The Nazareth capitals and the Crusader Shrine of the Annunciation 9780271004303

Citation preview

and the

The Nazareth Capitals

~ Crusader Shrine of the Annunciation

BLANK PAGE

| JAROSLAV FOLDA

The Nazareth Capitals

and the Crusader Shrine © of the Annunciation

~ Published for ,

, 7 1986 THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA | b

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS

UNIVERSITY PARK AND LONDON ,

Monographs on the Fine Arts sponsored by

THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA XLII Editor, Carol F. Lewine

, Folda, Jaroslav.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ,

The Nazareth capitals and the Crusader Shrine of the Annunciation.

(Monographs on the fine arts ; 42) Includes bibliography and index. 1. Relief (Sculpture), Romanesque—Israel—Nazareth—

Byzantine influences. 2. Relief (Sculpture)—Byzantine ] influences. 3. Capitals (Architecture), Romanesque— Israel—Nazareth—Byzantine influences. 4. Capitals (Architecture)—Byzantine influences. 5. Church of the Annunciation (Nazareth, Israel) 6. Nazareth (Israel)—

Buildings, structures, etc. I. Title. I. Series.

: ISBN 0-271-00430-4

NB1280.F64 1986 730’ .95694 86-820

Copyright © 1986 The College Art Association of America All rights reserved

, Printed in the United States of America

For Linda, Natasha Katherine, and Lisa Kristin

BLANK > AGE

Contents

Preface Xiil | Introduction I |

List of Illustrations 1x

I The Five Nazareth Capitals Excavated in 1908: An Archaeological and Historical

IIO00—1291 9 |

Analysis 3

II Pilgrims’ Accounts of the Church of the Annunciation and the Shrine-Grotto: , II The Shrine-Grotto of the Annunciation: Archaeological Evidence and Historical , Considerations 15 IV. The Shrine-Grotto of the Annunciation: Iconographic Evidence and Further Historical Considerations 23 V_ The Iconography of the Polygonal Capitals: Text and Image 31 VI The Iconography of the Rectangular Capital: Text and Image 43

Conclusion 65 , |

VII The Figural Style of the Nazareth Capitals: Reflections on the State of the |

Question SI

Bibliography 87 . Index 95 Notes 67.

Illustrations 103

BLANK PAGE

FIGURES PLATES Fic. 1 (page 4). The Nazareth capitals. Angles of the In order to control the documentation on the

olvconal configurations Nazareth sculptures, all photographs are cited with poy’ e the date when they were taken. All photographs are

Fic. 2 (page 7). Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation. by the author unless otherwise noted.

Plan of the Crusader church, c. 1187 (after B. Bagatti and E. Alliata) 1. The Nazareth capitals on display in the Museum of the Franciscan Convent at Nazareth (before 1950)

Fic. 3 (page 16). Nazareth, Church of the Annuncia- (photo: Israel Department of Antiquities and Muse-

tion. Plan of the shrine-grotto in the north aisle, ums)

bays 5 and 6, c. 1170-87 (after B. Bagatti and E. Alliata) 2. Saint Peter capital, left side (before 1950) (photo: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums)

Fic. 4tion.(page 17). Nazareth, Church of the Annuncia- | Plan of the Crusader church overlaid with 3. Saint Peter capital, right side (before 1950) (photo: the plan of the Franciscan church of 1730/1877, Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums) now destroyed (reproduced from Viaud, fig. 2,

p-. 35) , 4. Saint Thomas capital, left side (before 1950) (photo:

, Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums)

Fic. § (page 27). Nazareth, Church of the Annuncia-

tion. Plan of the hypothetical baldacchino (B) on 5. Saint James capital, right side (1954) (photo:

the shrine-monument over the grotto Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore)

Fic. 6 (page 37). The Nazareth capitals. Iconographic 6. Saint Matthew capital, left side (before 1950) diagrams of the figural components on the faces (photo: Israel Department of Antiquities and Muse-

of the polygonal capitals ums)

x THE NAZARETH CAPITALS |

} Nalbandian) ] Nalbandian)

7. Saint Thomas capital, face 1 (1976) (photo: Garo 25. Saint Matthew capital, face 6 (1976) (photo: Garo 8. Saint Thomas capital, face 2 (1976) (photo: Garo 26. Rectangular (Virgin) capital, front (1976) (photo:

Nalbandian) Garo Nalbandian)

g. Saint Thomas capital, face 3 (1976) (photo: Garo 27. Rectangular (Virgin) capital, front. Detail (1976)

Nalbandian) (photo: Garo Nalbandian)

10. Saint Thomas capital, face 4 (1976) (photo: Garo 28. Rectangular (Virgin) capital, left. Demon with

Nalbandian) spear and shield (1976) (photo: Garo Nalbandian)

11. Saint Thomas capital, face 5 (1976) (photo: Garo 29. Rectangular (Virgin) capital, left. Demon with bow

Nalbandian) and arrow (1976) (photo: Garo Nalbandian)

12. Saint Thomas capital, face 6 (1976) (photo: Garo 30. Rectangular (Virgin) capital, right. Demon with

Nalbandian) bow and arrow (1976) (photo: Garo Nalbandian) ©

13. Saint Peter capital, face 1 (1976) (photo: Garo 31. Rectangular (Virgin) capital, right. Demon with

Nalbandian) spear and shield (1976) (photo: Garo Nalbandian)

14. Saint Peter capital, faces 2 and 3 (1976) (photo: Garo 32. Nazareth, Garden of the Franciscan Monastery.

Nalbandian) Fluted column fragment, front (1982)

15. Saint Peter capital, face 4 (1976) (photo: Garo 33. Nazareth, Garden of the Franciscan Monastery.

Nalbandian) Fluted column fragment, rear (1982)

16. Saint Peter capital, face 5 (1976) (photo: Garo 34. Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation, grotto.

Nalbandian) General view (1982)

17. Saint Peter capital, face 6 (1976) (photo: Garo 35. Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation, grotto.

Nalbandian) Southeast corner and cross pier (1982)

18. Saint James capital, faces 1 and 2 (1954) (photo: 36. Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation, grotto.

Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore) Northeast corner and top platform (1982)

19. Saint James capital, faces 2, 3, and 4 (1954) (photo: 37. Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation, grotto.

Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore) West side and pier with broken column (1976)

20. Saint James capital, faces 4, 5, and 6 (1954) (photo: 38. Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation, grotto.

Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore) Northwest corner (1982)

21. Saint Matthew capital, face 1 (1976) (photo: Garo 39. Canosa di Puglia, Tomb of Bohemond of Antioch.

Nalbandian) General view (photo: Dorothy Glass)

22. Saint Matthew capital, face 2 (1976) (photo: Garo 40. Canosa di Puglia, Tomb of Bohemond of Antioch.

Nalbandian) Cupola (photo: Ann Wharton Epstein)

23. Saint Matthew capital, faces 3 and 4 (1976) (photo: 41. Plaimpied, Church of Saint Martin, nave capital

Garo Nalbandian). Detail: Demon above Iphegenia (1982) )

24. Saint Matthew capital, face 5 (1976) (photo: Garo 42. Conques, Church of Ste. Foi, Annunciation (from

Nalbandian) Rupprecht, pl. 121)

| lem

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS X1

43. The Cloisters, New York, Annunciation from San 59. Cast of the Saint James capital, faces 1 and 2 and Piero Scheraggio, Florence (from The Year 1200, 1, arbitrarily terminated rear tongue element (1974),

| p. 38) Museum of the Convent of the Flagellation, Jerusa| 44. Berlin-Dahlem, Staatliche Museen Preussischer

Kulturbesitz. The Annunciation in ivory carving 6o. Cast of the Rectangular (Virgin) capital, right side

(photo: Bildarchiv Foto Marburg) showing surface aberrations not found on the ,

tion capital (1983) | original (1974), Museum of the Convent of the

45. Monreale, Cloisters, northeast corner. Annuncia- Flagellation, Jerusalem

; 61. Saint Thomas capital, seen from above, Franciscan

46. The Madonna of Loreto, engraving (from Hind, Early Museum of Nazareth (1985)

| . Painti ; ; Italian Engraving, 1v, pl. 457)

oe 62. Saint Thomas capital, rear element, seen from the

47. Brussels, Bibliothéque royale, Ms. 9270, fol. av. | left side, Franciscan Museum of Nazareth (1985) The Annunciation with Philippe le Bon in Prayer, by

Mf a (from Cuttler, Northern Painting (1968), 63. Saint Peter capital, rear element, seen from the left

pi. 23 } side, Franciscan Museum of Nazareth (1985)

48.West Jerusalem, Haram Qubbat at Pseen ‘talfrom , P the he right tich side, detail (1975)al-Sharif, 64. Saint eter capital,al-Mi’raj. rear element,

| side, Franciscan Museum of Nazareth (1985)

49. View of Nazareth (1698). Remains of the Church of

the Annunciation and grotto, at “x” (from Corne- 65. Saint James capital, rear element, seen from the left

lius Le Bruyn, Voyage au Levant, pl. 166) side, Franciscan Museum of Nazareth (1985)

167) |

50. View of the interior of the Nazareth grotto (1698) 66. Saint James capital, rear element, seen from the rear (from Cornelius Le Bruyn, Voyage au Levant, pl. right side, Franciscan Museum of Nazareth (1985) 67. Saint James capital, rear element, seen from the

| 66 (1974) don)

§1. Damaged rectangular capital with unidentified right side, unknown location (before 1969) (photo: , battle scene, left side, excavated in Nazareth 1955- Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art, Lon-

| _§2. Damaged rectangular capital, front, excavated in 68. Saint Matthew capital, rear element, seen from the

Nazareth 1955-66 (1974) left side, Franciscan Museum of Nazareth (1985)

53. Damaged rectangular capital, right side, excavated 69. Saint Matthew capital, rear element, seen from the

in Nazareth 1907-9 (1974) right side, Franciscan Museum of Nazareth (1985)

54. Damaged relief or capital with scene of Saint Peter 70. Saint Matthew capital, rear element, seen from the and Tabitha, excavated in Nazareth 1955-66 (1983) rear right side, Franciscan Museum of Nazareth — (1985)

55. Damaged relief or capital, left front (1983)

71. Saint Matthew capital, top surface with possible

56. Damaged relief or capital, lower front (1983) mason’s mark: SE Franciscan Museum of Nazareth (1985)

57. Damaged relief or capital, right front (1983)

72. Wooden model of the Crusader Church of the 58. Cast of the Saint Peter capital, faces 5 and 6 and Annunciation made by Viaud in 1925. View of the arbitrarily terminated rear tongue element (1974), aedicule of the Annunciation with architectural Museum of the Convent of the Flagellation, Jerusa- superstructure removed. Franciscan excavations in

lem Nazareth (1985)

Xi THE NAZARETH CAPITALS 73. Wooden model of the Crusader Church of the 76. Capital of Christ conducting the Elect to Paradise, Annunciation made by Viaud in 1925. Cutaway Saint Maurice, Vienne, main nave. View from the

view of bays 5 and 6 with the aedicule of the right side (1985) Annunciation, seen from the west. Franciscan

excavations in Nazareth (1985) 77. Ivory carving of Christ, Ikonen-Museum, Recklinghausen. Front view (photo: Ikonen-Museum,

74. Homilies of the Monk Jacobus Kokkinobaphos, Recklinghausen)

nationale, Paris). : | Anastasis and the Entry to Paradise, fol. 66v, Paris,

Bibl. Nat., Ms. gr. 1208 (photo: Bibliothéque

75. Capital of Christ conducting the Elect to Paradise, Saint Maurice, Vienne, main nave. View from the left side (1985) (photo: Bildarchiv Foto Marburg)

Preface HIS book forms part of a larger study of the nature and development of Crusader art. in

| the Holy Land. Accordingly, many persons who have helped me with the overall ,

project have also contributed to this work on the Nazareth capitals. While my explicit acknowledgments are focused on those directly associated with my study of the Nazareth sculptures, many other colleagues and friends have indirectly helped shape my hypothesis. I would like to thank them corporately without trying to mention them individually. I first became seriously interested in the study of the Nazareth capitals during a visit to the Holy Land in 1973. Since then I have gone back many times to Nazareth to continue research at the site of these wonderful sculptures and the many others in Franciscan hands there and at the Convent of the Flagellation in Jerusalem. This research was made possible by financial support from several agencies, in particular The National Endowment for the Humanities in Washington, D.C. An NEH grant made it possible for me to live in Jerusalem during the academic year

1974-75, at which time my work on Crusader sculpture, most of which still remains in the Near East, really began. The NEH also funded a second year abroad in 1981-82, during which

I completed the first draft of this monograph. I am deeply grateful to the NEH for these , opportunities, which have enabled me to finish this study and to lay the broad foundations

necessary for the larger project on Crusader art in the Holy Land. ,

Other financial assistance has been forthcoming for more limited but no less important aspects of this project. For summer research trips, especially to western Europe and to the Near East, I am grateful to the American Council of Learned Societies in New York, the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, and the University of North Carolina Research Council in Chapel Hill.

It is my hope that the National Endowment and the other three major sources of financial

X1V THE NAZARETH CAPITALS

support for research in the humanities will find their investment at least partially justified by this monograph and the other related work published to date. The opportunity to study the Nazareth capitals and other important sculpture in the Franciscan convents in Nazareth and Jerusalem over the years has been made possible by the unfailing

hospitality of Father Bellarmino Bagatti. Fr. Bagatti has not only taken a lively interest in my | work, but he has also assisted my research in countless important ways. I remember in particular his generous willingness to travel with me to Nazareth in December 1974, taking time from his busy schedule in Jerusalem in order to show me the Crusader sculptures that were exhibited or stored at that time in the various parts of the Church of the Annunciation and in the convent in Nazareth. Other Franciscans who have also assisted my work include Albert Storme, Eugenio Alliata, and the late Benedetto Antonucci. I should like to express my gratitude to all of them and to extend my special good wishes to Fr. Bagatti, who, after the untimely death of Fr. Antonucci, now faces the added heavy responsibility of publishing volume m1 of the Nazareth excavations, which will include much significant sculpture from the Crusader period. My studies of the problems presented by the Nazareth sculptures were first given a forum for

discussion in the seminars that I directed at the University of North Carolina. I have been | fortunate in having an extraordinarily able group of students whose excellent work on aspects , of Crusader art has helped to stimulate the formulation of my views. I would like to thank Dr. Henrietta McBee Tye, Dr. Robert Hobbs, Linda Docherty, Genevra Kornbluth, Sheila McTighe, Carolyn Watson, and Kitch Carter for their contributions to the investigation of these fascinating sculptures; I hope that the work we did together will prove as valuable to

| them as it has to me.

The Notes at the end of the book will bear testimony to a particularly interesting and active group of colleagues who are also working on the Nazareth capitals. I have had the good fortune to discuss the problems raised by these capitals with most of them personally, and I now look forward to their responses to my hypothesis. One colleague will not, however, be able to give

me the benefit of his reactions to my text. T. S. R. Boase, who, alas, died in 1974, was a stimulating, literate, knowledgeable, and stylish scholar who helped me to get started in Crusader studies when I first set out for the Near East. I shall miss his comments, but the void will

no doubt be ably filled by Alan Borg, now his successor in Crusader studies in England. Other colleagues who have shared their knowledge or discussed issues pertaining to the Nazareth capitals have been of special help to me in thinking through my argument. I would like to convey my special thanks for their contributions to: Edson Armi, Francois Avril, Hugo Buchthal, Michael Burgoyne, Jean-René Gaborit, Christopher Hohler, Leon Pressouyre, Denys

Pringle, Will Ryan, Ysuf Sa’ad, Ernst Will, and John Wilkinson. ,

My research on the Nazareth capitals has been carried out in a number of widely scattered places from Nazareth to North Carolina. As a result, many persons and institutions have assisted me along the way by special guidance and/or access to collections or facilities under their care. I would like to thank the American Schools of Oriental Research for help in Jerusalem and Amman. The research libraries of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusa} lem, the Ecole biblique, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Rockefeller Museum, and the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum have been particularly helpful over the years, and I have benefited gratefully from the continuing hospitality of Dr. Bezalel Narkiss. In France, I have of course relied on the Bibliothéque nationale and the Bibliothéque Doucet.

In addition, I thank M. Philippe Chapu and M. Christian de Merindol at the Musée des monuments francais, along with Mme. Marie-Madeleine Gauthier and Mme. Francoise Bercé.

PREFACE XV Three special libraries were of great help to me from time to time: the Bibliothéque de la Sorbonne, the Byzantine Library of the College de France, and the public library of the Centre Pompidou, all in Paris. In Italy, I have depended on the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana and the Bibliotheca Hertziana in Rome, and I would also like to express my gratitude to Fr. Floriano Grimaldi, the Archivist at Loreto, and to Fr. Michele Seccia, Vicario Generale at Barletta, for special help during my visits to those two cities. In England, my thanks go to many members

of the staff at the British Library and the British Museum, to John Hopkins at the Library of | the Society of Antiquaries, to Paul Williamson at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and to the ‘Bodleian Library and the Librarian of Christ Church College, Oxford. Finally, in the United _ States, I would like to thank Irene Vaslef and the staff of the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, the Library of Congress, the Art Library of the University of North Carolina, and the wonderful staff of the unique Humanities Reference Division of what is now the Walter R. Davis Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hull. Finding documentary photographs of the Nazareth capitals and related material has proved to

be a matter of major importance. I would like to thank Richard Cleave, who helped me to arrange to have photographs of the capitals made, and Garo Nalbandian, who made an excellent set of photographs in 1976-77 under difficult conditions; most of these photographs are , reproduced here (plates 7-17 and 21-31). For the capital of Saint James, Richard H. Randall of the Walters Art Gallery and Margaret E. Frazer of the Metropolitan Museum of Art were especially helpful in providing me with prints of excellent negatives in collections of their

museums. |

For help with historical photographs of the capitals and related sculptures, I would like to ,

thank the following: in Jerusalem, Inna Pommerantz and the staff of the Rockefeller Museum, _ the photograph archive of the Ecole biblique, and the Jerusalem photographer, George Kahved-

jian, of Elia Photo Service; in Paris, Mme. Roger of the Société francaise de photographie and , Mme. Echarpe of the Archives photographiques; and in England, the Conway Library of the Courtauld Institute of the University of London. The Princeton Index of Christian Art has been an invaluable tool, and I would like to thank both Adelaide Bennett Hagens and Joan

Southcote-Aston for their help with the original index in Princeton and with the copy in Dumbarton Oaks, respectively. Finally, let me thank my colleagues Dorothy Glass and Ann Wharton Epstein for allowing me to use photographs from their collections. Before the final revision of this monograph, three persons commented on the text. Jane Hetherington Brown suggested some important clarifications of the iconographical argument; Linda Docherty made some particularly useful editorial suggestions; and Philippe Verdier hada

, number of interesting observations on the iconography and the style of the capitals. I would , _ like to express my warm appreciation to these three scholars for taking time from their work to

read and think about mine.

My editor, Carol Lewine, and the readers she called upon to evaluate this monograph also , read the entire text with great care. I am grateful for their serious and perceptive proposals for

revisions and emendations. I have benefited from all of their comments. | It will be obvious that many persons have contributed to this study. I am grateful to all of them, but of course the use I have made of their contributions is my responsibility. Although I _ have made every effort to be accurate, any errors or other shortcomings that might mar the form or content of the argument fall squarely on my shoulders. The physical preparation of this monograph, including revisions, has involved the special skills of several persons. I want to thank Susan McLaurin and Margaret O’Brien for the hours they spent at the typewriter and word-processor on my behalf. In addition, Quentin R. Sawyer,

XV1 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS , photographer for the Art Department of the University of North Carolina, has done anexcellent job of printing the photographs of the Nazareth capitals, along with several other sculptures reproduced in this book. And my thanks to Elizabeth Teviotdale for preparing the index. Finally, I want to say that in carrying out this study I have enjoyed the support and understanding of my wonderful wife and two daughters. They have been my enthusiastic companions to faraway places and have perhaps learned more about certain things than they might have wished to know. Nonetheless, I hope that in the process their lives may have been enriched and that they may have glimpsed something about what makes the study of medieval art so exciting for me. For their love and interest, I am grateful beyond words, and to them I affectionately dedicate this book.

- J. F.

Paris and Chapel Hill

July 1984

POSTSCRIPT Shortly after this book was accepted for publication in the CAA Monograph Series and “final” revisions were made, the long-awaited archaeological report on the findings of the Nazareth excavations in 1955-1962 appeared in the late summer of 1984: B. Bagatti, O.F.M., with the collaboration of E. Alliata, O.F.M., Gli scavi di Nazaret, u: dal secolo XII ad oggi, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, no. 17, Jerusalem, 1984. As I suspected, Bagatti reported no major archaeological discoveries concerning the Crusader church and its sculpture that would necessitate fundamental alterations in the hypotheses argued here. However, several important aspects of Bagatti’s study and significant changes in the display of the capitals in a new museum context in Nazareth clearly indicated that careful review of my text would be required before publication. Accordingly, plans were made to visit Nazareth again in May 1985 to bring the study fully up to date.

. The National Endowment for the Humanities made my research possible through the award | of a summer research stipend for 1985. The Franciscans in Jerusalem and Nazareth were extraordinarily cooperative in facilitating my work, especially Father Bagatti, but also Michele Piccirillo, Rafael Dorado, and the guardian of the Museum in Nazareth, Edward Musallam. I would like to express my gratitude to all of them, as well as to Fr. John Leonard of the Greek Catholic Church of the Annunciation, with whom I had informative and pleasurable discus-

sions in Nazareth. , , ,

The premise on which this study was first undertaken, as stated in the Introduction, has not essentially changed. The focus of my investigations here has consistently remained the five capitals excavated in 1908, with the understanding that because of the archaeological circumstances of their discovery they are completely separate and distinct from the many other fragments that form part of the ensemble of Crusader sculpture in Nazareth. Now that Bagatti’s archaeological report has been published, research on the complete ensemble can indeed proceed, but the issues raised by these other sculptures are too large and complex to be treated within the framework of this study. In the light of Bagatti’s 1984 publication, I have made revisions so as to coordinate my text with his and to include some of his factual and interpreta-

tive findings that bear on my argument. Thus, although reference occasionally has been made

PREFACE XV1l to other Crusader sculpture excavated in Nazareth, the purpose of my inquiry remains to assess the problems posed by the five Nazareth capitals with respect to function, iconography, and style. Inquiry into these matters as they apply to the other Crusader sculptures there will, I suspect and hope, be aided by the careful study of the five famous capitals.

, '-Nazareth May 1985 , J. F.

BLANK PAGE

Introduction oe

HEN the angels transported the Holy House of the Virgin Mary (the Santa Casa) to

\ X r Yugoslavia on 10 May 1291, and finally to Loreto on 2 December 1295, they left behind in Nazareth a substantial amount of remarkable sculpture that had decorated, or was intended to decorate, the Crusader Church of the Annunciation in the twelfth century.’ Beginning in 1867 with a chance find, the discovery of this Crusader sculpture in Nazareth has continued through a series of excavations in 1899, 1908-09, and the 1950s and 1960s.* Now, more than twenty years later, with the recent archaeological publication of the large quantity of severely damaged Crusader sculpture found during the Franciscan excavations in the 1950s and 1960s on the site of the new pilgrimage Church of the Annunciation, we can turn our attention once more to the five “famous” Nazareth capitals.? The excavations of these capitals, the results of which were first published in 1910, have been discussed in print many times since then.*

their style. ,

Here I wish to reconsider specifically their function and their iconography as part of the Crusader Church of the Annunciation and to review the state of the question with regard to

BLANK PAGE.

The Five Nazareth Capitals

Excavated in 1908: An Archaeological and

Historical Analysis | LONE among the extant figural sculpture from the site of the Church of the Annun-

A ciation, the five Nazareth capitals were found in almost pristine condition, nearly _

undamaged, buried in a grotto just outside the north door of the Crusader church." So striking is their condition that some scholars have concluded that the capitals were never put in place, but others have supposed that the capitals were never even finished.” In the face of such disagreement, I will begin with a description of the capitals and their history since 1908. The five Nazareth capitals include one that is rectangular in its upper configuration (pls. 1 and 26) and four that are polygonal and more complex in form (pls. 1, 2, 4-6, and 67). All five are carved in the same relatively soft, grainy, off-white limestone that comes from a local Nazareth quarry. The rectangular capital (pl. 26), the largest of the group, has a semicircular drum with a diameter of 50.2 cm measured at the thin astragal where the capital would have met the shaft of an engaged semicolumn below. The drum of the capital expands upward through a transitional zone with a strongly, regularly textured surface on which six figures are carved. The transition culminates in an architectural canopy that is rectangular in plan. The canopy is composed of paired round arches on the front surmounted by a tower “in perspective” at the center; towers

seen frontally are placed at the corners. On each of the two sides of the canopy there are half-arches. The top of the capital is smoothly carved on the visible vertical surfaces, such as between the towers, and smoothly dressed on the horizontal surface; no major tool marks are visible to mar the finish. The capital is flat on the rear and displays tool marks made by the saw used

to cut the block, which obviously were not meant to be seen. The bottom of the capital, scored , by tool marks, is only partly visible in its present location in the Franciscan Museum of Nazareth. The other major dimensions of this capital are: height, 60.7 cm; width (maximum, measured on |

the lower part of the architectural canopy), 72.5 cm; and depth (maximum), 35.0cm. The four polygonal capitals (pls. 2-6) are smaller than the rectangular one. All four have ©

4 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS , identical configurations and presumably were cut from the same template. They vary only slightly from one another in terms of angles and dimensions. Each polygonal capital was designed as a regular octagon with a truncated, quasi-triangular “tongue” extending from the two rear sides in order to facilitate the placement of the capitals in their intended positions. The , capitals have drums with thin, flat, smooth astragals along their six exposed sides, which are concavely scalloped in plan. The drum of each capital rises in six concave faces in a blossoming

profile. The effect of the hollowed-out, regularly textured face is enhanced by contrasting vertical dividers, which are smoothly finished and articulated by projecting “sawteeth” on the Peter capital (pl. 15) and by large, evenly spaced drill holes on the Thomas, James, and Matthew capitals (pls. 9, 18, and 23). The six hollowed faces on each capital are filled with one to three figures. An architectural canopy surmounts each polygonal capital, but these canopies, unlike the canopy of the rectangular capital, are arranged so that a single round arch frames the top of each face, echoing in elevation the concave astragal found in plan and providing a climax to the strong vertical emphasis of the face. Towers, simultaneously regular (at the top) and foreshortened (in the

lower story), articulate each corner.? Each polygonal capital has a total of five towers. _ , The vertical surfaces between the towers are usually textured in imitation of roofing, with smooth horizontal insets and large drill holes that separate the roofing into tiers. In contrast with the top surface of the rectangular capital (pl. 26), the tops of the polygons (pls. 61 and 71) are unfinished—that is, they were not meant to be seen—and on three of the capitals (Matthew,

Peter, and Thomas) a shallow rectangular cutting, roughly 10.5 by 3.5 cm, runs along the central axis of the capital at the rear of the polygon, where it meets the truncated triangular tongue. The bottoms of these capitals are also left dressed but not finished, so far as can be seen , from their present emplacement. The primary dimensions of these polygons, given as average

figures, are: height, 43.0 cm; maximum width (measured from the first to the fifth corner point), upper (at the architectural canopy), 54.0 cm, lower (at the astragal), 34.0 cm; width of each face, upper, 21.0 cm, lower (at the astragal), 13.0 cm; width where the “tongue” meets | the polygon (on the upper surface), 38.5 cm.* The averaged angles of the polygons, measured on the vertical architectural canopy surfaces, are given in figure I.°

~_--j-—-

| 1. 116° { | 0) 7 2. 137.25°

‘.SRN | / 3.4. 131.25° 136° 2 Ga7,6 6. 5. 131.25° 135.5°

3

: conversing with her. But the Virgin, terrified at the unexpected vision, and hurriedly | turning herself round, has all but dropped the purple from her hands. Trembling and , leaving her chamber through fear, she meets a woman who was her relative and friend, and embraces her with friendly salutations. Entering, then, within the mouth , of the cave, you descend a few steps, and then you behold the ancient house of

12 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS , Joseph, wherein, as I said before, the archangel announced the good tidings to the | Virgin when she came home from the well. At the spot upon which the Annuncia-

| - tion took place there is a cross carved out of black stone upon white marble, and , above it an altar; on the right-hand of the altar is seen a little chamber, in which the

Ever-Virgin Mother of God used to dwell. On the left-hand side of the place of the Annunciation may be seen another small windowless chamber, wherein Christ our Lord is said by sacred tradition to have dwelt after the return from Egypt until the beheading of the Forerunner.”

| This rather prolix, rambling text adds some new information, such as the fact that the entry to the grotto was decorated with a painting of the Annunciation, presumably an icon. This may suggest the beginning of plans to decorate the aedicule complex."? While not so precise as that | of Theodorich, Johannes Phocas’s account agrees with the earlier one in mentioning only one

oO entrance and in finding three main sites inside. However, Phocas reidentifies two of the sites: , The site identified by Theodorich as the place where Mary was born is now identified as the _ place where Mary lived, and the site identified by Theodorich as the burial place of Joseph 1s

| now identified as the place where Jesus lived after his return from Egypt. The essential organization of the interior, however, has not changed. From these most descriptive of the surviving twelfth-century texts, we can conclude that between 1106/7 and 1172 work was probably done on the grotto by the Crusaders, and that

, this work established the layout of the holy site, both physically and internally in plan, that would be found in the thirteenth century and later."* Significantly, Johannes Phocas is the only pilgrim to report any decoration of the shrine, although he does not mention figural sculpture.

It is important to note that he is writing in the 1170s, for this description, when read in } , conjunction with the account of Theodorich, at least suggests that plans for a project to decorate the shrine should be dated late in the twelfth century—in the 1170s, rather than c.

1150, as has been proposed elsewhere. |

| Compared with the twelfth-century accounts, the pilgrims’ descriptions in the thirteenth , century are unfortunately briefer and less informative. The most famous pilgrim of the thirteenth century, Louis IX of France, visited the Church of the Annunciation on 24 March 1251; we have details of his visit but no description of the holy site.** Indeed, the most informative accounts of the holy site of the Annunciation in Nazareth in the thirteenth century were written after the Crusader church was destroyed by the Sultan Baibars in April 1263."°

, In 1283 a Dominican, Burchardus de Monte Sion, visited Nazareth, where he saw the ruins of the Church of the Annunciation. He reports: , Est hodie in ea permanens locus, in quo angelus Gabriel beate Virgini attulit nuncium salutarem dicens: “Ave, gracia plena! . . .” plures missas dixi in loco isto, immo ipsa

, die, scilicet sancte annunciationis, quando fuit verbum caro factum... .

Tria altaria sunt in capella, et est excisa de rupe in petra, sicut et locus nativitatis, passionis et resurrectionis. *’

It is interesting that he compares the Nazareth grotto to the more famous sacred sites of the Nativity and the Holy Sepulchre, commenting on the similarity of their rupestrian character. Eleven years later, in 1294, three years after the great debacle at Acre, when the Crusaders were effectively eliminated from mainland Syria-Palestine, a second Dominican, Ricoldus de Monte Crucis, visited the site and commented:

, PILGRIMS’ ACCOUNTS OF THE CHURCH OF THE ANNUNCIATION 13°

Et invenimus magnam ecclesiam, quasi totam dirutam, et nihil erat ibi de primis a edificus nisi sola cella, ubi fuit annunciata domina: illam superreservavit Dominus ad , , memoriam humilitatis et paupertatis. Est autem ibi altare domine in loco, ubi orabat domina, quando missus est Gabriel angelus ad eam, et altare archangeli Michaelis, ubi.

-_ stetit Gabriel adnuncians."* ,

These two late thirteenth-century accounts are important for several reasons. They describe

the destruction of the church but make it clear that the grotto of the Annunciation remained | , intact and still retained the same set of three altars found in the twelfth century. These texts are | , obviously much shorter than those of the twelfth century, but except for the reference to the altar of Saint Michael the Archangel, they confirm what we already know of the grotto. Thus they provide what little evidence we have to indicate that no notable external or internal changes or decoration of the shrine-grotto had been carried out after the visit of Johannes Phocas in 1177. The account of Burchardus is the last that preceded the miraculous, if _ awkwardly timed, translation of the Holy House of the Virgin from this sacred site in Nazareth

to Yugoslavia. This event took place on 10 May 1291, at the very moment when the Crusaders were desperately struggling to defend Acre from final defeat, a defeat that ultimately came on

28 May.” Ricoldus’s report, coming three years after the miraculous translation, seems to indicate that whatever the angels had carried westward, it had not been unequivocally recorded ,

by any pilgrim prior to 1291.”° , | |

BLANK PAGE

The Shrine-Grotto of

the Annunciation:

Archaeological Evidence and Historical Considerations : IVEN what we know of the other major holy sites of the Crusaders, such as the Holy (5 Sepulchre or the grotto of the Nativity, it would seem peculiar and extraordinary if the grotto of the Annunciation had not been monumentalized in some appropriate way to © focus attention on this holy place inside the church. We can even identify several points in the history of the Crusader church when such a project could possibly have been undertaken: at the rebuilding of the Church of the Annunciation by the Crusaders shortly after 1099; when a Latin

bishop was installed in Nazareth about 1109-10; when the bishop of Nazareth was raised to an | archbishop sometime between 1125 and 1128; during the long reign of Archbishop Lietard II (1158-90), especially after the serious earthquake of 1170; or in the period after 1244, when Nazareth was the only major holy site associated with Jesus to remain under Crusader control.

During this time, after 1244, the presence of King Louis IX in the Holy Land (1250-54) renewed the morale of the embattled Crusaders, and Archbishop Henry of Nazareth instigated

reforms in his cathedral church to ensure the proper performance of services at this sacred | place." Despite these propitious possibilities, however, the written sources give us little information beyond the meager references by Theodorich and Phocas in the 1170s, which seem to indicate more precisely the time when such a project may have commenced. For other important evidence in this regard, we must turn to the archaeological finds in Nazareth. Both Prosper Viaud and Bellarmino Bagatti discuss the interior and exterior of the grotto of the Annunciation (pls. 34-38 and figs. 3 and 4) in publications of their excavations on the site.’ Viaud records the discovery of the superstructure of the grotto and the shallow apse in the north wall of the sixth bay of the church with nearly as much fervor as he describes the finding of the capitals themselves.* The liberation of the aedicule (fig. 4, Sanctuaire) from the fabric of the 1730/1877 church was a major project, which he accomplished by transforming the enclos-

035 Ba Yj a(\\

,,

16 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS

; | NA Me IRR AE

4 ep on GE r i

w [ fe oe bse PAA. HY, Nae S ay Ww oP 4

Zo ONS

ce KZ "Vf. eae semi2“yay Lf | SS "4, Wi Ys 7 HAL

an im TUZTZLZLLL

B Hypothetical baldacchino on top of the SG_ Stairs up to the top of the grotto at

shrine-monument level of baldacchino

B6 Bay 6 (with shallow apse on north wall) SM Shrine-monument (top surface over

CA “Chapel of the Angel” grotto reached by stairs (SG) is site

CM Conon mosaic proposed for hypothetical bal- _ CP Cruciform pier dacchino (B) with polygonal capitals

, EG _ Entrance to grotto interior SSP Small square pier MN Main nave WS Western stairs (entrance stairs down to

NA North aisle “Chapel of the Angel’)

Fic. 3. Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation. Plan of the shrine-grotto in the north aisle, bays 5 and 6, c. 117087 (after B. Bagatti and E. Alliata)

ing side walls into arcades so as not to weaken the existing building. This freed the north, east, and west sides of the aedicule for study. At this time he also cleared the large cruciform pier abutting the southeast corner of the aedicule and the smaller rectangular pier on its southwest corner (fig. 3, CP and ssp).* Viaud’s excavations revealed that the grotto aedicule rose approximately three meters above the level of the central nave, and Bagatti concurs with this in his recent reconstruction.’ He

points out that although only the floor level of the original Crusader Chapel of the Angel

THE SHRINE-GROTTO: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 17

survived, the cuttings in the living rock clearly indicated its rectangular shape and its dimen-_ sions in plan.° Although the medieval superstructure was completely gone, he argues that this chapel must have had walls equally as high as the grotto aedicule.’ This would have resulted in a shrine-monument that was rectangular across the front (the Chapel of the Angel) with a slightly irregular rectangle in the rear (the grotto aedicule itself) (figs. 2 and 3, CA and sm). Part of the superstructure of the grotto aedicule remained, however, opposite the shallow apse, | consisting of the living rock roughly dressed ‘on the north side and encased in masonry walls on the east and west sides.* | _ At the time of Viaud’s excavation, entrance to the grotto (fig. 3, EG) was from a large stairway to the south, on the central axis of the nave of the church of 1730/1877 (fig. 4).° Viaud’s dig east and west of the modern entrance revealed the rock cuttings for the floor of the angel chapel; two tombs of undetermined date, immediately south of the Angel Chapel and west of the modern stairs; the remains of two stairways leading to the mosaic floor of Conon at

| |FFY4 Bute be LY é 7 ee, {Ts Pg SSW rn Perr era 7 ort ee aren 7. nee 2 sm gett Se ANN 8 cl ee | peat oo Sroonitecbeide GD, ius Ys een 5, ee on ae

VW | UA cove V] ¥4 secristie A i compete ~~ - == 77 £4] Sy XG J Boulargenf, y wae" wW fi UPA Ce ne 7 ee Soy NSS Vee, (2 as DrierL dele coupale 84 fpen Steer r NG NMS FR CHF OG he AE 7 ee oA Sanco = ER GP iin NNPe FPR Se

S88 2)laa B?SeeBeSeeTae eepoosdl ee em& IRen ROR |=S| \N SS a eee Ee Y RE Wm. cin ns 7 ZK GG n DB@ NN Ar J] cheindl ait Fh 8 mug egise-achjelle “@ oF LE RCRA

eee Peeeee eeeeeNeee eee PAA £ | INS, P| yy faves VAN Sze ||| A gy ob 874 ™ | R&XdQQary" | lee ee: ee - #7] . ifj-a-s

FOV Uae ae Le [me] 2 | iiI WN ee ee eee . A&A... ££ Rss Ss Ug TA as Pe PB RSS

saSG NG P| Pron U4 |. tssiinens EAs Ve ts Tey. b bebo S39 eee \ AE yorAotA NS REVS — “gait 2 * “Ea bese dun mer “ \ AG Re ar a Bessy SS _ Fk 1 one [oo 2&i a} froces |p P| SSsy i as... crore - sh\ Sa 8 a| .| Sy 7 | 2 WSs) Magasin e) = LD | de piker 4 \ 2, i] y | Soenvennnnnaneren | g

NS As Bsa “VE Y7cemm Peay Wi... -4 SYy As [8 S@enedt 8 [fare Bi ped pe RSS SSE SS nn 7/77 0)!eeCM ren),ala ee 2 et NN SSS 3YALA, Parra Pe ES ae7INNS ——

\Q fF TT RRS

S\ ( Jerdin \ ot(Pee A, fSPay | A7_: 5BRSSennny I SSXS8y

1y|pp

Fic. 4. Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation. Plan of the Crusader church overlaid with the plan of the Franciscan church of 1730/1877, now destroyed. The “x” indicates the find spot of the five capitals excavated in 1908 (reproduced from Viaud, fig. 2, p. 35)

|

18 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS the west end of the chapel; and portions of a second cruciform pier just northwest of the Conon floor (figs. 2 and 3, cM and cp)."° Viaud’s findings can be visualized with the help of a wooden model of the church and the aedicule that he made in 1925 (pls. 72 and 73). Viaud’s invaluable investigations of the aedicule complex, carried out under extraordinarily difficult circumstances in 1907-9, have been supplemented by the thorough excavations executed under the direction of Bellarmino Bagatti between 1955 and 1966."' Bagatti was able to

isolate completely the aedicule of the grotto because of the decision by the Franciscans to remove the 1730/1877 church and to build a large, modern one—the church that stands on the site today.

Bagatti attributes the external shape of the grotto aedicule mainly to the medieval period, when the construction of the Crusader basilica on an east-west axis located the aedicule in the , north aisle of the church. The irregular quadrilateral shape of the grotto aedicule emerged as the

rocky bank in which the grotto is found was cut back, before and during the Crusader occupation. **

In the Crusader church, the exterior of the aedicule (fig. 3) was limited on the south side by the large cruciform pier to the east (pl. 35) and by the smaller square pier with a granite column on the west side (pls. 34 and 37, and fig. 3, ssp); the latter pier was apparently located there to

help support the vaults in the fifth and sixth bays on the north side of the basilica. On this south side, in “front” of the aedicule (pl. 34), Bagatti reports so many cuttings of different periods that it is impossible to discern the exact original shape of the aedicule’s exterior. Nonetheless, Bagatti accepts the former existence here of a part of the rock bank in which the Chapel of the Angel was originally cut, abutting what is now left of the grotto aedicule.*? The total width of this south face of the grotto aedicule today is 5.2 m, not including the square pier.

On the eastern side (pls. 35 and 36), the aedicule is faced with Crusader masonry running straight back along the cruciform pier (from which it is separate) and then at a slight diagonal to the north side. Bagatti reported this wall as 1.6 m high from the level of the Crusader floor in the north aisle, and the total length of this wall is 5.1 m.“ The west side of the aedicule (pls. 37 and 38), partly of the Crusader period and partly earlier work, runs straight back from the square pier to which it is bonded, a total distance of 4.79 m. The corner at the north end was finished off in Crusader masonry and rises to a height of 1.74

m. The grotto rock is faced along the west side with a Crusader wall, except in the lower , central section, where various cavities cut in the stone were left exposed. In addition, a small set of stairs cut in the rock was apparently used to ascend to the top of the aedicule (figs. 2 and 3, sc). Adjacent to these stairs is the pier mentioned above (fig. 3, SspP).*° On the north side (pls. 36 and 38), the rock of the grotto is roughly dressed, with Crusader masonry framing it on the top and down the northwest and northeast corners. The face is 4.42 m long. This end of the grotto aedicule was set off by the shallow apse in the north wall of the

, sixth bay (fig. 3, B6) of the Crusader church."® Finally, the top of the grotto aedicule (pl. 36) is formed of rough stone, still in its natural state, with two smal! apertures of uncertain use. Bagatti reports, in addition, only that there was a rocky pavement here in the medieval period and that this top area was made accessible by the little stairway on the west side (pl. 37): “Probably the open top served as a platform for a

small altar [in Crusader times].”*” ,

Unfortunately, Bagatti found nothing beyond what Viaud’s excavations had revealed about the critical area directly in front (pl. 34); that is, to the south of the grotto aedicule, where the Chapel of the Angel has been identified on the basis of the accounts of medieval pilgrims and

THE SHRINE-GROTTO: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 19 the reports of observers such as Quaresmius and Roger that reflect the state of the shrine-grotto

before 1730." However, from the Byzantine period there do survive the two small stairways, the mosaic floor of Conon southwest of the aedicule, and the square pier.*? Bagatti accepts Viaud’s and Vlaminck’s interpretations for these stairs, the Conon mosaic, and the cuttings in

the rock bank, which define the position and width of the Chapel of the Angel.”° , On the basis of these archaeological findings and the pilgrims’ reports, a tentative conclusion can be drawn about the shrine-grotto aedicule complex in the Crusader period (see figs. 2 and 3; pls. 72 and 73). The grotto aedicule existed as an irregularly shaped rectangle with a flat exterior top surface measuring roughly 4.5 m along the north side, 4.8 m on the south, 5.7 m | on the east, and 5.6 m on the west. On the front of this aedicule, at least at the same height, was a long rectangular chamber that came to be known as the “Chapel of the Angel.” This was

approximately 3.0 m wide and in length stretched from the east edge of the aedicule to the western stairs, probably to the northwest cruciform pier, thus giving access to the Conon mosaic, a distance of about 10.6 m.

The original height of the main body of the aedicule grotto complex remains uncertain. According to Viaud, the extant part rose 3.0 m above the level of the Crusader nave, and according to Bagatti, it was slightly less, about 2.7 m. It seems reasonable to suppose, however, that the height of the intended monument, if ever completed, would have been considerably greater than either of these figures, a conclusion based on comparison with other monuments in the Holy Land in which a baldacchino surmounts the aedicule, as seems to have been

_ the case in Nazareth. Whereas in the Byzantine period entrance to the grotto was from either of , two stairways, a situation still apparently observed by Abbot Daniel around 1106/7, it seems

that the shift described in the pilgrims’ accounts of the 1170s means that the Crusaders had , modified the entry area. The stairway on the east end of the east-west axis was closed off, presumably because it was an awkward intrusion into the oriented apse end of the Crusader church and because it was not wanted for the Crusader Chapel of the Angel. The stairway on © the west end of the east-west axis, whose entry arch was decorated, according to Johannes Phocas, was retained and served as the main entrance to the grotto complex below ground. Above ground, plans were apparently made to decorate the exterior of this the shrine-monument, perhaps as part of the scheme reflected in the account of Johannes Phocas. This project, first hinted at in the texts in the 1170s, was unfortunately never fully carried out, but the five Nazareth capitals, so delicately and beautifully carved for interior use, seem to indicate that the project was at least begun.** Indeed, the Nazareth capitals were fully completed but, for whatever reason, never put in place. Possibly, as has often been suggested, the capitals were buried because of the dire threat of Moslem invasion in the early 1180s, which of course became a reality with the conquest by Saladin in 1187.** Oddly enough, although access to Nazareth was regained by the Crusaders in 1229, the project to decorate the exterior of the grotto aedicule was apparently not taken up again, and the capitals remained buried for safekeeping, never to

be seen until Prosper Viaud discovered them in 1908.

, In order to understand the nature and meaning of these extraordinary capitals, it is essential to envision the context for which they seem to have been designed; namely, to serve as part of

the exterior decoration of the shrine-monument.” Because this project was never carried out, a however, we have to resort to other sources for information on what this project may have _ looked like. The high quality of these capitals would seem to justify such an effort, but one must deal with probability and likelihood, not certainty. Because the Crusader Shrine of the Annunciation was apparently never completed, there can be no exact western European reflections of its final configuration, as there are in the case of the imitations of the Holy Sepulchre.

20 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS , The aedicule of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is a useful point of departure for considering the shrine-monument in Nazareth because it was the major holy site of the Crusaders. More-

over, some of its history during the Crusader period is known; namely, that it was the immediate focus of attention after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, and we know something of its shape thereafter.**? The designer(s) of the Nazareth project would likely have been influenced by the Holy Sepulchre as a model because some of the same practical, symbolic, and religious

problems were associated with both shrines. |

Even though the aedicule complex of the Annunciation was not primarily a tomb-monument, there were nonetheless tombs in it. And one can recall here, mutatis mutandis, what Grabar has written about the tradition of church building developed in Early Christian times: “Christian sanctuaries which were erected on... these ‘holy places,’ though they were far from being tombs, nevertheless adopted the usual architectural forms of the martyria.””° Furthermore, we seem to have a clear precedent for the influence of the aedicule of the Holy Sepulchre on a shrine-monument dedicated to the Virgin: the Tomb of the Virgin in Gethsemane. This tomb-monument was restored by the Crusaders in the years prior to 1161, probably during the lifetime of Queen Melisende and under her patronage. As reconstructed by A. Prodomo, this monument reflects the two-story configuration of the Holy Sepulchre, with arcading around the lower story and a polygonal baldacchino on top.”’ Finally, if those in charge of the Crusader Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth were seeking to enhance its status as a major holy site, despite its relatively isolated location to the north of Jerusalem, they might well have sought to base the design of the shrine-monument and its decoration on earlier hallowed shrines of comparable importance in Jerusalem; and they

might well have attempted to improve on these older models by introducing a program of figural sculpture. As we shall see, the strong association in contemporary thinking of the tomb of the Virgin in the Valley of Josaphat with the House of the Virgin in Nazareth—an associa-

tion brought about by the Crusader presence in the Holy Land—would also be a factor in

making this presumed parallel. , , If we compare the Shrine of the Annunciation, the House of the Virgin, as it existed in the

Crusader period (fig. 3) with the Holy Sepulchre, we can see that some important parallels link the two.** Both were focused on cave grottoes carved in the living rock, as Burchardus de Monte Sion observed in 1283; both grottoes were cut down and sheltered by aediculae; and both had a bipartite composition that consisted of an inner “sanctuary” and an entry module in front. Indeed, both are conceptually similar: The plan at Nazareth, where the rectangular Chapel of the Angel is placed in front of the rather irregularly shaped rear grotto element, resembles the plan at the Holy Sepulchre.” I propose, in addition, that the shrine-monument of the Annunciation was probably intended to be a two-story structure, that it was to be decorated with arcading around at least part of the lower story, and that it was to be topped with some sort of baldacchino. I base this assumption on the presumed wish to imitate an important and sacred model like the Holy Sepulchre. Like the tomb of the Virgin in the Valley of Josaphat, the Shrine of the Annunciation in Nazareth would probably not have imitated the design of the Holy Sepulchre exactly because there were important differences in each specific situation. The Crusader aedicule of the Holy Sepulchre was decorated with arcading around the exterior of the rear chamber, but there were ‘no arcades around the front unit; in Nazareth, however, this situation would probably have been reversed. On one hand, it is unlikely that there would have been arcading around the rear grotto aedicule in Nazareth because the Crusader masonry slopes out at the base on the north

| side (pls. 37 and 38), and the exposed grotto rock basins on the west side would have made

~ THE SHRINE-GROTTO: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 21. such arcading impossible. On the other hand, it seems highly probable that some arcading was planned because medieval shrine-monuments in the Holy Land are more often embellished with arcading than not, and because the large rectangular capital from Nazareth (pl. 26) would . seem to be intended for use in exactly this kind of setting. The relief character of this capital,

- with its proportional emphasis on breadth rather than depth, its flaring design that widens strongly from bottom to top, and its semicircular drum, intended for use with an engaged semicolumn support below, are characteristics that would seem to fit an arcading scheme well.

Certainly, this reconstruction seems more convincing than some of the other suggestions advanced so far, of which the most prominent is the hypothesis that the rectangular capital was

designed to decorate a trumeau.*°

, The arcading at Nazareth was probably intended to surround the front section of the Annunciation monument (fig. 3), the Chapel of the Angel.?' Although this arrangement differs from the arrangement known at the Holy Sepulchre, it may be explained by the very different architectural contexts of the aedicules of the two shrines. Whereas the Holy Sepulchre was centered under a rotunda and entered by a central west portal on axis with the nave of the © church, the grotto aedicule complex at Nazareth was located on the north side of the east end of

the church. What presumably was needed there was an arcade that would screen off the shrine-monument and thereby focus attention on its existence and importance, functioning much as a choir screen does in the apse or chevet of a church. Moreover, this arcade “screen,” _ through its historiated capitals, was apparently given an iconographic program, by which the

, monument was to be related didactically and liturgically to the holy site of the Annunciation. Thus we propose that the Chapel of the Angel, with its offset entry and somewhat awkward intrusion into the northern nave at bays five and six, would have been integrated with the church and yet set off from it by arcades running more or less flush along the exterior of the “front” of the rectangle, from the cruciform pier in the northeast to the cruciform pier in the

northwest. *? | , ! This seems to be the limit of the knowledge about the shrine-monument complex in Naza- |

reth that can be extracted from the excavation report. It would seem peculiar, however, for , such a relatively large shrine to be only one story high. Not only is the two-story aedicule of the Holy Sepulchre a possible model, but we also have the extraordinary polygonal capitals of Nazareth themselves as evidence. Presuming that they were intended for use on such a shrinemonument, these polygonal capitals would not fit on an arcade—the location proposed forthe | rectangular capital—but would more likely have been placed on the superstructure of such a two-story monument.°*?

BLANK PAGE

_ ‘The Shrine-Grotto of the Annunciation: Iconographic _ Evidence and Further

Historical Considerations

, T is difficult to visualize what the superstructure of the Nazareth shrine-monument was | intended to look like. Because the superstructure was apparently never put up, we obvi- : ously can suggest its appearance only in very general terms, carefully using all available

scraps of evidence in conjunction with the polygonal capitals. What other evidence is there? | Partly because the shrine-monument of the Annunciation in Nazareth was never completed, reflections of the holy site are rarely found in the West.’ The only European pilgrimage shrine that is directly associated with the Holy House of the Virgin and is contemporary with the Crusader church in Nazareth was of course the famous Shrine of Our Lady in Walsingham,

Norfolk, England. This English monument may help shed some light on the situation in Nazareth. Contemporary imagery that contains depictions of the Virgin’s house, especially representations of the Annunciation, may also be of possible relevance. Finally, although itis not contemporary, the Santa Casa in Loreto, given its claim to be the Holy House of the Virgin, may also be useful as a distant reflection of what the twelfth-century Crusader shrine was intended to be. We shall examine each category of evidence in turn to see what light it may

shed on the original conception of the shrine-monument in Nazareth. ,

The Chapel of Our Lady, built in Walsingham after 1130-31 by Richelde of Fervaques, was planned as a reproduction of the House of the Virgin in Nazareth. Inside the chapel was a statue of Gabriel and a famous statue of the Virgin Mary that is depicted on extant pilgrims’ badges.

By 1153 the chapel had been served by Austin Canons.* Walsingham was probably most

famous in more recent times because of its unsympathetic treatment by Erasmus in The Colloguys.? Had it not been destroyed after it was sold in the sixteenth century, the Chapel of Our Lady would be of prime importance for our inquiry here. Unfortunately, we know all too little from contemporary texts about the exact appearance of this shrine in the Middle Ages,

24 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS

and the excavations carried out in the mid-nineteenth century shed little light on the site.+ Nonetheless, two points should be noted. Measurements made of the shrine in the fifteenth , century indicate that it was a rectangular chapel measuring 23 feet 6 inches by 12 feet 10 inches.

These measurements seem to be corroborated by the modern excavations. Furthermore, the shrine seems to have been two stories high, as indicated by the text of Erasmus and by the fact that the shrine is depicted on some pilgrims’ badges as a double-decker structure. °

_ Walsingham’s Chapel of Our Lady, started after 1131, had probably been completed by I1$3—too early to reflect the final plan for the Nazareth shrine, which seems to date to the 1170s. Nonetheless, it is significant that such a shrine existed in the West in the twelfth century, , for this would seem to demonstrate that there was active interest at that time in the House of the Virgin in Nazareth, if not to the same degree as the interest in the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. In addition, presuming that the shrine in Walsingham must have borne some visual relationship to the one in Nazareth—because of the claim that Walsingham reproduced the House of the Virgin—the rectangular structure in Walsingham probably echoed some aspect of

the Nazareth shrine, possibly the Chapel of the Angel in the nave of the Church of the Annunciation. Finally, even though Walsingham apparently predates the plans for the decoration of the exterior of the grotto aedicule in Nazareth, it is noteworthy that this English shrine, which was meant to imitate the House of the Virgin, was surmounted by a superstructure of

some kind. Thus, a two-story arrangement of the House of the Virgin was current in the thinking of twelfth-century artists, even in western Europe. The iconography of Annunciation images from 1100 on yields evidence of a different sort. Most representations of the Annunciation in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries include no architectural setting at all,° but among those that do, a simple arcade is often used to indicate

the House of the Virgin (pls. 42 and 43).’? This may be a medieval reduction of the rectangular house found in Annunciation scenes in Early Christian art.* Occasionally, more complex versions of the arcade setting appear, as on the Rhineland ivory relief of the Annunciation, about 1100 (pl. 44), and in the Monreale Cloister Annunciation of c. 1200(?) (pl. 45), which clearly represent a ciborium or baldacchino.’ This evidence simply indicates that among the options open to an artist in the twelfth century representations of the House of the Virgin in the form of an arcade or a baldacchino—that is, as a piece of “liturgical furniture’—were possible. It is only about 1300, with the developing artistic interest in space and systems of perspective, that a major change occurs in the representation of the Annunciation.*° In mosaics and paintings the setting becomes important.'t Works by Duccio, Pietro Cavallini and Jean Pucelle in particular show an important break with prior Romanesque and Gothic depictions. It seems obvious, however, with some possible exceptions, that most of the newer representations of the House of the Virgin are improvisations in the absence of a definitive model—the model Nazareth could have provided had its shrine-monument been completed, had its church not been destroyed in 1263, and had access to Nazareth not become extremely difficult because of its situation in Moslem-held territory after that date. What models or ideas did artists use for the House of the Virgin after 1263 in the quest to provide a suitable setting for the Annunciation? Cavallini’s mosaic in Sta. Maria in Trastevere (1291) is one example. His elaborate structure draws in part on the Early Christian tradition based on classical building types.'* Completely different settings are used by Duccio on the Maesta Altar (1311). Whereas Duccio’s Annunciation scene is set in a rather fanciful open-air portico with the Virgin located in a little room, the Virgin’s house in his Annunciation of the

Death of the Virgin has developed into a closed interior consisting of two parts: a room for the , Virgin and the entrance foyer, in front of which the angel stands.*? This same idea is worked

THE SHRINE-GROTTO: ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 25 out more rationally by Jean Pucelle in The Hours of Jeanne d’Evreux (1325-28), where the setting is now a separate building fully viewed from the front, with a room and entrance foyer beneath a second story.'* One wonders if Pucelle and Duccio may have tried to learn something about

with some authenticity. , , | the holy site of the Annunciation in Nazareth in order to represent the House of the Virgin

It is striking that Pucelle and Duccio, as opposed to the numerous other artists who represent the house as a little box’® or some kind of ecclesiastical structure,” reflect the plan of the holy

shrine in its simplest bipartite aspect, reproducing in effect the “angel’s chapel” and the Virgin’s a

“room.” This is especially notable since it is just before this time that Nazareth was removed , from Christian control, and word of the shrine in Nazareth may have reached the artists from refugee Crusaders returning to Europe. In addition, the house setting used in the new iconogra-

phy of the Annunciation of the death of the Virgin during the second half of the twelfth century draws on the same sources used for the depiction of the House of the Virgin of the Annunciation and shows a similar development. This is a matter of some interest with regard

to texts recounting the death of the Virgin.*’ The image of the Annunciation by Jean Pucelle in The Hours of Jeanne d’Evreux is an important point of departure for considering the last in the series of monuments bearing on the House

of the Virgin—namely, the Holy House of Loreto. Many years ago, Erwin Panofsky raised the possibility of a relationship between Pucelle’s image of the Annunciation and the Santa Casa, based on the suggestion that the angels in the miniature are carrying the house even while the Annunciation is going on!"® Furthermore, we see that the depiction of the house with a gabled roof recurs, in more simplified form, in the sixteenth-century images of the Santa Casa and of Our Lady of Loreto."® There are, however, two important points at which Loreto iconography diverges from that of Pucelle. First, in Loreto imagery the Annunciation is not represented;

rather, both the Virgin and Child are shown in association with the Holy House. Second, Loreto iconography itself undergoes a major change around 1510. After this date it reflects the kind of gabled house-chapel—seen as early as Giotto in Italian painting and much preferred by Renaissance artists—that was eventually realized in the shrine of the Santa Casa so beautifully decorated in the sixteenth century.” Before 1510, however, the Santa Casa, the Holy House of

the Virgin from Nazareth, is not usually represented as a house at all, but by arcading ora ciborium or baldacchino in a variety of different shapes, with angels supporting the columns.”

In traditional media such as fresco and panel painting, one normally finds depictions of the © Holy House as an elaborate rectangular ciborium (for example, by Luca Signorelli) or as a hexagon (for example, by Lorenzo d’ Alessandro da Sanseverino).** In woodcuts and engravings

one finds these same types of ciboria or baldacchinos, as seen, for example, in three North Italian examples (pl. 46).73 There are often close ties between the representations in paintings and in the new graphic media as, for example, between a fifteenth-century panel painting in Rome and a northern Italian engraving (pl. 46).*4* A few early medals also display the baldac-

chino iconography.” a oo

The early Loreto images in this series, c. 1400-1450, depart from the Duccio—Giotto—Pucelle

iconography and seem in effect to be reflections of the arcade type of setting used for the

Annunciation in the twelfth century. Antonio da Alatri, for example, depicts the Holy House around 1430 as a simple arched niche, and a fresco in Tolentino dated 1454 shows the Virgin and Child in front of an arcaded room.*° These images are striking because they depart from the iconography for the setting of the Annunciation current in western Europe at the time. Moreover, the images of the Holy House of Loreto—more properly, Our Lady of Loreto— which follow later in the fifteenth century, usually show a rectangular ciborium ora polygonal _ ,

26 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS baldacchino instead of the box-house, ecclesiastical structure, or Flemish interior commonly

, found in the scenes of the Annunciation.

The reasons for this innovation in the iconography of the Holy House of Loreto are difficult to explain with certainty. One can readily imagine that in seeking a distinctive way to represent the new devotional image of Our Lady of Loreto, artists may have wished to refer to some part of the shrine of the Santa Casa at Loreto and to avoid the fanciful imagery currently in use for the setting of the Annunciation.*’ But, in view of the claim that the Santa Casa was in fact the

Holy House of the Virgin from Nazareth, one also wonders if this Loreto iconography was

chosen to reflect the connection with Nazareth in some specific way. At most, the use of arcading or a baldacchino in Loreto iconography of the fifteenth century might relate to - twelfth- and thirteenth-century notions of the Holy House as found in images of the Annunciation, and result from an effort to differentiate the Santa Casa from the other settings purporting

, to be the House of the Virgin. The aim would be to give the Loreto image a certain authenticity.”° In this way, the pre-1510 Loreto iconography may provide a slender thread of continuity with the traditional way of representing the Holy House in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The fact that it was deemed suitable to use an arcade or a baldacchino to represent the Santa Casa of Loreto in the fifteenth century would not diminish the probability

that such elements were intended to form a part of the structure of the shrine-grotto in Nazareth in the 1170s. Quite the contrary, the Loreto evidence seems to lend credence to this idea, for it may serve as a distant mirror of what artists in fifteenth-century Italy thought would be appropriate and authentic for a holy shrine of the twelfth century in Nazareth.”

If we have succeeded in establishing the historical possibility that arcading and a baldac-

, chino were intended to be part of a two-story shrine in Nazareth, what would this monument have looked like, and how would the five capitals have been related to it? As evidence to deal with these questions we have mainly the Nazareth capitals themselves and other extant shrine-monuments in the Holy Land to guide us, as well as the iconographic evidence from western Europe. We have discussed the relationship of the large rectangular capital to possible arcading on the

lower part of the shrine monument. The problem of determining the shape of the baldacchino , is difficult because the evidence seems to be confusing and contradictory. In Loreto iconography there exists both rectangular and polygonal ciboria. Both alternatives can also be found in late medieval Annunciation iconography in Northern Europe; for example, on the left wing of the Dijon Altarpiece (1394-99) by Melchior Broederlam, as compared to Willem Vrelant’s dedication image for the Treatise on the Annunciation of 1461 in Brussels (Royal Library, Ms. 9270, fol. 2v) (pl. 47).3° In the Crusader period the extant ciboria in Europe normally seem to be rectangular in shape, while, by contrast, the extant shrine-monuments in the Holy Land are

, usually polygonal in design.?* It would no doubt help a great deal if we knew more about the numerous shrines, mostly tomb-monuments, put up in honor of major saints in Europe.*? Unfortunately, the polygonal capitals from Nazareth do not themselves seem to relate precisely

to any one of the possibilities mentioned. ,

When Prosper Viaud first published the polygonal capitals in 1910, he proposed: “Ces chapi- teaux étaient donc placés aux angles d’un monument carré ou rectangulaire.”3? The basis for his statement was no doubt the remarkable characteristics of the capitals. It seems clear from their

shape that they were intended to be fully exposed on the exterior corners of an interior monument. Their relatively small size and the extremely delicate carving in the grainy Nazareth stone point to a sheltered interior location on a richly decorated monument as opposed to the architectural fabric of the church exterior itself. When Viaud specified a square or rectangu-

THE SHRINE-GROTTO: ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 27 lar monument, he was no doubt basing himself on the fact that the reentrant angle for the rear tongue elements of the polygonal capitals approximated a right angle, as we have observed.** Other factors, however, may leave open the possibility that the monument was a polygonal baldacchino. Whatever the proposed shape of the baldacchino of the monument in Nazareth, it is clear from the capitals that it would not have been a simple, conventional structure supported by columns that Enlart supposed Viaud to be thinking of, but rather a structure involving piers or walls with corners into which the tongue elements of the capitals were to be placed. When Viaud refers to a “monument,” he seems to be envisioning something rather different from the rectangular ciboria so familiar, for example, from churches in southern Italy.*° Nonetheless, there are problems with the idea that it was square or rectangular. Although the tongue element of the capitals could be nicely accommodated in a rectangular monument, the 135-degree angles of the faces of the architectural canopies of the polygonal capitals could not (fig. 5), as seen, for example, on the upper story of the tomb of Prince Bohemond of Antioch at the cathedral of Canosa di Puglia, dated about 1111 (pls. 39 and 40).*° In this instance, the use of capitals with polygonal abaci having “front” angles of 135 degrees defines the octagonal shape of the domed

3

, superstructure of the tomb. :

The prevalence of polygonal structures in the Holy Land during the Crusader period in the twelfth century is striking. In addition to the Holy Sepulchre, with its hexagonal baldacchino above the tomb chamber,” and the similar element on the Tomb of the Virgin,** there is the octagonal Church of the Ascension.*? From the Haram come the examples of the octagonal Dome of the Rock, which had been consecrated as the Templum Domini by 1142,*° and the octagonal Qubbat al-Mi’raj, which may have served as the Crusader baptistery for the Templum Domini.*’ These monuments, polygons of various sizes and varying complexity, would

C.90°Os a

Fic. 5. Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation. Plan of the hypothetical baldacchino (B) on the shrine-monument over the grotto (as at the level of the top of the polygonal capitals)

28 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS , seem more likely to have been immediate models for the Nazareth shrine than structures from the more remote West. This seems probable, not only because these polygonal structures were located in the Crusader East, and because the unusual polygonal shape of the Nazareth capitals must have harmonized with the design of the monument for which they were carved, but also because of the practical, liturgical, and symbolic needs these Eastern monuments shared with

Nazareth. | | |

, The complex composite piers of the Qubbat al-Mi’raj (pl. 48), with their multiple capitals, would seem to call into doubt the assumption that one can reconstruct a pier element with any certainty from looking only at one capital belonging to it. Given the unique character of the

Nazareth capitals as engaged historiated polygons, one is at least entitled to consider the possibility that the baldacchino above the Nazareth grotto (figs. 2 and 3, B) was an octagon built on triangular or even rectangular piers, which approximated right angles on the outside,

or “front,” angles (fig. 5). |

Unfortunately, the only architectural fragment found at Nazareth that seems to relate directly to the polygonal capitals cannot decisively help us to resolve the issue of the polygonal versus the rectangular baldacchino monument, but it certainly sustains the idea of a corner pier. This is a broken fluted polygonal column carved in a dense whitish stone (pls. 32 and 33), now located in the garden of the Franciscan Convent adjacent to the present gatehouse. Although the find _ spot of this piece has not been precisely reported, it appears to have been discovered in the excavations of the 1950s.*? This fragmentary column is 61.5 cm high (maximum) and 28.6 cm wide on its cross-axis, with six smooth and relatively shallow flutes each 11.0 cm wide from point to point. The seventh, or back, side of this column is roughly dressed (pl. 33) and was obviously meant to abut a chamfered corner 19.5 cm wide. The unbroken end of this column expands to a width of 32.7 cm on the cross-axis with a vertical flat surface 2.8 cm high. It will be evident that this expanded end exactly matches the scalloped base of the Nazareth polygonal capitals in configuration and dimensions. Only limited conclusions can be drawn from the evidence of this one fragmentary column. First, the slender, delicate proportions of the column and its flutes would seem to accord with the notion of a richly articulated baldacchino monument. Even if the idea of freestanding columns as the sole support was abandoned in favor of a composite pier design, as with the Bohemond of | Antioch tomb-monument or the Qubbat al-M)1’raj (pls. 39, 40, and 48), engaged columns would have been retained to articulate the corners beneath the polygonal capitals. Second, the angle of the rear side of the column and the fact that the shaft was engaged as a separate piece to its

structural armature probably indicates its use on some kind of baldacchino monument, as op- , posed to its having served as a jamb colonette, for example. But the flat rear side could have been

, used either on a monument with chamfered corners or on a chamfered right-angled pier and thus cannot guide us conclusively with regard to the shape of the baldacchino.

From the current state of knowledge about the Nazareth excavations of the 1950s and 1960s, it would be ill-advised to go much beyond this point in attempting to visualize the Crusader Shrine of the Annunciation. Not only is this a unique monument for a major holy site, and a

, monument that can, as a type, vary considerably in shape,“ but, in addition, the full archaeological evidence has not yet been fully evaluated.

, Bagatti’s archaeological report, published in 1984, yields critical information on several matters that will help us to evaluate the proposals made above. While no other architectural fragments have as yet come to light that relate directly to the Nazareth capitalsk—and could , therefore aid our understanding of the hypothetical baldacchino and its exact configuration—

THE SHRINE-GROTTO: ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 29

the full report of recent finds clearly indicates that there may have been other polygonal capitals.45 Evidence that other polygonal capitals were carved or intended of course favors the ©

hypothesis that the baldacchino was polygonal. ,

Finally, other evidence intrinsic to the five capitals relates to the shrine-monument and the location that we have proposed for them. Presumably, the polygonal baldacchino was intended

to form the second story of the grotto section of the monument and was to surmount the platform (4.5 by 5.7 by 4.8 by 5.6 m) of the top of the rock mentioned by Bagatti (figs. 3 and _ 5, B).*° Bagatti is right about the existence of the baldacchino, but we differ in reconstructing its shape and size because of a different interpretation of the archaeological and sculptural evidence.

I believe that the polygonal capitals were made specifically for use on the baldacchino and could | not have been intended for the decoration of a church portal. Using the capitals as the basis of my reconstruction of the baldacchino, I propose that the planned structure must have had a diameter nearly twice the size indicated by Bagatti, that its shape must have been octagonal (as shown in figure 5), and that it must have been located on the platform of the shrine-monument. Bagatti reconstructs the baldacchino as a smaller hexagon, and he offers no justification except for some general comparisons with other monuments and the evidence of six small

rectangular (!) capital fragments in marble and basalt. ,

_ If the baldacchino as I reconstruct it was placed on the finished grotto platform (figs. 2 and 3,

B), whose top surface Viaud and Bagatti estimate to have been approximately 3.0 m above the , floor of the Crusader nave, the baldacchino piers would have risen about 2.0 m above the platform, and the polygonal capitals would have been located between 5.0 and 6.0 m above

floor level. In contrast, the rectangular capital, which I locate on the arcading screen around the , rectangular unit at the front of the structure, the “Chapel of the Angel” (figs. 2 and 3, Ca), . would presumably have been somewhat lower—about 3.0 to 4.0 m above floor level. The smaller size of the polygonal capitals in relation to the rectangular capital would be in accord with these differing placements. Moreover, the foreshortening of the figures on the polygonal capitals and the relationship of their heads to their haloes seem to provide further evidence for

this placement of the capitals. © ,

On both the rectangular and polygonal capitals the heads are offset (pls. 7-27); that is, they are located below the center of their haloes. In conjunction with the angle of the figures that projects upward from the vertical axis of the capitals from feet to head, this establishes, in effect, an optimum viewing angle. When the viewer stands at the planned distance below the capitals, the heads will appear correctly positioned in the center of the haloes. It is clear from careful examination of the offset of the heads that the viewing angle is steeper on the polygonal capitals (42 degrees from the vertical) than on the rectangular capital (58 degrees from the vertical). This indicates that the polygonal capitals were to be placed higher than the rectangular © capital, although it would be difficult to say precisely what heights were intended.*’ This aspect of the capitals would tend to support our hypothetical reconstruction of their placement. It would also tend to cast doubt on reconstructions in which the capitals are placed at nearly equal

heights, or in which the rectangular capital is located even higher than the polygons. :

Finally, the main points of view of the scenes are different on each polygonal capital. For , example, the primary view of the Saint Thomas capital (pls. 7-12) is from directly in front, on the central axis of the capital, and there are secondary views from the sides. In contrast, two primary views of the Saint Peter capital (pls. 2 and 3) are at roughly 45-degree angles from the central axis of the capital, but no view is planned from the front at all. Similar variety is found

on the other two polygonal capitals. This variation in the direction of the primary views would ,

30 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS

be in accord with the proposed reconstruction of these capitals on a baldacchino that was situated on the platform of the aedicule between two large cruciform piers. The differing points

of view for which these capitals seem to have been designed would reflect the fact that the capitals were planned to be seen to their best advantage in relation to the piers on either side of the south end of the aedicule platform, piers which would have obstructed certain viewpoints __ and permitted others.

The Iconography of the

Pol | Capitals: OLY2Z Ona apita S.

Text and Image ITH the foregoing hypothetical reconstruction of the architectural context of the

\ X , Nazareth capitals in mind, we can turn to a consideration of their iconographic

program. Not only must we reconsider some of the individual scenes on the capitals, which do not in every case seem to be convincingly identified, but we must also ask questions about the ensemble as a whole. To the extent that we can shed some light on these matters, it

will be possible to evaluate the suitability of these capitals for a shrine-monument of the Annunciation as proposed and to assess the relative incompleteness in their figural decoration. Four polygonal capitals are decorated with scenes from the lives of the apostles (pls. 2-25). The iconographic problems raised by the individual scenes have heretofore been the main focus © of attention, obviously because of the rarity of some of the images and the uncertain context of

the scenes. If, however, we accept the identification of the scenes on these four capitals as pertaining to Saints Thomas, Peter, James the Greater, and Matthew, there is a larger, more difficult problem to address first: Why would a series of capitals with scenes from the lives of the apostles be appropriate decoration for the shrine-monument of the Annunciation in Nazareth? Only after dealing with this question can we attempt to comment on the individual scenes

and why they would have been chosen for such a program. Moreover, only with these iconographic issues in view can we reevaluate our proposal that these capitals were intended for the baldacchino of the grotto. - , The link between the apostles and the Shrine of the Annunciation in Nazareth seems un-

doubtedly to be centered on the House of the Virgin, which the monument in the Church of the Annunciation both incorporated and was meant to symbolize. To understand the relationship between the apostles and the House of the Virgin, we must turn once again to Loreto, where the House of the Virgin from Nazareth was believed to have been taken by the fifteenth

32 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS century. The earliest extant text that records the full story of the translation of the Holy House of the Virgin from Nazareth to Loreto was written in 1472 by Pietro di Giorgio Tolomei from the city of Teramo.’ The first part of this text, which deals with the significance of the Holy House, is of considerable interest for this phase of our inquiry. Teremanus wrote:

I Nota quod alma ecclesia 2 Sancte Marie de Loreto fuit cammera domus gloriosissime 3 Virginis Marie matris domini nostri Jhesu Christi. Que 4 domus fuit in partibus Jerusalem Jude in civitate Gallilee § cui nomen Nazareth. In qua cammera virgo Maria fuit 6 nata et ibi educata et postea ab archangelo Gabriele 7 salutata, et demum in dicta cammera nutrivit filium 8 suum Jhesum Christum usque ad etatem duo decim annorum. 9 Demum post ascensionem domini nostri Jhesu Christi IO. in celum remansit beata virgo Maria in terra cum II apostolis et aliis discipulis Christi. Qui videntes multa I2 mysteria divina fuisse facta in dicta cammera,

| 13 decreverunt de communi consensu omnium de dicta

I4 cammera facere unam ecclesiam ad honorem et I§5 memoriam virginis Marie, et ita factum fuit, et deinde 16 apostoli et discipuli illam cammeram consecrarunt 17 in ecclesiam et ibi celebrarunt divina mysteria. Et 18 beatus Lucas evangelista cum suis maribus fecit ibidem IQ unam imaginem ad similitudinem b. Marie Virginis, que 20 ibi est in hodiernam diem. Demum dicta ecclesia 21 fuit habitata et honorata cum magna devocione et 22 reverencia ab illo populo cristiano.*

Some aspects of the holy grotto mentioned by the pilgrims of the Crusader period (10991291) correspond to this account of the Holy House by Teremanus: that Mary was born here, that the Annunciation took place here, and that Mary raised Jesus here.? There are, however, some notable elements in the pilgrims’ texts not found in the account of Teremanus. Some texts refer to the grave of Saint Joseph and to an altar of Saint Michael in the holy grotto, components not included by Teremanus. Teremanus, on the other hand, mentions two large and important elements not found in the pilgrims’ accounts: first, the association of this house with the Virgin and the apostles after the Ascension of Jesus, an association culminating in the

house. |

consecration of the house as a church dedicated to the Virgin, where the apostles celebrated the divine mysteries; second, the statement that Saint Luke painted the portrait of the Virgin in this

Htiffer, in his critical edition of Teremanus’s text, refers the reader to a selection of apocry- , phal gospels in an attempt to account for the various components of the report.* In principle, this is a useful approach; however, reference to the apocryphal gospels alone does not explain the curious mélange of events in Teremanus’s text, and those sources do not contain all the elements that Teremanus includes; moreover, this indication of course ignores the pilgrims’ descriptions and other relevant accounts.* The most conspicuous addition in Teremanus’s account (and the most interesting with regard to the Nazareth capitals carved with scenes of the

, THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE POLYGONAL CAPITALS 33 lives of the apostles) is the connection of the Holy House with the Virgin and with the apostles after the Ascension. Whereas we can find sources in the apocryphal gospels for most of the elements in lines 1-8 of the Teremanus text, lines 9-17 constitute a special unit. The essential problem here is the somewhat vague conception of the House of the Virgin. The confusing fact is that the Virgin lived in many houses, not only in Nazareth, but also in Jerusalem,° Bethlehem,’ Egypt,* and even Ephesus.? In his text Teremanus obviously gathered

those references to the House of the Virgin that seemed important for Nazareth and, by extension, Loreto. Because opinions differed about the locations of some of the main events in Mary’s life, Teremanus puts together what is, to modern eyes at least, a sometimes surprising list.

The birth of the Virgin, loosely described as taking place in the Virgin’s house, but more properly described as occurring in the house of Joachim and Anna, was usually located in Jerusalem, where indeed the Crusader Church of Saint Anne was built."° Nonetheless, at least one apocryphal text specifies that the Virgin was born in Nazareth, and pilgrims visiting Nazareth in the twelfth century were shown the Virgin’s birthplace in the grotto of the Annunciation." This evidence indicates two things: that when Teremanus wrote his story, Nazareth had a viable claim, if not the sole claim, to be the site of the Virgin’s birth, ** and, more important, that during the Crusader period pilgrims encountered competing claims for the site of the Virgin’s birth at several locations. The phenomenon of associating the same event in the lives of Jesus and

Mary with more than one site is an aspect of the Crusader period that is bound up with the devotional life of the Holy Land and is so far only partly understood. What is clear, however, is that one could find sites, such as the grotto in Nazareth, that were focused by tradition on one important event—in this case, the Annunciation—but to which other events of devotional importance were later attached, such as the birth of Mary. This is not so surprising if one remembers that, after many centuries of Moslem occupation of the Holy Land, it was necessary in the Crusader period to “rediscover” where many of these events had taken place; as a result, competing claims naturally arose, since the textual sources were not in agreement. It is understandable, furthermore, that Teremanus, who, so far as we know, had never visited the Holy Land and was writing nearly two hundred years after the Crusaders had left Syria-Palestine, should situate this group of events in the life of the Virgin at Nazareth, partly as a later manifestation of the same

phenomenon.

The most problematic part of the Teremanus text, lines 9-17, deals with the history of the

Virgin’s house after the Ascension of Christ. There can be little doubt that this section was based upon accounts of the death of the Virgin, as well as with local traditions that pilgrims encountered at the holy sites that came to be associated with Nazareth. How and when did this come about? —

Lines 9-11 recapitulate the biblical information given in the Acts of the Apostles I, but the report (lines 11-17) that the liturgy was performed in this room or house and that the apostles consecrated this chamber as a church “in honor and in memory” of the Virgin seems to be a

composite built up over the centuries.

, The best-known church founded by the apostles in the Holy Land was of course the basilica of Saint Mary, Mount Sion.*? Epiphanius reports the existence of a church on the site where the

apostles resided after the Ascension."* The Venerable Bede refers to this church on Mount Sion , as “ab apostolis fundatam.”’* In the Crusader period the pilgrim Theodorich, visiting Jerusalem

in 1172, refers to the “ecclesia domine nostre sancte Marie” on Mount Sion; and in 1283 Burchardus de Monte Sion refers to this “locus inquo beata Maria virgo migravit et habitavit,

34 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS

a hundred years before. ,

quandui vixit post ascensionem Domini,”*° even though the church had been destroyed nearly

This venerable church was associated with the Virgin because it was said that not only did she live here after the Ascension but also that she died here.*? The accounts of her death vary widely, however, and there are many contradictory reports as to the location of the Virgin’s house.’® Of those early Greek and Latin texts dated before 628, the account by Saint John places , her house in Bethlehem,” the so-called Transitus B text in Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives,”° and the Transitus A text on Mount Sion.** Early texts in other languages add other remarkable

details. A Coptic text mentions that Peter sanctified an altar in this house,” and a Syriac text ! discusses at great length how the apostles on Mount Sion decided to commemorate the Virgin in ceremonies three times a year.*? These texts reflect a complex development in the evolving tradition of the sites of the Tomb of the Virgin and of her house. What is of interest here is that by the seventh century a relatively stable local tradition had emerged in the East that placed the Virgin’s house on Mount Sion and her tomb in Gethsemane. This situation remained in force until the Crusader period, when renewed direct exposure to

the Near East and new attempts to understand the location of the holy sites in the face of contradictory information in the ancient written sources resulted in these multiple claims. Verdier mentions, for example, the rival sites of Notre Dame of Josaphat, rebuilt in the twelfth

century and decorated then with an important cycle of frescoes (now destroyed), and the Church of Saint Mary on Mount Sion, and it is in this period that a rival tomb of the Virgin was identified in Ephesus.** More important for our concerns, at this time numerous texts were written in western Europe in vernacular languages, especially Old French, that deal with the death and Assumption of the Virgin.* In the context of the newly flourishing cult of the Virgin and the diverse reports on the localizations of sites, the authors of these texts, most of whom had probably never visited the Holy Land, had to resolve the contradictions as they saw fit. In the mid-twelfth century the Anglo-Norman poet Robert Wace wrote the Trespassement Nostre Dame.”° An abbreviated version of this poem is found in several manuscripts. It recounts Mary’s death and Assumption, and the story, somewhat surprisingly, begins in Nazareth: Apres la sainte passion Estoit nostre dame en maison En Nazareth ou el fu nee Molt corocie et esploree.*’

To this “maison en Nazareth” the angel came carrying a palm from paradise to announce Mary’s impending death. Mary then went to the Mount of Olives to pray. Returning to Nazareth, she welcomed Saint John, who came from Ephesus on a cloud: | La nue de la l’aporta En Nazarez l’a descendu En l’ostel ou la dame fu.” Any connection between these verses, apparently written shortly after 1150, and the Teremanus text is uncertain. Since Teremanus says “post ascensionem” and the abbreviated version of Wace’s poem is “Apres la sainte passion,” Teremanus does not seem to have relied directly on _ this text.*? But he was probably basing his description of the House of the Virgin in Nazareth

THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE POLYGONAL CAPITALS 35

on some text like this that conflated the accounts of the Annunciation and the death and Assumption of the Virgin. This conflation, easily made because of the angelic annunciation in both cases, is significant in conjunction with Wace’s abbreviated text because of the specific references to the House of the Virgin in Nazareth. But the phenomenon whereby the Annunciation and the Assumption began to be conflated is one met with more broadly in the liturgy and poetry of the twelfth century.*° It is striking that Teremanus draws on that tradition instead _

of basing himself on the numerous, other popular accounts of the Assumption in the late Middle Ages; for example, in the Speculum Historiale of Vincent of Beauvais, written after 1253,°. or in the Golden Legend of Jacopo da Voragine, written about 1255,** which do not

include such a conflation. The relationship between the House of the Virgin in Nazareth and events at both the begin-

ning and the end of Mary’s life as presented by Teremanus thus seems to have originated not in the fifteenth century, but at least as early as the twelfth century. Although no specific twelfthor thirteenth-century text has so far come to light that gathers together these events in precisely

the form that Teremanus used, it seems clear that in the Crusader period the associations of these events with the House of the Virgin in Nazareth were beginning to be made in western Europe, no doubt under the impact of renewed direct contact with the holy sites themselves. | The major pilgrims’ accounts of Nazareth do not fully record such a conflation of the events associated with the House of the Virgin. However, shreds of evidence exist to suggest that the phenomenon was known in Nazareth, if not actively or “officially” promoted there. The Church | ,

of the Annunciation in Nazareth was of course the third most holy site in Syria-Palestine con- | nected with the life of Christ, ranking after the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Moreover, it was probably the most important site “primarily”

dedicated to the Virgin.*? Thus, at a time when the cult of the Virgin was growing stronger, , Nazareth would have been a natural focus for her commemoration in the Holy Land. During the twelfth century the Church of the Annunciation had established itself ecclesiastically through several measures. A chapter of Austin Canons had been installed in the church by 1109. The see was raised to a level of an archbishopric sometime shortly after 1125, and the © church became wealthy thanks to its extensive land holdings in western Europe, especially in southern Italy. In this situation, the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, as a major holy

site, had to consider how to care for its numerous pilgrims from the point of view of the liturgy and how to make the holy place a site that other pilgrims would wish to visit.3+ Unfortunately, there are no known medieval liturgical sources that can be specifically and uniquely related to Nazareth and can therefore enlighten us on the services provided at the holy site in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.3° We can, however, see that to some extent Naza-

reth evolved in its role as the site of the Incarnation. In the twelfth century the Church of the , Annunciation was relatively isolated as one of the three major pilgrimage sites in the Holy Land, and it was decidedly the least important of these holy places partly because of its distance from Jerusalem. It is in response to this situation that, I propose, the Shrine of the Annuncia-

tion was planned: to enhance the site and to bring it greater recognition vis-a-vis the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. It was, after all, only in the thirteenth century—after Jerusalem and Bethlehem were definitively lost to the Kwarizmian Turks in 1244—that Nazareth suddenly gained new prestige, because between 1244 and 1263 it became the only major shrine associated with the life of Christ that still remained in Christian

hands.*° | | OO It is in the thirteenth century that one finds an interesting, if indirect, reflection of Nazareth’s enhanced importance in the pilgrims’ accounts. In the text known as Les Pelerinages por aler en

36 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS Therusalem, written about 1231, a reference to Nazareth is made in the context of a comment on , the church at Tortosa, northwest of Nazareth on the coast and due west of Crac des Chevaliers: Et a Tortouse est la premiere yglise de Nostre Dame, et la furent li apostre, et est faite l’yglise a la semblance de cele de Nazareth, etcetera.*” Shortly thereafter, about 1260-63, another text, Les Chemins et les pelerinages de la Terre Sainte, makes a similar reference to Tortosa and Nazareth:

A Tortosa est la primera yglise, qui firent faire les apostles a la semblance de cele de Nazaret.?*

These texts are interesting because of their indirect corroboration of an aspect of the Teremanus

, text found nowhere else; namely, the apostolic foundation of the church in Nazareth. The tradition of the apostolic origin of the church in Tortosa, including the altar established there by Saint Peter, was well known and mentioned by numerous pilgrims in the Crusader period. °° But only these two Old French texts compare the church in Tortosa to that in Nazareth. One reason may be that when the church in Tortosa was being completed in the thirteenth century, Nazareth was the only major church associated with the Virgin that was available for comparison. But more important, Tortosa, it seems, was trying to guard its apostolic pedigree in the

face of what appears to be a similar claim for Nazareth. The Nazareth polygonal capitals decorated with images of the apostles provide, I propose, the other major evidence for this

claim of apostolic foundation. , Although a consensus has never been reached on all aspects of the iconography found on the

polygonal capitals, there is, with one exception, general agreement on which apostles are depicted and on the identification of most of the main episodes.*° Proceeding from the more sure to the more problematic cases, we can identify the images noted in figure 6. Everyone agrees on the identification of the scene of the Doubting Thomas (pls. 4 and 7—12).*’ In the midst of nine standing, barefoot apostles, all but one nimbed and most bearded,** Christ appears (pl. 10) with crossed nimbus; his upper torso is partly exposed to show the wound in his side. Only this wound is indicated; no wounds are visible on his hands or feet. Saint Thomas (pl. 9), the only apostle shown alone on a single face of the capital, advances, not yet kneeling, to verify the existence of his Lord.** Like many other twelfth- or thirteenth-century images of this event in Western art, only a selection of apostles is shown (pls. 7, 8, 11, and 12) and, of the group, only Thomas is individually identifiable. Moreover, the iconography is characteristically West: ern; in contrast to contemporary Byzantine or Crusader iconography, the apostles here are not distinctively typed, and there is no indication of the closed door to the room in which Christ appeared.* The fact that the Thomas capital, alone of the four polygonal capitals, is devoted to only one scene, whereas the others depict two or more scenes, seems to give it special prominence. The suggestion that this prominence should be linked with a program focusing on the mission of the apostles, of which this scene would be the first in the series, seems reasonable and likely.*° _ However, the representation only of the wound in Christ’s side focuses our attention on the account of Christ’s apparition to the apostles in the Gospel of John (20:19—29), as opposed to the accounts of Matthew (28:16-20), Mark (16:14—18), or Luke (24:36—49).*”? Thus it appears

that the primary function of the scene on this capital is to focus our attention on Thomas through the choice of imagery that unmistakeably identifies him. The representation of Thom-

as, however, is made in the context of a larger program of the deeds done by the apostles

)13, 64| 3,|14 6|

THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE POLYGONAL CAPITALS 37

ST. THOMAS CAPITAL ST. PETER CAPITAL oO

2!52|5

1. Two apostles 1. Two male figures ,

2. Two apostles 2.3.Tabitha in bed 3. Thomas Peter 4. Christ 4. Christ oninthe shore 5. Two apostles 5. Peter the water 6. Two apostles 6. Two apostles in a boat

,| 1 6| 1, ||6

ST. JAMES CAPITAL ST. MATTHEW CAPITAL

‘\2 | 8 2 | of 3 1 4 3, 4 1. James with sorcerer 1. King Eglypus and his son 2. Two demons and sorcerer , 2. Two sorcerers 3. High priest Abiathar and accomplice 3. King Hyrtacus 4. Josias 5. 4. Matthew and lphegenia 5. James Jamesbaptizes beheaded Two sorcerers

6. Two male figures 6. Two demons or spirits

Fic. 6. The Nazareth capitals. Iconographic diagrams of the figural components on the faces of the polygonal , capitals

between Christ’s Resurrection and the death of the Virgin. The Doubting Thomas episode on a this capital seems likely to have initiated a related series of capitals, the intended number of which is still in doubt, pertaining to the mission of the apostles in the East. The Peter capital (pls. 2, 3, 13-17, and fig. 6) bears not one, but two scenes. Nonetheless, it is organized like the Thomas capital in the sense that the bearded and nimbed apostle and the _ figure of Christ with a crossed nimbus appear alone on faces three and four, respectively. In

this case, however, the apostle on face three directs his attention away from Christ, and, likewise, Jesus on face four gestures to a second representation of Peter on face five.

| 38 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS The scene on the left side of the capital is, all agree,** the raising from the dead of the wealthy, charitable woman Tabitha (pl. 2), a miracle that Peter worked in Jaffa, as recorded in

Acts 9:36-43. In contrast to the Doubting Thomas episode, the cure of Tabitha by Peter appears infrequently in medieval art, but it is certainly the best known and most frequently represented of Peter’s miracles in the East. While there is some disagreement with regard to the identity of the other figures in the scene,*? they seem clearly to be male (one even has a beard) but are unspecified (pls. 13 and 14). Like the subsidiary figures on the Thomas capital, then, they can probably be regarded as associates of the principals who are not identified exactly.*°

The main emphasis of the scene appears to be on the dramatic moment when Peter, after having knelt down in prayer, turns toward Tabitha and tells her to rise (pl. 2). Tabitha, lying on a somewhat Byzantine-looking bed,*’ raises herself with the aid of the figure behind her. The fact that Tabitha is nude to the waist is, however, characteristic of Western iconography.” Her nudity clearly shows that she is female, in contrast to certain clothed figures on these

| capitals, whose gender is ambiguous. Tabitha reaches out to touch one hand of Peter, a standard feature of this particular scene, drawn from the biblical text.** Peter carries a scroll in

his other hand, which is unusual, but no keys. |

Reasonable doubts have been expressed about the identification of the right-hand scene on |

, this capital,°* but the main features of the iconography seem clear enough (pl. 3). Peter, nimbed and bearded, stands on face five (pl. 16); he is in the water and a boat behind him containing — two figures appears on face six (pls. 16 and 17). He gestures excitedly to Christ, at the left on face four (pl. 15), who is not standing in the water but rather is on the shore. It should be noted that these three are the most damaged faces on all of the five Nazareth capitals. Indeed, one foot of Christ is missing, as well as Peter’s proper left hand and the heads of the two figures in the boat, not to mention the entire architectural canopy for the sixth face; there is surface damage

to Christ’s proper right hand, the drapery, proper left arm, and left leg of Peter, and the

sinuous waves of the water in which he stands.*° a ,

Despite these losses and the questions recently raised about the iconography, the traditional | interpretation of this scene as Jesus appearing to Peter and the apostles on the shore of Lake Galilee, as recorded in the Gospel of John 21:1-17, appears to be the most likely.*° The fact that Christ is on the shore and Peter is in the water effectively eliminates the possibility that this scene could represent Matthew 14:22f. Moreover, the lack of a net as an essential visible part of the iconography of the scene removes from consideration the story of the Miraculous Draught of Fishes (Luke 5:1-10). While it is well known that there is often confusion in medieval art with regard to the Lake Galilee miracle scenes involving Christ and Peter, and, in addition, that some variations occur in the components of these scenes—for example, the number of apostles in the boat—the crucial elements here point to the episode in the Gospel of John.°’

Christ, standing on the shore, quietly gestures to Peter, whose agitated pose and drapery , seem to reflect his movement in the water. The question sometimes raised about Peter’s garment is not really relevant. The Vulgate text says: “Simon Petrus .. . tunica succinxit se , (erat enim nudus) et misit se in mare,” and the Historiae Apostolicae does not even mention the garment. The idea that Peter is shown dressed in a tunic that leaves his legs bare (and clearly indicated as being wet) seems convincing, particularly if we contrast the elaborate clothing | worn by Peter in the Tabitha scene on the other part of this capital with the more abbreviated

; costume that he wears here.

The Vulgate text also specifies that when Christ told the apostles to cast their nets again, even

, though they had already tried and caught nothing, he said: “Mittite in dexteram navigii rete.” In nautical terminology the right side of a ship is the starboard side. In this image the stern of

THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE POLYGONAL CAPITALS 39 | the boat is indicated by the rudder that is held by one of the apostles. This means that the port side of the boat is exposed to view and that the starboard side, where the net should be, is not visible. While not all representations of John 21:1-17 are this careful and precise with regard to the boat, in this instance the artist has accurately depicted the episode so as to emphasize Peter by position and pose. Moreover, the scene seems clearly to follow standard Western iconography, with Christ on the shore and Peter standing (vertically) in the water, rather than swimming (horizontally), as is the case in Byzantine art.** Finally, as with the Thomas capital, the iconographic representation is selective, the focus is directly on the apostle—here Peter, whose associates in the boat are unspecified and depicted as a group of a representative, not a literal,

number—and the context is simplified. In fact, this representation corresponds closely in handling and purpose to the somewhat simplified version of the biblical story found in the Historiae Apostolicae. The artist, in sum, uses familiar biblical imagery to focus attention, not on

Christ and his miracle, but on the apostle—in this case Peter. If we conclude that this scene does depict the apparition reported in John ar:rff., it is

important to point out that this and the Tabitha scene are the best known of the Eastern events in the life and ministry of Peter after the Resurrection. The fact that the two scenes are not in narrative order, reading from left to right, but rather are reversed, seems to emphasize the role of the capitals as already discussed in connection with the Thomas capital. First and foremost, our attention is directed to the identity of the apostle in question, here Peter. The apostles are shown involved in deeds well known in the East—deeds that are effectively represented by

blending typical Western components with Byzantine elements. But, in this case alone, a miracle of the apostle, Peter, is juxtaposed with a miracle by Christ.

The Eastern ministry of other apostles represented on the capitals is much less well known, and these other apostles are not directly associated with the figure of Christ, as are Thomas and | Peter. The other two extant polygonal capitals, apparently focused on James and Matthew (pls. 5 and 6, 18-25, and fig. 6), alter and develop the presentation of these apostles. Although the fourth face of each capital depicts a scene of major importance in the lives of these apostles, and although the specified apostle appears in both cases with a subordinate figure who attests to the efficacy of the apostles’ ministry, overall there is rather less compositional similarity between the capitals of Thomas and Peter and the capitals of James and Matthew. The reasons are not far to seek. The life, ministry, and martyrdom of James and Matthew in the East, which are not especially familiar to us today, were also, with one notable exception, infrequently represented in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.°° Thus it is not surprising that most of these scenes are relatively difficult to recognize and understand. Nonetheless, the Peter capital, which also contains multiple episodes, provides a useful model for evaluating what we |

find on the other two capitals. And, despite the problematic iconography of the capitals devoted to James and Matthew, the role and function of the imagery on these capitals is quite , , comparable to the imagery on the capitals devoted to Thomas and Peter. The scenes of the martyrdom of James on the right side of the third capital are clearly the most easily recognizable (pls. 5 and 20).° An event recorded, if not described, in Acts 12:1-2, the martyrdom of James was widely represented in Western art in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.°' The details of the story are best known to us from the Golden Legend, but Jacopo da

Voragine’s text, written nearly one hundred years after the Nazareth capitals were carved, - could not have been their source. Rather, the story of James must have been known to artists in the twelfth century from the so-called Historiae Apostolicae attributed to Saint Abdias, first bishop of Babylon (who was appointed by the apostles Simon and Jude). These acts, although they were believed to have been written by Abdias in Hebrew, then translated into Latin by

40 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS | Julianus Africanus, were in fact compiled in Gaul in the sixth century.” The Historiae of Abdias is important not only for the life of James but also because it is the only source yet identified that contains all of those episodes in the lives of the apostles that are represented on the capitals. The martyrdom of James, in fact, occupies faces three through six of this capital (pls. 5, 19,

and 20). On face four, James, condemned to death by Herod, stands, nimbed, with a rope around his neck while he baptizes the youthful scribe Josias, who kneels before him. On face three, Abiathar, the high priest, appears wearing a miter with lappets flying.°? Alarmed and excited by the activities of the apostle, Abiathar, the cause of his capture and condemnation, stands behind James and points at him while speaking discreetly to an accomplice.“ The decapitation, depicted on face five, includes two male associates of James, agitated by his martyrdom, who appear at the right side of the scene. There is general agreement about the identification of the scenes of the captured James baptizing Josias and the decapitation of the saint.°> The two figures to the right of the decapitation on face six have been variously interpreted, but de Lasteyrie’s suggestion, seconded by Barasch—that they are Christian witnesses who are there to care for the body of James—seems

reasonable and likely, given the extreme agitation of these men as they witness the deed ordered by the malicious Abiathar.™

The scenes on the left side of the capital, including face three, have, in contrast, been the subject of much debate (pls. 18 and 19). Most scholars have recognized the events in the ministry of Saint Bartholemew, but some have preferred to see here episodes involving James.°’ By careful reconsideration of the figures represented and their iconography, we can make a clearer case that these scenes tell the story of James, Philetus, and Hermogenes. The pivotal scene appears on face two (pl. 18). The text of the story in the Historiae Apostolicae clearly refers to “daemones” sent by Hermogenes to capture James, whom James instead commands to return and to bring the sorcerer bound before him:

III. Hermogenes vero magus dolens quod ei insultaret, arte sua excitavit daemones,

& misit eos ad Jacobum dicens: Ite, & ipsum Jacobum mihi, & simul Philetum discipulum meum adducite, ut vindicer in his, ne mihi & caeteri discipuli mei ita illudant. Venientes igitur daemones, ubi Jacobus orabat, ululatum in aere habere coeperunt, dicentes: Jacobi Apostole Dei, miserere nostri: quia antequam veniat tempus incendii, nos etiam exurimur. Quibus Jacobus: Ut quid venistis ad me? Dicunt e1

| daemones: Misit nos Hermogenes, ut te & Philetum ad ipsum perduceremus. Mox autem, ut ingressisumus, angelus Dei Sanctus catenis igneis religavit nos, & misere cruciamur. Dicit eis Jacobus: In nomine Patris & Filu & Spiritus Sancti, exsolvat vos iterum angelus Dei ita ut revertentes ad Hermogenem, non eum laedatis, sed vinctum huc illum adducatis. Qui cum abtissent, ligaverunt Hermogeni ad tergum manus de

restibus, & ita vinctum adduxerunt eum ad Apostolum, dicentes: Ad quem nos miseras, cum incensi flagaremus, ecce hunc adducimus tibi.®

Despite some breakage of the sculpture on face two (pls. 18 and 19), we can see that not one

demon is represented, but two. The first demon at the right has lost his head, but his furry body is easily visible, as are his two taloned feet, one just touching the divider between faces two and three and the other apparently between the legs of the captured figure. Both of his claw-hands can also be seen, one at the elbow of the figure he holds and the other (with two , claws only) on the shoulder just above. The second demon, whose head survives, stands behind

the other figures. His body is not furry; rather, his “skin” is marked with drill holes that

, THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE POLYGONAL CAPITALS AI , produce a texture over the surface. We see only one of his hands, which appears in front of the captured figure and gestures toward the group on face one. We apparently see only one of his legs and a taloned foot, carved in very low relief, that is in the background between the right leg of the captured figure and the right leg of the other demon.

A second, even more controversial point concerns the captured figure: Is this a male or female? Those who regard this figure as female call her the daughter of Polymnius, who was bound and brought to Bartholemew, even though as the text tells us she was by that time freed of any demons.” In fact, however, this is not a female figure, although it is easy to misread the long hair and contorted body. This captured figure is shown from behind, a relatively rare pose in twelfth-century sculpture, whose purpose here is to focus attention on the subjugated individual whose hands are tied behind his back as the demons push him along. We thus see his |

shoulders, his buttocks, and his lower legs, which are turned, impossibly by natural standards, , to show his boots. The face of this person is young, and he has long hair, but this is not uncommon for males on these capitals, as, for example, in the case of the youthful male on face six of this capital (pl. 20). Furthermore, the bound figure lacks the roundish face, the breasts, or the veil present in the representations of Tabitha (pl. 14) or of Iphegenia on the Matthew capital

(pl. 23), the only women carved on these polygonal capitals. !

Finally, there is the matter of the boots. Hermogenes and Philetus were sorcerers. On these |

polygonal capitals the apostles and their associates are barefoot, but Eastern kings and unbelievers are shown wearing boots, and sometimes caps, as on this capital and on the Matthew capital (pls. 21-24).”" This distinctive iconographical feature links the bound male, who must be Hermogenes, with the equally youthful figure, also wearing boots, who is speaking with the nimbed figure on face one. These two men must be Philetus, wearing the boots, and James, gesturing toward Hermogenes. According to our interpretation, then, faces one and two represent first the confrontation of | James with Philetus and then Hermogenes and his demons (pl. 18). Faces three and four show the captured James baptizing Josias as the enraged Abiathar looks on (pls. 19 and 20). Faces five and six depict the decapitation of James witnessed by agitated Christians (pl. 20). Thus, while retaining the principle of one apostle per capital, this polygon represents James three times. In | other words, once again we see the apostle effectively identified, albeit in three scenes; one of them, the decapitation, is well known, but the others are less common. Once again, the apostle is represented in the context of his ministry in the East. Therefore, even though these polygonal capitals vary in format from one to three scenes, their role and function are identical. Consider the final polygonal capital: This, everyone agrees, depicts scenes from the ministry of Matthew (pls. 6, 21-25, and fig. 6),” but in several ways this capital is the most puzzling of the extant ensemble. It is not obvious why such a relatively obscure apostle should be depicted here,” and it is not clear, once the decision was made to depict this apostle, why he should be

represented only once in the series of scenes. Furthermore, in this case, the viewer must recognize the saint not from the most frequently represented event of his life in the East—his martyrdom’*—but from the depiction of his ministry to the royal court of Ethiopia. The scenes on the capital are organized as follows.”* The primary event appears on faces three and four as described in the Historiae Apostolicae (pl. 23).”° Matthew, nimbed and bearded, receives Iphegenia’s hand in his (after an enormously long sermon explaining the sacred nature of marriage); he blesses her after giving her the veil to indicate that she is consecrated “sponsam

regis caelestis.””? King Hyrtacus, the frustrated suitor, who had offered Matthew half his kingdom if Matthew could convince Iphegenia to marry him, stands forlornly at the left, having lost his chance. Although the text does not explicitly refer to an exorcism, the little

42 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS demon above Iphegenia apparently reflects the frustration of the evil king. On faces one and

two (pls. 21 and 22), the stage is set for this dramatic moment. King Eglypus, father of Iphegenia, is seated with his son,” whom Matthew had resuscitated, on face one. The two sorcerers, Zaroes and Arphaxat, whose dragons had threatened the Ethiopian kingdom, appear on face two. The same two sorcerers,”? judging from their ages, poses, and costumes—the younger magus is even shown again wearing an Eastern cap—appear on face five (pl. 24). This image, in accord with the narrative in the Historiae Apostolicae, refers to the episode in which their magic was responsible for the last, and once again unsuccessful attempt by Hyrtacus to win the hand of Iphegenia. Eventually, after several horrendous deeds, including the murder of Matthew, the miserable Hyrtacus, who had become a leper, finally also commits suicide, and on face six (pl. 25) a devil apparently attempts to take possession of his soul.*° The difficulties of interpretation that this capital presents arise partly because of the rather arcane selection of scenes and partly because this narrative cycle is unique in extant medieval imagery.”’ But if our basic interpretation is correct, we can see here, simultaneously, a capital in which multiple narrative scenes are organized around the drum, as on the James capital, as well as a presentation like that on the Thomas capital, in which the salient figure of the saint appears only once and the other figures provide the context for identifying him. Thus, despite the difficult iconography, the Nazareth artist successfully integrates this capital into the scheme

used for the other polygons.

The Iconography of the Rectangular Capital:

Text and Image N contrast to the four capitals decorated with scenes of the apostles, the iconography of the | | rectangular capital (pl. 26) has never been satisfactorily explained. The standard identifications of the female figure on this capital as “Faith” or “Ecclesia,” who leads a male figure,

identified as an apostle or as “the Faithful,” through a demonic world seem to hint at the meaning of the scene, but no sources have been found to explain it adequately.’ , The dominant female figure (pl. 27) is the key to the problem. This crowned woman with a

long veil who holds a cross-staff should be identified as the Virgin Mary herself, not as a personification. The male figure, bearded and distinguished by a large nimbus, whose wrist she

grasps as she leads him along is, as most agree, an apostle. The four armed, threatening demonic figures (pls. 28-31) allude to the perils of Hell. This scene apparently represents an

episode in the life of the Virgin that is derived from a venerable written tradition in the Christian East—the descent of the Virgin into Hell.* The Frankish sculptor at Nazareth has in

effect represented it, however, as a miracle of the Virgin, thus presaging the hundreds of images of Mary’s wonderful and beneficial acts that were described and represented often in the thirteenth century and later; for example, in manuscripts of Gautier de Coincy’s Miracles? _ Barasch very nearly put his finger on the significance of this scene when he noted that “the central group on our capital closely follows, in composition and form, the traditional scene of

the ‘Harrowing of Hell.’”* The problem is that no text has yet been identified that exactly reflects the details of the Nazareth image. Nonetheless, if we analyze the iconography against the background of the Eastern apocryphal tradition and Western imagery of the miracles of the Virgin in the context of Byzantine and Western Anastasis representations, we can make a substantial case for the identification as the descent of the Virgin into Hell.° The crowned and veiled female figure with a cross-staff, striding resolutely forward (pl. 27),

44 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS would not be hard to recognize as the Virgin Mary were it not for the fact that she has no halo (and there is no comparable figure here at Nazareth or elsewhere in Crusader art to guide us in

this regard). The bearded male figure with a large halo, who is firmly led by the wrist, beautifully expresses a certain timidity and reluctance in his pose. When this figure is compared with such other figures on the Nazareth capitals as Thomas (pls. 7-9 and 11, 12) or Peter (pls. 14 and 16), however, the iconographic similarities suggest that if this figure were not intended to be an apostle, some telling feature should indicate this. This is probably not, however, one particular apostle, but rather a figure standing for all twelve apostles, as is appropriate in the context of the story to which we shall return below. Finally, it should be noted that the four demonic figures (pls. 28-31) threaten Mary and the apostle not only by their presence but also

with weapons. The two demons flanking the central group carry bows and arrows, and the pair at the rear, right and left, carry a sword and spear, respectively, and shields. Such warlike devils are not found in Byzantine Anastasis scenes, but they do exist in Romanesque art of the West.° The use of Western iconography here may reflect the Crusader context, as Barasch has suggested,’ but the essential role of the devils is to represent the perils of Hell. If these basic identifications are plausible, how can the problems be explained? The representation of the crowned Virgin of course has a long history.* She is well known in French, Italian, and English art in the twelfth century, although no other extant example is known among © works of twelfth-century Crusader art.? Her crown as shown here is closest to those Northern European versions that Marion Lawrence called the Chartres type, which date from about 1150

and later.’° In Western art of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Crowned Virgin not infrequently lacks a halo, particularly in three cases: in certain instances when she is accompanied by the apostles, when she is performing a miracle, and when she is enthroned holding the child Jesus.

In the first case, one can see this phenomenon, for example, in scenes of the Pentecost in the Shaftesbury Psalter, about 1140,’* or somewhat later, about 1200, in the Ingebourg Psalter.”

, The iconography of the Shaftesbury Pentecost is particularly important because in this image | the Virgin is crowned and prominent but without a halo, while the subordinated apostles have haloes. In the second case, it must be said that twelfth-century scenes of the Virgin performing _ miracles are comparatively rare,'? but in some early representations of the Legend of Theophilus (c.1140-1260), the Virgin appears crowned and veiled, carrying a cross-staff, but without a halo.’ One Theophilus scene that seems especially relevant here shows the Virgin confronting

the devil in order to retrieve the fatal contract signed by Theophilus.** In the third case, images of the enthroned Virgin, crowned but without a halo, holding the child Jesus are found in

twelfth-century sculpture of various types.*° , |

The image of the Virgin Mary, crowned and without a halo, of course is closely related to the traditional image of “Ecclesia.” Barasch and others are thus certainly correct to recognize this aspect of the figure. Indeed, Verdier has recently commented on the close relationship between these two types of female figures, and numerous well-known examples confirm this point.'? Our contention, however, is that the specific iconography of this figure is not that of “Ecclesia,” or “Fides,” as has been suggested. At this time, when the imagery of the Virgin was undergoing significant development and transformation, we should see in this majestic female figure wielding her cross-staff against the forces of evil, Mary herself. It is not only the iconography of the individual female figure herself that is decisive here; it is also her relationship with the second figure in the central group (pls. 26 and 27). Nowhere else do , we find “Ecclesia” or “Fides” leading a male figure in this manner. If we inquire as to the meaning of the scene, the analogy of the central group with images of the Anastasis provides an

THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE RECTANGULAR CAPITAL | AS

initial indication, despite other seemingly attractive possibilities, such as Byzantine donor/presentation groups or even special compositions of triumphant virtues. The important features of this group include the upright, crowned and veiled, forward-striding female figure at the left, who holds a cross-staff in front of her with her proper right hand and who firmly grasps with her left hand the wrist of a nimbed and bearded male, who follows along behind at the right. The two figures stand essentially on the same ground level, although the female figure is slightly taller because of the bent knees of the bearded male. Despite damage to the head of the female figure, it is clear from the position of her veil that she looked forward, either in profile or more probably in three-quarter view. Certainly she did not glance backward at the male figure, whom she so

forthrightly leads forward. |

While it is true that many twelfth-century Anastasis images in Byzantium contain a figure of _ Christ who is looking back at Adam and Eve and, further, show him drawing Adam up from Hades, as in the San Marco and Torcello mosaics, or in the Melisende psalter,'* some versions of this subject are similar to the Nazareth sculpture in several important aspects: the gestures

_ and poses of the figures and their relationship to one another within the group. The most interesting Byzantine parallels for our group occur in the twelfth-century manuscripts of the Homilies of the monk Jacobus Kokkinobaphos, now in the Vatican Library in Rome (BAV gr. _ Ms. 1162, fol. 48v) and in Paris in the Bibliothéque nationale (Ms. gr. 1208, fol. 66v) (pl. 74).*° In these examples, the relevant scene occurs after Christ tramples on Satan and the gates of Hell; in it Jesus is resolutely striding forward, leading Adam and the Old Testament worthies to Paradise. The figure of Christ, who is boldly moving and looking ahead with his cross-staff held prominently in front of him while firmly grasping the wrist of Adam, who follows along on the same ground line, has clear relevance to the capital. Byzantine presentation groups offer superficially attractive comparisons as possible sources largely because of the presence in these scenes of the Virgin, who introduces a donor or other figure to Christ.*° In these examples, however, the Virgin is usually nimbed and never crowned, and she obviously does not hold a

cross-staff. More important, she and the accompanying figure usually stand placidly before , Christ and do not move forward, as do the figures on the Nazareth capital. The same problems arise with possible comparisons among Western images of triumphant virtues, as in the Bamberg Apocalypse of the early eleventh century.*’ There, in the image of Purity accompanying Moses, the figures stand solidly and do not move forward; the female virtue looks back at the male figure, and she wields a spear against an adversary, on whom she stands. Whereas the iconography we are proposing for the Nazareth capital—the Virgin leading an apostle through the perils of Hell—is unique, the iconographic dynamics suggested here are familiar elsewhere in medieval art. A peculiarly relevant example is found in a miniature from a late fourteenth-century Greek psalter now in Oxford (Christ Church Ms. Arch. W. gr. 61). In

a full-page illumination, the Virgin Mary presents a monk to the enthroned Christ (who appears on the facing page).** The illuminator “has based this part of the composition on an Anastasis scene of which the principal characters, Christ and Adam, have been replaced by the Mother of God and the portrait of a monk.”*? But the meaning here relates to the specific image of presentation commissioned for this manuscript. This miniature, dated 1391, thus offers an interesting.and important example of the kind of iconographic restructuring that, we suggest, was used, mutatis mutandis, on the Nazareth capital. The miniature demonstrates how different personages can be substituted for those normally present in a traditional and recognizable grouping. For other specific aspects of the iconography of the Nazareth sculpture, we must turn to additional artistic and literary material from the Greek East and from the Latin West. One artistic link between Byzantine Anastasis iconography and the scene of the Virgin and an

46 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS oe apostle on the rectangular capital from Nazareth is found on a mid-twelfth-century capital still in situ in the nave of Saint Maurice Cathedral in Vienne (pls. 75 and 76).*4 The scene on this

, French capital is in effect a Western version of the image of Christ leading Old Testament worthies to Paradise.?> On the central part of the capital, Christ strides ahead, holding his cross-staff before him and grasping the wrist of a male figure with bent knees, whom he 1s leading, along with eight other figures, to the gates of Paradise. An architectural portal indicates the entrance to Heaven at the far left, and at the far right Hell is indicated by the large, menacing heads of three monsters. This vividly parallels the spirit of the Nazareth capital, where the Virgin steadfastly leads an apostle through a Hell populated by belligerent, armed demons. Moreover, this capital in Saint Maurice, an example of the Western adaptation of Byzantine imagery, helps to provide an artistic context to explain the background of the

situation in which the artist of the Nazareth capital was operating. , For the content of the Nazareth image there is a literary parallel and possible source in the written Greek tradition of the descent of Mary into Hell, a tradition dating at least from the Middle Byzantine period. In the Greek version of this episode,”® the Virgin Mary is the instigator of the visit to Hell; she, along with the apostles, is personally conducted by Saint Michael the Archangel, who describes the various torments of Hell in detail. Having seen these terrible things, Mary pleads with her son, Jesus, to have mercy on the condemned souls. Jesus grants relief to the sinners from Easter to All Saints’ Day because of the power of his all-holy mother’s prayers and intercession. Then, finally, the Virgin is taken to Paradise.

, A separate though no doubt related tradition deriving from more ancient Syriac sources is more closely linked to our image: the Syriac version of the Obsequies of the Holy Virgin, which dates from Early Christian times.?” According to this text, immediately after Mary’s body was reunited with her soul, she accompanied the apostles, Christ, and Saint Michael to Hell to see

the torments of the damned. In the Early Christian text, Mary indeed visits Hell with the. , apostles, but she hardly plays the central role on this occasion that she has in the scene depicted

on the Nazareth capital. We come closer to the possible textual basis of this image if we consider a thirteenth-century Latin version of the Syriac tradition, where some notable changes have occurred.”® Here, instead of playing a secondary, dependent role, Mary is much more important; indeed, when she and the apostles visit Hell, the tormented cry out first to her for intercession:

Maria mater domini nostri, maria virgo et immaculata, qui est lumen verum, et | maria regina et benedicta in sempiternum, ora pro nobis ad dominum nostrum ut det nobis propiciationem de tormentis qua patimur.”

_ Although this text does not provide an exact description of the Virgin leading the apostles through Hell as we see this scene on the Nazareth capital, she is called “regina” here, and the spirit of the Virgin’s participation in this event as presented in the text is in keeping with her increasingly important role in the twelfth century as queen and intercessor.*° This Latin manuscript demonstrates that the Syriac tradition was known in the West during the Crusader period.*’ This tradition thus parallels the numerous Western accounts of miracles of the Virgin known in the twelfth century that focus on the Virgin as the savior of individual

souls from Hell. However, none of these Western texts mentions the apostles, and I know of — none of the relevant stories that is illustrated before the thirteenth century.** In fact, no published text fully corresponds to the image on the Nazareth capital. Thus, to understand the

THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE RECTANGULAR CAPITAL 47

sculptured image correctly, we should probably view it, in the context of Nazareth, as a ,

combination of contemporary Eastern and Western traditions.

, In sum, it appears that the image of the “Virgin leading an apostle through Hell” on the Nazareth capital depicts the Eastern motif of the Virgin’s descent into Hell; that a version of the

, Anastasis is used as a visual model for the group; and that it represents the Virgin, crowned, , veiled, and carrying a cross-staff, as in a depiction of a miracle of the Virgin, confronting devils , in Hell.?? Furthermore, I suggest that this scene on the rectangular capital from Nazareth is by a

Crusader artist, originally trained by a French master, who drew on Byzantine and Western iconography to carve a group of figures that is basically French Romanesque in style. The combination of East and West, seen here in sculpture, is strongly characteristic of Crusader art,

but it has heretofore been analyzed mostly in connection with painting. This remarkable work | of sculpture, one of the finest Romanesque figural capitals carved in the Latin East or West, is a

unique product of Crusader patronage at a special holy site.“* The question remaining is why such a remarkable and unusual image might have been carved for a shrine-monument of the House of the Virgin in the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth. The answer to this seems to be related to the nature of Nazareth as a holy site dedicated to the Annunciation and to the cult services that would have been performed there throughout the liturgical year. There is no question of any liturgy relating to Mary’s descent into Hell; no such liturgy exists. Nor is there any question of Nazareth being the site from which Mary descended into Hell; insofar as any location is associated with this story, it is Jerusalem and the Valley of Josaphat. Rather, the liturgical question revolves around the feast of the Annunciation, and the

focus of the dedication of the church for which the shrine-monument of the House of the Virgin was built and for which sculptural decoration was apparently planned. Bae

The liturgical problem connected with the Annunciation is rooted in the fact that from the seventh century it was celebrated as a fixed feast in the Roman rite on 25 March; but it usually fell, somewhat incongruously, in the Lenten season, often in Holy Week, and, once in a great while, even on Easter itself.35 In fact, between 1150 and 1187 this feast fell in Holy Week—in II§2, 1155, 1157, 1160, 1168, 1171, and 1182.3° This no doubt helps to explain the relatively

few dedications of medieval churches in western Europe to the Annunciation.” Nazareth, however, was the site of the Annunciation, and that event was the raison d’étre for the church and its shrine-monument. Thus in Nazareth it would be natural to try to retain a primary focus

on the Virgin Mary while harmonizing her cult with the normal celebrations of the liturgical , _ year in the Roman rite. This is the background against which the scene of “The Virgin leading - an apostle through Hell” must be understood. The feast of the Annunciation, so important for Nazareth, arrived more or less at that time in the liturgical year when every Christian’s attention is focused on the preparation for and the celebration of the greatest of all feasts—the commemoration of Jesus’ Resurrection from the Sepulchre. Thus, as part of the decoration of the shrine-monument, a rectangular capital was

executed, which was probably only one of several such capitals that were originally planned, , and this capital drew attention to the cult of the Virgin in the spirit of the Lenten/Easter season. __ _ Mary’s descent into Hell was apparently represented because it was an episode analogous to the proximate festival of Christ. The visual parallel was drawn clearly and effectively by using as the formal model an Anastasis image, possibly an image associated with the Holy Sepulchre itself.3* The result was a scene that focused on Mary as queen and protector-intercessor, a role

that also clearly cast her in the likeness of her son. |

The choice of iconography is significant in another way as well. By focusing on the descent

of the Virgin into Hell in this image, the artist was creating a link between the Annunciation |

48 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS and the most ancient feast of the Virgin: her Assumption. For the world outside Nazareth, the Assumption, celebrated on 15 August in both East and West, was probably the most important Marian festival of the year and the major feast of the summer months.*? But the accounts of the | death and Assumption of the Virgin*® also provided the context for Mary’s descent into Hell.47 _ Thus in Nazareth, the Crusader church, whose central dedication was to the Annunciation, and the shrine-grotto, which marked the holy site of that event, could be related to the key events in Mary’s liturgical cycle throughout the course of the year. It will be recalled that the other major Marian feast, celebrated in September, is the birth of the Virgin,** an event that, accord-

ing to the pilgrims’ accounts, also took place in Nazareth. , , , Thus, if we are correct about the intended placement and iconography of this rectangular capital on the arcading around the rectangular Chapel of the Angel, we are not surprised to find an image on the capital that carries an important message about the holy site. As the architectural foundation for a symbolic image of the Holy House of the Virgin that was founded by the apostles, the Chapel of the Angel, through the sculpture on its exterior arcade capitals, would have presented a program related at least in part to the acts of the Virgin. This program would also refer to the major liturgical celebrations performed in Mary’s honor throughout the year in this unique place, with special emphasis upon the Annunciation.

, It may be surprising that this capital seems to be unique in its iconographic presentation of the Virgin’s descent into Hell. One reason for this may be that this particular iconography, which was seemingly first invented for use in Nazareth, was unknown elsewhere because this capital was apparently never put in place, but rather was hidden away. So far as we can tell, the place where the capital was found in 1908 is the place where it was put for safekeeping more than 700 years earlier. Thus this capital was seen by few before it was buried, and we have no clear evidence that the artist who made it later went elsewhere to carve other sculpture. When Giotto painted the Arena Chapel in Padua in 1305/6, his conception of the Virgin descending into Hell was totally different from the image on the Nazareth capital.** Whereas Giotto, like the artist of the capital, must have known something about the Byzantine and/or Latin written tradition of the Virgin’s descent into Hell, his representation transformed the scene completely. In his composition, the Virgin, with halo and mandorla, is placed in the role of intercessor-redemptress at the Last Judgment, and she is completely removed from the perils of Hell so clearly evoked by the threatening demons on the Nazareth capital. It might be tempting to see Giotto’s incorporation of an aspect of the theme of Mary’s descent into Hell into his fresco at Padua as a vestige of the artistic influence exerted by the Crusader kingdom on Italy after the fall of Acre in 1291, but the fact remains that the distinctive iconography of Mary’s descent as formulated on the Nazareth capital was never followed directly in the West. Furthermore, the particular blend of Byzantine and Western medieval artistic elements found

sculpture. ,

, on the Nazareth capital comes into stronger relief when this work is contrasted with Giotto’s

painting, thus emphasizing once again the distinctive nature of Crusader art, be it painting or

Although a case can be made for the hypothesis that there was an overall iconographic

program planned for the shrine-monument in Nazareth of which the five capitals were a part, important questions about the program remain to be answered. Beyond their representation of the acts of the Virgin and the apostles and their association with a shrine apparently planned to monumentalize and draw attention to the House of the Virgin, several further points have been made here with respect to the capitals: (1) that the scene identified as the Virgin’s descent into

| Hell is tied to the liturgical festival of the Annunciation and to the association in contemporary thought and imagery between the Annunciation and the events surrounding the death of the

THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE RECTANGULAR CAPITAL 49

Virgin, especially the Annunciation of the death of the Virgin; (2) that the apostles are represented on these capitals in scenes of their life and ministry in the East, which took place between the Resurrection of Christ and the death of the Virgin, because of the idea, apparently current in the twelfth century and later, that the apostles had transformed the Virgin’s house into a church just after her death; and (3) that the iconographic components of the program of the Nazareth capitals display a unique blend of East and West, and that the program 1s basically ,

Crusader. , ,

At this point, not much more can be said about the large rectangular capital in the context we have proposed. However, if we are correct in placing this capital on the arcading of the exterior

of the Chapel of the Angel, we would expect other comparable large capitals to have been executed. Indeed, one such capital (very damaged) has been found (pls. 51-53),* but until its

archaeological context is fully studied and its fragmentary and difficult iconography investi- , , gated, it would be premature to try to evaluate its significance for the monument and for the program proposed here. Nor, given our current knowledge, can we say exactly how many

such large capitals may have been planned. ,

With regard to the polygonal capitals, the situation is different. We have noted Viaud’s suggestion that the part of the shrine-monument the capitals were intended to decorate was square or rectangular, but there is at least one other possibility, and we must now consider how the iconographic evidence relates to the reconstruction of the octagonal plan proposed here. If Viaud is correct, presumably only four polygonal capitals would have been planned, one for each corner of the monument. If, however, our interpretation of the role and function of the capitals and the program of their sculpture is correct, there are considerations suggesting that eight capitals, rather than four, were originally planned, and thus that an octagonal baldacchino

with piers is likely to have been part of the original conception. ,

Bearing in mind the preceding discussion of the configuration of the shrine-monument and the iconography of the scenes from the lives of the apostles, it follows that if the apostles are presented here as being, in effect, the founders of the shrine of the House of the Virgin, it is difficult to justify the choice of only those four apostles who appear on the extant capitals. In particular, it would be most extraordinary for John to be absent, for he, along with Peter, was so prominently associated with the events surrounding the death of the Virgin. Furthermore, _

why should Andrew, a prominent apostle who was closely associated with Peter and John and

whose deeds in the East were well known, be passed over in favor of, say, Matthew? Given the archaeological evidence of the shrine and the other capital fragments that may belong to it,*° as well as the iconographical conception of the House of the Virgin and the program of its architecture and decoration as presented here, it is at least possible that eight

capitals were planned instead of four. For, while it is difficult to justify the selection of only those four apostles who appear on the extant capitals, a group of eight—Peter, Andrew, James, , John, Thomas, Matthew, Bartholemew, and Philip—would make more sense, for they, of the twelve apostles, are the ones most closely associated with Galilee in the Bible.*”? This would seem to be a point of obvious importance when the holy site of Nazareth is viewed from the _ perspective of the history of the twelfth century in the Latin East. The program as we understand it is a highly sophisticated one that would have broken new ground in a number of areas. Not only would the monument in Nazareth have been the first shrine-monument known in the Holy Land that was programmatically decorated with sculptural scenes pertaining to the shrine itself and to the liturgy performed there, but it would also have been the only major monument outside of Jerusalem that focused primarily on the Virgin. , Thus, while it was common to find icons of the events commemorated at specific places

50 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS

, hanging at those sites, such as the painting of the Annunciation referred to by Johannes Phocas, the shrine-monument of the Holy House at Nazareth apparently represents the first major attempt to create a complex ensemble of programmatic decoration comparable, mutatis mutandis, to those on twelfth-century church facades. Furthermore, at a time when Jerusalem and Bethlehem could boast as major holy sites not only the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the

_ Nativity but also the Tomb of the Virgin—a newly-prominent monument dedicated solely to Mary—Nazareth apparently wished to enhance its own attractions as a pilgrimage site by initiating a program of figural sculpture that would be the most extensive of any Crusader > church.** Although this sculpture was no doubt partially intended for the exterior of the Church of the Annunciation, as has traditionally been argued,” the five Nazareth capitals seem to have been designed for the interior shrine-monument itself, as indicated by the historical, archaeological, and iconographic evidence. The overall program of the Nazareth capitals seems to make the most sense when they are — associated with a shrine-monument like the one we have proposed. In spite of the remarkably sophisticated nature of this program, however, two straightforward points should not be overlooked. In the assembly of apostles who are associated with a shrine-monument in the House of the Virgin, the figure of Thomas is notably prominent. Not only is he an outstanding member of the “local” Galilean group of apostles who are important for the major holy site of this region, but he was also the patron of architects and carpenters in the Middle Ages;*° in other words, he was patron of some of the very men who were building the shrine. Finally, while the figural sculpture of the capitals may refer programmatically to the grotto and to its significance, the handsome architectural canopies on these capitals (pls. 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, and 27) may refer to the appearance of the never-to-be-completed shrinemonument itself. Only two of the other Nazareth figural sculptures currently known, both of them heavily damaged, have such prominent architectural framing elements (pls. 51-57),°’

although a similar treatment is found in other Crusader work; for example, on the western _ lintel of the south transept facade of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. In the case of the Nazareth capitals, the tiers of round arches—large arches framing the figural scenes —

and smaller arches articulating the upper part of the canopies—may reflect the round-arch architecture known to have been used at the Church of the Annunciation.*? We can also compare the tiny chamfered columns of the superstructure found on the canopies of all five capitals (pls. 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, and 27) with the engaged column discussed above (pls. 32 and 33). Although it was given very shallow fluting with sharp arrises, the engaged column closely reflects the visual effect of the miniature columns on the architectural canopies. Architectural canopies were widely used in Western medieval sculpture in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.** The meaning of these superstructures has not been thoroughly explored, | although certain possibilities have been discussed.*> We wish to suggest merely that the appearance of these canopies on the Nazareth capitals may reflect certain aspects of the columned arcading and polygonal baldacchino of the shrine-monument of the House of the Virgin as they

have been reconstructed here. Thus these round-arch canopies may be seen as part of the iconography of the “arcuated” architecture that Theodorich referred to in 1172. Such mergers , of form and iconography are often beautifully characteristic of medieval art and architecture, as Katzenellenbogen and, more recently, Seidel, among others, have shown.*°

_ The Figural Style of the Nazareth Capitals: Reflections on the State of the Question HILE the discussion of the Nazareth capitals has focused on their historical and ‘ / archaeological context, and on their function, iconography, and program, it 1s essential to conclude with a consideration of matters of style.' Given the remarkable and exciting appearance of these capitals, the number of scholars who have been interested in their formal problems, the lengthy period during which their style has been discussed, and the variety of opinions expressed about the style, there is no doubt that major questions remain unresolved. These concern the date of the capitals, the artistic hands involved, and the origins of the formal characteristics of the sculpture. However, in view of the suspended state of Nazareth sculpture studies caused by the delay in publishing the salient finds from the excavations of 1955-66, it would obviously be inappropriate at this time to attempt a full reconsideration of the style of these extraordinary capitals.” We can, however, review some of the most important arguments, observe the lines along which discussion has developed, consider recent Opinions, and make a few observations that may be useful to the ongoing discussion. The historiography of the Nazareth capitals divides easily into pre— and post-World War II

studies. The discussion of style in these studies further subdivides conveniently into four , periods: 1910-21, during which the general stylistic discussion of the capitals began; 1923-39, when the most important early attempts were made to characterize and trace the date and , origins of the style, including the introduction of a significant corpus of comparanda; 1956-78, when we find mainly reflections on and attempts to refine the views of the authors who wrote about the capitals before 1939; and finally, 1981-84, when some attempts have been made to flesh out or synthesize older views and make new suggestions. Without endeavoring to report every published comment about the capitals, let us briefly summarize the discussion of style in

these four periods. ,

§2 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS IQIO—1921

| In his basic publication of the excavation, Pére Viaud reported concisely on the style of the Nazareth capitals with a view to establishing their date.? The basic issue was whether the capitals were to be dated in the twelfth or the thirteenth century; that is, before 1187 or after 1229, dates established on the basis of historical considerations having to do with Crusader

access to Nazareth.

Viaud concludes that all five capitals were carved in the same style and by the same school. With this assumption in mind, he talks about the architectural superstructure of the capitals and

aspects of the conception of the human figure and the drapery, and he comments on the expressive poses and gestures of the figures. His comparisons are general and, because of his

limited art-historical knowledge, he refers to the views of established scholars published in _ André Michel’s Histoire de l’art or communicated directly to him by Robert de Lasteyrie; these include de Lasteyrie’s own opinions and those of Emile Male. Viaud concludes that the capitals were executed in what was essentially a French style, but he sees this as eclectic, involving references to sculpture from different parts of France, such as Toulouse, the Auvergne, Burgundy, and the Ile de France. He decides that the capitals must be

dated earlier than 1187, based on comparisons of the architectural canopies and their round arches with similar capitals on, for example, the west facade of Chartres Cathedral. Moreover, he sees the date as being close to 1187 because of the way the draperies cling to the figure and the ornamental design of the human figures, among other considerations. Viaud states his own views and also publishes a letter written to him by de Lasteyrie.*+ After

some apologies by de Lasteyrie for his inability to consult a serious library to provide the documentation needed for his remarks, he comments on the dating and the style. De Lasteyrie’s observations are more specific than those of Viaud. He cautions that the use of round arches in the architectural superstructure does not necessarily demonstrate that these capitals are works of the twelfth century, but, given the absence of Gothic characteristics in the architectural vocabulary seen here and considering other aspects of the design of figures and draperies, a date of 1150-75 or, as he says later in the letter, 1160—80, can be proposed. He notes particularly the decorative effect created in the drapery by “pearls” and holes, the windblown passages, and the clinging drapery of the damp-fold type which bespeaks Byzantine influence as well. Moreover, in terms of the movement, expressiveness, and elongation of the figures, he looks to Burgundy

and, for example, to Vézelay for some parallels. |

De Lasteyrie would not, however, assign these sculptures to any specific French school, and he is not convinced that only one artist was involved. Rather, he puts forward Méle’s ideas about German parallels in regard to certain details: a crown type, the headdresses on some of the demons, and the serried folds that sometimes encircle knees or chests. These details raise the question of whether there could have been a German abbey in the vicinity of Nazareth from which artists might have come.* These “German” features and the identification of some of the heads as semitic in type—a detail that de Lasteyrie somewhat anachronistically and unhistorically suggests may reflect Jewish people the artists might have seen in Nazareth—lead him to

conclude with an interesting question. Did there exist in the Holy Land a school of indigenous , sculptors, trained by French or German masters, who could have carved these remarkable capitals?

Viaud’s observations formed the basis, a year later, for Pere Germer-Durand’s comments as part of the Conferences de St. Etienne at the Ecole biblique in Jerusalem.° Germer-Durand basically echoes the observations of Viaud but makes two other interesting comments. He

, THE FIGURAL STYLE OF THE NAZARETH CAPITALS $3 remarks on the difficulty of studying sculpture that is only fragmentary or not in its intended final position. He also interprets the distinctive heads on the Nazareth capitals as characteristic of “hommes du nord”—Germans with blond hair! Ten years later, Pietro Egidi published the last in this initial group of studies.’ Egidi’s article

is best known for the excellent plates he reproduced, but his remarks on the style. of the capitals, though little attention has been paid to them, make some important contributions to the developing scholarly discussion. After rehearsing some of the general parallels to Chartres, Egidi suggests comparisons to work at Autun or Vézelay, but he draws some important formal

distinctions that lead him to conclude that the Nazareth style cannot be united to that school. , He also questions the German parallels raised by Male. This leads him to propose alternative sources—in this.case, for the crown type—in both twelfth-century Italian art and in Seljuk art. |

Other elements, such as the headdresses and the “semitic” faces, also seem to him to raise the , interesting question of Eastern influences on the Nazareth capitals. He concludes that there must have been more than one artist working in Nazareth and that these artists were almost certainly French. But Egidi is the first seriously to propose non-Byzantine Eastern parallels for the capitals, and his work gave impetus to the more detailed analyses of the stylistic origins and parallels that follow in the 1920s and early 1930s.

1923-1939 |

The seemingly growing interest in the Nazareth capitals as stylistic products of an Eastern context is largely abandoned in the next major phase of their study in favor of detailed and intensive attempts to place them within the framework of regional French schools. Arthur Kingsley Porter begins this phase, which puts special stress on the colonial aspect of French , sculptors working in the Holy Land.* Porter turns from straightforward Burgundian parallels to a more sophisticated, complex view of the style in which he sees formal influences converging from several regions. Besides Burgundy, from which he believes the spiral folds and violent

movements derive, he also identifies Provencal and Apulian-Lombard aspects of the figure , style, and he associates garments and postures with the style of the Etampes master. But all of these stylistic elements are related to Nazareth by way of work done in the Rhéne Valley, especially in Vienne; for example, at the churches of Saint-André-le-Bas and Saint Maurice. Porter was the first to focus on the important comparison with Vienne, specifically with the

works of the Vienne sculptor Guillaume, for whom he accepts a date of 1152. In sum, Porter , sees in the Vienne sculpture a comparable mixture of stylistic components also found on the Nazareth capitals. The result at Nazareth is, as Porter states, an artist who is “a little finer, a little more Burgundian than Guillaume. ... Thus we see the influence of the art of Cluny

extending . . . even to Palestine.”® |

Porter was followed, in 1925—28, by the first of the two major French scholars of this period, Camille Enlart, who explored the stylistic parallels between Nazareth and France intensively and in great detail.*® Enlart was the first scholar to attempt a comprehensive study_of Crusader monuments. And he did this within the larger framework of “l’influence de l’Occident en

Orient,” part of his “vaste enquéte... sur l’expansion de l’art francais du Moyen-Age 4

gieuse et civile.”

, ’étranger.”** His discussion was also set in the context of an inquiry into “architecture reliNazareth, for Enlart, was one of those sites where the Crusaders built beautiful churches in

54 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS the second half of the twelfth century. He wrote, “les chapiteaux du grand portail de Nazareth, | analogues 4 ceux de Chartres, mais plus beaux encore, montrent qu’aucun progrés de I’art roman ne fut ignoré outre-mer et que cet art y avait atteint un magnifique developpement lorsque survint la catastrophe de 1187.”” In one paragraph Enlart describes the general context as he sees it for architecture and, as it turns out, for sculpture as well. He says that the Crusaders chose French or French colonial

“maitres d’oeuvres, ... macons et... sculpteurs,” but that these artists came from diverse provinces, and the teams at any site were completed by indigenous auxiliaries. The architecture

differed from that in France by the adoption of Eastern elements and by the mélange of Western elements from various origins. Nevertheless, the dominant character of this art derived

from French art of the Midi and Burgundy. The result was the existence of “une école d’outre-mer,” a school that was as French as any of the Romanesque schools of France and, that while distinct from those schools, was most closely related to the art of Burgundy and

other regions south of the Loire.” |

Enlart’s main conceptual framework, briefly paraphrased here, dominates the first volume of

his work and informs the concise presentation of the style of the Nazareth sculptures that occurs later in volume 1 and in the monographie on Nazareth that is part of volume 11.4 Along with the now-familiar references to Chartres, Etampes, Burgundy, and Vienne, Enlart distinguishes some of the major special features of the Nazareth capitals. He notes, for example, how the Nazareth capitals differ from those of Chartres, Etampes, Corbeil, and Coulombs by virtue of their octagonal plans. He points out that the unusual concave surface of each face on the Nazareth polygonal capitals, while comparable to capitals from the cloister of San Cugat del _ Wallés, is not precisely paralleled there. Whereas the figure style at Nazareth recalls Autun, Vézelay, Saint-André-le-Bas, Toulouse, and related works in these regions, Enlart also sees a genuine, if general, Byzantine influence, particularly in the drapery style. Some characteristics he regards as peculiar to Nazareth, such as the notably elongated faces of the figures, and he finds the dramatic expression and expressive grace of these figures unique in Romanesque art. Despite these sensitive observations of some important special features of the Nazareth style, however, Enlart returns to a relatively simplistic conclusion in proposing that “il est probable qu’un ou plusiers artistes bourguignons amenés par l’Ordre de Cluny ont travaillé pour les sanctuaires voisins du Thabor et de Nazareth.”** Thus he rules out any German affiliations; he does not pursue Porter’s promising inquiry into Vienne connections, tending instead to deemphasize the Rhéne Valley parallels in favor of Burgundian work; and he does not investigate the Eastern sources introduced by Egidi. Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, considering what Paul Deschamps would have to say in 1932, Enlart, despite clear knowledge of the Plaimpied sculpture, sees only minor parallels there; for example, in the large haloes." In sum, he prefers to connect the Nazareth capitals with Burgundian Cluniac art, placing great emphasis on the outstanding quality and French stylistic relationships, despite his recognition of special charac-

teristics in Nazareth for which no precise French parallels exist. ! After Enlart died in 1927, Paul Deschamps carried on his work, again emphasizing architec- , ture in his research on major Crusader castles in Syria-Palestine. But in three studies published in 1930 and 1932, Deschamps made major statements about the style of the Nazareth capitals that he reiterated in subsequent publications.*? Nazareth was a site, Deschamps proposes, where the sculptural style of the Ile de France and Burgundy were united. Like Enlart and others, Deschamps remarks on the great delicacy of the Nazareth carving, which reminds him of metalwork. This is the first time that a comparison with the minor arts had been introduced

into the discussion of the style of the Nazareth capitals. ,

THE FIGURAL STYLE OF THE NAZARETH CAPITALS 55

Deschamps reiterates the idea of direct stylistic ties with Burgundy and the Ile de France, _ asserting that the sculptor of the Nazareth capitals came from Burgundy. He sees strong paral_ lels between Burgundy and Nazareth: in the kind of stone used by the artists; in the style of some figures, such as the demons; in the drapery folds, which are sometimes independent of

the body beneath; in the patterning of triads of ornamental drill holes; and in the use of , - ornamental “boules” pierced with holes. In his opinion, all of these elements point to Bur-

gundy, and especially to the Brionnais in southern Burgundy.” ,

Unlike some earlier scholars, Deschamps proposes that the capitals were all done by a single sculptor (who did other work at Nazareth as well), one of whose characteristics is the semitic head type. Moreover, he argues that this sculptor worked between 1150 and 1187, but most

probably toward the end of that period, based on stylistic and archaeological considerations." , Deschamps’s article of 1932 was his major contribution to the ongoing discussion of the Nazareth capitals.”° Despite earlier references to Plaimpied by Enlart and Deschamps himself,** | in this study he forthrightly sets out the stylistic relationships between Nazareth and a remarkable capital (pl. 41) in the Church of Saint Martin in Plaimpied, in the Berry, south of Bourges.

Deschamps, discussing the representation of demons, notes parallels between the rare furry types found both at Plaimpied and on some of the Nazareth capitals. There are other parallels: the large nimbuses, the head type of Christ, similar draperies, and even the small triads of holes

_ distributed over the garment of Christ. ,

Deschamps concludes by contrasting the date of Plaimpied (c. 1142-50) with that of the

Nazareth capitals (c. 1187),”” and by asking whether the artist of the Plaimpied capital could not - subsequently have traveled to the Holy Land and worked in Nazareth. Whatever the answer to this question, Deschamps affirms that the Nazareth sculptor carved scenes of the lives of those saints honored by Eastern Christians, but that he did it while employing Western iconography

_ (and style). Furthermore, this artist was French, and he had had experience in Burgundy and , _ the Berry before coming East. His work on the Nazareth capitals is, according to Deschamps,

shores of the Mediterranean. |

_ the best example of the spread of twelfth-century French art, which reached even to the eastern , Deschamps subsequently published summary discussions of the Nazareth sculptures, which

neither alter the main points made in his early articles nor add any important new observa— tions.7? The next significant contribution to the ongoing discussion was made by T. S. R. Boase in the last of this group of studies. Like Deschamps, Professor Boase published remarks

of the Nazareth capitals. ,

in several different places, but his earliest article (1939) contains the essential points in his view , Boase was the first scholar to balance his discussion of art in the Crusader states between

architecture on the one hand and painting and sculpture in the various media on the other, , although Enlart had made serious efforts in this direction earlier. As an English medievalist and art historian, Boase attempted to synthesize the story of the arts in the Latin Kingdom, not just

as an episode in the spread of French art into the Near East, but as an instance of West and East , meeting and effecting exchanges in Palestine. Boase remarks on the striking workmanship and perfect condition of the Nazareth capitals. In style, he calls them “the most developed Romanesque,” with a delicacy of line that is not diminished by any weathering.** After noting the architectural canopies, he comments on the slender figures, on the pronounced facial types, and the linear treatment of the draperies that form circular patterns over certain projecting parts of the body. He also draws attention to the interesting demons, calling “feathered” what Deschamps had described as “furry.” All these

features Boase finds most closely paralleled in the Plaimpied capital. Indeed, he says, “few

56 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS instances of medieval carving can give such a completely satisfactory stylistic agreement.””° What Deschamps only suggested, Boase now states directly: that the hand of the Plaimpied master from the mid-twelfth century “is all but unmistakeable in work at Nazareth, carried out most probably in the seventies.”*’

, In later comments, Boase adds only one or two notable points. In 1967 he asks whether the sculptor of Nazareth was the Plaimpied master himself or “some fellow mason of his school.””® In 1977 he adds the observation that the “fuller-faced, broad-browed” heads with staring eyes

and curly hair remind one of the Greco-Roman busts familiar from Palmyra. Thus, Boase

into his western style.”* , concludes, the Nazareth Master must have also “absorbed some Syrian Hellenistic influences

Boase’s article in 1939 concluded a fruitful period in the study of the Nazareth capitals. Along with archaeological and historical contributions, the discussion had been enriched by significant

art-historical discussions in which specific stylistic parallels were noted and serious attempts _ were made to understand the date of the Nazareth capitals by looking into the origins of the artists on formal grounds. What is perhaps most surprising about this phase of the study is the gradual abandonment of the claims for relationships with Vienne and the Rhéne Valley in favor of Burgundy and the Berry, particularly Plaimpied.

1956-1978 Following World War IJ, little attention was paid to the Nazareth capitals until Walter Oakeshott touched on them in the Rhind Lectures for 1956 at Edinburgh.*° Oakeshott comments that the Plaimpied master, working about I160 [sic], is to be found in Nazareth about twenty years later and that the identity of the artist cannot be questioned if the sculpture at the two

‘sites is compared in detail. But the Nazareth capitals also differ in some respects from Plaimpied. In Nazareth, Byzantine influence was stronger, as manifested in the lean asceticism of the faces and drapery that falls more naturally. Oakeshott concludes that in Nazareth the taut

assurance of the Plaimpied style was lost and that, in comparison with the mastery of the Plaimpied capital, the Nazareth work is weak, important though it is.*’ In the 1960s German art historians, strangely silent to this point, enter the debate. Bernhard Kerber, writing about Burgundian twelfth-century sculpture and its influence, sees the carving in Nazareth as following the style of one of the most important late Romanesque Burgundian _ masters.37 Moreover, he says that while the sculpture at Nazareth brings the style of Etampes to its full development, it also has ties elsewhere; in addition to Burgundy and the Ile de France,

he sees links to Provence. For him it is vital to determine how long an interval there was between the relevant French work and what survives in Nazareth. Kerber mistakenly says that Enlart (instead of Deschamps) had already recognized that the Plaimpied capital was the youth- | ful work of the Nazareth master. Because of the close ties that Kerber sees between Nazareth

heretofore has been the case. and Etampes, he proposes, however, that possibly Nazareth should be dated earlier than |

Kerber also introduces a new piece of evidence into the discussion: the ivory copy of the Plaimpied Christ now in Recklinghausen (pl. 77). He argues that this ivory is a direct copy without intermediaries, and that the copy was made quite close in time to the original capital. Kerber’s remarks, and particularly his introduction of the Recklinghausen ivory into the discus-

sion, seem valuable contributions, but little notice has been taken of either; only one study dealing with Nazareth sculpture since 1966 has mentioned him, and none has referred to the

; THE FIGURAL STYLE OF THE NAZARETH CAPITALS 57 ivory. The scholar who followed Kerber chronologically, Moshe Barasch, also followed his interest in Burgundian sculpture, however, even if he did not use Kerber as a point of departure. In his book, Crusader Figural Sculpture in the Holy Land, Barasch presents a series of chapters

that in some cases had begun as papers presented to the Israel Academy of Sciences and

problems. 7

Humanities.33 In his section on the Nazareth capitals—by far the longest discussion of them to date—he attempts to address several issues raised by his predecessors: the eclectic style, the

- Plaimpied relationship, the number of artists involved, and the date. Although not all of his — interpretations may have won wide acceptance, he has in each case dealt directly with major In dealing with the style of the capitals, Barasch analyzes major components and draws some important parallels. By discussing the architectural ornamentation; composition; line, mass, and texture; the figures; and gestures, he attempts to sensitize us visually and systematically to the - special formal features of the capitals. In regard to architectural frames, Barasch sees parallels

, with Burgundian architecture, possibly even with Cluny in the architectural superstructures of the capitals. Moreover, he interprets the architecture “as elaborate representations of a building” and discusses the function of the canopies.*4 For composition, he concludes that “the individual face is the primary unit of artistic composition.”?° In his chapter “Line, Mass, and Texture,” not only are those stylistic aspects analyzed in regard to the ensemble, but these

characteristics are associated with programmatic uses. He describes what he sees as “a highly , refined connection of mass and line and sophisticated use of different stone textures.”?° In _ discussing the figures, Barasch observes two different types on the capitals. “One type corre- sponds to the squat figure common in Romanesque sculpture of southern France.”?” The other , type is characterized by slim, tall figures with small heads, which Barasch associates with Burgundy.*® Finally, he stresses the importance of gesture as typical of Romanesque sculpture but observes that “the vividness of gesture in the Nazareth capitals recalls Burgundian art.”*? On the basis of this discussion (and an equally long analysis of the iconography), Barasch turns. to some more specific interpretative conclusions. Taking note of the parallels already suggested—

, to Burgundy, the Ile de France, and Provence, as well as the individual case made for _ Plaimpied—he observes: “All this indicates that the Nazareth capitals cannot be considered as being entirely the product of one specific school of French sculpture; rather, they reveal a complex convergence of elements originating in different local traditions and regional schools.”*°

Thus he argues against Porter’s suggestion for the origin of a Nazareth artist in Vienne. He also | - argues against the notion of a local school; that is, a school of local artists trained by French masters. Rather, he believes that the different stylistic types of figures are by different artists, and he sees the eclecticism of the Nazareth style as the product of a workshop in which there may have been several French sculptors, adding that the Burgundian flavor that he finds so pervasive was ensured by having a Burgundian artist serve as the chief of the artistic team.

On the Plaimpied issue, therefore, we are not surprised that Barasch disagrees with the , , notion that the artist who worked there also carved the Nazareth capitals: “Although a close

relation between these works cannot be doubted, an identity of their masters is hard to 7 accept.”*' Finally, on the dating, although he discusses parallels with French Romanesque | sculpture, Barasch does not really attempt to date the Nazareth capitals on stylistic developments so much as on historical and archaeological considerations. Acknowledging that “their , mature Romanesque style obviously points to the late twelfth century,” he proposes that

because the capitals were never put in position, but were carefully hidden away for safekeeping, , and because they were surely done before Nazareth fell to Saladin in 1187, “the capitals could

not have been carved much earlier than 1187.”% ,

58 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS

The final scholar in this group to comment on the Nazareth sculpture is Helmut Buschhausen.*? His massive study, Die siiditalienische Bauplastik im Konigreich Jerusalem, has stimulated

further vigorous research on Crusader sculpture. Indeed, his brief remarks on Nazareth serve both as a conclusion to the studies of 1956-78 and an introduction to the renewed vigor of the discussion of the Nazareth sculpture in the 1980s.

Buschhausen refers to the Nazareth capitals only in passing. However, what he says is interesting. He calls the capitals the high point of Crusader sculpture in the Holy Land, but stylistically he says they are inferior to their French models, especially Plaimpied, and cannot be earlier than the capitals at Saint-André-le-Bas, which would suggest a date in the 1160s. Not surprisingly, he affirms that the capitals were made in Nazareth and not imported from France. Barasch. and Buschhausen set the stage for the most recent discussions of the Nazareth

, capitals, which are, partially at least, responses to views expressed by them and partially attempts to deal with problems raised by them or their predecessors. They also offer some new ideas on the knotty stylistic issues. Barasch’s attempt to interpret the stylistic variety of the capitals by assuming a workshop of several artists with a Burgundian chef d’atelier and Busch-

, hausen’s notion of dating the capitals relatively early have directly stimulated new attempts to

explain the formal enigmas of these capitals.

, I98I—1984 Zehava Jacoby was the first to grapple with the Nazareth capitals in the 1980s, in a paper presented at “The Meeting of Two Worlds Symposium” in Michigan in 1981 and in an article published in 1981.4 The thrust of the article is to propose the placement of the capitals with recently excavated sculptures on the west facade portal, essentially adding to and revising the hypothesis originally put forward by Enlart.*’ She also discusses the style and the “originalité” of the Nazareth atelier and sees its distinctiveness in the way diverse formal ideas are brought together. While not confining her remarks to the capitals alone, she nonetheless comments on much that is relevant to them. Beginning with facial types, she sees a stylized bearded type and a youthful beardless type as closely paralleled by the Plaimpied Christ and by work at SaintJulien-de-Jonzy and Charlieu, respectively, connections originally suggested by Deschamps.” She also points out the remarkable and unusual nude figures and the sculptural sensibility necessary to achieve them, which again creates, in her view, a strong linkage to Plaimpied.*’ In

| their formal handling, she regards the draped figures as less successful than the nudes. Here she sees schematic and exaggerated folds used in conjunction with some damp-fold passages and a strong interest in ornamental forms, all of which help to express the vivacity and dynamism of

the figures.** Thus, in her view, the stylistic parallels for the capitals are mainly found at Plaimpied, Saint-Julien-de-Jonzy, and Charlieu, but other important sculptures from Nazareth show different ties with Vienne; for example, the Chatsworth torso.” In Jacoby’s view of the atelier, several artists from different parts of France working together contributed to the three main aspects of the portal she attempts to reconstruct: the format, the iconographic program, and the style. This makes for a rich blend of artistic ideas: Whereas the style of the capitals is rooted in Burgundy and the Berry, their format relates to a different region—the Ile de France—and, in the case of the architectural superstructure, specifically to

Chartres. |

Finally, Jacoby dates the portal essentially only on stylistic grounds because, she says, there is

THE FIGURAL STYLE OF THE NAZARETH CAPITALS 59

no written documentary evidence on the decoration of the church itself.°° Given the parallels _ she draws with works of the 1140s and 1150s, she concludes that French artists working in the styles of the mid-century are unlikely to have reappeared some thirty years later at Nazareth in the years before 1187. Since she proposes that artists specifically from Plaimpied and Saint-

| Julien-de-Jonzy worked in Nazareth, the sculptures carved for the church, including the capi-

tals, must therefore date to the mid-century, presumably to the 1150s as well. If Jacoby proposes a more systematic and fleshed-out version of aspects of the basic positions

of Enlart and Deschamps, combined with a new focus on Saint-Julien-de-Jonzy, the 1982 article | of Alan Borg takes a completely different approach.** Instead of seeing the Nazareth capitals as the products of several artists of different regional origins working together in one atelier, he proposes one French artist, identifiable by his stylistic signatures, who carved all five capitals. Borg envisions the following curriculum vitae for this artist: The sculptor of the Plaimpied capital was the sculptor of the Nazareth capitals; the artistic origins of this sculptor should be © found in the 1130s in Vienne; from there, after leaving the atelier at Saint Maurice, he went to Etampes, where he worked in the 1140s; after this he executed a few sculptures at Plaimpied. Once the Plaimpied sculpture was completed, the artist went to Jerusalem, perhaps as part of the Second Crusade, where he did two sculptures in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre about — 1149. After a hiatus of some years, this sculptor reappeared, at Nazareth, where, in the years before 1187, he executed the capitals and all the other major pieces that have been found there.” Borg’s novel approach is useful in postulating the idea of the career of a major master in relation to Nazareth. The same issue arises in regard to other important, indeed better-known, twelfth-century sculptors, such as Gislebertus, the Cabestany Master, or the Headmaster at Chartres.*3 Moreover, Borg wishes to set the career of this master in the wider context of sculpture in the Rhéne Valley and Provence in order to balance what he sees as an overemphasis on Burgundian influence in the past. It is to Avignon and to the sculpture of Notre Dame-desDoms and the abbey of Saint Ruf that he draws our attention as another possible source of the

, development of the Nazareth master. Borg’s thesis, which stresses the stylistic relations between , Avignon and Vienne in the mid-twelfth century, is interesting because the Order of Saint Ruf played, according to Borg, a central role as ecclesiastical patrons in the Crusader kingdom. * Borg thus refocuses attention on the importance of the Rhéne Valley for the creation of the style of the Nazareth capitals, as Porter originally suggested, but he goes beyond Porter to expand the possible importance of this region by citing new Provengal comparisons, specifically to Avignon sculpture. He also raises important questions about the significance of the Order of Saint Rufas a patron of Crusader churches in the Holy Land, in contrast to the presence of Cluny, which looms large in the arguments of Jacoby, Porter, and Enlart.*’ Furthermore, Borg gives us a fresh approach to the knotty stylistic problems of the Nazareth capitals. Not only does he favor the _ consideration of the artistic development of the Nazareth sculptor in historical and formal terms by postulating a career for him, but Borg also is willing to entertain the possibility of an artistic 7 sophistication and variety in the work of this one major master. This conception goes well

beyond the limited view of the artists in the Nazareth atelier expressed by Barasch or Jacoby, , who see these sculptors as more tightly controlled by their regional origins. Borg is also the first scholar among those discussing the Nazareth capitals to associate the artistic hand that produced © them with other sculpture—at the Holy Sepulchre—elsewhere in the Holy Land.* Finally, Borg,

in reconstructing the hypothetical career of the Nazareth sculptor, raises the question of the artist’s stylistic development in terms of his own time and place. Based on what is known of avant-garde phenomena in the twentieth century—a heritage of the study of modern art that can sometimes be misleading when it comes to the Middle Ages—it is clear, Borg declares, “that

60 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS then, as now, artistic taste in colonial provinces is normally up to a generation behind that of the home land.” This view disengages the student of the Nazareth capitals from the necessity of giving them the equivalent date of whatever comparisons one sees fit to cite. Far from using exclusively stylistic bases for precise dating, as Jacoby did, Borg suggests that it is probably misleading to date the Nazareth sculptures on the basis of the currently established chronology

for French, and specifically Burgundian, monuments. Given the fact that the sculpture was produced outside France, the safest way to date it is on archaeological, historical, and art-historical evidence. For these reasons, Borg prefers to “stick to the traditional dating for the Nazareth work,” which is about 1187.°” The eminent French art historian Francis Salet disagrees with Borg about the dating of the capitals.** In a brief review of Jacoby’s article, Salet endorses her stylistic points but acknowl- _ edges that it is difficult to determine with any precision the French provinces from which the

Nazareth artists might have come. Moreover, he points out that all the comparisons made

, between the Nazareth capitals and French sculpture—Plaimpied, Charlieu, Saint-Julien-deJonzy, Vienne, Chartres, and Etampes—“obligent a dater l’ensemble de Nazareth du milieu du XII* siécle.”*? Furthermore, he states, because we simply do not know when the sculptures were buried, “une datation vers 1180 ne se justifie d’aucune maniére.”® Here again, the evi-

, dence of direct stylistic linkage has won the day as opposed to historical or archaeological considerations. But the stylistic linkage has also come into question. The most recent discussion of the style of the Nazareth capitals, however brief, is, like Borg’s article, extremely valuable because it offers a useful new approach to the problems that are by now clearly evident. Valentino Pace™ proposes that at the root of the difficulties in understanding the relationship between the Nazareth style and its French ancestry is the emphasis by scholars on the similarities rather than the differences in form and handling. If instead we focus on the changes between the French regional styles and what was produced in Nazareth, Pace suggests, a very different interpretation emerges. Looking at the Plaimpied capital again from this viewpoint, he sees some partial stylistic coincidences with the Nazareth capitals—“di fondale architettonico, di repertorio fisiognomico, di sigle ornamentali”—but in the end he

finds that the style of the Plaimpied sculpture is completely different in its overall unified character. He contrasts the basic characteristics of the sculpture at Saint-Julien-de-Jonzy or Vienne with the Nazareth style and finds them quite different. Why, Pace asks, would a French artist who had just arrived in the Holy Land to work at Nazareth not execute draperies closely

resembling those of the Christ on the Plaimpied capital? Why would he not maintain the standards of formal order and expressivity that characterize the tympanum at Saint-Julien-deJonzy or the capitals of Saint-André-le-Bas in Vienne? The answer Pace proposes is that the artist was not French; he was Frankish. The artist’s experience of these related French sculptures was only indirect. Pace’s view is that the atelier responsible for the Nazareth capitals was composed of second- or even third-generation Frank-

ish sculptors who, about 1187, carved these works with a sense of both local and French sculptural traditions. Pace notes that what seems to be most remarkable about the style of these capitals at Nazareth are the grooved folds of the draperies and the extraordinary ornamentality of the forms created with heavy use of the drill, elements that are not so outstanding in the French works usually cited as comparisons. Pace continues by giving some illustrations of how the spirit and handling of ornament can be derived from “local tradition,” which includes, in his view, late antique, Byzantine, Syrian, and Islamic sculpture. In other words, this is his application of an approach initially proposed

by Nurit Kenaan, with regard to the sculpture of the Holy Sepulchre,” to other selected

, THE FIGURAL STYLE OF THE NAZARETH CAPITALS 61 examples from Jerusalem. Unfortunately, Pace analyzes works only from Jerusalem, and he , does not seriously address his analysis to the Nazareth capitals, thus giving us only a general

idea of the application of his method without facing the specific problems in Nazareth. None- a theless, his observations and conclusion are an important call for reconsidering the genesis and

, development of the style of Crusader sculpture. He says, “[a] larga parte della scultura del , Regno crociato non e comprensibile se non si tiene conto del decisivo apporto delle esperienze

_ visive offerte ai suoi scultori dai monumenti stessi dell Terrasanta.”°? , , THE STATE OF THE QUESTION What is, then, the state of the question with regard to the style of the Nazareth capitals? It is evident from a survey of the literature that, despite consensus on a few points, there is in fact disagreement on most major issues. Everyone can agree that the capitals were carved between 1150 and 1187 in Nazareth, that the style is eclectic and strongly reflects French developments of the mid-twelfth century, and that this style is the most remarkable and developed of all extant Crusader sculpture. Beyond this, however, we must find methods to resolve the considerable diversity of opinion on basic matters such as the nature of the style (major characteristics and Western versus Eastern components), the origins of the style (where are the best parallels in _ the West, and what are the Eastern sources?), the identity of the artist or artists who carved the Nazareth capitals (how many artists were there, who were they, and what was their training?), and the dating of the capitals (how, as Kerber asked, can we resolve the competing claims of the French stylistic parallels of the mid-century and the historical-archaeological circumstances

suggesting 1187°). , ,

In approaching these difficult questions, the recent studies of Borg and Pace have been

helpful in raising the central issue of the artistic context. If we are successfully to understand the

genesis and production of the Nazareth sculptures, we must investigate the artistic circumstances that led to their execution. In order to help us decide whether a French artist or a Frankish artist carved these sculptures, we need to consider the Crusader context of the sculptural development. In light of a number of studies written since about 1970, we have a more informed picture of twelfth-century Crusader sculpture than before. Therefore, in evaluating

resulted. , ,

how the Nazareth capitals took shape, we need to assess not only the French stylistic parallels | and the pre-1099 sculpture that existed in the Holy Land but also to focus on what Crusader

sculpture the Nazareth artist could have known in order to help explain the unique style that By introducing the important notion that the Nazareth artist, whether French or Frankish, - might well have been working in the Crusader states for some time before executing the i Nazareth capitals, Borg and Pace invite us to consider not only the sculptural context but also what kind of sculptor the Nazareth artist may have been. Many comments have been made about the decorative nature of the Nazareth drapery style. Paul Deschamps related the character of the carving to metalwork. Some of the same vocabulary of form can also be seen in ivory carving (pl. 77).°5 Pace has referred to grooves in the drapery that seem to be prepared for receiving enamel. These observations suggest that we need to reconsider the nature of the sculptor(s) involved at Nazareth. Was he trained exclusively as a stone sculptor, or did he also

, do sculpture in the “minor arts” as well? |

One other formal characteristic of the Nazareth figural style needs careful scrutiny. Close

62 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS study of the drapery style reveals a formal system that is adjusted according to the scale of the figures on the capitals. At the heart of this drapery style appear various kinds of deeply cut grooves that move over the figures in vigorous linear patterns to create a rich sculptural surface. One type of groove in the drapery is a hairpin-loop fold that is also round in profile. This formal vocabulary suggests that we need to look for comparisons at work later than the mid-twelfth century. With our better understanding of stylistic developments around the year 1200, which seems to be relevant to the style of the Nazareth capitals, we must look with fresh eyes at the full range of French formal developments from the 1140s to the 1180s to help

, explain the Nazareth style.

From the time of Viaud and Egidi, various Eastern components have been identified as

, playing a part in the style of the Nazareth capitals—not only influences from Byzantine and | Seljuk art but also, as Boase proposed, Syrian-Hellenistic influences. Pace has suggested late Roman and Byzantine comparisons, and I believe that there may be some influence of Islamic mugarnas in the shaping of the faces of the capitals to go along with the Western architectural canopy configuration. The extraordinary eclecticism of this art, which unifies aspects of East and West in a style distinctively different from any found in Europe, raises another issue: how to explain the bringing together of these disparate elements; in other words, the dynamics of the mixture. Our knowledge of style in Crusader painting can help because parallels for the

phenomenon exist in that area.°? But most of the best examples in painting are from the thirteenth century, and we need to focus our attention on the period from the 1140s to 1180s. In this regard, the earlier discussion of the iconography of the capitals becomes germane and may also be helpful.

, We propose to consider the Nazareth capitals as Crusader art, possibly even of the second generation, and not simply as a colonial transplant from Europe. This means the capitals are the products of a lively art that was shaped by a great variety of sources and created by artists who,

whatever their origins may have been, developed in the Frankish East, where their visual , experiences differed from those available in the French or Italian regions from which they or _ their masters may have emigrated. If we accept this hypothesis, how can we proceed to analyze and explain the unique style that resulted in Nazareth in the second half of the twelfth century? , The rich repertory of comparanda that has been assembled over the years among mid-century French sculpture now needs to be critically reevaluated. Some of these comparisons have been cited by certain authors without taking others into account; some, like the ivory copy of the Christ on the Plaimpied capital (pl. 77), have been essentially ignored. Other comparisons from the regions of the Bourbonnais and the Lyonnais now need to be brought into the discussion as

well. The first step, then, is to identify the full range of comparanda. ,

Whereas isolated aspects of the style, such as the gestures of the figures, the architectural canopies, or the decorative linear draperies, considered individually, suggest certain associations

, or relationships that should be explored, these elements can give only limited indications as to how the Nazareth style was formulated. Thus, in addition to assessing the validity of the many , suggestions reviewed here, we also need to consider those comparisons that unify several of the

important formal features of the Nazareth capitals with other aspects of sculptural production, sO as to give us a useful perspective on the way in which individual capitals and ensembles of several capitals were executed. To give one example: While the architectural canopies of the Nazareth capitals have long been compared to those of Chartres and Etampes, such canopies also exist in Vienne on the capitals of Saint-André-le-Bas and Saint Maurice. Porter, of course,

long ago suggested comparing the Vienne figure style, including the sculpture at SaintAndré-le-Bas and Saint Maurice, to work at Notre Dame-des-Doms at Avignon and the

, THE FIGURAL STYLE OF THE NAZARETH CAPITALS 63 Nazareth capitals, comparisons that Borg has recently reconsidered.® A feature of some of the Saint Maurice engaged columns is the faceted, slightly fluted column shafts, a device applied

even more robustly in Nazareth, where the base of the polygonal capitals is actually scalloped | and the column shaft is also slightly fluted. Earlier, we pointed out an iconographical link between the rectangular capital in Nazareth and a nave capital in the church of Saint Maurice, and, finally, we noted that the grounds on the faces of the Nazareth capitals are highly worked and strongly textured. While no precise parallel has been found for this texturing, it is likely that its purpose was to receive some kind of incrustation, either gesso and paint or colored

, mastic. If so, this would provide a further point of comparison for which important parallels | are found at Vienne, because such incrustation work, as is well known, was characteristic of the

| Vienne region in the twelfth century.”° This bringing together of the various elements that seem to link the Nazareth capitals with Vienne represents the sort of comprehensive study that should be applied to all of the comparative material in order to evaluate how the Nazareth

capitals came to look as they do. |

In addition to the avenues of stylistic inquiry suggested above—the development of a full repertory of French comparanda, the critical reevaluation of all of the individual comparisons,

the reconsideration of the relationship between the relevant French sculptural style and workshop experience and the milieu of Crusader sculpture, which had its own later development, and the reassessment of the nature of the artist—one other important matter must be dealt with.

The five Nazareth capitals represent only approximately ten percent of the extant Crusader

figural sculpture from the site of the Church of the Annunciation. In order to evaluate fully the , stylistic issues, the complete ensemble of Nazareth sculpture must be taken into consideration.

_ This means assembling all of the relevant pieces with the fullest archaeological information possible in order to assess the character and range of the style, the stylistic development in the

workshop, and the number of artists involved and the dating, to mention only some of the , major questions. Now that we have Bagatti’s report on the excavations carried out in Nazareth

on the site of the Crusader Church of the Annunciation between 1955 and the mid-1960s, we , can proceed with certain knowledge and photographic documentation of what constitutes the , complete corpus of Nazareth Crusader sculpture.” For this endeavor, this study of the five famous Nazareth capitals is offered as a prolegomenon to future work.”

BLANK PAGE

Conclusion HE artistic program of the Nazareth shrine-monument as reconstructed here suggests ) that it would have been a medieval successor to Roman monuments such as the Ara Pacis and a predecessor of Renaissance monuments like the Santa Casa at Loreto. But the Nazareth monument was conceived in the context of the most venerated shrines of the

Holy Land, such as the Holy Sepulchre and the grotto of the Nativity. Furthermore, the Nazareth monument was to be decorated with subject matter characteristic of the Christian 7 East that pertained to the apostles and the Virgin and that was specifically relevant for Nazareth , in Galilee. These Eastern components had become integrated into the kind of twelfth-century

sculptural programs familiar in Europe at this time, especially in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany, but they were known only in fragmentary form elsewhere in the Crusader states. Thus various aspects of the planned shrine and its decoration reflect the blend of East and West

so characteristic of twelfth-century Crusader art. This is, I propose, a major example in sculp-

ture of the blend of elements that we have heretofore seen primarily in painting. ! , Given the many Western aspects of the style of the Nazareth capitals, it is perhaps surprising

to find the Eastern aspects of these sculptures emerging so clearly. Most important, we must , not forget that these are sculptures of striking originality, as is clear, for example, from the polygonal shape used for these historiated capitals, a highly unusual choice in the twelfth cen— tury. Moreover, we must bear in mind that these extraordinary capitals were apparently designed and carved to decorate a unique monument with a unique program at a unique holy site. Because this is such a special case, we are challenged by its importance. At the same time, we _ are able to advance suggestions concerning its program and configuration only tentatively and with great caution, realizing that what we are attempting to discuss is a monument that was apparently planned but never built. The fact remains, however, that the Nazareth capitals,

excavated in 1908 and justly famous ever since because of their outstanding quality, in them- , . selves constitute, to date, the crucial evidence for the decoration of this monument. —

BLANK PAGE

Notes ABBREVIATIONS , |

AB The Art Bulletin , , “ Crusader Art Oxford, 1982 : Paris, 1857-66 , 1844-64 | , DACL Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie — -_ oO

Folda, J. Folda, ed., Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, BAR International Series, CLU,

P.G. J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeco-Latina, 161 volumes, , P.L. , J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, 217 volumes, Paris,

PPTS Palestine Pilgrims Text Society

RHC: Hist. Occ. Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Paris, Recueil des historiens des croisades:

Historiens occidentaux, iff., Paris, 1844ff. ,

RHC: Hist. Grecs | Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Paris, Recueil des historiens des croisades: Historiens grecs, iff., Paris, 1875/81 5

Setton/Hazard, K. M. Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1v, H. W. Hazard, ed., The Art and

INTRODUCTION | |

Crusades, IV Architecture of the Crusader States, Madison, Wisconsin, 1977 Oo

1. The Holy House of the Virgin was carried first to F. Grimaldi, Il Libro lauretano, Macerata, 1973; and H. Tersatt (Fiume) in Yugoslavia on 10 May 1291, then toa Leclercq, “Lorette,” in F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq, eds.,

| spot near Recanati in the Marches in Italy on Io DACL, Ix, 2, Paris, 1930, cols. 2473~-2511. On Tersatt

December 1294, and finally, in 1295, to what is today in particular, see G. Kobler, Memorie per la storia della the town of Loreto. For the essential bibliography, see Liburnica citta di Fiume, Fiume/Ryeka, 1, 1896, 202ff.; P. Arsenio D’Ascoli, La Santa Casa, Loreto, 1965; and F. Glavinich, Historia Tersattana, Udine, 1648.

| 68 NOTES TO PAGES 1-5 Recent studies of postmedieval art relating to Loreto CHAPTER I . understandably mention Nazareth only in passing: W. 1. Viaud, 55-57; Bagatti, 1969, 60-61. See figures 2 Barcham, “Giambattista Tiepolo’s Ceiling for S. Maria and 4 for the find spot of the capitals.

di Nazareth in Venice: Legend, Traditions, and Devo- 2. Several authors express the opinion that the tions,” AB, Lx1, 1979, 430ff.; K. Weil-Garris, The Santa capitals were never put in place. See, for example, Casa di Loreto: Problems in Cinquecento Sculpture, 1, New Deschamps, 1930, 106-8 (also quoting H. Vincent and York, 1977; H. S. Francis, “Francisco de Zurbardn, The P. Egidi); Boase, 1939, 9; Deschamps, 1964, 254-55; Holy House of Nazareth,” Bulletin of the Cleveland and Barasch, 1971, 70-71. Some authors also see the

Museum of Art, XLVI, 1961, 46ff. capitals as unfinished; for example, Porter, 1923, 167;

2. For the various surveys and excavations, see: Boase, 1939, 9; Oakeshott, 1959, 82-3, 120; Boase, in

1867: C. R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener, The Survey Setton/Hazard, Crusades, 1v, 103. Most recently, see V. of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orogra- Pace, “I capitelli di Nazareth e la scultura ‘franca’ del XII

phy, Hydrography and Archaeology, 1, Galilee, London, secolo a Gerusalemme,” Scritti. .. in onore di Roberto

1881, 328-29. Salvini, Florence, 1984, 87f. 1895: B. Vlaminck, A Report of the Recent Excavations 3. This design is followed uniformly except on the and Explorations Conducted at the Sanctuary of Nazareth, James capital, where both stories of the towers are in

Washington, D.C., 1900. perspective.

églises, Paris, 1910. are: | 1899 and 1907-09: P. Viaud, Nazareth et ses deux 4. The dimensions (in cm) of the individual capitals

1955-66: B. Bagatti, “Ritrovamenti nella Nazareth Thomas Peter James Matthew evangelica,” Liber Annuus, v, 1955, 39ff.; B. Bagatti, Height: | 43.0 43.0 — 42.7 “Nazareth,” Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplement, Paris, Maximum width 1960, VI, cols. 318-33; S. J. Saller, “Recent Work at the (upper): 54.2 $1.0 $5.0 $4.4 Shrine of the Annunciation at Nazareth,” Catholic (lower): 35-4 32.1 32.6 35.1

, . (upper): 21.0. 20.7 21.0 21.0

Biblical Quarterly, xxv, 1963, 348-53; B. Bagatti, Average width of faces

Excavations in Nazareth, 1, Jerusalem, 1969, iff; B. (lower): 13.5 13.5 13.0 13.2 Bagatti, Gli scavi di Nazaret, u, Jerusalem, 1984, ff. Width at tongue join: 38.2 38.4 38.7 38.9

_ 3. The first volume published by Bagatti (Excava- 5. The individual angles given here for each capital tions in Nazareth, Jerusalem, 1969) deals with the correspond to the numbers given on the polygonal

Byzantine church and the shrine-grotto of the Annun- configuration in Figure 1.

ciation up to the Crusader period. Volume m, published Thomas Peter James Matthew

in 1984, was delayed by the untimely death of Fr. I. 110° 119° 115° 120° Benedetto Antonucci (1980), who was brought from 2. 135° [140°]* 136° 138° Rome specifically to prepare the publication of the 3. 132° 131° 133° 129° excavation as it pertained to the Crusader church. 4. 135° 136" 135° 138° Following Antonucci’s death, the publication was in the 5) 132, 131 133. 129" capable, if overworked, hands of Fr. Bellarmino Ba- 6. 136° ae 136° 135. gatti, ably assisted by Fr. Eugenio Alliata. I should like c : 36° "3 4° : 30° i

to thank them both for their willingness to discuss with

me problems relevant to the Nazareth capitals. Iam also *This angle is approximate because the capital is broken.

grateful for permission to use their drawings of the 6. Viaud, 1910, 157 (right), 161 (right), 159 (left). plans of the church and the grotto (slightly revised) and 7. Ibid., 163 (right), 168 (left), 169 (left). for their good offices in my studies of the Nazareth 8. Ibid., 170 (left), 172 (left), 171 (right).

sculpture. 9. Ibid., 177 (right).

4. The main discussions of the Nazareth capitals 10. Deschamps, 1930, 97, n. I; idem, 1932, 27-28. are the following: Viaud and De Lasteyrie, in Viaud, These moulages now exist: in Paris, at the Musée des 1910, 149ff. and 167ff., respectively; Germer-Durand, monuments frangais; in Jerusalem, at the Museum of the Ig, 244ff.; Egidi, 1920, 761-76; Enlart, 1, 300-308; Convent of the Flagellation (pls. 58-60); at the RockeA. K. Porter, Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage feller Museum (what was in 1929 the Palestine MuRoads, Boston, 1923, 163ff., esp. 167; Deschamps, seum); and in London, casts of three capitals were 1930, 97ff.; P. Deschamps, French Sculpture of the acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum. Romanesque Period: 11th and 12th Centuries, Florence and The man who made these casts, Mubarak Sa’ad, was

Paris, 1930, 97-99; Deschamps, 1932, 27f.; Boase, the father of Yusuf Sa’ad, former director of the 1939, 8-10; Oakeshott, 1959, 82f., 106, 120; Des- Palestine Museum. The son, who still lives in Jerusachamps, 1964, 240ff.; B. Kerber, Burgund und die lem, shared with me his recollections about the making

Entwicklung der franzosischen Kathedralskulptur im zwolf of the casts, but he informed me, alas, that the dossier

Jahrhundert, Recklinghausen, 1966, 38ff.; Barasch, 115- with documentation on making the casts was destroyed . 54; P. Deschamps, Au temps des croisades, Paris, 1973, in the 1948 war. 189-97; Boase, in Setton/Hazard, Crusades, Iv, 104; The Musée des monuments francais has the correFolda, in Setton/Hazard, Crusades, 1v, passim; Jacoby, spondence of Paul Deschamps on the trials and tribula-

~ 1981, 154ff.; Borg, in Folda, Crusader Art, 97-119. tions of getting these casts made. Unfortunately, |

NOTES TO PAGES 5-7 69 | however, when I inquired in 1982, no photographic mais une reconstruction totale; c’est ce dont

documentation had been found in that file which témoigne le style des vestiges subsistants. (11, 293;

records the state of the backs of the capitals before see also 308) , ,

and/or after the casts were made. This means that Enlart envisioned a large-scale | 11. A few years before the capitals were installed in —srreconstruction of the church sometime approximately

their then-current location in the apse of the lower in the 1150s, based on his interpretation of the style of church, at least one capital, that of James, was exhibited the Nazareth sculpture. Moreover, this interpretation of

in 1954 in the United States in New York and the evidence has prevailed. Boase, for example, restated Baltimore, and possibly also in London. Although it with certain modifications: photographs exist from these visits (see, for example, Various texts, borne out by archaeology, prove plates 5, 18-20, and 67), the rear part of the capital was that the crusaders at once rebuilt the ruined

never photographed completely. Byzantine Church at Nazareth, and that probably

- 12. Deschamps, 1964, 254. as early as 1115 there was a new church standing 13. Deschamps, 1930, 108; Boase, 1939, 9; idem, there. Excavations, however, show many modifi1967, 89; idem, in Setton/Hazard, Crusades, Iv, 103; cations and enlargements of the plan; and certainly

Barasch, 1971, 70—7I. | building continued through the century up till the

14. Viaud, 1910, $sff. When Baibars destroyed the taking of the town by Saladin in 1187. (1939, 11) church in 1263, these capitals clearly escaped the Deschamps agreed with Boase and was even more

breakage and mutilation suffered by the other sculpture specific about the main western portal:

in Nazareth. Ce magnifique édifice pouvait n’étre pas achevé en 15. Oakeshott, 1959, 82; see also Boase, 1977, 103. 1187. Le portail devait étre en cours d’execution.

Most recently, V. Pace, “I capitelli di Nazareth e la (1964, 255)

sculpture ‘franca’ del XII secolo a Gerusalemme,” Buschhausen then said: | Scritti . . . in onore di Roberto Salvini, Florence, 1984, 87— Die Kathedrale war nahezu fertig, als 1183 Saladin

88, has also argued this point, using the smooth zum ersten Mal gegen Nazareth zog. (1978, 277) background, not of the Plaimpied capital (pl. 41), as Most recently, Bagatti (1984, 11, 27~—70) emphasized Oakeshott did, but that of the recently excavated relief the importance of the 1170 earthquake for the developwith Saint Peter and Tabitha (pls. 54-57) as a compari- ment of the church, with the early twelfth-century son. For reasons to be seen in my text, this argument is edifice as reported by Abbot Daniel and then rebuilding unconvincing, even more so with this comparison, and enlargement after 1170 and before 1187, for which given the uncertain understanding of this piece (see the large number of sculptural fragments is primary

chapter 6, note 45). - evidence. 16. See, for example, L. Bégule, Les incrustations It is clear that a number of questions about the |

decoratives des cathédrales de Lyon et Vienne, Lyon, 1905, Church of the Annunciation remain unresolved. Besides 43-83. See also the cloister columns at Monreale: W. the lack of understanding about the exact dating of parts Kroénig, The Cathedral of Monreale and Norman Architec- of the Crusader church, the relationship of the sculpture ture in Sicily, Palermo, 1965, 232ff., details of figs. 94 to the building campaign(s) has not been fully studied. and 98. On relevant Italian and Byzantine material, see Indeed, not all agree on the dating of the sculpture itself. U. Schneider, “Zwei mittelalterliche Chorschranken im Whereas de Lasteyrie dated the style of the Nazareth Dom San Ciriaco von Ancona: Beitrage zur Geschichte capitals to the period between 1150 and 1187, but der Inkrustationskunst in Byzanz und Italien,” Acta indicated a preference for a date rather later in that time

Historiae Artium, XXVIII, 1981, 129-86. span (Viaud, 1910, 167), and some scholars have agreed } 17. Contrast the toolwork of the examples given in with this late dating (see, for example, Barasch, 1971, : note 16 or that of the clearly unfinished Nazareth 70-71; Buschhausen, 1978, 235-36; and Borg, 1982, bearded heads (Barasch, 183) with the background of 97-119), others have upheld Enlart’s dating (for the capitals in plates 9, 10, 15, 18, 23, and 27. example, Jacoby, 1981, 191-94). Unfortunately, the 18. On the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, implications of either dating have not yet been fully see Viaud, I9I0, I-108, 121-31; Enlart, m, 292—94ff.; investigated in regard to the construction of the church Deschamps, 1930, 106ff.; idem, 1964, 249-55; Boase, and the effects of the 1170 earthquake. 1939, I1; idem, 1957, 89-90; idem, 1977, 102-3; S. Bagatti’s publications of the excavations of the CruLangé, Architettura delle Crociate, Como, 1965, 153, 155, sader church in the 1950s and in 1984 have thrown some 185; Barasch, 1971, 69-71; and Buschhausen, 1978, of Viaud’s findings into doubt because Viaud assumed

277-79. the Crusader church was built on top of the Byzantine

The fact is that the dating of the church is not clearly foundations. Bagatti agrees with Viaud mostly, but he understood, although everyone more or less agrees that has shown, for example, that the two buildings coincided

it was built in the twelfth century. On the basis of only along the south wall. Moreover, Daniel’s descripViaud’s excavations, Enlart wrote in 1928: tion refers to a large, high church with three altars, not to

“(Daniel| nous apprend que la cathédrale de the Byzantine church with only one apse. Thus the

lAnnonciation avait été rebatie par les Latins [en nature of the “reconstruction totale” or “modifications Il07 ou... en IT15].” Quarante ou cinquante ans and enlargements of the plan” with continuous building plus tard, fut entreprise non plus une restauration, until 1187 is called into question, and a reconsideration of

70 NOTES TO PAGES 7-10 the archaeology of the church is needed. For such a 21. J. Folda, “Problems of the Crusader Sculpture at. reconsideration, a careful evaluation of all the evidence the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth,” The will be necessary, including the complete report of the Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange Between East recent excavations. (I should like to acknowledge here and West During the Period of the Crusades, Kalamazoo and

the excellent work of Linda Docherty, who explored Ann Arbor, 1981, V. Goss and C. Bornstein, eds., |

these problems in a seminar paper at the University of Kalamazoo, 1986, 133-44.

North Carolina in the fall of 1978.) 22. Ibid., 137, 143, and note 10 above. One further aspect may bear on the question of 23. Viaud, 1910, 149.

dating. Bagatti (1984, 74-84) publishes the mason’s 24. Bagatti, 1969, 174-218; idem, “Nazareth,” Dicmarks found on the extant external walls of the tionnaire de la Bible: Suppl., vi, cols. 318ff. Crusader apse end on which the new church has partly 25. See note 20 above. been built. One of those marks, a rectangular box_with 26. B. Meistermann, Guide de Terre Sainte, 3rd ed., the corners and the midpoints of the sides joined, PS , Paris, 1936, $33. may appear also on the top surface of the Matthew capital (pl. 72). Whereas all four polygonal capitals have

geometric designs marking their midpoints and the CHAPTER II | angles of their faces, this is the only capital with a 1. Bagatti, 1969, 21ff., 77ff; M. Halbwachs, La possible mason’s mark. If this is a mason’s mark, as Topographie Legendaire des Evangiles en Terre Sainte, 2nd | found on the apse end of the Crusader church, questions ed., Paris, 1971, 126-33; C. Kopp, The Holy Places of the arise as to what implications there may be for dating the Gospels, R. Wells, trans., New York, 1963, 57-74. capitals after 1170, and what relationships there may On the spurious tradition of a Constantinian church have been between the masons of the apse end and the erected on the site, see Gaston Le Hardy, 1905, 20-33; sculptors of the capitals. (On the question of mason’s Chevalier, 1906, 21-22; and Cabrol and Leclercq,

marks in the Crusader states, see D. Pringle, “Some DACL, Ix, 2, col. 2480. Approaches to the Study of Crusader Masonry Marks in 2. Gaston Le Hardy, 61-64; Viaud, I910, 18; and Palestine,” Levant, xm, 1981, 173-99, with bibliogra- Runciman, 1951, I, 3. phy.) An even more enigmatic bit of evidence from 3. This translation of Daniel’s text has been newly these capitals is the appearance of two letters, “E K,” prepared by W. F. Ryan of the Warburg Institute. I wish inverted and reversed on the proper right foot of the to express my gratitude to him for permission to quote crowned female figure on the large, rectangular capital. it here. Although there is no comparable mason’s mark or Ryan used the standard edition of the text prepared inscription, the possibility exists that these letters could by M. A. Venevitinov and published in Pravoslavnij have been inscribed by one of the artists working in Palestinskij Sbornik, m1 and 1x, 1885, 117-22. Ryan’s

Nazareth. translation differs slightly from earlier published ver19. The most useful history of Nazareth in the sions: Abraham de Noroff, ed., Pélerinage en Terre Sainte

twelfth and thirteenth centuries is that by Gaston Le de l’Igouméne Russe Daniel au commencement du XII’ siécle,

Hardy (Joseph Goudard) (1905, 61-115), which gathers St. Petersburg, 1864, 113-14; B. de Khitrowo, ed., the known facts about the history of the Crusaders and Itineraires russes en Orient, 1, Geneva, 1889, 69-71; and their church there. On Sultan Baibars at Nazareth, see C. W. Wilson, trans., The Pilgrimage of the Russian Abbot

99-105. See also, on Nazareth, the work of U. Daniel in the Holy Land, 1106-1107 a.p., PPTS, 1, Chevalier, 1906, 310-54; on Baibars, 46. London, 1888, 69-71. Bagatti (1984, 18 and n. 48) also 20. These proposals have been made by Enlart, u, refers to Abbot Daniel, but he proposes to date Daniel’s 300-308; Egidi, 766-68; Deschamps, 1930, 99—108; account to 1113-15, following a nineteenth-century idem, 1964, 249-55; Boase, 1939, 10; idem, 1977, 102- argument based on internal evidence in the text. The

5; and Jacoby, 141-79. | reliability of this dating would depend on the authentic-

If the portal proposed as the intended location of these ity of the text in question. capitals was never finished, obviously no archaeological The differences in these translations are partly caused

argument can definitively exclude this as a possibility. by corruptions in the text, which exists only in However, the archaeological evidence seems to weigh manuscripts of the fifteenth century and later. Noroff heavily against placement on a portal, especially the apparently used a less reliable text than Khitrowo, and west portal, because, on the one hand, the Nazareth Wilson translated Khitrowo’s French translation. The capitals are in pristine condition, never having been put need for a modern edition of Daniel’s text is evident, but in place, while on the other, most fragments of figural all of the manuscripts are in Russian libraries, and the sculpture reconstructed by some on the door are heavily late date of these codices will make a prospective

damaged and may have been so damaged because they editor’s task difficult indeed. — : |

were in place when Baibars destroyed the church. On Abbot Daniel, see the entry “Daniel the Pilgrim” Other suggestions have been made in addition to the (in Russian) in the Russian biographical dictionary, portal placement and shrine placement about to be Russkii biograficheskii slovar’, Moscow-St. Petersburg, discussed; however, none of these—cloisters, baptis- VI, 1905, 95-96. For another, more recent bibliography, tery, or chapter house—seems likely in view of the see “Daniil, Palomnik Russky,” in Repertorium Fontium

factors discussed here. Historiae Medii Aevi, 1v, Rome, 1976, 107-8. My thanks

NOTES TO PAGES 10-15 71 to Nadyezdha Zilper, Slavic Bibliographer at the See Runciman, m, 317. The letter of Pope Urban IV to University of North Carolina, for her help with this Louis IX, which tells of the destruction done to the entry and for obtaining the text of Abbot Daniel edited Church of the Annunciation, is published in Chevalier,

by4. Viaud A.points Venevitinov. 1906, 46. | out (pp. 19-20, 110) that not all 17. Burchardus de Monte Sion, Peregrinatores medii

manuscripts contain the reference to “two doors, one to aevi quattuor, 2nd ed., J. C. M. Laurent, ed., Leipzig,

the east and the other to the west.” Dr. Xenia Muratova 1873, 46-47.

has verified for me that this reference does not, for 18. Ricoldus de Monte Crucis, Peregrinatores, J. C.

example, occur in the text of the Old Russian edition M. Laurent, ed., 107.

published by Noroff. However, Noroff’s text is known 19. The dating of the translatio of the Holy House

to be less reliable than that used by Khitrowo or derives from several sources, some of which are Venevitinov. Ryan, using Venevitinov’s text edition, discussed below. See Introduction, note 1, and chapter

accepts this passage in his translation. 5; notes I and 2. |

I would like to thank Dr. Muratova for discussing 20. Pilgrims who came to Nazareth between 1291 with me certain problems of Noroff’s edition of and 1500 continue to record the devastated site. See, for

Daniel’s text. example, Jacobus de Verona (1335), Ludolphus de |

5. Innominatus VII, Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex Sudheim (1336), and Nicolo da Poggibonsi (1347), in saeculo VIII, IX, XII et XV, T. Tobler, ed., Leipzig, Baldi, Enchiridion, 19ff. After about 1475 the Santa Casa

1874, 107. of Loreto becomes an issue in such reports. See, for , Belardo d’Ascoli also visited Nazareth after Daniel, example, F. Suriano (1485), Treatise on the Holy Land, T.

1112-20, but his account essentially adds nothing to Bellorini and E. Hoade, trans., publications of the Daniel’s extensive description (D. Baldi, Enchiridion Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, vii, Jerusalem, 1949, Locorum Sanctorum, 2nd rev. ed., Jerusalem, 1982, 10). 159-60; Quaresmius, 0, 1639, 816ff.; or Sig. Polo

6. P.L., ctv, col. 1057. | Michiel, Capitanio delle Navi, Nazaret Gloriosa: relatione 7. Theodoricus, Libellus de locis sanctis, Editiones de viaggi di Levante, O. C. Ratizano, ed., Venice, 1700,

Heidelbergensis, xvi, W. and M. L. Bulst, eds., 152-72. For an interesting comparison of the relation-

Heidelberg, 1976, chap. xLvu, p. 48. ship between the length-and-width measurements of 8. Viaud, 1910, 100-105, esp. 102, and plan: fig. 36, the Shrine of the Annunciation in Nazareth and the

p. 81, D; Bagatti, 1969, 182. | Santa Casa of Loreto, drawn to scale, see A. Legendre, 9. Vlaminck, 1900, 4; Viaud, 1910, 88, 90; and “Nazareth,” in Dictionnaire de la Bible, 1v, Paris, 1908,

Bagatti, 1969, 88-89. col. 1534, fig. 421. Viaud had published an earlier 10. No trace of this chamber survives today; any- drawing of this relationship on his plan in Saint Francois thing remaining from the medieval period was pre- et la Terre-Sainte, 3° année, 1893, 187. sumably obliterated by the large set of stairs installed b

the Franciscans when they rebuilt the church in 1730 and CHAPTER III , : , enlarged it in 1877 (see Viaud, 1910, 84, fig. 40; and 1. The most useful secondary studies on Crusader Bagatti, 1969, 2). This rectangular chamber is some- ecclesiastical history of which Nazareth was a part are: times related to the Santa Casa of Loreto, even though B. Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States,

its dimensions are much smaller. See, for example, London, 1980, esp. 60, 67, 265-66, 404-5, H. E. A.-M. Lepicier, L’annonciation; essai de Viconographie Mayer, Bistiimer, Kloster und Stifte im Konigreich Jerusa-

mariale, Gap, 1943, 194-202; or A. Legendre, “Naza- lem, Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, reth,” Dictionnaire de la Bible, 1v, Paris, 1908, col. 1534, XXVI, Stuttgart, 1977, 81-97; and G. Fedalto, La chiesa

fig. 421. See also note 20 below. latina in oriente, 1, 2nd ed., Verona, 1981, 160-63; UL,

II. Quaresmius, 1, 1639, 816ff. and plan, 830. Verona, 1976, 165-66. :

12. The Pilgrimage of Joannes Phocas in the Holy Land, Other useful works include J. Richard, “Hospitals

A. Stewart, trans., PPTS, v, London, 1897, 12-13; and Hospital Congregations in the Latin Kingdom P.G., cCxxxi, 1864, cols. 935-36. See also RHC: Hist. during the First Period of the Frankish Conquest,” in

Grecs, 1, Paris, 1875, 533-35. Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom

13. Viaud, 1910, 113. Ch. Rohault de Fleury, La Ste. of Jerusalem, presented to Joshua Prawer, Jerusalem, Vierge, Paris, 1878, 90, calls this painting at the entrance 1982, 95-97; B. Z. Kedar, “Gerard of Nazareth, A “un grand tableau.” We unfortunately do not know Neglected Twelfth-Century Writer in the Latin East: A what precisely Johannes Phocas was referring to, except Contribution to the Intellectual and Monastic History of that this is the first time the shrine is mentioned as being the Crusader States,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xxxvu,

decorated. 1983, 55-77, and idem, “Palmarée, Abbaye Clunisienne

14. The most useful compendium of texts, including du XII‘ siécle en Galilée,” Revue Bénédictine, xc, 1983, those cited above, except the Innominatus VII, is that by 260-69; and W. Hotzelt, Kirchengeschichte Paldstinas im D. Baldi, Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum, 2nd rev. ed., Zeitalter der Kreuzzuge: 1099-1291, Cologne, 1940. See

Jerusalem, 1982, 6-19. , also H. Buschhausen’s comment on the history of the 15. Geoffrey of Beaulieu, in Recueil des Historiens des Church of the Annunciation (1978, 276-79) and M.

Gaules et de la France, xx, Paris, 1840, 14. Benvenisti’s summary, The Crusaders in the Holy Land,

16. Baibars captured Nazareth in early April of 1263. Jerusalem, 1970, 165-67. , ,

72 NOTES TO PAGES 15-19 For the dating of the major earthquakes during the because they reflect the shrine-grotto before 1730. Crusader period in the Latin Kingdom, see H. E. Unfortunately, no sketch done before about 1475 has Mayer, “Two Unpublished Letters on the Syrian come to. light to inform us about the Nazareth shrineEarthquakes of 1202,” in Medieval and Middle Eastern grotto prior to the emergence of the Santa Casa of Studies in Honor of Aziz Suryal Atiya, S. A. Hanna, ed., Loreto as a major pilgrimage site.

Leiden, 1972, 295-310. It is unclear which of these 19. Bagatti, 1969, 88-89, 94, fig. sD (95). earthquakes—1170 or 1202—had the most impact on 20. Ibid., 1969, 178; 1984, 59-60. Bagatti does not the Church of the Annunciation, but Bagatti (1984), in comment in the 1969 volume on the two “tombs” the archaeological report of the 1955-66 excavations, reported by Viaud, but in 1984 he identifies them as argues that it was the 1170 earthquake that occasioned Crusader and ofa post-1099 date. Since these tombs seem

the rebuilding of the church and the preparation of to have been dug before the modifications to the grotto

extensive figural sculpture for decoration. complex caused by the Baibar destruction in 1263, and 2. Viaud, 1910, 81-108; Bagatti, 1969, 88-89, 100— since the entry to the grotto shown on the plans of 102, 174-85; Bagatti, 1984, 54-70. See also Vlaminck, Quaresmius and Roger would probably not have been

1900, 2—S. used for burials after the stairway had been built (see note

3. Viaud, 1910, rooff. 17 above), we can tentatively assume that these tombs,

4. Ibid. 105-8. Vlaminck had discovered the cruci- along with the cuttings in the rock bank, define the width

form pier earlier, but Viaud was the first to expose its of the Chapel of the Angel at about 3.0 m. remains fully. The pier measures 3.05 m along both 21. In view of the large amount of Crusader sculp-

axes. ture that survives from Nazareth, now reported by 5. Viaud, 1910, 126, and Bagatti, 1984, s4ff. and Bagatti (1984, 89-131), the likely existence of some sort

figs. 27 and 28. of plan to decorate the church and shrine-monument

6. Viaud, 96, 126-28. The dimensions he indicated can hardly be doubted. Indeed, Bagatti (64, 67-68, and are approximately 3.0 m wide by at least 10.5 m long (p. fig. 27) reconstructs the shrine-monument with a

81). baldacchino, but he does not consider the possibility of 7. Ibid., 126, 128. figural decoration on the monument itself. With regard 8. Ibid., 100-106. to a parallel situation at the Holy Sepulchre, John

g. It is unfortunate that Viaud was unable to Wilkinson, discussing the history of the aedicule, notes excavate under this broad stairway. See ibid., 81(a). the intensive concern with decoration, sometimes at the | 10. Ibid., 81(h), tombs (o + p), stairs (i + j); see also expense of the structure of the monument itself (“The 88, 90, 95-96, and 107. The westernmost stairway and Tomb of Christ: An Outline of Its Structural History,” the fifth- or sixth-century mosaic with the name of Levant, 1v, 1972, 83ff.). Conon (K@vwvoc) was found by B. Vlaminck. See his 22. Viaud, 1910, 150, 153; Germer-Durand, IgQII, report cited in the Introduction, note 2, and chapter 3, 241-42; Deschamps, 1930, 107-8; Boase, 1939, 8; and

note 2. Barasch, 1971, 70-71. Enlart agrees that the capitals 11. Bagatti, 1969, also reported further in Volume were buried for safekeeping, but he thinks this occurred (1984), 54ff. and figs. 27 and 28. I would like to express only prior to Baibar’s destruction of the church in 1263; my special appreciation to Fr. Bagatti and his research see Il, 295. Enlart’s view is not impossible, but it seems colleague, Fr. Eugenio Alliata, for their willingness to more likely that, given the style of the capitals and their

discuss the problems of interpreting the excavation pristine condition, unlike the large quantity of heavily results for the Crusader period prior to the publication damaged sculpture also found in Nazareth, they were of Volume 1, which deals explicitly with these matters never put in their intended location and instead were at greater length. My thanks also for their permission to buried (or hidden away in a “storeroom”) before the use two of their plans (figs. 2 and 3), which have been incursions of Saladin in the 1180s.

slightly revised for this study. 23. Bagatti, 1984, 64, 67, fig. 27 (68), reconstructs a 12. Bagatti, 1969, 174-75, fig. 137; 1984, s4ff. and baldacchino on the aedicule with only small foliate

figs. 27 and 28. capitals, preferring to conceive of the Nazareth shrine 13. Ibid., 1969, 178, 180, fig. 137 (175), fig. I40 strictly as a reflection of Jerusalem monuments. (179); 1984, pl. XI. Whereas the capitals he refers to may well have 14. Ibid., 1969, 178; 1984, s4ff. My measurements belonged to a ciborium or baldacchino somewhere in differ only slightly from those of Bagatti: height, 1.71 the church, Bagatti offers no argument for why they

m; length, 5.27 m. should be reconstructed on the shrine-monument of the 15. Ibid., 1969, 181-82, fig. 142; 1984, s4ff. Annunciation itself. It is much more likely that the

16. Ibid., 1969, 178; 1984, s4ff. polygonal capitals were specially designed for a larger 17. Ibid., 1969, 182-83; 1984, 64, 67. baldacchino than usual, to give special prominence to

18. Ibid., 1969, 182—83; 1984, s4ff. Quaresmius, II, the shrine-monument (fig. 3, SM) by their figural 1639, 816ff., and plan, 830; E. Roger, La Terre Saincte, decoration and size. ou description topographique trés particuliére des saincts lieux Unfortunately, depictions of the Shrine of the Anet de la terre de promission, Paris, 1646, 48-55, esp. plan, nunciation as they exist from the postmedieval period

$1 (reversed). Quaresmius and Roger are especially only confirm the lack of exterior decoration at that time important for their discussions, diagrams, and views and give no indication that capitals with figural decora-

NOTES TO PAGES 19-24 73 tion were intended on the interior. See Bagatti, 1969, 4- 31. Besides the aedicule of the Holy Sepulchre, a 8, 77ff., and the famous images of Cornelius Le Bruyn, contemporary parallel for this type of arcading (using, Voyage au Levant, original edition in Dutch, 1698, Paris however, flat pilasters instead of semicolumns) is the edition, 1714, plates 166 and 167 between pp. 314 and Tomb of Bohemond in the cathedral compound at

315 (pls. 49 and $0). | Canosa in Apulia, dated c. 1111 (pl. 39). See A.

24. See the important discussions in G. Dalman, Das Petrucci, Cattedrali di Puglia, 2nd ed. Rome, 1964, pl. Grab Christi in Deutschland, Studien Uber Christliche 75; Bertaux, L’art dans I’Italie méridonale, Paris and Denkmiler, Leipzig, 1922; R. Krautheimer, “Introduc- Rome, 1903, 312ff. See also Pina Belli D’Elia, “Acception to an ‘Iconography of Medieval Architecture,’” tus,” in La Puglia fra Bisanzio e l’Occidente, Milan, 1980, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, v, 1942, I- 175-77, and A. Epstein, “The Date and Significance of

33; C. Heitz, Recherches sur les Rapports entre Architecture the Cathedral of Canosa in Apulia, South Italy,” et Liturgie, Paris, 1963; and Wilkinson, “Tomb,” 83- Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XXXVU, 1983, 85-88, and “The

97. Tomb of Prince Bohemond,” with bibliography. 25. Wilkinson, 1972, 84, 87-91; Vincent and Abel, 32. On the cruciform pier to the west, see Viaud, 107

Jérusalem, 11, fasc. 1, 260-65, 291. and fig. 36 (81). : 26. A. Grabar, “Christian Architecture East and 33. It seems unlikely that if the large capital was West,” Archeology, 1, 1949, 98. This article, with the intended for use on the arcading of the lower rectanguquotation cited, is a summary of Grabar’s monumental lar shrine—in effect, on the exterior of the Chapel of work, Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art the Angel—the polygonal capitals would be used for

| chrétien antique, Paris, 1946; reprint, London, 1972. On the same purpose. Not only would two of the corners the specific problem of mausolea influencing the archi- of the shrine-monument (the ones next to the crucitecture of Christian holy places and/or the situation of form piers [cf. fig. 3]) be inappropriate, but the Nazareth in particular, see 76ff., 202—4ff., 311-13, 322— differences in size and iconographic program between

23ff., and 441-42. the rectangular and polygonal capitals would appear to

27. B. Bagatti, M. Piccirillo, and A. Prodomo, New make this impossible. | Discoveries at 59-82, the Tomb of the Virgin Mary in Gethsemane, Jerusalem, 1975, elevation: fig. 19 (74); and , | Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, u, fasc. Iv, 813-16. CHAPTER IV . a ~ Apropos of Prodomo’s work, one must bear in mind I. It is also true that specific dedications of churches that he bases his reconstruction on the Holy Sepulchre. to the Annunciation, as distinguished from the Virgin Nonetheless, the attempt seems reasonable, given the Mary, are rare. See, for example, F. Bond, Dedications , surviving fragments and what we know of the tomb and Patron Saints of English Churches, Oxford, 1914, 20ff.

from the sources. Only one English church of the 2,335 dedications Bond

28. The shrine-grotto complex at the Church of the cites includes mention of the Annunciation.

Nativity, Bethlehem, also has some parallels to the 2. J. C. Dickinson, The Shrine of Our Lady of Nazareth monument—for example, an altar on top of Walsingham, Cambridge, 1956, 4-19, 92ff. the grotto. However, so little is known about the 3. Desiderius Erasmus, Familiarium colloquiorum, exterior of the grotto at Bethlehem that it is unfortu- Basel, 1526, s7off., esp. $72. .

nately not very useful for comparison. What we do _ 4. J. Lee Warner, “Walsingham Priory, A Memknow of the holy site of the Nativity is that its major oir... with an Account of Recent Discoveries,” decoration was the interior apse mosaic of the grotto put Archeological Journal, xi, 1856, 115-34; H. Harrod,

, up in the twelfth century. See H. Vincent and F. M. Gleanings Among the Castles and Convents of Norfolk, Abel, Béthléem: Le Sanctuaire de la Nativité, Paris, 1914, Norwich, 1857, 154-97.

oof., 176ff., 183ff.; and Folda, in Setton/Hazard, Cru- 5. Dickinson, Walsingham, 98—99, and pl. 9c and d

sades, IV, 257-58 and pl. XXXIa. (119-20).

29. It seems likely that the designation of the 6. See the succinct comment on French images in

rectangular entry module (cf. fig. 3, ca) as the “Chapel the thirteenth century by E. Male, L’art religieux du XIII’ of the Angel” in Nazareth may owe something of its siécle en France, 9th ed., Paris, 1958, 245, last paragraph. strong identification to the parallel with the aedicule of Images of the Annunciation appear on Crusader seals

the Holy Sepulchre, in the face of the claims for the (but not on Crusader coins) always without indications “House ofthe Virgin,” which, at least in later discus- of setting. See, for example, the seal of Archbishop sions related to Loreto, focus on this same rectangular Lietard of Nazareth: G. Schlumberger, et al., Sigillograchamber. Cf. chapter 2, note 20, and chapter 4, note 19. phie de Vorient latin, Paris, 1943, 96-97, pl. II, 6. On 30. Enlart, u, 302, first proposed the trumeau idea, European coins, see, however, the exquisite image (also followed by others, most recently Z. Jacoby, 1981, without architectural setting) on a Saluto d’Or, c. 1287, 160—72. The possibility that the capital was used on the in P. Grierson, Monnaies du Moyen Age, Fribourg, 1976,

sidewall semicolumns of the Church of the Annuncia- 167, pl. 335 opposite p. 184. | tion can be eliminated. Although some of these semicol- 7. See, for example, the Annunciation at Conques | umns partially survive, the shape and size of their shafts from the early twelfth century (B. Rupprecht, Romanwould not accommodate the base of the rectangular ische Skulptur in Frankreich, Munich, 1975, pl. 121); at

capital at issue here. See Viaud, 1910, Soff. Moissac from 1120-35 (Rupprecht, pl. 43); the Italian |

74 NOTES TO PAGES 24-25 example now in the Cloisters, New York, c. 1200 (K. Berry: The Late XIV Century and the Patronage of the Hoffmann, The Year 1200, 1, New York, 1970, 37-38, Duke, 2nd ed., New York, 1969, 169 and pl. 94. no. 45), or the interesting example in the cloister at 17. Compare the House of the Virgin in the “Annun-

, Santo Domingo de Silos, c. 1180-90 (E. S. Greenhill, ciation of the Death of the Virgin” in the Hunterian “French Monumental Sculpture,” in The Year 1200, 0, Psalter, c. 1170, where it is depicted as a baldacchino, F. Deuchler, ed., New York, 1970, 46, no. 43). and that in the Maesta Altar by Duccio, where it is a little 8. H. Beenken, “The Annunciation of Petrus Cris- house. On the Hunterian Psalter, see the forthcoming tus in the Metropolitan Museum and the Problem of Ph.D. dissertation by Jane Hetherington Brown (Uni-

Hubert van Eyck,” AB, xIx, 1937, 227. versity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill). On Duccio’s © 9. On the Rhenish ivory (c. 1100), see A. Gold- Maesta image, see the references cited above in note 13. schmidt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der Karolin- For the iconography of the “Annunciation of the Death gischen und Sachsischen Kaiser VIII.—XI. Jht., 1, Berlin, of the Virgin,” see also E. Male, L’art religieux du XII’ 1918, reprint, 1970, no. 160, p. 49, pl. XLVI; Schiller, siecle en France, 6th ed., Paris, 1953, 435 (Iympanum of

1, 44, fig. 94; and more recently, see Zimelien, ed. T. Saint-Pierre-le-Puellier); idem, L’Art religieux du XIIT’

Brandis, P. J. Becker, et al., Ausstellung (Abend- siécle, 251 (windows of Saint Quentin and Soissons); landische Handschriften), Berlin-Dahlem Museen, Robb, “Iconography,” 486, n. 30; and Schiller, rv, 2, 1976, 271, no. 177. For the Monreale cloister, see R. 118ff., esp. 118 and 122. Salvini, The Cloister of Monreale and Romanesque Sculp- 18. E. Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting, Cam-

ture in Italy, Palermo, 1962, pl. XIII and fig. 61. bridge, Mass., 1966, 30 and n. I, 370-71. K. Morand, 10. On the larger problem of the artistic develop- Jean Pucelle, 41-42, doubts that Pucelle would have ment and the meaning of linear perspective, see E. employed such arcane iconography. It surely is most Panofsky, Die Perspektive als “Symbolische Form,” unusual for the Annunciation scene to be set in the Holy Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg, Iv (1924-25), Leip- House borne by angels.

Zig, 1927. 19. In painting, see, for example, Tiepolo’s now11. See J. Villette, La Maison de la vierge dans la scéne destroyed painting on the ceiling of the Chiesa degli de l’annonciation, Paris, 1940, 5—30, for a general survey Scalzi, Venice, for which there is the well-known oil up to the fifteenth century. See also D. M. Robb, “The sketch extant in London (Barcham, “Tiepolo’s Ceiling Iconography of the Annunciation in the Fourteenth and for S. Maria di Nazareth,” 430-31, 439. In engravings,

Fifteenth Centuries,” AB, XvIll, 1936, 480-85. see the frontispiece to A. Philippon, Le Veritable Plan et 12. F. Horb, “Cavallinis Haus der Madonna,” Portrait de la Maison Miraculeuse de la Ste. Vierge... , Géteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets- Sambhalles Paris, 1649. In sculpture, see the carved cheminée from

Handlinger, Sjatte Foljden, ser. A, vol. 3, no. 1, Rouen now in the Musée de Cluny, Paris (E. Male, L’art Goteborg, 1945, passim; and Schiller, 1, 37. See also P. religieux de la fin du Moyen Age en France, 5th ed., Paris,

Hetherington, Pietro Cavallini, London, 1979, 17. 1949, 204-5). And, finally, in medallic art, see the 13. J. White, Duccio: Tuscan Art and the Medieval variety published in F. Grimaldi, Mostra di medaglie

| Workshop, London, 1979, 16, 84, 117-18, and pls. I0 Lauretane, Loreto, 1977; or in the Corpus Nummorum and 58; and J. Stubblebine, Duccio di Buoninsegna and His Italicorum, x1u, Marches, Rome, 1932, pls. VIII, 21; X, 6;

School, 1, Princeton, 1979, 40, 54-55; 0, Princeton, XI, 6 and 10; XVII, 26 and 28. There are also carved

1979, figs. 72 and 85. gems. 14. On Jean Pucelle and the Annunciation in The In the United States, a nice example appears in the

| Hours of Jeanne d’Evreux, see K. Morand, Jean Pucelle, Sommerville Collection in Philadelphia. See M. SomOxford, 1962, 7-8, 14, 41-42, and pl. [Xd. merville, Engraved Gems: Their History and Place in Art, 15. The “little box” configuration was popular in the Philadelphia, 1889, 684, no. 268, and pl. 15. My thanks fourteenth century in Italy. It could be represented with to Genevra Kornbluth for drawing my attention to this solid walls, as Giotto painted it in the Arena Chapel in publication.

1305-6 for the “Annunciation to St. Anne.” See J. 20. Weil-Garris, Santa Casa di Loreto, 1. White, Art and Architecture in Italy: 1250 to 1400, 21. For the Holy House of Loreto iconography Baltimore, 1966, pl. 92a. The little box could have before about 1500, see F. Grimaldi, La Chiesa di Santa columns with an arcade, as in a Northern Italian Maria di Loreto, Ancona, 1984, pls. X-X VIII; idem, II miniature of about 1400 (Robb, “Iconography,” 490 Libro lauretano, Macerata, 1973; A. Pigler, Barockthemen, and fig. 11). One also finds combinations of these two 2nd ed., 1, Budapest, 1974, 495-96; and C. Ricci, “Per types; for example, one by Pietro Lorenzetti, dated 1320 L’iconografia Lauretana,” Rassegna d’Arte Antica e Mo-

(ibid., 487, fig. 6). Many examples of Italian versions of derna, 1, 1916, 265—74. | the Annunciation from 1300 to 1500 are collected by G. There are two exceptions to the baldacchino iconoPrampolini, L’Annunciazione nei pittori primitivi Italiani, graphy. Besides Jean Pucelle’s image, there is a fresco of

Milan, 1939. the late fourteenth century in the cloister of Saint Francis, 16. This was popular in Franco-Flemish painting. Gubbio, where the image of a Holy House held by angels

See, for example, the miniature of Jacquemart de is shown as a small gabled building with two arched Hesdin in Paris (Bibl. Nat. Ms. lat. 18014) of about windows and an arched door. See M. Faloci Pulignani, 1380-85: M. Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de La sainte maison de Lorette d’aprés une fresque de Gubbio,

, NOTES TO PAGES 25-28 75 Rome, 1907, with some remarks on the diverse iconog- 33. Viaud, 149. Enlart, 1, 129, supposes Viaud was | raphy, 6off. and 82ff. This fresco is also illustrated in A. thinking of a conventional rectangular ciborium and Colasanti, Loreto, Bergamo, 1920, 33 and 43ff. In the suggests the example at St. Abraham, Hebron. Cf. Gubbio fresco, the iconography seems to follow the L. H. Vincent and E. J. H. Mackay, with F. M. Abel, popular box-house type mentioned above (see note I5 Hébron: Le Haram el-Khalil, sépulture des patriarches,

above). It seems to be an example of the lack of Paris, 1923, 1, $3ff; u, pl. xi. The Hebron ciborium is uniformity in the iconography of the House of the Virgin not a feasible model because it is too small and its format caused by the destruction of the Church of the Annuncia- of columns with capitals offers no possibilities for the

tion in Nazareth and the incomplete shrine-grotto. special characteristics of the Nazareth capitals. 22. Ricci, “L’iconografia Lauretana,” 267 and 269. 34. In fact, none of the reentrant angles is exactly 90 23. Ibid., 266; A. Hind, Early Italian Engraving, degrees, but they all approximate a right angle. See | London, 1938, Iv, pl. 457, no. E.III.81; Grimaldi, II chapter 1, note 5. In the absence of a decisive geometric Libro Lauretano, 62, 64, no. 2; idem, La Tradizione indication for 85 degrees as the closest important Lauretana nelle Stampi popolari, Loreto, 1980, 8. alternative, however, we shall assume that the mason’s 24. Cf. Ricci, 271, and Hind, pl. 457, no. E.III.81. template was set to dress the tongue elements at 90 25. Luca da Monterado, Storia del culto e del pellerinag- degrees and that the angle was slightly reduced in the gio a Loreto sec. XIV—V, 2nd ed., Loreto, 1979, 231 and process of carving.

250. 35. See, for example, the early twelfth-century cibo26. A. B. Calosso, “Le origini della pittura del rium at the Church of San Nicola, Bari, or the partially Quattrocento attorno a Roma,” Bolletino d’Arte, xiv, restored one in the Cathedral of Barletta: C. A.

1920, fig. 31; Ricci, 265. } Willemsen and D. Odenthal, Apulien, Cologne, 1958,

27. Grimaldi, Il Libro Lauretano, 35-38, mentions pl. 183; E. Bertaux, L’Art dans I’Italie méridionale,

this idea. Paris-Rome, 1903, 450-56, fig. 187; and H. Buschhau28. One must of course weigh this suggestion with _ sen, Die siiditalienische Bauplastik ... , 71ff.

all due caution against the enormous background of 36. For Bohemond’s tomb, see chapter 3, note 31. Renaissance devotional imagery that depicts the Virgin The capitals on the upper story of Bohemond’s tomb, and Child under some kind of ciborium or baldacchino. while polygonal and engaged to the octagonal monu29. For a similar: phenomenon in Franco-Flemish ment, are not bonded in the same way as the Nazareth painting, see the discussion by Millard Meiss and capitals would have been. The “tongue” elements of the Elizabeth Beatson on the miniature of the Altar of the Nazareth polygonal capitals are another of their unusual

Holy Cross by the Limbourg Brothers (Herman): M. features. :

Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The 37. Wilkinson, “Tomb,” 84, 87ff.; Vincent and Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries, New York, 1974, Abel, Jérusalem, u, fasc. 1, 260ff., 291.

| 217-24, fig. $96. 38. Bagatti, et al., Tomb of the Virgin, 59-82. Vincent

30. Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting, 86ff., and Abel, Jérusalem, u, fasc. 4, 813-16. 132ff., and pl. 50; G. Dogaer and M. Debae, eds., La . 39. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, u, fasc. 2, 360ff.,

Librairie de Philippe Le Bon, Brussels, 1967, $0, no. 66, and 400-406. :

pl. 46; and L. M. J. Delaissé, La miniature flamande: Le 40. Ibid., fasc. 4, 969-73; K. A. C. Creswell, Early mécénat de Philippe Le Bon, Brussels, 1959, 122, no. 141, Muslim Architecture, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1969, 65ff.

and pl. 48. , | 41. M. Burgoyne, The Development of the Haram in 31. J. Braun, Der christliche Altar in seiner geschicht- Jerusalem under the Bahri Mamluks, D.Phil. diss., Magdalicher Entwicklung, 1, Munich, 1924, 210-34; and Ch. lene College, Oxford, 1979, 1, 4of.

Rohault de Fleury, La messe: Etudes archéologiques, 1, 42. It would be tempting to consider a hexagon, as : Paris, 1883, 28-39. Braun discusses the terms ciborium Bagatti has done (1984, 68, fig. 27), since the polygonal and baldacchino on pp. 270-75. On ciboria in the Holy capitals each have six carved figural sides, and given the

Land, see notes 37ff. . symbolism of the number 6, a number associated with

32. For France, see, for example, V. Mortet, Recueil the Incarnation by Saint Augustine. On the number 6

de textes relatifs a Vhistoire de l’architecture.. . XI°—XII and the Incarnation of Jesus, see V. Hopper, Medieval _ siécles, Paris, I9I1, 9, 31, 42, 122, 128, 141-42, 210, Number Symbolism: Its Sources, Meaning and Influence on

242-43, 259, 265, 354, and 402; V. Mortet and P. Thought and Expression, New York, 1938, passim; and }

Deschamps, Recueil de textes... XII°—XIII’ siécles, especially, P. Underwood, “The Fountain of Life in Paris, 1929, 2, 9, II, 75, 89-90, 99, and 121. On the Manuscripts of the Gospels,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, v,

tomb of Saint Lazare at Autun, see R. Hamann, “Das 1950, 83—88. Nonetheless, the concrete evidence already Lazarusgrab in Autun,” Marbiirger Jahrbuch fiir Kunstwis- discussed seems to rule out this possibility in favor of an senschaft, vitI/Ix, 1936, 182-328, and more recently the octagonal or, less likely, a rectangular configuration.

guidebook and the forthcoming catalogue for an impor- 43. This piece was not published by Viaud, and

tant exhibition on the Tomb of Saint Lazarus held at the Bagatti published it only in 1984, 37-38 and fig. 11. I Musée Rolin, 8 June—15 September 1985: M. Pinette, Le would like to thank Frs. Bagatti and Alliata for bringing Tombeau de Saint-Lazare et la sculpture romane a Autun it to my attention in 1982 and for their permission to

aprés Gislebertus: Guide de l’exposition, Autun, 1985. publish it here. |

76 NOTES TO PAGES 28-33 | 44. Whereas polygonal shrines are not uncommon, (Saint),” in Cabrol and Leclercq, eds., DACL, Ix, 2, there are some shrines of unusual shape, such as the odd col. 2614; L. Réau, Iconographie de lart chrétien, 11, structure set in the base of the northeast pier of the Iconographie des saints, pt. 2, Paris, 1958, 830-32; and third-nave bay at the Church of Notre Dame in Tortosa Lexikon der christlicne Ikonographie, W. Braunfels, ed., , dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. See vu, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1974, cols. 458-59.

Enlart, um, 395ff., esp. 410, and pls. 10 and 158. 6. Ch. Rohault de Fleury, La Ste. Vierge, 1, 243-44, 45. Bagatti, 1984, 98-99. Also, Viaud (1910, pl. G briefly discusses the house on Mount Sion. See also M. lower row and 162—63) published relevant fragments Jugie, La mort et Passomption de la Sainte Vierge, Rome,

that he did not specifically attribute to a polygonal 1944, 85-90. capital. Enlart, pl. 130, fig. 408, central right side and 7. Jugie, La mort et l’assomption de la Sainte Vierge, lower left side, published fragments among which he 168. proposed that some might be from a polygonal capital: 8. Rohault de Fleury, La Ste. Vierge, 1, 174, refers to see, for example, 11, 307. Jacoby (1981, 154, fig. 15 a—c) the Monastery of Saint Sergius, Deir el Nassara, in proposes to attribute three fragments to a polygonal Cairo, where one is shown in the monastery church a capital. While these fragments may be small enough for grotto said to be a dwelling place of the Holy Family use on a capital or otherwise, it remains to be seen during the Flight into Egypt. More recently, O. F. A. specifically how they could be reconstructed on a Meinardus discusses the extensive travels of the Holy

polygonal exemplar. Family in Egypt and locates a house in which they

46. Bagatti, 1969, 182; and 1984, 54-70, esp. 64, 67— dwelled at Deir al-Muharragq on the west bank of the

68, and figs. 27 and 28. Nile River, about 250 km south of Cairo. See Meinar-

47. We can express the measurements as follows: Ifa dus, “The Itinerary of the Holy Family in Egypt,” | person 1.6 m tall were looking at the polygonal capitals Studia Orientalia Christiana, Collectanea, vu, Cairo, set at 5.5 m above the floor surface and the rectangular 1962, 1-44, and idem, Atlas of Christian Sites in Egypt, capital set at 3.5 m above the floor, this person would be Cairo, 1962, maps I and 2. See also his book (unaccessiat the optimum viewing angle (defined as 42 degrees ble to me), In the Steps of the Holy Family from Bethlehem from the vertical for the polygons and 58 degrees from to Upper Egypt, Cairo, 1963.

the vertical for the rectangular capital) by standing 9. Rohault de Fleury, La Ste. Vierge, 1, 241-43, approximately 3.0 to 3.5 m horizontal distance from the discusses the problem of Ephesus and the Virgin. See | capitals. While this can only give an indication about also note 24 below. their intended position, it will easily be seen in Figures 2 Io. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, 1, fasc. 4, 669-742. and 3 that a viewing distance of 3.0 to 3.5 m would be See also Rohault de Fleury, La Ste. Vierge, 1, 39-40. possible and practicable for pilgrims walking around the 11. The apocryphal text is the Gospel of the Birth of

exterior of the shrine-monument. Mary, mentioned by M. R. James, The Apocryphal New 48. If the capitals were all placed at the same level— Testament, 1929, 79-80; and J. Lafontaine-Dosogne,

say at 5.§ m above the level of the floor surface—a Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge dans l’empire byzantin person 1.6 m tall would have to walk 2.75 m closer to et en Occident, Brussels, 1964-65, I, 27-28; 1, 14 and $9.

the polygonal capitals from the optimum viewing angle There are two published editions: C. Tischendorf, of the rectangular capital in order to arrive at their Apocalypses Apocryphae, 1866, 113-21; and A. De Santos

optimum viewing angle. Otero, Los Evangelios apécrifos, Madrid, 1956, 258ff. | 12. One can understand the difficulty of the problem

, | by reading the accounts of Mary’s birth in, for example, CHAPTER V The Golden Legend (Jacopo da Voragine, Legenda Aurea

1. J. A. Vogel, De ecclesiis Recanatensi et Lauretana, 1, -ed. Th. Grasse, Dresden and Leipzig, 1846, chap. Recineti, 1859, 304; G. Huffer, Loreto, eine geschicht- CXXXI, 58sff.); the Vita Beate Virginis Marie et skritische Untersuchung, der Frage des heiligen Hauses, 1, Salvatoris Rhythmica (ed. A. Vo6gtlin, Bibliothek des

Munster, 1913, 14ff.; Chevalier, 210ff. litterarischen Vereins, CLXxx, Tubingen, 1888, 10-23); or 2. This text is quoted from Htiffer, Loreto, 1, 22-23. in La Vie de Nostre Benoit Sauveur Ihesus crist et La Saincte

Other Latin editions are published, for example, by Vie de Nostre Dame (eds. M. Meiss and E. H. Beatson, P. V. Martorelli, Teatro istorico della santa casa Nazarena New York, 1977, 136ff.). The incidents of Joachim and

della B. Vergine Maria, 1, Rome, 1732, 506-7, and Anna at the Golden Gate in Jerusalem and the Presenta-

Chevalier, 1910, 210-12, with minor orthographical tion of the Virgin to the Temple were apparently variations. An English text is published in Pietro familiar enough to link the birthplace with Jerusalem, Teramano, “The Origin of the Church of Loreto even in those texts that specify the house of Joachim and (1635), in English Recusant Literature, D. M. Rogers, Anna to be in Nazareth.

ed., txxv, Menston, 1971, I. 13. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, m1, fasc. 3, 421-81. 3. See chapter 2, notes 2 and 6. 14. St. Epiphanius (d. 403), P.G., xi, cols. 260-62; 4. Hiiffer, Loreto, 51-52. cited also by Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, un, fasc. 3, 5. The reference to Luke is a case in point. This 473-74.

story seems to go back to the sixth century, but it only 15. Venerable Bede (d. 735), in Itinere hierosolymitana becomes popular as a subject for painting in the late —saeculi IIJ- VIII, ed. P. Geyer, Corpus Scriptorum EcclesiMiddle Ages. See, for example, H. Leclercq, “Luc asticorum Latinorum, XXxXvil, Vienna, 1898, 306; also

, NOTES TO PAGES 33-35 77 cited (differently) in Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, u, XXV, 1896, 554); London, British Library, Add. Ms.

fasc. 3, 477. 15606 (Meyer, “Notice,” Romania, xv1, 1887, 246). In 16. Theodericus, Libellus de Locis Sanctis, chap. addition, Meyer mentions but does not quote the

XXII, 29; also cited (differently) by Vincent and Abel, following manuscripts that have the special reference to Jérusalem, u, fasc. 3, 479. Burchardus de Monte Sion, in Nazareth: Paris, Bibl. Nat., Mss. fr. 1533 fol. 31r; 1768,

Peregrinatores medii aevi quattuor, 72; also cited by fol. 130r; and 2815, fol. 229r. I have verified these Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, u, fasc. 3, 480. passages in all manuscripts in Paris and London. See also 17. Jugie, La mort et l’assomption de la Sainte Vierge, the edition of C. Chabaneau, Revue des langues romanes,

85-90; Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, u1, fasc. 4, 421ff. XXVIII, 1885, 250, vv. 3668-71. |

: 18. Jugie, 168. For the various texts, see also A. 28. Pantel, xxv, vv. 3723-25. This passage also

Wenger, L’assomption de la Trés Sainte Vierge... , appears in Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. fr. 1807, a codex with passim; James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 194- the Wace “long” text. See also Chabaneau, 252, vv. 227; and O. Sinding, Mariae Tod und Himmelfahrt: Ein 3723-25. beitrage zur Kenntnis der fnihmittelalterlich Denkmiéler, 29. The twelfth- and thirteenth-century Old French

Christiania, 1903, I-33. translations of the Assumption texts based on the 19. Johannis liber de dormitione (A.D. §50—580) in Pseudo-Melito Sardensis start by saying “After the

Apocalypses Apocryphae, ed. C. Tischendorf, Leipzig, Ascension,” but these texts do not include the references 1866, 95-112. See also A. Wilmart, “L’ancien recit latin to Nazareth. The exact source of Teremanus remains in

de l’Assomption,” Analecta Reginensis, Studi e Testi, doubt.

LIx, Vatican City, 1933, 357-62. 30. So far, I have found little serious discussion of the

20. Pseudo-Melito Sardensis, De Transitu. Virginis phenomenon, but it is mentioned by I. Spiele in her “Li Mariae (mid-sixth century), in Apocalypses Apocryphae, Romanz de Dieu et de sa Mere d’Herman de Valened. C. Tischendorf, 124-36; and P.G., v, cols. 1231-40. ciennes,” Ph.D. diss., Leyden, 1975, 97; and by H. 21. Transitus B. Mariae Virginis Narratio Ioseph de Lausberg, “Zum altfranzdsischen Assumptionstropus Arimathea (after A.D. 740), in Apocalypses Apocryphae, ‘Quant Li Solleiz,’” Festschrift fiir Jost Trier, Meisened. C. Tischendorf, 113-23. Other texts in Greek or heim Glan, 1954, 91, 100, 102, 105 (nachtrage: idem,

Latin follow one of these versions or omit any place “Zum altfranzdsische Assumptionstropus .. . ,” Archiv , references, as, for example, the Transitus published by fiir das Studium der Neueren Sprache, cvu, vol. 192, 1956,

Wilmart, “L’ancien recit,” 323-57. 134ff.); and idem, “Zur literarischen Gestaltung des 22. F. Robinson, “Coptic Apocryphal Gospels,” Transitus Mariae,” Historisches Jahrbuch, Lxxul, 1952, Texts and Studies, 1v, ed. J. A. Robinson, Cambridge, Festschrift G. Schreiber, 32-33, §§ 19-22. Most recently,

1896; reprint, Neudeln/Liechtenstein, 1967, siff.; re- see Verdier, 1980, 25. ferred to by James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 194. 31. The standard edition for Vincent of Beauvais is 23. Tvransitus Mariae (in Syriac), ed. and trans. Agnes still Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculum Quadruplex, Smith Lewis, in Apocrypha Syriaca: The Protevangelium Douai, 1624; reprint, Graz, 1965; m1, Speculum Historiale,

Jacobi and Transitus Mariae, London, 1902, $9. bk. 7, chaps. LXXV-LXXVIII, 248-49. Verdier trans24. Verdier, 1980, 89-90. On Ephesus, see Jugie, La lates into French the passages relevant to the death and mort et l’assomption de la Sainte Vierge . . . , 1944, 96; and assumption of the Virgin from Vincent of Beauvais’s Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, m1, fasc. 4, 805ff. See also text. See Verdier, 1980, “Annexe I,” 163-65. See also

C. Kopp, “Das Mariengrab: Jerusalem? Ephesus?” H. Peltier, “Vincent de Beauvais,” Dictionnaire de Zeitschrift fiir den Katholischen Klerus, 1955, esp. 11ff., théologie catholique, xv, 2, Paris, 1960, cols. 3026-33,

off. and the much older article in the Histoire Littéraire de la

25. Useful guides to this material are H. P. J. M. France, xvi, Paris, 1895, 449-519. Ahsmann, Le culte de la sainte Vierge et la littérature 32. “De assumptione beatae Mariae virginis,” chap. francaise profane du moyen age, Utrecht, Nymegen [1931], CXIX (114) in the Legenda Aurea by Jacopo da I-22; and especially O. Brattd, “Les versions frangaises Voragine, Th. Grasse, ed., 3rd ed., Breslau, 1890. The , de l’Assomption de la Vierge: Etude suivie de textes account of the Assumption in the Legenda Aurea follows

inédits,” Ph.D. diss., Goteborg, 1959, 2-40. the text of Saint John (see note 19 above). No modern

26. On Wace, see Brattd, Les versions francaises, 10— edition of the Legenda Aurea exists that deals with the

12, and B. F. Carpenter, “The Life and Writings of problems of its many versions and the original and Maistre Wace,” master’s thesis, Chapel Hill, North expanded later texts. Moreover, along with the Latin

Carolina, 1930, off. and 138-44. text of the Legenda Aurea, there are also many Old 27. This text is quoted from A. Pantel, “Das French and Italian translations. See, for example, the

__altfranzGsische gedicht tiber die himmelfahrt Maria von important translation by Jean de Vignay in the early Wace und dessen tiberarbeitungen,” Ph.D. diss., Greifs- fourteenth century (C. Knowles, “Jean de Vignay, un wald, 1909, 15, vv. 3668-71. P. Meyer also quoted the traducteur du XIV* siecle,” Romania, LXXV, 1954, 353_ following manuscripts containing this section: Mont- 83). On the Legenda Aurea, see Bratt6, Les versions pellier, Ms. 350 (Meyer “Notice,” Romania, xv, 1886, francaise, 3-4, 6-8; and J. Baudot, “Jacques de Vora470); Paris, Bibl. de l’Arsenal, Ms. 5201 (Meyer, gine,” Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vi, Paris, “Notice,” Romania, xvi, 1887, 55); Cambridge, Fitzwil- 1924, I, cols. 309—13. An edition of the French text of liam Museum, Ms. 20 (Meyer, “Notice,” Romania, Jean de Vignay was announced as in progress in 1982.

78 NOTES TO PAGES 35-40 See L. L. Gioia, “Bibliography of Editions and Transla- _ story is also found in the Historiae Apostolicae of Abdias,

tions in Progress,” Speculum, LVM, 1982, 208. bk. 9, chap. 1 (ed. J. A. Fabricius, 687-88). On the 33. The Church of Saint Mary, Mount Sion, while a Historiae Apostolicae, see note 62 below. major church dedicated to the Virgin, was a site with 48. See Viaud and de Lasteyrie, in Viaud, 1910, 158multiple associations, of which the Virgin was only one. 59, 169, 172-73; Deschamps, 1930, 104; Boase, 1939, 9;

See Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, 1, fasc. 4, 459-64. and Barasch, 1971, 137-38. 34. On the history of the church in Nazareth, see 49. Viaud and de Lasteyrie, in Viaud, I9I0, 159, Hamilton, The Latin Church, 67, 95, 116, 128, and I141— 172-73; Enlart, 0, 306; Barasch, 1971, 137-38.

42. See also the references cited in chapter 3, note I. so. Acts 9:38 mentions two men (the two men to the 35. The only uniquely Nazareth liturgy known to left on face 1, as Enlart suggested? [m, 306]) and me is Franciscan: Processiones quae fiunt quotidie a PP. widows. None of the three subordinate figures here Franciscanis... in ecclesia annuntiationis B. Véirginis seems to be female, however. Also, if the figure behind Mariae in Nazareth, Antwerp, 1670, 23-30. Because it the bed is John, as proposed by Enlart, it is odd that he dates after the establishment of the Santa Casa in has no halo. Apostles appear on these capitals with or Loreto and of Franciscan custodial duties in the Holy without haloes, to be sure, but they regularly have Land, however, it cannot help us to chart the evolution haloes if they are individually identified. of Nazareth liturgical associations in the Crusader $1. Compare this bed with those appearing in western

period. European sculptural examples, such as Autun (D. Grivot With regard to litanies of the Virgin, A. de Santis, Les and G. Zarnecki, Gislebertus Sculptor of Autun, Paris, litanies de la sainte Vierge, Paris, 1900, discusses Loreto 1961, pls. 11 and 40a), Moissac (Porter, fig. 375), and litanies at length, but Nazareth is never mentioned, even Chartres (E. Houvet, Cathédrale de Chartres: Portail

in the long section on origins. Occidental ou Royal, n.p., n.d., pls. 54 and 80), and, in

36. Hamilton, The Latin Church, 266. After 1263 contrast, with those Byzantine-influenced examples access to Nazareth was assured only by treaty with the appearing in miracle and healing scenes at the Cappella Moslems: see, for example, Runciman, A History of the Palatina, Palermo, and Monreale (O. Demus, Mosaics of

Crusades, Il, 317, 338, and 393. Norman Sicily, 299, pls. 42 and 83). My thanks to Dr. 37. H. Michelant and G. Raynaud, eds., Itinéraires a Xenia Muratova for this observation.

Jérusalem, Geneva, 1882, 103. The Rothelin continua- §2. Enlart, 1, 306. tion of William of Tyre (1261) also records a similar 53. See Acts 9:41 and Abdias, Historiae Apostolicae, reference to Tortosa that omits Nazareth but otherwise Fabricius, ed., bk. 1, chap. 4, 409. See note 62 below for seems obviously related to the one cited above; ibid., the full citations of editions and secondary studies. 174. In the 1261 reference Peter is mentioned specifically $4. See the discussion by Barasch, 118-20, 137.

as having started (or founded) the church at Tortosa. 55. None of this damage is from weathering; rather, Thus in Les Pélerinages, “li apostre” probably also must it appears to be the result of the excavator’s shovel. In

refer to Peter. the photograph published by Barasch, 1971, 100-101,

38. Ibid., 187—88. figs. 24 and 25, Peter’s head has been reattached. This 39. Enlart, 0, 403-8. head appears in the photographs published by Viaud,

40. The main discussions of the iconography of the I910, 163, and is now in place (1985), but it is not in capitals are: Viaud and de Lasteyrie, in Viaud, 1910, photographs taken after the capitals were put in the 155-63, 167-78; Germer-Durand, 1911, 244-46; En- Nazareth Convent Museum (see pl. 3), and the head lart, 1, 302~—8; Deschamps, 1930, 103-6; Boase, 1939, does not appear on the moulages (pl. 58).

9-10; Deschamps, 1964, 251-52; Boase, 1969, 90; 56. Viaud and de Lasteyrie, in Viaud, 1910, 158, 172; Barasch, 1971, 115-54; Boase, 1977, 104; and Jacoby, Deschamps, 1930, 103—4; Barasch, 1971, 118-20, 137.

1981, 154-56, 160, 162, and 164. 57. On the iconography of these three scenes, see, for 41. See note 40 above. On the iconography of the an introduction and examples, Schiller, 1, 167-68, figs.

“Doubting Thomas,” see Schiller, m, 108-14, figs. 488-91; and mW, 114-17, figs. 370-82. For some

340-69. additional twelfth-century comparanda, see Demus, Mo42. Five of eight apostles other than Thomas are saics of Norman Sicily, pl. 74A (Monreale); Porter, pls.

surely bearded; one head is broken away and its original 286 (Moissac), and 540 (San Juan de la Petia).

state cannot be determined. 58. See Schiller, m, 115-16, and, for example, the

43. Thomas seems to be moving forward as seen, for Bury St. Edmunds Evangelary, fig. 332. example, in the Hunterian Psalter, not yet kneeling as in 59. See, for example, Réau, m1, pt. 2, 698-99 (James) the late medieval Altar of Saint Thomas, Cologne. See and 929-31 (Matthew); Lexikon der christlichen Kunst,

Schiller, m1, figs. 353 and 364. vu, cols, 23-39 (James) and 602—7 (Matthew); and E.

44. See, for example, the La Daurade cloister capital Male, Les saints compagnons du Christ, Paris, 1958, 136(Porter, fig. 469) or the Huesca cloister capital (Porter, 40 (James) and 209-10 (Matthew).

fig. 533). 60. All agree on this identification. See note 40 45. See, for example, the miniature in the Melisende above. Psalter (Buchthal, 1957, 4ff., pl. 1ob). 61. See note 59 above. 46. Barasch, 1971, 117-18. 62. The still-standard published edition of Abdias,

47. This same simplified account of the Thomas Historiae Apostolicae, is by J. A. Fabricius, ed., Codex

NOTES TO PAGES 40-43 79 Apocryphus Novi Testamenti . . ., pt. 2, Hamburg, 1719, that the artist of the Nazareth capitals did not wish to where the Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha... adscripta duplicate scenes of martyrdom, that of James having Abdiae is found on 387ff. Book 1 dealing with Peter is already presumably been chosen. Instead, he chooses a found on 402-41; Book 4 for James, 516—31; Book 7 for wide variety of scenes apparently to portray the range of Matthew, 636—68; and Book 9 for Thomas, 687—736. activities by the apostles.

See also Book 8 for Bartholomew, 669-87. 75. Here I essentially follow de Lasteyrie and Barasch There were of course earlier editions of Abdias: see, with some modifications noted. See Viaud, 1910, 175— |

for example, that by W. Lazium, ed., Abdiae Babyloniae 77, and Barasch, 1971, 142-46. | primi episcopi ab apostolis constituti, De historia certaminis 76. These faces are also of major importance on the

Apostolici, libri decem, Iulio Africanus . . . interprete, Paris, other polygonal capitals. 1560, fols. 2r—14v (Peter), 4sr—sor (James), 85v—95v 77. Abdias, Historiae Apostolicae, Fabricius, ed., bk.

(Matthew), and 96r—102r (Thomas). The most recent 7, chaps. II-13, 660-62. |

Latin edition of the Passio texts is that of R. A. Lipsius 78. It would be tempting to identify this figure as the and M. Bonnet, eds., Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, u, daughter of King Eglypus because she is prominently |

Leipzig, 1898. | mentioned in the text, as pointed out by Enlart, 11, 307. On the Historiae Apostolicae of Abdias, see R. A. However, in the absence of the eunuch Candace and with

Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostelle- nothing to indicate that this youth is female, I prefer to

genden, vol. 1, Brunswick, 1883, 117ff., esp. 145, 147, interpret this figure as the curly-haired son of the king.

and 176-77; James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 79. Barasch, 1971, 144.

438-39, 462-69; M. Erbetta, Gli apocrifi del nuovo 80. Barasch, 1971, discusses this puzzling scene at , testamento, 1, Casale, 1966, 20-24; and L. Moraldi, some length, 144-46. The proposal by Enlart, un, 307, Apocrifi del nuovo testamento, u, Turin, 1971, 1433-39. that these are two demons fleeing Matthew is tempting, 63. This figure has been called a king (Viaud, 161), but it does not seem to account for the conflict between

but the distinctive iconography of the miter with lappets them in terms expressed by the hairy demon who flying suggests some kind of religious official in contrast wields a stick or club against the very human-shaped to the kings who prominently wear crowns on these body of his grotesquely headed adversary. If Viaud’s capitals. See, for example, the Matthew capital. Bar- interpretation is correct (p. 162), as tentatively accepted

asch, 140, pointed this out. here, it still remains unclear why the soul of Hyrtacus 64. Enlart, 1, 306, suggested that this figure might be would be represented this way.

Herod, but he is too subordinate and exhibits no 81. The invention of imagery for a saint was hardly

distinguishing iconographic features. unusual in twelfth-century France. Recall the words of

_ 65. See note 40 above. Emile Male. Speaking of the lack of models in so many

66. De Lasteyrie, in Viaud, 1910, 173; Barasch, 1971, © cases, he wrote: “Quand on représentait des saints, on 139. ne pouvait donc plus songer a imiter: il fallait créer” 67. For Bartholemew, see Viaud, I910, 161; Germer- (L’art religieux du XII’ siecle, 187). Because the Nazareth

Durand, 1911, 246; Enlart, u, 306; Deschamps, 1930, artist seems clearly to have been a Frenchman working 104; Boase, 1939, 9; and Jacoby, 1981, 154-56, and fig. in the Holy Land or, more likely, an artist trained by a 14, and dessin VII. For James, see de Lasteyrie (and E. French master, how apt these words seem. Male), in Viaud, 1910, 174; and Barasch, 1971, I4I.

| 68. Fabricius, ed., Codex Apocryphus ... , 518-19.

69. Both de Lasteyrie, LOvT ITA. and Barasch, 141, CHAPTER VI |

refer to a single demon on the capital while recognizing 1. Viaud and de Lasteyrie, in Viaud, 1910, 156-57,

that the text uses the plural. 177-78; Germer-Durand, cited by Barasch, 1971, 149; 70. Abdias, Historiae Apostolicae, Fabricius, ed., 0, Deschamps, 1930, 103; Barasch, 1971, 79, IIO-1I, I146— 673-74. According to the legend, Polymnius was a 53. a OO | king of India who had a lunatic daughter. Bartholemew 2. For references to the texts, see M. Himmelfarb, asked that the girl, who was chained, be brought before Tours of Hell, Philadelphia, 1983, 20-24, 178-79 (Ethio-

him so that she could be freed and cured. pian and Greek); F. Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica

71. According to a long tradition in medieval art, Graeca, mt, Brussels, 1957, 128f., nos. 1050—-54k Easterners such as the Magi wear boots to distinguish (Greek); and James, The Apocryphal New Testament, them from apostles and others, who wear sandals or are 224ff. (Syriac). This story should not be confused with a

barefooted. Relevant comparisons, if not exact parallels different episode in the Theophilus legend. Although for the style of boots here, are found in Byzantine the Virgin journeys to Hell there, Theophilus does not mosaics, such as Daphni, Church of the Dormition, and accompany her. The male figure on the capital could not.

the Melisende Psalter (Schiller, 1, figs. 269 and 270). be Theophilus in any case because he is nimbed. For

72. See note 40 above. ee , Theophilus, see note 14 below.

73. Male, Les saints, 201, 2090-10. 3. On Gautier de Coinci, see Histoire Littéraire de la 74. See the files of the Princeton Index of Christian France, x1x, Paris, 1838, 843ff. For the manuscripts of Art. The most popular scene from the thirteenth the Miracles of the Virgin, see A. P. Ducrot-Granderye, century on was of course the “Calling of St. Matthew.” “Etudes sur les Miracles Nostre Dame de Gautier de One can only propose, in the absence of other evidence, Coinci,” Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, ser. B,

80 NOTES TO PAGES 43-44 xxv, 2, Helsinki, 1932. The old text edition is A. the crowned Virgin has yet been identified from the Poquet, Les miracles de la sainte Vierge, Paris, 1857. A twelfth century. Although majestic and enthroned, the

new edition is being prepared by V. F. Koenig, Les Virgin in the Melisende Psalter is not crowned. See Miracles de Notre Dame par Gautier de Coinci, 1, Geneva Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of

and Lille, 1955. M. W. Cothren is currently studying Jerusalem, 1957, 9-10, pl. 17b. On the only other illustrated Gautier de Coinci manuscripts with Theophi- Crusader sculpture where the Virgin is surely depicted,

lus cycles or images included. See note 14 below. a twelfth-century capital in the Greek Orthodox Patri-

4. Barasch, 153. archal Museum, Jerusalem, she wears no crown. See

5. Sheila McTighe, taking her lead from Barasch, Enlart, pl. 195, fig. $84. first explored this problem in a seminar paper at the Although no longer extant, images of the crowned University of North Carolina in the fall of 1978. Virgin must have existed in the fresco cycle reported by Although my conclusions differ from hers, I should like John of Wtirzburg (1165) and Theodorich (1172) in the

to acknowledge her excellent work, which laid the Crusader church in Jerusalem where the Tomb of the

foundations for this discussion. Virgin was found, Notre Dame of Josaphat. See for

6. On the imagery of devils, see Male, L’art religieux John of Wtirzburg, P.L., civ, col. 1083, and for du XII’ siécle, 365ff.; the translation of this work, Theodorich, Libellus de locis sanctis, Editiones HeidelberReligious Art in France, H. Bober, ed., Princeton, 1978, gensis, Bulst, ed., chap. XXIII, 31. Baldi, Enchiridion, 364ff., especially the notes on 505-7; and O. A. Erich, 764-67, cites the Tobler edition of these texts. Verdier Die Darstellung des Teufels in der christlichen Kunst, refers to these frescoes, 89-90, and n. 43. Kunstwissenschaftliche Studien, vol. 8, Berlin, 1931, to. Lawrence, “Maria Regina,” 159ff.

esp. 56-73. The devils on the Nazareth capitals are 11. C. M. Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts unusual because they are armed, and two even wear (1066-1190), London, 1975, 82ff., pl. 132. caps. Whereas devils are occasionally shown with bows 12. F. Deuchler, Der Ingeborgpsalter, Berlin, 1967, and arrows, and bestial faces and flame hair are common 62-64, pl. 36. in twelfth-century Burgundian Romanesque sculpture, _ 13. Male, L’art religieux du XII’ siécle, 433-34.

it is more rare to find devils with spear or sword and 14. A. C. Fryer, “Theophilus, the Penitent, as

shield and a cap. The bows and arrows recall devils in Represented in Art,” The Archaeological Journal, xcn, the scene of the “Heavenly Ladder” as found in the 1935, 287-333, H. H. Weber, “Studien zur deutschen Hortus Deliciarum (R. Green, et al., Hortus Deliciarum, Marienlegende des Mittelalters am Beispiel des TheoLondon, 1979, I, 201, no. 296; 1, 351, pl. 124). Indeed, philus,” Ph.D. diss., Hamburg, 1966, esp. 7ff. and the spirit of the imagery of this “Ladder of Virtues” 83ff. See also M. W. Cothren, “The Iconography of seems to have a certain parallel in this scene in terms of Theophilus Windows in the First Half of the Thirthe Christians’ making their way through demonic teenth Century,” Speculum, LIx, 1984, 308-41. In the perils, without, of course, any angelic defense. Al- earliest Romanesque sculpture where the Theophilus

though the “Heavenly Ladder” is a Byzantine motif, story is depicted, at Souillac, the Virgin is not

one notices that the demons in Climachus images are crowned, nor does she carry a cross-staff. Despite the rarely armed with bow and arrow, and they are usually lack of consensus on the date of the Souillac relief, winged. See J. R. Martin, The Heavenly Ladder, however, everyone agrees that the Theophilus story is Princeton, 1954, and A. Katzenellenbogen, Allegories of relatively rare in the twelfth century but very popular the Virtues and Vices in Medieval Art, A. J. P. Crick, in the thirteenth. The point here is that as miracle

trans., New York, 1964, 22—24. scenes were evolving into the familiar thirteenth-cen-

The demons armed with sword or spear are curiously tury examples cited, it was possible for the iconograanalogous to other Eastern figures on these capitals—the | phy of the Virgin to include a crown and cross-staff,

Magi especially—by virtue of the caps they wear. One but no halo. On Souillac, see M. Schapiro, “The wonders if the cap is meant to indicate that the powers Sculptures of Souillac,” Medieval Studies in Honor of

of sorcerer and demon were in some way linked. Arthur Kingsley Porter, 1, Cambridge, Mass., 1939, Finally, demons disguised as soldiers occasionally 359-87, and more recently, J. Thirion, “Observations appear in the Apocryphal accounts of the apostles. See, sur les fragments sculptés du portail de Souillac,” for example, the Acts of John or the Martyrdom of Gesta, XV, 1976, I6I—7I. Matthew (James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 264-65 1s. See, forexample, the thirteenth-century examples and 461, respectively). But there are no descriptions or on the north transept tympanum of Notre Dame in Paris illustrations of these figures to compare with the armed (W. Sauerlander, Gothic Sculpture in France, 1140-1270,

demons on the Nazareth rectangular capital. New York, 1972, pl. 186), and in stained glass; for

7. Barasch, 1971, 150ff. example, in the Cathedral of Clermont-Ferrand (H. du 8. M. Lawrence, “Maria Regina,” AB, vu, 1924- Ranquet, Les vitraux de la Cathédral de Clermont-Ferrand,

25, 156ff. Clermont, 1932 (Chapelle Saint Jean), 148-60, esp. 155—

g. There is of course the image of the “Coronation $6, medallion XII, pl. opposite p. 160. See the full listing of the Virgin” on the mid-thirteenth-century triptych of examples in Cothren, “The Iconography of Theophiattributed to Crusader Acre by K. Weitzmann, “Thir- lus Windows... ,” Speculum, LIx, 1984, 335—41, with teenth-Century Crusader Icons on Mount Sinai,” AB, cautionary remarks on the Clermont-Ferrand Window, XLV, 1963, 188, fig. 9, but no extant Crusader image of 337.

, NOTES TO PAGES 44-46 81 16. See, for example, I. Forsyth, The Throne of 25. In western Europe, from where the Nazareth , Wisdom, Princeton, 1972, such as the tympanum of artist and/or his master must have come, the Byzantine Pompierre (Vosges), fig. 7, or the Cloisters Madonna, Anastasis had already been known from early medieval figs. 152-53, and T. A. Heslop, “The Virgin Mary’s times, as has recently been discussed by C. DavisRegalia and 12th-Century Seals,” The Vanishing Past, Weyer, “Die Altesten Darstellungen der Hadesfart | Borg and Martindale, eds., BAR International Series, Christi, des Evangelium Nikodemi und ein Mosaik der

cx1, Oxford, 1981, 53-62. Zeno-Kapelle,” Roma e l’eta carolingia, Rome, 1976,

17. Verdier, 1980, 17-18, 84ff. For a representative 183-94, pls. 71-74. P. Skubiszewski, “La place de la sample of known examples, see G. Schiller, [konographie Descente aux Limbes dans les cycles christologiques _ der christlichen Kunst, 1v, 1, Gtitersloh, 1976, 38ff., pls. préromans et romans,” in Romanico padano Romanico

242-45. europeo, Parma, 1982, 313-21, discusses some of the

18. Images of these examples are conveniently avail- same material but relates the Anastasis to some images able in G. Schiller, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, m1, more contemporary with the Nazareth capitals in Gitersloh, 1971, 353, pls. 115, 116, and 352, pl. 113. dealing with the changing narrative context and seFor their publications, see O. Demus, The Mosaics of quence of events found in Western cycles depicting the San Marco in Venice, Chicago and London, 1984, Part I: death and resurrection of Jesus. Neither of these studies The Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 1, Text, 205-6; 0, addresses the iconography of the Anastasis as it appears plates 74-76, 344-350; I. Andreescu, “Torcello: I and on twelfth-century capitals, however. Indeed, the AnasII,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XxXv, 1972, 185 (bibliog.), tasis is found infrequently, but it does exist in Roman19sff.; “Torcello: I,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xxx, esque frescoes, such as in the crypt of Saint Nicholas, 1976, 247ff.; and H. Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Tavant (Schiller, m, fig. 148), or on Romanesque Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford, 1957, 4 and pl. 96. capitals, such as from the second workshop group at the Other examples are discussed in E. Schwartz, “A New cloister of La Daurade in Toulouse, dated about 1120-— Source for the Byzantine Anastasis,” Marsyas, xvI, 1130. See M. K. Horste, “The Capitals of the Second 1972-73, 29-34, and see the forthcoming study by Workshop from the Romanesque Cloister of La DauAnna Kartsonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image. rade, Toulouse,” Ph.D. diss., Michigan, 1978, I, 1§7In the context of the Crusader states in the 1170s, one 60, 333-34; U, pls. 63-66 and fig. 7. See also M. immediately thinks also of the great Anastasis mosaic Lafargue, Les chapiteaux du cloitre de Notre-Dame la that had been set in the apse of the Holy Sepulchre in Daurade, Paris, 1940, 57-59, 104-105, pl. XV, and figs.

1149. See A. Borg, “The Lost Apse Mosaic of the Holy I-3. ,

_ Sepulchre, Jerusalem,” in The Vanishing Past: Studies . . . The image of Christ leading the elect from Hell to presented to Christopher Hohler, A. Borg and A. Martin- Paradise, as found on the Saint Maurice capital, cited in dale, eds., Oxford, 1981, BAR International Series, Cx1, note 24 above, is obviously distinct from the Anastasis

7-11, pls. 1-1 to I-3, and note 34 below. scenes referred to above, just as the scenes in the

19. For the Vatican manuscript, see C. Stornajolo, Le manuscripts of Jacobus Kokkinobaphos are distinct. Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo Monaco (Vatican gr. Interestingly, these examples and the Nazareth image

1162), Rome, Igto, pl. 19. | appear just when the new iconography of the Resurrec-

20. For examples of presentation/donor scenes in- tion had begun to spread in the West. Note also that

cluding the Virgin, see I. Spatharakis, The Portrait in among the earliest extant Anastasis images the Nazareth Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts, Leiden, 1976 (Lenin- capital is related to, that on the reliquary cross of Paschal

grad, Ms. Petrop. gr. 291, eleventh century), 59-60, I (cf. Davis-Weyer, pl. 73, fig. 195) is among the

244, pl. 28; (Iviron, Ms. 5, thirteenth century), 8sf., closest. |

243-44, fig. 54; (MileSeva fresco of the Virgin with 26. For the Greek text, see H. Pernot, ed., “Descente | Stephan Vladislav, thirteenth century), 86, fig. $s. de la Vierge aux enfers d’aprés les manuscrits grecs de 21. For the Bamberg Apocalypse, see Katzenellenbo- Paris,” Revue des études grecques, XII, 1900, 233-57; and

gen, Allegories, 14f. and fig. 14. for a general account of the development of the story, 22. G. Galavaris, “Mary’s Descent into Hell: A Note see M. Vloberg, La Vierge notre médiatrice, Grenoble, on the Psalter Oxford, Christ Church Arch. W. Gr. 61,” 1938, 210-19, and Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell, 23, 179. Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines, Iv, 1977, 189-94, 27. W. Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literawith other bibliography. Most recently this codex was ture of the New Testament, London, 1865, 10-11, 47-48. published by Anthony Cutler, The Aristocratic Psalters in A French translation of this text is also available: A. Byzantium, Bibliothéque des Cahiers Archéologiques, Wenger, L’assomption de la Trés Sainte Vierge dans la xi, Paris, 1984, 111, n. $5, and figs. 394 and 39S. tradition byzantine du VI au X° siécle, Archives de l’orient

23. Galavaris, “Mary’s Descent... ,” Igo. chrétien, v, Paris, 1955, I60—61. |

24. L. Bégule, L’église Saint-Maurice, ancienne ca- 28. Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 3550, published by thédral de Vienne en Dauphiné, Paris, 1914, 127, figs. 152 Wenger, L’assomption de la Trés Sainte Vierge, 1955, 258-

and 153; P. Cavard, La Cathédrale Saint-Maurice de 59; see also pp. 30 and 58. Vienne, Vienne, 1978, 72; R. D. Weinberger, “The 29. Wenger, 1955, 259. Romanesque Nave of St. Maurice at Vienne,” Ph.D. 30. On the concept of the Virgin as queen, see H. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1978, 334-42, 351-52, Barré, “La royauté de Marie au XII° siécle en Occi-

figs. 46 and 47. , dent,” Maria et Ecclesia, Acta Congressus Mariologici—

82 NOTES TO PAGES 46-48 Mariani in Civitate Lourdes Anno 1958... , v, Rome, In medieval calendars from 1100 on, it is common to

19$9, 93-119. . find the moveable feast of Easter arbitrarily indicated as

31. Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 3550, is a handsomely falling on Sunday, 27 March, as a typical example of its written codex, probably made in France in the thir- place in the liturgical year. Placement of Easter at that teenth century. It has no illustrations, and nothing about date in effect “fixed” the feast of the Annunciation on the manuscript would seem to connect it directly to the Friday, 25 March, Good Friday. See F. Wormald, ed., Crusader East. As for this tradition being accessible to English Kalendars before A.D. 1100, Henry Bradshaw Westerners, we should recall that the story of the Society, Lxxu, London, 1934, passim. This is another Obsequies of the Virgin was also known in Ireland in indication of the intimate relationship between the feast

the Middle Ages. of the Annunciation and the events of Holy Week. My 32. See, for example, stories of the Virgin saving thanks to Richard Pfaff for pointing out to me this

monks from Hell published by A. Mussafia, “Studien standardized calendar phenomenon.

zu den mittelalterlichen Marienlegenden,” 5, Sitzungs- Relevant manuscripts from the scriptorium of the , , berichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserli- Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, including a sacramentary chen Akademie der Wissenschaften, cxcm, Vienna, 1898, (Rome, Bibl. Angelica, Ms. D. 7, 3) and a missal (Paris,

64-65, 71-74. Unfortunately, none of the stories in the Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 12056) dated about 1140, and a twelfth- or thirteenth-century manuscripts in Paris cited sacramentary (London, Brit. Lib., Ms. Egerton 2902)

by Mussafia is illustrated. and a ritual (Rome, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Ms. Barberini

See also the Latin collections of Miracles of the Virgin lat. 659) dated 1229-44, also contain these calendar that Gautier de Coinci translated for his celebrated work, entries. See Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Latin such as those by a certain Hughes Farsit, canon of Saint Kingdom of Jerusalem, 112 (“March”). Jean des Vignes, written about 1128~34, found in Paris, 37. See chapter 4, note I.

Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 14463, fols. sff., 9off. (twelfth 38. The most prominent examples are of course that century), and Ms. lat. 16056, fol. 3o0ff. (thirteenth in the Holy Sepulchre apse, Jerusalem, no longer extant, century). On the identification of Hughes Farsit, see the scenes in the Psalter of Queen Melisende, and the Histoire Littéraire de la France, x1, Paris, 1849, 627. On fresco in the apse of the Crusader church at Abu Ghosh. miracles of the Virgin, see also B. Ward, Miracles and the See M. L. Bulst, “Die Mosaiken der ‘Auferstehung-

Medieval Mind, Philadelphia, 1982, 132-65. skirche’ in Jerusalem und die Bauten der Franken im 12 33. An interesting question might be raised at this Jahrhundert,” Frihmittelalterliche Studien, vol. 13, 1979, point. Given the sequence of events of the Virgin’s 450-57; Borg, “The Lost Apse Mosaic,” 7~—11 and pls. death, assumption into heaven, and coronation (Ver- I~I to 1—3; Buchthal, 4ff., pl. 9b; and A. Weyl Carr, dier, passim), is it appropriate for Mary to be crowned “The Mural Paintings of Abu Ghosh and the Patronage but to have no halo during her descent into Hell? There of Manuel Comnenus in the Holy Land,” in Folda, was no easy way for the artist to decide this because no Crusader Art in the 12th Century, 215-43. text specifies exactly when the descent happened relative 39. Kellner, L’année ecclésiastique, 314-18; Ch. Roto the coronation. Moreover, few text accounts of the hault de Fleury, La Ste. Vierge, 1, 258.

, death of the Virgin include the descent; for example, 40. See chapter 5, notes 18-23 and this chapter, note Ms. lat. 3550 (see chapter 5, notes 18-23, and this 12.

chapter, notes 2, 22-23). Thus, the Nazareth artist was 41. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 225 and n.

challenged to represent the Virgin with correct icono- I. graphy without the benefit of a comprehensive text to 42. Kellner, L’année ecclésiastique, 308—9; Ch. Rohault

answer the question we have posed. In the absence of de Fleury, La Ste. Vierge, 1, 42-45. such a text, however, he could have based himself on 43. See chapter 2, note 2, and chapter 5, note 2. textual references to Mary as a queen and the develop- 44. See D. Shorr, “The Role of the Virgin in Giotto’s ing, ifas yet uncodified, visual tradition that showed the Last Judgement,” AB, XxxXvIll, 1956, 207-14; she under-

Virgin doing miraculous works, crowned and wielding stands this image to be the Virgin interceding for the

a cross-staff, but with no halo. souls in Purgatory in the tradition of the Latin Church,

34. As noted in note 9 above, twelfth-century and she mentions similar iconography in the work of

Crusader images of the crowned Virgin must have Giovanni Pisano. M. Vloberg, La Vierge nétre médiatrice, existed, but there is no indication that an image of the 210-19, makes a similar interpretation for a different descent of the Virgin into Hell existed in the fresco cycle group of monuments, of which the most relevant is a

of the Crusader church of Notre Dame of Josaphat or manuscript illustration of one of the miracles of the ! elsewhere in the Crusader states other than on the Virgin in a Gauthier de Coincy codex of about 1300.

Nazareth-capital we have discussed. One image that Shorr and Vloberg did not cite is a

35. A. H. M. Scheer, “Aux Origines de la féte de curious twelfth-century ivory now in the Victoria and l Annonciation,” Questions Liturgiques, 58° année, 1977, Albert Museum in London, published by John Beck97-169. See also K. A. H. Kellner, L’année ecclésiastique with, “A Rediscovered Italo-Byzantine Carving in et les fétes des saints dans leur evolution historique, 2nd ed., Ivory,” Miscellanea Pro Arte, Hermann Schnitzler zur

J. Bund, trans., Paris and Rome, I910, 309-13. Vollendung des 60 Lebensjahres am 13 Januar 1965, 36. H. de Mas-Latrie, Tvésor de Chronologie, Paris, Diisseldorf, 1965, 168-70, pls. xc and xci. In this

1889, cols. 133-36. work, the Virgin, with halo and a cross on her

NOTES TO PAGES 48-52 83 a maphorion, apparently accompanies Christ in the tradi- 49. See chapter 2, note 20. oe

tional Byzantine Anastasis picture. This provides a so. The association of Thomas with architects is unique, third type of iconography for the Virgin’s reflected in the story recounted in The Golden Legend on , descent into Hell. But whereas there is no textual his feast day, 21 December, written by the Dominican tradition for this juxtaposition of the Virgin and Christ archbishop of Genoa, Jacopo da Voragine, in the third | in the ivory, in the iconography of the Nazareth capital quarter of the thirteenth century. On The Golden there is a historical context, and the written and visual Legend, see chapter 5, note 32.

traditions give special meaning to this unique image at s1. These sculptures include a broken rectangular _

this important holy site. capital with a battle scene and a fragmentary relief of

| 45. Viaud, 1910, 162-63, pl. G, upper left (upside Saint Peter and Tabitha. For these works already

down), found and published one piece of it. Enlart mentioned, see note 45 above and pls. 51-57. reproduced this part twice: pl. 130, fig: 408, upper left $2. On the lintel of the Church of the Holy Seand central left. The other, larger part emerged in later pulchre, see Buschhausen, “Die Fassade der Gralsesexcavations and was reported by T. Meysels in the kirche zu Jerusalem,” in Folda, Crusader Art, 73 and n. Illustrated London News, CCXXIX, 1956, 1074-75 and fig. 15, 79-84, with bibliography. _

3. The capital pieced together is discussed by Jacoby, 53. Round arches are known from the church itself. 160-66, and reproduced in Bagatti, 1984, 101-2, pl. 39. See Viaud, pp. 46-47, and the voussoirs depicted in Jacoby, 1981, 169-72, fig. 25 a—c, also claimed the reuse in fig. 19, p. 68, and fig. 32. See also Enlart, pl. existence of a third large rectangular capital (with 129, fig. 407, and Buschhausen, 1978, fig. 303. Jacoby, another image of Peter and Tabitha on it). This piece 1981, restores this arch as pointed, but this remains to be was also published in the I/lustrated London News, 1074- verified. Given the round-arch architecture of the 75, fig. 2. While this extremely damaged relief may twelfth-century Church of the Annunciation, it is once have been part of a capital, a full argument will highly likely that the architecture of a shrine-monument need to be made for the exact sculptural ensemble to planned and begun in the third quarter of the twelfth which this piece belonged. Bagatti, 1984, 102-3, fig. 37 century would also have had such arches. (100), and pl. 40, distinguishes between the two 54. G. Meissner, “Bedeutung und Genesis des archirectangular capitals mentioned above and this Peter and tektonischen Baldachins,” Forschungen und Fortschritte,

Tabitha sculpture, which he refers to as a “capitello 33 Jahrgang, Berlin, 1959, 178-83. My thanks to N.

quadrato.” See pls. 54-57. a Stratford for drawing my attention to this reference.

Besides the pieces of sculpture that have come to light 55. See, for example, M. Schapiro, “From Mozafrom the excavation storerooms in Nazareth, there are rabic to Romanesque in Silos,” AB, xxI, 1939, 312-74,

occasionally written observations of pilgrims as well. reprinted in Romanesque Art, New York, 1977, esp. 7

Richard Pococke, a visitor to Nazareth in 1738, de- 43ff.; and J. BaltruSaitis, “Villes sur Arcatures,” Urbanscribed a relief over a door that depicted Judith cutting isme et Architecture, Etudes écrites et publiées en off the head of Holofernes. He could not have seen the V’honneur de P. Lavedan, Paris, 1954, 31-40. five capitals, which were presumably buried, but it is 56. See A. Katzenellenbogen, The Sculptural Programs not clear what other extant sculpture he might have of Chartres Cathedral, Baltimore, 1957, and L. Seidel, been looking at, even if, as is possible, he mistook the Songs of Glory: The Romanesque Facades of Aquitaine,

subject. Cf. R. Pococke, A Description of the East and Chicago, 1981. | : | Some Other Countries, , pt. 1, London, 1745, 63. 46. Several scholars have published some fragments

that have tentatively been identified as coming from CHAPTER vu a

other polygonal capitals. See chapter 4, note 45. ot. This review of the historiographical material is

47. For the biblical references linking these apostles intended to summarize important points made in the to the region of Galilee, see John 1:44 (Andrew, Peter, literature. There has been no attempt here to be and Philip); Matthew 4:18-21 (Peter, Andrew, James, exhaustive, but I have drawn on the major studies by son of Zebedee, and John); and Matthew 9:9 (Matthew). the main authors. My comments have been greatly 48. My working hypothesis is that the large number informed by work on the stylistic problems of the of sculptural fragments excavated over the years on the Nazareth capitals done in seminars at the University of

site of the Church of the Annunciation were probably North Carolina by Henrietta McBee and Carolyn intended for use in several different parts of the Watson. I would like to acknowledge their contribuCrusader church. Jacoby, 1981, 141-94, included a tions here with thanks. - number of the fragments excavated in the 1950s and 2 See Introduction, notes 2 and 3, on the excava1960s in her article, and Bagatti, 1984, 27-31, has now tions. A full and proper assessment of the Nazareth style _ identified and documented all the extant finds. Eventu- can take place only with all of the excavated sculpture ally, when we can study this material fully, further available for study. Now that Bagatti's report of the | efforts can be made to determine what different parts of 1955-66 excavations has been published (1984), we can

the church the sculpture was intended to decorate. begin to move ahead to consider the style of the

Because there is so much figural sculpture, however, the Nazareth capitals in the context of the extant ensemble,

program will no doubt prove to be the largest figural numbering nearly one hundred pieces.

ensemble from any Crusader church. 3. Viaud, 1910, 149-59.

84 NOTES TO PAGES 52-61

4. De Lasteyrie, in Viaud, 1910, 167-72. Al. Ibid., 77, n. 18.

5. The most important “German” institution in the 42. Ibid., 70-71. vicinity of Nazareth was the castle of Montfort, 43. Buschhausen, Die stiditalienische Bauplastik, 276— Palestinian home of the Teutonic knights. However, 79. because this castle is a thirteenth-century foundation, it 44. Jacoby, “The Composition of the Nazareth could not be relevant to the issue of German influence Workshop and the Recruitment of Sculptors for the raised by Male. On Montfort, see Setton/Hazard, Holy Land in the Twelfth Century,” in The Meeting of

Crusades, IV, I15, 138, 1§7, and 278. Two Worlds, Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor, 1981, 145-59; 6. Germer-Durand, I911, 233f., 241-48. Jacoby, 1981, 152-57, 160-66, 180-94. Dr. Jacoby’s

7. Egidi, 1920, 761-76. specific objections to my hypothesis (The Meeting of 8. Porter, 1923, 165-67. Two Worlds, 133-44, 158 n. 35) are addressed in this

9. Ibid., 167. study.

10. Enlart, 1, I-35, 129-33; I, 292-310. 45. Enlart, 1, 298-310.

11. Ibid., 1, I. 46. Jacoby, 1981, 180-81; for Deschamps, see note

12. Ibid., 28. 17 above. 13. Ibid., 28-29, 32. 47. Jacoby, 1981, 183.

| 14. Ibid., 1, 129-33; 1, 302-7. 48. Ibid., 183-85.

15. 16. Ibid., Ibid., 1, m,131. 305.49. so.Ibid., Ibid.,187-88. I91.

17. Deschamps, 1930, 98—108; idem, French Sculpture s1. Borg, 1982, 97-119.

of the Romanesque Period: Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 52. Ibid., 98.

Florence and Paris, 1930, 93-99; idem, 1932, 119-26; 53. On Gislebertus, see D. Grivot and G. Zarnecki, idem, 1964, 249-55; and idem, Au Temps des croisades, Gislebertus, Sculptor of Autun, London, 1961; on the |

Paris, 1972, 189-97. Cabestany Master, see L. Pressouyre, “Une nouvelle 18. Deschamps, 1930, 100-101; idem, French Sculp- oeuvre du ‘Maitre de Cabestany’ en Toscane: Le pilier

ture, 98. sculpté de San Giovanni in Sugana,” Bulletin, Société

| 19. Ibid., 1930, 108. nationale des antiquaires de France, 1969, 30-55; C.

20. Ibid., 1932, 119-26. Bargellini, “More Cabestany Master,” Burlington Maga-

21. See, for example, n. 3 in Deschamps, 1930, 118. zine, CX, 1970, 140-44; M. Durliat, “Mélanges: Du 22. This date of c. 1187 is not based on stylistic nouveau sur le Maitre de Cabestany,” Bulletin Monuarguments but is derived mainly from the hypothesis mental, CXXIX, I97I, 193-98; on the Headmaster at

that the capitals were intended for the west portal, Chartres, see A. Priest, “The Masters of the West which was in progress, but that when work was Facade of Chartres,” Art Studies, 1, 1923, republished in interrupted in 1187 the capitals were put away for safe Chartres Cathedral, R. Branner, ed., New York, 1969,

keeping. See Deschamps, 1930, 106-8. 149ff. Carolyn Watson is completing her doctoral

23. See note 17 above. : dissertation at the University of North Carolina on the

, 24. Boase, 1939, 8-12; idem, Castles and Churches of style and oeuvre of the Headmaster, entitled “The the Crusading Kingdom, London, 1967, 89-90; idem, Structural Principles of the Headmaster of Chartres”

Kingdoms and Strongholds of the Crusaders, London, 1971, (1986). I18—20; and idem, 1977, 102-5. 54. Borg, 104. 25. Boase, 1939, 9. $5. Jacoby, 1981, 141-94, and see notes 3 and §

26. Ibid., 11. above.1982, 102. : | 27.| 28.Ibid. 56. Borg, Boase, 1967, 90. 57. Ibid., 102 and nn. 14 and 32.

29. Boase, 1977, 104. 58. F. Salet, “Chronique: Le portail de lVéglise de 30. Oakeshott, Classical Inspiration in Medieval Art, lannonciation 4 Nazareth,” Bulletin Monumental, Cx1I, The Rhind Lectures for 1956 at Edinburgh and London, 1983, 312-13.

1959, 82—83, I06, 120. 59. Ibid., 313.

31. Ibid., 106. 60. Ibid.

32. Kerber, Burgund ... , 38-40. 61. V. Pace, “I capitelli di Nazareth e la scultura

33. Barasch, 1971, 60~—164. Barasch’s initial state- “franca” del XII secolo a Gerusalemme,” Scritti di storia ment on the Nazareth capitals was published in Hebrew dell’arte in onore di Roberto Salvini, Florence, 1984, 87—

| in Mélanges L. A. Mayer, Jerusalem, 1964, 125-34. 95. I would like to thank my colleague, V. Pace, for

34. Ibid., 73. kindly sending me a typescript of his article for use in

35. Ibid., 81. | my discussion. |

36. Ibid., 83. 62. N. Kenaan, “Local Christian Art in Twelfth| 37. Ibid., 107. Century Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal, xxin,

, 38. Ibid., 109. 114. | 1973, 167-75, 221-29.91. 39. Ibid., 63. Pace, “I capitelli,”

40. Ibid., 156. 64. Listed below are most of the important studies

NOTES TO PAGES 61-63 85

that deal with twelfth-century Crusader sculpture pub- Crusader Art, 139-66. _

lished since about 1970. Rahmani, “The Eastern Lintel of the Holy Se-

Barasch, Crusader Figural Sculpture... pulchre,” Israel Exploration Journal, xxvi, 1976, 120-29. Boase, “Ecclesiastical Art... , A. Architecture and Ibid., “Miscellanea—Roman to Medieval,” Atigot, | Sculpture,” in Setton/Hazard, Crusades, 1v, 69-116. XIV, 1980, III—I3. Borg, “Observations on the Historiated Lintel of the Walsh, “Crusader Sculpture from the Holy Land in Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem,” Journal of the Warburg and Istanbul,” Gesta, vil, 1969, 20-29.

_ Courtauld Institutes, xxx, 1969, 25-40. 65. Consider the pose and the head type found in the Ibid., “The Holy Sepulchre Lintel,” Journal of the Christ figure of the Recklinghausen Ivory (pl. 77)

Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XxXxv, 1972, 389-90. | compared to figures on the Nazareth capitals. Also Ibid., “Romanesque Sculpture... ,” in Folda, Cru- compare the grooved, round-ended fold with a pair of

sader Art, 97-119. . vertical slash marks found in the drapery of the Buschhausen, Die stiditalienische Bauplastik ... , pas- Nazareth capitals, especially on the figures of the large, sim, and a number of reviews of this important book by rectangular capital, with the drapery carved in ivory on

Burgoyne and Folda, Jacoby, and Pace. the apostles of the domed reliquary in Cologne. See Ibid., “Die Fassade der Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem,” plates 26 and 27, and H. Swarzenski, Monuments of

in Folda, Crusader Art, 71-96. Romanesque Art, 2nd ed., Chicago, 1967, pl. 213 and fig.

: Folda, “Painting and Sculpture... ,” in Setton/ SOL. | Hazard, Crusades, Iv, 251-80. 66. The Year 1200, 1, K. Hoffmann, ed., Catalogue; u, Ibid., “Three Crusader Capitals in Jerusalem,” Le- F. Deuchler, ed., A Background Survey, New York,

vant, X, 1978, 139-55. 1970; The Year 1200: A Symposium, New York, 19735.

Ibid., “A Fourth Capital from the Chapel of the 67. For twelfth-century Crusader painting, see H. Repose in Jerusalem,” Levant, xv, 1983, 194-95. Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Ibid., “Problems of the Crusader Sculpture at the Jerusalem, Oxford, 1957, esp. 1-38; K. Weitzmann, Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth,” in The “Icon Painting in the Crusader Kingdom,” Dumbarton Meeting of Two Worlds, Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor, 1981, Oaks Papers, XX, 1966, 51-56. On the icon of Christ

133-44. enthroned, however, see R. Nelson, “An Icon at Mt. Jacoby, “The Tomb of Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem Sinai and Christian Painting in Muslim Egypt during

: (1185-1186), and the Workshop of the Temple Area,” the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,” AB, Lxv,

Gesta, XVIII, 1979, 3-I4. 1983, 201-18. J. Folda, “Crusader Frescoes at Crac des

Ibid., “A Newly Discovered Crusader Fragment in Chevaliers and Marqab Castle,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal, xxx, 1980, 202-4. XXXVI, 1982, I77—210.

Ibid., “Le Portail... ,” Monuments Piot, Lxtv, 1981, 68. See notes 8 and §1 above.

I4I—94. 69. On the capitals of Saint Maurice in Vienne, see L.

Ibid., “Crusader Sculpture in Cairo: Additional Bégule, L’église Saint-Maurice, Paris, 1914, 21ff., 1ooff., Evidence on the Temple Area Workshop of Jerusalem,” and R. D. Weinberger, “The Romanesque Nave of St.

in Folda, Crusader Art, 121-38. Maurice at Vienne,” Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins UniIbid., “The Workshop of the Temple Area in versity, 1978, 137ff., 263ff. I have discussed the

Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century: Its Origins, Evolu- relationship of the Saint Maurice capitals on fluted tion and Impact,” Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte, xtv, columns to the Nazareth capitals from a different point

1982, 325-94. of view in “Problems of the Crusader Sculpture at the

Ibid., “The Composition of the Nazareth Workshop Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth,” The Meeting and the Recruitment of Sculptors for the Holy Land in of Two Worlds, Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor, 1981, 138.

~ the Twelfth Century,” in The Meeting of Two Worlds, 70. See chapter 1, note 16.

Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor, 1981, 145-59. 71. For the citation of Bagatti’s report and other

Kenaan, “Local Christian Art in Twelfth-Century relevant publications, see Introduction, notes 2 and 3, Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal, xxi, 1973, 167- and chapter 6, notes 45, 46, and 53.

75, 221-29. Oo 72. Study of other extant sculpture related to Naza-

Ktihnel, “Crusader Sculpture at the Church of the reth work of the Crusader period can also proceed, in Ascension on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem,” Gesta, particular with regard to the important Chatsworth

XVI, 1977, 41-50. Torso, which has no known archaeological context,

Ibid., “Steinmetzen aus Fontevrault in Jerusalem: having entered the collection of the Dukes of Devon-

Eine Blauplastikwerkstatt der Kreuzfahrerzeit,” Wiener shire with a vague Near Eastern provenance. This torso

Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, xxxIl, 1980, 83-97. raises important stylistic questions, problems pertaining Mayer, Das Siegelwesen in den Kreuzfahrerstaaten, to different characteristics of the stone used in the

Munich, 1978. Nazareth atelier and issues about other areas of the

Pace, “I capitelli,” in Scritti in onore di Roberto Salvini, Church of the Annunciation that may have been ,

Florence, 1984, 87—9¢. decorated. I plan to deal with these problems in a Plommer, “The Cenacle on Mount Sion,” in Folda, separate study now in progress.

BLANK PAGE

- WORKS FREQUENTLY CITED Bagatti, B. Excavations in Nazareth, 1, From the Beginning Deschamps, P. “La Sculpture frangaise en Palestine et en

Till the XII Century, Jerusalem, 1969. Syrie 4 l’époque des croisades.” Fondation Eugéne

——., with the collaboration of E. Alliata. Gli scavi di Piot, Monuments et Mémoires, XX XI, 1930, 91-118.

Nazaret, , Dal secolo XII ad oggi. Studium ——. “Un Chapiteau roman du Berry imité 4 Biblicum Franciscanum: Collectio Maior, no. Nazareth au XII siécle.” Fondation Eugéne Piot,

17, Jerusalem, 1984. Monuments et Mémoires, XXXII, 1932, 119-26. ,

Barasch, M. Crusader Figural Sculpture in the Holy Land. ———. Terre Sainte Romane. Abbaye Sainte-Marie de la

New Brunswick, N.J., 1971. Pierre-qui-vire, 1964. |

Boase, T. S. R. “The Arts in the Latin Kingdom of Egidi, P. “I Capitelli romanici di Nazaret.” Dedalo, Jerusalem.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Anno I, 1920, 761-76.

Institutes, 1, 1938-39, I-21. Enlart, C. Les. Monuments des croisés dans le royaume de

———. “Ecclesiastical Art in the Crusader States in Jérusalem: Architecture religieuse et civile, text, 1,

Palestine and Syria.” In K.. M. Setton, ed., A Paris, 1925; i, Paris, 1928; atlas in two albums,

History of the Crusades, IV; H. W. Hazard, ed., Paris, 1926. _ The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States. Folda, J. “Painting and Sculpture in the Latin Kingdom

Madison, Wis., 1977, chap. 3, 69-139. of Jerusalem: 1099-1291.” In K. M. Setton, ed.,

Borg, A. “Romanesque Sculpture from the Rhéne A History of the Crusades, 1v; H. W. Hazard, ed., Valley to the Jordan Valley.” In J. Folda, ed., The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century. Oxford, Madison, Wis., 1977, chap. 7, 251-80.

1982, 97—-I19. | Germer-Durand, J. “La Sculpture franque en Palestine.”

Buschhausen, H. Die siiditalienische Bauplastik im Conferences de St. Etienne, Ecole pratique d’études K6nigreich Jerusalem von Konig Wilhelm II. bis | bibliques, 1910-11. Paris, I911, 233-57. Kaiser Friedrich II. Osterreichische Akademie Le Hardy, Gaston. Histoire de Nazareth et de ses der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-Historische sanctuaires: Etude chronique des documents. Paris,

Klasse, Denkschriften, vol. 108, Vienna, 1978. 1905S.

Chevalier, C. U. J. Notre-Dame de Lorette: Etude Jacoby, Z. “Le Portail de léglise de Annonciation de historique sur l’authenticité de la Santa Casa. Paris, Nazareth au XII* siécle.” Fondation Eugéne Piot,

1906. Monuments et Mémoires, LXIv, 1981, I4I—94.

88 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS Male, E. L’Art religieux du XII’ siécle en France: Etude sur 1983; Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Collecles origines de Viconographie du moyen age, 6th ed. tio Maior, no. 24.

Princeton, 1978. Paris, 1953; English translation, Religious Art in

France: the Twelfth Century, ed. H. Bober.

Oakeshott, W. Classical Inspiration in Medieval Art. Sources Before I29I1 London, 1959.

Runciman, S. A History of the Crusades, 3 vols. |

Cambridge, 1951-54. Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha... adscripta Abdiae. Ed.

Verdier, P. Le Couronnement de la Vierge: Les origines et J. A. Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testa-

les premiers developpements d’un théme iconogra- menti... , pt. 2, Hamburg, 1719. Ed. W. phique. Montréal and Paris, 1980. Lazium, Abdiae Babyloniae primi episcopalis aposto-

Viaud, P. Nazareth et ses deux églises de l’Annonciation et lis constituti, De historia certaminis Apostolici, libri

de Saint-Joseph d’aprés les fouilles recentes. Paris, decem Iulio Africanus . . . interprete. Paris, 1560.

IQIO. Passio texts only: Eds. R. A. Lipsius and M.

Vincent, L. H., and F.-M. Abel. Jérusalem: Recherche de Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, . Leipzig, topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, u, Jérusalem 1898. nouvelle, fasc. 1-4. Paris, I914, 1926. Venerable Bede, Itinere hierosolymitana saeculi III- VIII. Vlaminck, B. A Report of the Recent Excavations and Ed. P. Geyer, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Explorations Conducted at the Sanctuary of Naza- Latinorum, Xxxvil. Vienna, 1898, 306. reth. Commissariat of the Holy Land, Washing- Buchardus de Monte Sion, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae. Ed.

ton, D.C., 1900. J. C. M. Laurent, Peregrinatores medii aevi quat-

Wilkinson, J. “The Tomb of Christ: An Outline of Its tuor, 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1873, 46-47.

Structural History.” Levant, Iv, 1972, 83-97. Les chemins et les pélerinages de la Terre Sainte. Eds. H. Michelant and G. Raynaud, Itinéraires ad Jerusalem. Geneva, 1882, 187-88. Abbot Daniel, The Pilgrimage of the Russian Abbot Daniel in the Holy Land, 1106-1107. Ed. A. Venevitinov,

SOURCE MATERIALS Pravoslavnij Palestinskij Sbornik, mt and Ix,

1883/85, 117-22. Ed. A. de Noroff, Pélerinage en . "14: : Terre Sainte de l’Igouméne Russe Daniel au com-

Anthologies and Bibliograp hies mencement du XII sidcle St. Petersbourg, 1864,

113-14. Ed. B. de Khitrowo, Itinéraires russes en

Baldi, D. ed. Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum, 2nd rev. Orient, 1. Geneva, 1889, 69-71. Trans. C. W.

ed. Jerusalem, 1982. Wilson, The Pilgrimages of the Russian Abbot leggende. Casale, 1966, 20-24. Iv. London, 1888. .

Erbetta, M. Gli apocrifi del nuovo testamento, i, Atti e Daniel in the Holy Land, 1106-1107 a.p., PPTS, Gioia, L. L. “Bibliography of Editions and Translations Descente de la vierge aux enfers (in Greek). Ed. H. Pernot,

in Progress.” Speculum, Lvu, 1982, 208ff. Revue des études grecques, XII, 1900, 233-57. Halkin, F. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, m1. Brussels, St. Epiphanius. Ed. P.G., xim, cols. 260-62.

19$7. Gautier de Coinci, Les miracles de la sainte Vierge. Ed. A.

Hennecke, E. New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schnee- Poguet, Paris, 1857. Ed. V. F. Koenig, Les melcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson, 2 vols. Phila- Miracles de Nostre Dame par Gautier de Coinci, 1.

delphia, 1965. Geneva and Lille, 1955.

James, M. R. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford, Geoffrey of Beaulieu, Life and Holy Conversation of Louis

corrected ed., 1929. of pious memory, late King of the French. Eds. P. C.

Moraldi, L. Apocrifi del nuovo testamento, u. Turin, 1971, F. Daunen and J. Naudet, Recueil des historiens des

1433-39. Gaules et de la France, xx. Paris, 1840, 14.

Mortet, V. Recueil de textes relatifs a Vlhistoire de Gospel of the Birth of Mary. Ed. C. Tischendorf, architecture... XI°—XII’ siécles. Paris, 1911. Apocalypses Apocryphae. Leipzig, 1866, 113-21. ———., and P. Deschamps. Recueil de textes relatifs a Ed. A. De Santos Otero, Los Evangelios apocrifos.

Vhistoire de larchitecture... XII’—XIII’ siécles. Madrid, 1956, 258ff.

Paris, 1929. Innominatus VII. Ed. T. Tobler, Descriptiones Terrae

Robinson, F. “Coptic Apocryphal Gospels.” Texts and Sanctae ex saeculo VII, IX, XII et XV. Leipzig,

Studies, 1v, ed. J. A. Robinson. Cambridge, 1874, 107.

1896; reprint, Neudeln/Liechtenstein, 1967, $1ff. Johannis liber de dormitione. Ed. C. Tischendorf, Apoca-

de Sandoli, S. Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum lypses Apocryphae. Leipzig, 1866, 95—-I12. (saec. XII-XIII): 1, Tempore Primi Belli Sacri. Jacopo da Voragine, Legenda Aurea. Ed. Th. Grasse, 3rd

Jerusalem, 1978; u, Tempore Regum Francorum ed. Breslau, 1890.

(1100-1187). Jerusalem, 1980; 11, Tempore Recu- Johannes Phocas. Ed. P.G., cxxxm. Paris 1864, col. perationis Terrae Sanctae (1187-1244). Jerusalem, 935f.; trans. A. Stewart, The Pilgrimage of Joannes

BIBLIOGRAPHY 89 Phocas in the Holy Land. PPTS, v, London, 1897, Pococke, R. A Description of the East and Some Other —

12-13. Countries, u, pt. 1. London, 1745.

John of Wtirzburg, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae. Ed. P.L., Processiones quae fiunt quotidie a PP. Franciscanis ... in

CLV. Paris, 1880, col. 1057. Ed. T. Tobler, ecclesia annuntiationis B. Virginis Mariae in Naza-

Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex saeculo, VIII, IX, reth. Antwerp, 1670. |

XII et XV. Leipzig, 1874, III. Quaresmius, F. Elucidatio Terrae Sanctae. .. Historica

Obsequies of the Holy Virgin (in Syriac). Ed. W. Wright, theologica et moralis terrae sanctae elucidatio. .. , 2

Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the vols. Antwerp, 1639. New Testament. London, 1865. Latin version: A. Roger, E. La Terre Saincte, en description topographique Wenger, L’assomption de la Trés Sainte Vierge dans tres particuliére des saincts lieux et de la terre de

la tradition byzantine du VI’ au X* siécle. Archives promission. Paris, 1646.

| de l’Orient chrétien, v, Paris, 1955, 258-59; Suriano, F. Treatise on the Holy Land. Trans. T. Bellorini Modern French translation, Wenger, 260-61. and E. Hoade, Treatise on the Holy Land. PublicaLes Pélerinages por aler en Iherusalem. Eds. H. Michelant tions of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, and G. Raynaud, Itinéraires a _Jérusalem. Geneva, vill, Jerusalem, 1949, 159-60.

1882, 103. Tolomei, Pietro di Giorgio (Teremanus), 1472. Ed. G.

Pseudo-Melito Sardensis, De Transitu Virginis Mariae Htiffer, Loreto, eine geschichtskritische Untersu(Transitus B). Ed. C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses chung, der Frage des heiligen Hauses, 1. Munster,

Apocryphae. Leipzig, 1866, 124-36; ed. J. P. 1913, 22-23; ed. and trans. D. M. Rogers, “The Migne, P.G., v, Paris, 1894, cols. 1231-40. Origins of the Church of Loreto (1635).” English

Ricoldus de Monte Crucis, II Libro della peregrinazione Recusant Literature, LXxv, Menston, 1971, 1; ed.

nelle parti d’Oriente. Ed. J. C. M. Laurent, P. V. Martorelli, Teatro istorico della santa casa

1873, 107. §06—-7.

Peregrinatores medii aevi quattuor, 2nd ed. Leipzig, Nazarena della B. Vergine Maria, 1. Rome, 1732, Theodoricus, Libellus de locis sanctis. Eds. W. and M. L. Teremanus: see Tolomei Bulst, Editiones Heidelbergensis, xvi. Heidel- La Vie de Nostre Benoit Sauveur Ihesuscrist et La Saincte

berg, 1976. Vie de Nostre Dame, eds. M. Meiss and E. H. |

Transitus b. Mariae Virginis Narratio Ioseph de Arimathea Beatson. New York, 1977. }

(Transitus A). Ed. C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses a

Apocryphae. Leipzig, 1868, 113-23.

Transitus Mariae (in Syriac). Ed. and trans., A. Smith

Lewis, in Apocrypha Syriaca: The Protevangelium SECONDARY WORKS Jacobi and Transitus Mariae. London, 1902. ,

Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculum Quadruplex. Ed. | Douai, 1624; reprint, Graz, 1965. Reference Works Vita Beate Virginis Marie et Salvatoris Rhythmica. Ed. ,

A. Végtlin, Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins, Bagatti, B. “Nazareth.” Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supple- ,

CLXxx. Tlibingen, 1888, 10-23. ment, VI, Paris, 1960, cols. 318-33.

Voragine: see Jacopo da Voragine. ———. “Nazareth.” Encyclopedia of Archaeological ExcaRobert Wace, Trespassement Nostre Dame. Ed. A. Pantel, vations in the Holy Land, m1. Englewood Cliffs,

_ “Das altfranzdsische gedicht tiber die himmel- N.J., 1975, 919-22.

fahrt Maria von Wace und dessen tiberarbeitun- Baudot, J. “Jacques de Voragine.” Dictionnaire de thé-

gen,” Ph.D. diss., Greifswald, 1909. Ed. P. ologie catholique, v1, 1, Paris, 1924, cols. 309-13. |

Meyer, “Notice,” Romania, xvi, 1887, 55; XXV, Braunfels, W., ed. Lexikon der christliche Ikonographie,

1896, 554. Ed. C. Chabaneau, Revue des langues vu. Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1974.

romanes, XXVIII, 1885, 250. | “Daniel the Pilgrim.” Russkii biograficheskii slovar, v1.

, Moscow -St. Petersburg, 1905, 95-96. Histoire Littéraire de la France, xi, Paris, 1849; xvii,

) Paris, 1895; xIxX, Paris, 1895.

, 2473-2511. ,

Sources After I2g1 Leclercq, H. “Lorette.” DACL, rx, 2, Paris, 1930, cols, Acta Sanctorum (Martti), m1. Antwerp, 1668. | ——. “Luc (Saint).” DACL, Ix, 2, Paris, 1930, col.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Familiarium colloquiorum. Basel, 2614. ,

1526. Legendre, A. “Nazareth.” Dictionnaire de la Bible, 1v, |

Le Bruyn, Cornelius. Voyage au Levant. Original edition Paris, 1908, col. 1534.

in Dutch, 1698; Paris edition, 1714. | de Mas-Latrie, H. Trésor de Chronologie. Paris, 1889. |

Michiel, Sig. Polo. Capitanio delle Navi. Nazaret Meistermann, B. Guide de Terre Sainte, 3rd ed. Paris, Gloriosa: Relatione de viaggi di Levante, ed. O. C. 1936.

Ratizano, Venice, 1700. Peltier, H. “Vincent de Beauvais.” Dictionnaire de —

Philippon, A. Le Veritable Plan et Portrait de la Maison théologie catholique, xv, 2, Paris, 1960, cols. 3026—

Miraculeuse de la Ste. Vierge: . . . Paris, 1649. 33.

90 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS Pigler, A. Barockthemen, and ed., 1. Budapest, 1974. —. Kingdoms and Strongholds of the Crusaders.

Prosper-Marie [Viaud], P. “Plan de la basilique et du London, 1971. ;

Monastére de l’Annonciation 4 Nazareth, d’aprés —. “Ecclesiastical Art... , A. Architecture and les fouilles pratiquées en 1890.” In Saint Francois Sculpture,” in Setton/Hazard, Crusades, Iv, 69-

et la Terre-Sainte, 3° année, 1893, 187. 116.

Réau, L. Iconographie de l’art chretien, m1. Paris, 1958. Bond, F. Dedications and Patron Saints of English

Schiller, G. Ikonographie der christliche Kunst, vols. 1-4. Churches. Oxford, 1914. |

Gtitersloh, 1966-80. Borg, A. “Observations on the Historiated Lintel of the

Thurston, H. “Loreto.” Encyclopedia of Religion and Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem.” Journal of the War-

Ethics, vin. Edinburgh, 1915, 139-42. burg and Courtauld Institutes, Xxx, 1969, 25—40. ——. “The Holy Sepulchre Lintel.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxxv, 1972, 389-90.

| Books and Articles —. “The Lost Apse Mosaic of the Holy Sepulchre,

Jerusalem.” In The Vanishing Past: Studies... | presented to Christopher Hohler, eds. A. Borg and Ahsmann, H. P. J. M. Le culte de la sainte Vierge et la A. Martindale. Oxford, 1981, BAR International

littérature francaise profane du moyen age. Utrecht, Series, CXI, 7—-II. ,

Niymegen [1931]. ——. “Romanesque Sculpture from the Rhéne Valley

Andreescu, J. “Torcello: I and II,” Dumbarton Oaks to the Jordan Valley.” In Folda, Crusader Art,

Papers, XXV1, 1972, 185ff.; “Torcello: I,” Dum- 97-119. |

barton Oaks Papers, XXX, 1976, 247ff. Bratt6, O. “Les versions frangaises de l’Assomption de Arsenio D’Ascoli, P. La Santa Casa. Loreto, 1965. la Vierge: Etude suivie de textes inédits,” Ph.D.

Bagatti, B. “Ritrovamenti nella Nazareth evangelica.” diss., Gdteborg, 1959. | Liber Annuus, V, 1955, 39ff. Braun, J. Der christliche Altar in seiner geschichtlicher

——., M. Piccirillo, and A. Prodomo. New Discoveries Entwicklung, 1. Munich, 1924.

_ at the Tomb of the Virgin Mary in Gethsemane. Buchthal, H. Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of

Jerusalem, 1975. Jerusalem. Oxford, 1957.

BaltruSaitis, J. “Villes sur arcature.” In Urbanisme et Bulst, M. L. “Die Mosaiken der “Auferstehungskirche’

Architecture, Etudes écrites et publiées en in Jerusalem und die Bauten der Franken im 12. Vhonneur de P. Lavedan. Paris, 1954, 31-40. Jahrhundert.” Frihmittelalterliche Studien, bk. 13, , Barcham, W. “Giambattista Tiepolo’s Ceiling for S. 1979, 450ff. Maria di Nazareth in Venice: Legend, Tradi- Burgoyne, M. “The Developments of the Haram in tions, and Devotions.” AB, Lx1, 1979, 430ff. Jerusalem under the Bahri Mamluks,” D.Phil. Bargellini, C. “More Cabestany Master.” Burlington diss., Magdalene College, Oxford, 1979.

Magazine, CXII, 1970, 140-44. Buschhausen, H. “Die Fassade der Grabeskirche zu

Barré, H. “La royauté de Marie au XII* siécle en Jerusalem.” In Folda, Crusader Art, 71-96.

Occident.” In Maria et Ecclesia, Acta Congressus Calosso, A. B. “Le origini della pittura del Quattro-

Mariologici-Mariani in Civitate Lourdes Anno cento attorno a Roma.” Bolletino d’Arte, xiv,

1958 ..., V, Rome, 1959, 93-119. 1920, 97—-I14, 185-232.

——. “L’apport marial de |’Orient 4 l’Occident de Carpenter, B. F. “The Life and Writings of Maistre

Saint Ambroise a Saint Anselme.” Société Wace,” master’s thesis, Chapel Hill, North francaise d’études Mariales, xxx, 1962, 27-89. Carolina, 1930.

Beckwith, J. “A Rediscovered Italo-Byzantine Carving Cavard, P. La Cathédrale Saint-Maurice de Vienne.

in Ivory.” In Miscellanea Pro Arte, Hermann Vienne, 1978.

Schnitzler zur Vollendung des 60. Lebensjahres Chatel, E. “Plaque de marbre sculptée dans léglise am 13. Januar 1965. Dtisseldorf, 1965, 168ff. de Chambornay-les-Bellevaux (Haute-Saone).” Beenken, H. “The Annunciation of Petrus Christus in Cahiers Archéologiques, XXXII, 1984, 31-38. the Metropolitan Museum and the Problem of Colasanti, A. Loreto. Bergamo, 1920.

Hubert van Eyck.” AB, x1x, 1937, 227ff. Conder, C. R., and H. H. Kitchener. The Survey of Bégule, L. Les incrustations decoratives des cathédrales de Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography,

Lyon et Vienne. Lyon, 1905. Orography, Hydrography and Archaeology, 1, Gali——.. L’église Saint-Maurice. Paris, 1914. lee. London, 1881. Belli-D’Elia, P. “Acceptus.” In La Puglia fra Bisanzio e Corpus Nummorum Italicorum, x1, Marches. Rome, 1932. POccidente. Milan, 1980. Cothren, M. W. “The Iconography of Theophilus Benvenisti, M. The Crusaders in the Holy Land. Jerusa- Windows in the First Half of the Thirteenth

lem, 1970. Century.” Speculum, L1x, 1984, 308-41.

Rome, 1903. Oxford, 1969. :

Bertaux, E. L’art dans I’Italie méridionale. Paris and Creswell, A. C. Early Muslim Architecture, 2nd ed. Boase, T. S. R. Castles and Churches of the Crusading Dalman, G. Das Grab Christi in Deutschland, Studien

Kingdom. London, 1967. liber christliche Denkmialer. Leipzig, 1922.

BIBLIOGRAPHY QI , Davis-Weyer, C. “Die Altesten Darstellungen der Galavaris, G. “Mary’s Descent into Hell: A Note on the Hadesfahrt Christi, des Evangelium Nikodemi Psalter Oxford, Christ Church Arch, W. Gr. | und ein Mosaik der Zeno-Kapelle.” In Roma e 61.” Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantine, IV, 1977,

l’eta carolingia. Rome, 1976, 183-94. 189-94.

Delaissé, L. M. J. La miniature flamande: Le mécénat de Glavinich, F. Historia Tersattana. Udine, 1648.

Philippe Le Bon. Brussels, 1959. Goldschmidt, A. Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der Demus, O. The Mosaics of Norman Sicily. London, 1949. Karolingischen und Sachsischen Kaiser VIII.—X1. ——. The Mosaics of San Marco in Venice, Part I: The — Jht., 1. Berlin, 1918; reprint, 1970. Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Chicago and Grabar, A. Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et

London, 1984. Part chrétien antique. Paris, 1946; reprint, 1972.

Deschamps, P. French Sculpture of the Romanesque Period: ——.. “Christian Architecture East and West.” Arche-

Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Florence and ology, I, 1949, 98f.

~ Paris, 1930. _ } Green, R., et al. Hortus Deliciarum, 2 vols. London, 1979.

———. Au temps des croisades. Paris, 1973. Grierson, P. Monnaies du Moyen Age. Fribourg, 1976. Deuchler, F. Der Ingeborgpsalter. Berlin, 1967. Grimaldi, F. Il Libro lauretano. Macerata, 1973. ——., ed. The Year 1200, 1, A Background Survey. New —. Mostra di medaglie lauretane. Loreto, 1977.

York, 1970. ——. La tradizione lauretana nelle stampi popolari.

Dickinson, J. C. The Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. Loreto, 1980.

Cambridge, 1956. | —. La Chiesa de Santa Maria di Loreto nei documenti

| Dogaer, G., and M. Debae, eds. La Librairie de Philippe dei secoli XII-XV, Archivio di Stato, u. Ancona,

Le Bon. Brussels, 1967. 1984.

Ducrot-Granderye, A. P. “Etudes sur les Miracles Nostre Grivot, D., and G. Zarnecki. Gislebertus, Sculptor of Dame de Gautier de Coinci.” In Annales Academiae Autun. Paris, 1961. Scientiarum Fennicae, ser. B, xxv. Helsinki, 1932. Halbwachs, M. La Topographie Legendaire des Evangiles

Durliat, M. “Mélanges: Du nouveau sur le Maitre de en Terre Sainte, 2nd ed. Paris, 1971.

Cabestany.” Bulletin Monumental, CxxIx, 1971, Hamann, R. “Das Lazarusgrab in Autun.” Marbiirger

193-98. Jahrbuch fiir Kunstwissenschaft, vitt/tx, 1936, 182—

Epstein, A. W. “The Date and Significance of the 328. ,

Cathedral of Canosa in Apulia, South Italy.” Hamilton, B. The Latin Church in the Crusader States.

, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xXxXvul, 1983, 85ff. London, 1980.

Erich, O. A. Die Darstellung des Teufels in der christlichen Harrod, H. Gleanings Among the Castles and Convents of

Kunst, Kunstwissenschaftliche Studien, vol. 8. Norfolk. Norwich, 1857, 154-97.

Berlin, 1931. Heitz, C. Recherches sur les Rapports entre Architecture et

Faloci Pulignani, M. La sainte maison de Lorette d’aprés Liturgie. Paris, 1963.

une fresque de Gubbio. Rome, 1907. Heslop, T. A. “The Virgin Mary’s Regalia and

Fedalto, G. La chiesa latina in Oriente, 1, 2nd ed., Verona, 12th-Century English Seals.” In The Vanishing

1981; 0, Verona, 1976. _ Past: Studies . . . presented to Christopher Hohler,

Folda, J. “Three Crusader Capitals in Jerusalem.” eds. A. Borg and A. Martindale, BAR Interna-

Levant, x, 1978, 139-55. / tional Series, cx1. Oxford, 1981, 53-62.

——. “Problems of the Crusader Sculpture at the Hetherington, P. Pietro Cavallini: A Study in the Art of Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth.” The Late Medieval Rome. London, 1979.

, Meeting of the Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange Himmelfarb, M. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in | Between East and West During the Period of the Jewish and Christian Literature, Philadelphia,

, Crusades, Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor, 1981, V. 1983.

Goss and C. Bornstein, eds. Kalamazoo, 1986, Hind, A. Early Italian Engraving, 1v. London, 1938.

133-44. Hoffmann, K., ed. The Year 1200, 1, Catalogue. New

——, ed. Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, BAR York, 1970. , International Series, ctu, The British School of Hopper, V. Medieval Number Symbolism: Its Sources, _ Archaeology in Jerusalem. Oxford, 1982. Meaning and Influence on Thought and Expression. ———. “Crusader Frescoes at Crac des Chevaliers and New York, 1938. _ Marqab Castle.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XXXVI, Horb, F. “Cavallinis Haus der Madonna,” Goteborgs

1982, 177-210. Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhalles Hand-

— —. “A Fourth Capital from the Chapel of the linger, Sjatte Foljden, ser. A, vol. 3, no. 1. Repose in Jerusalem.” Levant, xv, 1983, 194-95. Goteborg, 1945.

Forsyth, I. The Throne of Wisdom. Princeton, 1972. Horste, M. K. “The Capitals of the Second Workshop Francis, H. S. “Francisco de Zurbaran, The Holy House from the Romanesque Cloister of La Daurade, of Nazareth.” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Toulouse,” Ph.D. diss., Michigan, 1978, 3 vols.

Art, XLVI, 1961, 46ff. Hotzelt, W. Kirchengeschichte Palastinas im Zeitalter der

Fryer, A. C. “Theophilus, the Penitent, as Represented Kreuzziige: 1099-1291. Cologne, 1940.

287-333. Royal. N.p., n.d.

in Art.” The Archaeological Journal, xcu, 1935, Houvet, E. Cathédrale de Chartres: Portail Occidental ou

92 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS Jacoby, Z. “The Tomb of Baldwin V, King of Kronig, W. The Cathedral of Monreale and Norman Jerusalem (1185-1186), and the Workshop of the Architecture in Sicily. Palermo, 1965. Temple Area.” Gesta, XVII, 1979, 3-14. Kuhnel, B. “Crusader Sculpture at the Church of the

——.. “A Newly Discovered Crusader Fragment in Ascension on the Mount of Olives in JerusaJerusalem.” Israel Exploration Journal, xxx, 1980, lem.” Gesta, XVI, I977, 41-50. . 202-4. ———. ——. “Steinmetzen aus Fontevrault in Jerusalem: “The Composition of the Nazareth Workshop Eine Bauplastikwerkstatt der Kreuzfahrerzeit.” and the Recruitment of Sculptors for the Holy Wiener Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, XxxiI, 1980,

Land in the Twelfth Century.” The Meeting of 83-97. ,

Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange Between East and Lafargue, M. Les chapiteaux du cloitre de Notre-Dame la

West During the Period of the Crusades, Kalamazoo Daurade. Paris, 1940. and Ann Arbor, 1981, V. Goss and C. Bornstein, Lafontaine-Dosogne, J. Iconographie de l’enfance de la

eds. Kalamazoo, 1986, 145-59. Vierge dans l’empire byzantin et en Occident, 1.

—. “Crusader Sculpture in Cairo: Additional Evi- Brussels, 1964-65. | dence on the Temple Area.” In Folda, Crusader Langé, S. Architettura delle Crociate. Como, 1965. Art, 121-38. Lausberg, H. “Zur literarischen Gestaltung des Transi-

——. “Nazareth.” Enciclopedia dell’Arte Medievale, tus Mariae.” In Historisches Jahrbuch, 72. Jahrspecimen volume. Cava dei Tirreni, 1984, 52- gang, 1952, Festschrift G. Schreiber, 32ff.

54. ——. “Zum _ altfranzdsischen Assumtionstropus

——. “The Anatomy of Sculpture Ateliers in the ‘Quant Li Solleiz.’ ” In Festschrift fiir Jost Trier. Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the 12th Cen- Meisenheim Glan, 1954. tury.” Acta, XXV Internationaler Kongress fir ——. “Zum _ altfranzdsische Assumptionstro-

| ~ Kunstgeschichte, CIHA, 4-10 September 1983, m1, pus...,” In Archiv fur das Studium der Neueren Probleme und Methoden der Klassifizierung, 13-16. Sprache, 107 Jahrgang, vol. 192, 1956, 134ff.

Jugie, M. La mort et l’assomption de la Sainte Vierge, Studi Lawrence, M. “Maria Regina.” AB, vu, 1924-25, 156ff.

e Testi, cxIv. Rome, 1944. Lépicier, A.-M. L’annonciation: Essai de l’iconographie

Katzenellenbogen, A. The Sculptural Programs of Chartres mariale. Gap, 1943, 194-202.

Cathedral. Baltimore, 1957. Lipsius, R. A. Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und

Kauffmann, C. M. Romanesque Manuscripts (1066-1190). Apostellegenden, vol. 1. Brunswick, 1883.

London, 1975. Male, E. L’art religieux de la fin du Moyen Age en France,

Kedar, B. Z. “Gerard of Nazareth, A Neglected 5th ed. Paris, 1949.

Twelfth-Century Writer in the Latin East: A ——. L/art religieux du XIII siécle en France, 9th ed.

Contribution to the Intellectual and Monastic Paris, 1958.

History of the Crusader States.” Dumbarton Oaks ——. Les saints compagnons du Christ. Paris, 1958.

Papers, XXXVII, 1983, 55—77. Martin, J. R. The Illustrations of the Heavenly Ladder of —. “Palmarée, Abbaye Clunisienne du XII* siécle John Climachus. Princeton, 1954. en Galilée.” Revue Bénédictine, XCtl, 1983, 260— Mayer, H. E. “Two Unpublished Letters on the Syrian

69. Earthquakes of 1202.” In Medieval and Middle

Kellner, A. H. L’année ecclésiastique et les fetes des saints Eastern Studies in Honor of Aziz Suryal Atiya, ed.,

dans leur evolution historique, 2nd ed., trans. J. S. A. Hanna. Leiden, 1972, 295-310. Bund. Paris and Rome, 1910. ———.. Bistiimer, Kloster und Stifte im Konigreich JerusaKenaan, N. “Local Christian Art in Twelfth-Century lem, Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae HisJerusalem.” Israel Exploration Journal, xxi, torica, XXVI, Stuttgart, 1977, 81-97.

1973, 167-75, 221-29. —. Das Siegelwesen in den Kreuzfahrerstaaten. Mu-

Kerber, B. Burgund und die Entwicklung der franzdsischen nich, 1978.

hausen, 1966. Cairo, 1962.

Kathedralsculptur im zwolf Jahrhundert. Reckling- Meinardus, O. F. A. Atlas of Christian Sites in Egypt.

Knowles, C. “Jean de Vignay, un traducteur du XIV° ———. “The Itinerary of the Holy Family in Egypt.”

siecle.” Romania, LXXV, 1954, 353-83. In Studia Orientalia Christiana, Collectanea, vu. Kobler, G. Memorie per la storia della Liburnica citta di Cairo, 1962, I-44. Fiume, 1. Fiume/Ryeka, 1896. ———. In the Steps of the Holy Family from Bethlehem to Kopp, C. “Das Mariengrab: Jerusalem? Ephesus?” Upper Egypt. Cairo, 1963. Zeitschrift fiir den Katholischen Klerus, 1955, iff. Meiss, M. French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry:

—. The Holy Places of the Gospels, trans. R. Wells. The Late XIV Century and the Patronage of the

New York, 1963. Duke, 2nd ed. New York, 1969.

Krautheimer, R. “Introduction to an Iconography of ——. French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Medieval Architecture.” Journal of the Warburg Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries. New York,

and Courtauld Institutes, V, 1942, I-33. 1974.

Kresser, G. “Der Haus der hl. Familie in Nazareth.” Meissner, G. “Bedeutung und Genesis des architektoTheologische Quartalschrift, 91. Jahrgang, 1909, nischen Baldachins.” Forschungen und Fortschritte,

212-47. 33. Jahrgang. Berlin, 1959, 178-83. |

BIBLIOGRAPHY 93 Meysels, T. F. “From the Home-Town of Our Saviour: ———. “Hospitals and Hospital Congregations in the

Recent Archaeological Discoveries at Nazareth— Latin Kingdom during the First Period of the Byzantine Mosaic and Burgundian Sculpture.” Frankish Conquest.” In Outremer: Studies in the Illustrated London News, 22 December 1956, 1074—- History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem,

75. presented to Joshua Prawer, eds. B. Z. Kedar,

Monterado, Luca da. Storia del culto e del pellerinaggio a H. E. Mayer, and R. C. Smail. Jerusalem, 1982,

Loreto sec. XIV—V, 2nd ed. Loreto, 1979. 89-100.

Morand, K. Jean Pucelle. Oxford, 1962. Riley-Smith, J. The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Mussafia, A. “Studien zu den mittelalterlichen Marien- Jerusalem: 1174-1277. London, 1973. legenden,” 5, Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch- Robb, D. “The Iconography of the Annunciation in the

Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.” AB, xvm1,

Wissenschaften, Cxci, Vienna, 1898, passim. 1936, 480-520.

Nelson, R. “An Icon at Mt. Sinai and Christian Painting Rohault de Fleury, Ch. La Sainte Vierge: Etudes arché-

in Muslim Egypt during the Thirteenth and ologiques et iconographiques, 2 vols. Paris, 1878. Fourteenth Centuries.” AB, LXv, 1983, 20I—18. —. La messe: Etudes archéologiques, 2 vols. Paris,

Pace, V. “I capitelli di Nazareth e la sculptura “franca” 1883.

del XII secolo a Gerusalemme.” In Scritti di storia Rupprecht, B. Romanische Skulptur in Frankreich. Mu-

— dell’arte in onore di Roberto Salvini. Florence, 1984, nich, 1975.

87-95. Salet, F. “Chronique: Le portail de Véglise de

Panofsky, E. Die Perspektive als “Symbolische Form.” In Pannonciation 4 Nazareth.” Bulletin Monumental,

| Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg, Iv (1924-25). CXLI, 1983, 312—I3.

Leipzig, 1927. Saller, S. J. “Recent Work at the Shrine of the

——_—. Early Netherlandish Painting, Cambridge, Mass., Annunciation at Nazareth.” Catholic Biblical

1966. Quarterly, XXV, 1963, 348-53.

Petrucci, A. Cattedrali di Puglia, 2nd ed. Rome, 1964. Salvini, R. The Cloister of Monreale and Romanesque Pinette, M. Le Tombeau de Saint-Lazare et la sculpture Sculpture in Italy. Palermo, 1962. romane a Autun apres Gislebertus: Guide de Santis, Angelo de. Les litanies de la Sainte Vierge, trans.

Pexposition. Autun, 1985. A. Boudinhon. Paris, 1900.

Plommer, H. “The Cenacle on Mount Sion.” In Folda, Sauerlander, W. Gothic Sculpture in France, 1140-1270.

| Crusader Art, 139-66. New York, 1972.

Porter, A. K. Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Schapiro, M. “From Mozarabic to Romanesque in

Roads. Boston, 1923. Silos.” AB, XxXI, 1939, 312-74. Italiani. Milan, 1939. Studies in Honor of Arthur Kingsley Porter, ul. -

Prampolini, G. L’Annunciazione nei pittori primitivi ——. “The Sculptures of Souillac.” In Medieval

_ Prawer, J. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. London, Cambridge, Mass., 1939, 350ff.

1972. Scheer, A. H. M. “Aux origines de la féte de

Pressouyre, L. “Une nouvelle oeuvre du ‘Maitre de P Annonciation.” Questions Liturgiques, 58° année,

Cabestany’ en Toscane: Le pilier sculpté de San 1977, 97-169.

| Giovanni in Sugana.” Bulletin de la Société nation- Schlumberger, G., et al. Sigillographie de l’orient latin.

ale des antiquaires de France, 1969, 30-55. Paris, 1943.

Priest, A. “The Masters of the West Facade of Schneider, U. “Zwei mittelalterliche Chorschranken im

| Chartres.” Art Studies, 1, 1923; reprinted in Dom San Ciriaco von Ancona: Beitrage zur

Chartres Cathedral, ed. R. Branner, New York, Geschichte der Inkrustationskunst in Byzanz und

1969, 149ff. Italien.” Acta Historiae Artium, xxv, 1981, 129-

Pringle, D. “Some Approaches to the Study of Cru- 86. sader Masonry Marks in Palestine.” Levant, x10, Schwartz, E. “A New Source for the Byzantine

1981, 173-99. | Anastasis.” Marsyas, XVI, 1972-73.

Rahmani, L. Y. “The Eastern Lintel of the Holy Seidel, L. Songs of Glory: The Romanesque Facades of Sepulchre.” Israel Exploration Journal, xxv1, Aquitaine. Chicago, 1981.

1976, 120-29. Setton, K. M., ed. A History of the Crusades, tv, ed. XIV, 1980, III—I3. Crusader States. Madison, Wis., 1977.

———. “Miscellanea—Roman to Medieval.” Atigot, H. W. Hazard, The Art and Architecture of the Ranquet, H. du. Les vitraux de la Cathédral de Clermont- Shorr, D. “The Role of the Virgin in Giotto’s Last

Ferrand. Clermont, 1932. Judgement.” AB, XXXVIII, 1956, 207-14.

Reil, J. “Neuere Ausgrabungen von Kirchen im Bereich Sinding, O. Mariae Tod und Himmelfahrt: Ein Beitrage —

des lateinischen Klosters zu Nazareth.” Zeitschrift zur Kenntnis der frihmittelalterlich Denkméler.

des Deutschen Paldstinavereins, XXXV, 1912, I40- Christiania, 1903.

59. Skubiszewski, P. “La place de la Descente aux limbes

Ricci, C. “Per L’iconografia Lauretana.” In Rassegna dans les cycles christologiques préromans et d’Arte Antica e Moderna, 1, 1916, 265—74. romans.” Romanico padano, Romanico europeo.

Richard, J. Le Royaume Latin de Jerusalem. Paris, 1953. Parma, 1982, 312—2I.

94 THE NAZARETH CAPITALS Sommerville, M. Engraved Gems: Their History and Place Weil-Garris, K. The Santa Casa di Loreto: Problems in

in Art. Philadelphia, 1889. Cinquecento Sculpture, 1. New York, 1977.

Spiele, I. “Li Romanz de Dieu et de sa Mere d’Herman Weinberger, R. D. “The Romanesque Nave of St. de Valenciennes,” Ph.D. diss., Leyden, 1975. Maurice at Vienne,” Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins

Stornajolo, C. Le Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo University, 1978.

Monaco (Vatican gr. 1162). Rome, I9I0. Weitzmann, K. “Thirteenth-Century Crusader Icons on Stubblebine, J. Duccio di Buoninsegna and His School, 2 Mount Sinai.” AB, xLv, 1963, 1709ff.

vols. Princeton, 1979. ——. “Icon Painting in the Crusader Kingdom.”

Swarzenski, H. Monuments of Romanesque Art, 2nd ed. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XX, 1966, 51-56.

Chicago, 1967. Weitzmann-Fiedler, J. Romanische Gravierte Bronzescha-

Thirion, J. “Observations sur les fragments sculptés du len. Berlin, 1981.

, portail de Souillac.” Gesta, xv, 1976, 161-71. Weyl Carr, A. “The Mural Paintings of Abu Ghosh and Tobler, T. Nazareth in Palastina, nebst Anhang der vierten the Patronage of Manuel Comnenus in the Holy

Wanderung. Berlin, 1868. Land.” In Folda, Crusader Art, 215-43.

Underwood, P. “The Fountain of Life in Manuscripts White, J. E. C. T. Art and Architecture in Italy: 1250 to of the Gospels.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, v, 1950, 1400. Baltimore, 1966.

, 83 ff. Villette, ——.J. Duccio: Tuscan Art and the Medieval Workshop. La Maison de la Vierge dans la scéne de London, 1979. Pannonciation. Paris, 1940. Willemson, C. A. and D. Odenthal. Apulien. Cologne,

Vincent, L. H., and F. M. Abel. Béthléem: Le Sanctuaire 1958.

de la Nativité. Paris, 1914. Wilmart, A. “L’ancien recit latin de l’Assomption.” In

Vincent, L. H., and E. J. H. Mackay, with F. M. Abel, Analecta Reginensis, Studi e Testi, Lrx. Vatican Hébron: Le Haram el-Khalil, sépulture des patri- City, 1933, 323-62.

arches, 2 vols. Paris, 1923. Wormald, F., ed. English Kalendars before A.D. 1100,

Vloberg, M. La Vierge nétre médiatrice. Grenoble, 1938. Henry Bradshaw Society, txxu. London, 1934. Vogel, J. A. De ecclesiis Recanatensi et Lauretana, 1. The Year 1200: 1, ed. K. Hoffmann, Catalogue; u, ed. F.

Recineti, 1859. , Deuchler, A Background Survey, New York,

Vogtié, M. de. Les églises de la Terre Sainte. Paris, 1860. 1970; The Year 1200: A Symposium, New York,

Walsh, D. A. “Crusader Sculpture from the Holy Land 1975. in Istanbul.” Gesta, vill, 1969, 20-29. Zeller, J. “Zur Loretofrage. Neue Pilgerbericht uber

1982. schrift, 90. Jahrgang, 1908, 53-79. |

Ward, B. Miracles and the Medieval Mind. Philadelphia, Nazareth und Loreto.” Theologische QuartalWarner, J. Lee. “Walsingham Priory, A Memoir... Zimelien. Ed. T. Brandis, P. J. Becker, et al. Ausstelwith an Account of Recent Discoveries.” Archeo- lung: Abendlandische Handschriften des Mittel-

logical Journal, x1, 1856, 115-34. alters aus den Sammlungen der Stiftung Preus-

Weber, H. H. “Studien zur deutschen Marienlegende sischer Kulturbesitz Berlin, Staatlichen Museen.

des Mittelalters am Beispiel des Theophilus,” Berlin-Dahlem, 1976.

Ph.D. diss., Hamburg, 1966.

Index | _ Abdias. See Historiae Apostolicae Avignon, Notre Dame des Doms Bargellini, C., 84n. 53 , ,

7§nn. 33, 37-40, 76nn. I0, 13- rium, 75n. 35

Abel, F. M., 73 nn. 25, 27-28, _ (Cathedral), 59, 62; Saint Ruf, 59 —_ Bari, San Nicola (Cathedral), cibo-

| 14, 76-77n. 15, 77nn. 16-17, 24, Barletta, Santa Maria Maggiore

7n. 33 Bagatti, B., 15-16, 18-19, 29, 63, (Cathedral), ciborium, 75n. 35

Abiathar, 40-41 68 nn. 2-3, I, 69—70n. 18, 7Onn. Barré, H., 81-82n. 30

Abu Ghosh, Crusader church, fres- 24, I, 70-71 n. 3, 7I1nn. 8-10, Baudot, J., 77-78 n. 32 | :

coes, 82n. 38 7I1-72n. I, 72nn. 2, §, II-21, Beatson, E. H., 75n. 29, 76n. 12

Acts of John, 80n. 6 72—73N. 23, 73n. 27, 75 nn. 38, Becker, P. J., 74n. 9

- Ahsmann, H. P. J. M., 77n. 25 42-43, 76nn. 45-46, 83 nn. 45, Beckwith, J., 82-83n. 44 |

Alatri, Antonio da, 25 48, 2, 85n. 7I : Bede, 33, 76-77n. 15

Alliata, E., 68n. 3, 72n. II, 75n. Baibars, 7, I2, 69n. I4, 7onn. 19- Beenken, H., 74n. 8 ,

43 20, 7In. 16, 72nn. 20, 22 Bégule, L., 69n. 16, 81n. 24, 85n.

Andreescu, I., 81n. 18 Baldi, D., 7I1 nn. 5, 14, 20, 80n. 9 69

Antonucci, B., 68n. 3 Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, 5, Belli D’Elia, P., 73 n. 31

Ara Pacis. See Rome, Ara Pacis Au- 69n. II Bellorini, T., 71n. 20 |

gustae BaltruSaitis, J., 83n. 55 Benvenisti, M., 71-72 n. I

Arena chapel frescoes. See Giotto di Bamberg Apocalypse. See MSS: Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preus-

Bondone Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Hs. sischer Kulturbesitz, Kunstgewer-

Arphaxat, 42 A.II.42 (Bibl. 140) bemuseum, domed reliquary |

Arsenio D’ Ascoli, P., 67—68n. I Barasch, M., 6, 40, 43-44, $7—59, (Inv. Nr. W15), 85 n. 65; Skulp-

Ascoli, Belardo d’, 71n. § 68nn. 4, 2, 69nn. I3, 17, 69—- turenabteilung, ivory (Inv. Nr.

Augustine, Saint, 75n. 42 70n. 18, 72n. 22, 78nn. 40, 46, 2787), 24, 74n. 9, pl. 44

Autun, Musée Rolin, tomb of Saint 48-49, 54-56, 79nn. 63, 66-67, Bertaux, E., 73n. 31, 75n. 35 Lazare, 75n. 32; Saint Lazare 69, 75, 79-80, I, 80nn. 4-5, 7, Bethlehem, 33-34; Church of the

(Cathedral), 53-54, 75n. 32, 78n. 84nn. 33-42, 84-85n. 64 Nativity, 12, 15, 35, 50, 65, 73n.

SI Barcham, W., 67-68n. I, 74n. 19 28

96 INDEX Bible, New Testament passages: Bulst, W., 71n. 7, 80n. 9 The Colloguys. See Erasmus, Desi-

Matthew 4:18—21 (Christ calls Bund, J., 82n. 35 derius

first disciples), 83n. 47 Burchardus de Monte Sion, 12-13, Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz Mu-

Matthew 9:9 (Christ calls Mat- 20, 33, 7I1n. I7, 77n. I6 seum, St. Thomas Altar. See

| thew), 83n. 47 Burgoyne, M., 75n. 41, 84-85n. Master of the Bartholemew Altar

Matthew 14:22f (Christ walks on 64 Conder, C. R., 68n. 2

water), 38 Bury St. Edmunds Evangelary. See © Conon mosaic, 17-19, 72n. IO

Matthew 28:16—20 (Christ com- MSS: Cambridge, Pembroke Conques, Sainte Foy, 73-74n. 7,

missions apostles), 36 College, Ms. 120 pl. 42

Mark 16:14—18 (Christ commis- Buschhausen, H., 58, 69—70n. 18, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 34

ciples), 38 14-15

sions apostles), 36 7I—-72n. 1, 7§n. 35, 83 nn. §2—- Corbeil, §4 |

Luke §:1-10 (Christ calls first dis- 53, 84n. 43, 84—-85n. 64 Cothren, M. W., 79—-80n. 3, 80nn.

Luke 24:36-49 (Christ appears to | Cabestany Master, 59, 84n. $3 Coulombs, $54 |

disciples), 36 Cabrol, F., 67-68n. I, 70n. I, 76n. Creswell, K. A. C., 75n. 40

John 1:44 (disciple Philip), 83 n. 5 Crick, A. J. P., 80n. 6 47 Cairo, Saint Sergius (Deir el Nas- Cutler, A., 81n. 22

John 20:19-29 (doubting Tho- sara), 76n. 8

mas), 36 Calosso, A. B., 75n. 26

John 21:1-17 (Christ appears to Candace (eunuch), 79n. 78 Dalman, G., 73n. 24 fishermen disciples), 38-39 Canosa di Puglia, San Sabino Daniel, Abbot, 9-11, 19, 69—70n. Acts of the Apostles 1:11-17 (As- (Cathedral), tomb of Bohemond, 18, 70-71 n. 3, 7Inn. 4—5 |

cension), 33 27-28, 73n. 31, 75n. 36, pls. Daphni, Church of the Dormition,

Acts of the Apostles 9:36-43 39-40 mosaics, 79n. 7I

(Peter and Tabitha), 38, 78 nn. Carpenter, B. F., 77n. 26 Davis-Weyer, C., 81n. 25

§0, $3 Carr, A. Weyl. See Weyl Carr, A. De Khitrowo, B., 70-71 n. 3, 7In. Acts of the Apostles 12:1-2 (mar- Cavallini, Pietro, 24 4 tyrdom of James), 39 Cavard, P., 81n. 24 de Lasteyrie, R. See Lasteyrie, R. de

Boase, T. S. R., 6, 55-56, 62, Chabaneau, C., 77nn. 27~28 de Mas-Latrie, H. See Mas-Latrie, 68nn. 4, 2, 69nn. 13, 15, 69— Charlieu, Saint Fortunat, 58, 60 H. de |

70n. 18, 70n. 20, 72n. 22, 78nn. Chartres, 44; Headmaster of, 59, de Noroff, A. See Noroff, A. de

40, 48, 79n. 67, 84nn. 24-29, 84n. 53; Notre Dame (Cathe- de Santis, A. See Santis, A. de ,

84—85n. 64 dral), 52-54, $8, 60, 62, 78n. SI De Santos Otero, A., 76n. II Bober, H., 80n. 6 Chatsworth torso, $8, 85n. 72 Debae, M. 75n. 30 Bohemond, tomb of. See Canosa di Les Chemins et les pelerinages de la Deir al-Muharraq, 76n. 8

Puglia, San Sabino (Cathedral), Terre Sainte, 36 Delaissé, L. M. J., 75n. 30 tomb of Bohemond Chevalier, U., 7onn. 19, I, 7In. Demus, O., 78nn. 51, §7, 81n. 18 .

Bond, F., 73n. 1 16, 76nn. I-2 Deschamps, P., 5-6, 54-56, 58-59, Bonnet, M., 78—79n. 62 Christ, Anastasis of, 43-45, 47, 61, 68nn. 4, 2, 68—69n. 10,

Borg, A., 59-61, 63, 68n. 4, 69— 8inn. 18, 25, 82-83n. 44; Ascen- 69 nn. 12-13, 69—70n. 18, 70n. 70n. 18, 81nn. 16, 18, 82n. 38, sion of, 32-34, 77n. 29; Resur- 20, 72n. 22, 75n. 32, 78nn. 40, 84nn. 51-52, $4, 56-57, 84-85 n. rection of, 37, 39, 47, 49, 8In. 48, 56, 79nn. 67, I, 84nn. 17-

64 25; See also Bible, New Testa- 22, 46 |

Bornstein, C., 70n. 21 ment passages Deuchler, F., 73-74n. 7, 80n. 12,

Brandis, T., 74n. 9 Clermont-Ferrand, Notre Dame 85n. 66

Branner, R., 84n. $3 (Cathedral), stained glass, 80n. Dickinson, J. C., 73 nn. 2, §

Bratt6, O., 77nn. 25-26, 77-78 n. 15 Dyon Altarpiece. See Broederlam,

32 Cloisters Madonna. See New York, Melchior

Braun, J., 75n. 31 Metropolitan Museum of Art, Docherty, L., 69—70n. 18 Braunfels, W., 76n. § The Cloisters, Madonna from Dogaer, G., 75n. 30

Broederlam, Melchior, 26 Autun (Acc. 47.101.15) Dosogne, J. Lafontaine-. See Lafon-

Brown, J. H., 74n. 17 Cluny (order), 54, 59 taine-Dosogne, J. 8i1n. 18, 82nn. 36, 38, 85n. 67 53, 57 Duccio di Buoninsegna, 24-25,

| Buchthal, H., 78n. 45, 80n. 9, Cluny, Saint Pierre et Saint Paul, du Ranquet, H. See Ranquet, H. du Bulst, M. L., 71n. 7, 80n. 9, 82n. 38 Colasanti, A., 74-75n. 21 74n. 17

INDEX 97 Ducrot-Granderye, A. P., 79—80n. Gislebertus, 59, 84n. 53 Hours of Jeanne d’Evreux. See

3 Glavinich, F., 67—68n. I MSS: New York, Metropolitan

Durand, J. | gine s.n.

Durand, J. Germer-. See Germer- Golden Legend. See Jacobus da Vora- Museum of Art, The Cloisters,

Durliat, M., 84n. 53 Goldschmidt, A., 74n. 9 Houvet, E., 78n. $1 Gospel of the Birth of the Virgin, 76n. Huffer, G., 32, 76nn. 1-2, 4

Ecclesia, 43-44 II Huesca, San Pedro el Viejo, 78n. 44 Egidi, P., 53-54, 62, 68nn. 4, 2, Goss, V., 70n. 21 Hunterian Psalter. See MSS: Glas-

70n. 20, 84n. 7 Goudard, J. See Le Hardy, G. gow, University Library, Ms. Eglypus, King, 42, 79n. 78 Grabar, A., 20, 73n. 26 Hunter 229 (U.3.2) Enlart, C., 27, 53-56, 58-59, 68n. Grasse, Th., 76n. 12, 77—-78n. 32 Hyrtacus, King, 41-42, 79n. 80 4, 69-70n. 18, 70n. 20, 72n. 22, Granderye, A. P. Ducrot-. See Du-

73n. 30, 75n. 33, 76nn. 44-45, crot-Granderye, A. P. Ingebourg Psalter. See MSS: Chan- | 78 nn. 39-40, 49-50, $2, 79 nn. Green, R., 80n. 6 tilly, Musée Condé, ms. 1695 64, 67, 78, 80, 80n. 9, 83nn. 45, Greenhill, E. S., 73-74n. 7 Innominatus VII, 10, 7Inn. 5, 14

$3, 84nn. 10-16, 45 Grierson, P., 73 n. 6 Iphegenia, 41-42

Ephesus, 33, 76n. 9, 77n. 24; Grimaldi, F., 67—68n. I, 74n. 19,

Tomb of the Virgin, 34 74-75n. 21, 7§nn. 23, 27 Jacopo da Voragine, 35, 39, 76n. Epiphanius, Saint, 33, 76n. 14 Grivot, D., 78n. 51, 84n. $3 12, 77-78n. 32, 83n. 50 Epstein, A. W., 73n. 31 Gubbio, San Francesco, frescoes, Jacobus de Verona, 71 n. 20 :

Erasmus, Desiderius, 23-24, 73n. 3 74-75 n. 21 Jacobus Kokkinobaphos, 45, 81n.

Erbetta, M., 77-—78n. 62 Guillaume, §3 25

Erich, O. A., 80n. 6 Jacoby, Z., 58-60, 68n. 4, 69—-70n. Etampes, Notre Dame, $4, 56, s9- | Halbwachs, M., 70n. 1 | 18, 70n. 20, 73n. 30, 76 n. 45,

60, 62 Halkin, F., 79n. 2 — 78n. 40, 79n. 67, 83 nn. 45, 48,

Etampes Master, $3 Hamann, R., 75n. 32 $3, 84nn. 44, 46-50, 55, 84-85 n. Hamilton, B., 71-72n. I, 78nn. 34, 64 Fabricius, J. A., 78nn. 47, $3, 78- 36 Jacquemart de Hesdin. See MSS: 79n. 62, 79nn. 68, 70, 77 Hanna, S. A., 71-72n. I Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale,

Faith (virtue), 43-44 Harrod, H., 73n. 4 ms. lat. 18014

Faloci Pulignani, M., 74-75n. 21 Harrowing of Hell. See Christ, James, M. R., 76n. 11, 77nn. 18,

Familiarum colloquiorum. See Eras- Anastasis of 22, 78—79n. 62, 79n. 2, 80n. 6,

mus, Desiderius | Hazard, H. W., 68nn. 4, 2, 69n. 82n. 41

Farsit, Hughes, 82n. 32 13, 73n. 28, 84n. 5, 84—-85n. 64 Jean de Vignay, 77-78n. 32 Fedalto, G., 7I-72n. I Hebron, Saint Abraham, ciborium, Jerome, Saint, 10

Fiume. See Tersatt 75§Nn. 33 Jerusalem, 33-34, 61, 72-73n. 23;

: Fleury, Ch. Rohault de. See Ro- Heitz, C., 73n. 24 Church of Saint Anne, 33;

hault de Fleury, Ch. Henry, Archbishop of Nazareth, 15 Church of the Ascension, 27;

Folda, J., 68n. 4, 70nn. 21-22, Hermogenes, 40-41 Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 73n. 28, 82n. 38, 83n. §2, 84- Herod, King, 79n. 64 I2, 15, 19-21, 24, 27, 35, 47, $0, 85n. 64, 85 nn. 67, 69 Heslop, T. A., 81n. 16 $9—-60, 65, 72n. 21, 73 nn. 27,

Forsyth, I., 81n. 16 Hetherington, P., 74n. 12 29, 31, 82n. 36, 83n. §2; Church Francis, H. S., 67-68 n. I Himmelfarb, M., 79n. 2, 81n. 26 of the Holy Sepulchre, mosaics,

Fryer, A. C., 80n. 14 Hind, A., 75nn. 23-24 81n. 18, 82n. 38; Convent of the : Historiae Apostolicae, 38—42, 78 nn. Flagellation, Museum, 68-69 n.

Galavaris, G., 81nn. 22-23 | 47, 53, 78-79n. 62, 79nn. 70, 77 10; Greek Orthodox Patriarchal

Gautier de Coinci, 43, 79—80n. 3, Hoade, E., 71n. 20 Museum, Crusader capital, 80n.

82n. 32, 82-83 n. 44 Hoffman, K., 73-74n. 7, 85n. 66 9; Qubbat al-Mi’raj, 27-28, pl. .

Geoffrey of Beaulieu, 71n. 15 Homilies of Jacobus Kokkinobaphos. 48; Rockefeller Museum, 68—

Germer-Durand, J., 52, 68n. 4, See Jacobus Kokkinobaphos 69n. 10; Templum Domini, 27;

72n. 22, 78n. 40, 79nn. 67, I, Hopper, V., 75n. 42 Tomb of the Virgin, 20, 27, 34,

| 84n. 6 Horb, F., 74n. 12 50, 80n. 9, 82n. 34; Tomb of the Geyer, P., 76—77n. 15 Horste, M. K., 81n. 25 Virgin, frescoes, 34, 82n. 34 | Gioia, L. L., 77-78n. 32 | Hortus Deliciarum, 80n. 6 Johannes Phocas, 10-13, I5, I9, §0, Giotto di Bondone, 25, 48, 74n. 15 | Hotzelt, W., 71-72n. 1 7In. 13

98 INDEX

19 doricus ms. 350, 77n. 27

Johannis liber de dormitione, 34, 77Nn. Libellus de Locis Sanctis. See Theo- Montpellier, Ecole de Médecine,

John of Wiirzburg, 10-11, 80n. 9 Liber de dormitione. See Johannis liber New York, Metropolitan Mu-

Josias, 40-41 de dormitione seum of Art, The Cloisters,

: 24Julianus 15,Africanus. 73n.See Historiae 6 24-25, 74nn. 14, 18, 74-75n. Limbourg, Herman de. See MSS: 21; Pierpont Morgan Library,

Jugie, M., 76nn. 6-7, 77nn. 17-18, _Lietard I], Archbishop of Nazareth, s.n., Hours of Jeanne d’Evreux,

Apostolicae Chantilly, Musée Condé, ms. 65 Ms. 3, 74n. 15

Lipsius, R. A., 78-79n. 62 Oxford, Christ Church, Ms.

Kartsonis, A., 81n. 18 London, 5, 69n. 11; Victoria and Arch. W. gr. 61, 45, 81n. 22 | Katzenellenbogen, A., 50, 80n. 6, Albert Museum, 68—69n. 10; Paris, Bibliothéque de |’ Arsenal,

8I1n. 21, 83n. 56 Victoria and Albert Museum, iv- ms. $201, 77N. 27;

Kauffmann, C. M., 80n. II ory (A.12—1963), 82-83n. 44 Bibliothéque Nationale, ms. fr.

Kedar, B. Z., 71-72n. I Lorenzetti, Pietro, 74n. 15 1§33, 77n. 27; ms. fr. 1768,

Kellner, K. A. H., 82nn. 35, 39, 42 Loreto, 31-33, 67—68n. I, 73n. 29, 77n. 27; ms. fr. 1807, 77n. 28;

Kenaan, N., 60, 84n. 62, 84—-85n. 78n. 35; Basilica della Santa ms. fr. 2815, 77n. 27; ms. gr.

64 Casa, Santa Casa, I, 23, 25-26, 1208, 45, pl. 74; ms. lat. 3550,

| Kerber, B., 56-57, 61, 68n. 4, 84n. 65, 7I1nn. 10, 20, 72n. 18, 74- 81n. 28, 82nn. 31, 33; ms. lat.

32 7§n. 21, 78n. 35 12056, 82n. 36; ms. lat. 14463,

Khitrowo, B. De. See De Khi- Louis IX, King of France, 12, I5, 82n. 32; ms. lat. 16056, 82n.

trowo, B. 7In. 16 32; ms. lat. 18014, 74n. 16

Kitchener, H. H., 68n. 2 Luca da Monterado, 75n. 25 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, ms. Knowles, C., 77-78 n. 32 Ludolphus de Sudheim, 71 n. 20 D.7.3, 82n. 36; Biblioteca

Kobler, G., 67-68 n. I Apostolica Vaticana, ms. Bar-

Koenig, V. F., 79-80n. 3 Mackay, E. J. H., 75n. 33 berini lat. 659, 82n. 36; ms. gr. Kopp, C., 7on. I, 77n. 24 Maesta Altar. See Duccio di Buon- 1162, 45, 8In. 19

Kornbluth, G., 74n. 19 insegna Martin, J. R., 80n. 6

| Krautheimer, R., 73n. 24 Male, E., 52-53, 73n. 6, 74nn. 17, Martindale, A., 81nn. 16, 18 Kroénig, W., 69n. 16 19, 78n. $9, 79nn. 67, 73, 81, Martorelli, P. V., 76n. 2

Ktihnel, B., 84-85 n. 64 8onn. 6, 13, 84n. § Martyrdom of Matthew, 80n. 6

Manuscripts: Mas-Latrie, H. de, 82n. 36

Lafargue, M., 81n. 25 Athos, Iviron Monastery, Ms. s, Master of the Bartholemew Altar,

Lafontaine-Dosogne, J., 76n. II 8I1n. 20 78n. 43 ,

Langé, S., 69—70n. 18 Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Hs. Mayer, H. E., 71-72n. I, 84—85n.

Last Judgment, 48 A.II.42 (Bibl. 140), 45, 81n. 21 64

Lasteyrie, R. de, 40, 52, 68n. 4, Brussels, Bibliothéque Royale, McBee, H., 83n. I

69—70n. 18, 78nn. 40, 48-49, ms. 9270, 26, pl. 47 McTighe, S., 80n. 5 56, 79nn. 66-67, 69, 75, I, 84n. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, Meinardus, O. F. A., 76n. 8

4 Ms. 20, 77n. 27; Pembroke Meiss, M., 74n. 16, 75n. 29, 76n.

Latrie, H. de Mas-. See Mas-Latrie, College, Ms. 120, 78n. 58 12

H. de Chantilly, Musée Condé, ms. 65, Meissner, G., 83n. $4

Laurent, J. C. M., 71nn. 17-18 75n. 29; ms. 1695, 44 Meistermann, B., 70n. 26 Lausberg, H., 77n. 30 Glasgow, University Library, Melisende, Queen, 20

Lawrence, M., 44, 80nn. 8, 10 Ms. Hunter 229 (U.3.2), 74n. Melisende Psalter. See MSS: Lon-

Lazium, W., 78-—79n. 62 — 17, 78n. 43 don, British Library, Ms. EgerLe Bruyn, Cornelius, 72-73 n. 23 Leningrad, Gosudarstvennaia ton 1139 Le Hardy, G., 70nn. 19, I-2 Publichnaia Biblioteka Imeni Meyer, P., 77n. 27 Leclercq, H., 67-68n. I, 7On. 1, M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina, Meysels, T., 83n. 45

76n. § ms. gr. 291, 81n. 20 Michel, A., §2

Legenda Aurea. See Jacopo da Vora- London, British Library, Ms. Michelant, H., 78nn. 37-38

gine Add. 15606, 77 n. 27; Ms. Michiel, Sig. Polo, 71n. 20

Legendre, A., 71nn. 10, 20 Egerton 1139, 45, 78 n. 45, 79 MileSeva, Church of the Ascension,

Lepicier, A.-M., 71 n. 10 n. 71, 80n. 9, 82n. 38; Ms. frescoes, 81n. 20

: Lewis, A. Smith. See Smith Lewis, Egerton 2902, 82n. 36; Ms. Miracles of the Virgin. See Gautier de

A. Lansdowne 383, 44 Coinci

INDEX 99 Moissac, Saint Pierre, 73-74n. 7, monuments francais, §, 68-69 n. ivory copy of the Plaimpied

78nn. $I, §7 10; Notre Dame (Cathedral), Christ, 56, 62, 85n. 65, pl. 77.

Monreale, Santa Maria la Nuova 80n. 15 Reliquary cross of Paschal I. See , (Cathedral), 24, 69n. 16, 74n. 9, Les Pelerinages por aler en Iherusalem, Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica

|

pl. 45; mosaics, 78nn. $1, 57 . 35-36 , Vaticana, Museo Sacro, reliquary Montfort, 84n. § Peltier, H., 77n. 31 | cross of Paschal I | Moraldi, L., 77-78 n. 62 Pentecost, 44 Ricci, C., 74-75n. 21, 7§nn. 22—

Morand, K., 74nn. 14, 18 Pernot, H., 81n. 26 — 24, 26 , Mortet, V., 75n. 32 Petrucci, A., 73n. 31 Richard, J., 71-72n. I | Moses, 45 Pfaff, R., 82n. 36 . Richelde of Fervaques, 23 | Mount Sion, 34, 76n. 6; Church of | Philadelphia, Sommerville Collec- Ricoldus de Monte Crucis, 12-13,

Saint Mary, 33-34, 78n. 33 tion, engraved gem, 74n. 19 7Iin. 18 a mugqarnas, 8, 62 Philetus, 40-41 , Robb, D. M., 74nn. 11, 15, 17

Muratova, X., 7In. 4, 78n. $1 Philippon, A., 74n. 19 ; Robinson, F., 77n. 22 , 7 Mussafia, A., 82n. 32 Phocas. See Johannes Phocas Robinson, J. A., 77n. 22 | /

, . Piccirillo, M., 73n. 27 Roger, E., 19, 72nn. 18, 20 _ .

Nazareth, Convent of the Annun- Pigler, A., 74-75n. 21 | Rogers, D. M., 76n. 2 7 o ciation, 28; Convent of the An- pilgrim, 8, 10, 12, 18, 23-24, 32—- Rohault de Fleury, Ch., 71 n. 13,

nunciation, Museum, 5, 78n. $5; 33, 35, 7In. 20 75n. 31, 76nn. 6, 8-10, 82nn.

Franciscan Museum, 3,6 | . pilgrimage site, 35, 50, 72n. 18 39, 42 : 2

Nelson, R., 85 n. 67 , Pinette, M., 75 n. 32 . Rome, Ara Pacis Augustae, 65; BibNew York, Metropolitan Museum Pisano, Giovanni, 82—83n. 44 lioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Muof Art, 5, 69n. 11; Metropolitan Plaimpied, Saint Martin, 6, 54-60, seo Sacro, reliquary cross of Pas-

Museum of Art, The Cloisters, 69n. 15, pl. 41 | chal I, 81n. 25; Santa Maria in . Annunciation from San Piero Plaimpied Master, 56 Trastevere, mosaics. See Caval- _ Scheraggio, 73-74n. 7, pl. 43; Plommer, H., 84-85n. 64 | lini, Pietro — a 7

Metropolitan Museum of Art, Pococke, Richard, 83n. 45 Rothelin continuation. See William

The Cloisters, Madonna from Polymnius, King, 4I, 79n. 70 of Tyre - OO Autun (Acc. 47.101.15), 81n. 16 Pompierre, Saint Martin, 81n. 16. Runciman, Sir S., 70 n. 2, 71 n. 16,

Nicolo da Poggibonsi, 71n. 20 Poquet, A., 79-80n. 3 78n. 36 Oo

Noroff, A. de, 70-71 n. 3, 7In. 4 Porter, A. K., 53-54, 57, 59, 62, Rupprecht, B., 73-740. 7- . |

84nn. 8-9 - Oo Oo

numerology, 75n. 42 68nn. 4, 2, 78nn. 44, SI, $7, Ryan, W. F., 7o-71n. 3, 71n. 4 Oakeshott, W., 56, 68nn. 4, 2, Prampolini, G., 74n. 15 Sa’ad, M., 68-69 h. 10 oe 69n. 15, 84nn. 30-31 Pressouyre, L, 84n. $3 , Sa’ad, Y., 68—69n. IO

Obsequies of the Holy Virgin, 46, Priest, A., 84n. 53 . Saint-Julien-de-Jonzy, Saint Julien, |

82n. 31 | Pringle, D., 69—70n. 18 58—60° Oo Oo

Odenthal, D., 75n. 35 | Prodomo, A., 20, 73n. 27 | Saint Pierre le Puellier, 74n. 17 a | Otero, A. De Santos. See De Santos Prosper-Marie, P. See Viaud, P. — Saint-Quentin, Saint Quentin, .

Otero, A. , Pseudo-Melito Sardensis. See Tran- stained glass, 74n. 17 | |

| situs B , Saint Ruf (order), 59 >

Pace, V., 60-62, 68n. 2, 69n. 15, Pucelle, Jean. See MSS: New York, Saladin, 19, 57, 69—70n. 18, 72n.

84nn. 61, 63, 84-85n. 64 Metropolitan Museum of Art, 22 re

Padua, Chiesa della Madonna The Cloisters, Sn. on, Salet, F., 60, 84nn. 58—60 dell’Arena, Cappella degli Scro- Purity (virtue), 45 Saller, S.J., 68n.2 :

vegni, frescoes. See Giotto di Be oe Salvin, R.,74n.9 0 Bondone | -. Quaresmius, II,.19, 7Imn. I1, 20, San Cugat del Vallés, monastery

- Palermo, Cappella Palatina, mosa-_ --72nn. 18, 20. ' rn : church, $4 a | |

ics, 78n. $1 ne 2 San Juan de la Pefia, monastery

Palmyra, $6 7 a - Rahmani, L. Y., 84-85 n.64 church, 78 n. STO

, Panofsky, E., 25, 74nn. 10, 18, - Ranquet, H. du, 80 n. 15 a Sanseverino, Lorenzo d’ Alessandro

75n.30 | Ratizano, O. C., 71n.20 da, 25 , ,

Pantel, A., 77nn. 27-28. - Raynaud, G., 78 nn. 37-38 ; | Santis, A. de, 78n. 35 Oo , Paris, Musée de Cluny, cheminée Réau, L., 76n. 5, 78 n. $9 _ Sauerlinder, W., 80n. 15

from Rouen, 74n. 19; Musée des Recklinghausen, Ikonen-Museum, Schapiro, M., 80n. 14, 83n. $§

| 100 INDEX Scheer, A. H. M., 82n. 35 Tolomei, Pietro di Giorgio, 32-36, Vincentius Bellovacensis, 35, 77n.

Schiller, G., 74nn. 9, I2, 17, 78nn. 76n. 2, 77N. 29 31 | Al, 43, $7-58, 79n. 71, 8Inn. Torcello, Santa Maria Assunta, mo- Virgin Mary, Annunciation to, 1017-18, 25 saics, 45 | 13, 21, 23-26, 32-33, 35, 47-48,

Schlumberger, G., 73n. 6 Tortosa, Notre Dame, 36, 76n. 44, $0, 73nn. I, 6, 73-74n. 7, 74nn.

| — Schneider, U., 69n. 16 78n. 37 I4, 18, 82n. 36; Assumption of, Schwartz, E., 81n. 18 Toulouse, 52, 54; Notre Dame de la 34-35, 48, 77nn. 29, 31, 77—-

Seidel, L., 50, 83n. 56 Daurade, 78n. 44, 8In. 25 78n. 32, 82n. 33; Birth of, 11-

Seljuk, 53, 62 Transitus A, 34 12, 32-33, 48, 76n. 12; CoronaSetton, K. M., 68nn. 4, 2, 69n. 13, Tvransitus B, 34, 77nn. 20—21, 29 tion of, 80n. 9, 82n. 33; cult of,

73n. 28, 84n. 5, 84—85n. 64 Transitus Mariae, 34, 77n. 23 34-35, 47; Death of, 24-25, 33-— Shaftsbury Psalter. See MSS: Lon- Treatise on the Annunciation, 26 35, 37, 48-49, 77n. 31, 82n. 33; don, British Library, Ms. Lans- Trés Riches Heures de Jean de descent into Hell, 43, 45-48,

downe 383 Berry. See MSS: Chantilly, 82nn. 33-34, 82—-83n. 44; house

Shorr, D., 82—83n. 44 Musée Condé, ms. 65 of, I, 10, 13, 20, 23-26, 31-35,

Signorelli, Luca, 25 Trespassement Nostre Dame. See 48—49, 67—-68n. I, 7In. 19, 73n.

Silos, Santo Domingo, 73—74n. 7 Wace, Robert 29, 74nn. 17-18, 74-75 n. 21;

Sinding, O., 77n. 18 Our Lady of Loreto, 25—26; Skubiszewski, P., 81n. 25 Underwood, P., 75n. 42 Tomb of, 34, 80n. 9 /

| Smith Lewis, A., 77n. 23 Urban IV, Pope, 71n. 16 Vladislav, Stephen, 81n. 20

| Soissons, Notre Dame (Cathedral), Vlaminck, B., 19, 68n. 2, 7In. 9, | stained glass, 74n. 17 Venevitinov, M. A., 70-71 n. 3, 72nn. 2, 4, 10

Sommerville, M., 74n. 19 7In. 4 Vloberg, M., 81n. 26, 82—83n. 44

| Souillac, Sainte Marie, 80n. 14 Venice, San Marco, mosaics, 45 Végtlin, A., 76n. 12 , Spatharakis, I., 81n. 20 Venice, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Vogel, J. A., 76n. 1

Speculum Historiale. See Vincentius Chiesa degli Scalzi. See Tiepolo, Voragine. See Jacobus da Voragine

Bellovacensis Giambattista Voyage au Levant. See Le Bruyn,

, Spiele, I., 77n. 30 Verdier, P., 34, 44, 77mn. 24, 30- Cornelius

Stewart, A., 7In. 12 31, 80n. 9, 81n. 17, 82n. 33 Vrelant, Willem. See MSS: Brus-

_ Stornajolo, C., 81n. 19 Vézelay, Sainte Madeleine, 52-54 sels, Bibliothéque Royale, ms.

Stratford, N., 83n. 54 Viaud, P., 5-6, 8, II, 15-19, 26- 9270

Stubblebine, J., 74n. 13 27, 29, 49, $2, 62, 68nn. 2, 4, I, |

| Suriano, F., 71n. 20 6-9, 69n. 14, 69-—70n. 18, 70Onn.

Swarzenski, H., 85n. 65 23, 2, 7Inn. 4, 8-10, 13, 20, ~ Wace, Robert, 34-35, 77nn. 26-28

7 . 72mn. 2-10, 20, 22, 73 nn. 30, Walsh, D. A., 84-85 n. 64

- 7 | 32, 75nn. 33, 43, 76n. 45, 78nn. Walsingham, Chapel of Our Lady,

a , Tabitha, 38—39, 41, 69n. 15, 83 40, 48-49, $5—56, 79nN. 63, 66—_ 23-24; shrine, 23; statue of Ga- ,

ce nn. 45, §I 67, 75, 80, I, 83nn. 45, $3, 3, briel, 23; statue of the Virgin, 23

. Tancred, 9 84n. 4 Ward, B., 82n. 32 - Tavant, Saint Nicolas, frescoes, Vienna, Liechtenstein’sche | Warner, J. L., 73n. 4

| 8In. 25 Fiirstliche Sammlungen, North Watson, C., 83n. 1, 84n. $3 | | _ Teremanus. See Tolomei, Pietro di Italian engraving, 25, pl. 46 = = Weber, H. H., 80n. 14

| Giorgio Vienne, 54, 56-57, 59-60, 63; Saint Weil-Garris, K., 67—68n. I, 74n.

| a Tersatt, 67-68 n. I André le Bas, 53-54, 58, 60, 62; 20

Theodoricus, 10-12, 15, 33, $0, Saint Maurice (Cathedral), 46, 53, Weinberger, R. D., 81n. 24, 85n.

71n. 7, 77n. 16, 80n. 9 59, 62-63, 81n. 25, 85n. 69, pls. 69 .

a : Theophilus, 44, 79n. 2, 79-80n. 3, 75-76 , - Weitzmann, K., 80n. 9, 85n. 67 | 80n. I4 Vignay, Jean de. See Jean de Vignay Wells, R., 7on. 1

| , Thirion, J., 80n. 14 Villette, J., 74n. 11 Wenger, A., 77n. 18, 8I1nn. 27-29 | Tiepolo, Giambattista, 74n. 19 Vincent, L. H., 6, 68n. 2, 73 nn. Weyer, C. Davis-. See Davis-

. Tischendorf, C., 76n. II, 77 nn. 25, 27-28, 7§nn. 33, 37-40, Weyer, C. So 19-21 76nn. 10, 13-14, 76—-77n. 15, Weyl Carr, A., 82n. 38 a Tobler, T., 71n. 5, 80n. 9 77nn. 16-17, 24, 78n. 33 White, J., 74nn. 13, 15

, frescoes, 25 Bellovacensis 25, 75n. 37

, Tolentino, San Catervo (Cathedral), Vincent of Beauvais. See Vincentius Wilkinson, J., 72n. 21, 73 nn. 24—

, INDEX 101 | Willemsen, C. A., 75n. 35 Wilson, C. W., 70-71 n. 3 Zaroes, 42 William of Tyre, 78n. 37 Wormald, F., 82n. 36 Zarnecki, G., 78n. §1, 84n. $3

Wilmart, A., 77nn. 19, 21 Wright, W., 81n. 27 Zilper, N., 70-71 n. 3

BLANK PAGE

Illustrations —

BLANK PAGE

ee ee 2 fe Ee ee) {4 wr oe A © ee ee I )

ee = — ee SF ie a ee : EEE Ie ee ee a ieee seeps pe yey

0=—rr—“—i—— * ‘: *‘ 3:*—< :.BS:RS BS 3- Si, 4oe aq-aES,a SRS Sos Bek = aSe - :‘A —:Were ce oeSee Nee Re ie q cao eS CS ’eS ae Ree as me aaa mag ss 2 é Pes — See a 2 x Se ail a oe re SS = : ie es Seas SR as 69 — sa 8 , as : eee = ee ae “Ss a aes Se ae 2 ae é 3 soe Pets Succ ak oe » Wee i aneee * ' ee A ~~ oe #3 : . ae ae ee eS ee :oo. cs SS ae cy aaeS= ‘Re . ag ~——eessces i Be eo oe ane%eS » RSS if eS h&‘

a— ¢ ‘. Fl a oeee ee ee SSoe ae . ois : a} — . Rass ee : ‘ th 2 = fr. SERRE Se i ai a Be, Ss ’ . F r ‘ Be fe Se as ‘=~, ‘ “" 4 . So ag “Fm ‘ ‘ . ~ oS kes a 7 fa with Ree ES * ‘ Bees See SRR SECS Ee gt * er a 5 ¢ceOe ) *~\ Yo: 2Fos ee e.t ‘< * adaa “J Fe = a a. eeen., eS;#\=oe F =a ; we a4_ » e. :: = a ae ie YS ee bis se ’ , Bs es $ Sa aS 4 aS 3 — & — Phy KR KOts RS. *ae := ve ‘S oe Pet 4£..-a: ra Patt , wile, ‘‘We, —_— *Ba juBs See 3 RN

i 2 “) Gh |S ‘ 2 2 4 ho aS ee R ¥ » Bi : ee = . Ps ie > Ss ¢ Sg Bees 3 SS 3 . SS SS eg ae S See a : ee ar Ee ‘ Soe FS 2s. Sees . eae a res 2 & ee z — Pr C3 S mee oe “es oe PS Ps ae 8S

ie cs = «> awes Es ee aoar ee :fsAe. ;fF +Jeee a ; eSé —o é& ' =oe .a"4 5é éeB. wee eat Ce coe Pd ee 5 if 2 eo ae Fe # : e of ee ee aur Sie . a tS — PF £2 PS ‘ : % ‘ -— = i ae oe et *: %Ser es4. oe ye&3 — =-2Ps . :esee..ieSs2. .4“4.ss ES aj Poo oe Re &ae sos ee2 &aes §aes Fo 3= eS &. — : - 2oe Ps ay 4 Pog SSyfdyeee a ee 4-3 as of ‘R ee# 33aewe eRSq . ee oe : (& & :

ee Sa = oS ce ar as . . eS SS - = if e a : : .e #, ¥

Vs a PS

PLATE 8. Saint Thomas capital, face 2 (1976) (photo: Garo Nalbandian)

yf TTR vee, @87 i~ eeetkcetkee?@ a ¢ ais . | ¢ Se*#ee ~ & ~ ” 4 if > = a os f te : . .* sd e . ree? wae .,“ 4 Ee .| #3 é:¥ Pw ,v MT me. | :ey »: F|= WSS 7|FiPBT |{‘{ iY} ,@ | pee! mw . Pe. Wr2Oy, * » ~ osP :. Y aeod wD . ys ” *==F in, - “?; .-*“oPA*-_E™*

3 my [or Se P m~ 5 i a 4ig -4$ “se ; : \ ‘ ' : 3 ~~ s Diy eT A= |

re We - Pi a P . a hist co 4 ‘ is Fe < ~ 3 2 — a a & y \) : : .: - ts ;

~7 “a3a%Ly e o- , SB it } ey; / ta” Fe rae 3 . “ a J so _ de wm j ; ; , a of f li s me _ “i : 2 4 J . * ¥ 4 en“ ar - ‘ wet “—f! & As — LA _. a

2ins OkaVa. at == 4 See , te ls ha

= rd f; . %, : -t ~ QS = : aw , 7 bm 2 s a ‘ 4A : * - 3 Fi; 4me ne hes cae f $ * = oF :or, Be = Pe “|. cae SE a - "oe lisse . : ; # . y 6 Cl ~ t. * rte i ” ie ;\ = we We ~~ 2 y ( ~ | pq : " .~et ff a = : i" ' . « re « ad ~ * 3 ; a ; ‘ all 4 a4 1; ‘ 3 A ay : om Z « ; 3 : i ae : aa be ' a Ss : : ‘ 5 r. : # : . %: @eeat if Ai qGee f NOR >.&oe “9. -¢°{f9a 7s8 |E| ' ~~3Se§lei; & .S| e*a ;2i. ae — fi e = | m Se ‘ : FA. SS . .wae

7 ' — ¥ . Tr es 7 : . = — : ss i — : es * .o * eS F « # ; = ee i . a8 ¥ & 4 at od “ee Fe e -

a - pA \\ " s 4 e- a 4 4 { Po 3 4 % : F ; , _ < 7 ae

: > * 3 — >: ss £: ‘ ‘ Ji ee : wa! oe |

— lh CUO | we PG rae Yoana Mi) 2a ; ~@ — ~ {/ 2 ee ON) eek + NA See || ale oe

- fF °\ ae ti ] i ~~ ss « a a s =. " ia =

JeeSsNCO SS‘a, Ss Shes . PiNw = RSi#/Yer ; 4 . Fiaes 4 i 2ieee S 7 =>“gFF = R a9 , “h ' = = «4 : : - . - . re ao . ; : 3 Pl a : 4 3 : _ .

ort . ; i B, ~ i. * : : s rm BS ii : : . s . ‘ ‘ = ~~ f f

i :Os lt ERS. Oe oo .oe 8 UU Er ee7ae Ol . me esrs -ir we. ..abies — Say aS GK ac eS Ea : s § < i S_*s‘ res ew SS ‘*)4, hy Fee 4 . _— —_—_ ha ff Hoe oe. a ce ‘i aOO a eeSs=ea.s i ee . . seSs . : eer cs oo . _ ‘So C= adf 8; -...™ es Io tae te. Va! i eh, Free.sk .io as © . oe§ays a Gee ut“ — ree Se — Be aoe3-=eroe... ow bm m tsheAws iae eeafam caer ee Pk a Se - s. _.. . » a Ew “Ss ae : CS — i. ; 4 44 ¥ Ris . i / at ~ x cd . : 4

eo ee ae Se Secu Po 4 ae ke F s = eee al BS ae So oe co " 3 ce : : z Pe &

2 wae wee: an : a “~ — i. x = oe Oy ~ bis

PLATE 10. Saint Thomas capital, face 4 (1976) (photo: Garo Nalbandian)

,63 = : ee “ | AS ~~ C . | . —— . a Se . < “o : 3 : £ 4 ws -. .\=er ra ; , Po CC f, — i a ; a . Ss 4 " rs + £ 7, it 7 ‘ he * “igs f Vf >. ‘ cog od & a hid {Oe | ie* "35/4 mn ss “IS | aaa & . — » ? S . ss | . : . 2 ght —— : . 5 : fav) mi —— : Ses a SF 3 2 eS . NaN SS . cS r sc & Se. ee: “ 7 : si ‘ ’

Voy | as; ee Ry Ph *

fe sw ie e FS % ~‘:*.-eis ,F2s‘3%34a ‘“ae ‘_ “3eSaeS : ae. SS i— s= a cme \ a ag sa 3 SS ; é _ oe ke Loe bee ae AS ej YS bs (ir : 32. we . ceed as s&s . See

“eeu \ ¥ “Sy imi if Be = - Ff PSN ae

Pt, , FS et .xei/xe (oe i:= eoe oe aaSs2.Se eo 4Bs. . #_Res =: 3 SS . BS FS esees aa *Ce ae:ae ss ‘:= 3‘s ‘ e&. ee hi oa sSS i es hoe ~ar SS a& *Fiv4 si ‘e ote eae 4:io iaanSe :~=oS:ae et Ea“SS : acS RsSs , seer :i ie

2a !Umltté i ee i =” tie... e ESS 3 a9 —: yl o & a Pek ge Se eae eee > ee HR ie Se te .co

P SS ie od ee ee ‘ ee 5 ae 2 ae a eT ae ee

‘ af “, 4SS ‘ 2S Se*2= :eet8 3ci‘eal tee“esa 7.fos _ my re :oeaeee Sees ae ear . - ae pe as, — os ae Ss ; S = “ee. \ : iF ee ee AR ee ee a ee :. ss,, ceSs>o.ot“Mies ; tg, wR, ~~ eS a ee 2G ae ee TieOS mw Se Peco ae ee cus a wee 4 Bere Ce alliee ae , — ie eee iis aa Bis ae oo ee go i. oe ‘ _—— =

* ad gh : Fg Re. ty, Be i a “a 1as capital, face 6 (1976) (photo: Garo Nalbandian)

.‘| .:awa *oS *& me Ge —"s = he;Se j ae > a &. Pews fs Ps ae : s :+ ."| -Ps j |— Sy F3 &r : aa4 i3s ~=3 ‘ eq ie 3+. =e E.. F“es .* ..|\4& Fy

4r

eee 3 Sa |

rat. di ee; 3i?:i?; = 2.)&be*.-i3¢ se 7a :4‘bee * 3 ‘ " .

os oe — ss oy : *< me < . 7 a q P SS . . : = — oe i s rg E: = 4 . : J e = e

cS * = Ss 4 a — : « : : : . 3 é . eee ‘s t / . So rs od oe a a # ae

Ss : re + x % — ty are ©

re i 7? A. > 4 & . ¥ " F * E> . ok . . ae Re e saat & é e eas = i te. Ss Pee ape : < : : oa re *% a Ran ee a ° = . ry Mss : . . 2 e :-. Sees . 4 s=. oe —_ 6 < ‘ sae ; ; . i : % : 4 r er 8Se {>—_ —— 2 :¥iisa .. . : . dal Re PS ee ee re ee ~~ oe . ue ee al yy OM. i4 “a¥oo. ss | ee eS r ;#‘ed = oe FE s = 34- F* : .ee 3 aSa : F:r }3 :; — ey ’ 4 * a . a ’ " =o of? f .LSS ." q —— ~~ eo eo : i rs = Ga RS al cae % = ae ..>> aeaoe ‘ 4‘g*a a.*+e *? a4“3. Xm ee Csa ar¥:aNO ooSe —a / os Se we! *‘ i.:— iy 4 [.%.spe “;a8Pos — & ; SF ty: ee » oem ~~ a) OX 9 A "> oat 2 S me 8 By ‘ . ‘ a “ ~ iadi ee bias 3 eC * 7 +s ‘ . - % “a aq’ oF en a eS

e . - a\ a oe :., * ss.

{ F F % < 2 ek re il Poe — ° a a i “* oti

a “J a ? § F gs Sa “ ss =: mh SS ,aq. : =ss7oeA:a NI’aeS NY 4 3 , — \ _ ae oe & ’eh Bs 4 . we ¥ ee — % ss ‘ a SRS ae : A + = - ~~ Se ee »i». : &

—=— > it) a / Pere ees Ss ; ‘ . a ‘ Rs. . % e uf * Wf * y a a | - 4 T ; . - e : ] af.

.. \& . * ;— fi,P-..RIL opee CBE ll eee ‘wail ~ Oe see4as Ss-._ SS sr ea a : “7% ~ if AN ‘. @ lig tae oy fe ; ~. ni _— —Bet Bie SSeh f .| | “es PgR et 4[fu 8ONS — oo : oe‘4:Se =gigi ale ahh§ ‘ ~ade “AMS “Stell ; 7a @ “|b. 3 — ; ~~. “ > eo —— tiie — cow afs al \Ht * ~~aN “a Re% ; ialid f/ j if i j -*

le: ay ‘..oe as og * : 8 4 . . ,>:a4\ a&=\ ai.“i7.i :— : a \ = . % . 5 : 4 a rs ee 4 = :estae le i | Te Fae oN re” /' ,.| oe oy ee Se wa © ~~. re MT “a : © L ) ai —— . o he _ ‘ee 7, ee! ey Y ’ Se Sallie Z er a o » ~— -. See oda4 ;—“_ SS :a ee Se @ — aa«“—,. ~ee r. a3« .. BS -— al.' ‘., Nii ~ -. -’ ‘: . .. = he i al ge. ag SS Pa > te 4 x .— . a oS ee ee . ae ues . ; ea o oYj ,‘& ' “36% re # il :So . Pm Me< '(yf

3ee : a ca a a. . : Pa ‘i cal : pee a ee eea..—t— — OR Sell=CC = = ’ «ee ee ee oe — =aae,SES

8 gy1.eeMa q sOleeen al jee

OFes eens a “Oa i-— 4 re ae > ee. bs ae“ae eeA eaCe iee el 4 aeee a os ata s gee Pe {2 aa” : See ORR, RES : mae OS . = : Sas

PLATE 14. Saint Peter capital, faces 2 and 3 (1976) (photo: Garo Nalbandian)

é e ‘ soul a an a 5 il = : en * \ \ .. \ ibess, ‘es : ites ff| ’8x oo : . " .& 4 . 4£™7‘ jF—EE is Bi,ae. . ‘ os-* aWit ‘ \ . \ yw i = vy .. 7 = + *s- oo We oS ff « a a ‘ ¥ 3 + ~ ] i . ek is SS ~ & 3 3 a ; ‘ eS ‘ - = es ; ‘. we

re 43 9 i

3 x = : 29 “ , wv :q~ : ZL _ *!i i *" Se @* 428 ~ ——_-s Sa , 4

a : ao ee Be 4 = . < se 8 “—s . ~~, (ae ew a" So — ; + a r - -_ a See~ wt . 4 ac .™“ . oe m~ 3 a SESS ae Le hsee . : ae ‘o | \ : YS a >. a a F 4 . s é * 4 . ee &

See a ee oe. oe oe a py. Val 2 ‘ % = “isk & ‘tia. Pees. r. ¥ < ; Ce

PLATE 15. Saint Peter capital, face 4 (1976) (photo: Garo Nalbandian)

: Mow4' =Se Edie, nat a= wk a si “"¢ Me i ee a.< ty : a ss 3 3 oy : + fe - i :

. wo f _he a=f &,*| -:Pa“a =ee) ey OP 3 *» oc ii ‘ ‘ a ; S ~ 4 “ : : se me >. MS ——

= ‘ A. Cl . a ee oe a a *y llr ‘ere i F : 4q wi 4 : aeeet- e!hlU6?telc( | - e = 3 a PotreelCUe OO Os ™ Ya Oe

‘ Saas 7 *’§ < Fy = he 3~~ 3S q . w ee2 *ot a=er*\o", ~3 ’ss ee:. 33=eo-=ae.sa ea a wong v. Rae 43 oaqa 2.‘$Pe Re =€e.;BSot ar¥cs ay a|aSed “

aa .FE , ~ all S *. % : a a‘ +. > = < we 4 ‘3:ial 3 =* :. oe . isas— —ty3—. *&.m8 " reget 3 : :3*3BS‘ s4

‘&3 ‘. 33me eS oo aieal Oa BS ae8 =a >tex_— : ws.|.& > #: |ars FTRS. eeSe eS-AS -eess ree==,et *: Mes , : >" See — ”ENS ea anes Se 3 Px ws a & < . & 4 e Ss eea— . o* Ned ’ —OReee oe .: . 6cS\ @ 7 aS. ¥-

x me s ~~ * - o N ‘ . _ allt oe Ve ; a3 yae+, -_eeCONF 2 . bate ¥::

= «x ae ‘New i As ae aes Pe ce er 8 ee a 3 \venga #: &_:aie * Re I Ne ee ae a ~~oa itCjGos P Fas :

oe |SAN Uf aPr~Oe meSgPi -- - ‘ ; Se a

f CIEE FT2oR i.\ af “he TAG) ve | oe \6 , ~ Me ee eee , f) ns a af ee eee = ei) &% im : a * ' oo ‘ + ; .Jx, £a\ee, bs-me Fa. i ~ae bgSP :& beeate: KR, .iQe 32. >_— 7: ee\\e\" Ve ipl.Psd eae .+ :S20 a=", a “a > git 3=' “e“At te Pe ey Ja=.Boe :. .1ee ; Ok Be, em “a S/ Lx. da"ieee Oe iae a 7| 2heee Jeeaeae ve eee yee6 i.peeeAEE! eeeaeae om 4 ‘ie ge tee meee Pe gee Foi % 24 PLATE 19. Saint James capital, faces 2, 3, and 4 (1954) (photo: Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore)

a a—r—“—i™O—OOCO—O—O—O—OOCOCWC*SS — —

ee rrti—OOOSOsSS ee oo ,LDUDUrr—“ OOO oe

ee. fog ff eeaSJ‘23 ice, ae Aei.he; o‘ *oe- |aM4 : Te

- a . — «A r =. ¥, fae i hit ie. Le ies ne Te Ly ee gore a Gh dt de a. e he” i ‘G4Gee Die biEB ageye 2 OF.gvbe ts4Yt. AY £2%isis

eg Be is ee a aA ppgt A SF eS isLADIOIE Bese ae es igPiggy ey,4 Lk: ie FO esEG agOt tii — . ’ kate geeee ih AOE gh biebast ee i AAPA Rheei a3 Pe : | em bei Ly Bee ge “y ii:i:Ge sttye tit yp ee sg ee $& Bo aye bo bs ee CE MES Piggy igs ceBre bgeeRe eS oo ne xFoie git PANS i ee ‘asbi tePa q Ne Mie uw ag Do Ma Boa od Cee ee 7i tgGP isGE LS, FeYe We iy,i hg Poe eeeepe

lw ® ae the ieitiaage egSBfT|ieEO Ree geiilima Lite ee, |*|| asSA > eee ee i,an >5Sain Pas 5a_ y*siiee? *les beve : i: Ee F EEE EE aM oe 5 iy pei has ee ee »awe io* ot 2G ‘tO &had age. Le! are Sai eeeeiiae:a; oe ray | eae Ses. Aen aes oe me oe ie a gee oe ss , omg C4 Wie oy ype oS

jie. ee 3 Vs — ode a b te,” OfWe Lt fw q ines ee aMag 4 a.AFFye3ES —"a ae ‘ay aoie ha ed UyOg iy iTee Ce 2 :

: ON +4hga “Ja % | a» tp Cio ~~ ||)“ZByiy ee Y 64 eg a Vij ety a ee : atEwe f4 7a : AS nl ee | ti Fa . Aa (oe =e ee eee a e, fo 7lr, F@, Ze : may ES ge ey Sh EL # ji eaea7 a"ae 1—Jy Fo oe wit s., 4m7 4 4x“ i i 8ee SS

‘re oem My t. 7 | jh, ae Png, ne ba Z b a AY TY Ue YF bee > Bees

:Goes song ‘ms 7> >Fisg Ai? 4 4ag ¢Way, ; eeee 7 iee , eeeeee 47 tgCia egas BO biby Ne ee ie eee ee, ,Meal ce” ,Me ¢Re em ie eeeeae Nis a ee Fg aeie iecy” ’+ ie— me a, oS ie Poe + ee: 2 Fe it 8 he eesee y Wg? Mee ey rng: Oe ee ee 8r.Ps| epee A; al wee Me ax4Mig, A My we ty 2D eoaGY i Cer ee 3ae iaePe Vii yir—“—OOS - ae=oO 2esaie ve—1bey Seltee ©ie i? ig Fm E EO Paha ee i_La i+age7Ea, esYijd — E| || ee,ee a .ore, aga |jPe + Oe

ia ~~ i a a\ .+«§ eg©. ag- ae ey gg Vis(a.og, «= i.pj..ge . *=Lg .. |; 2. _ Le Me eZ oe a *“i. € : Fs ‘+rea "a 4: ‘. rg

f Jat, aN is a y wr a ae Es 4 bs . — | J «aa i ail a‘ -~ ~™

~~ ° re * - oie , a _ © ye gi. eee : 5 x. ; ~*~ = - .

F di : — BS a ‘an

* | ‘ Pd # rm - ; Ph Ss sal on

Se— — = ——— SL caen . -iyé©oo * R* .2_— i =: SS ~~ e Ne eewe ~% ?&% Ss *F~~ fpMia ccs :es4 = ‘ rs »S5 ‘is aa si a ~~. :@ —.

“ee a. .-aioe ¥“amy a ‘'ee =# ua : x;ceri €SeeoI— yo > —— Be=ateu ; *ABR &~ i-q==.ee *F = eS { pe & . ‘ o= Bon e j*=et “Si. ;=a. .egae&7: 2Po =4 < “4 Co—call . aa=SN FSEeg=‘ ; * sos “ ; SS a ‘ rs 4 CS % . Bs es res ~~ . 4 pf We & a ae ‘ & at oes -* o ‘ 3 = ns ~~ oe, 3 ies ‘ 3 3 # 0 a , a e es eC =3 : ‘ FNS 3 ~ : ' ‘ .. , ore 4 . ‘ | 4 j “< _Se . . “ : * " —" 4 3 Se = a. « 2 oe” j : 3 4 ‘ ‘ .. & Ss bh “a F< $ ; oS ee ’ # = . fae Ss ‘ 4 ;.ro‘. q|.so. ES : ee ee >fe = +=hClU

— vo i.ro ‘ *e ; :4 aa:a Oo & ‘ee, -,: cf. % -= -¥- ce é , '* * %‘ 2— .ee = *.eS & ‘&3. Ea a : ~*~ e > — i ee oe : s : aod ey & 3 ‘}al * es ~ —— oe : s. ll 2 ee " aiiay s Ss Be 4a.‘ 7... —%3 42§eS ened : aes Po tee ee . 7 i— Pot ie4;.«cal ied > | 5 i » gee # a . ~~ — @ i fe ES \ + ah Bs i.|me m gf yf(= f >age ; * —i+ F j i7):ig‘ :’: 8a— :%4,:>‘4\ a=3 eeoo eeoe~jPy “e°a8 F "ed Re oe : = < : % — . — ' é 238 . ; . Fee aae ae— a :1; e: ‘=. ‘.-3}in &* $‘*F ; "==‘=e... .. % 3 ©4‘ 3.‘> |oe. Fo beg See Sy a% ‘ a5:ti>3;&FsSex +“Vv ‘ : . ‘| * ; oo . SS— SSSe :~

4' a\=os . 3 Ss ‘ * :«‘ Re r *¢ =: .r * ee

*' #= b.ai|—‘a» :sii* #\ik a:-ve : 55 —“|. — 3::>.=. aSs : ’ans ‘* : " % = Se Sey NY, SS oo Aa ¥>: "Bee . —4Ses = ae VEES a : ~£) \ :ee—: '. Sy a . é al ~~ eS ‘ ‘ . _— © ; 4

s =e . : a. ey 3 . . | | a Se = r * a S 3

as fs “2 vi? if ae Ts ste eee a : a. a “ ee % — ‘ag“=e, * Seoe . § s—. ,.SoBS y. * . . . . 7. . -= ws =33'‘‘Se % Se ad 2. >]. | ae Ls os ee ee — . ik = as sag oe os . SS SS a a=< ie ; =e . ‘ 4 _ * oo og a Rs Ay ou 7 tS | 2 “) © oF ia ; oO . * 2a F : _ # ss 3 ee a : >» >" ee si \ ‘; @ : a . — a :aa\:3“Se , ss Ys .

a ee i te —_, ee vif = Ss a ° Ea 3 Pe Sa = ; = 3 Se . Ba 3 4 = s & . i = — ec A. =». '>|oyte.3.—~— i

~ Be s ; SS oe ew cs : : : Bs , AS a ‘ SS aS ¥ Sa Se . 2 PEAS > # ey : ON eehak * SS fos te =§XS : F. SSN BST Ke BS m8 SSR : Ee Se ee aw & FRE RSS Sa WSs Ses : aS eS beoo Sa

~le: .2. . eeBe: ao .PIE F a +.Dh am > arrAs . aTa < . Serres x Af ghfae: ad~~, ree Mee PLA ah RS, aA 4 nis , PO Fe =e as ‘ Rs i. oe x teas eC ral ; a soak ae 4 “ny :‘fs ak :a a-=ASade 4 fe2PLAS eg . syoeoaknS My en eo. yee \\y a! ig Bf i aJag 4v : Be - ye Sy 5 ey:toe 88: pe: het bsae a5 P ‘ uy re cae a oP Bo. ' Fee oe os SS 3 Ms BSc 3 ae e sath 4 Sea anes

a ee ‘ OX . A ae Paget. hs Poa tow aay

SSee8ee ee os Sus Spartak Pane he eee. Rast tangs a:‘sig fo re yeEa, See OS ra +wie Se ET Peete potas ae Shs “2 saee . ee Sas Rat 3eS me teWy Fes zeBee i. &NS SPM “eR . © * bas EY hu a Pees Be. fe? ; ae. * eae Ty oh ae. op Ge el ae ef oe Nipsaa (ocGch ta eeeogee : ; ge erae geBere Se te eeee te eens Pee ei: rei ett |. eR Se o we : ‘ Ee - — oe ee idan’ th de sin peo af ot PE .

we ze tg Pe ER We, a fo ke oe : . ry ‘ay Be tied ets Pg AY | ans Me ee eaters ‘ie gon : Sagi Paley ois Ne cr ee + ar “ . Ee BR Pe ie Re me y etre: , Neaes = ~~ ty . ae Pee =. 2 F Seer 6aktan ea €ssQf? ettsegt 5oeaeo ekksPS_ }segiro SOE ee ty ae RS % ineithc etal _ & Ces — Sg pag —

nsgg® ee Pee ¥=:;‘Se 3RSS .: es agk SS : ~s aN, eS: oe tes beh Oe eeoer Shey — en a= . .re .< Soa? "a,ey 3aris) ‘ee yyBx. *hp a os 4 bees 4SO -. aewae ty, “>, &y, eget ~* oNaof< *“ee4. bite wee. .Y

ni ES alee Ser Ee ere, a a =~Sy oeeae ae To Boge ee 7ta WENe ga 15 SeSet en 5 Te ‘

we se ~ be esss=Be he:a 3sa*: te = -. se é. -3 =3 = >; %? Sicae *bea aSs] . .. : Zi,SS aeOe a eS< 4: :: Roe , at «= * 3_ F‘ :Soe ~ 3nie wae: ie. 3%

eee othe ea * ©, éaLe: Gy ‘en Sa ar, ‘. :er ae — =: Bais oo | aieailihe: ee ae * ed Ci en! ae oa& a 7a] ie | rg 3: as aseine be, Se “@ byPee °nhee oe % x aBs : “oe“4 :Pig itigger } 4iyan; TS =4 . wee. “i*, .b,>, XK i ae —. sa. _—— se = i: — a = a aN . ...ay% ‘ “=o : ~ a."4aeoeatte ASae ee =ee sser :a.— sus iia ete get ‘ee iHe ia si 7 eau .* : ek} BR :L —_ : ag i] aN Mi +s bE 4-~=asa ae .os— a4s3 4s(Rat ft \ ea

yr,Pee \ : w .(>< Lop . co | i Bees RC eC EE “a “TOKETA AR nied HORA vv ex PROMONE AF ad Sige ae) MARIA fo 3re: oy NY j fe, \ :: _—_ : .ek: casCEaieTA AETEEIER DARE ERE Ria oa Renae ees eon ’DELLS boo Cee : raanseiaenaet cea a ation ong? Lo

at ae ao a ~ A A. ina. instante dda Me

fers : onna of Loreto, engraving

PLATE Cloi h lati 45 eale, Monreale, Cloisters, northeast corner. Annunciation capital PLATE 46. The Mad is

(from Hind, Early Italian Engraving, tv, pl.

ms OA BO) Fe 5: a he, ae oe a 7

BS rs*: tet) ne S< i : ee ES eet/a, reOo«= i == . , #2 Soaths bey Be ot ee t “ if tigen eet 2 Beit dt’ BU leagsis 4 phi $3te¢ "tires. “ H tf la *%. BBie HUH ' \:ee BfSOB hoe =MA ee,iaskal mT Corte MT Ue a BepersWO at oeMr H util LAE Hs)idaLA stekcwanstiiths -ethati tie tdsSHAT at Pe "tiny Niti Va hi _" : Hit, { i } HE 7 ti : 4 4 We ost! eteeea ree ee | Fi : Me a J i > got : fijattsgs® 4) ay if tip 4 Head i dam 34 tay, my ih x

Hk we} a)@F Be. Siete a alee er ffsie iaduate H ALL ee {lv or i Mi yy COHN: ecu:-, ae Fl atDy HM AEM

LE A OZ i Se ES RY

: | te Hidde Ea os Sa tina ae- ae PAP cgwe if obese eee es afl ff DAR Tiasiateeehee: 4, Hs oR tea% annie steers, iii HAT Heart atiy tiyi) |t' 5% ;UST : Me 5oeoe y, $33 SEP seeiilbttt 2ib45 SEES ee DIE Lanes | hag os, axeest? 5 eee s5 5% aieLH ia ‘eid Rais to ‘s, anit UPR SisHsscsisiiy Nense th)aa eee vies Hee HH pre Hasides 4 Mitch stHATS : |acet bahtiHiab Hii P4stestes « PAE ee RibesGtys gStarSiees er seis iySOE } tify, come seaRHAANTL lh Rae ee LEY FAO hae URGE SERRE HRT Se

AMR edi it ih rr i OS May Mitatiperiinth tf BURN He it Hua atch iin cunatans sit aan’ ane it thr eatery: mide PIPER belt Si Sth tee eaeeae ee ee PE ian 4 nites: Pagatas Sark BEY

. wil we ik ¥ sy. HTT emai TRE Te Hibs Bastiti titi hy aes Hitsttabs i ihe nH Hb Ui} Ae)tt Mshagcttsss ater tihi:i:745, 3 pe ae ne fiifrtbss ‘ os Sewits iui HIPPARCOS REST rou YF rs he BARE tah fitted Matis seaeoetd +one if4Fried aneek} 2 He: adbiiddhiahh. sd 1 Eee PEL pa4ARE, hibit es : SER TEE ESsiettit B H {tai t;i 4 } 4-3 in eee b He: - 8 Tt Hill tntsyta : pide teicub taranieuatnittite keh,edith Utne tiseth.htisstess: eters oF agilts 3PPh 7 j (| :© pee Bast sg Shghg ahrj I Sas ts RETR PERT Pisa thoteeiny tea th'ebe sae asasa. 3%?:- a. opsiigf5pe. ome abana ie 3tesa ‘ o oe { tists stra tgte: Os tbat o8s Sibi 5397824 it iFr if‘ Bt ¥H shisha ss baatsets

mo Lae 4eN ge EP i on 2Hie 7 diese PrarieBe MEane RL RTP Ie isu Pe taste atrier. Maal tistin lis vntigithk. a : ee) eo it eS nih sais aICS A jae ee EiaeBy : eeeeAp ereF TOA RUURALI Lan a Yt OEtte bee

CPOE I i, a) i i S i tina Ce DN A lg oe Fy) rh ‘ea: A f ‘Ze ig E+) Geee wi ii Mere ik uae ‘met MUS MEAL OH Pails. Noe

Bee a Bee ee i! \ %. 2 EEO atraapl PP Mibaa LT tT? S95 MAS SEP ARAEEERAE D+ Soogaeeneneniilit MIU Mariioanien watee a7 P i af of! Me) Hui ae j } ‘ f See E : “SMP TTTTETN A Soci gs ott tnncna gs el Digi oicebsiteits ote Baste 4 ci tesee ha gphate ' ; we

» fll fi * o . ee Sie Be ey ti hal a We Se SN eet ee

I ¥ ' ‘ nH a! 4 i % : 5 i Reso 324jeth cit Rt Hit Hil f ay i if ‘i satan ~~ Stes. : pigs gee eee ati iis 48 i ‘a

ie a4 P|) SR : mee” RStif: Hy FON sisi aoliensn meeeneiiaaieas Hat ae {a:eatin Pe Segre Rescccte tnRRR WME i Hy | ATtaleimscinie':’ A SSBEETLE ST! 3487 i :iafeialtidle if‘me *i% : “ 3a% ;+:iit : Nal 4*ts at iiill - Lk 08 f+ EE AGRARLCCRS: ndLF Fs aae : ' cite , Luh it :rat ent : 3 iisberber cipeae i: eet th ‘ Ratif yiHet is bt i» Oa By, ¢i at 1 ; 7airy @ ee i j wh 2 gg Push TET § ont ne” ‘4 Ags! ‘ a | Bog. go ; i ‘ < é a BE : aie ig Sie, - Peta fitseak Mag 4px bé % ‘

: ii seiiilig? } y i; : batbe 4 ee sy 1 aw‘ oe - e .

rteom oe: .,é 4: at q ft . nee it ae” * ‘ 6La ‘ xé :— a .\iJ:3:uy whuiES&arte — -avy j

~e >: a¢ :es : ike 7 \2We ®\ Ce 4 ieek. i ik >Sy—=“eee we, mee Fytf4Oe yy‘\"9, aay” 1 ae

po Os Un oem 8, OR: ag

, Wee oi Fe SP oer A. er oo ae ae ee e Ps? ¥ 5 ?: ee BS. 3 ale Ve

werd ee Oe a me © ey ee A ee Dig BP Mee 20 te .

.& alee Bae _ aay : "aK sete.eF& 4 ie. teSete Ke - oe ! - aNa}... $ Ny € rte 73Sue