not all the presentation of the church model represents. Firstly, Duke Hugh II repeated a donation his ancestor Robert I had already confirmed and which actually dated back to Charles the Bald. Secondly, parallels in Avenas and Charlieu seem to show that in Burgundy at that period it was precisely early donations that patrons chose to have depicted. Emperor Charles the Bald {d. 877) fits in well with his royal contemporaries Louis II of France (d. 879) in Avenas and Boso of Burgundy and Provence {d. 887) in Charlieu. Thirdly, high medieval texts from France attest to the same tendency to date back the possession of relics and churches to noble benefactors of the late Carolingian period. 68

As in Avenas the kingly donor represents the historical figure of Louis II but at the same time alludes to the purported confirmation of the donation by Louis VI, so the sleeping king in Autun may simultaneously represent Charles the Bald as the donor of the castrum and Louis VI, who had confirmed the restitution of the alienated Avallon. The sleep motif has an equivalent in the Vita S. Remigii: King Clovis vows to give to Remigius as much land as he can encompass on his own two feet during the king's midday nap. 69 This literary topos also occurs in the eleventh-century version of the Vita S. Aegidii, 70 in which King Flavius advises St Giles to rise early and to meet him as he comes from Nimes. The distance he covers up to the point they meet will become the radius of the area he will relinquish to Giles. Perhaps the almost completely lost figure before the king on the donor's capital in Autun was being set a similarly athletic challenge. If it is indeed Charles the Bald as donor of the ground who sleeps behind the bishop, who is the lateCarolingian nobleman offering the architectural model? Even though she does not discuss the donor's identity, Seidel's explanation of the inscription on St Lazare's west tympanum provides a starting point in the quest for an answer.71 GISLEBERTUS HOC FECIT is not, she suggests, the maker's 'signature' but rather an allusion to the legendary founder of the first church of St Lazare in Autun, Giselbert ofChalon (d. 956), from 942. the last count of Autun and from 952. also duke of Burgundy. She supports her view with three main arguments. Firstly, in France, unlike northern Italy, artists' inscriptions rarely occur, which argues against the identification of GISLEBERTUS as a sculptor. Rather, the inscription prominently placed above the entrance corresponds to the tradition of donor inscriptions of Roman Antiquity still much in evidence throughout Autun in the twelfth century. Archaizing details in St Lazare, such as fluted pilasters, acanthus capitals and friezes of rosettes give the church the suggestion of considerable age. That may also have been the purpose of the donor's inscription. Secondly, churches were not the only institutions to legitimate their possessions by representing them as noble donations made in the far distant past - the Capetian royal house also claimed descent from the late Carolingians. Possibly this kind of historiography led to a comparable construction in Autun. Thirdly, around 112.0Giselbert would have been a name to conjure with. One Giselbert was a leading member of Duke Hugh II's

retinue and he also acted as witness when Louis VI issued the charter ratifying the return of Avallon in 112.0.Autun had the auspicious advantage ofbeing able to compare this name with that of Count Giselbert in a charter of 92.0 in which Bishop Hervc: (d. 935) gave his property in rival Avallon to the chapter of Autun. Regarded in the light of the desire to trace back St Lazare's origin to the late Carolingian period, the donor portrayed on the capital could be Count Giselbert. The great age of the iconographic tradition could certainly have contributed to the reconstruction of a past for the St Lazarus shrine. The absence of an inscription on the capital is no objection to this possibility. The image could record both the earlier and the new donation, the former legendary, the latter historical, the exact antithesis of the doubling in Avenas. Besides this, the monastery church of S. Angelo in Formis also combines a donor's name on the facade with a model-bearer without an inscription within. Finally, the importance of St Lazarus's relics explains the emphasis on the east end of the church model. Here the patron saint would find his final resting place. The great doorway opens specifically in the direction of the cathedral to take in the relics on their translation. Moreover, in Autun the choice of the iconographic formula of the model-bearer may also have been influenced by Cluny. Bishop Stephen, under whose rule the capital was created, brought an end to the battle his predecessor had waged with the great abbey, entered himself, and died in the arms of Abbot Petrus Venerabilis.72

7.6Neuchdtel It is possible that there is a parallel for the double layer of meaning of the altar relief and the donor's capital in the tympanum in the south portal of the abbey church of St Peter in Neuchatel (Neuenburg) (1191-1195, Fig. 57 ). As the Protestant townsfolk found the image of the Virgin between two kneeling donors objectionable the relief was removed in 1672.. A drawing of the portal by Jonas Barillier (d. 162.0) and a description published in 1733 survive.73 The drawing is regarded as inaccurate, as stylistically there is nothing twelfthcentury about it. Moreover, the way the donatrix on the left has placed the model in the Virgin's lap lacks all affinity with the medieval iconographic tradition. The originality of the unique south-east view, which,

THE

WEST:

BURGUNDY,

REIMS

AND

WILDEREN

127

(Peterlingcn), which Bertha's daughter Adelheid had established around 960-970: from a forgery dating from the time of Prior Wigo (before rn2-1148/53) ~cen Bertha, who was buried in the convent, ousted Adelhcid as foundrcss. 79 In any case, the Ncuchatel tympanum shows how historical and legendary imcrprctations can overlap. This supports the idea that in both Avcnas and Autun the donor images could have lent legend-shaping force to the factual change of hands of property.

7. 7 Wilderen Fig. 57. The Virgin between Bertha and Ulrich, tympanum in the south portal of the former abbey church of St Peter in Neuchatel, 1191-1195{sevcncccnch-ccnturyengraving from: J6RG, Die lnschriften, Fig. 70).

.....

,, : ,. ..

,I I

portrait-like, shows the basilica with three apses is at least as dubious. Furthermore, the position of the model does not correspond to the 1733description: 'La royne Berthe agenoux tenant en ses mains le portrait de la dice eglise (...)' ('~een Bertha, kneeling, holds in her hands the portrait of the said church ( ... )'). 74 An inscription identifies the donors as Bertha and Ulrich. They are usually taken to be Countess Bertha and her husband Ulrich II of Neuchatel (before 1146-1191/1192), as a charter of 1209 refers to them as 'fundatores ecclcsic Novi Castri'. 75 The nccrologium of the nearby abbey of Fontaine-Andre also mentions the donor couple. Yet two details conflict with his interpretation. Ulrich carries an episcopal or abbatial crosier and in the 1733 description Bertha is referred to as queen. Few believe that ~een Bertha of Burgundy (d. 966) and her nephew, Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg (923-973) arc depicted here, as there are no tenth-century (art-)historical traces of St Petcr's. 76 Bertha was the wife of King Rudolph II ofBurgundy (912-937) and later married Count Hugh of Aries (c.898-947 ), who ruled as kingofltaly from 926. Many legends were woven around her, which have her founding churches and building castles throughout a wide arca? 7 The earliest opposition to a legendary explanation of the tympanum came from a sixteenth-century canon. 78 How deep the roots of this tradition go is a topic for further study. The reversal in the attribution of meaning resembles that in the monastery of Paycrne

,,

l.,

..

c"•

, ... ,, :

1;

c.' 1:

I.

.. '

128

COM

PRESSED

Digitized by

In the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels is a twelfth-century font from the church of Our Lady in Wildcrcn. The square basin, made from Liege millstone grit, is now without its plinth. In spite of the surprising iconographic programme carried out in relief on the basin's sides, only Tollcnacrc and Timmers have made any attempt at its analysis. 80 In each relief two figures sit on lions' heads, facing one another. The four evangelists form two of the couples; the third is made up of Peter and Paul flanking Christ in a segment of heaven. On the fourth side an unidentified saint sits on the left (Fig. 58). He holds in his lap a donor who offers a church to Christ seated on the lion's head on the right. In between the seated characters a female figure joins her hands and bows in worship of the gift's receiver . The donor presents the model with the west tower towards himself. The basilican nave has two rows of three windows, and the lower story is a little longer than the upper one, to indicate the choir. Timmers has established that the west tower of the church in Wildcrcn, the only twelfth-century part of the building to be spared when the church was reconstructed in the eighteenth century, differs essentially from the tower on the model. 81 Whereas on each side of the top of the church tower one round-headed arch docs indeed bridge over the belfry windows, the tower on the model has two large round-headed windows, one above the other. According to both Tollcnaere and Timmers the donor and the genuflecting female figure represent the lord and lady of Wildcrcn. They appear nowhere in the written sources, however. Yet because they were eminent enough to commemorate the foundation, three questions present themselves: was Wildcrcn the

MEANINGS

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

font's original home, whom do the figures represent, and what were the influences that led to the inclusion of the model-bearer in the iconographic programme? Wilderen is slightly to the west of Sint-Truiden, just below Duras, in the present-day Belgian province of Limburg. In I02.3 Countess Herlindis of Duras and her son Count Godfried deeded half of this villa with a brewery and half of a mill to St Trudo's Abbey, as Herlindis wished to be buried in the abbey church, next to her eldest son Albero. 82The family comb was close to the Lady altar in the south aisle.83In w65 and 1176 the curtis in Wilderen appears among the advocate-free possessions of St Trudo's Abbey; the earliest reference to Wilderen's parish church dates from 1139.84 On the oldest list of parishes in the diocese of Liege ( 1497) the church of Our Lady heads the list of churches in the deanery ofZoucleeuw, which was part of the archdeaconry ofBrabanc. 85The deanery ofSintTruiden, on the other hand, belonged to the archdeaconry ofHaspengouw (Hesbaye). The reference to the parish church in 1139 makes it conceivable chat the twelfth-century font came from Wilderen. At that time secular authority in the Wilderen area was in the hands of the counts of Duras, who had probably succeeded the counts of Avernas as local lords and sub-advocates of St Trudo's in the tenth cenmry.86The deed of I02.3shows that they owned at least half ofWilderen, where they renounced their rights of advocacy over the curtis in 1065 at the latest. The comical family would have gone to church here, because Duras appears as only one of the four chapels belonging to Wilderen on the just-mentioned list of parishes in the diocese of Liege.87Remarkably enough, the altar next to the graves of Herlindis and her son in St Trudo's was dedicated to the same saint as the parish church. Although the Virgin was widely venerated, this local parallel may support the connection between the counts and the church of Our Lady in Wilderen. What was the situation in the twelfth century, when the font was made? Count Giselbert II of Duras (1088-1136) lived at loggerheads with St Trudo's Abbey. 88 Arguments over who could be appointed abbot, destruction, and downright theft of abbey property followed one another in swift succession. As a result, in 112.8the bishop of Metz, Stephen of Bar (112.0-1162.),removed Giselbert as sub-advocate of St Trudo's and Bishop Alexander of Liege (112.8-1135) deprived him of the county. 89Giselbert vowed revenge. With his ally Count Godfried I ofLeuven (1095-1139)

Fig. 58. St Trudo commends to Christ the comical donor couple of Brussels,Royal Museums Duras, reliefon the Wilderen font, c.1145-1155; PAPE,Die of Art and History (from: STEINBERG& STEINBERG-VON Bildnisse, Abb. 116).

he set out on a spree of pillage and plunder. Consequently, Bishop Alexander and the St Trudo's advocate, Count Walram of Limburg (1119-1139), laid siege to Duras castle. Godfried's attempt to free Giselbert ended in a great battle on land belonging to St Trudo's near Wilderen, in which the count of Leuven and his supporters were defeated. In 1131,after thirteen years of conflict, peace was restored. But under Abbot Folcard (1138-1145), whose appointment Giselbert's son Otto II ( 1136-1146) had opposed, hostilities flared up again. On Folcard's death, in hopes of avoiding yet another confrontation with the sub-advocate and to ensure the abbey's safety, a group of monks made the journey to Cluny, where they asked Otto's brother Gerard of Duras (d. 1174) to become their new abboc.90Gerard agreed. A vigorous commender of the Consuetudines Cluniacenses - the Customs of Cluny - which had been instituted in St Trudo's in 1107, he took a hard line with the relaxed discipline. He used his family connections to defend - and considerably extend abbey property. The counts of Duras also made an effort to keep the peace. The gift of the advocacy of Alem - with its parish church - by Otto II and his wife Julienne in 1146 marked these improved relations. 91 When Otto died shortly afterwards he was buried beside his mother near the north entrance to the abbey church. In 1155Gerard resigned the abbacy to return to the contemplative life he missed. In 1160, under his

THE

Digitized by

Google

WEST:

BURGUNDY,

REIMS

AND

WlLDEREN

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

129

successor Wiric ( 1155-1180)a dispute that would go on for years erupted between the house ofDuras and the counts of Loon (Looz), bringing an era of peace and prosperity to a close.92 This brief historical outline sheds a little more light on the font. Wilderen did not escape the conflict and destruction; the battle of 1119in particular was a notable event in the village's history. The twelfth-century church of Our Lady was probably built when peace returned after 1131,perhaps in the double capacity of parish church and memorial church for those who perished in the fray.93 The new font seems to have been made as part of this building campaign. In which case the model-bearer should be a member of the House of Duras, whose castle was close to Wilderen. The relief could perpetuate the memory of the donors in the far or more recent past, but could equally well allude to the (re)construction going on at that time. If the count and countess of Duras themselves commissioned the font, it would most likely have been during the rule of Abbot Gerard (1145-1155),when Otto II and Julienne also gave Alem to St Trude's. Certainly the modelbearer appears again under circumstances in which the rights and possessions of a spiritual community were at stake. The image underlines the legality of the donation, honours the comital couple for their generous gift, and reminds their successors to act in the same exemplary way. The adopting of the iconographic formula may have been the result of the direct contact between St Trude's and Cluny when Gerard was abbot. The Burgundian parallels, whose roots also appear to be in Cluny, are likewise characterized by a similar smallscale use of the motif in stone. Just as the model-bearer appears on one side of a capital in Au tun and one side of an altar in Avenas, he also appears on one side of the Wilderen font. In this respect the three images differ from other early donor portrayals on tombs, tympanums, murals and mosaics. The affinity between Wilderen and Burgundy is also apparent in the secular donor who presents his church with the apse turned away from him. A production date for the font of around 1145-1155is also in line with the dates of the Burgundian donor portrayals in the second quarter of the twelfth century. The composition of the reliefs as a whole, however, is determined by local tradition. For instance, lions regularly decorate Romanesque fonts in the diocese of Liege.94 The Wilderen reliefs are best compared with

130

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

those on the font of the Cluniac priory of SS Peter and Paul in St Severin-en-Condroz (c.1107-1115).95 In this case too each side of the square basin features a pair of outward-facing lions. According to Tollenaere their function as seating for figures symbolizes the triumph of Christ's Church over sin and death. 96 The anonymous saint with the donor in his lap displays the same traits as the male personification of Honour in the central medallion of the tympanum representing the 'Mystery of Apollo' (c.1135-1150)in Liege.97 Although Honour is depicted frontally whereas the saint is seen from the side, both stretch out their right hand while gathering their overgarment in the left hand resting on the thigh. The figures on the font, half-folded to squeeze into the space, suggest that the sculptor based his design on a pattern on parchment, whose finesse he could not match. Around 1170 an illuminator from the St Trudo scriptorium employed a similar compositional device. The miniature in question closes a dialogue in verse entitled De virginitatebeateMarie, possibly a work by Abbot Rudolph (1108-1138).98 Just like the comical couple, a semi-kneeling abbot turns to Christ, and just as the anonymous saint sits behind the Wilderen donors, so the Virgin stands behind the abbot. One exceptional detail stands out from these traditional elements. Apparently the Wilderen font, like the Charlieu tympanum, follows the Roman tradition: accompanied by a saint the count and countess of Duras offer their church to Christ. But this time the commending saint is not the patron saint of the church. The similarity to the male personification of Honour precludes the possibility that it is the Virgin who supports the model-bearer in her lap. Perhaps this idiosyncrasy is connected with Wilderen's possessory situation. According to the aforementioned list of parishes, Duras and the church of Our Lady belonged to the deanery ofZoutleeuw, whereas St Trude's Abbey had a curtis in Wilderen and as advocates the counts of Duras were also closely involved with the abbey. Moreover, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries members of the comical house arranged to be buried in the abbey church. In the life to come, therefore, they could count in the first place on the intercession of St Trudo. Perhaps it is also he who commends the couple on the font. This 'disregard' of the church's Marian patronage could simultaneously express Wilderen's tie to St Trudo's Abbey.

NOTES

1 LIPSMEYER,The Donor,p. 81, 86. 2 OURSEL,Lyonnais,p. 160, fig. on p. 151;FAVREAUet al., Corpus des inscriptions,vol. 17, p. 84-85 (dates the inscription to 1107 or shordyafter); BARRAL I ALTET, "Marchersur !'image~ p. 103-110, fig. 1-4. Cf: GADILLE et al., Le diocesede Lyon, p. 91-93. 3 Cf: GAD ILLE et al., Le diocesede Lyon, p. 67, 89. • On the primacy issue, see: FLICHE, "La primatie~ especially p. n7-341; VILLARD,"Primatie, especially p. 419-434. ' HAMANN-MACLEAN, "Die Reimser Denkmale~ p. 1n-236. • On the iconographic sources and the reconstruction of the tomb, see: PRACH£,"Lesmonuments~ p. 70,fig. 6-9; HAMANN-MACLEAN, "Die Reimser Denkmale~ p. 101-107, Abb. 143-144, T 4. The artist of the drawing has dearly been very painstaking and has left out the damaged parts of the relief. in contrast to the engravers. 7 PRACH£, "Les monuments~ p. 71-71 8 HAMANN-MACLEAN,"Die Reimser Denkmale~ p. 116-117.Cf: SAULNIER& STRATFORD,La sculpture,p. 111,114, P. 44, fig. 165; FAVREAUet al .. Corpusdesinscriptions,vol. 11, p. 139-140. 9 Hippolytus already makes the comparison in his commentary on the Canticle of Canticles (SAXER,MarieMadeleine,p. 119-139): thanks to Gregory the Great the exegesis became widespread in western Europe (Homi/ia 25:1: FIEDROWICZ, Gregorder Grojle, p. 444-449 ). 10 Boulogne-sur-Mer, BM, 46, fol. 1: PORCHER, L'enluminure .franraise,p. Jl, pl. XXVII; CAHN, RomanesqueManuscripts,cat. 100, ill. 245. 11 HAMANN-MACLEAN, "Die Reimser Denkmalc~ p. 107-2Jl. KRAMP, Kirch,, p. 322-323none the less considers both interpreta· tions to be possible. DEMO UY, Gentse d'un cathidrale, p. 34-38 largely concurs with Hamann MacLc:an. 12 DEVISSE, Hincmar, p. 1004-1011. " The tiny figure reading below the architectural model, notconvincingly identified, need not be considered here. HAMANNMACLEAN, "Die Reimser Denkmale~ p. 231-232 conjectures an allusion to Reims as a place for the educating of rulers, a function shared by St Denis. 14 Cf: BUR, "Reims~ p. 39-48; DEMOUY, Gentsed'un cathidrak, p. 564-571. " DEMOUY, Gentsed'un cathidrak, p. 37 also puts forward this last argument. 16 Cf: HAMANN-MACLEAN,"Die Reimscr Dcnkmale~ p. 117-231. DEMO UY,Gentsed'un cathidrak, p. 37 interprets the figure behind Hincmar as one of his successors. 17 PRACHE, "Les monuments~ p. 72; HAMANN-MACLEAN, "Die Reimser Denkmalc", p. 217-218.Cf: KozoK,Der Tristegum-Turm, p. 101-105. On the Carolingian cathedral, sec: REINHARDT, La cathtdrakde Reims,p. 25-36; DEMOUY,Reims, p. 51-56; DEMOUY, Gentsed'un cathidrale,p. 118-125. 18 REINHARDT, La cathidralede Reims, p. 18, pl. 4. For a summary of Centula's building history, see: KozoK, Der TristegumTurm, p. 86-89. 19 HAMANN-MACLEAN, "Die Reimser Denkmale~ p. 218, who uses the reconstruction in REINHARDT, La cathedralede Reims, p. 41-41 as his starting point.

20

BuR, •Apropos de la Chroniquc~ p. 297-302. 21 Cf: REINHARDT, La cathtdrak de Reims, p. JO, fig. 3. 22 Cf: HAMANN-MACLEAN, "Die Reimser Denkmale~ p. 118119. 124; KRAMP,Kirche, p. 284-285; DEMOUY,Gentsed'uncathtdra/e,p. 13, 48-49, 357-369, 374, 392-395, 401-402. 23 HistoriaeIl:31 (KRUSCH & LEVISON, Gregoriiepiscopi,p. 77 }: Procedit novos Constantinus ad lavacrum ( ...) et sanctitate ita praelarus, ut Silvestri veritutibus equarerur (Like some new Constantine he [Clovis] stepped forward to the baptismal pool ( ...) and he [Remigius] was the equal of Saint Sylvester for the miracles he performed. Trans: THORPE, Gregoryo/Tours, p. 144). " On the inscription, see: REINHARDT, La cathidrak de Reims, p. 26, 112 n. 4. 25 HINKLE, The Portal,p. 10-12. 26 HESSEL, "Cluny", p. 516: COWDREY, The Cluniacs,passim; CANTARELLA,"Cluny~ p. 263, n. 1-3 (with bibliography); Po ECK, CluniacemisEcclesia,p. 19-21.See also the following note. 27 HESSEL, "C]uny~ p. 517-124; SMITH, C/uny,p. xxiii-xxiv, 46-49, 57, 71-73, 76-77, 106-107, 238, 253-254, 256, 259-260: COWDREY, The Cluniacs,p. n-36, 40-42, 44-63, 261-164: COWDREY, Two Studies, p. 218-228, 256-257; CANTARELLA,"Cluny~ p. 263-287; BuLSTCt al .. "Cluny", c. 2171-1173,2189-2190 (with bibliography); PACAUT,L'ordrede Cluny, p. 196-197; STROLL, TheJewish Pope, p. 46-47. 28 For srylisric parallels and the problem of dating, see: STRATFORD, Studies, p. 289-296. For a treatment of the iconographic programme, see especially: MONOT, Charlieu, p. 14, pl. 16-17; LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. 84-86; ZINK, "Moissac~ p. 164-165, 171-180, Abb. 105, 109-110. See further: TERRET, "Le portail roman~ p. 88-94; DESCHAMPS & THIBOUT, La peinture mural,, p. 77-78; SUNDERLAND,Charlieu,p. 51-si; RUPPRECHT, Romanische Skulptur, p. 104, 116-117, Abb. 195; ZINK, "Zur dritten Abteikirche~ p. 64, 75-87. For the inscriptions, sec: FAVREAUet al., Corpusdes inscriptions,vol. 18, p. 60-61. 29 There are several surviving copies of the charter concerned, dated 2 December 879: POUPARDIN,Recuei/, no. 18.Cf: CHAU ME, Les origines,p. 190. 30 SUNDERLAND,Charlieu,p. 10. 31 On the early history of Charlicu, see: MONOT, Charlieu, p. ,3-16: SUNDERLAND, "The History~ p. 63; SUNDERLAND, Charlieu,p. 9-12, 18; Po ECK, CluniacensisEcclesia,p. 28,120,307; FAVREAUet al .. Corpusdesinscriptions,vol. 18, p. 59. 32 SUNDERLAND,Char/ieu,p. 18. 33 SUNDERLAND,Charlieu,p. 29-30, fig. 13. 34 SUNDERLAND,"The History", especially p. 79, 83-84, fig. 7-8, 11; SUNDERLAND,Charlieu,p. 41-47, fig. 16, 28, 41. For corrections to the reconstruction, see: ZINK, •zur dritten Abtcikirche", p. 64-74 (who does not discuss Bose's architectural model). 35 SUNDERLAND,Charlieu,p. 44, fig. JS. .1• Paris, Mus. nationale du Moyen Age: MONOT, Charlieu, p. 18-19, pl. 44-45; DESCHAMPS & THIBOUT,Lapeinturemurak, p. 78; SUNDERLAND,Charlieu,p. 59, fig. 65; ZINK, "Zur drittcn Abteikirche", p. 90, Abb. 26. Christ in a mandorla surrounded by the four evangeslist symbols is also at the centre of the composition

THE WEST:

BURG

131

in the refectory. The other figures are arranged in two registers on either side. In the lower register are apostles and prophets, in the upper register saints and benefactors of the church. One saint in liturgical attire carries a tower.

r DESCHAMPS,La sculpture,p. 84-86, fig. 79-80; RUPPRECHT, RomanischeSkulptur, p. 117; LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. 81-84, 161-166, 169; ARMI, Masons,p. ll (summary of all earlier suggestions of dating), 86-90, 101: OURS EL, Lyonnais, p. 190-191, pl. 104; STRATFORD,Studies,p. 88. " On the built architecture, see: VIREY, Lrs iglises romanes, p. 71-76 . .19 LIPSMEYER, The Donor, p. 161-166, 169 casts doubt on the model being an accurate representation of the built architecture as, she maintains, the altar could have come from another church. There arc no indications of such a removal, however. "° FAVREAUet al.. Corpusdesinscriptions,vol. 17,p. 63-64 (with a summary of earlier interpretations). ' 1 STRATFORD,Studies,p. 88: the Avenas workshop had already worked on the capitals for the choir of the Cluny abbey church, whose apse was built around 1091-1110,and is also discemablc in the 1130s in the church of St Barnard in Romans-sur-1.sere in the Rhone valley. ARMI, Masons,p. 86 prefers a reverse chronology. with Avenas being early work and Cluny lacer. This idea can be refuted even on purely palaeographic grounds. 42 PACAUT,Louis VII et son royaume,p. 11-11. 3 ' BoUCHARD, Sword,p. 130; SMITH, "Sine regis", p. 3, 31-H, In 1110 the return of Humbert lll, lord ofBeaujeu (d. c.1191), who had left for the Holy Land in 1141, was celebrated with great joy by clerics, monks and peasants in the area (PACAUT,Louis VII et son royaume,p. 13; BOUCHARD,Sword,p. 193-194; SMITH, "Sine regis~ p. 18, 11). -H DUBY, La sociite, p. 131-133.The 1119 charter, according to which Louis VI takes Cluny and all its daughter-houses under his protection, is a forgery dating from the second half of the 13th century: DUFOUR, Recuei/,p. 391-4m. 5 ' MERAS, Le Beaujolais,p. 31; SMITH, "Sine regis", p. 11. 6 ' PREVOST, D'AMAT & TRIBOUT DE MoREMBERT, Dictionnaire,c. 148; SMITH, "Sine rcgis",p. 13-14,17-18,who warns against the questionable identification of the count as William llI by Bo UCHARD, Sword,p. 111-116. 17 SMITH, "Sine regis~ p. 18. 48 DuBY, La sociiti, p. 4\8; MERAS, Le Bea11;ofos, p .• 18. 19 CHAUME, Lrs origines,p. 181-183. 0 ' V1REY,Lrs egliw romanrs,p. 71; DUBY,La sociite.p. 14, 397. 51 VIREY,Les iglisesromanes,p. 1-4, map after p. 470. " VAN DE CASTEEL£, "Dessin authentique•, p. >19, 111; KEMP, "Substanz wird Form~ p. 111-113. 53 GRAT et al.,Recueil, p. 58~59, no. 19. ,. Cf: STRATFORD,Studies,p. HI• p. 116-117.It is even the case that the " COWDREY, Two S111dies, archbishop of Lyon, the bishops of Macon and Autun, and Abbot Peter Venerabilis all supported the Cluniac monk William of Sabran in the disputed episcopal election in Langres in 1138(CANTARELLA,"Cluny~ p. 177-187). 6 ' GRIVOT & ZARNECKI, Gisleber/11.rromanischeKirchenbauten,p. 160-161; BRANDT & EGGEBRECHT, BernwardvonHildesheim,vol.1, P· 34-35; SCHUBERT & LEOPOLD, "Magdeburgs ottonischer Dom~ p. 3SS-l63, Abb. 1. LITTLE, Thr Magd,burg Ivory Group,p. 117-119erroneously links the apse to the reference to the 'ecdesia rotunda' (cf: SCHLESINGER, "Zur Geschichte~ p. 11-13). " CLAUDE, GeschichtedesErzbistums,vol. 1, p. 41. "' SCHUBERT & LEOPOLD, "Magdcburgs ottonischer Dom·,

p.311. 21

WAETZOLDT,DieKopien,cat.108-117,Abb.111-111; BELTING, "Die bciden Palasraulen~ especially p. 19, 61-67; NILGEN, "Tcxtc et image", p. 116-157; LUCHTERHANDT, "Farnulus Petri~ p. 18-60: NILGEN, "Die ri:imischen Apsisprograrnme", p. 144· " LUCHTERHANDT, "Famulus Petri", p. 63-67. On the basis of Luchterhandt's research we can also reject the view of BELTING, "Die beiden Palastaulen~ p. 61, 78, according to which the lost image on the left of the apse arch would have reflected the St Peters triumphal arch mosaic. " On the relationship between John XIII and Otto I, see: KELLER, "Das Kaiserrum~ p. 371-173; WOLTER, Die Synoden, p. 88: HEHL, "Kaisertum~ especially p. 114,111, 134•111; KELLER, "Die Kaserkronung", p. 476-477; PUHLE, Otto der Grof,, cat. V.11: SCHIEFFER, "Das ltalienerlebnis", p. 4ss-416. 2 " DoPSCH, "Die Zeit", p. 160-161, 164-165; HERBERS, "Der Pon· tiflkat", p. 14.

desErzbistums,vol. 1, p. 74·71, 87-89. " Cf: CLAUDE, Geschichre FoLZ.Lesouvenir,p. 49-61; KELLER, "DieOtronen~p. IIJ·ll\; KELLER, "Die Kascrkri:inung", p. 461-465. ,- SCHLESINGER. ·zur Geschichte~ P· 11-13, 10; CLAUDE. Ciesdwhte des Er:hi.4This names Abbot William as the patron. Several abbots bore this name but it is presumably the first of these who is meant here, as the text does not distinguish a later William from his predecessor(s). Initially there was great prosperity under William I (c.1270-1290 ), due in part to the many gifts from his friend Duke Henry IV of Wroclaw (Il66-1290 ). William was also granted the privilege of wearing the episcopal insignia. A handsome founder's tomb would certainly add to this new lustre. Most likely Abbot William commissioned it before the monastery's thriving gave way to economic decline, which forced thrift upon him. 35 Maria's church model consists of an apse, a nave with two rows of windows, and two towers at the west end. According to Walter, however, the monastery church itselfhad only one west tower that stood in the

~

~

rl

~

Fig. 105. Eighteenth-century drawing of the tomb of Peter Wlast and his wife Maria in St Vincent's Church in Olbin, c.12.70-12.80 (from: GONDEL, Das Schlesische Tumbengrab, Abb. 1).

centre in front of the nave and was rectangular in plan. 36 He found a closely related parallel in the Benedictine abbey of St Maximin in Trier.37 As the Benedictines came to Olbin from Metz, in the ecclesiastical province of Trier, they could have brought this type of tower to Wroclaw. Walter therefore considers the depicted towers as inaccurate. That Maria rather than Peter holds the church is a peculiarity he puts in perspective by pointing to related interchanges. Except for the images of the imperial couple Henry II and Cunigunde on the south-east portal of Bamberg Cathedral, however, these were all made later than the Wroclaw tomb. 38 Walter concludes that no woman is undeservedly represented as a model-bearer: all were involved in the foundation through donations, including Maria Wlast, as shown by a charter of 1149.

POLAND

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

193

Walter's solutions for the 'incongruities' in the architectural model on the tomb are not convincing. Schadendorf has challenged his reconstruction of St Vincent with a single rower and on good grounds. 39 All the west views of the abbey complex stem from one example, which in terms of accuracy does not compare with the south-west view on the map ofWroclaw made by Barthel Weyhner in 1562. (Fig. 100). 40 This map's value is already clear purely from the orientation: Weyhner positions both St Vincent and St Michael with the apse to the east, whereas in other representations the two churches are shown with their axes perpendicular to each other. Nevertheless, Walter attaches little importance to the map because Weyhner gave the west rower a pair of windows on both the west and south sides. This would not tally with a tower that was rectangular in plan. But the same arrangement of windows also characterizes St Michael's rower and the tower-like gatehouse in the abbey wall, so it seems to be a standard motif. unconnected with the built architecture. On the other hand, Weyhner's asymmetrical rendering of the west facade of St Vincent's is exceptional: the west rower rises between the smaller entrance to the north aisle and the large main entrance. A pent roof covers the nave, as ifit were the south aisle, which is missing because the north range of the cloister garth abuts directly onto the nave. This asymmetry suggests that at least the original building plan included two west towers. 41 The churches that are compared to St Vincent in the context of Hirsau and south German influence in Wroclaw also argue in favour of this: the Benedictine abbey church in Paulinzella, the cathedral of Seckau, and St Peter's in Straubing all have two west towers. 42 Tintelnot and Swiechowski put the rediscovered capitals of St Vincent's not only beside those of Paulinzella, but also see connections with the building sculpture in the abbey churches of Hecklingen, Hamersleben and Hemelingen.43 The last two have an eastern rather than a western pair of towers but none of the related churches has a single west rower. The best impression of St Vincent is perhaps provided by the Marian church of the abbey'founded by Peter Wlast' and built in 1148-1155 for Augustinian canons in Czerwinsk (Tscherwinsk). lt has two west towers and, considering the similarities in the sculpture, is a direct citation of the Olbin abbey church. 44 Moreover - insofar as is known - all the architectural models in monumental art are represented with two west towers if two were built or planned.

194

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Walter's distrust of the towers of the architectural model on the drawings of the Wroclaw founder's tomb thus loses its foundation. The two rows of windows as a characteristic of a basilican structure appear at least as portrait-like. The lack of a transept is in line with all the other iconographic sources for St Vincent's. This element is also absent from the architectural models on the tympanums ofWrodaw and Strzelno, whether or not in accordance with the built architecture. Within this group the church of St Mary on the Sand, the Premonstratensian abbey church in Strzelno, and St Vincent's bear a striking resemblance to the tomb through the combination of a nave, an apse and two west towers. Possibly they reflect the church building that Peter Wlast presented on a lost tympanum of St Vincent's. By analogy with surviving copies the founder would have stood on the left and his wife - in adoration or with a book in her hands - on the right. Given the original (principal) patronage of the Olbin abbey they would have flanked a figure of the Virgin and Child, as with the abbeys on Sand Island. That Peter Wlast dedicated his two major monastic foundations to the Mother of God may be related to his spouse's name. This could also explain why it was Maria who held the architecture model on the tomb. For Peter the tomb may have supplemented the message conveyed by the tympanum. The architectural model outside identified the count palatine as the founder, while inside his sword and shield characterized him as a nobleman who could hold his own with the mightiest nobility of central Europe. The tomb figure raised him to the equal of Ekkehard II in Naumburg. Perhaps an even more prestigious example made its influence felt: the images of Henry II and Cunigunde on the east portals of Bamberg Cathedral. Like Peter, the emperor presents a donor's model on the north-east tympanum but beside the south-east entrance he holds his regalia, while Cunigunde bears a church. The tomb not only translated the desire to increase the abbey's renown and to keep alive the memory of the founders. It also conveyed a legal message, which Giindel and Walter have overlooked, even though at that time founders' tombs generally documented rights, freedoms and possessions. When Abbot William accepted his position around 12.70, the Cistercian nuns in Trebnic (Trebnitz) maintained that a piece of land in Olbin belonged to them.4 5 William rejected their claim and at the end of 12.71 Duke Henry IV of

Wroclaw settled the dispute in his favour. The monumental figures of Peter and Maria could underline Abbot William's right. Perhaps they were a response to the now lost founder's tomb in Trebnic, which the nuns had commissioned in 12.67,shortly after the canonisation of their foundress, Duchess Hedwig of Silesia (d. 12.43).46Its design is unknown but the convent seal on a document of 1340 portrays Hedwig as a model-bearer. 47 Would rivalry with the saintly duchess have moved the Premonstratensians of St Vincent's to place the little church on the tomb in the hands of Count Peter's wife, rather than those of Peter Wlast himself? The meaning of related founder's tombs supports this possibility but a lack of historical data allows few if any conclusions to be drawn.

10.5 The Origin of the Model-bearer Finally there arises the question of the route by which the model-bearer made its eastward journey. The likely starting point of the iconographic tradition in Poland, the lost tympanum of Olbin, would have originated not much later than Trier's Neutor tympanum, which was made in 1147.Influence from Lotharingia may have reached Silesia via the parent abbey of Peter's foundation in Metz. In any case the Benedictines took their hagiographic traditions with them. David, for instance, points out that the legend built up around Peter Wlast displays an affinity with the founding story ofWaulsort Abbey (Liege diocese), which

had dose connections with St Vincent in Metz. 48 Bishop Walter ofWroclaw (1149-1169) also came from this region and under him the first of a series of southern Netherlandish settlements developed in Silesia.49 Art-historical research can supplement these eastwest connections on three points. Firstly, a tympanum which once spanned a side entrance of the Olbin abbey and which dates from the mid-twelfth century has been preserved. 50 Depicted on one side is the Deposition, on the other the deathbed of the original patron saint. The rather two-dimensional figures cut as silhouettes and with somewhat linear internal design, are reminiscent of the tympanum ofTrier's city gate.51 Secondly, though the Trier tradition includes no tympanums on which a secular donor presents an architectural model, precious metalwork provides a wealth of examples (cf §9.1-3). The abbey tympanum in Strzelno shares the composition of Christ between two donors, of whom the left bears a church model and the right a book, with the binding of the PriimLiberaureus (Fig. 82.).The St Maximin treasure bindingof(Fig. 91-92.)provides parallels for the Jaxa-tympanum: two model-bearers on either side of the recipient in a segment of heaven. The Silesian, Kuyavian and Trier tympanums all have the imperial position of the apse in common. Thirdly, it is noteworthy that the model-bearers in the archdiocese of Trier come without exception from Benedictine abbeys. Thus it would seem that the Benedictines from Lotharingia brought the iconographic tradition to Poland when they came to occupy the monastery Peter Wlast built for them in Olbin.

NOTES

1 A critical overview of the contentious early history of the monastery would be too great a digression here. Historical derails derived from: HEYNE, Dokumentierte Geschichtt, p. 161-163; BURGEMEISTER& GRUNDMANN, Di, Kunstdenkmiiler,vol. 1, p. 166; vol. 3, p. 194-195, 198; DAVID, "Le monachisme", p. 181-183, 185-187; TINTELNOT, Die mittelalterlich, Baukunst, p. 1-6; MARSCHALL, Geschichte desBistums,p. 16; BACKMUND,Monasticonpraemonstratense,p. 403-406; LEGNER,Ornamentaecclesiae, vol. 1, p. 161; PETRY, MENZEL & IRGANG, GeschichteSchlesiem, p. 84, 90, 105, 156; WALTER, "Das Doppelgrab", p. 111-111: PL6CIENNIK, "L'cpigraphie", p.103. On Peter Wlasr, see among others: HEYNE, Dokumentiertt Geschichtt, p. 140, 143-144, 146-147; KOSSMANN,Polen,p. 168-169, 189,410; PETRY,MENZEL

& IRGANG, GeschichteSchlesiens,p. 83-83; STRZELCZYK,"Peter Wlast~ c. 1939 (with bibliography); DERWICH, "Der Pramonstratenserorden~ p. 317,341-343. 2 PL6CIENNIK, "Les inscriptions", especially p. 103-104, 106, pl. XLI; PL6CIENNIK, "L'c:pigraphie~ p. 103-110,fig. 1-1. The tympanum is now in the Muzeum Architektury i Odbudowy in Wroclaw. Cf: M11czEWSKA-PILCH, Tympanon,p. 5-31,fig. 1-16; LEGNER, Ornamentaecclesiae, cat. B 11A. 3 Cf: BACKMUND,Monasticon praemonstrateme,p. 404, 430-431; DERWICH, "Der Pramons1ra1enserorden", p. 319, n1. 4 PL6CJENNIK, "L'epigraphie", P· 106-110. ' M11czEWSKA-P1LCH,Tympanon,p.144. 6 M11czEWSKA-PILCH, Tympanon,fig. 11-16.

POLAND

195

• During the late Republic minters in Rome already used this device to represent architecture of which they had no direct or indirect knowledge in a way that allowed it to be identified: FUCHS, Archittkturdarstel/ungtn,p. u. " PL6CIENNIK, "L'epigraphic", p. 110-118. 9 M,\CZEWSKA-PILCH, Tympanon, p. Jl-61, 141-146; PL6CIENNIK, "Les inscriptions~ p. ,04. '° Sec, for example: MILIS, L'ordrtdeschanoints,p. ,8,. 11 KLEINCLAUSZ,Histoirt de l_yon,p. 138-139. " Dijon, BM, 130, fol. 104: CAHN, RomanesqueManuscripts,cat. 104, ill. 1\1. 13 Cf: PLOUVIER,"L'abbaye medievale~especially p. 1,0-133. The abbey church of St Vedast was rebuilt in the 1,th and 11th centuries and completely reconstructed in the 18th and 19th centuries: LESTOC~OY, An-as,p. VB 11-11with a 17th-ccntury engraving onp. VB13. " MANTEUFFEL, Th, Formation,p. 136-1n. 15 HEYNE, Dokumentiertt Gtschichtt,p. 115-156;BuRGEMEISTER & GRUNDMANN,Die Kunstdtnkmaler,vol. 1,p. 101-106: DEGEN, Die Bau-und Kunstdenkmiiler,p. 401-404: M1us,L'ordrtdeschanoines,p. 380-383: M1us, "Les origines, p. 6-14; MARSCHALL, Gtschichtedes Bistums,p. 16: BRAUNFELS,Die Kunst, p. 105-106. 16 PL6CIENNIK, "Les inscriptions, p. 103 with bibliography in n. 2.. " BRAUNFELS,Die Kunst, p. 161,Abb. 159. 18 BURGEMEISTER& GRUNDMANN, Die Kunstdenkmiiler.vol. ,, p. 106-107, us, Abb. 176. 19 KAHSNITZ, Di, Grunder,p. IIS·IJ6. 20 On the Romanesque church, sec: TINTELNOT, Die mittelalter•

ficheBaukunst,p. 7. 21

M,\CZEWSKA·PILCH, Tympanon,cat. JOJ, fig. 36. On the building's architectural history, sec: SWIECHOWSKI, "Situation curopecnne~ p. 154, fig. 2 G, 7 (dates it to the second halfof the 11th century); MERHAUTOVA,RomanischeKunst, p. 68, Abb. 10; STRZELCZYK,"Strzclno~ c. 248. " SwIECHOWSKI, "Situation europeenne·, p. 154;STRZELCZYK, "Strzdno~ c. 248. " LABUDA,"l.ah.dzie",c. 1601; STRZELCZYK,"Strzdno",c. 248; DERWICH, "Der Prii.monstratcnserorden", p. ,17. PL6CIENNIK, "Les inscriptions~ p. 105 argues against a family connection. " Pt6CIENNIK, "Les inscriptions~ p. 205 regards the Premonstrat· cnsian order as the binding factor, but St Procopius and St Mary on the Sand did not belong to them, no more did the Olbin abbey. 22

26

BACKMUND,

Monas/icon praemonstraunsr. p.

410-42.1;

STRZELCZYK,"Strzclno", c. 248; DERWICH, "Der Pramonstra· tenscrorden", p. 318, ll9- Sw1ECHOWSKI, "Die figuricrcn Saulen·. p. 274 posits a re-foundation around 1171. '' A short architectural history is given in: SWIECHOWSKI,"Die figurieren Saulcn~ p. 274-277, Abb. 3-4: MERHAUTovA, Rom,,ni.; UNTERMANN, Kirchenbautrn, p. u7-130; LEISTIKOW, Die Geschichteder Graftn,p. 315-410, 57 WEIGERT, "Die Stilstufen~ p. 150-151,pl. LXVIla. ;s FRITZ, "Die lkonographie~ p. ,-3, Abb. ,. 9 KAHSNITZ, Die Grunder, p. 14 (between 1>30/ 40 and 1,60/70), 118 (early in the second halfof the lJth century), ,07, n. 114 {late IJth century). 60 ADAMY,Kunstdenhniiler,p. 150. 61 FRITZ, "Die lkonographie", p. 8-9, Abb. 8. Fritz dates rhe wall painting on the basis of the weapons depicted in it. 62 CLEMM, Das Totenbuch,p. 175-178. 6·1 Cf: LEISTIKOW, Die Geschichte der Graf;n, p. J6i-161. '

371-!77""' On these legendary family connections, see: LEISTIKOW, Die Geschichteder Grafen,p. s-6.

12. Royal Tombs in France

From a survey of surviving twelfth-century tombs it appears that in the Holy Roman Empire the iconographic formula of the model-bearer was used by bishops and by second-rank secular rulers. There is not a king or emperor among them. Only in the series of narrative panels on Charlemagne's shrine in Aachen does the first Carolingian emperor - apparently under influence from Reims - offer his Palatine Chapel to the Virgin. But this is not an example of a monumental effigy. In the twelfth century this reluctance may have been connected with the papal connotations the modelbearer formula conjured up. After all, the Nellenburgs, most members of the House of Egisheim-Dagsburg, and Gerhard of Are all maintained better relations with Rome than did the Salian and Hohenstaufen rulers at that time. Jn the thirteenth century the Welfs 'claimed' the model-bearer as a family funerary motif, effectively debarring its use on their rivals' tombs. Jn France, however, patrons did represent kings as model-bearers on their tombs - provided that losses do not distort the picture. There are four known examples dating from the period between 1160 and 1300. Although these, unlike the Welf series, share no consistent characteristics, they all honour the memory of Merovingians. After the mid-thirteenth century a number of French townsmen were given comparable monuments, a phenomenon of which there is no trace in the Holy Roman Empire.

12.1 St-Germain-des-Pris

The Revolution in France at the end of the eighteenth century spared only one French funerary monument

ornamented with a king presenting an architectural model, that being the tomb of Childebert I (511-558, Fig. 114) in Paris. 1 Together with the tomb of Chilperic I (561-584) it was made forthe new choir, consecrated in 1163,of the church ofSt-Germain-des-Pres, and originally stood beneath the south arch of the fivesided ambulatory arcade. From 1817 it was part of the collection of the abbey church of St Denis. The modelbearer represents Childebert I as founder of the abbey of St Germanus of Paris. In his left hand he grasps a sceptre, in his raised right hand is the east end of the church, rebuilt around 1150-1163, as seen from the south. The choir has three stories. In the lowest is an entrance, into which curl the king's ring finger and little finger. The second story contains four roundheaded windows, the third story has three. This last story is narrower than the second, leaving room for a tower that rises alongside the edge of the tomb. The tower has a single window in each of the two stages that rise above the roofline and ends in a helm roof with a knob. Kramp doubts whether the model is entirely original. The earliest known engraving of Childebert's tomb, which dates from 1612.,shows a complete nave with two rows of windows and a three-staged west tower. Illustrations of the tomb made after the first major rebuilding of St-Germain-des-Pres in 1656, on the other hand, show the donor's model in more or less its present state. 2 Kramp's misgivings seem unfounded. For one thing the 1612.engraver has made the tomb much wider than it actually is in order to fit the model within the frame. He also puts a series of nine arches above Childebert's head, rather than the present three. It is inconceivable that the tomb could have under-

~P~;'!:JQ,M~,s \.../r;:;-;;!1a1

110;;;

IN FRANCE

213

Fig. 114. Church model on the combof KingChildeberc in the abbey church of St Denis, c.1163 (photograph: author).

214

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

gone such a dramatic reduction in width. Then again, it seems clear from restored model-bearers such as chose in SS Cosma e Damiano in Rome and St-Martin d'Ainay in Lyon that the restorers took the church with which they were themselves familiar as the exemplar for their reconstructions. But the differences between the 161l engraving and Childebert's present donor's model show the contrary has occurred. In the engraving the model has been made to conform to che built architecture by representing the west tower and the basilican nave of the abbey church, whereas Childebert presents only the east end of the twelfth-century choir and one of the flanking east towers. 3 Moreover, the built east end has two rows of windows - below, those of the ambulatory with its radiating chapels; above, the clerestory - and the model has three. Lipsmeyer reads the lowest of the three rows as belonging to the crypt, where the tomb would have been. 4 But St-Germain-des-Pres never had a crypt 5 and written sources record the installation of Childebert's tomb in the choir. The sculptor not only adds to the building but also leaves parts out: the radiating chapels and burtresses are missing, the tower has four stages rather than five and the distribution of the windows is simplified. Despite the differences between the built architecture and the representation on the tomb the donor's model documents aU the characteristics of the east end, built between 1150 and 1163 in ultra-modern style.6 The sculptor has turned the interior's threefold elevation inside our: below is the choir with its ambulatory, above it the triforium, then the clerestory. In the twelfth century the eleventh-century east towers received three new stages. The tomb's carved frame prevented the representation of all three, but two are shown. Their large windows are in clear contrast to the earlier virtually blind section beneath. The image of Old St Peter's on the buU of King Henry IV (Fig. 15,cf §2..4) was created by a similar interior-exterior combination. This explanatory perspective was known to neither the engraver nor a restorer of the seventeenth century. The correlation between the new choir and the tomb is extremely close, with Childeberc even seeming to indicate the site of the founder's grave. The south view corresponds to the position of Childeberc's tomb beneath the south arch of the ambulatory arcade. The only arch in the first story on the model corresponds more or less to this position. Two of the effigy's finger-

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

tips are actually within this entrance, probably to emphasize that here the king is buried. The use of the model-bearer motif on a tomb was unusual shortly after the middle of the twelfth century. Earlier examples in Schaffhausen and Hesse perpetuated the memory of the donor, underscored the legality of gifted properties and freedoms, and alluded to the close ties between the monastery in question and the pope. To all appearances Childebert's tomb fulfilled these same functions for the monks of StGermain-des-Pres. 7 According to a tench-century forgery 'of 566' Childebert founded the abbey church to be his mausoleum. The charter also states chat Bishop Germanus of Paris (c.555-561) granted the abbey immunity, placed the abbot directly under royal jurisdiction, and prohibited any and all episcopal intervention in the abbey's affairs. In the course of the eleventh and twelfth centuries this gradually evolved into complete exemption. This led to disputes with the bishop of Paris, which became particularly fierce under Abbot Renaud (1103-1108). The quarrel dragged on for the rest of the century, with Sc-Germain-des-Pres relying chiefly on support from Rome. Time and again successive popes confirmed the abbey's privileges, increased them and defined chem in detail, witness their bulls of 1107, llll, 1130, 1144, 1145, 115l, 1159 and 116l. This series also gives some idea of the foundation's insecurity. The abbots were frequently forced to fend off claims by temporal and spiritual magnates. Usually they appealed successfully to Rome, sometimes to the king. The abbey's relationship with the Capetian dynasty was ambivalent. On one hand, when a conflict arose the king acted as judge, in which role he protected and defended the monks. On the other he made very few gifts to the abbey and even appropriated some of its holdings and incomes. This shaky royal support led to a strengthening of the ties between St-Germain-desPres and the Holy See. In 1163 Pope Alexander Ill (1159-1181) was actually obliged to uphold the granted privileges in person. When he sought to consecrate the new choir in the presence of twelve cardinals and numerous bishops, Maurice of Sully (1160-1196), bishop of Paris, was spotted among the attendees. Maurice had not been invited and so had no right to enter the exempt abbey. The monks insisted on his removal from the church. Only once Alexander III had prevailed upon the bishop to withdraw could he perform the consecration.

Digitized by

Google

Fig. 115. Eighreench-cenrurydrawingsof the lare-chirteenchcencury grave plates of King Clochar I and King Sigebert in St Medard's abbey church near Soissons;Paris,BnF, Picardie 2.43,

fol. 131 (from: DEFENTE, Saint-Medard,fig.88).

These edgy relationships are reflected in the choice of the papal model-bearer formula: the effigy documents the donated properties and privileges, particularly the papal privileges that predominated, if in somewhat unedifying fashion, during the consecration ceremony in 1163. Likewise Childebert appears to remind the king of his royal predecessor's munificent gifts, as an incentive to reconsider his lacklustre policy in respect of St-Germain-des-Pres.

12.2 Soissons, Cha/ons-en-Champagne, Reims and Arras

A century lacer the monks of St Medard's Abbey near Soissons commissioned two memorial places for the Merovingian tombs of Childebert's brother Clothar I (511-561) and Clothar's son Sigeberc (561-575). 8 Clothar

T MBS nginal rom

OYA,L

IN FRANCE

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

215

Fig. , 16. Seventeenth-century drawings of the grave plates of Marguerite Papelart and her husband Michel, formerly in the Franciscan church of Cha.Ions-en-Champagne, c.il58 or slightly later; Paris, BnF, Est. Res. Pe I m, fol. 58; Pe II c, fol. 48 (from: ADHEMAR, "Les tombeaux", fig. l34, l58).

had founded the church to house the relics of St Medard, and perhaps to be a royal mausoleum; Sigebert completed the building. Their grave plates are known only from drawings (Fig. 115). One lay before the north, the other before the south wall of the central chapel in the crypt. They were clearly intended as a pair: the two kings turned towards each other and carried their attributes in symmetrical array, with a sceptre held in the inside hand and a basilican church in the outside hand. Only the little churches lack this symmetry, the facades with a quacrefoil high up in the gable both being turned to the right. The facades as well as the end walls on the left are flanked by two

216

COMPRESSED

towers chat narrow at the height of the aisle roofs. Construction of the abbey church began under Abbot Raoul (1094-1119) and it was consecrated by Pope Innocent II in 1131.At the time the grave plates were installed in the thirteenth century the four towers were a major feature of the building, as appears from a late-sixteenth-century groundplan of St Medard's and an aerial view made a century later which was based on an illustration that predated the abbey's destruction in 1567/ 68. 9 Despite great differences in design, it is worth considering whether kinship may have created a connection between Childeberc's tomb and the two grave

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

plates in St Medard's. That the twelfth-century example would have been directly drawn on in the thirteenth century is unlikely, especially in view of the flourishing production offunerary monuments in the later period - Clothar's and Sigebert's were but two of many. There are fine parallels in the memorial plates of the burgess Michel Papelart (d. 1258) and his wife Marguerite (d. 1l54). 10 These were once in the Franciscan church at Cha.Ions-en-Champagne and once again are known only via two drawings (Fig. , 16).Marguerite and Michel, each depicted beneath a trefoil arch supported on two slender columns with foliate capitals, also turn towards each other and hold their architectural models before them at chest height. And here, as on the royal memorial plates, the models disrupt the symmetrical arrangement of the figures: in both cases the front wall of the little church model is on the left. Moreover, Michel planes his feet on the back of a beast, thus trampling evil underfoot in just the same way as Clothar and Sigebert. The difference in rank makes it clear that the grave plates from Soissons belong to a prevailing type that was employed without distinction for kings and wealthy commoners alike. A related monument that represents not the founder but the architect bearing a model points in the same direction. This honour was accorded to Hughes Libergier (d. 1263) (Fig. , 17), 11 contracted by the monks of St Nicaise in Reims in lll9 to become master mason for life when they rebuilt their abbey church. After his death they had a stone graveslab made, which was given pride of place next to the west door of the nave and is now in Reims Cathedral. On the slab Libergier is portrayed with a church in his left hand, his measuring rod in his right, a square by his right foot and his compasses by his left.'2 The depiction of the master mason standing beneath a trefoil arch and holding his church model before him at chest height is very much in line with the images of the model-bearers of Cha.Ions-en-Champagne and Soissons. Furthermore, angels occupy the spandrels, as they do on the grave plates of the Papelarcs, who died a little earlier. Libergier's crocketted gablet is also a feature of the later royal tombs, although there the angels have been displaced by pinnacles. The master mason's model has two smaller windows beneath a pent roof on the right. The large opening on the left, above which is a crocketted gable between two pinnacles, is subdivided by a quatrefoil

Fig. 117. Graveslab of Hughes Libergier, Cathedral of Our Lady in Reims, 12.63or slightly later (photograph: Jeroen \Vesterman).

above two trefoil arches. Kimpel and Suckale call this the 'Lieblingsma8werk von Hugues Libergier' ('Hughes Libergier's favourite tracery') and it occurs everywhere on old images of St Nicaise, which was demolished in 1790-1791. 13 Even the west and south portals are articulated in this way, likewise the adjacent blind areas of the walls, where there is a gablet between pinnacles above every quatrefoil. As the left side of the model has the same composition it probably represents a portal. There are no parallels for the crockets and the quatrefoil in the tracery windows in the iconographic sources showing St Nicaise, however, unlike the architectonic framing of the model-bearer. Thus

ROYAL

Digitized by

Google

TOMBS

IN

FRANCE

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

217

in the church model the shapes of the architect are blended with those of the sculptor. What did distinguish the representations of Clothar and Sigebert in St Medard's from those of the Papelarts and Hughes Libergier was their combination with a stone statue. Around 12.2.5 the monks had niches made in the north and south walls of the crypt chapel, directly above the tombs of the Merovingians. In each a statue was placed - of Clothar on the left, of Sigebert on the right. These are now known only from the head of Clothar's statue and a handful of pictures that predate the destruction of the two sculptures. 14 In their right hands the kings carried sceptres; their left hands touched the cords of their cloaks. Neither bore a donor's model. Why the kings should have been portrayed a second time, by means of the two grave plates, is a question as yet unanswered. It may well have been prompted by the series of sixteen tombs Abbot Matthew of Vendome {12.59-12.86) commissioned, probably at the behest of Louis IX {12.2.6-12.70 ), for the royal graves in 15 the abbey church of St Denis. The need to establish the rank of the French king vis-a-vis other rulers, as well as the desire to found a hereditary monarchy- for which a dynastic mausoleum was a sine qua non - was at the root of this extraordinarily ambitious project. The translation of one Merovingian, seven Carolingians and eight Capetians took place in 12.63-12.64or 12.67.St Medard's, on the other hand, had only the tombs of Clothar and Sigebert. They recalled the illustrious past of the Soissons foundation, which now appeared in sorry contrast to the royal abbey. By doubling the funerary monuments for their Merovingians the 'poor' monks could have endeavoured to boost the importance of their mausoleum.

218

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

None of the effigies in St Denis, where mostly Carolingians and Capetians are buried, carries an architectural model, however. Given this 'hereditary' background that attribute could well have identified Clothar as the brother and Sigebert as the nephew of Childebert. The same kind of familial connection also seems to have operated in the portrayal of Clothar's descendant Theuderic III {c.674-690/91) as a modelbearer during the rebuilding of the abbey church of St 16 Vedast in Arras {12.59-12.95). In the choir there a tomb niche was made containing the recumbent figure of the Merovingian and his consort Doda/Clotilda. The niche opened at the front with a double trefoil arch, above which stood three statues. In the centre was Peter enthroned as pope and wearing the papal tiara. On the left the kneeling Theuderic proffered his church. On the right the bishop-saint Vindician of Cambrai-Arras ( 699-q12.) probably presented a charter containing the privileges he had granted - at least according to a late-tenth-century forgery.17 The composition is strongly reminiscent of the image of Peter between Charlemagne and Leo III on the apse arch of the Aula Leonina {Fig. 60, cf §8.1). Nicholas III ( 12.77-12.80)commissioned a thirteenth-century parallel in the Sancta Sanctorum in which, like Peter in Arras, the patron wears the papal tiara {Fig.61,cf§8.1). Presumably this painting influenced Theuderic's monument. The pope had personally installed his good friend Garin {12.79-12.97) at the head of St Vedast's, and the rebuilding was completed during his abbacy. 18 In Arras, as in Soissons, therefore, there seems to have been a purposeful and considerable uprating of a Merovingian royal tomb in response to the sixteen new tombs in St Denis. 19

NOTES

1 SAUERLANDER,Lasculpturegothique,p. 91, fig. 48; ERLANDE-

BRANDENBURG,l.eroi, p. 11-11, cat. 7, fig. 24, 43-46; BAUCH.Das mitttlalterlicheGrabbild,p. 41, Abb. 49; LIPSMEYER, Th, Donor, p. 86-87, 170-171; HAMANN-MACLEAN,"Die Reimser Denkmale", p. 176; KRAMP, Kirch,, p. 101-104, 108-111, Abb. 31. 2 KRAMP, Kirch,, p. 104-107, 113-114, Abb. 38-40 ' On the building's architectural history, see: LEFEVRE-PONTA· us, "Etude", especially p. 306-307, 336-351, 363-366; KIMPEL & SUCKALE, Die gotisch,Archit,lctur,p. 113-111, SlO·SlI: KRAMP, Kirch,. p. 191-101. 4 LrPSMEYER, Th, Donor,p. 170-171. ' KRAMP, Kirch,, p. 306. 6 On the architecture's innovatory character, see: KRAMP,Kirche, p. 199-101. ' Historical details derived from: KRAMP, Kirche, especially p. 113-155,118-160, 170, 178-191, 113. KRAMP, Kirche,p. 116, 110-113 perceives the legal but not the papal aspects of the tomb. 8 The tomb plates are known from two drawings in the historical work D,scription d, l'abbay,d, Saint-Medard by Dom Grenier ( 1715-1789 ): ERLANDE-BRANDENBURG,Laoi, P· 54-11. cat. 9, 16, fig. 63-64, 67; BAUCH, Das mitt,lalterlicheGrabbild,p. 164-165, Abb. 158-159; DEFENTE, Saint-Mtdard,p. 315, fig. 88 (drawings}, 94 (crypt). 9 DEFENTE, "Saint-Mc:dard de Soissons", p. 651-654, 664, fig. 1, 3; DEFENTE, Saint-Mtdard, p. 178-181, fig. 4, 7. Possibly only the pair of towers on either side of the west front belonged to the original building, but the east towers could not have been built later than the twelfth century. 10 ADHEMAR, •Les tombeaux•, fig. 134, 157.

" BAUCH, Das mittelalterlich,Grabbild,p. 186, Abb. 419; KIMPEL& SuCKALE, Diegotische Architelctur, p. 346. On the building's architectural history, see especially: BJDEAULT & LAUTIER, "Saint-Nicaise•, p. 195-lf6; KIMPEL & SUCKALE, Die gotische Archit,lctur,p. 345-!47, Ill• 12 On the instruments, sec: Wu, "Hugues Libcrgier". p. 93-101. 13 KIMPEL & SUCKALE,Di, gotischeArchittlctur,p. 347. A catalogue of iconographic sources is given in: BIDEAULT& LAUTIER, "Saint-Nicaise", p. 317-318. " SAUERLANDER, La sculpturegothique, p. 138, fig. 80-81; ERLANDE-BRANDENBURG,Le roi,p. cat. 9, 16, fig. 65-66, 68-69; BAUCH, Das mitulalttrlich, Grabbild, p. 165, Abb. 160-161; DEFENTE, Saint-Mtdard,p. 315, fig. 91-93. Vi On this series, see: SAUERLANDER, La sculpturegothiqu,, p. 169-170, pl. 173, fig. 100; ERLANDE-BRANDENBURG,Le roi, p. 81-83, cat. 17, 41-41, 56, 59-60, 71-71, 74-75, 78, 83, 81, 87, fig. 131-151;SAUERLANDER& WOLLASCH, "Stiftergcdcnkcn", p. 373; BROWN, The Monarchy,p. 144-146; KAHSNITZ, Die Grund,r, p. 110; TEUSCHER, "Saint-Denis~ p. 617-631. 16 ERLANDE-BRANDENBURG, L, roi, p. 40, 45-46, cat. 33-34, fig. 77. The tomb is known only from iconographic sources. 17 Cf: KROGER, Kiinigsgrablcirchen, p. 191. 18 DE CARDEVACQ.!:!E & TERNINCK,L'abbaye d, Saint-Vaast,vol. I, p. 175-176. 19 In St Denis the iconographic formula of the model-bearer does occur in book illumination: the earliest copy of the French version of the Grand,sChroniqu,sd, Franceof 1174 contains an initial in which Louis IX holds the Stc-Chapellc (Paris, Bibi. Ste-Genevicve, 781, fol. 317: BABELON,La France,cat. 111, fig. on p. 110).

ROYAL TOMBS

Orrq;narfrorn

IN FRANCE

219

13. Noble Tombs in the Late Thirteenth Century

As in France, in the Holy Roman Empire the number of surviving tomb effigies with an architectural model increases in the course of the thirteenth century. The group around Brunswick and the example in Gravenhorst, already discussed, illustrate this development clearly.The wider use of the iconographic formula also meant that model-bearers could acquire new functions, and these will be examined in the following section by means of three tombs of secular founders.

13.1 Maria Laach

In the nineteen-nineties the restoration of the tomb of Count Palatine Henry II (1085-1095) in the abbey church of Maria Laach made it the subject ot particular scholarly interest. Even so, two questions remained unanswered. Firstly, why is the west end of the little church balanced on the founder's open hand the only part of the model not to be rendered as an accurate likeness of the built architecture (Fig. 118)? And secondly, is the tiny sanctuary actually in its original place? Perhaps by looking at iconographic traditions and practices connected with tomb figures new light may be shed on both these issues. When the count palatine died in w95 - two years after the founding of Maria Laach - he was interred in the cloisters, just outside the chapterhouse, since at that time construction of the abbey church was still far from complete. 1 Abbot Theodoric of Lehmen (1156-12.95, d. 1307) moved Henry's bones to a new tomb he had commissioned, on whose lid reposed a handsome effigy of the founder. It was sited on the

Digitized by

Google

Fig. 118. Church model on the comb of Count Palatine Henry II in the abbey church of Maria Laach, c.1280 (from: K.AHSNITZ, Die Grunder, fig. on back of cover).

NOBLE

TOMBS

IN

THE

LATE

THIRTEENTH

CENTURY

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

221

longitudinal axis of the nave in the third bay to the west of the crossing. East of the tomb, beyond the head of the founder's effigy - which was placed on a slightly newer tomb around 1300 - was an altar dedicated to the Virgin and the Ten Thousand Martyrs on which, according to an indirectly transmitted passage from a lost chronicle of the abbey, the house's foundation was portrayed. Two model-bearers offered their gifts to an axially-positioned Virgin Mary. Turning towards the patroness on one side was Henry, on the other his son Siegfried (d. m3), who had completed the foundation, with his wife Gertrude. Their presentation documented the transfer ofland and buildings by the palatine family to Maria Laach. Here the abbey's prestige, the validation of rights and the upholding of the founder's will went hand in hand. The altar also enticed the nobility of that time to emulate the generosity of those depicted. After all, new benefactors were also commemorated in the prayer confraternity of the monks, who in this way held out to them the prospect of entry into Paradise. Evidently the message was effective, for from 12.74, after Abbot Theodoric had overcome a financial and economic crisis, charters enshrining memorial foundations do indeed appear once more. The religious and material revival made possible the renovation and refurbishing of the church and, around 12.80, the ordering of the new tomb. On the effigy'shorizontally outstretched right hand stands a little wooden church. Three of its six towers were restored in 1939. The model can best be described as a simplified maquette of the abbey church. It accurately represents the three-aisled cruciform basilica with its octagonal crossing tower, the square towers on either side of the choir, the east apse, and the square west tower between cylindrical staircase towers. 2 The sculptor has purposely cut down the number of windows, keeping the five lights of the clerestory but reducing the double windows in the aisle to one per bay. The built crossing tower has a three-arch arcade on each side, which the model abstracts to trefoil windows. This type of window occurs in the top stage of every tower on the model, whereas the abbey church itself only has blind trefoil niches in the staircase towers. Abbot Theodoric had large pointed-arch windows each containing three lancets made in the straight north and south walls of the choir. 3 The sculptor has adopted these in his model, albeit again as trefoil windows. In one noteworthy respect, however, the model differs very clearly from the built architecture: instead

222

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

of an apse the west front has a large portal. In the tympanum in the pointed arch above the rectangular doorway is a trefoil, in the gable above, a quatrefoil. The inclusion of the new choir windows might spark the idea that the abbot intended to replace the west apse with a monumental west front, since in Ardagger, too, for example, the donor's model incorporated a planned but never executed twin-tower facade (Fig. 12.1). But can the model - despite its fair degree of accuracy really be interpreted as a building plan? The precursors of the Maria Laach model show how medieval artists added towers, omitted transepts and varied the number of windows or arches. Even so, there are no other surviving examples of a west end being represented in so dramatically different a way by a high portal that takes up most of the facade. The disproportionately large representation of an unrealized part of the edifice is reminiscent of the equally massive and likewise unbuilt crossing tower on the model held by Count Dedo V ofGroitzsch in Wechselburg (Fig. 109 ). This parallel argues against an identification of the Maria Laach 'maquette' as a building plan. After all, the octagonal tower in Wechselburg was not a planned but a symbolic part of the building, related to the founder's tomb in the crossing beneath. With this in mind, could the west choir's function hold a clue to the meaning of the unportrait-like facade? The west choir of Maria Laach was where the dead were commemorated, at the altar dedicated to St Martin. 4 In his Codex Privilegiorum, dating from 1498-1499, Tilmann of Bonn, a monk of the abbey, cites the text of a stone graveslab which at that time lay before the altar steps. The inscription commemorated the knight Johannes of Ebernach and his consort Mechthild. In the time of Abbot Giselbert (1138-u52.) the couple had donated their possessions in Ebernach and Valwig to the abbey in order to endow the building of the west choir, the St Martin's altar, its lighting, and masses to be said for their souls. Both benefactors, who were interred in the west choir, were still garnering the fruits of their gift in Tilmann's day. Thus the model lacks that part of the church in which masses were said for the souls of donors other than the count palatine. The modified west front could therefore be a way of drawing attention to the commemoration of Henry II himself, whose tomb was in the nave. A somewhat similar connection between view and tomb has already been seen in Paris, where Childebert I

inserts two fingertips in the arched opening of the east end and so indicates the position of his grave (Fig. 114). Marienfeld and Lilienfeld (cf§13.3/i4.3) provide comparable examples. The detached 'maquette' also has an affinity with reliquary shrines, which towards the end of the thirteenth century were sometimes made in perfect imitation of contemporary church architecture. The Shrine of St Gertrude ofNivelles (12.71-1198),a large part of which was destroyed in 1940, is a famous example. 5 Arrayed around all four sides were figures in portals that resemble that of the Maria Laach model: below a pointed arch, and above in the surface of the gable a rosette, trefoil or quatrefoil under a triangular or ogival gablet. They represent the apostles and other saints as keepers of the gates of the Heavenly Jerusalem. This was Gertrude's new home, where angels presented the church's patroness with the crown of eternal life. The portal motif added to the Maria Laach model may therefore emphasize the abbey church's function as a shrine for its founder. Henry's effigy holds the model in such a way that he looks in through the doorway, as it were. As in Nivelles, this may represent the entrance to the Heavenly Jerusalem, of which every church and every shrine was a prefiguration. Henry II thus 'looks' not only towards the spot where he was to find his last resting place, but also to the entrance to his future and eternal abode, the path to which was smoothed by the monks of Maria Laach, praying for their founder's soul. The 'maquette' is made separately from the figure. There are a number ofholes in the underside, the largest of which corresponds to a wooden pin projecting from the count palatine's palm. This is not glued in place but fixed by means of an obliquely placed little peg held fast between the thumb and index finger. The hole in the index finger and the nailhead-shaped depression in the index fingernail, on the other hand, seem to serve no purpose. Oellermann and Sandner therefore conjecture that Henry II originally held something other than the model church. 6 This, they suggest, may have been the founder's hunting horn, which Abbot Theodoric had encased in gold as a relic. The model may have come from the depiction of the foundation on the altar at the head of the tomb. According to the aforementioned passage from the monastery's chronicle, Siegfried carried a church with three towers - the very number the 'maquette' possessed prior to its restoration in 1939, as the authors

point out. At the same time, the chronicle makes no mention of an architectural model in the effigy's hand. Moreover, the outward facing and thus most vulnerable side of the model is the least damaged, so that Siegfried could originally have had that side turned towards himself. There are three essential drawbacks to Oellermann and Sandner's interpretation. Firstly, Siegfried's church as described in the chronicle cannot be equated with the 'maquette'. A photograph of the count palatine's model published in 1911shows that each east tower did indeed lack its top stage and that the north-west tower had only two stages; even so, there is not a doubt about the original number of towers.7 An engraving made in 1868 shows the model in the same state; another dating from around 1700 even shows it whole. 8 The latter may not be entirely reliable, however, as the engraver also increased the number of aisle windows - reduced by the sculptor - to a portrait-like nine. In any case the 1939 restorers were faced with a clear task: the top stages of three towers were missing, but their original presence was evident from the remaining bottom stages. Therefore the chronicle cannot have described the 'maquette' as a church with three towers. Secondly, considerations of safety alone make it unlikely that the precious gold-encased hunting horn would have lain permanently and unprotected on the effigy's palm. Thirdly, prior to 1300 there are no known examples of an entirely separate, fully in the round architectural model in the hands of a donor or founder on an altarpiece. In tomb sculpture, on the other hand, the figure of Hedwig of Brandenburg (d. 12.03) in Altzella, now sadly dilapidated but known from an engraving of 1703, held this type of model in her right hand. 9 The little single-aisled pitched-roof edifice had a lower section at the end nearest Hedwig's head and at the other end an apse. It is a reminder that according to tradition Hedwig had persuaded her husband, Margrave Otto the Rich ofMeissen (1156-1190),to found the Altzella monastery as the family mausoleum. There is little resemblance between the model and the built architecture. 10 The sculptor did away with the choir's side chapels, the transepts and the side aisles, and made the narthex too wide. In consequence, the realism of the Maria Laach 'maquette' becomes all the more conspicuous. This can only be fully appreciated when the church stands on the horizontally outstretched hand of the effigy. On an altarpiece at least one side would be hidden from view.

NOBLE

TOMBS

IN THE

LATE

THIRTEENTH

CENTURY

223

treasures, fitted this cross shape exactly.12 Very probably the head of Barbarossa was set on this pedestal once a year according to the usual custom of placing on the grave of the founder his most important 'relic' on the day on which he was commemorated. Possibly the same thing happened in Maria Laach with Henry II's horn. After all, the monks could simply remove the pin for the architectural model and so make room for another attribute. The modifications to the index finger may have been made in order to mount this more securely. This double socle function may explain why the palatine's hand has fixings that are unrelated to the church model. When this had to be temporarily removed, to be replaced by the hunting horn or other object, the extra holes in the little church's underside allowed it to be securely displayed somewhere else.

13.2 Cologne

Fig. 119. Graveslabof Pleccrudisin the former monastery churchof ScMariaim Kapirolin Cologne,12.83(photograph: author).

The Premonstratensian monastery church of Cappenberg houses a remarkable paraJlel for the effigy's hand as a 'salver'. Around 1300 the relics of the founder were moved from their initial reposicory in the monastery to a new tomb with the armour-clad figure of Count Godfrey on the lid. Fritz believes that the cross-shaped pedestal in his right hand would have supported an architectural model. 11 But Appuhn discovered that the four feet of the bronze head of Barbarossa, which was one of the monastery's greatest

224

COMPRESSED

From the second half of the twelfth century visual and textual sources attribute the foundation of the Cologne church of St Maria im Kapitol to Plectrudis (d. q2.6?). 13 That this Carolingian regent was of considerable importance to the church is evidenced firstly by a Romanesque graveslab that is nowadays installed on a modern comb in the north aisle of the nave. 14 On it Plectrudis is represented with a halo, an attribute that recalls the ultimately unsuccessful attempt to acquire saintly status for the foundress. The frame around the effigy is decorated with palmettes. One long side carries the motif on both the top and the edge; the remaining three sides are ornamented only on the top, from which Dahm rightly concludes that the tomb was originally housed in a niche, with just the one side being visible. 15 Against a pier of the south nave arcade is a graveslab with a second effigy of Plectrudis, which on stylistic grounds has been dated to between 12.70-12.80 and circa 1300 (Fig. 119 ). 16 Here the foundress is portrayed not as a potential saint with a halo bur as a queen with a crown. In her left hand she holds an architectural model that represents the trefoil-shaped east end of St Maria im Kapitol, in which the five windows per apse have been reduced to three. The model's three apses do not have the conical roofs of the actual church bur flat roofs with battlements. Moreover, above the crossing is a square embattled tower, which was never built.

MEANINGS

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

The donor's model prompts three questions. Firstly, why does Plectrudis specifically present the east end of the church? Secondly, what is the meaning of the amalgamation of the apses with battlements and a tower? Thirdly, why was the foundress given a second monument in the late thirteenth century that represented her no longer as a saint but as a royal, halo-less model-bearer? The reason for placing the east end in Plectrudis's hand seems to be twofold. On one hand the trefoilshaped choir is the most characteristic part of St Maria im Kapitol.17 On the other, this is where the Gothic graveslab was originally located, as is known from the reference to the altar dedicated to Mary Magdalene founded in 12.83by the knight Daniel Jude (d. 12.84)at the head of Plectrudis's grave in the centre of the crossing. The reference cannot allude to a tomb niche, so the Romanesque graveslab cannot be meant. 18 The tower on the donor's model is exactly above the place where the foundress was interred. A comparable emphasis is given by the equally unpomait-like octagonal crossing towers on the models in Hildesheim, Wechselburg and Heiligenkreuz (cf §6.2./11.4/14.2.). The square plan of the Cologne tower will be connected with the three adjoining apses of the trefoil. The design also matches the defensive character of the model's upper parts. The message conveyed by this fusion of church and stronghold seems to proceed from the connection between the foundress and Cologne. Plectrudis is thought to have been the daughter of lrmina, abbess of the convent ofOeren in Trier from circa697 to 704 or thereabouts. 19 Around 670-675 she was wed to the Carolingian mayor of the palace, Pepin the Middle of Heristal (d. 714). Together with her husband and her mother she founded a number of religious houses, including the one in Echternach. After Pepin's death Plectrudis ruled the Franks as regent for three years, until forced to abdicate by her stepson Charles Martel in 717. When she died some nine years later she was interred in one of her own foundations, very probably close to the residence of the Carolingian mayors of the palace in Cologne. From the late thirteenth century written sources situate this palace on the Capitol hill in the south-east of the city. In 12.99 a canon of St Cecilia's records that 'the church called St Maria im Kapitol was once a royal castle'.20 Jordan ofOsnabriick (recorded 12.51-12.83)gives further particulars in De praerogativaRomani imperii.21 This he probably wrote

for the pope, to whom it was sent in the early thirteeneighties by Cardinal James of Colonna (d. 1318), he having received it from the Cologne canon Alexander of Roes. It may have been Alexander who aroused Jordan ofOsnabriick's particular interest in Cologne. On the origin of St Maria im Kapitol he writes, 'Pepin, the mayor of the palace, had his principal residence in Cologne where the monastery called St Maria im Kapitol now stands. Here Plectrudis, wife of Pepin nicknamed the Stout, founded a convent in honour of the Mother of God, filled it with nuns, and in this place, outstanding for its many riches and the beauty of its surroundings, she wished to be buried after her death.' 22 Just as the canon and Jordan of Osnabriick describe Plectrudis's church as part of the royal castle, so the sculptor has given the trefoil choir battlements and a donjon. The deliberate mix of church and palace probably had its origins in the desire to elevate the consort of the Carolingian palace mayor to queenly rank. From 12.38,no doubt with the same end in view, Plectrudis is referred to as 'regina fundatrix' of the church. 23 By the late thirteenth century hopes of the foundress's canonization had evidently faded, and the twelfthcentury graveslab with its haloed effigy was no longer appropriate. St Maria im Kapitol's prestige should now be enhanced by Plectrudis's royal crown instead. Perhaps this turnabout reflects the rivalry between St Maria im Kapitol and St Gereon's. This Cologne church boasted a foundation by the mother of Constantine the Great, Empress Helena, who was portrayed as a model-bearer on an arm reliquary of around 12.2.0-12.30(cf §8.2.). Bergmann suggests that Plectrudis's Gothic effigy may also have accommodated a relic.24 lt would have been owned by the foundress and would initially have been in a little niche in the Romanesque graveslab. Be that as it may, the model in Plectrudis's hand aims to create the belief that St Maria im Kapitol began its history as a royal palace church. The church of St Maria im Kapitol did not itself commission the monument: the arms that appear twice at the foot of the graveslab identify the patron as a member of the eminent Lyskirchen family, patricians of Cologne. According to Miihlberg, Constantine ofLyskirchen (d. 1304-1306) was responsible for ordering the making of the monument. 25 He was burgomaster of Cologne from 12.81to 12.82.,as well as confidant, financial adviser and banker to the Cologne archbishops Siegfried (12.75-12.97)and Wikbold of

NOBLE

TOMBS

IN

THE

LATE

THIRTEENTH

Original frorn

CENTURY

225

Holte (12.97-1305). 26 Miihlbergside-steps the problem that more than one Lyskirchen bore the name of Constantine. For instance, the Constantine who was burgomaster from 12.81 to 12.82.married twice and each marriage produced a son named Constantine, of whom one became an archiepiscopal bailiff in Deutz. 27 Moreover, a Constantine ofLyskirchen was burgomaster not only in 12.81-12.82.but also in 12.74-12.75 or 12.75-12.76.28 But the 12.81-12.82.term of office corresponds so closely to the installation of the tomb in the centre of the choir in 12.83that Miihlberg's interpretation seems plausible. Which events might have led to the making of the Gothic model-bearer? The Lyskirchens probably decided to commission the monument in St Maria im Kapitol because the church was close to their 'ancestral home'. The first known Constantine took his family name from the parish church of St Maria Lyskirchen, which belonged to it, after he had settled there in the mid-thirteenth century. 29 Conceivably the Constantine who was burgomaster in 12.81-12.82.hoped to enhance his family's standing by representing Plectrudis crowned. After all, as the highest officer of the town council he could bask in the reflected glory of the 'royal' regent who had once resided in the very place that he did now. The burgomaster failed to obtain a knighthood, but in 12.79 he - or another Constantine - bought the county of Airsbach as a hereditary fief from the margrave ofCologne. 30 Plectrudis's significance for the Lyskirchens could also be based on the date of the election of the burgomaster in Cologne. In around 1390 the electoral ceremony took place on 9 August, St Lawrence's Eve.31 Whether this tradition stretches back to the late thirteenth century is uncertain. But should that be the case, the coinciding of the feasts of Lawrence and Plectrudis on 10 August could certainly have increased Constantine's interest in his 'royal' predecessor. Finally,the founding of the altarto Mary Magdalene at the head of Plectrudis's Gothic tomb provides more certainty about the patron. The altar's founder Daniel Jude was, like Constantine, one of Cologne's extremely wealthy burgesses; he even received a knighthood in or shortly after 12.74.32 And, again like Constantine, he was banker to the archbishop, who in 12.80 pawned to him goods to the value of two hundred and fifty marks. Daniel aspired to an aristocratic lifestyle, and his third wife, Beatrix, may have been a noblewoman. His father was a vassal of St Maria im Kapitol. which perhaps explains why he chose to enrich this church

226

COMPRESSED

MEANINGS

with an altar. Moreover, in 12.81-12.82.Daniel was coburgomaster with Constantine. 33 In Cologne, two 'undeserving' members of the Richerzeche - the 'Guild of the Rich' - were elected burgomaster. 34 During their year of office they were obliged to make over very large gifts of wax, wine and other naturalia to the municipal corporation, so that afterwards, as 'deserving' members, they could enjoy all the financial advantages of membership. Given which, it is not surprising that in the year following his term as burgomaster, Daniel Jude had the means to found an altar to St Mary Magdalene in the church of St Maria im Kapitol. Could it not be that his fellow official, Constantine: of Lyskirchen, had the new effigy of Plectrudis made at the same time?

l 3.3 Marienfold

In 1185Bishop Hermann II of Munster (1173-12.03), Widukind of Rheda (d. 1190) and his mother Luttrudis of Schwalenberg, Bernhard II of Lippe - in m8-12.2.4 bishop ofSelonia - and Count Liidiger II ofWoltingerode-Wohldenberg (d. 12.06) founded the Cistercian monastery of Marienfeld in Westphalia. 35 Certainly the first two were buried within the monastery's walls. Hermann II, who had been the prime mover in the foundation, was interred in the choir, where he is commemorated by a stone graveslab engraved with the figure of a bishop, dating from around 12.50.Widukind, who together with his mother was particularly reverenced thanks to rich benefactions, died while on crusade in the Holy Land. His remains were brought back to lie in the chapterhouse in Marienfeld. Whether this was also the original location of his late-thirteenth-century tomb, on which is portrayed a knight in armour carrying a shield bearing the lion of the House of Rheda, must remain a matter for conjecture. The same uncertainty surrounds a more or less contemporary effigy that nowadays lies in the window embrasure of the north transept. 36 Unlike the two tombs, there is no inscription. Here too is the effigy of an armour-dad knight with a shidd emblazoned with the Rheda lion in his left hand. On the right of his coroneted head is a small helmet decorated with a lion's head. In his raised right hand he holds the facade of a church (Fig. 12.0). The axially-positioned entrance consists of a trefoil arch beneath a gablet, bordered

with arcs that hint at abstractly-rendered crockets. Between two slender towers a trefoil ornaments the gable above the doorway. Rising above this is a stout tower pierced by two round-headed windows below a small oculus and an elongated trefoil in the triangular superstructure. The model bears little resemblance to the actual monastery church. If a part of the actual building is indeed represented it could be the facade of one of the transepts or the west front. The conventual buildings on the south of the church make a view of char side unlikely at first sight. Nowadays the Baroque abbarial residence blocks most of the west front from view, but significant information about its original structure can still be gleaned from the inside. 37 All three facades have a central doorway, like the model. The north door is beneath a tympanum, albeit undecorated with crockets. Both transepts have three windows at second story level; the west front has an eight-part rose window. Of their 'model' counterpart, the trefoil, the cop lobe fills the gable. This overlapping does not occur in the built architecture. In the west front two rows of niches and an oculus articulate the gable. The quatrefoil window in the gable of the south transept probably had a pendant on the north side, which was lost during a Baroque rebuiding campaign. 38 Nevertheless, the transept facades offer a better match for the model than does the west front. The relationship does not hold good everywhere, however. The actual roof turret is diminutive compared to the central tower on the model, and the monastery church certainly has no towers either side of the gable. The model's trio of rowers probably belongs to the sculptor's standard repertoire, for the carved canopy above the effigy has three towers too, with the widest in the middle. Lack of space prevented a detailed rendering of char central tower, but the ones on either side are a variation on the central tower of the model. The sculptor has richly elaborated the windows of the left canopy tower with trefoil tracery and a crockerted gabler, Gothic shapes that in no way reflect the builr architecture. Their slender structure recalls the traceried and crocketted arch above the donor couple on the tomb in Gravenhorsr (Fig. 85, cf §9.1), a parallel which suggests that the anonymous Rheda tomb was created in the fourth quarter of the thirteenth century. The identification of the model-bearer is problematic. The armorials march chose of Widukind, but his

Fig. 12.0. Church model on the anonymous founder's comb in the monastery church of St Mary in Marienfeld, c.1300 (photograph: author)

remains were almost simulraneously interred in a different tomb on which his name is carved. None the less, Luckhardt believes that the anonymous knight is intended to be Widukind, but here as a representative of the House of Rheda. 39 The crusader would initially have been laid to rest with his parents in their shared sarcophagus, on whose lid was the unidentified donor figure. Later the Marienfeld monks would have transferred Widukind's remains to the personal tomb with the inscription carved upon it. Luckhardt's interpretation takes no account of the fact that the two Rheda tombs were made at virtually

NOBLE

Digitized by

Google

TOMBS

IN

THE

LATE

THIRTEENTH

CENTURY

Original from

UNIVERSITYOF MICHIGAN

227

the same time. Indeed, Leidinger regards the anonymous tomb as the later of the two. 40 He associates it with the one hundredth anniversary of Widuk.ind's death in 1190, given that the monastery's chronicle of shortly after 1411 mentions the celebration of the foundation's centenary in 1185.But why should a tomb commissioned just a short while earlier acquire a double for a jubilee, whether in 1185or 1190? Hucker identifies the model-bearer as the nobleman Hermann II of Lippe, lord ofRheda (1194-1119) and son of Bernhard II.4' In 1111the latter went with monks from Marienfeld to the Cistercian monastery at Daugavgriva in Livonia, where he held the office of abbot before becoming bishop ofSelonia. It was likely thanks to his influence that Hermann II obtained the position of princeps(prince, patron or supreme commander) of Livonia and Estonia between 1111and 1114.The coronet the effigy wears would be appropriate to such a rank. Hucker associates the sexfoils ornamenting the diadem with the five(!)-petalled Lippe rose on Hermann 's seal and the sexfoil window in the royal double chapel Hermann built at Rheda. The lion on the coat of arms would not be inconsistent with this interpretation, since after the childless Widuk.ind's death the lordship ofRheda passed via Bernhard II to Hermann II. According to Hucker the architectural model represents the church of St Mary in Lippstadt, which Bernhard had consecrated in 1111.This church had a large west tower and two east towers, corresponding to the three towers on the model. The tomb would date from 1130-1140,because the plan to attain sovereignty of Livonia and Estonia petered out after Hermann II perished in 1119 in the archbishop of Bremen's war on the Stedingers, and was laid to rest in Marienfeld. Hucker apparently explains all the puzzling aspects of the anonymous effigy. Even so, his interpretation cannot be sustained. Firstly, the tracery windows beneath crocketted gablets are inconsistent with the early date. At the earliest they belong to the second half of the thirteenth century, by which time the Lippe scheme to attain sovereign status was already a thing of the past. Secondly, there is not a single case of an effigy with an architectural model that does not represent the church in which the model-bearer was buried. Thirdly, it was not Hermann II but his father who had founded St Mary's Church in Lippstadt. 42 Fourthly, Hermann's shield would more logically be emblazoned with the Lippe rose than the Rheda lion.'' Therefore, the royal aspirations perceptible in the

228

COMPRESSED

written sources and the double chapel in Rheda cannot be associated with the effigy. There is a possible solution to the conundrum in a recently discovered tomb niche - examined and then walled up once more - in the west wall of the south transept at Marienfeld.44 Against its back wall are three upright rectangular ashlar slabs. They bear the names of thefandatores - founders and benefactors. Of these the two bishops, Hermann II and Bernhard II occupy place of honour on the tallest slab in the centre. Coming one rank down from these are Luttrudis and Widukind, their names being at the top of the flanking slabs. Neither of the tombstones discussed above could have been made for the niche as their measurements are too big.45 The niche was bricked up in 1300 or thereabouts, when new cloisters were built. Thus an important place of commemoration was lost, one which the monks would have passed on a regular basis as they went in and out of the church by the cloister door. Was the anonymous Rheda tomb intended to redress the loss? The doubling of the Widukind effigy is not an isolated case. In Cologne the church of St Maria im Kapitol has both a twelfth and a late thirteenth-century tomb for Plectrudis. On the later of the two the model-bearer is portrayed with a crown, analogous to the two knights. Whether, like the Romanesque Plectrudis effigy, one of the two Rheda tombs was no longer deemed satisfactory around 1180 can only be conjectured. What is certain, however, is that there was much less time between the making of them than was the case with the effigiesof the Carolingian regent. In this respect the Premonstratensian monastery at Cappenberg offers a better parallel. Here, towards 1300, the tomb of the saintly Godfrey ofCappenberg was erected, which incorporated a pedestal for the bronze reliquary head ofBarbarossa (cf §13-1). In addition to this, around 1315-1310Godfrey and his brother Otto were given a shared funerary monument on which they jointly present a church. 46 Similarly, in Marienfeld the anonymous effigy of the knight also seems to be a shared commemoration of the founders after the most important of them - Hermann II and Widukind - had already been honoured individually. Naturally the fundator bore an architectural model. Perhaps it represented the transept, where the joint memorial was originally located. Because most of the .fimdatoresbelong to the laity, and Bishop Hermann already had a graveslab in the choir, the effigy of a

knight must have been an obvious choice. The stone warrior may even have represented Bernhard II of Lippe, who joined the Cistercian Order only in 1197-1:lo7. 47 That the Rheda lion is displayed on the shield will likely be connected with the particular commemoration ofWidukind and his mother, whose donations had greatly enriched the monastery. Accordingly their names had also occupied an important place in the tomb niche. Finally, the coronet does not automatically denote a royal donor. In Cologne Plectrudis was portrayed with that attribute to enhance

her foundation's prestige, and from around n6o in Heiningen the canonesses represented their freeborn foundress Hildeswid as a queen bearing a church model. 48 Leidinger sees the coronet as a martyr's crown, because Widukind died in 1190 during the taking of Acre in the Third Crusade. 49 Bernhard II had also fought against the pagans, though in Livonia rather than the Holy Land. Whether the joint founders' monument permits such a specific interpretation is open to question, however.

NOTES 1

On the tomb and its creation, see: KAHSNITZ, Di, Grund,r, p. 88-99, 110-111.116, 133-135,175, 190-197 (dating) and passim; OELLERMANN & SANDNER, "Das Stiftergrabmal", p. 136-160; SAUER,Fundatio, p. 105-110,138-141,146-147, 164-168. 2 On the building's architectural history, see: SCHIPPERS, Da, Laacher Munster, p. 1-60; KuBACH & VERBEEK,Romanische Baukunst, p. 743-753. 3 l