'
\
CONTENTS
List of Dated Monuments xv
PART I : CLUNY
I. The Chronological Problem 3
Dated Monuments of Lombardy and French Chronology (3)
— French Monuments the documented Date of which is not admitted (3) — Hypothetical Reconstructions (4) — Mon- uments of accepted Date (5) — The two Lists not inconsis- tent (6) — The Chronological Theory (6) — Theoretical Prepossessions^?}"""— Errors in Archaeological Dating (6)
— Surprise of Archaeologists at established Dates (8) — Conflict between Documents and Theory (9) — History of the Theory (9) — De Caumont (9) — Lefevre-Pontalis (10) — The Morienval Controversy (10) — Fallacy of the Solution (11) — Extension of the Theory (11) — Caution against too early Dating (12) — Absence of Caution against too late Dating (12) — Artistic Hegemony of Ile-de- France assumed (12) — Anomalies of Romanesque Chronol- ogy (J3) — False Conception of the Theory of Evolution (14) — Trile Character of Romanesque Development (15)
— Crude Works are not necessarily early (15) — Early Works are not necessarily crude (15) — Tympanum of Troia (15) — Lack of Progress in Romanesque Art (16) — Changes which did take Place (16) — The rejected Docu- ments are trustworthy (17).
II. The Eleventh Century 18
The Byzantine Renaissance (18) — St.-Genis-des-Fontaines (19) — Arles-sur-Tech (19) — Bible of Roda (20) — St.- Andre-de-Sorrede (20) — Crossed Legs (21) — Early Stone Sculpture in Europe (21) — Charlieu (22) — Basse-Oeuvre of Beauvais (22) — Dax (22) — Azay-le-Rideau (23) — St.- Mesme of Chinon (23) — Selles-sur-Cher (24) — The Berlin
vi CONTENTS
Ivory (24) — Eglise de Ronceray of Angers (25) — Selles again (25) — La Celle-Bruere (26) — Dax again (26) — La Sauve Majeure (27) — St.-Genis again (27) — Double Aureole (28) — German Influence in Catalonia (29) — Ben- edictine and Cluniac (30) — Acceptus (31) — Canosa, Siponto and Monte S. Angelo pulpits (31) — Tomb of St. Isarne at Marseille (32) — St.-Victor of Marseille (32) — Sculptures of St. Emmeran at Regensburg (33) — Tomb of St.-Front at Perigueux (34) — Doors of Hildesheim (34) — Hildesheim column (3$) — Other works in metal (35) — Area Santa of Oviedo (3$) — Advancement of Sculpture in the XI Century (36). \
III. Early Spanish Ivories . . 37
Area of San Millan de la Cogolla (37) — German Influence (38) — Leon Casket (38) — S. Isidoro Crucifix (39) — Pamplona Box (40) — San Marcos Crucifix (40) — Jaca Book-Cover (41) — Area de San Felices (41) — New York Crucifix (41) — New York Journey to Emmaus and Noli me tangere (42) — Comparison with Toulouse Apostles (42)
— Southern French or Spanish? (43).
IV. Santo Domingo de Silos 44
Dated capital (44) — Pier Reliefs by the same Hand (44) — Motive of Arches (45) — Canopies (45) — Hand raised, Palm outwards (47) — Gothic-like Capitals (49) — Pointed and round Shields (49) — Armour (50) — Flame-shaped Peb- bles (50) — Crossed Legs (51) — Neck-Slit (51) — Chin Armour (51) — Drawing of Arms (51) — Movement (52)
— Clinging Draperies (52) — Hair and Beard Conventions (52) — Handling of Groups ($3) — Harpies (53) — Line and Delicacy ($3) — Comparison with Moissac Cloister ($3)
— Influence of Benedictine Art ($$) — Analogies with Eng- lish Sculptures and Miniatures (55) — Beatus Manuscripts (56) — Aesthetic Achievement at Santo Domingo (56) — Influence upon later Art (57) — The Virgin of Sahagun (57).
V. The Bari Throne 59
The Bari Throne (59) — Dated 1098 (59) — The Monopoli Archivolt (59) — The Acerenza Archivolt (59) — Relation- ship to St.-Gilles (59) — Origin of the Master of the Bari Throne (60) — Apulia and Lombardy (61) — Pontida (61)
CONTENTS vii
— The Porta dei Leoni (62) — Its Date (62) — Comparison with Pontida (62) — Comparison with the Porta della Pes- cheria (63) — Comparison with Angouleme (63) — Motive of Cavaliers jousting (64) — The Bayeaux "Tapestry" (65)
— Modena influenced Bari (66) — Bari also influenced Modena (66) — Origins of Lombard-Apulian Art (66) — Apulian Art and Guglielmo (67) — Was Guglielmo a Nor- man? (67) — Architecture of Modena influenced by Bari (67) — Architecture of Bari influenced by Modena (67) — Bari and S. Ambrogio of Milan (67) — Throne of Monte S. Angelo (68) — Eastern Influence (69) — Convention for manes (69) — Byzantine Animals (69) — Spiral Curls (70)
— Square Wings (70) — Monopoli Architrave (70) — Angels at Aries (70).
VI. Cluny 71
The inner Tympanum of Charlieu (71) —Its Date (71) — Zig-zag Drapery Edges (72) — Comparison with Monu- ments of the XI Century (72) — The Lintel of Charlieu (73)
— Angels holding an Aureole (74) — Motive of Coptic Ori- gin (74) — Later examples (75) — Other Traces of Byzan- tine Influence (75) — Mont-St.-Vincent (76) — Chateau- neuf (77) — Capitals of Cluny (77) — Aesthetic Beauty (78) — Iconography (78) — The Art of Music (78) — Influence of Gunzo (79) — Illustrative Qualities (79) — History of the Building at Cluny (80) — Rapidity of the Construction (82) — Not unprecedented (83) — Style of the Capitals (84) — Not that of the second Half of the XII Century (85) — St.-Andre-le-Bas of Vienne (85) — Cluny Capitals not of second Quarter of the XII Century (86) — Naturalistic Foliage (86) — Analogies and Precedents (87)
— Comparison of Cluny and Saulieu (87) — Date of Vezelay (88) — Adam and Eve Capital (89) — Vezelay compared with St.-Denis and Moreaux (90) — Vezelay compared with Autun (91) — Vezelay compared with Moutier-St.- Jean (91) — Vezelay compared with Modena (91) — Comparison of Vezelay and Cluny (91) — Adam and Eve Capitals (91) — Rivers of Paradise Capitals (92) — Capi- tals of Four Winds (93) — Vezelay Capital of Luxury (93) — Vezelay Hunting Capital (93) — Vezelay Capital of Daniel (94) — Aureole Capitals at Savigny and St.-Nectaire (94)
— The "Cluny Master" of Vezelay (95) — The " Bath- sheba Master" (95) — Comparison of Cluny and Santo
viii CONTENTS
Domingo de Silos (96) — Comparison with Benedictine Art (96) — Elongation (96) — Wattling (97) — Pointed Arches (98) — Comparison with Madrid Crucifix (98) — Influence of the School of Winchester Manuscripts (98) — Cluny Capitals were executed between 1088 and 1095 (I01) — Mediaeval Capitals were carved before being placed (101) — Representations of Sculptors at Work (102) — Experience at Bryn Athyn (102) — Marcilhac (103) — Romans (103)
— Corme Royale (103) — S. Ambrogio of Milan (104) — Gerona (104) — Unfinished Capitals (105) — Sculptures executed at the Beginning of the Work (105) — Church of the Annunciation at Nazareth (105) — Venosa (105) — Donzy (106) — Pilgrimage Churches (107) — Capital from Nave of Cluny (107) — The destroyed Portal of Cluny (108) — Influence of Roman Mosaics (108).
VII. The Diffusion of Cluniac Art in Burgundy . 109
Tympanum of Vezelay (109) — Tympanum of Autun (109) ~ — The Last Judgment (no) — Influence of Miniatures (no) — Leg bands (in) — Miniatures of the School of Winchester (in) — Date of Autun (112) — Comparison with Vezelay (112) — Comparison with Saulieu (113) — Comparison of Saulieu and Vezelay (113) — Date of Sau- lieu (114) — Moutier-St.-Jean (114) — Comparison of Au- tun and Saulieu continued (115) — Comparison of Autun and Moutier-St.-Jean (115) — Dijon Majestas Domini (116)
— Dijon Last Supper (116) — Tomb of St. Lazare (117)
— Avenas (118) — Refectory Relief of Charlieu (119) — St.-Amour (119) — Perrecey-les-Forges ( 1 20) — Anzy-le- Duc capitals (120) — St.-Parize-le-Chatel (120) — Anzy- le-Duc portals (121) — Neuilly-en-Donjon (121) — Later Work at Charlieu (121) — St.-Julien-de-Jonzy (122) — Montceaux-l'Etoile (122) — St.-Paul-de-Varax (122) — St.-Vincent of Macon (122) — St.-Sauveur-de-Nevers (122)
— Relationship with Fontevrault (123) — Mavo (123) — Relationship with Vezelay (123) — The Dijon Last Supper by the same Hand (123) — Donzy (124) — A Work of the Master of Charlieu (124) — La Charite-sur-Loire (125) — Comparison with Montmorillon and Chartres (125) — Gamma Wings (125) — Souvigny (128) — St.-Menoux (129) — Ebreuil (129) — Ste.-Magnance (129) — Bois- Ste.-Marie (130) — Ivry-la-Bataille (130) — Avallon (130)
— St.-Benigne of Dijon (130) — Semur-en-Brionnais (131).
CONTENTS ix
VIII. The Diffusion of Cluniac Art Outside of Burgundy 132
Tympana with Aureoles (132) — Origin of the Motive (132) — Its Diffusion (132) — The Lintel with Apostles (133) — Arched Lintels (133) — Witnesses of the Apocalypse (134)
— Tympanum of Cluny (135) — Copied at Moissac (135)
— Burgundian Influence at Moissac (135) — Date of the Moissac tympanum (137) — Statue of the Abbot Roger (137) — Sculptures of Moissac Porch (137) — Tympanum has been moved (138) — Date established by Comparison with Monuments of Burgundy (138) — Rib Vault of Mois- sac Porch (139) — History of the Rib Vault (139) — Other Copies of the Tympanum of Cluny (140) — Tympana with the Majestas Domini (140) — Tympana with the Ascension (141) — The sculptured Tympanum did not originate in France (141) — The four and twenty Elders (141) — Mo- tive originated in Rome (142) — Diffusion of the Motive through Cluny (142) — Spandrel Figures (143) — Cluny Voussures (144) — Development of Voussure Sculptures (145) — Heads in Medallions (145) — Bourg-Argental (145) — Influence of Nicold (146) — Other Sculptures in the Rhone Valley (147) — Relationship with S. Orso of Aosta
(148) — Influence of Cluny upon Gexmajiy_(i4Q) — Upon Auvergne (149) — The Apostles of St.-Etienne of Toulouse
(149) — Signature of Gilbert (150) — Virgin of Solsona
(150) — Gilbert's Assistant at St.-Etienne (151) — Capi- tals of St.-Etienne (151) — Work of Gilbert and a third As- sistant (152) — Tomb of St.-Junien by same Hand (153) — Date of St.-Junien (155) — Comparison with St.-Gilles (156) — Column of Solsona (157) — Gilbert of Toulouse and Gilbert of Autun (157) — Influence of Gilbert in the Pyrenees (159) — The School of Tuscany (160) — The Cloister of La Daurade at Toulouse (160) — Autun and Germany (160) — Autun and Siena (161) — Malmesbury (161) — Doors of St. Marien im Kapitol at Cologne (161)
— Burgundian Influence at Chartres (162) — Chartres and Ada Group Ivories (162) — The Master of Etampes (163)
— Chateaudun (164) — Chartres and Etampes (164) — The Canopies of Etampes (164) — School of Vienne (165)
— Capitals at Nazareth (166).
\
PART II : PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE
I. The Pilgrimage to Compostela 171
Fascination of the Pilgrimage (171) — The Callistine Codex (172) — Authenticity (174) — Date (174) — Politics (174)
— Cluniac Priories and Affiliations along the Road (175) — Economic Aspects of the Pilgrimage (176) — San- tiago and Cluny (176) — Toulouse and Cluny (176) — The Pilgrimage and the Moors (177) — Jerusalem and Rome (177) — Relics along the Road (177) — Love of Wander- ing (178) — Facilities for Travel (179) — Art and the Pil- grimage (179) — Monuments along the Road (179) — Cluny the Champion of Art (180) — Spanish Sculpture and the Road (180) — Western French Sculpture and the Road
(181) — Lombard Sculpture and the Road (181) — Pil- grimage Routes in Italy (182) — Normandy and Apulia
(182) — Modena (183) — Pilgrimage Centres in Italy and Art (183) — Influence of the Orient (184) — Armenia (184)
— The Holy Sepulchre and its Copies (185) — The Domed Churches of the West (185) — Lombard Influence fol- lowed the Pilgrimage Roads (186) — Rib Vaults (186) — Cloisters with coupled Columns (186) — Crossed Legs (187)
— Le Puy and Santiago (187) — Constan tines of Western France (187) — The Motive is derived from the East not from Rome (188) — Other Horsemen (191) — Cycles of the Apostles (192) — Architectural Influence of Santiago (193)
— St.-Martin of Tours (193) — St.-Martial of Limoges (193) — The Ambulatory (193) — Diffusion of the Santia- goanType (194) — Flying Buttresses (195) — Gothic Sculp- ture in Spain and the Road (195) — Gothic Architecture and the Road (195) — Stained Glass and the Road (195) — Van Eyck and the Road (196) — Influence upon Art of the Pilgrimages (196).
II. MOISSAC AND SOUILLAC I97
^_ Romanesque Sculpture is not divided by the modern Franco- I Spanish Frontier (197) — One Style on both Slopes of the Pyrenees (197) — French Work is not superior to Spanish
CONTENTS xi
(198) — Souillac derived from Santo Domingo de Silos (199)
— Souillac (199) — Porch of St.-Martin of Brive (200) — Capitals of St.-Martin of Brive (200) — Pulpit at Volterra (200) — Its Date (202) — The Porch at Moissac (202) — Reliefs of St.-Guilhem-le-Desert (203) — The Cloister at Moissac (203) — Comparison with Santo Domingo de Silos (203) — Influence of Ivories (204) — Analogies with Work of Guglielmo da Modena (205) — St.-Sernin of Toulouse (205) — Building Dates (205) — Rivalry with Santiago (205) — The Ambulatory Sculptures (206) — Altar-frontals (207) — Comparison with the Cloister of Moissac (208) — St.-Sernin is later and inferior (209) — Spanish Origin of the St.-Sernin Reliefs (209) — Comparison with Spanish Ivories (209) — Comparison with Santo Domingo de Silos (209).
III. La Puerta de las Platerias 211
South Portal of St.-Sernin (211) — Comparison with the Puerta de las Platerias (211) — The latter is fragmentary (212) — Rebuilt in the XII Century (212) — And again in the XVII Century (212) — Lions (213) — "Throne of the Popes" at Avignon (213) — The two Reliefs of St. James
(214) — Analysis of Hands (214) — The Sign of the Lion
(215) — The Sculptor of the St.-Sernin Signs (216) — Abra- ham and Isaac sculptured on Jambs (217) — Jamb Fig- ures at Santiago (217) — History and Development of the^^j^ Motive (217) — Two rival Genaeologies (222) — Recon- struction of St.-Denis (222) — Suger and St. Bernard (223)
— St.-Denis a Compromise (224) — Motives borrowed from many Sources (224) — Lombard Influence (224) — Mosaic Pavements (224) — Holy-Water Basin at Chamalieres (225)
— A Work of Nicolo (225) — Was it transported from Italy? (226) — Byzantine Influence at Santiago (226) — Comparison with S. Marco at Venice (227) — Santillana del Mar (227) — Trilobed Arch (227) — Santiago and Conques (228) — Same Pair of Sculptors worked at both
(229) — Origin of these Sculptors (229) — One Spanish
(230) — The Second from Conques (230) — Early Atelier of Conques (231) — Date of the western Tympanum at Conques (232) — The Cross in the Last Judgment (232) — Archaeology of the Buildings at Conques (233) — Cler- mont-Ferrand and Conques (234) — Analysis of Hands at Clermont-Ferrand (234) — Date (234) — History of the Sculpture of Auvergne (235) — Influence of Souvigny upon
xii CONTENTS
Clermont-Ferrand (235) — Valence (236) — Pedimented Lintels (236) — Issoire (236) — Vendome (237) — Deriva- tives of the Santiago Flagellation (238) — S. Isidoro of Leon (238).
IV. Later Pilgrimage Sculpture 240
First Period of Pilgrimage Sculpture ends in 11 24 (240) — Burgundian Influence in Second (240) — St.-Etienne of Toulouse (240) — Influences (241) — Date (241) — Capi- tals of La Daurade (242) — Jamb Sculptures of La DauTacTe (243) — Relationship with St.-Etienne and with Chartres (243) — The Toulouse Annunciation (244) — Byzantine Origin (244) — Valcabrere (244) — St.-Bertrand-de-Com- minges (245) — The Virgin under a Canopy (245) — Beau- caire, St.-Gilles, Chartres, Donzy, Fontfroide and La Dau- rade (245) — Date of La Daurade (247) — Santillana del Mar (247) — Holy-Water Basin from Narbonne (248) — Carrenac and Mauriac (248) — Burgundian Influence at Mauriac (249) — Cahors, Souillac and Martel (250) — Area of Santo Domingo (251) — Carrion de los Condes (251)
— Limoges Enamels (251) — Derivation and Derivatives of Carrion (251) — Mimizan (253) — Sahagun (253) — San- guesa (254) — Ripoll (255) — Estella, Tudela and Sala- manca (256) — Armentia (256) — Relationship to Santo Domingo de Silos (256) — Tetramorphs (257) — Vaulting and Pendentive Sculptures (258) — San Martin of Segovia (258) — Ste.-Foy of Morlaas and Oloron-Ste.-Marie (259)
— Reliefs in Cloister of Oviedo and Santillana del Mar (260) — San Quirce (260).
V. El Portico de la Gloria 261
The Third Period of Pilgrimage Sculpture (261) — The Ovi- edo Camara Santa (261) — Mateo (262) — His artistic Genaeology (262) — Character of the Portico de la Gloria (263) — Derivatives in Spain (263) — Bamberg (264) — Amiens (265) — Chartres (265) — St.-Guilhem-le-Desert (265) — Lausanne (265) — York (265) — Reims (265) — The Smile (265).
VI. St.-Gilles 267
The Altar-Frontal of the Cathedrale Ancienne of Marseille (267) — A dated Monument of 11 22 (267) — Relationship
;-
CONTENTS xiii
with Chartres (267) — Maguelonne (268) — Influences (269) — Date (270) — Tomb of St. Hilaire (270) — Frieze of Beaucaire (271) — Derived from Santiago (271) — Tym- panum of Beaucaire (272) — Influence of Byzantine Ivories
(272) — Virgins under Canopies (272) — Date of Beaucaire
(273) — Angouleme Master at St.-Gilles (273) — Of West- ern Origin (274) — Brunus (274) — Development of his Style (275) — Romans (275) — Pilgrimage Influence (275)
— Influence of Beaucaire (277) — The Third Master (278)
— Burgundian Origin (279) — The St.-Gilles Master (280)
— The St.-Gilles Frieze compared with that of Beaucaire (280) — Influence of the Beaucaire Tympanum (282) — In- fluence of Byzantine Ivories (283) — Influence of antique Sarcophagi (284) — Modena and Milan Pulpits (284) — Copies in France (284) — The St.-Gilles Frieze and the southern Lintel of Chartres (285) — St.-Gilles is earlier than Chartres (288) — St.-Gilles and the Lombard-Apulian Styles (289) — The Master of the Bari Throne (290) — The later Work at St.-Gilles (290) — The Third Master recalled (291) — Date of the earlier Work at St.-Gilles (292) — The Caglari Pulpit (293) — St.-Andre-le-Bas of Vienne (294) — The Evidence of the Pilgrim's Guide (295) — Comparison with Lombard Monuments (296) — Romans (298) — Date of the Fagade of St.-Trophime (298) — Influences at St.- Trophime (298) — The Cloisters of St.-Trophime (299) — The Frieze at Nimes (300) — Aix-en-Provence (300) — Montmajour (300) — Date of the later Work at St.-Gilles (300) — Influences (301) — Maguelonne Tympanum (302).
VII. Angouleme 303
Western Sculpture developed late (303) — Airvault (303) — Lombard Influence (304) — Ste.-Radegonde of Poitiers (304) — Angouleme (304) — Orthodox Dating (305) — St.-Amand-de-Boixe (305) — Two Campaigns of Construc- tion (305) — Date (307) — Monogram of I tier at Angou- leme (307) — Proof of early Date (307) — Fontevrault (308) — St.-Eutrope of Saintes (308) — Horizontal Sec- tions of the Angouleme Facade (308) — The Lunette Sculp- tures (308) — Analogies with Lombardy (309) — Influence of Manuscripts (310) — Zamora (310) — Salamanca (311)
— Dates (312) — St.-Aubin of Angers (312) — Second Zone at Angouleme (313) — Angels blowing Trumpets (313)
— Busts in Medallions (313) — Voussure Sculptures (314)
xiv CONTENTS
— St.-Amand-de-Boixe again (314) — St.-Jouin-de-Marne (315) — A Pilgrimage Church (315) — Lombard Influence (315) — Toulousan Influence (316) — St.-Michel (316) — Chadennac (316) — Blazimont (317) — Burgundian Influ- ence (317) — English Manuscripts (317) — Varaize (318) — Moreaux (318) — St.-Vivien (319) — Selles-sur-Cher (319).
VIII. Later Monuments of the West 320
Notre-Dame-la-Grande of Poitiers (320) — Comparison with Angouleme (321) — Iconography (321) — Miracle Play or Pseudo-Augustine Sermon? (322) — Dialogue of the Proph- ets (322) — History of the Motive of Prophets holding Scrolls (324) — Scrolls of Notre-Dame-la-Grande and in Lombardy (325) — Relationship of Notre-Dame-la-Grande and Guglielmo (325) — La Lande de Fronzac (328) — Trailing Sleeves (328) — Proto-Voussure Sculptures (328)
— Influence of Moorish Ivories (329) — St.-Hilaire-le- Grand of Poitiers (329) — Anzy-le-Duc (329) — St.-Parize- le-Chatel (329) — Continued Influence of Moorish Ivories (329) — Extended to Italy (330) — Ste.-Marie-des-Dames of Saintes (330) — Aulnay (331) — Lombard Influence (331) — Loches (332) — L'lle-Bouchard (332) — Aube- terre (332) — Aulnay Facade (333) — Argenton-Chateau
(333) — St.-Pompain (333) — Notre-Dame-de-la-Couldre of Parthenay (334) — Two Hands (334) — Conversion of Guillaume IX (334) — Date of the Parthenay Sculptures
(334) — Relationship to Chadennac (334) — Relation- ship to Moissac Porch (33s) — Relationship to Chartres
(335) — Fragments of the Frieze (336) — Iconography
(336) — Foussais (337) — Giraud Audebert of St.-Jean- d'Angely (337) — St.-Pons (337) — Analysis of Hands (338)
— Date (339) — Cognac (339) — Western Influence at Chartres (340) — Little Influence of Chartres in the West (340) — Rochester (340) — Chronology of Sculpture in the West (341) — Civray (341).
List of Books Referred to 343
Addresses of Photographers 357
Index 361
DATED MONUMENTS xvii
1060. Sculptures of the Mauritskirche, Miinster, now in West- falischen Landesmuseum. Before 1061. Bouzemont.
1062. Sant Miguel de Cruelles.
1062. Caen, Abbaye-aux-Dames, begun. The crypt and the
lower parts of walls belong to church finished before 1083.
1063. Crucifix of San Isidoro of Leon, now in Museo Arqueo-
logico, Madrid (111. 654, 655). 1063. Ivory area of S. Isidoro of Leon, fragments of which survive in box now in Museo Arqueologico, Madrid (111. 651-
653)-
1063 (begun)-i095 (consecrated). Venice, S. Marco.
1063. Pomposa, Campanile, begun. 1063-1118. Pisa, Cattedrale.
Mr 1064. Souvigny, consecrated. The remains of the narthex be- longed to this church.
1064. Sant Lorenc del Munt.
*" 1064. Caen, Abbaye-aux-Hommes. Facade and lower parts of nave belong to church begun in this year.
1065. Amalfi, Cattedrale. Bronze doors.
1065. Verona, S. Fermo Maggiore. Romanesque basilica begun.
1066. Monte Cassino, bronze doors. 1068-1097. Nevers, St.-Etienne.
1069. Santa Maria de Mur, consecrated (frescos now in Boston are later).
1069. Port-a-Binson.
Before 1070. Lesterps. Vaults of nave, part of clocher and exterior walls.
1070. Rome, S. Paolo f. 1. m. Bronze doors.
1 070-1 103. Aix-en-Provence, Cathedrale St.-Sauveur, southern aisle.
1071-1130. St.-Benoit-sur-Loire. Damaged by fire in 1095 (111. 1414- 1422).
1072. Zara, S. Maria, consecrated.
1072. Taranto, Cattedrale, begun. (Nearly completed in 1084).
1073. Ste.-Croix of Quimperle, consecrated. 1073. Verona, S. Trinita. Southern absidiole.
1073. Leon. Romanesque cathedral, of which the foundations have been excavated. 1073-1076. Santo Domingo de Silos, cloister in construction (111. 666-
673).
XVI 11
DATED MONUMENTS
1075-r. 1093. Milan, S. Nazaro.
1076. St.-Guilhem-le-Desert. Choir.
1076. Monte S. Angelo. Bronze doors.
1077. Bayeux, Cathedrale. Crypt, core of towers and narthex. 1077-1088. St. Albans. Norman portions.
1 078-1 089. Canosa. Episcopal throne.
1 078-1 124. Santiago de Compostela, Catedral.
1080. Merseburg, Dom. Bronze tomb of Rudolf von Schwaben.
1080. Acerenza, Cattedrale, begun.
1081-1096. Saintes, St.-Eutrope, crypt.
c. 1083-1093. Caen, St.-Nicolas.
1 080-1 099. Sahagun. Virgin now in Museo Arqueologico of Madrid
an 770).
Before 1085. Ivory-carving of book-cover from Jaca, now in Metropolitan Museum, New York (111. 519). 1083-1099. Poitiers, Ste.-Radegonde. Choir and west end (111. 907-91 1). 1083. Monastero di Provaglio. Fragment of apse.
1083. S. Benedetto di Lenno.
c. 1084. Canosa, Throne (given by the Archbishop Orso, 1078- 1089).
1084. Salerno, Cattedrale, consecrated.
1086. Monastir, in construction (older portions).
1087. Atrani. Bronze doors.
1087-1105. Bari, S. Niccola. Earlier portions. Steps under ciborium
built between 1105 and 11 23 (111. 151). 1087-1107. Conques. Cloister.
1088. Otranto, Cattedrale. Crypt consecrated. 1088-1119. Angers, Eglise du Ronceray. Later portions (111. 922).
1088 (begun)-i095 (consecrated). Cluny. Vaults fell in 1125; second con- secration in 1 131 (111. 5-9). c. 1090. Poitiers, St.-Hilaire-le-Grand. Eastern piers of nave and vaults (111. 913-915). 1090. Brindisi. S. Benedetto, founded. 1 090-1 098. Leire. Choir.
1092. Monteveglio, S. Maria. Fragments of crypt and northern
absidiole.
1093. Empoli, Collegiata. Facade begun.
1093-1107. Abbatiale de Chaumousey. Debris in museum of Epinal. 1093-1127. Troia, Cattedrale, except upper part of facade, choir and transepts (111. 172, 173).
DATED MONUMENTS xix
I 093-1 133. Durham, Cathedral. Choir vaulted 1 104.
1094. San Juan de la Pena, consecrated.
jr 1094. Charlieu, Abbaye, consecrated (111. 4). 109 5-1 130. St.-Jouin-de-Marne (111. 946-950).
1095. Milan, Chiesa d'Aurona. Fragments, group "D" now in
Museo Archeologico. 1095. Pontida. Fragments of tomb of S. Alberto.
1095. Alet, Cathedrale, consecrated.
1096. Poiters, Montierneuf. Core of church consecrated. Begun
soon after 1078. Body of the duke Guillaume trans- lated into the church in 1087.
1096. Charroux, Abbaye, consecrated.
1096. Carcassonne, St.-Nazaire. Nave in construction.
1096. Huesca, San Pedro el Viejo, begun (111. 529-534).
1097. Verona, Cattedrale. S. Maria Matricolare.
1098. Bari, S. Niccola. Throne (111. 152-155). 1098. Cruas. Mosaic of apse.
1098. Trani, Cattedrale begun. c. 1099. Rivolta d'Adda.
1099. S. Benedetto di Portesana.
1099-1106. Modena, Cattedrale. Facade sculptures, Porta della Pes- cheria and crypt, but the two latter subsequently altered. c . 1 100. Head of King Oistein, Bergen museum.
1 100. Moissac cloister (111. 262-273).
1 100. Milan, S. Sepolcro. Transept ends.
1 100. Airvault, consecrated (111. 898-902).
1101. Nonantola, S. Michele. hoi. Canosa, consecrated.
1101-1128. Angouleme, Cathedrale (111. 929-940).
1 102. Abbazia di Sesto Calende, S. Vincenzo. 1103-1113. Sessa Aurunca, Cattedrale.
1 104. Roffeno-Musiolo.
1 104. Vezelay. Destroyed choir consecrated. Existing nave im- mediately begun (111. 28-46).
After 1 105. Secqueville-en-Bessin.
c. 1 106. Padova, S. Sofia. Parts of eastern half of edifice.
1 106. Avallon, St.-Lazare. Choir. 1106-C. 1 165. Modena, Cattedrale. Nave.
1 107. Lyon, St.-Martin-d'Ainay, consecrated.
I
XX
DATED MONUMENTS
T107-
After
Between
c.
1111-
c.
1115-
c.
-*■ £.
H17-
1107.
107. 107. 107. 107. 118. 108. 108. 108. 108.
1 108
no.
no.
no.
118.
112.
112.
"3-
114.
114. 115. 115. 154. 116. 116.
117. 117. 117. H3-
119. 119. 119. 119.
120.
Monopoli, Cattedrale, begun. Sculptured archivolt and
architrave of this building survive in sacristy (111. 158-
162). Portotorres (Sardinia), altar consecrated. Ardara (Sardinia), S. Maria del Regno. Altar consecrated. Piacenza, S. Savino, consecrated. Winchester, Cathedral. Rib vaults of transept. Liege, St.-Barthelemy. Font. Rutigliano, consecrated (111. 163, 165). S. Clemente al Vomano. Pieve Trebbio. Nancy, Eglise des Cordeliers. Tomb of Gerard de Vaude-
mont. and 1 1 19. Airaines. Verona, S. Lorenzo.
Airvault. Tomb of the abbot Pierre (111. 903). S. Vitale delle Carpinete. Canosa. Mausoleo di Boemondo. Milan, S. Nazaro. Cupola. Milan, S. Stefano. Respond of ancient atrium. St.-Parize-le-Chatel. Crypt (111. 25). Baptismal font of Villanueva, now in Museo Arqueologico>
Madrid. Quarantoli. Sculptures. Perpignan, St.-Jean-le-Vieux, consecrated. Externstein, near Detmold, Teutoberger Forest. Caduin.
St.-Desire'. Destroyed frescos. Codrongianus (Sardinia), SS. Trinita di Saccargia (except
porch) . S. Pietro di Legnano.
Parma, Cattedrale. Transept piers and crypt. Verona, S. Trinita. Narthex. Peterborough, Cathedral. Choir and east portion of
transept. Troia, Cattedrale. Western bronze doors. Saulieu, consecrated (111. 52-61). Viviers, Cathedrale, consecrated. Fontevrault, consecrated (111. 923). Volterra, Cattedrale, consecrated.
DATED MONUMENTS xxi
1 1 20. Thiers, St.-Genes. 1 1 20-1 130. Mainz, Dom, vaults. c. IT20-1132-1146. Autun, Cathedrale (111. 67-81).
1 1 20. Verona, S. Zeno. Campanile above podium.
1 1 21 . Nevers, Notre-Dame.
U2if. Nonantola. Western portal, southern side-aisle wall, west- ern bays of northern side aisle, piers of nave and crypt vaults.
1 1 22. Marseille, Cathedrale Ancienne. Altar-frontal (111. 1283,
1284).
1 1 22. Lucca, San Michele di Scheto, consecrated. c, 1 122. Ganogobie. Mosaic pavement.
1 1 22-1 132. Piacenza, Cattedrale. Interior of choir, crossing up to tri- forium level, facade sculptures. c. 1 1 23. Padova, S. Sofia. Parts of western half of edifice.
1 1 23. Verona, S. Giovanni in Fonte.
1 1 23. Sant Climent de Tahull (frescos now in Barcelona museum).
1 1 23. Santa Maria de Tahull (frescos, I understand, either have
been, or are to be, transferred to Barcelona Museum).
1 1 24. Senones, St.-Pierre, consecrated.
1 125. Barcelona, S. Pablo al Campo, consecrated (111. 550). 1 125. Bellefontaine, begun.
1 1 25. St.-Amand-de-Boixe. Transepts and eastern bay of nave consecrated (111. 941-945). 1 1 25-1 149. Angers, Cathedrale. Nave (except vaults), facade, and base of towers.
Troia, Cattedrale. Southern bronze doors.
Freckenhorst, Stiftskirche. Baptismal font.
Milan, S. Giorgio in Palazzo.
Parma, Cattedrale. Body of edifice up to vaulting capitals.
Angers, St.-Aubin. Tower.
Auvers, Absidiole.
Cefalu, Cattedrale.
Santa Maria in Cellis, near Carsoli. Wooden doors.
Pavia, S. Pietro in Ciel d'Oro, consecrated.
Vezelay. Narthex consecrated (111. 47-51).
Moutiers-St.-Jean. Capitals now in Fogg Museum, Cam- bridge, Mass. (111. 62-66).
Foligno, Cattedrale. Romanesque remains.
Romans, begun (111. 1334-1338).
XX11
DATED MONUMENTS
1133- U33-
1137- Before
1138- 1139-c.
c.
1149-
145. Brindisi, Cattedrale. Romanesque remains.
136. Chalons-sur-Marne, St.-Alpin. Core of nave. 172. Hildesheim, St. Godehard.
137. Baptismal font from Santa Maria del Patiro, Calabria, now
in Metropolitan Museum, New York.
137. Verona, S. Fermo Maggiore. Romanesque basilica conse- crated.
137. Gerona, San Pedro de Galligans, in construction.
137. St.-Michel (111. 1006).
140. St.-Denis. Fagade (111. 1437-1457).
138. Liege, Musee Archeologique, Vierge de Dom Rupert. 138. Verona, S. Zeno. Facade, sculptures and bronze doors.
138. St.-Guilhem-le-Desert. Altar (111. 1300). 150. Knechtsteden, Abteikirche.
139. Milan, Chiesa Rossa.
153. Verona, Cattedrale. Portals.
140. Chadennac ( 111. 1 034-1 040). 140. Verona, S. Elena.
140. Moreaux (111. 1 065-1068).
140. Palermo, Cappella Palatina, consecrated.
141. Castelritaldi, Pieve. Portal. 141. Fontgombrault, consecrated. 143. Porcile, Madonna della Stra.
143. St.-Avit Senieur. Altar consecrated.
144. St.-Denis. Choir consecrated.
144. St.-Vivien (111. 1085, 1086).
145. Buste reliquaire of St. Alexandre, in Musee d'Antiquites,
Brussels.
145. Selles-sur-Cher (111. 1074-1082).
145. Montechiarugolo, S. Felicolo.
145. St.-Pierre-sur-Dives. Southern tower, lower portions of
piers and side-aisle walls, walls of ambulatory.
147. Lucca, S. Frediano, consecrated.
147. Bonarcado (Sardinia), consecrated.
148. Reggio Emilia, S. Prospero. Mosaics. 148. Vercelli, S. Maria Maggiore.
148. Villanova. Campanile, lower part.
149. Font of Tirlemont, Brussels Museum. 153. Angers, Cathedrale. Vaults of nave.
150. San Juan de las Abadessas, consecrated.
DATED MONUMENTS xxiii
c. 1 1 50. Milan, S. Simpliciano. Romanesque fragments in apse, cupola and transepts.
150. Rosciolo, S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta. Ambo and ciborio.
150. Bleurville, St.-Bertier. Crypt.
151. S. Benedetto Po. Mosaic of Oratorio di S. Martino. 151. Serrabone (Boule-d'Amont), Collegiale. Portions, including
vaults of crypt.
151. Le Mans, Museum. Tomb in enamel of Geoffroi Plantag-
enet.
1151-1174. Zamora, Catedral (111. 740, 741).
152. Aries, St.-Trophime. Facade (111. 1366-1327). 152. Magdeburg, Dom. Bronze tomb of krzbischof Friedrich
von Wet tin.
152. Romena, Pieve, in construction.
152. Vienne, St.-Andre-le-Bas (111. 1218,1219).
153. Melfi, Campanile. 153. Caserta Vecchia, Cattedrale, finished. 153. Barletta, Cattedrale, in construction.
153. Pisa, Baptistry, begun.
154. Santhia. Crypt. 154. Vicenza, Ss. Felice e Fortunate Upper part of apse.
156. Najera. Tomb of Dona Blanca (111. 719).
157. Noyon, Cathedrale. Choir finished. 157. Arles-sur-Tech. Vaults, etc.
1 1 57-1 1 83. Chalons-sur-Marne, Notre-Dame. Second period of con- struction including portal.
157. Pavia, S. Lazaro.
158. Moscufo, S. Maria del Lago. Pulpit.
158. Le Mans, Cathedrale. Nave consecrated.
1 1 58-1 162. Cagliari (Sardinia), Cattedrale. Pulpits (111. 186-188).
After 1 158. Pianella (111. 217, 218).
159. Teramo, S. Anna dei Pompetti. After 1 1 59. Bayeux, Cathedrale. Piers of nave.
1 1 59-1 1 74. Conversano, except side-aisle walls (111. 179).
160. Vicenza, Ss. Felice e Fortunate Campanile. 160. Cattaro, Cattedrale, consecrated.
160. Otranto, Cattedrale, pavement. c. 1 160. Laon, Chapel of Episcopal Palace.
161. Palermo, S. Cataldo.
162. Peterhausen, Klosterkirche, begun.
XXIV
DATED MONUMENTS
162. Pistoia, S. Giovanni Fuorcivitas. Portal (111. 199).
162. Parma, Cattedrale. Vaults.
1 1 62-1 1 82. Reims, St.-Remi. Reconstruction including sculptures of consoles.
163. Paris, St.-Germain-des-Pres, consecrated. Western portal dated from this period.
163. Assisi, S. Maria Maggiore. Rose- window.
163. Paris, Cathedrale, begun. Consecration in 11 82.
164. Verona, S. Giovanni in Valle. 164. Vercelli, S. Bernardo. 164. Jazeneuil. Choir finished.
164. Sens, Cathedrale, consecrated. At this time finished up to three western bays of nave.
165. Louvain, St.-Michel. 165. St.-Guilhem-le-Desert. Narthex.
165. Monterappoli, portal.
166. Pistoia, S. Andrea. Portal (111. 1 91-193). 166. Braunschweig, Lion of Herzog Heinrich. 166. Cugnoli. Ambo.
166. Rocamadour, Crypte St.-Amadour and Basilique St.-
Sauveur. 1 1 66-1 189. Monreale, Duomo. 1 1 66-1 1 99. Poitiers, Cathedrale. Choir.
167. Villanova. 167. Pistoia, S. Bartolommeo in Pantano. Portal.
1 1 67-1 1 84. Modena, Cattedrale. Campanile (subsequently altered). c. 1 168. Mozac. Chasse de Saint Calmin.
169. Perigueux, St.-Etienne. Tomb of the bishop Jean.
169. Troia, Cattedrale. Pulpit.
170. St.-Amant-de-Boixe. Nave, except eastern bay and lantern finished (111. 1135).
171. S. Maria di Ronzano. 171. Milan, S. Simpliciano. Western portal and responds of
narthex. 171. Piacenza, S. Antonino. Northern portal and sculptures. 171. St.-Pons-de-Thomieres. Later capitals of cloister (111. 1265-
1274). 171. Milan, Porta Romana. 1171-1172. S. Lorenzo de Carboeiro. 173. Pisa, Campanile, begun.
DATED MONUMENTS
XXV
1173-1195. 1 174.
1 1 74-1 201.
1175.
c. 1 175.
1 176.
1176-before I
177.
178. 178. 178. 178. 178.
179. 179. 179. 179. 179. 180. 180. 180. 180. 181. 182.
183. 183.
c.
c. 1185-
184.
185. 185. 185. 187-
186. 186. 186. 187.
187.
Braunschweig, Stiftskirche.
Amalfi, Cattedrale. Fragments of church-furniture.
Abbaye de la Couronne.
Salerno, Cattedrale. Church-furniture, except earlier frag- ments in choir-rail.
Autun, Tomb of St. Lazare (111. 147-149).
Viboldone. Choir. 182. S. Clemente a Casauria. Facade and porch (111. 219, 220).
Monte S. Angelo, S. Maria di Pulsano, consecrated.
Louvain, St.-Pierre.
Autun, Cathedrale. Narthex.
Bari, Cattedrale, in construction.
Parma, Cattedrale. Relief of Deposition.
Verona, S. Zeno. Upper belfry of campanile.
Foggia, Cattedrale, begun.
Ravello, Cattedrale. Bronze doors.
Piacenza, S. Antonino. Central tower.
Vicenza, Ss. Felice e Fortunato. Upper part of apse.
S. Maria di Ronzano. Frescos.
Rivalta Scrivia, begun.
Lecce, Ss. Nicola e Cataldo.
Candes, St.-Martin.
Bominaco, Ambo.
Lisieux, Cathedrale. Nave, transepts and choir, lower parts.
Tomb of Guy, abbot of Chaumousey, museum of Epinal.
Santa Eugenia de Brega.
Sahagun consecrated. Capital at San Marcos of Leon (111. 768), belonged to this edifice.
Trani, S. Francesco.
Clermont-Ferrand, Notre-Dame-du-Port in construction.
Palermo, Cattedrale, consecrated.
Monteveglio, S. Maria. 1 1 93. Verona, Cattedrale. Cloisters, apse, etc.
Milan, Cattedrale. Reliefs of eight apostles.
Monreale, Duomo. Western bronze doors.
Morimondo, begun.
Varese, S. Giovanni.
Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation. Capitals in Mu- seum.
XXVI
DATED MONUMENTS
1188,
. 1188.
1 1 89-1 197.
1189.
Before
1 190. 1 1 90. 1191.
1 193.
1 194. 1 194. 1195. 1195.
1 196.
1 197.
1197. 1 197.
1198.
1200.
/ 1200. 1202. 1202. 1204. 1205. 1206. 1208. 1209. 1211. 121 1. 1212. I2I4.
I2l6.
I2l6.
I2l6.
1217-1254.
Santiago de Compostela, Catedral. Portico de la Gloria
(111. 820-840). Ranverso, S. Antonio. S. Maria di Perno. Vezzolano, completed. Armentia, San Andres (111. 761-767). San Cugat del Valles, in construction. Senlis, Cathedrale, consecrated (111. 1505-15 13). Wiirzburg, Dom. Tomb of Konrad von Spitzenberg. Groppoli. Pulpit (111. 229, 230). Verona, Ss. Apostoli. Apse. Bevagna, S. Silvestro. Portal. Gerona, S. Feliu. Tomb (111. 617). Ofena. Grotto S. Biagio, near S. Vito de' Normanni, Brindisi.
Frescos of ceiling. Bisceglie, S. Margherita. Tarascon, Ste.-Marthe, consecrated. Begun 11 87. Existing
church in part and portal dates from this period (111.
1404a, 1404b). Monte S. Angelo, S. Maria Maggiore, begun (111. 231). Valcabrere. Ancient parts of church and portal (111. 498-
502). Bitonto, Cattedrale. Portal (111. 232, 233). Chaalis, in construction. Le Thor, Notre-Dame. S. Tommaso, near Caramanico. Laon, Cathedrale. East end in construction. Toscanella, S. Maria Maggiore, consecrated. Troyes, Cathedrale. Apse begun. Rapolla, Cattedrale. Reliefs of campanile. Reims, Cathedrale, begun.
Toulouse, St.-Etienne. Vaults of nave in construction. Soissons, Cathedrale. Choir finished. Tarragona, Cattedrale. Cloister in construction (111. 607-
610). Benevento, Cattedrale. Facade in construction. Auxerre, St.-Eusebe. Vaults. Braine, consecrated. Le Mans, Cathedrale. Choir.
DATED MONUMENTS xxvii
1 220. Amiens, Cathedrale, begun. 1 220-1 23 1. Altamura, Cattedrale.
1224. Narbonne, St.-Paul. Vaults.
1 221. Burgos, Catedral, begun.
1 225-1 230. S. Giovanni in Venere. Western Portal.
1226. Laon, Cathedrale. North portal in facade tower.
1227. Longpont (Aisne), consecrated.
1229. Bitonto, Cattedrale. Ambo (111. 244, 245).
1233. Milan, Palazzo della Ragione. Equestrian statue of Oldrado
da Tresseno.
1234. Auxerre, Cathedrale. Choir finished.
1237. Bamberg, Dom, consecrated.
1238. Cellole, Cattedrale, completed. 1238. Bazzano, S. Giusta.
1238. Provins, St.-Quiriace. Transept in construction.
1239. Cambronne. South side aisle and chevet.
1240. Prata Ausidonia. Ambo. 1240. Trau, Duomo. Portal.
1247. Paris, Sainte Chapelle, finished.
1247. Beauvais, Cathedrale, begun.
1253. Sculptures from choir-screen of Wessobrunn now in the Munich museum.
Between 1255 and 1266. Carcassonne, St.-Nazaire. Chapel of Bishop Randulphe.
1259. Brioude, St.-Julien. Vaults.
1262. Troyes, St.-Urbain, begun.
1265. Narbonne, St.-Paul. Choir finished.
After 1266. Carcassonne, St.-Nazaire. Tomb of Bishop Randulphe.
1267. Curcumello. Ambo.
1269. Carcassonne, St.-Nazaire. Nave and transepts begun.
1270. Matera, Cattedrale, finished. 1272. Narbonne, Cathedrale, begun.
1278. Rouen, Cathedrale. Portail de la Librairie begun.
1283. Giovinazzo, Cattedrale, consecrated.
1295. Bisceglie, Cattedrale, consecrated.
After 13 16. Altamura, Cattedrale. Portal.
PART 1 CLUNY
ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE OF THE PILGRIMAGE ROADS
CLUNY
I THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM
My own conception of Romanesque chronology was originally that which critical opinion in general still follows. This system of dating I found to be accepted, and there appeared to be no reason to ques- tion its accuracy.
In studying the Romanesque art of Lombardy, I found a great number of documents which established for this region, at the end of the XI and early XII century, a chronology notably earlier than that admitted for the rest of Europe. The fact seemed singular, but I explained it on the ground that Lombardy at this period was in advance of the North.
Returning to the study of French art, and re-reading the literature, I was struck by the number of monuments, the style of which is said not to correspond with the documentary evidence for date. The phrase that suchandsuch a monument must be later than the literary sources would lead us to believe, is repeated so frequently that it becomes a stereotyped formula. We are told that Ste.-Croix of Quimperle is really not of 1083, Dut °f the XII century; that the apse of St.-Guilhem-le-Desert is not of 1076, but of the XII century. The crypt of St.-Eutrope of Saintes is given to the XII century in spite of the clearest and most circumstantial evidence that it was consecrated in 1096 ; the vaults of the tower of St.-Hilaire of Poitiers are believed to be* ot of the end of the XI century, but of the XII
4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
century; Bellefontaine is considered to date not from 1125, but from later; the capitals of Cluny (111. 5-10) are ascribed not to 1088-1095 as the documents indicate, but to the XII century; those of Autun (111. 67-79) are assigned not to c. 11 20-1 132 as documented, but to 1150-1160; the obviously contemporary ones of Vezelay (111. 28-46), a church the narthex of which was consecrated in 1132, are similarly ascribed to some twenty years later; the facade of Angouleme (111. 929-940) is called not of 1 128, but of the second half of the XII century ; the inner tympanum of Charlieu (a church consecrated in 1094), clearly much earlier than the porch of c. 1140, is called not of 1094, but of the XII century (111. 4) ; the transepts of St.-Amand- de-Boixe (111. 941-945) are ascribed not to 1125 but to 1170; Chad- ennac (111. 1 034-1040) is called not of 1140, but of 1170; Font- evrault not of 11 19 but of the second quarter of the XII century; the Bayeux embroidery not of from shortly after 1066 but of the XII century ; l the tympanum of Moissac (111. 339-342) documented as before 11 15 has been ascribed to 1130. From France this same system of setting aside documents has been extended to other lands : the tomb of S. Alberto at Pontida, dated 1095, has been assigned to after 1214; the facade sculptures of Modena dated 1 099-1 106 by a contemporary chronicle and an inscription, are said really to have been executed after 11 40; the Porta della Pescheria at Modena, also dated 1099-1106, is ascribed to the end of the XII century; the northern portal of Borgo S. Donnino, dated 1106, is also assigned to the XIII century ; the reliefs of Cremona dated 1 107-1 1 17 are called " un peu anterieurs au milieu du XIIe siecle " ; the Ferrara portal, dated 1 135 by an inscription, is said nevertheless to be " guere avant 1 1 50"; the portal of the cathedral of Verona, dated 1139, is, not- withstanding, assigned to the middle of the century ; the sculptures of the baptistry of Parma, begun in 11 96 according to a contempo- rary inscription, still " ne sauraient etre anterieures a 1220"; the cloister of S. Orso of Aosta, dated 1 133 by an inscription, must really
1 Mr. Roger Loomis has definitively proved that the Bayeux embroidery dates from soon after 1066.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM 5
be some years later; the cloister sculptures of Santo Domingo de Silos are considered not of 1073-1076 as documented, but of c. 1130.
There are two stock explanations for the existence of these sup- posedly misleading documents. The first, and most used, assumes that the construction of Romanesque buildings proceeded very slowly, and with many delays ; that the actual building might take place years after the date given in the documents for the beginning of the construction, or the consecration l of the church or even its completion.
This theory possibly holds true of certain Gothic monuments, but I know of no good reason for extending its application as a general rule to the Romanesque age. The step from saying that the construction might have taken place years after, to saying that it must have taken place years after, was a short one. What had been found to be pos- sibly true of certain Gothic monuments, came to be considered neces- sarily true of all Romanesque monuments.
The second explanation for the existence of these misleading docu- ments is to suppose that in each case the building in question was subsequently reconstructed. In any one instance this hypothesis might carry conviction, although it is always intrinsically improb- able that a second rebuilding should have taken place so soon after the first ; but in such a number of instances it becomes untenable. It was certainly not the custom in the Middle Ages to pull down a new church as soon as it was finished.
It would seem that the setting aside of so many documents could be justified only if the style of the monuments in question had been found to be inconsistent with that of other and more numerous monu- ments of better authenticated date. But I found that such was far from being the case. Indeed, the penury of dated monuments of this period in France is a commonplace.
1 In the XII century, the consecration normally took place either when the entire church, or some considerable portion, such as the choir, had been completed. Often a first consecration marked the completion of the choir, a second the completion of the entire church. Very ex- ceptionally, for special reasons, the consecration was hastened or postponed. But to argue from such exceptional cases — I do not know of a single one in the XII century which can be
Ved — that all consecration dates are misleading, is illogical and unwarranted.
6 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
This penury, it is true, exists especially in the Ile-de-France. In the neighbouring regions a few monuments of accepted date can be found. These are :
1077. Bayeux cathedral, crypt. c. 1 083-1 093. Caen, St.-Nicolas.
1083-1099. Poitiers, Ste.-Radegonde. Choir and west end. 1088-1119. Angers, Eglise du Ronceray. 1 095-1 1 30. St.-Jouin-de-Marne.
1096. Poitiers, Montierneuf, consecrated.
1096. Charroux, consecrated.
1097. St.-Etienne of Nevers, consecrated. 1 100. Airvault, consecrated.
1 107. Lyon, St.-Martin d'Ainay, consecrated.
I confess that the more I studied this list, and compared it with the list of rejected dates, the greater became my perplexity. Not only was the list of accepted dates singularly meager in comparison with those that were rejected, so that, supposing the two to be incompat- ible it was difficult to see why the former should have been preferred ; but the fact of incompatibility between the two seemed to me far from obvious. Why, for example, if the choir of Montierneuf at Poitiers is admitted as of 1096, should the crypt of St.-Eutrope of Saintes be considered later? Furthermore, I remarked that the monuments, the dates of which were admitted, lay without excep- tion either in Normandy, in Poitou or in Auvergne — that is to say in provinces which might a priori be expected to be retardataire. It seemed to me very significant that in cultured Burgundy, notwith- standing the great profusion of documents, there was not a single monument of accepted date.
In fact, the more I studied the literature, the more evident it be- came to me that, as a rule, in determining the age of any given work, less weight had been attached to comparison with dated monuments or to documents than to archaeological theory. The date assigned was really fixed according to a pre-conception of the development of style, which enabled the scholar to judge on internal evidence the i
THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM 7
of any monument. It is in reliance upon this archaeological system that scholars have disregarded a large proportion of the documentary evidence for French buildings.
In fact, the unquestioning confidence placed in this chronological theory, not only by scholars of France, but by those of the world, is evident on almost every page of archaeological writing. The premise is universally accepted as a firm basis from which to draw conclusions, although its truth seems never to have been really tested.
Yet my own faith, I confess, was further shaken by observing cer- tain proven errors into which this theory had led some even of its most eminent exponents. Thus in the same work, M. Andre Michel's Histoire de VArt, on one page M. Enlart states that the reliefs of S. Isidoro of Leon are of the XI century,1 while on another,2 M. Bertaux dates the same reliefs to 1147. Therefore an archaeological theory which is preferred to authentic documents, must nevertheless have led one or the other of these distinguished scholars into a chron- ological error of a century.
Nor does this instance stand alone. Comte de Lasteyrie, relying on the theory, held that St.-Front of Perigueux was reconstructed after the fire of 1 1 20 ; but from the researches of Chanoine Roux it now seems probable that the church consecrated in 1047 still stands. The vaulted basilicas of Lombardy were thought to be of the XIII century ; but it is now admitted that they are of the XI century. It was considered axiomatic that no basilicas were vaulted in Europe before the XI century ; but numerous examples some two centuries earlier have been found in Spain. The crosses of Hexham and Bew- castle were pronounced works of the XII century ; 3 whereas it tran- spires that they are authentically dated by inscriptions 740 and 670 respectively.4 Zimmermann assigned the apostles of Milan cathedral to the end of the XIII or beginning of the XIV century 5 — " das
1 1, 2, 564. 2 n, 1, 250.
3 Enlart in Michel's Histoire de FArt, I, 2, 520-521.
4 Enlart in Michel's Histoire de I'Art, II, 1, 199-200.
8 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Werk kann friihestens aus dem Ende des 13. oder gar erst Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts stammen " — ; but Gall has shown that they were executed in 11 86. M. Bertaux assigned the pulpit at Canosa to the end of the XI century 1 — "fin du XP siecle " — ; but the ink was hardly dry on his pages, when Wackernagel 2 discovered an inscrip- tion proving that the pulpit is anterior to 1041. Comte de Lasteyrie assigned the frieze of St.-Gilles to the end of the XII century ; but it is certain that it is contemporary with the great statues, and exe- cuted about 1140. Comte de Lasteyrie assigned the facade of St.- Trophime of Aries to 11 80; it was, however, erected in 11 52. The sculptures of Conques have been ascribed to the second half or end of the XII century ; but they were executed by sculptors who worked at Santiago before 11 24. The Cagliari pulpit has, by the greatest Italian critic, not only been dated 1260, but judged a work by the hand of Fra Guglielmo, the well-known assistant of Niccola Pisano ; however, the investigations of Scanno have proved that it is a cen- tury older, and more precisely that it was begun in 11 58 and finished in 1 162. The tomb of Widukind at Enger near Herford has been assigned to the middle of the XII century ; but the investigation of Creutz 3 leaves no doubt that it is on the contrary of the early years of the XII century. The cathedral of Conversano in Apulia (111. 179) was believed to be a surely dated monument of 1369-1373 ; but it now appears that the inscription was misread, and that the church really dates from 11 59-1 174. Nor can I claim to have been myself less mislead than others. Relying on theory I assigned to the XII century the S. Ambrogio altar, which, however, I now see, is as the inscription indicates, essentially of the IX century.
Such chronological errors, showing in every case underdating on the part of the archaeologists who had followed orthodox theory, led me to suspect that that theory, far from being an infallible guide, might be founded on the supposition that the mediaeval styles de- veloped later and more consistently than was actually the case. This suspicion deepened when I noted that archaeological writers, even
1445. 24f. ZS<>.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM 9
by the strength of the evidence to accept the documented >rks of the late XI or early XII century, do so in many the utmost reluctance, and are obviously troubled by a discre^ jy between the style displayed by the given object, and that which archaeological theory had led them to expect at the date in question. Thus M. Bertaux studies the throne at Bari (111. 152- 155) which is dated 1098, and marvels over its advanced style : " Si l'oeuvre n'etait pas datee de maniere irrecusable par l'inscription et par une chronique contemporaine, on la croirait posterieure d'un siecle a l'archeveque Helie." 1 M. Louis Serbat writes of St.-Etienne Kffl of Nevers, which he accepts as of the documented dates, but adds : "Quand on veut tenir compte a la fois et destextes et des faits, Tetude de St.-Etienne de Nevers ne va-t-elle pas sans etre quelque peu de- concertante." 2 Yet St.-Etienne of Nevers, when compared with the closely related and contemporary cathedral of Santiago, is seen to be singularly retardataire. A great German scholar, after having assigned to 11 18 the pulpit of Canosa, now known to be some eighty years earlier, studies the pulpit of S. Basilio at Troia, dated 11 58 by an inscription. He is amazed at the advanced style: "Hatte man diese Inschrift nicht, so konnte man versucht sein, die Kanzel in's XIII Jahrh. herab zu riicken." 3 M. Andre Michel illustrates and describes the Externstein of the Teutoburger Forest, dated, as he remarks, 11 15. But he goes on to observe: "C'est bien plus avant dans le XIP siecle qu'on serait tente de placer un morceau de cette envergure." 4
In the light of these facts, I became conscious of an inconsistency running through the mediaeval archaeology of the Romanesque period ; on the one side are the documents, consistently (for the ac- cepted dates are by no means irreconcilable with the rejected) in- dicating an earlier date, on the other the theory setting all these dates some years later. The consistency of the documents between
2 Cong. Arch., 1913, 352.
3 In order to explain the marvel, he supposes the pulpit to have been executed in Sicily.
4 Histoire de VArt, II, 2, 741.
io ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
themselves, and their inconsistency with the theory, se passed unobserved.
In view of the grave indictment of the archaeological the documents, it becomes incumbent to study upon what evi« ,c this theory is based, and to trace the steps by which it has taken form.
The science of mediaeval archaeology may be considered to have been initiated by De Caumont, who studied especially the monu- ments of Normandy. His labours found a quick echo in England. Knowledge of the monuments of these two regions far to the north, inaccessible to the artistic centres of the South, gave from the be- ginning an impression of slow and late development for Romanesque.
From Normandy, the centre of archaeological research was soon transferred to Paris. The new school displayed from the start an admirable spirit of critical scepticism. In fact early writers had too often loved the glory of their native land with greater fervour than was compatible with impartial judgment. Monuments of the au- thor's country had been ascribed to fabulous antiquity; any docu- mentary evidence, especially if it tended to establish great age for the local antiquities, had been accepted without criticism of style. Under De Caumont a more scientific spirit had already begun to reign. The new school regarded all with doubt, no date which could be questioned was accepted. Monuments were carefully and mi- nutely compared and correlated. With a fine scorn for the chauvin- ism of the earlier generation, this school tended to accept the latest, rather than the earliest, date possible.
The leader of the new movement was M. Lefevre-Pontalis. His Architecture Religieuse dans Vancien Diocese de Soissons, overthrew the chronology of Fleury, and became the foundation-stone of the modern science of mediaeval archaeology.
The basis of departure for the chronological study in this book was narrow — the author confined himself to the Soissonnais, a district characterized by a singular penury of documents. The terminus ad quern was the abbey of St.-Denis, 1137-1140; he found an earlier point of support in the priory of Bellefontaine, the construction of
THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM n
which was authorized in 1125 ; by a masterly study of the internal evidence, he arrived at the conclusion that the ambulatory of Mor- ienval must date from the early years of the XII century. This was a modification of the same author's earlier, and it seems to me sounder, opinion, that the ambulatory of Morienval was built in the last quarter of the XI century.1
There ensued a controversy. Moved by the spirit of reaction against the excessively early dating of the previous generation, scholars rushed to the attack of this dating of Morienval. Into the discussion there entered comparison only with the undated churches of the Ile-de-France. M. Lefevre-Pon talis again yielded ; it was con- ceded that the ambulatory of Morienval was built only after 11 22 when relics were translated.
This solution of the controversy, like so many solutions of archaeo- logical discussions, was a politic compromise, the truth of which was never in any absolute fashion proved. I can not help feeling that M. Lefevre-Pontalis' first position was probably nearer right than his later one, and that if he had held fast to it, we should have less rejected documents for which to account. Morienval must be much older than Bellefontaine, which the documents discovered by M. Lefevre-Pontalis give reason to believe was begun in 1125. There- fore to assume the ambulatory of Morienval as a dated monument of after 1 122, was opening the door to the possibility of grave error.
Nevertheless, the question was considered as closed, and the chronology of the Ile-de-France as definitely settled. Studies were extended to the rest of France and to foreign countries. Monument after monument was examined separately, and its date determined by comparison with the edifices of the Ile-de-France or with other buildings, of which the chronology had by similar means been estab- lished. Any documents inconsistent with the archaeological system that thus grew up were simply set aside. This seems to be the ex- planation of the formidable list of disregarded documents that we have enumerated.
1 Lefevre-Pontalis, Arch. Re/., I, 74.
12 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
From time to time investigators in the provinces of France, or in Spain or Italy, by studying the monuments and documents of a local region, arrived at a somewhat earlier chronology. Such scholars, however, seldom affected the archaeological opinion of the world. Any chronology, inconsistent with the orthodox chronology, was a priori rejected. The only dissenting voice given serious considera- tion, was that of M. Marignan, who proposed to move the entire chronological chain a half century later!
Indeed, the scholars of the last half century, while always keenly on the alert against the danger of assigning too early a date, seem to have been singularly oblivious of the converse danger of assigning a date too late. The possibility that any given monument may actu- ally be earlier than it can be demonstrated to be, has been lost from sight. It has become a received maxim of archaeology that a thing may be later, but can not be earlier, than it can be proved to be. One feels throughout this literature, that the writers are keenly on their guard against dating too early. Reproaches are addressed to those scholars who have not sufficiently weighed the possibility that a monument may be later than the documents indicate. The writers seem to pride themselves upon being too clever to have fallen into such a trap. But they show no caution against the danger of dating too late. Such archaeologists are constantly asking themselves in regard to any monument : " may it not be later ? ", and unless positive proof is forthcoming, are very apt to conclude that it is. They have an air of virtue in selecting the latest possible date, as if a temptation had been victoriously overcome. It seems to have been forgotten that, by the law of averages, it is safer, in cases of latitude, to assume the middle, rather than the latest possible date. By always choosing, in cases of doubt, the latest date, a generation of archae- ologists has inch by inch edged Romanesque chronology down.
Moreover, archaeological method has assumed for the Ile-de- France the same artistic hegemony over Europe before 1 140 that the region manifestly possessed afterwards. Yet it is certain that before the XII century the art of the Ile-de-France was distinctly retarda-
THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM 13
taire. The rib-vaulted nave of Durham cathedral, in the north of England, where art was certainly not precocious, was projected in 1093, although a parallel stage of development does not seem to have been reached in the Ile-de-France until thirty years later. No figure sculpture in stone worthy of the name, appears to have existed in the neighbourhood of Paris until nearly 1 140, although such was executed in Lombardy, in Languedoc, in Burgundy and in Spain forty years before. No building, at least so far as we know, comparable to Santi- ago, or St.-Sernin, or S. Ambrogio, or Cluny, or St. Mark's, or the cathedral of Pisa was erected in the Ile-de-France before St.-Denis. Capitals with naturalistic leafage are found at Santiago in Spain forty years before they appear in northern France. However much one may — and must — admire the rural architecture of the Ile-de- France, the fact is certain that until 1140 it was distinctly retarda- taire in comparison with the more southern districts of France, with Italy and with Spain.
The danger of an archaeological method which dated the archi- tecture of all Europe on the basis of that of Paris seems therefore manifest.
In the hope of throwing light upon the problem raised by the con- flict between the unanimous opinion of the archaeologists on the one hand, and the nearly unanimous evidence of the documents on the other, I have set at the beginning of this volume a list of the dated monuments of the period in question. While this makes no pretense of being complete, it is, I think, sufficient to reveal the fact that the documentary evidence for Romanesque chronology is far more abundant than has hitherto been suspected. The list includes not only monuments in France, but a certain number in Italy, Spain and other lands, the art of which shows stylistic affiliation with that of France during the Romanesque period.
This chart makes it clear that the Romanesque art of Europe be- fore 1 140 was far from presenting that uniform and logical develop- ment which characterized the Ile-de-France after that date. The idea of evolution, combined with a vicious tradition of criticism in-
i4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
herited from Vasari, appears to have led the archaeological world into a false conception of the history of mediaeval art. The smooth and orderly progress that actually did exist in certain arts, such as transitional architecture, or Italian painting of the Quattrocento, j has been assumed to hold in all periods and all styles. The history of art has been viewed as a gradual and continuous unfolding from crude beginnings towards ultimate perfection. Periods of decline have of course been recognized, but have not been allowed to disturb belief in evolutionary principles.
It is, however, a very open question to what extent the facts in the history of art correspond with the theory of evolution as expounded in the biological sciences. The modern war monuments in Perigord are certainly quite different from the pre-historic cave-paintings,1 but how much actual progress they display might well be disputed. The truth seems to be that the earliest art of which we have record is about as good as any which the human race has succeeded in produc- ing during some forty thousand years of nearly unceasing endeavour. More careful study of the painting of the XI and XII centuries has revealed the fact that many of what had been thought to be discov- eries of the Quattrocento painters had been anticipated by their Romanesque predecessors. From the tombs of Venasque, Bobbio and Pavia we learn that the VII and VIII centuries, instead of being an age of the utmost artistic degeneration, were capable of produc- ing subtle and thoughtful carved decoration in stone of the finest execution.
The history of art, considered in its broad outlines, seems to show, not a continuous evolution from lower to higher forms, but a number of recurrences of the cycle archaic, classic, decadent, each of which ends approximately where it began.2 It would, however, be easy to exaggerate the regularity and persistence of these cycles. Whole arts,
xThe paintings in the cave at Altamira in the Asturias, discovered by a Spaniard in 1879, sneered at by the orthodox, finally won official recognition from the French Academy in 1906. It took twenty-seven years for an evident truth to permeate the bars of prejudice raised by the theory of evolution.
2 It is worthy of remark that archaic art tends to be religious, decadent art, secular.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM 15
like Byzantine painting, can not be pigeon-holed in such categories, and any movement which they display can only be characterized as aimless drifting. Now Romanesque figure art appears to be of this type. We find in it, as a rule, change, but not necessarily advance. Only in the transition to Gothic does the style become, in any true sense of the word, archaic.
The orthodox chronology of Romanesque has assumed a constant progression from lower to higher forms which did not in fact exist. It is easy to say that any work which is crude is early, and any work which is fine is late. This facile formula may satisfy those who seek generalities, and shun the sifting of complicated evidence. Its fallacy has, however, always been tacitly admitted. No serious archaeolo- gist would question that the extremely crude sculptures of Chambon (111. 1250) are of the XII century ; whereas the much finer sculptures of the cloister at Moissac (111. 262-273) are admitted to be of 1 100. A glance at the chart will reveal a great number of similar anomalies. Polished Santiago was being built at the same moment as rough St.- Nicolas of Caen. The technically advanced sculptures of the throne of S. Niccola at Bari (111. 152-155) were carved in 1098 ; while the far more primitive work at Rutigliano (111. 163-165) is of 1108. Tech- nically and stylistically the lintel of St.-Genis-des-Fontaines (111. 513) dated 1020 or still more that of St.-Andre-de-Sorrede (111. 514- 515) and the lunette of the cathedral of Troia (111. 172) which was executed about n 19, would seem to be related; instead, however, of being works of the same school, they are separated geographically by half of Europe, and chronologically by a century.1 The cathedral of
1 M. Bertaux, 664-66$, ascribes the tympanum of Troia to c. 1200. "Le groupement des figures et le travail des draperies rappellent d'une maniere frappante le relief du portail de Monte S. Angelo qui est date de 1 198." In this I confess that I am unable to follow the eminent archaeologist. His reasoning is indeed a typical example of that partiality for late dating of which we have been complaining. The bronze doors below the tympanum of the portal of Troia were executed in 11 19; consequently the portal which holds them must be earlier. The style of the Troia tympanum is entirely in accord with this documentary evidence. In placing the tympanum of Troia (111. 172) beside that of S. Maria of Monte S. Angelo (111. 231), I am struck not by the resemblances of which M. Bertaux speaks, but by the complete difference. It is only necessary to compare the faces to be persuaded that the Troia relief is three quarters of a century earlier, and indeed dates from precisely the time the documentary evidence would lead us to believe.
i6 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Foggia, begun in 1179, is a copy, practically without advance, of the cathedral of Troia, begun in 1093. The cathedral of Bitonto repro- duced, a century later, S. Niccola of Bari. The font of St.-Barthel- emy of Liege, dated 1 1 1 2, is of a far more developed style than the other font, now in the museum at Brussels, and dated 1149. The Area Santa of Oviedo (111. 656-660) dated 1075, seems closely related to, but less advanced than, the doors of Hildesheim, dated 1015. These Hildesheim doors of 1015 appear much more advanced than the lintel of St.-Genis-des-Fontaines of 1020 (111. 513).
In Auvergne there were executed in the XII century, and even at an advanced period of the XII century, buildings in which the orna- mental sculpture was exceedingly crude. There is no contemporary structure in England, nor in Apulia, nor in Lombardy, nor in Spain, nor in France to rival in technical finish St. Mark's of Venice or the cathedral of Pisa. Consider the gulf which separates either of these structures from the cathedral of Durham, which was not begun until 1093!
Indeed, archaeological controversies give proof of the lack of prog- ress characteristic at times of the art of the Middle Ages. It is still disputed whether the golden altar of S. Ambrogio be of the IX or of the XII century; whether the sculptures of Cividale be of the VIII or of the XII ; whether the baptistry at Florence be of the VI or of the XII ; whether the Hexham and Bewcastle crosses be of the XII or the VII ; whether S. Miniato be of the XI or of the XII. Such differences of opinion force us to recognize that the lapse of even six centuries brought on occasion a change of style so slight that we are unable to detect it, if it exist at all. No one has yet been able to date mediaeval frescos on their style. Ivories of one century show the same characteristics as sculptures of another. The greatest difference of opinion still reigns among scholars as to the dating of certain miniatures.
From all this, we can only conclude that Romanesque art was sin- gularly uneven in its production. Nor is it my new chronology, I hasten to add, that introduces this chaos. It has always existed,
THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM 17
flagrantly existed, in the orthodox system, although the fact has been passed over in silence. It was the fashion to assume that Roman- J esque art displayed the same orderly progression which is character- 1 istic of French transitional architecture. Why should troubling dis- crepancies be insisted upon ?
Although Romanesque art is not, broadly speaking, evolutionary, it is still not without change, nor without certain tendencies which it is entirely possible to trace. Thus from an inspection of the chart it]] appears that in general the South was in advance over the North ; Italy and Spain abreast of southern France, southern France in ad- vance over northern France, northern France over England, Bel- gium l and Germany. While this is true of the general state of the art, individual motives travelled with amazing rapidity from one end of Europe to the other. And in the same region we may find produc- tions of the utmost divergence, executed side by side, contempo- raneously.
This vital fact should be borne in mind in considering the chronol- ogy of the monuments, the documented date of which has been re- jected by orthodox archaeology. These dates do not fall outside the broad frame of Romanesque development, as indicated by the docu- mentary evidence assembled in the chart. There is, I think, no fea- ture in any one of the monuments of which the dates have been set aside, which can not be paralleled in some contemporary and dated monument.
I am therefore persuaded that orthodox archaeology is in error in rejecting the dates furnished by the documents for this group of monuments. In the following chapters it will appear that the docu- ments and the monuments are in reality in perfect agreement ; and the history of Romanesque art will be seen in a light less dramatic, less Darwinistic, but I think more convincing, than that hitherto imagined.
1 See Lemaire, 307-308.
II
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY
Modern art may be considered to have begun with the Byzantine renaissance of the X century. This outburst of artistic activity seems to have spread from the East over Europe. Before the year iooo re- newed artistic activity appears sporadically in several widely sepa- rated regions of the West. In Spain architecture rose during the X century to extraordinary heights ; capitals were carved with surpris- ing skill in the Rhone valley, as in the crypt of Cruas or the baptistry of Venasque ; while in Germany the Othonian miniatures and ivories developed types of such beauty, that they impressed indelibly the memory of the XII century sculptors of France, and still serve as models to artists of to-day. By the XI century, the renaissance had enflamed the entire continent of Europe.
In the East, figure sculpture was applied to the exterior of churches apparently as early as the VII century, certainly from the time of the X century renaissance. The church of Achthamar in Armenia, a dated monument of 915-921 is adorned with sculptures which seem to indicate an Eastern derivation for many of the later develop- ments in the West.1 Not only is the fact of monumental sculpture in stone foreshadowed, but here are found numerous details which have become characteristic of occidental sculpture of the XII century. The draperies of Guglielmo 2 and Santiago (111. 681-684), the medal- lions of Angouleme (111. 929-931), the adossed reliefs of Moissac (111. 262-273) and St.-Michel-de-Cuxa (111. 558, 559), the gestures of Chartres and Aries (111. 1369, 1371, 1373, 1374, 1376), a myriad other features of occidental sculptures are anticipated.
1 The church at Achthamar has been published by Strzygowski, Armenier> 289 f.
2 See Porter, Lomb. Arch., IV, Plate 83, Fig. 8 ; Plate 142, Fig. 2, 3 ; Plate 143, Fig. 1 ; Plate 144, Fig. 1, 2; Plate 145, Fig. 1, 3. Also, Porter, Les Debuts de la Sculpture Romane, 51, and Monteverdi, 23, 13, 14, 48.
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 19
One of the oldest extant monuments of western sculpture is pre- served in a remote village of the eastern Pyrenees. It is precisely in such regions that archaeology has taught us to expect retardataire art ; and, indeed, no one who had an archaeological reputation to lose, or still less to win, would ever have dared assign the lintel of St.- Genis-des-Fon t aines (111. 513) to an earlier period than the latter part of the XI century, were it not for a unique chance. The lintel is dated between 1020 and 1021 by an inscription of unquestionable authenticity.1 This rare good fortune furnishes us with a conspic- uous landmark to guide our course over the uncharted waters of the early XI century.
St.-Genis-des-Fontaines does not stand alone. In the tympanum of the not very distant church of Arles-sur-Tech is incorporated a relief (111. 518) obviously of the same school, but of finer and more advanced execution. This relief also happens to be dated ; the church was consecrated in 1046.2 We can, therefore, see the progress that has been scored in a quarter of a century. The same rate of develop-
1 + ANNO VIDESIMO QVARTO RENNATE RO'BERTO REGE WILIELMVS GRA DEI ABA [ ISTA OPERA FIERI IVSSF IN ONORE SCI' GENESII CENOBII CVE VOCANT FONTANAS.
2 Brutails, 57; Cong. Arch., 1906, 131. The relationship of the Christ of Arles-sur-Tech (111. 518) to that of St.-Genis (111. 513) hardly needs demonstration. The same bead ornament occurs on the border of the garment of the Christ at Aries, and on those of the angels at St.- Genis. The position of the two Christs is identical, even to the detail that in each case the book is grasped in the left hand about its upper outer corner. Both have the same peculiar top- shaped head. The beard in both cases is pointed, and indicated by the same convention of parallel incised lines. The convention of parallel folds on the right sleeve is in both cases the same. The pattern on the books is very similar, and the border identical. In each case the draperies form a circle over the right knee. In each case the hair is parted in the middle, and indicated by parallel incisions. The eyes in each case are indicated by double incised ovals. In both cases the drapery falls over the feet in similar folds.
On the other hand I entirely fail to see any close relationship between the Christ of Arles- sur-Tech and the sculptures at St.-Michel-de-Cuxa (111. 556-559), Corneilla-de-Conflent (111. 528), St.-Jean-le-Vieux at Perpignan (111. 618-620) or the tombs at Elne (111. 623-627). When Comte de Lasteyrie (638) suggests such a comparison, especially with the last two monuments, I can not believe that he really meant to say, as his words imply, that the style of these monu- ments of the XI and of the XIII centuries is similar. The eminent archaeologist was, I take it, merely perplexed and exasperated to find that these surely dated monuments failed to show that evolutionary progress towards more developed forms which orthodox theory had led him to expect. It is indeed singular that this, and so many similar, examples of contradiction be- tween the monuments and documents on the one hand, and the theory on the other, should never have raised the suspicion that the difficulty might lie with the theory, and not with the monuments and documents.
11
;1(
20 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
ment, if maintained, might easily arrive in another half century at the perfection of the capitals of Cluny (111. 5-10) .*
The sculptor of Arles-sur-Tech doubtless knew the earlier work at St.-Genis-des-Fontaines ; but that was not the only source of his in- spiration. If we compare his facial types, the folds and borders of his draperies, the drawing of the feet, the ornamental patterns with the bible of Roda,2 a Catalonian manuscript of the X century, we shall be convinced that he studied miniatures as well.
Another monument belongs to this same group of sculptures. In the lintel of St.-Andre-de-Sorrede (111. 514— 515), which is the next village to St.-Genis-des-Fontaines, are sculptures so similar that one is almost tempted to call them the work of the same hand. St.- Andre is, however, evidently slightly later than St.-Genis; if we compare the heads of the three Christs (111. 513, 515, 518) we shall perceive without difficulty that they fall in the order St.-Genis, St.- Andre, Arles-sur-Tech. The relief of St.-Andre may be assigned to c. 1030 without fear of serious error.
In the interior of the church at St.-Andre has been preserved a fragment of relief (111. 517), mutilated almost beyond recognition. It represents a haloed figure, possibly an apostle, holding an object broken away, perhaps a book. The interest of this sculpture for our study lies in the circumstance that the legs are crossed.
This mannerism, which became a characteristic motive of the Spanish and Aquitanian schools of the XII century, is of very ancient origin. It is found, for example, in stone sculpture, in a Roman relief of the museum of Aries (111. 516), and in the spandrel figures of Zwartnotz in Armenia,3 a monument which dates from 641-661. The latter instance is of especial interest, because the legs are placed
1 In point of fact, the school of the Pyrenees had not at this date, at least in so far as it is possible to judge from the extant monuments, advanced beyond the point of the tympanum of St.-Feliu-d'Amond (111. 548). Here the right wing of the left angel is still executed with the same convention used for the left wing of the St. Matthew at Arles-sur-Tech (111. 518). In other respects, however, the style at St.-Feliu is strikingly different from that of Aries. The St.-Feliu tympanum should be compared with the tympanum at Mzchet, illustrated by Strzy- gowski, Armenier, 602.
2 Paris, Bib. Nat., Cod. lat. 6, illustrated by Clemen, 335-336.
3 Published by Strzygowski, Armenier, 427.
5
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 21
in precisely the"x" position generally associated with the XII cen- tury work of Toulouse. The motive of crossed legs was also widely diffused among ivories and miniatures in the East and West. It is impossible to determine from which among the many possible sources our sculptor borrowed the motive.1
It should not, of course, be assumed that St.-Genis was the first architectural sculpture in stone in the West after the Romans. It is, on the contrary, certain that sculpture in stone never ceased to be executed in Europe. In England the crosses of Bewcastle (670) and
1 1 am tempted to risk the conjecture that the motive of crossed legs probably originated in Greek Asiatic monuments, like the Heroon at Tyrsa. It was certainly widely diffused in the art both of the East and of the West during the first ten centuries. It is found, for example, in a Roman relief in the museum at Cairo, illustrated by Strzygowski, Cairo Cat.y 21 ; also in four bone-carvings of the III-IV centuries, ibid.y 184-185, and Tafel XV. It is also found in an ivory book-cover of the V, VI or VII century preserved in the archaeological museum at Ravenna, and illustrated by Pelka, 39 ; in an Irish manuscript of very early date, Dublin, Kells Gospel, Trinity College, A. I. 6 (58), illustrated by Zimmermann, 169 ; in a south Anglo-Saxon gospel of the IX century, Rome, Vat. Barb. Lat. 570, fol. 9 b, illustrated by Zimmermann, 314 ; in a miniature of an Apocalypse of 975, in the cathedral of Gerona, Mas phot. C 27699 — in this case the legs are in the "x" position ; in the frescos of the XI century at S. Angelo in For- mis, near Capua; in the Register of New Minster, Winchester, of c. 1030, British Museum, Stowe manuscript 960, illustrated by Bond, Thompson and Warner, II, 17; in a miniature of the Bible of Charles the Bald at the Bibliotheque Nationale, illustrated by Venturi, II, 281 ; in a psalter of the same library dating from the X century, illustrated by Diehl, 569 ; in a min- iature of a Bible of S. Paolo f. 1. m. at Rome, dating from the third quarter of the IX century, illustrated by Boinet, PI. CXXIV; in a St. Gallen manuscript of the last half of the X century at the Universitatsbibliothek at Basel, No. B IV. 26, f. 68, illustrated by Escher, VIII ; in the Bamberg Apocalypse of the X century, illustrated by WolfBin, 38 ; in a X century Fulda miniature of the Universitatsbibliothek at Basel, No. A. N. IV. 18, f. 31, ed. Escher, 34; in a manuscript of the XI or XII century, illustrated by Diehl, 576 ; in a manuscript of the Winchester school, early XI century, British Museum, Stowe 944, illustrated by Herbert, PI. XIII ; in a psalter of St. Swithun's Priory, school of Winchester, XII century, British Museum, Cotton MS., Nero C IV, f. 39 ; in the miniatures of a m'enologe grec of the XI century, executed at Mount Athos, Moscow, Bibliotheque Synodale, No. 183, illustrated by Treneff; in the mosaics of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, assigned to the XII century ; in the mosaics of Kief, dating from soon after 1037, illustrated by Diehl, 482, and by Millet in Andre Michel, I, 2, 192, etc. Crossed legs are also characteristic of the school of miniature painting of Salzburg — see for example the Perikopenbuch von St.-Erentrudy Miinchen, Kgl. Hof- und Stiftsbibliothek, Clm. 15903, c. p. 52 or the Gebhardsbibel in the Stiftsbibliothek of Admont, Cod. 51 1, illustrated by Swarzenski, taf. XXVIII, XXIX, XXX. I strongly suspect, however, that this group of manuscripts was influenced by the sculptures of the South-west. Thence seem to come the attenuation, the revealing draperies, the heads tipped up, the movement, all characteristic of these miniatures. The armour is of precisely the same type as in the cloister reliefs of Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 670). There is, indeed, nearly formal proof that the manuscripts were inspired by the sculptures. The initials of the Perikopenbuch aus Passauy Munich, Clm. 16002, illustrated by Swarzenski, 300, have adossed figures evidently derived from ;amb sculptures.
22 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Hexham (740) seem satisfactorily authenticated ; 1 Messrs. Prior and Gardner ascribe numerous other works to the centuries preceding the year iooo.2 At Mainz the sculptured tomb-stone of the archbishop Hatto (t9I3) is still extant.3 In France there is documentary evi- dence that stone sculptures were made before the year iooo.4 There are indeed extant examples which may be dated with considerable confidence to this period. The relief at Charlieu (111. 1) is combined with decorative carving of an unmistakably Carlovingian character.5 The figures over the window of the Basse-Oeuvre at Beauvais (111. 1 41 1) were doubtless, like all mediaeval sculpture, carved before they were placed, but form an integral part of the cathedral built by Herve (987-998). 6
Other sculptures have been assigned on the basis of their style to a date before iooo. In the exterior of the apse of St.-Paul near Dax are embedded a series of reliefs (111. 327-332). These show two distinct manners. To one group belong the reliefs representing grotesques (111. 329)/ the Maries at the Tomb (111. 327),7 a griffin and Heaven (111. 328) ; to the other those depicting three apostles (111. 332), the Last Supper (111. 331), the Betrayal (111. 330), the Crucifixion (111. 330) and a single figure (111. 228). Comte de Lasteyrie,8 without dis- tinguishing between the two sharply differentiated styles, ascribes the sculptures to the X century, and asserts that they are ancient fragments, re-employed in the XII century reconstruction of the apse.
I think the eminent archaeologist has again been led astray by the
1 Prof. A. S. Cook believes that the English crosses are of the XII century. See his letter on The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses in the London Times Literary Supplement, June 30, 1921, p. 420, with bibliographical references.
2 109-144. 3 Dehio, 173.
4De Lasteyrie, 635. There is no reason for assuming that such sculptures were crude. The English crosses of Bewcastle (670) and Hexham (740) are technically as competent as per- formances of the XII century, for which they have been mistaken. Ivory-carvings, miniatures and reliefs in metal show entire mastery of plastic form on the part of Carlovingian artists. To assign sculptures to the X century simply because they are crude is uncritical.
5 It should be compared with a plaque in the museum of Carpentras.
6 The statement that the facade is not of 987-998, but of the XI century (Cong. Arch., 1905, LXXIII, 3) seems to be based solely on the theory that all mediaeval buildings must be later than the documents indicate.
7 Restored. 8 154.
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 23
orthodox dogma that crude sculptures must be early. In regard to the date of the first group, at least, we need not remain long in doubt. A comparison of the angel to the left of the tomb in the Dax relief of the Three Maries (111. 327) with the angel at the right of the tym- panum at Toulouse (111. 309) will satisfy us that we have here to do with works of the first quarter of the XII century.
But may not Comte de Lasteyrie's dating be correct for the other set of reliefs ?
The question deserves careful investigation. Let us compare these reliefs (111. 330-332) with those of the Basse-Oeuvre (111. 1411), which we have seen are authentic works of the X century. The two show no points of contact ; the styles are entirely different. Simi- larly when we compare Dax (111. 330-332) with Azay-le-Rideau1 (111. 896), we note that while the heads are set on the bodies in the same awkward way, and certain draperies have a distant similarity, the two styles are essentially far apart. Nor are analogies apparent with the relief (111. 897) which forms part of that church of St.- Mesme at Chinon which was under construction in 1025.2 Nor ex- cept in the beaded ornament of the borders of the garments (111. 332), also characteristic of the early Catalan school, do the sculp- tures of Dax show points of contact with St.-Genis (111. 513) and its derivatives. It is rather to monuments of the end of the XI or the early XII century that our reliefs are analogous.
Thus the motive of a sculptured frieze belongs to the XII century. The earliest extant example is Guglielmo's at the cathedral of Modena.
1 The style of this facade is that which by most archaeologists is associated with the X cen- tury. Yet no explanation has ever been offered why monuments of this period should be so abundant in the lower Loire basin, and so rare elsewhere in France. The sculptures of Azay-le- Rideau (111. 896) are not without analogy with two of the figures now enwalled in the gable of the north transept of St.-Hilaire-le-Grand of Poitiers (111. 912). Now the canons of St.-Hilaire returned from their exile of nearly a century at Le Puy about the middle of the X century; and it is tempting to see in the figures in question fragments of the works of embellishment executed at St.-Hilaire about this time. The style of the capitals and of the ornament over the arcades seems clearly to be that of the second half of the X century. There is therefore some reason to believe that the sculptures of Azay-le-Rideau are really of this period. The other two figures of St.-Hilaire are of an advanced period of the XII century (111. 914).
2 De Lasteyrie, 152.
24 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The application of such a frieze to the exterior of an apse recurs elsewhere only at Selles-sur-Cher (111. 1 077-1082). It will be neces- sary, even at the expense of a considerable digression, to establish the chronology of Selles and a group of related monuments before pro- ceeding further with the discussion of Dax.
The upper frieze at Selles (111. 1082) is a dated monument of 1145.1
The lower frieze at Selles, as well as the reliefs flanking the window, are by a different hand, but in my opinion not very much earlier.2 This artist shows a close relationship stylistically with a bone box in the Kaiser Friederich Museum at Berlin. The box3 is called by Prof. Goldschmidt a Franconian production of c. 1100. He recognizes through the internal evidence that it must be the work of two very unequal artists working in collaboration ; the better laid out the gen- eral lines of the composition and finished in part the cover ; the in- ferior completed the work. Now it is this second, or inferior, artist who shows close points of contact with the sculptor of the Selles frieze. The eyes in the two works are done in the same extraordinary manner ; the hair is similarly rendered ; the draperies are very alike ; the drawing of the beards and the noses is the same ; the scene of the Betrayal at Selles shows a Christ and Judas, precisely like the Christ and Judas on the box. The staffs carried by the executioners in the scene of the Betrayal of the box, are like the staffs carried by the same characters in the same scene of the frieze. The develop- ment of a long series of scenes in the two works is similar. In both there is the same outre iconography. These analogies are indeed so striking that I even wonder whether the sculptor of the frieze
1 Orthodox archaeology, as usual, disregards the documentary evidence, and places the upper frieze in the early years of the XII century. To me, however, it seems clear that the sculptures in question are really of the date indicated by the document. The style (111. 1082) is closely analogous to that of the east window of Aulnay (111. 981), a monument admitted to date from the fourth decade of the XII century.
2 Only a few fragments, like the Visitation of the north wall (111. 1076), analogous to the re- liefs of Ste.-Radegonde of Poitiers (111. 907, 908) have the appearance of dating from the early XII century. We are, however, always too apt to forget that a sculptor who learned his style in the early years of the XII century, might easily still be active in 1 145.
3 Published by Goldschmidt, II, No. 173.
1
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 25
at Selles was not the same artist who completed the Berlin box.1
If we accept Prof. Goldschmidt's attribution of the box to the school of Franconia, we must conclude that the sculptor of Selles was a German. That, however, does not seem to me to be proven. The closest precedent for his style which I know is the tympanum of La Lande de Fronzac (111. 917). May it not be that this crude and backward artist was formed in the West of France ?
The same hand can be recognized in a capital from the Eglise du Ronceray (111. 922) now in the Musee Archeologique at Angers. Here again is represented one of the scenes from the Passion which seem to have formed part of the stock in trade of our artist. This capital at Angers gives us a point of chronological support; the church was consecrated in 11 19, so the capital presumably is earlier than that year.
The lower frieze at Selles (111. 1 077-1 081) is, as we have seen, by this same artist who worked at Angers before n 19; but there are reasons for believing that it is a much later work. The scenes from, the Passion which it represents (111. 1079-108 1) belong to the Santiago-Beaucaire-St.-Gilles cycle. The seated Pilate is a reversal of the seated Christ in the Santiago Crowning with Thorns (111. 680). The composition of the group of executioners haling Christ before Pilate, repeats that of the St.-Gilles frieze (111. 132 1) ; two farther apart drag Christ from in front, two close together push Him from behind ; Christ's hands are in each case in the same position, and in both works the foremost executioner calls Herod's attention with the same gesture. The Washing of the Feet (111. 1079) repeats, line for line, the composition of Beaucaire (111. 1292, 1293) and St.-Gilles (111. 131 8). Now since the Selles frieze copies the St.-Gilles frieze, and
1 This suggestion may seem startling to the reader, but will, I trust, appear somewhat less so, if he have the patience to read this volume to the end. He will find that Romanesque sculp- tors changed their manner, and their geographical position, with extraordinary, and hitherto unexpected facility and frequency. He will also find how isolated and individual these works are, and that their similarities can not be explained by saying that both are merely crude. It is true that I do not know of any other example of a sculptor in stone who also worked in bone or ivory. There is, however, no reason why the same artist might not have used both mediums.
I
26 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
since the St.-Gilles frieze is not earlier than about 1140, it is evident that the lower frieze at Selles, as well as the upper, must be later than 1 1 40. We may then with considerable confidence conclude that both were executed for the church rebuilt after 1 145. Once again the documents seem more reliable than archaeological theory.
But it will be objected that the uppermost figure to the left of the window above at Selles (111. 1074) recalls the mysterious reliefs of La Celle-Bruere (111. 1469, 1470) ; and these are considered by ortho- dox archaeology to be older fragments re-employed in the construc- tion of the church about the middle of the XII century, hence much earlier in date.
Here again, however, archaeological theory seems to have led a great scholar into error. The reliefs of La Celle-Bruere are not older than the facade in which they are employed. If we compare the facial types in the finished relief (111. 1469) with that of the Cain in the Nfmes frieze (111. 1383), we shall be convinced that the two are not only contemporary, but. very closely related. La Celle-Bruere seems, in fact, an evident copy. Now the frieze of Nimes can not be earlier than about 11 50. The relief of La Celle-Bruere may be slightly later. It was doubtless executed for the new church which, as M. Lefevre-Pon talis has so beautifully shown, was erected at pre- cisely this time.
The resemblance of the reliefs at Selles to those of La Celle- Bruere is therefore only one more proof that the sculptures of Selles date from the fourth decade of the XII century.
Let us now return to the study of the sculptures of Dax, with the certainty that Selles is a monument of about the middle of the XII century. The analogy we have remarked between these two series of reliefs, representing scenes from the Passion, and inserted in the ex- terior of the apse, would therefore argue a late date for Dax.
Another indication in the same direction is afforded by the fact that the facial types of the Dax reliefs (111. 330-332) show the closest analogy with those of Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 667-673) which we shall find date from the last quarter of the XI century. More-
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 27
over, the folds of the tablecloth in the Dax Last Supper (111. 331) are very like those of the skirts of the Christ at St.-Amour (111. 106), a work which is certainly of the XII century.
There is, however, even more conclusive proof. In the apse of St.- Paul of Dax, below the frieze, are sculptured capitals, obviously not second-hand material, but made for the position they now occupy. Now in one of these capitals we recognize the hand of the sculptor who made the reliefs we have been studying. Doubt is no longer possible. The artist who carved the second set of reliefs (111. 330-332) worked upon the architecture of the apse, which is obviously and admittedly a monument of the first third of the XII century. The reliefs are not older fragments re-employed, but were made for their present position. Although so different in style, the two sets, like the analogous reliefs at Selles, are contemporary with each other as well as with the building which they adorn.
Moreover, we notice that the capitals, one of which is by the sculptor of the second set of reliefs, are similar to, and obviously contemporary with, those of La Sauve Majeure (111. 233^ 334)- Now La Sauve Majeure was not founded until 1079,1 and the existing ruins are of the second quarter of the XII century.
From all this we may safely conclude that the sculptures of St.- Paul near Dax, far from being fragments of the X century re- employed, were made for their present position about 11 20.
Now that the ground is cleared of these monuments of the XII century, which have been fi&ftaquerading as pre-Romanesque, let us return to the study of St.-Genis, and attempt to trace the drift of artistic currents in this surely dated monument of 1020.
The most striking, and on the whole probably most significant group of analogies offered by St.-Genis are with the art of the Orient. In the top-shaped head, the low and flat relief, the work &Z St.-Genis recalls Achthamar.2 The upper wings of the seraphim are crossed in the two sculptures in precisely the same manner. The acanthus
1 Mortet, 258.
2 Illustrated by Strzygowski, Armenier, 289.
28 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
leaves of St.-Genis (111. 513) and St.-Andre (111. 515) are obviously of Byzantine type.1
On the other hand, St.-Genis shows points of contact with monu- ments of the West. Some of these are themselves already under Byzantine tradition, so that the possibility presents itself that the Eastern elements of St.-Genis may not have come directly from the East, but through some intermediary in the Occident. M. Andre Michel has remarked that the draperies and the drawing of certain heads at St.-Genis recall the pax of Duca Orso at Cividale.2 In the drawing of the eyes and head, and in the types of the angels, the St.- Genis relief resembles the lintel from S. Lorenzo of Zara, now at S. Donato.3 We have already spoken of the analogies between St.- Genis (111. 513) and the lunette of the cathedral of Troia (111. 172). There also appears to be relationship between St.-Genis and certain ivories of the Ada group. The draperies of St.-Genis, especially the sleeves, recall an ivory-carving of the VII century, representing a beardless Christ surrounded by the evangelists, now in the Fitz- william Museum at Cambridge.4 Even more interesting are the points of contact with an ivory book-cover, dating from the IX or X century, and also belonging to the Ada group.5 This ivory is now preserved in the cathedral of Narbonne, but as it came there from a private collection in 1850, it is not certain how long it has been in Catalonia. The peculiar double aureole6 of St.-Genis occurs in ivories of the Ada group 7 as well as elsewhere.8 In fact there are many indi-
1 In this connection, it is interesting to remark that the tympanum from Egmond, in the Ryksmuseum at Amsterdam, the most primitive extant Romanesque sculpture in Holland, has a Greek inscription (Illustration in Ligtenberg, Tafel I).
2 Illustration in Fogolari, 51.
3 Illustrated by Gurlitt, 70.
4 Illustrated by Goldschmidt, I, No. 7. 5 Ibid., No. 31.
6 This motive perhaps originated, as Mr. Walter S. Cook has suggested, in the sphere upon which Christ is often seated in early iconographic representations, as e.g. the mosaic at S. Lor- renzo f. 1. m. at Rome. This sphere seems to have been enlarged to form a lower lobe in out- line to the aureole ; then this two lobed outline was retained when the sphere was omitted.
7 See the Majestas Domini of the Kaiser Friederich Museum at Berlin, illustrated by Gold- schmidt, I, No. 23, a work assigned to the IX or X century.
8 E.g. an ivory of the Hessisches Landmuseum, Darmstadt, of the school of Cologne, c . iooo, illustrated by Goldschmidt, II, No. 72; in one of the second half of the XI century in the Brit-
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 29
cations that the early art of Catalonia underwent a strong German influence. The draperies of Catalan manuscripts, such as, for ex- ample the X century Bible of Roda,1 are thoroughly German — compare the book-cover of Kaiser Arnulf (887-899) at Munich.2 It is evident that Catalan frescos and panel paintings of the XII cen- tury were strongly influenced by Othonian miniatures. It is not sur- prising therefore that German influence should be traceable at St.- Genis. It is less easy to account for the fact that the drawing of the eye, and the facial types of St.-Genis recall the frescos of the X cen- tury at Grotta dei Santi near Calvi.3
In addition to these semi-Byzantine influences, it seems probable that purely Western tradition entered to a considerable extent into the style of the St.-Genis lintel. The analogies to which we have al- ready called attention between the Bible of Roda and the sculptures of Arles-sur-Tech would give reason to believe that the early sculpture of the Pyrenees is rooted in the local art of Catalonia. The horse- shoe arches of the lintel are a clear trace of this influence at St.-Genis. I note moreover a certain resemblance between the lintel of St.-Genis (111. 513) and the Carlo vingian sculpture at Charlieu (111. 1). This it is true is more apparent than real, and upon close study narrows down to a similar sleeve convention, and the use of beading. Much more unexpected is the analogy shown by certain of the larva-like figures standing under the niches at St.-Genis, with those carved more than a century later in the cloisters of S. Orso at Aosta.4 The strangeness of the proportions, the peculiar working of the hair and eyes, the use of headings, the similar management of the draperies in
ish Museum of London, illustrated by Goldschmidt, II, No. 119; in the Evangelaire de Noail- les, of the second half of the IX century, Paris, Bib. Nat. lat., 323, illustrated by Boinet, PI. CXXXV; in the bible of St.-Aubin of Angers, in the Bibliotheque de la Ville at Angiers, No. 4, X century, illustrated by Boinet, PI. CLII ; in the Bible of S. Callisto of the IX century, illus- trated by Clemen, 63. The motive early became characteristic of Catalan art; it is already found in the X century Bible of Roda, Paris, Bib. Nat. lat. 6, illustrated by Clemen, 33$.
1 Paris, Bib. Nat. lat. 6, illustrated by Clemen, 335-336.
2 Illustrated by Dehio, II, ab. 304.
8 Illustrated by Bertaux, 245. There is probably a common Byzantine influence behind all these works. * Illustrated by Porter, Lomb. Arch., IV, Plate 15, Fig. 3.
i
3o ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
these two works can hardly be due to chance, and are the more puz- zling that the two mountain monasteries are so widely separated geographically, as well as chronologically.
Whatever the explanation of this analogy may be, it seems clear that the style of St.-Genis shows a local tradition strongly under the influence of Byzantine monuments, and probably also affected by some such German ivory as that which now exists in the cathedral of Narbonne.
It is worthy of remark that the three monuments which represent for us the school of the first half of the XI century in the eastern Pyrenees are all in the churches of Benedictine abbeys. It was only at a later period that Arles-sur-Tech, with which St.-Andre was united, was given to Moissac, and thus became Cluniac. In the first half of the XI century all three monasteries were of the pure Bene- dictine order, and thus in close ecclesiastical relationship, as well as geographical proximity.
Since Cluny was the child of the Benedictine order, it is not sur- prising to find that important characteristics of Burgundian sculp- ture are foreshadowed at St.-Genis. The motive of angels holding an aureole with the figure of Christ was assuredly not new in sculpture ; it is found for example in the paliotto of Pemmore at Cividale.1 It was, nevertheless, destined to become a favourite theme of the Cluniac school. The violent movement of the angels of St.-Genis foreshadows the superb angels supporting the aureoles of Burgundian tympana like Charlieu (111. 4) . The draperies of St.-Genis in their simple overlapping broad folds, cut like those of Chinese statues of the Tang dynasty, and in their mannered spirals and whirls are strangely like the types of drapery consecrated by the Burgundian style. The mo- tive of a lintel decorated with figures standing under the arches of a blind arcade became characteristically Burgundian. From all this we gather another proof, were any needed, of how closely Cluniac art depends upon Benedictine art.2
By far the most significant fact about the XI century sculptures of
1 Illustration in Fogolari, 47. 2 See below, p. 87.
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 31
the eastern Pyrenees is, however, their existence. Was it only in a remote mountain valley that sculpture flourished at this period in Europe ?
Such is no doubt the impression given by the histories of mediaeval sculpture. A little reflection, however, suffices to bring conviction that the case was far otherwise.
Wackernagel has made a most valuable study of certain pulpits in Apulia. That at Canosa, signed by Acceptus, had long been known, and assigned on its style to the end of the XI century. Wackernagel discovered fragments of other pulpits, obviously by the same hand, at Siponto and Monte S. Angelo. The Siponto pulpit bore an in- scription with the name of Leo, doubtless the archbishop of Siponto, who is known to have flourished about 1040; and the Monte S. Angelo pulpit bore the signature of Acceptus and the date 1041. Doubt is therefore not possible : in this remarkable series of works we have authentic monuments of the second quarter of the XI century.
Now these pulpits of Acceptus are all executed with the utmost delicacy, refinement and precision of technique. The crudeness which orthodox theory would lead us to expect is totally lacking. The later centuries produced in Apulia an art that was different, but never an art which was more beautiful.
Especially is this true of the sculptured human head beneath the eagle at Monte S. Angelo.1 This already possesses the classic quality which we associate with the time of Frederic II. The modelling is highly naturalistic ; the proportions are carefully studied, much more so than in, for example, the reliefs of the ambulatory at St.-Sernin (111. 296-305). The hair and beard are executed with an effectiveness that would do credit to a Greek artist of the V century B.C. If the planes are reduced to the lowest terms, they are still used effectively, and with an understanding of light and shade. The head is individ- ualized, and full of character.
The eagles of Acceptus2 give us an equally high idea of his art.
1 Illustrated by Wackernagel, Tafel II, d. 2/^/.,TafelI, b:TafelII,d.
32 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Like everything which he does, they are extremely voulus. He pro- duces the effect he desires with unerring sureness of touch. The characterful heads almost make us think of the "Pien Luan" of the Freer Collection; the heraldic outlines, the splendidly mannered convention for the feathers are emotional. Even such a detail as the claws, in the Monte S. Angelo pulpit, is carved with a feeling for values not unworthy of Rodin.
The work of Acceptus shows then, none of the crudeness of St.- Genis. It is even much finer than the contemporary sculpture at Arles-sur-Tech. Nor is it surprising that the rich plain of Italy should produce a more refined art than a valley of the Pyrenees.
Apulia lies, however, far to the south, in a region peculiarly ex- posed to Byzantine influences. Did stone sculpture in northern Europe attain at this period the same high merit ?
Fortunately it is easy to give an answer. In the museum of Mar- seille is preserved the tomb of St. Isarne (111. 1278), which comes from the crypt l of the abbey of St.-Victor, of which it is known that the church was consecrated in 1040.2 From the epitaph we learn that St. Isarne died in 1048.3 His tomb-stone (111. 1278) which was cer-
1 Laurin, 25.
2 Ibid.) 34. The existing church is not all of one period, but has been, nevertheless, dated too late. This is not the place to enter into the long technical discussion involved by consideration of this question. I shall only observe that a capital of the crypt of St.-Lazare, conceded to date from 1040, is sculptured with a superbly expressive head.
3 +OBIIT ANNO MXLVIII INDIC AEPACTA
XP SACRA VIRI CLARI SVNT HIC SITA PATRIS ISARNI : MEBRA SVIS STVDIIS GLORIFICATA PUS:
QVAE FELIX VEGETANS ANIMA PROVEXIT AD ALTA:
MORIB' EGREGIIS PACIFICISQ' ANIMIS :
NA REDIMITVS ERAT HIC VIRTVTIS SPECIEBVS :
VIR DNI CVNCTIS P[RO] QVIB' EST HILARIS:
QVAE FECIT DOCVIT ABBAS PIVS ATQ' BEATVS:
DISCIPVLOSQ' SVOS COMPVLIT ESSE PIOS :
SIC VIVENS TENVIT REGIM SED CLAVDERE LIM : /
COMPVLSVS VITE EST ACRITER MISERE: /
REXIT BIS DENIS SEPTEMQ' FIDELIT ANNIS: /
COMISSVQ* SIBI DVLCE GREGEM DNI:
RESPVIT OCTOBRIS TRAS OCTAVO KALENDAST
ET CEPIT RVTILI REGNA SVBIRE POLI :
CERNE P[RAE] COR QVE LEX HOMINI NOXA P(RO)TOPLASTI
* IN ME DEFVNCTO LECTOR INEST MISERO
SICQ' GEMENS CORDE + DIC DIC DEVS HVIC MISERE AM:
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 33
tainly sculptured soon afterwards shows the qualities that we are already coming to recognize as characteristic of the XI century. The face is exceedingly realistic, and finely modelled. It impresses one as an accurate and highly expressive portrait of the deceased. The long, drooping cheeks, the strong nose, the eyes stern even in death are full of character. If the draperies about the shoulders are executed in a somewhat schematized fashion, those about the feet are finely ex- pressive. The feet themselves are sensitively modelled. The monu- ment possesses a character of austerity and grandeur far surpassing the attainments of the XIII century, and which it would be difficult to parallel in the XII century.
The same mastery of form, the same sense of beauty is shown in other stone sculptures of the XI century. The reliefs of the portal of St. Emmeran at Regensburg (Ratisbon) in Germany (111. 1 279-1 282) are dated between 1049-1064 by an inscription.1 Again we have stone sculptures full of dignity and power. The long face and the curls of the St. Emmeran recall those of St. Isarne, but the hair con- vention of the Christ is more akin to that of Acceptus' head at Monte S. Angelo. The draperies are adequately rendered, sometimes by parallel fine lines which seem copied from a miniature, but also by heavy plastic folds, showing already quite the character of the XII century. We are here far from the painter's technique of Arles-sur- Tech (111. 518); the St. Emmeran (111. I2'8i) shows a strong feeling for the third dimension that fairly foreshadows Giotto in its use of the background arch to throw the figure into sharper relief. When the two representations of the Deity at Regensburg and at Aries are compared (111. 1279 and 111. 518) we notice a certain general similar- ity of type and posture, extending even to the thrones and the posi- tion of the legs, but the Regensburg Christ seems much more accom- plished. This is perhaps less due to a somewhat later date than to closer proximity to the centres of civilization.
Of the tomb of St.-Front at Perigueux, sculptured in 1077 by a certain Guinamundus, a Cluniac monk of La Chaise Dieu, nothing 1 ABBA REGINWARDVS HOC FORE IVSSIT OPVS
34 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
remains ; we have only the brief description in the Pilgrims* Guide : Cuius sepulchrum cum nullis aliis Sanctorum sepulchris consimile est, rotundum tamen, ut Dominicum sepulchrum, studiosissime fit, et cuncta caeterorum Sanctorum sepulchra pulchritudine miri operis excel/it. When we consider the high merit of monuments like Santi- ago and Moissac seen by the author of this description, we can only conclude from his praise that this tomb of 1077 was far from crude.
It has been the custom of archaeologists, in dealing with the his- tory of mediaeval sculpture at this period, to separate works in stone from works in metal, and consider the latter a " minor art " which may conveniently be left out of consideration. Such an arbitrary division has made it possible to keep alive a little longer the dogma that early sculpture is crude. It does not, however, seem conducive to forming an accurate conception of XI century art. Sculpture in metal is not essentially different from sculpture in stone. There is no reason to suppose that a knowledge of form which could be expressed in one medium could not be expressed also in the other. We have already found abundant evidence that the XI century was master of its chisel. Works in metal can therefore be most instructive in in- forming us of the taste and artistic accomplishment of the time.
The bronze doors of Hildesheim are familiar to everyone. They are indeed a supreme masterpiece. The composition is satisfying; the drawing masterly ; the execution impeccable. In the long list of bronze doors made throughout Germany and Italy in the centuries that followed, there is, with the single exception of Monte S. Angelo — also a work of the XI century — none comparable. Now these bronze doors are dated 1015 by an inscription.1 The appearance of so perfect a work at this period has startled historians of art, even though the matter was toned down by classing the doors as " minor art." Yet there is nothing in these monuments, splendid as they are, which is not in entire accord with the time in which they were pro- duced. They are merely the translation into bronze of forms long
1 AN DOM INC MXV B EP DIVE MEM HAS VALVASFVSILES
IN FACIE ANGELIC1 TEPLI OB MONIMT SVI FEC SVSPENDI
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 35
familiar to German artists. The composition must be inspired by- some miniatured Bible, like that of Bamberg.1 The technical execu- tion — by which I mean the drawing, facial types, drapery folds — recalls the golden book-cover of Kaiser Arnulf (887— 899),2 now in the Munich library, but coming from St. Emmeran at Regensburg.
The bronze column of Hildesheim was executed before 1022.3 It served as a paschal candelabrum ; and there can be little doubt that it was inspired neither by the spiral columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius at Rome, nor yet by those others of Theodosius and Arca- dius that once existed at Constantinople,4 but by one of the destroyed metal paschal candelabra of the Roman churches. The style is, how- ever, purely German, and closely related to that of the bronze doors.
It is not only at Hildesheim that are found admirable works in metal executed in the XI century. The altar (983-1002) and ambo (1002-1024) at Aachen, the statue of Ste. Foy at Conques (anterior to 1010) all bear witness to the perfection of this art.5
The Area Santa of Oviedo, although unknown, or nearly so, to historians of art, is in some ways as epoch-marking a monument as the doors of Hildesheim. Like the doors, the Area (111. 656-660) enjoys the advantage of being surely dated. An inscription, partly destroyed it is true, but the meaning of which can still be deciphered, states that the Area was the gift of King Alfonso, who can only be the sixth of that name (1072-1109). In the inscription the name of the king's "sister Urraca" also occurs.6 Now we know from a con- temporary document that this monarch and his sister Urraca were
1 Bamberg, Hofbib., A. I. 5. Illustrated by Boinet, PI. XXIX. Compare especially the scenes of God reproaching Adam and Eve, and of God giving Eve to Adam. This manuscript dates from the second quarter of the lX century.
2 Illustrated by Dehio, ab. 304.
3 For a study of the date, see the admirable monograph by Dibelius, 103 f.
4 Erected in 386 and 403 respectively. See Fondation Piot, 1895, II, 99.
5 Cf. this text : Fecit (Gauzlin, abbot of Fleury c. 1026) et analogium hispanico metallo compactum, diebus utendum feriarum, fusoria industria solidatam, quatuor vallaverat leunculorum pulchritudine; desuper columnam, trium cubitorum habentem altitudinem, fusili arte fabricatam, atque undique vario opere politam, in cujus centro volantis aquilae radiabat similitudo (Vie de Gauzlin, ed. Delisle, 39-40). Compare also the descriptions of the altar-frontals of St.-Gilles and Santiago in the Pilgrims' Guide (ed. Fita).
6 Vigil, 15.
36 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
present at the invention of the relics in 1075.1 We can only conclude that this invention was the occasion for the gift of the Area.
The Area is unquestionably of Spanish workmanship — the many analogies, especially of the cover with the Area of San Millan de la Cogolla (111. 638-649) are obvious. However, the reliefs show another and very different influence. It is that of the bronze doors of Hilde- sheim, or of some of the works of the German goldsmiths, with which these are related. German Othonian models left an indelible impress upon the sculpture of Europe during the XI and XII cen- turies.
The engraved cover of the Area Santa is derived from a southern French or Spanish manuscript. The Crucifixion 2 is very close to that of an XI century manuscript of Limoges.3
These monuments of the first three quarters of the XI century which we have examined are doubtless few in number, but still sufficient to enable us to perceive, first that the plastic art of the XI century was different from that of the XII century, but not neces- sarily inferior either in conception or in execution ; and secondly that the modern archaeological dogma, that the sculpture of the XI cen- tury was crude and barbarous, is a serious and fundamental error.
1 Vigil, 76. 2 Mas photograph, C. 25255.
3 Bib. Nat. latin n 550. Compare also the Oviedo silver book-cover. Mas photograph, C. 25261.
Ill
EARLY SPANISH IVORIES
The school of ivory-carving which grew up in Spain during the XI century throws unexpected light upon the knowledge of form pos- sessed by artists in this period which modern archaeologists and historians of art have so strangely neglected. Although the literature dealing with early Spanish ivories is considerable, the historical significance of this art does not appear to have been appreciated.
One of the oldest and most important monuments extant is assuredly the Area of San Millan de la Cogolla (111. 638-649). I have not been able to obtain access to the jealously secreted ivories them- selves, but the photographs * give a sufficient idea of their character.
The relics of San Millan were discovered in 1030. It is an ancient tradition that they were translated in 1033 in the presence of Don Sancho el Mayor, king of Navarre, and that the Area which still in part survives was given by that king on that occasion.2 Don Emmanuel Gomez-Moreno 3 and Senor Sentenach, however, refer the Area to a translation by Garcia Sanchez in 1053.4 In any event it may safely be considered a monument at least as early as the third quarter of the XI century.
Compared with the crucifix of San Isidoro of Leon, now in the Madrid Museo Arqueologico (111. 654, 655), and which is a surely dated monument of 1063, the ivories of San Millan appear much cruder and more primitive ; it is tempting to consider them earlier. They impress one, too, as being earlier than the book-cover of Jaca, now in the Metropolitan Museum at New York (111. 519), and which was given by the queen Felicia, who died in 1085.
1 1 owe these photographs to the kindness of Don Emmanuel Gomez-Moreno.
2 Debenga, 296. 3 295.
4 Don Emmanuel Gomez-Moreno thinks the Area may have been executed as late as c. 1076.
38 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The Area of San Millan was in part destroyed by the French under Napoleon. Among the portions lost at this time was an inscription recording the names of the artists who executed the ivories. These were a certain Enel . . .and Rodolphus, his son. This name Rodol- phus suggests a Germanic origin.
The style of the ivories also seems to show German influence. So much is this the case, that no less an authority than Graeven l has ascribed the panel at Florence (111. 650) which (although the fact appears never to have been recognized) is certainly of the same school as the San Millan Area, indeed, even by the same hand or hands, to the Rhenish school of the XI or XII century. The ascrip- tion is without doubt erroneous, the panel in question must be Spanish ; but that so great a connoisseur should have mistaken it for a German work is eloquent proof of the German influences which are shown by the style. Goldschmidt 2 has recognized the German char- acter of the New York crucifix (111. 710) which is a later work of this same school. A comparison between the figure to the left within the house in the San Millan relief of the Devil exorcised from the House of Parpalinense (111. 644), and the Christ of the Doubting Thomas in the Figdor collection at Vienna, the latter a work of the Echter- nach master of about 990,3 will leave us in no doubt of the Teutonic derivation of the San Millan ivories.
The influences between Spain and Germany did not flow in only one direction. It is certain that German ivories of the XII century show imitation of the art of the pilgrimages.
While the San Millan Area shows German influence, it is neverthe- less a work essentially Spanish in character. The execution is quite different from that of the German ivories. The horse-shoe and trefoiled arches are a markedly Spanish (ultimately Moorish) characteristic.
A series of ivory reliefs in the Museo Arqueologico at Madrid show evident affinity of style with the San Millan Area. Together with
1 Ital.y No. 31. 2II, No. 27.
3 Illustrated by Goldschmidt, II, No. 24.
EARLY SPANISH IVORIES 39
fragments from Arab boxes — one of which bears an inscription datable 1043-1077 — they have been mounted to form a casket (111. 651-653); the whole comes from San Isidoro of Leon. It is natural to conjecture that these reliefs, representing the Beatitudes, originally formed one of the six ivory boxes given to San Isidoro by Don Fernando I (1037-1065).1
Related in style to the San Millan Area, but inferior in quality, is a little relief in the Metropolitan Museum at New York.2
On the other hand, a very different, and much more finished style appears in the great crucifix (111. 654, 655), which also comes from San Isidoro of Leon, and which is now also in the Museo Arqueo- logico at Madrid. This crucifix has the advantage of being incon- testably dated : at the foot of the cross is the inscription FERDI- NANDVS REX SANCIA REGINA; it is therefore beyond any question the very crucifix which it is known was presented by these sovereigns to San Isidoro in 1063.3 The style of this remarkable work singularly anticipates the stone sculpture of the XII century. On the other hand it differs notably from that of the group of ivories we have just been studying. So sharp indeed is the change of manner that I can detect but one peculiarity common to both — it is the custom, later taken over by the sculptors in stone, of hollowing out the pupil of the eye, and inlaying it with another material. I can not agree with those authors who think that the figure of Christ in the Madrid crucifix is inferior in execution to the ornamental work upon the cross. This face seems to me indeed to be one of the notable achievements of mediaeval art. I should not, however, be surprised if it were by a different hand from the one that executed the cross, and perhaps the body of the Christ. The hand of this artist reap- pears, Mr. Breck believes, in the book-cover of the Metropolitan Museum in New York (111. 665). The ornamental carving, the draperies, the hands and the feet are certainly identical in the two
1 Jose Amador, in Museo, II, 545. The arches with spiral colonnettes of this ivory are like those on the pilasters of the west facade of Chartres.
2 Illustrated by Breck, 218. Accession number 17.190.142.
3 Espana Sagrada^ XXXVI, Appendix, p. clxxxix.
4o ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
works. The faces of the New York book-cover are, however, very inferior to those of the Madrid Christ ; nor is the quality of even the decorative parts so fine.
The excellent technique of the Madrid crucifix, as well as several motives of decoration * are derived from Saracenic models. There can be little doubt that the superlative excellence at times displayed by Spanish art during the Romanesque period is due to the inspira- tion of the highly finished and technically accomplished productions of the Moors. It is Mussulman influence which raised Mozarabic architecture, the sculptures of Santo Domingo de Silos, and the ivories we have just been studying to a level equal with, if not superior to, that of the best contemporary work in Europe.
The Moors were accomplished ivory-carvers, and seem to have -anticipated the Christian Spaniards in the field. At least I know of no Christian Spanish ivory as early as the celebrated casket of the cathedral at Pamplona, dated 1005 by an inscription.2 This box already stands on an extremely high level of technical excellence ; the ornamental work is even better than the figures, a fact easily explained since Mohammedan artists were rarely allowed to practise making representations of the human form. The same skilful execu- tion is characteristic of other Moorish boxes, like the one of the Burgos Museum, dated 1026, or that from Palencia, dated 1049,3 which is now in the Museo Arqueologico at Madrid.
Another crucifix now at San Marcos of Leon, but coming from the same stupendous treasure of San Isidoro (111. 703) is closely related to the Madrid carving. The head is superior to those of the New York ivory, but inferior to that of the Madrid crucifix. The ancient cross of the San Marcos crucifix is lost. It is known from literary descriptions 4 that there existed in the treasure of San Isidoro an ivory crucifix, with an image and inscription referring to Dona
1 See for a study of this question the Boletin de la Sociedad Espafiola de Excursiones, XIV, 1906, 14.
2 This casket has been published many times — among others, by Bertaux, Exp. Ret.y 205.
3 Vives, 36.
4 Manuel de Assas in Museo, I, 209.
EARLY SPANISH IVORIES 41
Urraca (1032-1101). It is tempting to conjecture that the Christ of San Marcos is a part of this crucifix.
Another work closely related to this group is the ivory-carving (111. 519) incorporated in a book-cover of silver filigree work now in the Metropolitan Museum of New York.1 The book-cover formerly belonged to the cathedral at Jaca.2 At the base of the cross is the inscription FELICIA REGINA; the ivory must therefore have been given by the wife of Sancho Ramirez ; and she is known to have died in 1085. The crucifix must consequently have been executed before this date.
In style the crucifix is related to the group that we have just been studying, most closely perhaps to the crucifix at San Marcos (111. 703), although it is by no means without points of contact with the Madrid ivory (111. 654, 65$).
At San Millan de la Cogolla is preserved a second ivory reliquary (111. 661-664), known as the Area of S. Felices.3 The style is not without relationship to that of the Area of San Millan ; so much so that Senor Sentenach made one Area out of the two.4 The style is however distinctly different. The San Felices Area appears to be more advanced ; the facial types show points of contact with those of the New York book-cover. It may very likely date from the last quarter of the XI century.5
A crucifix now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York shows obvious relationship with this group of ivories (111. 710). The cross is modern, and the Christ has lost His right arm since the photo- graph published by Prof. Goldschmidt 6 was made. The style of this figure shows analogies especially with that of the New York book- cover (111. 519), but it is coarser and more advanced. Prof. Gold-
1 It has been published by Mr. Breck in his illuminating paper on Spanish Ivories in the Morgan Collection — a work which is fundamental for the intelligent study of Spanish sculp- ture, and indeed the only comprehensive survey of the subject which exists.
2 De Leguina, 247.
3 1 am indebted to Don Emmanuel G6mez-Moreno also for the photographs of this inacces- sible monument.
4 G6mez-Moreno, 295.
5 The assertion that it dates from the XIII century is unsupported by the slightest evidence. • II, No. 27.
42 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
schmidt dated it about 1200; Mr. Breck put it back fifty years to 1 1 50; perhaps a date about 1125 would be still more probable.
A further stylistic development along the same lines is shown in another relief of the Metropolitan Museum at New York, represent- ing the Journey to Emmaus and the Noli me tangere (111. 709). A comparison of this ivory with the stone reliefs of apostles by Gilbert's assistant from St.-Etienne of Toulouse reveals striking similarity. The hair convention of the middle figure in the Journey to Emmaus (111. 709) is similar to that of one of the Toulouse apostles (111. 439, right-hand figure) ; that of the figure to the left in the Journey to Emmaus (111. 709) and of Christ in the Noli me tangere are similar to that of another of the apostles (111. 436). The raised right hand of the figure to the right of the Journey to Emmaus (111. 709) is strik- ingly like that of one of the Toulouse apostles (111. 439, central figure). The draperies of the Mary Magdalen (111. 709) are undeni- ably similar to those of the beardless apostle (111. 439). The facial types are essentially the same (111. 709 and 111. 437). Most vital of all, however, is the similarity of feeling that runs through the two works. Such coarseness, such vulgarity, such diabolic cynicism could not have been twice invented.
We shall find reason to believe that the Toulouse apostles were executed in the fifth decade of the XII century. The question arises whether the ivory is a prototype or a derivative. I am inclined to believe the former. While there are many provable examples of sculptures Copied from ivories at this period, I know of none of ivories copied from sculptures. The ivory seems throughout more vigorous, more archaic. The costume is of an earlier type. The XI century neck-slit appears in two out of the four figures in the ivory, while in the reliefs it has entirely disappeared, except in one figure (111. 436), where it appears in very modified form. The parted hair con- vention, while very similar in the two works (111. 709 and 111. 437) is at Toulouse distinctly more naturalistic and advanced than in the ivory.
It therefore seems to me probable that the ivory is earlier than the
EARLY SPANISH IVORIES 43
relief. Mr. Breck assigned the former to about the middle of the XII century; I should be inclined to place it before 1140.
Mr. Breck took the ivory to be Spanish. The analogies with the Toulouse apostles might seem to give reason to question whether it might not rather have been made in Toulouse. This supposition is, however, not necessary. The same plastic style prevailed at Toulouse and in northern Spain. Our ivory closely resembles in style the New York crucifix (111. 710) which seems to be certainly Spanish. The composition of the Journey to Emmaus (111. 709) recalls that of the same subject at Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 667). Moreover, we have seen that there were certainly several ateliers of ivory-carving in Spain during the Romanesque period, while I know of no proof that such existed in Toulouse. The hypothesis that the ivory is Spanish seems therefore tenable.
IV
SANTO DOMINGO DE SILOS
The older portion of the cloister of Santo Domingo de Silos is a dated monument of the XI century.
The abbot Santo Domingo died in 1073/ and was buried in the cloister, the construction of which he had begun. In 1076 the body- was moved, but the epitaph on a capital (111. 666) remained, and still remains. A cenotaph was subsequently erected to mark the place where the body first rested.
From this it follows, as an inevitable consequence,2 that the capital with the inscription (111. 666) dates from between 1073 and 1076. Indeed, graver, and hitherto unsuspected, conclusions follow. The study of the internal evidence of the cloister itself proves, whatever has been said to the contrary, that the north and east galleries and the north bay of the west gallery are all substantially contemporary with each other, with the capital, with the inscription and with the six reliefs of earlier style (111. 666-673). 3
Whoever will compare the ear of the harpy in the dated capital (111. 666) with the ear of the Christ in the Deposition (111. 669), or the hair conventions in the capital (111. 666) with those in the reliefs (111. 667, 669-673), will be convinced that the two are not only of the same period, but by the same hand. The lettering of the in- scription of 1073-1076 (111. 666) is exactly like that of the reliefs (111. 667, 669-673). The sculptured capital of the cloister representing the four and twenty elders (111. 668) is obviously by the same hand as the reliefs on one side, and the dated capital on the other. It is incredible that such similar works should be separated by a period of eighty years as asserted by orthodox archaeology.
1 Rodrigo, 26.
2 This was first recognized by M. Bertaux in Andre Michel, II, i, 223.
3 Roulin has published numerous photographs of the capital's.
SANTO DOMINGO DE SILOS 45
It may, indeed, well be that the reliefs are slightly later than 1073- 1076. After the cloister had been begun, building activity appears to have been transferred to the church. This was consecrated in 1088.1 Although an inscription implies that the cloister, too, was dedicated at this time, it is conceivable that the reliefs may have been executed after this date. This would bring them into the last fifteen years of the XI century.
The style of the reliefs is in entire agreement with the documentary evidence for date.
A striking peculiarity of these sculptures is that the reliefs are placed under arches. In the relief of the Doubting Thomas (111. 671), which is perhaps the latest of the series, the arch is surmounted by a sort of canopy, sculptured with architectural motives, and with human figures playing upon musical instruments.
At first one might be tempted to suppose that such a canopy would indicate a date later than the XI century ; but it will be remembered that canopies were used in ivories and miniatures of the X century.2 They are also characteristic of the ivories of the XI century in Spain. We find them in the Area of San Millan (111. 638), in that of San Felices (111. 661) and in the Beatitudes from San Isidoro of Leon (111. 651-653). In stone sculpture the motive appears in the reliefs of St. Emmeran at Regensburg (111. 1279, 1281, 1282) which as we have seen are dated 1 049-1064. Its presence at Santo Domingo de Silos in the late XI century is therefore entirely to be expected. The only innovation is the introduction of human figures into the archi- tecture.
1 F6rotin, 72.
2 See for example the book-cover of the Kaiser Friederich Museum in Berlin, illustrated by Goldschmidt, II, No. 52, $3. Canopied arches are characteristic of miniatures of the school of Winchester, with which the Santo Domingo reliefs may be suspected of being connected^. Thus in the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold at Chatsworth, there appear over the arches framing theminiatures on foliosjand 100 canopies adorned with the representations of two cities, very like the Jerusalem and Bethlehem of Roman mosaics (illustrated by Warner and Wilson). The motive is somewhat simplified in the Benedictional of Paris, folio 43r, illustrated by Hom- burger, Tafel IX. It may have originated in the ornaments placed either side of arches in Car- olingian manuscripts, such as the late IX century Gospel of Morienval, preserved at Noyon (it was saved by evacuation in the war), and illustrated by Boinet, PI. LXXXI.
46 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The placing of reliefs in arches is also characteristic of the period. This motive is of very ancient origin,1 and became widely diffused through its use on Early Christian sarcophagi.2 From sculpture in stone it passed into miniatures3 and frescos,4 and became especially characteristic of the school of Winchester.5 It was taken over in ivory-carvings — we find it for example in the Echternach ivory at the Cluny Museum,6 in the Ada group ivory of the X cen- tury in the Bibliotheque Nationale,7 in an ivory of the X century at the Bargello.8 In the XI century its use in ivory carvings became especially frequent — we find it in a Byzantine ivory of the Kaiser Friederich Museum at Berlin,9 in another of the British Museum,10 and in Spain in the Area of San Millan (111. 639, 640, 643, 644, 648), in that of San Felices (111. 664) in the Florence fragment (111. 650) and in the reliefs of the Beatitudes (111. 6^1-6^3) fr°m San Isidoro at Leon. It is also found in the Area Santa of Oviedo of 1075 (111. 658). The motive was therefore very much at home in Spain in the XI century. In stone sculpture the idea is found at St.-Pierre de la Citadelle at Metz u — in this case the arch is triangular — at Azay-
1 It is found on a Roman relief in the Museum of Sens.
2 This motive found its way into the Far East — there is an example of it in a stone stupa of the Henry H. Getty collection illustrated by A. Getty {The Gods of Northern Buddhism, Ox- ford, Clarendon Press, 1914. 4to), PI. XIII c. It is also found on a Coptic relief of the Cairo Museum, illustrated by Bauer und Strzygowski, 1 59, and in wooden panels in the same mu- seum, dating from the III to the IV century (Strzygowski, Cairo Cat. Taf. VII). Two wooden consoles from Bawit in the Cairo Museum (illustrated by Strzygowski, Cairo Cat., Taf. VII) are decorated with figures of saints in niches, strongly recalling the cloister sculptures of Moissac.
3 It is found in the Gospels, called of Charlemagne, at Abbeville, illustrated by Boinet, PI. X; in the Gospels of the British Museum, Hart. 2788, of the early IX century, illustrated by Boinet, PI. XIII ; in the Gospels of Lorsch, at Rome, Vatican, Pal. lat. 50, illustrated by Boinet, PI. XVII; in the Gospels of St.-Medard of Soissons, Paris, Bib. Nat., lat. 8850, illus- trated by Boinet, PI. XXI-XXII ; in the Gospels of Ada, at Treves, illustrated by Boinet, PI. VIII.
4 In the ruins of Arab-Djami at Constantinople (Ebersolt, PI. XXXIV).
5 See the miniatures cited above, and the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold, passim, illus- trated by Warner and Wilson.
6 Illustrated by Goldschmidt, II, No. 25.
7 Illustrated ibid., No. 36.
8 Illustrated by Graeven, 36.
9 Illustrated by Millet, Jconographie, 24.
10 Illustrated by Graeven, I, 54.
11 Illustrated by de Lasteyrie, 42.
SANTO DOMINGO DE SILOS 47
le-Rideau (111. 896), in a relief of St.-Mark's, assigned by Grabelentz to the XI century,1 at St.-Mesme of Chinon (111. 897) — a dated monument of 1025, — at St. Emmeran of Regensburg (111. 1279, 1281, 1282) — 1049-1064, and in the tomb from Santa Cruz de la Seros (111. 527). The motive is therefore characteristic of stone sculpture of the XI century.
On the other hand its use became rare after the year 1100. The cloisters of Moissac (111. 262-273), dated 11 00, may be taken as marking the end of the tradition.2 After that date the arch is com- monly retained only in lintels, or in friezes, where similar figures are repeated under a series of arches.3 In this particular, therefore, the sculptures of Santo Domingo de Silos clearly show the style of the XI century.4
The motive of the hand raised, with the palm turned outward, which occurs at Santo Domingo in the reliefs of Doubting Thomas (111. 671) and the Ascension (111. 672) is also consistent with an XI century date. This motive, too, is of ancient, and apparently of Eastern origin, since it is found on two wooden consoles of the V century from Bawit in the Cairo Museum.5 In the Far East it is of frequent occurrence from a very early period, and is familiar to students of Oriental iconography. It is found, for example, to cite one instance among many, in a gilt bronze image of before 781 be- longing to the Imperial Household, and exhibited in the Kyoto
1 Illustrated by Ongania, PI. 279.
2 Except that for the sake of unity the arch was repeated from the earlier in the later reliefs of Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 721).
3 See what is said below, p. 133 f., of the history of the arched lintel. It is from lintels like those of Nicolo that are derived the reliefs under arcades of the baptismal font of Hulla (illus- trated by Roosval, Taf. XII).
4 There are a few examples of the survival of the arch motive into the XII century, as in a capital at Autun (111. 79), in a capital of St.-Benoit-sur-Loire (111. 1416), in the sculptures of La Daurade at Toulouse (111. 471), at S. Vicente of Avila (111. 850-851), in the cloister of Ripoll, at St.-Gilles (111. 1325), etc. In miniatures we find it in a Syriac Gospel of the XII or XIII century, illustrated by Omont, Fond. Piot, XIX, PI. IV-IX. It is also in a Beatus Man- uscript of the late XII century, published by Sentenach, 215. It is often used in enamel work, but always with a row of similar figures, as in the altar-frontal from Santo Domingo de Silos, now in the Burgos Museum, or the reliquary by Rogkerus von Helmershausen, of 1100, illus- trated by Creutz, 19.
5 Illustrated by Strzygowski, Cairo Cat.y Taf. VII.
48 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Exposition.1 In the IX century the motive appears in the Occident, in a fresco of the lower church at S. Clemente of Rome and in the chapel of S. Lorenzo ai Sorgenti di Volturno.2 In the X century we find the motive in a book-cover of S. Marco at Venice ; 3 then it ap- pears in miniatures of the school of Winchester 4 with which the Santo Domingo sculptures show so many affinities. But it is in the XI century that the motive becomes common. We find it in a By- zantine plaque of steatite in the museum of Berlin,5 in the mosaics of St. Luke at Phokis,6 in a mosaic of Mt. Athos,7 in an ivory casket of the XI-XII century at the Bargello, in Florence,8 in a Byzantine ivory plaque of the XI-XII century in the treasure of the cathedral at Treves,9 and in a cameo of the XI century in the Schatz-Kammer of Vienna.10 The motive is constant in Spanish ivories of the XI century. It is found in the Areas of San Millan (111. 639, 641, 643, 644, 648, 649) and San Felices (111. 661-664), and in the Jaca book- cover (111. 519). It is also found on the Oviedo Area Santa (111. 656, 659). In stone sculpture the motive appears in the Carlo vingian relief found at St.-Pierre de la Citadelle at Metz ; u it is prominent in the sculptures of 1060 from the Mauri tzkirche, now in the West- falischen Landesmuseum at Miinster and in the reliefs of 1 049-1064 at St. Emmeran of Regensburg (111. 1281). Its presence at Santo Domingo de Silos at the end of the XI century is therefore entirely normal. The motive continued to be popular in the XII century, especially in the Pilgrimage school of sculpture. In the XII century, however, the hands are apt to be large and coarse, while in the XI they are generally small and refined. This difference will be readily
1 This statue is illustrated in the catalogue of the Exposition.
2 Illustrated by Bertaux, PI. Ill, ioo.
3 Illustrated by Venturi, II, 656.
4 See the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold, passim, illustrated by Warner and Wilson. Also the Besancon Gospels, illustrated by Horn burger, PI. XI.
5 Illustrated by Schlumberger, II, 85.
6 Illustrated ibid., II, 93.
7 Illustrated ibid., II, 141.
8 Illustrated ibid., Ill, 69.
9 Illustrated ibid., Ill, 56$.
10 Illustrated ibid., Ill, 593.
11 Illustrated by de Lasteyrie, 42.
SANTO DOMINGO DE SILOS 49
appreciated upon comparing the New York ivory (111. 709) with the mosaics of St. Luke at Phokis.1 Now the Santo Domingo hands are distinctly of the XI century type.
The little capitals under the arches of the Santo Domingo reliefs at first sight seem almost Gothic in character, and to suggest a date at an advanced period of the XII century. Similar capitals are, how- ever, found in the choir of the cathedral at Santiago, which dates from 1 078-1 102. Much has been written of the imitation of nature by the stone-carvers of the XII century in the Ile-de-France, and of the appearance about 1 140 of local flora in Gothic capitals. The in- spiration seems, in fact, to have come less from "the tender forms of the budding spring," than from the capitals that had been exe- cuted at Santiago some sixty years before. Certain ones of the cathe- dral of Noyon, for example, seem almost like direct reproductions of those in the Santiago triforium. These Gothic-like capitals are perhaps derived from Carlovingian manuscripts. Those of Santo Domingo de Silos, for example, might easily have been inspired by some such miniature as that of the Gospels of Ada at Treves,2 dating from the VIII or IX century. We have found many other indications of the influence of Germany upon the art of Spain, and indeed of Europe, in the XI century.
M. Bertaux 3 seems to have been deterred from dating the sculp- ture of Santo Domingo de Silos to the XI century by the form of the shields, which are pointed (111. 670), whereas he seems to be under the impression that round shields were used in the XI century. This is an error. Pointed shields were regularly used in the last quarter of the XI century 4 although round ones occasionally persisted until
1 Illustrated by Schlumberger, II, 93.
2 Illustrated by Boinet, PL VIII.
3 In Andre Michel, II, 1, 227.
4 Examples may be found as early as the middle of the XI century in a miniature illustrated by Lefebvre des Noettes, 216 (Bib. Nat. MS. lat. 6), and in the Area of San Millan (111. 647). There are numerous examples of the last quarter of the XI century. Thus we find them on a capital of the church at Airvault (111. 899), a monument consecrated in 1 100 ; in a manuscript illus- trated by Quicherat, 135 ; in the Gospels of the Countess Matilda, Morgan Library, New York, dated 1098-1099, illustrated by Warner, XII ; in a miniature of the "Histoire de Skylitzes," a manuscript of the XI century in the national library of Madrid, illustrated by Schlumberger,
So ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
an advanced period of the XII century.1 The absence of a nasal piece in the armour at Santo Domingo (111. 670) is an indication of date in the XI century.2
M. Bertaux 3 in studying the relief of the Deposition (111. 669) remarks the curious flame-shaped pebbles at the foot of the cross, and observes that they are similar to those on a capital of St.-Etienne of Toulouse.4 He concludes that Santo Domingo de Silos is derived from Toulouse,5 and consequently later in date. The truth seems to be, however, that the relationship was the other way about. These flame-shaped pebbles are an ancient Spanish motive. They are found in precisely the same form in an early miniature of the Crucifixion in a missal of San Millan de la Cogolla,6 now in the Biblioteca of the Academia de Historia. The same motive reappears in the Area of San Felices (111. 662) and something like it in the Area of San Millan (111. 640, 644). It seems, therefore, certain that it originated in Spain, and that it was there known in the XI century, and indeed much before.7
II, 388 and III, 112 (here the Saracens have round shields) ; in the Bayeux tapestry (where a very few round shields also occur) ; in a miniature of the XI century, Bib. Nat., lat. 8878, illustrated by Lefebvre des Noettes, Fig. 24; in an ivory-carving of the XI century at the Bar- gello in Florence, illustrated by Graeven, Ita/., No. 30 ; in the sculptures of the Mauritzkirche, now in the Westfalischen Landesmuseum at Miinster, dated 1060 and illustrated by Creutz, PI. II; and in a miniature of the Gebhardsbibel at the Stiftsbibliothek of Admont, Cod. 511, illustrated by Swarzenski, Taf. XXXI, and apparently dating from the 1070's.
1 They are found on a capital of the middle of the XII century at St.-Maurice of Vienne, illustrated by Begule, 118; with pointed ones in the sculptures of Ripoll (111. 570, 588) ; in the Bede of St.-Feliu of Gerona, illustrated by Sacs ; and in the destroyed pavement of Brindisi, a dated monument of 1178 (Bertaux, 494).
2 See Lefebvre des Noettes, 230. 3 In Andre Michel, II, 1, 226.
4 The motive also appears on a capital of St.-Nectaire representing the Three Maries at the Tomb (111. 1 190), and on a capital of the southern side aisle of Notre-Dame-du-Port of Cler- mont-Ferrand (111. 1 1 84) representing the Temptation. Both these works are of the second half of the XII century, and belong to a school formed, as we shall see (p. 234 f.), under the in- fluence of Spanish sculpture.
5 The only other example of the motive that I know in France is in the frescos of Vicq. These also present many analogies with Spanish work. Mr. Cook calls attention to the similarities of the draperies to Catalan frescos. The composition of the Last Supper is like that of the same subject on the Area of San Felices (111. 661).
6 Illustrated by Godoy Alcantara in Museoy III, 6$. Something very like this motive is in several panels of the Hildesheim doors, e.g., scene of the Adoration of the Magi, illustrated by Dibelius, Taf. 8. S*
7 Could it have been derived from a misunderstanding of the cloud swirls of some such min-
SANTO DOMINGO DE SILOS 51
In the eyes of M. Bertaux, the crossed legs of the Santo Domingo reliefs (111. 667-673) were also an indication of derivation from Tou- louse and of late date. We have already traced the history of this motive,1 and have seen how ancient is its origin, and how wide its diffusion. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that it came into Spain from Toulouse. It was already acclimated in the penin- sula in 1075, f°r we find it in that year in the Area Santa at Oviedo (111. 657). "
A peculiarity of the costumes in the Santo Domingo reliefs (111. 667-673) is the presence of a vertical slit in the front of the neck of the under-garment. This is found in other works of the XI century — in the Gospels of the Countess Matilda in the Morgan Library at New York,2 a dated work of 1098-1099 ; in the Areas of San Millan (111. 638-649) and San Felices (111. 663, 664) ; in the Bayeux tapestry ; in the reliefs of the Beatitudes from San Isidoro of Leon (111. 651- 653) ; in a capital of Jaca (111. 520) and in the throne of San Niccola of Bari (111. 154), a dated monument of 1098. The motive occasion- ally persisted in the XII century, as we have seen,3 but its presence at Santo Domingo tends to confirm the dating to the XI century.
A peculiarity of the armour at Santo Domingo (111. 670) is the chain mail covering the chin. Armour of precisely this same type is found in the Area of San Millan (111. 647).
Another peculiarity of the style of the Santo Domingo sculptures | is the drawing of the arms. Take for example the extended arm of Christ in the Doubting Thomas (111. 671). The member seems to be made of wood ; there is no joint at the elbow ; the upper arm is dis- proportionately short, the biceps are not indicated. The fingers of the hand are drawn like parallel sticks, the thumb along side of the
iature as that representing the Second Coming of Christ in the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold at Chatsworth, folio 10, illustrated by Warner and Wilson?
*See above, p. 21.
illustrated by Warner.
3 See above, p. 42. It also occurs in one of the reliefs of Angouleme (111. 932), in a sculpture from Ebreuil (111. 1255), in an apostle of St.-Gilles (111. 13 10), in a capital of Clermont-Ferrand (111. 1 174), in the relief of the Shepherds from Parthenay (111. 1054), in the Queen of Sheba of the P6rtico della Gloria (111. 839), at La Lande de Fronzac (111. 917).
52 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
others. This primitive modelling of one member in a style in many ways so accomplished is striking. Now in the S. Isidoro crucifix of 1063 (111. 654) we find arms that are modelled in precisely the same manner, even to the most minute particulars; and here again this primitive anatomy contrasts with a technique in other ways re- markably perfect. This peculiar manner of drawing the arms is characteristic of the XI century; in the XII century the treatment was entirely different, as may for example be seen in the New York ivory (111. 710).
It has been supposed that the movement of the figures in the Santo Domingo reliefs (111. 667-673) indicates a date in the XII century. However, a little reflection suffices to bring the conviction that precisely such movement was characteristic of the last quarter of the XI century. There is assuredly no lack of movement in the Oviedo Area Santa of 1075 (111. 657). We find it also in the minor figures of the Madrid crucifix of 1063 (111. 654, 6$$). Nor is it absent in the frescos representing the life of St. Alexius in the lower church of S. Clemente at Rome, works executed between 1073 and 1084. Precisely such thin wiggly figures as those of Santo Domingo (111. 672) are found on the Jaca book-cover, which was carved before 1085 (111. 519). The movement of Silos is, moreover, completely paralleled in the capitals of Cluny (111. 5-10), which date from 1088- 1095.
The clinging draperies of Santo Domingo (111. 667-673) are closely analogous to those of the Jaca book-cover of before 1085 (M. 519). They also resemble those of Cluny (1089-1095), falling in the same folds over the legs, or hanging down in the same zig-zag edges (111. 5-10). When we compare the draperies of Silos with those of the Christ at St. Emmeran of Regensburg (1049-1064), we notice not only that they are of the same clinging type, with similar broad flat folds, but we find the same convention of indicating the modelling by two parallel lines (111. 1279, 1280).
The hair and beard convention used at Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 667-673) consists of a division into strands each of which i?
SANTO DOMINGO DE SILOS S3
incised with a number of parallel lines. Now the hair is executed in precisely this same way in the Christ of St. Emmeran of Regensburg (111. 1279, 1280), which is a dated monument of 1 049-1 064.1
The skilful handling of groups of figures at Silos (111. 671-673) recalls the frescos of the life of St. Alexius in the lower church of S. Clemente at Rome (1073-1084). A similar treatment of masses, and heads tipped in the same way recur in the Gospels of the Coun- tess Matilda, in the Morgan Library, a dated work of 1098-1099.2
The harpies of the Silos capital (111. 666) are very similar to the sphinxes sculptured on the right side of the throne at Canosa, just above the elephant. Now this throne is a dated monument of 1078- 1089.3
The mastery of line and delicacy of technique characteristic of Silos (111. 667-673) are paralleled in the frescos of the life of St. Alexius in the lower church of S. Clemente at Rome (1 073-1 084). Even a closer analogy is to be found in the capitals of Cluny (1088- 1095). The faces at Cluny though of different type are like those of Silos in being archaic and conventionalized (111. 5-9).
When we compare the sculptures of Silos (111. 667-673) with those of Moissac cloisters (111. 262-287), which are dated 1100, we are at once struck by the many points of contact.4 These are so evident, and have been so much insisted upon, that it is unnecessary to de-
1 The motive must be of very ancient origin, since it runs through the art of the Far East. The hair of a statue of Shindatsura-Taisho, for example, in the temple Kofuku-ji at Nara, a work of the early Fujiwara period (888-1068 a.d.) — illustration published by the Nara Im- perial Museum — has hair executed according to this convention and flaming upward, very like the hair of the demons on the capitals of Vezelay (111. 42). The convention, indeed, per- sisted in the sculpture of the XII century, being found at Souillac (111. 346), Moissac (111. 36s) and in the Externstein of the Teutoberger Forest, a dated monument of 11 15 (illustrated by Creutz, Taf. V), in a relief of the Nikolauskapelle of the Miinster at Freiburg (illustrated by Weise, abb. 3) and elsewhere. The Externstein should be compared with the Santo Domingo Deposition (111. 669) for other details as well.
2 Illustrated by Warner. A Catalan antependium of the Barcelona Museum, No. 2, called to my attention by Mr. Cook, shows analogous grouping, and heads similarly tipped. This painting, however, is inspired by the sculptures. The draperies are like those of the Moissac cloister reliefs.
3 Photograph by Alinari, No. 35224.
4 Note that the scale ornament so characteristic of Moissac (111. 267) is found at Silos (111. 671).
54 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
scribe them in detail ; for our purpose the points of difference are more significant. It is obvious that Moissac is coarser, Silos more refined. Compare for example the hands at Moissac (111. 266) with the hands at Cluny (111. 5) and at Silos (111. 671). It is clear at once that Moissac conforms to what we have learned to recognize as the XII century type, whereas Cluny and Silos are of the earlier, XI century tradition. There is the same difference throughout the sculptures — at Moissac we feel everywhere the settling down of the coarse and brutal manner which was to culminate in such works as the Toulouse apostles (111. 437-443). When we compare the New York ivory (111. 710) with the Madrid crucifix (111. 654) we feel pre- cisely the same difference that we find between the Moissac cloisters (111. 262-273) and those of Silos (111. 667-673). It is the difference between the XII and the XI century. Fatigati considered the clois- ters of Silos later than those of Moissac, because they are better. He was right that they are better, but this fact should rather be con- sidered an argument for their being earlier.
When we look closely at the sculptures of the Moissac cloister (111. 262-273), we notice that the faces are more individualized and better characterized than those of Silos or Cluny. The hair conven- tions also are more naturalistic and more varied. The hat of the St. John at Moissac (111. 269) seems obviously more advanced than that of the Silos Christ at Emmaus (111. 667). The hair of the St. James at Moissac (111. 265) is evidently more developed than the hair at Silos (111. 667). The ornamental borders to the garments of St. Durand (111. 262, 264) and St. James (111. 265) at Moissac have no counterpart at Silos (111. 667-673). The cross of St. Andrew at Silos (111. 673) seems more primitive than that of the seraph of the St.-Sernin ambulatory (111. 298). The letters of the inscriptions at Santo Domingo (111. 667-673) are more archaic than those of Moissac (111. 262-273).
We look through the entire field of XII century sculpture without finding a single parallel for the style of Santo Domingo. The reader will only have to compare the photographs of monuments like Ripoll
SANTO DOMINGO DE SILOS $$
(111. 561-593) or Leire (111. 712-716) to be convinced of the wide gulf which separates such works from Silos.
We may, therefore, I think, conclude that the sculptures of Santo Domingo de Silos were executed, precisely as the documentary evi- dence indicates, in the last third of the XI century.
The question whence this art was derived remains. It can perhaps never be fully answered. We have seen that the Silos reliefs present numerous points of contact with earlier and contemporary ivory- carvings of Spain. Certainly local tradition must be credited with having contributed fundamentally to the formation of the style.
It may be suspected that the Benedictine style of Monte Cassino influenced the development of this sculpture. Santo Domingo was, we know, during his entire life in close touch with Monte Cassino.1 It is perhaps this common Benedictine influence that explains the points of contact between Santo Domingo with Cluny on the one hand and S. Clemente of Rome on the other. The church of San Marcello of Capua contains a southern portal (111. 166) which shows analogies both with Cluny and with Santo Domingo. Now this church depended directly upon Monte Cassino.2
The similarities between Santo Domingo and the sculptures of St. Emmeran of Regensburg are probably to be accounted for by the German influence which we have seen was exerted upon Spanish ivories.
Another and unexpected analogy with the Santo Domingo sculp- tures is not so easily explained. There is an obvious similarity with the reliefs of Chichester cathedral in England.3 These are believed by Messrs. Prior and Gardner to date from as early as c. 1000. We have already remarked numerous similarities between the sculptures of Silos and manuscripts of the school of Winchester. Even more
1 Fategati, 27.
2 Inscriptions connect the church with the abbot Alferius, who is mentioned in 1 1 13 (Schulz, II, 165). One of these placed over the western portal reads :
* DA[T] XPO BALVAS: ABBAS ALFERIVS ALBAS \ F VT CAELI REGNVM : VALEAT PENETRARE SUPERNVM
' Illustrated by Prior and Gardner, 138.
$6 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
striking are the points of contact with an English Latin Gospel of the XI century.1 In this we find the Silos feeling for line and delicacy. But most striking of all is the similarity of Silos to an English manu- script of the first half of the XII century from Bury St. Edmunds.2 The Christ of the Silos Journey to Emmaus (111. 667) in facial type, cap, attenuation, and movement of lines is strikingly similar to the protagonist in a miracle of St. Edmund ; the grouping of the crowd in the miniature recalls the relief of Doubting Thomas (111. 671), although it is somewhat less rhythmic. A New Testament written at Bury St. Edmunds in the first half of the XII century 3 is similar in style to the Miracles of St. Edmund, and also presents analogies with the work at Silos. I can only suppose that the same work of art, perhaps an English miniature, served as prototype for both the Silos reliefs and these manuscripts of the XII century.4
It is a singular fact that a Beatus manuscript of 1109, written for the abbey of Santo Domingo, shows no affinity with the sculptures, but similarity to Irish miniatures.5
From the aesthetic point of view, the reliefs of Santo Domingo represent a notable achievement. The formal and archaic compo- sition is founded upon a subtle appreciation of the significance of opposed lines and masses. How satisfactory, for example, is the grouping of the guards about the tomb of Christ (111. 670) ; how ex- quisite the two end figures, lunging strongly outward from the central group, as in a Pontormo drawing. There is the perfection of balance in the Nicodemus and the Joseph of Arimathea bending
1 Illustrated in the Burlington Catalogue, PI. 21, No. 21.
2 Illustrated in the Burlington Catalogue, PI. 23, No. 18. I owe this observation to Mr. Cook.
3 Illustrated in the Burlington Catalogue, PI. 28, No. 23.
4 This might also account for the similarities between Silos and Cluny, for Cluny as we shall see was under the strong influence of manuscripts of the school of Winchester. What is puz- zling is that the Bury St. Edmunds Testament seems to show evidence of having itself fallen under the influence of sculpture. The draperies of the Christ in the upper part of the miniature to which we have referred look as if they had been inspired by the Virgin of the Annunciation of the Moissac porch (111. 376).
5 British Museum, Add. MS. 11, 695. Illustrated by Bond and Thompson, I, 48-49. The Ryerson Beatus, of the end of the XII century on the other hand, resembles th\ ^
tures in the rigid rows of figures, and in the hands raised, palm outwards. ->oll
SANTO DOMINGO DE SILOS 57
over the dead Christ; and the diagonal line formed by the lid of the sarcophagus is singularly happy. We shall have to journey far before we encounter again composition as original and as success- ful. And can even the proudest moment of the Italian Renaissance show a relief to equal the Pentecost (111. 673) — apparently the earliest, and certainly the finest of the series — with the twelve apostles, like candle-flames, swirling towards the Day-Spring from on high ?
The historical importance of Santo Domingo de Silos is very great. Its direct influence may be traced in such monuments as the cloister at Moissac (111. 262-287), tfte porch at Souillac (111. 343-352), and the cloisters at Aries (111. 1344-1365) and St.-Guilhem-le-Desert (111. 1 397-1 399). From such centres as these, its message could be carried to well-nigh every sculptor of the XII century in Europe.
There is one other monument which should be studied before we turn away from the XI century in Spain. This is the grand Virgin (111. 770) now in the Madrid Museo Arqueologico, and coming from Sahagun. Sahagun, a focal point on the road of St. James, was the most important Cluniac possession in Spain. The statue 1 lacks the delicacy of technique characteristic of Santo Domingo, but in com- pensation possesses something of the aloofness and impassivity of Mr. Berenson's Bodhisattva which it so unexpectedly resembles, even in technical detail. The folds of the drapery are doubtless derived from Cluny ; something in the shape of the group with two symmetrical and strongly empathic curves, reaching their widest point at the hips, recalls the tympanum of Charlieu (111. 4), which is dated 1094. The zig-zag drapery edges are also like Charlieu. This way of treating the drapery edge is, however, very ancient in Spain, being found in an Iberian statue of the Madrid Museum (111. 637). 2 Evidently the Virgin of Sahagun is a product of the last years of the XI century; in fact, there can be no doubt that it belonged to
1 It was found placed " al centro de una ventana tapiada de la iglesia de San Tirso, para cuyo punto indudablemente no habia sido hecha" (Juan de Dios, in Museo, VII, 289). Thence it went to Leon, and to Madrid in 1869.
* For the history of the motive, see below, p. 72.
58 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the church of Sahagun begun in 1080 l and consecrated in 1099. 2 The Virgin is seated on a chair, the legs of which are carved at the ends to represent animals' claws. This is the earliest example I know of a motive destined to win great popularity in the XII century.
1 Lamperez, I, 692. 2 Escalona, 88.
THE BARI THRONE
The throne at S. Niccola of Bari (111. 152-155) is dated 1098 by an inscription l and by a contemporary chronicle.2
The archivolt of the ancient portal of the cathedral at Monopoli (111. 158-162), a building begun in 1107,3 is, as Wackernagel has recognized,4 by the same hand.5
Now, what is extraordinary, is that certain sculptures at St.- Gilles in Provence show close analogies with the style of this sculp- tor who worked in Apulia at the end of the XI and the beginning of the XII century. The lioness of remarkable realism beneath the Bari throne (111. 155) is exceedingly like the animals in procession below the St.-Gilles frieze (111. 13 16). The lioness just below the Flagellation (111. 1322), for example, has the same head, the same ears, the same eyes, the same nose, the same body, the same legs, the same claws, the same lank proportions. This resemblance is the
1 * INCLITVS ATQ. BONVS SEDET HAC IN SEDE PATRONVS PRESVL BARINVS HELIAS ET CANVSINVS
2 MLXXXXVIIII. Ind. VII. Tertia die intrante mense Octubr. v6nit Papa Urbanus cum plures Archiepiscopi, et Episcopi, Abbatibus, et Commitibus, intraverunt in Bari, et suscepti sunt cum magna reverentia, et praeparavit Domino Helia nostro Archiepiscopo mirificam sedem intus in Ecclesia Beatissimi Nicolay confessoris Christi. Et fecit ibi Synodum per unam ebdomada. Post completis dies octo perrexit in pace; et in mense Julii obiit ipse Papa Ur- banus, et surrexit Pascalis Papa. (Anonymi Barensis Chronicon, ed. Muratori, Rerum Itali- carum Script ores, V, 155).
3 The archivolt bears the inscription : • f MILLENIS ANNIS CENTENISATQ; P[ER]ACTIS SEPTENIS. NAT' DEI XPS VENTVS IN ORBE: HOC FSVL TEPLV IVSSIT FIERI ROMOALDVS: ANNIS T DENIS PLENIS SIBI PONTIFICATV; TEMPORE SVB COMITIS MAGNI DNI Q' ROBERT' AVXILIO CVIVS TEPLI LABOR EDITVS HVIVS. I
4 44..
5 It is unnecessary to repeat here what has already been said by Wackernagel, and never questioned. The intelligent reader may indeed easily convince himself that the Monopoli archivolt and the Bari throne are works of the same artist by comparing the photographs (111. 152-155 and 111. 158-162). On the other hand the archivolt at-Acerenza is inferior in quality, and the work of a copyist.
60 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
more striking that such naturalistic animal sculptures are excep- tional in Romanesque art. These animals would indeed make us think of Barye rather than of the XI or XII century. Nor do I know of any other representation of a lioness in Romanesque sculpture.
The heads of the angels of the Monopoli archivolt are very simi- lar to the heads below the frieze and on the capitals of St.-Gilles. Compare with the heads of Monopoli (111. 158-162) the head just below the Flagellation (111. 1322) or on the capital beneath (111. 1322). In both there is the same round proportion, the same low forehead, the same broad, flat nose, the same line from the nose to the corners of the mouth, the same arched eye-brows, the same in- cised pupils, the same execution of the eye-lids, the same round flabby chin, the same dimple between the chin and the mouth. The head in the lioness* mouth at Bari (111. 155) is very like the head be- neath the Money Changers at St.-Gilles (111. 1316). The man in the mouth of the lion under St. Peter at St.-Gilles (111. 1325 a) has draperies of precisely the same peculiar type as those of the sup- porting figures of the Bari throne (111. 152). The lions beneath the foot-stool of the Bari throne (111. 152) are similar to those beneath the great statues at St.-Gilles (111. 1325 a, 1325 b) ; the motive of supporting lions is essentially Italian; three of the lions at St.- Gilles have manes executed according to the same peculiar and characteristic convention as that of the right-hand lion under the Bari throne (111. 152).
I can only account for such analogies by supposing that the ani- mals and heads below the St.-Gilles frieze, numerous capitals, and the four lions beneath the statues flanking the central portal in the same church are by a sculptor from Apulia, and probably by the very master of the Bari throne. We shall later find reason to believe that these portions of the St.-Gilles facade were in construction about 1140. They are therefore some forty years later than the Bari throne. In fact the style of the work at St.-Gilles is unmistakably more mature and advanced.
THE BARI THRONE 61
The question arises whether the Bari master may have also col- laborated in the production of the celebrated frieze of St.-Gilles (111. 131 5-1322) which bears indubitable traces of being the work of more than one hand. The scene of the Betrayal (111. 13 19, 1320) notably differs from the other portions of the frieze ; and it should be observed that the hair of Judas is executed according to the same striking and peculiar convention used in one of the supporting fig- ures of the Bari throne (111. 154). This convention is again repeated in the Peter and the executioner behind Judas in the same scene. The latter wears a peculiar conical casque, very like the one of the supporting figure of the Bari throne (111. 154).1
The origin of this sculptor whose activity covers the first half of the XII century, and who wandered from Apulia to Provence be- comes a matter of considerable interest. Unfortunately the evi- dence is insufficient to make possible a definite solution of the problem.
His earliest work known to us is in Apulia. We have seen that a school of sculpture of high merit existed in that province as early as the second quarter of the XI century. Are we on the basis of these facts to award Apulia the same hegemony in Romanesque sculpture that has been claimed for her in that of the Renaissance ?
Only one monument of Lombard sculpture is earlier than the Bari throne, and that is the tomb of S. Alberto at Pontida, exe- cuted presumably immediately after the death of the saint in 1095. The similarity of the Bari throne to this work is evident, although not strikingly close. The animals in both are good ; although the horse of the Pontida St. James 2 is far from rivalling the superlative excellence of the lioness of the Bari throne. The mane at Pontida is indicated by a convention not dissimilar to that used for the manes at Bari. The faces of the supporting figures at Bari and of the Pontida St. James are of the same heavy type, with massive jaw.
1 Caps of the same type are found on two capitals of V6zelay (111. 31).
2 The tomb of S. Alberto at Pontida is illustrated in Porter, Lombard Architecture, IV, Plate 189, Fig. 1,2.
62 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The Pontida reliefs are more closely related to the Porta dei Leoni of S. Niccola at Bari (111. 156). The archivolt of this portal is obviously a more ancient fragment re-employed in the present door- way ; its evident similarities of style with the throne 1 make it cer- tain that it belonged to that church of S. Niccola which was begun in 1087/ which two contemporary documents state was in construc- tion in 1089,3 of which the crypt was built in 1090,4 which was suffi- ciently advanced in 1098 to accommodate a papal council 5 which was consecrated in 1105/ of which the steps of the ciborium were executed after the death of Elia in 1105 7 and before that of Eus- tachio in 11 23/ and which two contemporary inscriptions explicitly state was built by Elia (1089-1105), and which, an inscription tells us, was adorned by Eustachio (1105-1123). The archivolt may therefore be considered as certainly anterior to 1105.
When we compare this archivolt 9 with the Pontida St. James we are at once struck by the similarity of the horses. The movement of the legs is the same, also the drawing of the eyes and ears. We notice, too, that the same curious little convention of hollow circles
1 The conical casque of the central supporting figure of the throne reappears in the right- hand horseman of the archivolt ; the facial types are very similar ; the right leg of the figure to the right of the centre in the archivolt reproduces, line for line, the right leg of the central sup- porting figure ; there is the same comprehension of plastic form, the same mastery of anatomy.
2 Wackernagel, 59.
3 Cod. Dip. Bar., V, 23, 25.
4 Mill. LXXXX Ind. XIII. Mense Sept. intravit Urbanus Papa in civitate Bari, et conse- cravit Helias Archiepiscopus in civitate Bari prid. Octubr. Et in Kal. Octubr. edificavit con- fessionem Sancti Nicolai. (Anonymi Barensis Chronicon, ed. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum ScriptoreSy V, 154.) Elia was in fact consecrated not in 1090 but in 1089.
5 See above, p. 59.
6 Wackernagel, 2.
7 They bear the inscription :
* HIS GRADIBVS TVMIDIS ASCENSVS AD ALTA IECATVR HIS GRADIBVS BLANDIS QVERERE CELSA DATVR ERGO NE TVMEAS QVI SVRSVM SCANDERE QVERIS SIS HVMILIS SVPPLEX PLANVS ET ATVS ERIS VT PATER HELAS HOC TEMPLVM Q PRIVS EGIT QVOD PATER EVSTASIVS SIC DECORANDO REGIT
8 Bertaux, 450 f., concedes this date for the steps, but places the ciborium 1 139-1 154 because of the enamel plaque representing St. Nicolas crowning King Roger. This plaque, however, might easily be later than the ciborium, just as the portrait of Victor Emmanuel III in the choir might easily be later than the empty chair beneath it.
9 See especially the large-size details published by Wackernagel, Tafel XXVII d and e.
THE BARI THRONE 63
is used to indicate the mail of the knights at Bari, and to decorate the saddle-strap of the horse at Pontida. The facial types and hair conventions are very similar.
An even closer analogy with the Bari archivolt is, however, offered by the Porta della Pescheria at Modena.1 In the two is rep- resented the same strange iconographical subject — the inscrip- tions at Modena make it certain that we are dealing with a lost episode of the Arthurian cycle. In both knights on horse-back ap- proach from either side a central stronghold, which is defended by other warriors. The horses are very analogous; the knights are dressed in similar armour, with coat of mail reaching to their knees, pointed shields, lances with pennants, and conical casques. At Modena the casques have nose-pieces, at Bari they have not ; and at Modena the mail covers the throats and chin, which at Bari are left exposed.2 This is the armour which was in use in the last years of the XI or early years of the XII century and analogous to that which we have found at Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 670). The saddles and bridles are of the same type except that at Bari there is a strap passing underneath the horses* tails, which is lacking at Modena.
An archivolt of the cathedral of Angouleme (111. 939) executed as we shall see 3 between 11 10 and 11 28 should be compared with the two archivolts of Bari and Modena. It also represents a combat of cavaliers before a walled town. The horses are more poorly drawn than either those of Bari or of Modena, but are of essentially the same type, and the movement of the legs is the same. At Angou- leme the shields are round, instead of pointed ; the saddles have sometimes a tail strap as at Bari ; the lances are without pennants ; 4
1 For a detailed study of these sculptures see my Lombard Architecture, III, 44 f.
2 These two peculiarities would seem to indicate a somewhat later date for Modena than for Bari. In chronological questions it is, however, dangerous to place too much reliance upon details of costume.
8 P. 307.
4 This is the more singular that the Church at Vezelay a dated sculpture of 11 20 (illus- trated by Por6e, 17) holds a lance with pennant; one also is attached to the lance in the Ex- ternstein of the Teutoberger Forest, dated 11 15 (illustrated by Dehio, abb. 412).
64 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
three of the knights have conical casques, like those of Bari and Modena, but a peculiarity is that from one of these casques and from the crown of King Arthur, there seems to flutter a sort of veil. The mail falls in a skirt to the knees, as at both Modena and Bari, but covers the chin as at Bari, but not at Modena. At Modena and Bari the saddles have only one girth, whereas at Angouleme they have two — this is an indication that Angouleme is later than the other two. The straps of the harness at Angouleme are ornamented with little circles like those of the St. James at Pontida.
By this comparison of the details, the reader will doubtless have been convinced of the close relationship of the three reliefs, but he will have seen that the indications for priority are contradictory and confusing. On the whole, Angouleme seems distinctly the latest of the three, and it appears more closely affiliated with Bari than with Modena. Between Bari and Modena, the latter seems more restful and abler, and is therefore presumably earlier. If the archivolt of Modena was sculptured soon after work was begun on the cathedral in 1099, it is possible that it might have been copied at Bari before 1 105, and that Bari might have been copied at Angouleme in the second decade of the XII century.
The motive of cavaliers jousting is by no means confined to the three reliefs which we have been studying. We find it in a manu- script of St. Albans, earlier than 1146, and preserved at Hildes- heim.1 Here it is explained that what is seen corporaliter must be understood spiritualiter ; these warriors who fight should recall to us the spiritual combats we must wage against evil. Evidently a pious cleric is inventing an edifying sermon upon an artistic motive that originated with a very different and purely secular meaning which had, perhaps, already been forgotten.
That the motive did not develop from the reliefs of the Arthurian cycle which we have been studying is indicated by the fact that it is found on the ivory box of the cathedral of Pamplona, dated 1005.2
1 Illustrated by Goldschmidt, Albanipsalter, 46 f.
2 Illustrated by Bertaux, Exp. Ret.y 205.
THE BARI THRONE 6s
It enjoyed considerable popularity in Spain, being found in a Span- ish manuscript,1 on a capital of the chapter-house of Santa Cruz de Rivas (Palencia), on the ablution-basin of Jativa (Valencia),2 on a capital of the Catedral Vieja at Salamanca (111. 736) and on a capi- tal of the Eremita de Revenga (Segovia).3
It was in Italy, however, that the motive was most widely dif- fused. We find it sculptured upon a relief of c. 11 20 walled into the campanile of S. Stefano of Pavia,4 and in another of the Palazzo Municipale of Narni.5 It also occurs on capitals of Sta. Sofiaof Bene- vento, S. Giovanni in Borgo of Pavia and S. Agata dei Goti.6 In Dalmatia it is found in a sculpture now in the Museo S. Donato at Zara.7
In France I know only three examples of the motive : a sculpture in the Musee Ochier at Cluny (111. 27), a relief in the apse of St.- Gildas-de-Rhuis and a relief flanking the portal of the priory at Anzy-le-Duc.
The motive, therefore, appears to be at home in Italy or in Spain rather than in the North.
The one monument of the North which does offer close analogies with the archivolts of Modena and Bari and the architrave of An- gouleme is the Bayeux " tapestry." When we compare the warriors here with those of the Porta della Pescheriawe notice great simi- larity in the armour. The embroidery shows the same pointed shields (although a few round ones are introduced) some plain, some with devices ; the same conical casques with nose-pieces ; spears of the same type with identical banners ; in both some of the cavaliers are in armour and helmeted, others without armour and bare- headed. The one essential difference is that the Modena warriors in armour have a coat of mail with skirts, while those of the Bayeux
1 Illustrated in Museo Espanol de Antiguedades, IX, unnumbered plate.
2 Illustrated by Fatigati, II.
3 Illustrated in the Boleti'n de la Sociedad Espanola de Excursiones, 1895, IXI> S2-
4 Illustrated in my Lombard Architecture, IV, Plate 179, Fig. 1.
5 Illustrated ibid., Plate 179, Fig. 3.
6 Bertaux, Ital. Mir., 476.
7 Illustrated by Gurlitt, 74.
66 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
embroidery wear tight-fitting trousers. The "tapestry" which as Mr. Roger Loomis has shown certainly dates from not long after 1066, resembles Modena more closely than Bari or Angouleme; the chronological order appears to be Bayeux, Modena, Bari, Angouleme.1
We therefore conclude that the atelier of Modena influenced that of Bari. But there are also other indications that the atelier of Bari influenced that of Modena.
The Bari throne was carved in 1098 ; the cathedral of Modena was not begun until 1099. There is consequently no doubt that the throne is earlier than the sculptures by Guglielmo at Modena.2 But these sculptures resemble the throne so closely that it would seem they must have been thence inspired.
Motives characteristic of the art of Guglielmo, and apparently from him passed on to later sculpture, are supporting lions and sup- porting human figures. Now both of these are found in the throne of Bari (111. 152). Nor do the resemblances end here. The curious wire hair of the supporting figure to the left of the Bari throne (111. 153) reappears constantly in Guglielmo's work, for example, in the figure to the left, next to the ark, in the relief of Noah and his three sons. One of Guglielmo's most striking peculiarities is the in- dicating of the folds of the drapery by two parallel incised lines ; now this occurs also on the Bari throne (111. 154). Another ear-mark of his style is the wave-like pattern formed by the lower edges of his garments. This also is found in the central supporting figure at Bari (111. 154). The facial types, with low forehead, bulging cheeks and heavy chin are the same at Bari and at Modena. In both the figures are of the same stodgy proportions, with heads too big for their bodies. In both there is the same vigorous and plastic, but not over-refined, attack. The anatomy and drawing of the nude shows in both the same power and the same ignoring of physical facts. The
1 The armour portrayed on the portable altar of the school of Cologne, now in the Louvre (illustrated by Creutz, 15) seems to be of a type later than that of Bari, and perhaps also later than Angouleme.
2 See Porter, Lombard Architecture, III, 3s f; IV, Plates 142, 143, 144, 145.
THE BARI THRONE 67
supporting figure under the Deity at Modena bends his legs in the same curves, and carries his load on the back of his bowed neck, pre- cisely as do the supporting figures at Bari (111. 154). Such similari- ties are not due to chance. The Bari throne is by a master distinct from, I think, Guglielmo, but surely closely related to him.
A strange piece of evidence bearing upon this question has been discovered by Mr. Roger Loomis. He has observed that the name Wiligelmus signed on the Modena facade is very like Wilgelmus, which is one of the forms of the name used upon the Bayeux em- broidery. From this he concludes that the sculptor of Modena was a Norman. Now nothing in the art of Guglielmo would lead us to suppose that he came from sculpture-less Normandy. If his name be Norman, it must be that he was a Norman of Apulia, with the art of which region, we have seen, his style shows close affinities.
There is reason to suspect that the architecture of the cathedral of Modena, begun in 1099, was influenced by that of Bari, begun in 1087. At Modena we find a sharp turning away from the vaulted type of church which had been in use up to that date in Lombardy. The introduction of a wooden roof at Modena, the design of the false triforium gallery, the columns of the intermediate piers — all features hitherto unaccounted for — must be ascribed to the in- fluence of S. Niccola.1
On the other hand, there is every reason to suppose that the arch- itecture of S. Niccola was influenced by Lombardy. The arched corbel-tables must have been thence derived. The porches are later than, and presumably copied from, those of Guglielmo at Modena.2 The developed crypt is a Lombard feature.
There are other analogies between the art of Apulia and that of Lombardy which must be taken into consideration. If we compare the capital in the crypt of S. Niccola at Bari representing lions (111. 151), the two bodies of which are united by a single head placed in the angle, with the same motive on the pulpit of S. Ambrogio at
1 See my article in Studies in Art, Vol. I, No. I.
2 1 owe to one of my students, Mr. H. R. Hitchcock, Jr., the observation that the motive of supporting the columns on corbels is derived from the palace at Spalato.
68 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Milan (111. 175), we shall at once be struck by the similarity. The motive itself is peculiar and thoroughly Lombard. Furthermore, we notice that the mane is executed according to the same conven- tion, the tail is twisted about the legs in the same way, the eyes and nose are similar. Such close resemblances are not due to chance ; the two works belong to the same art.
We note, moreover, a marked analogy between the supporting figures of the Bari throne (111. 152) and the supporting figure at the angle of the S. Ambrogio pulpit (111. 175).1 The lions of the Bari throne (111. 152) are very analogous to the one above a capital of the S.. Ambrogio pulpit (111. 174). Both crouch in the same peculiarly flattened position, with the body not quite touching the ground ; in both the tail twists around the hind leg ; in both the body is very long ; and the mane of the S. Ambrogio lion is executed by the same convention as that of the lion on the Bari capital (111. 151). Finally we notice that the faces of the Milan pulpit are precisely the same as those of the Bari throne.
In this case the weight of evidence seems to show that Lombardy derived from Apulia ; for the lions of S. Ambrogio and Bari are anal- ogous to the lions under the throne of Monte S. Angelo, a monu- ment believed to date from the XI century.2 Indeed the indications are that the idea of using sculptured animals for supports and also that of using sculptured human beings for the same purpose devel- oped in Apulia earlier than in Lombardy.
It is, however, probably idle to debate whether Lombardy antici- pated Apulia, or Apulia Lombardy. What seems certain is that be- tween Lombardy and Apulia, and especially between Modena and Bari we have an interlocking relationship such as we shall presently discover between Toulouse and Santiago. There were influences back and forth in both directions. The art of the two regions, so widely separated geographically, was the same.
1 In the much later capital of Mozac, in Auvergne (111. 1224), the position of the arms is still the same.
2 Bertaux, Ital. Mer., 449.
THE BARI THRONE 69
Nor is it at all clear whence this Lombard-Apulian art is derived. It seems to appear suddenly, without preparation, in both regions. Like so much Western art, it was undoubtedly influenced by Byzantium. It is, I suppose, from the East that the motive of sup- porting figures, so prominent in Lombardy and Apulia, is ulti- mately derived. This motive is found as early as the IX century in the Utrecht Psalter,1 to which Graeven2 believes that it came from a Byzantine original. A supporting figure with crossed legs, quite Lombard-Apulian in character, and labelled TERRA is at the foot of a Crucifixion on a book-cover with portraits of Otto III and his mother Theophano (hence dating from the end of the X century).3 Schlumberger believes that this book-cover is of Byzantine work- manship ; it was certainly strongly influenced by Byzantine models. There is a supporting figure at the base of the Madrid crucifix of 1063 (111. 654) ; here again I can only suppose that the motive is due to Byzantine influence.4
The peculiar convention for the treatment of the manes of the lions and horses to which we have already called attention in Lom- bard-Apulian works I suppose also to have been derived from some lost or unknown Byzantine model. It is found in Spain at a very early period. We notice it, for example, on the capitals of San Pedro de la Nave, a church which has been called Visigothic, but which is more probably a Mozarabic construction of the IX century. The same manes recur on the Pamplona ivory box of 1005, and on the S. Millan Area (111. 638-649).
The lioness of the Bari throne (111. 155) and the life-like animals of the St.-Gilles frieze (111. 13 16) recall the animals depicted in the mosaics of Kief, which date from 1040 5 and the naturalistic tigers on an ivory book-cover of the British Museum,6 executed for the
1 Folio 57. 2 33-34.
3 Illustrated by Schlumberger, I, 440.
4 A supporting figure is found in a miniature of the Gospels of Countess Matilda, a dated manuscript of 1098-1099 in the Morgan Library, illustrated by Warner XXII. But this man- uscript seems to have copied sculpture — at least the draperies are derived from the Grado throne.
5 Illustrated by Schlumberger, III, 409.
6 Egerton MS. 1 139, illustrated by Dalton, PI. XVI.
70 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Angevin court in Jerusalem presumably between 1118 and 1131, and showing strong Byzantine and Plantagenet influences. Nor is it probable that the motive of lions used as supports originated in the Lombard-Apulian school. The sarcophagus of Pelayo at Cova- donga is carried on two crouching lions.
The peculiar spiral curls of the Bari master also seem to be de- rived from Byzantine precedents. Something very like them is found in a Coptic relief of St. Menas from Thekla 1 dating from the V or VI century, as well as in several panels of ivory from the Grado throne 2 also, it appears, a Coptic work of the V or VI cen- tury.
The peculiar square shape of the wings of the angels at Monopoli (111. 158-162) recurs on capitals of the cloister at Moissac (111. 282) and at St.-Sernin of Toulouse (111. 300). Are we here again to sup- pose a common Byzantine prototype ? 3
In any event the busts of angels in the voussures of the portal at St.-Trophime of Aries (111. 1372) must be of Apulian origin. They are dissimilar to any voussure sculptures in France, but like those of the Monopoli archivolt (111. 158-162), except that they are placed parallel to the voussures, instead of radiating.
1 Illustrated by Kaufmann, 65.
2 Published by Maclagen, 1 87.
3 The number of parallels between Monopoli and Spain and Aquitaine is certainly striking. The Christ of the Deposition in the architrave of Monopoli (111. 157) — by a different hand from the archivolt — is exceedingly like the Christ of the Leon crucifix (111. 703) and that of New York (111. 710).
VI CLUNY
The church of the abbey of Charlieu was consecrated in 1094. Of this building there still exists the western portal (111. 4). About 1140 the celebrated outer porch (111. 108-110) was added. A comparison of the two works makes it obvious that the inner porch is in style much more primitive than the outer. It is therefore entirely natural to conclude that the inner portal is a dated monument of 1094.
However, as in so many other cases, modern archaeological opin-» ion has set aside the documents, and concluded that the style of the inner portal is so advanced that it must have been executed after the consecration of 1094.
I confess that I can see in the style nothing which is inconsistent with the date of 1094 indicated by the documents. The capitals which still survive in the eastern bays of the ruined nave of Charlieu are precisely like those still in place on the exterior of the absidial chapels of Cluny. Cluny begun in 1088 was consecrated in 1095. The absidial chapels, the first part to be erected, must therefore certainly date from 1088-1095. Charlieu, consecrated in 1094, would be con- temporary, and in fact the style of the capitals is identical. The agreement of the external and internal evidence is complete. It would indeed be a strange chance if both documents were unreliable, and both churches reconstructed exactly the same number of years after their consecration.
Moreover, the style of the older tympanum at Charlieu (111. 4) is precisely the style of the last decade of the XI century. Compare the Christ in an aureole with the same subject in the Area Santa at Oviedo (111. 657), a dated monument of 1075. Notwithstanding the obvious differences, easily comprehensible in monuments separated by many hundreds of kilometres, it is clear at a glance that the two
72 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
works present striking analogies. The draperies fall in the same zig- zag edges.1 Above the feet of the Christs, the draperies in the two works flare out in precisely the same manner. There is the same ropy feeling in the folds. The position of the two Christs with spread-apart knees and raised right hand is identical. The concep- tion of an aureole held by angels is the same, and the wings of the upper angels at Oviedo are spread out to fill the space, just as are those of the Charlieu angels to fill a slightly different space. I can see nothing in the Charlieu relief inconsistent with the style of the last decade of the XI century as shown by the Oviedo Area Santa. In fact, the Oviedo work would seem if anything rather later. The lower angels in contorted positions recall those which we shall find in Burgundian sculpture of the XII century.
The draperies of the tympanum of Charlieu are very analogous to those of the Salerno altar- frontal of 1084.
When the Christ of Charlieu (111. 4) is compared with that of Arles-sur-Tech (111. 518), a dated monument of 1046, it is seen that the two are strikingly similar in composition. This is evidently the type of the XI century. If at Charlieu the draperies are somewhat more naturalistically rendered, that is easily accounted for by the half century which separates the two works.
When we compare the Christ of Charlieu (111. 4) with that of Regensburg (111. 1279), dated 1049-1064, we find an even more patent analogy. Here the draperies are rendered by a convention which is different from that of Charlieu, but which is hardly less realistic. The attitude is again the same, with spread-apart knees, book held in the left hand, and the right hand raised in benediction.
1 This convention, which we have seen, can be traced as far back as Iberian times in Spain (111. 637), was also characteristic of archaic and archaistic classical sculpture. It occurs, for example, in the statue of Minerva found in 1902, and now in the museum of Poitiers. Some- thing very like it is found in ivory book-covers of the Ada group in the Brussels Museum (illus- trated by Pelka,9i),and in the vision of Ezekiel in the XI century Bible of S. Callisto (illus- trated by Clemen, 63). It also occurs in two ivories of the X century in the British Museum illustrated by Dalton, PI. XXIV, 46. It is found, as we have seen, p. 57, in the Virgin of Sahagun of 1099, and, as we shall see, in the works of Guglielmo at Modena and Cremona, and at St.-Sernin of Toulouse (111. 319).
CLUNY 73
The throne is even decorated with similar little openings, which are also characteristic of the throne of the Christ of the Oviedo Area Santa (111. 657). In view of the fact that the Regensburg Christ is known to date from the fifth or sixth decade of the XI century, it seems a bold assertion to say that the style of the Charlieu tym- panum is such that it must have been executed in the XII century.
Similarly, when we place the Charlieu Christ (111. 4) beside the Christ of the ambulatory of St.-Sernin of Toulouse (111. 296), a monu- ment which really does date from the early years of the XII century, we perceive that Charlieu is earlier. The draperies are simpler and more primitive; the modelling is less elaborate; the throne is ren- dered in less detail, and is less ornamented.
I have therefore no hesitation in setting down the Charlieu tym- panum as an authentically dated monument of 1094, and in using it as a foundation-stone for the study of the chronology of Roman- esque sculpture.
The question arises whether the lintel of Charlieu is contemporary with the tympanum. The style is certainly different, and it must be admitted that the two are not by the same hand. I do not think, however, that it is necessary to suppose that the lintel was a frag- ment brought from an earlier church. A marked difference of style in contemporary works is one of the'eharacteristics of Burgundian sculpture, and need in no way disquiet us. The lintel is less skilfully executed than the tympanum, but the style does not appear to be essentially more archaic. It seems probable that the two were sculp- tured about the same time, and for the position which they still occupy, but by different masters.
The style of the Charlieu tympanum shows analogies with the art of Lombardy and with that of Aquitaine. The two angels holding the mandorla are similar to the Enoch and Elijah of Guglielmo holding the inscriptions of Modena and Cremona.1 The gestures are the same, the draperies have the same zig-zag. The faces of Charlieu have without exception been mutilated, but in the fragments that
1 See my article in the Gazette des Beaux Arts, LXI, 19 19, 50-51.
74 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
survive one seems to feel, or perhaps rather guess, a Guglielmo-esque character. The draperies have Guglielmo's heaviness and simplicity and the same rope-like treatment occurs. The lintel with arches re- calls the lintels of Piacenza, Ferrara and Verona.1 Below the lintel at Charlieu are two very Guglielmo-like supporting figures.
On the other hand, a relationship with Aquitaine is also probable. The lintel with apostles foreshadows that of St.-Sernin (111. 308). The type of Christ we have already seen is analogous to that of the St.-Sernin ambulatory, and the zig-zag drapery edges, as has been remarked, recur at Toulouse (111. 319).
These similarities perhaps justify the inference that Charlieu, an elder daughter of Cluny, may have exerted considerable artistic in- fluence, through the pilgrimages, along the roads to Rome and Com- postela.
The tympanum of Charlieu is the earliest example I know in the West of the motive of two angels holding an aureole with the figure of Christ, sculptured in stone, in the tympanum of a church. The theme became a favourite one in Burgundian sculpture, and spread thence all over Europe. It undoubtedly came to Charlieu from the Orient.
In sculpture, we find the motive in the Coptic tympanum of Daschlut,2 at Mzchet in the VII century,3 and at Achthamar in Armenia 4 in the early X century. A Byzantine stone relief of the X-XI centuries, representing the twelve festivals, now in the treas- ure of the cathedral of Toledo, has a rounded top in which Christ is represented between two angels and two cherubim. The composition approaches that of Charlieu, except that there is no aureole, and Christ holds His hands down, not raised in blessing. Finally the lin- tels of St.-Genis (111. 513) and St.-Andre (111. 514), both as we have
1 A propos of the relationship of Guglielmo with France, it is interesting to compare the Enoch and Elijah reliefs of Modena and Cremona with the mosaic representing the same prophets at Cruas (illustrated by Revoil, III, PI. LXXVIII-LXXIX). The Cruas mosaic is dated 1098, and is therefore slightly earlier than the reliefs.
2 Illustrated by Strzygowski, Hell, und Kopt. Kunst, 11.
3 Illustrated by Strzygowksi, Armen., 433. *Ibid.y 602.
CLUNY 75
seen executed under Byzantine influence, offer evident analogies with the Charlieu composition.
Among ivories we find the motive of Christ in an aureole sup- ported by angels in the Barberini ivory of the Louvre, an Alexan- drine work of the IV-VI centuries.1 With this should be compared the Murano ivory of the same period in the Ravenna museum.2 The Ascension of the Metz group in the Louvre 3 vaguely foreshadows lintels and tympana like Montceaux-rEtoile (111. 104). The aureole with the Deity supported by two angels is of frequent occurrence in ivories of the Ada group, which are admitted to be strongly in- fluenced by Byzantine models.4 Angels supporting the aureole of Christ are found in a Metz group ivory of Veste Coburg 5 of the X century, in another of the same period at St.-Paul in Karnthen 6 in one of the first half of the XI century in the Kunstgewerbe Museum of Cologne,7 in another of the same period in the museum of Rouen,8 in the Evangelier of the Abtissen Theophanu, in the Stiftskirche of Essen,9 in an ivory box of the first half of the XI century at Osna- bruck,10 and in an ivory box of the late XI century at Darmstadt.11
A Mesopotamian manuscript of 586 gives reason to believe that the motive may have originated in the scene of the Ascension.12 Christ in an aureole is a theme which constantly occurs in the Utrecht Psalter ; He is often accompanied by angels, who occasion- ally even hold the aureole.13 A similar composition is found in the Chatsworth Benedictional of St.-Aethelwold, of the school of Win- chester dating from c. 980.14 St. Stephen is seen in an aureole sus- tained by two angels, and placed under an arch.
Among frescos we find the motive in Coptic work of the VI cen- tury,15 and at S. Angelo in Formis near Capua at the end of the XI
I Diehl, 274 2 Ibidy 2g3>
3 Goldschmidt, I, No. 87. 4 Ibid., I, Tafel VIII-IX. 5 Ibid., I, No. 87. 6 Ibid., No. 90.
7 Ibid., II, No. 47. 8 Ibid., II, No. 50.
9 Ibid., II, No. 29. 10 nid%i n, No> io2 e#
II Ibid., II, No. 103 e. 12 Diehl, 235.
13 Folio S3 b. 14 Illustrated by Wilson and Warner, folio 18.
18 Diehl, 67.
y6 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
century. The latter instance is especially illuminating because the fresco is in a lunette over the portal, and hence very closely analogous to, as well as contemporary with, the Charlieu sculptures. The Byzantine influence in the S. Angelo frescos may have been ex- aggerated, but is admitted.
In view of all this, the fact of Byzantine influence at Charlieu seems certain. It should also be observed in this connection that there are traces of Byzantine influence in later works of the Burgun- dian school. The movement and fluttering draperies characteristic of its productions are anticipated in the frescos of S. Vincenzo at Volturno 1 which are dated 820-843. The spirit of such works seems to have found its way into ivories as well as sculptures — see, for example, the book-cover called Franconian of about 1100 in the Kaiser Friederich Museum at Berlin.2
The Cluniac 3 priory of Mont-St.-Vincent has a sculptured tym- panum (111. 3) which appears to be more primitive in style than that of Charlieu (111. 4). The two evidently have relationship,4 and those who believe that cruder works are necessarily earlier, will see in Mont-St.-Vincent the prototype, in Charlieu the development. It must be remembered, however, that Mont-St.-Vincent is placed on the summit of a picturesque but inaccessible mountain. In the Middle Ages, mountain art seems generally to have been retarded art. We shall find in the XII century that mountainous Auvergne followed far behind advanced Burgundy, just as the Pyrenees lagged behind the plains of Toulouse and Spain, and the Apennines behind Tuscany and Lombardy. It may therefore very well be that in Mont-St.-Vincent we have sculpture which is merely a crude and
1 Illustrated by Rizzo e Toesca, III, 410. I presume that these most important frescos still exist in situ. In April, 1921, I made the long and fatiguing journey to see them, but having reached the crypt, found it locked, and all access denied. It was said that the keys had been carried off to Naples by the proprietor. Apparently no one had visited the crypt since 191 2. The frescos have been photographed by the Italian government.
2 Goldschmidt, II, No. 173.
3 Marrier, 1706,1711.
4 One of the capitals of Mont-Saint- Vincent is exactly like a capital of Charlieu. Beneath the lintel there is also a console with supporting figure.
CLUNY 77
retarded echo of earlier models, rather than an art which is genu- inely archaic.
Chateauneuf, on the other hand, lies in a region where there is no reason to expect retardataire forms. The lintel (111. 2) is extraordi- narily uncouth ; if we grant, as I think we must, that it is earlier than Charlieu, fifteen years is the least that we could allow for such an amount of progress. This would bring the Chateauneuf lintel to 1080 or earlier. The analogy with the lintel of Charlieu (111. 4) is obvious and striking ; this, indeed, seems to be the earliest extant example of this type of lintel, in which a series of figures, usually apostles, are placed in a row, often under arches. The motive which may well be ultimately derived from Early Christian sarcophagi became a stand- ard one in Burgundian art, and spread thence to Languedoc, to Spain, to Lombardy, to Tuscany, to Apulia and to northern France.
We are now face to face with the most thorny, and also the most delightful, problem offered by the history of Burgundian art — the capitals of Cluny. These admirable sculptures have been much praised from an aesthetic standpoint, but they will never be praised sufficiently. They are, indeed, one of the masterpieces of art of all time. The extraordinary delicacy of the technique, the mastery of line, the sureness of touch are unsurpassed, even by the paintings of Simone Martini or of Botticelli. In comparison the portals of Char- tres seem to lack finesse (111. 5-9).
The capitals of Cluny are a striking example of the quality that Mr. Berenson has named " illustration. " Among all the representa- tions that plastic art has consecrated to music, where shall we find another which has so caught the very spirit of song ? It is clear that the monks of this abbey loved the arts. In early times the reform of Cluny did not perhaps lack that austerity, almost puritanical, which later made the Cistercians enemies of beauty. A taste for art is com- monly the first step on the road to Avernus. Happily, the monks who constructed the abbey of Cluny had already journeyed some distance along this rose-embowered path. There is no doubt of their enthusiasm for art.
78 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
This, indeed, I suspect, is expressed in the capitals. Cluniac icon- ography was always highly complicated, and generally offers inten- tionally something of an intellectual puzzle. That it should, was entirely in accordance with the love of subtlety characteristic of the order. The complete meaning of the Cluny capitals has never been unravelled, and may perhaps long await a complete solution. The older archaeologists saw in certain of these enigmatic figures the arts of metal-work, miniature-painting and sculpture. This identifica- tion, indeed, is supported by no very convincing proofs,1 but none more satisfactory has yet been proposed.
However it may be in regard to the other fine arts, there is no doubt that the sculptor of Cluny has represented Music. Indeed, he dedicated to this subject eight reliefs. A smaller number would not have sufficed to express the multiple and changing character of melody. For mediaeval music, of which the sculptor of Cluny has so profoundly understood and expressed the charm, was essentially melodic. A heritage from the Greeks, it still preserved its sim- plicity and freshness; its wings had not yet been cut by the addition of complex harmonies. Mediaeval music, like the Greek, was founded on modes, each of which possessed a peculiar char- acter. The sculptor of Cluny has represented music in its eight different modes.
Compared with this conception of music, all other representations that I know seem flat and unprofitable. I shall not speak of modern works — that would be an unwarranted cruelty to an age that has already too much lost faith in itself; it is enough to turn to the figures of music on the French cathedrals of the XIII century. The merit of these sculptures is universally conceded ; yet how utterly such cold, lifeless and correct virgins striking little bells fail to express, like the capitals of