'
\
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 ( J 3) — 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) — Vezela y 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 Vezel ay (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 u pon G exmajiy_(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 XII e 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. 2 4 f. Z S<>.
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-
i 4 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,
x The 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 activ ity 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 Rhon e valley, as in the crypt of Cruas or the baptistry
of Venasque ; while in G erman y 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.-Erentrud y 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 Passau y
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 (t9 I 3) 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.
4 De 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-Rideau 1
(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 box 3 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 aureole 6 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
3 o 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 Acceptus 2 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. 2 II, 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.
4 o 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 miniatures 3 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), an d 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 Museo y 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 fi n d 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 > S 2 -
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 Graeven 2 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, an d 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 Cluny, the essence of the art ! It is only in India that we
find representations of the art of music in any way comparable to
those of Cluny. The Hindu artists also loved to paint the eight
1 Such a subject hardly recurs in mediaeval art until Giotto's campanile at Florence : yet
at Cluny all was unique.
CLUNY 79
modes. They have left us drawings of great inspiration. But the
genius of the sculptor of Cluny is far superior. 1
The fact that the eight modes of music were placed in the choir of
the abbey of Cluny, in parallel with the four rivers of Paradise, the
four Virtues, the four Winds, and beside the story of Adam and Eve,
is to be explained not only upon symbolic grounds; such were, as
M. Male has recognized, without doubt present in the sculptor's
mind; but more than this, we are justified in seeing in the subject a
proof of the high esteem in which the art of music was held by the
Cluniac monks. It is known that St. Odon wrote a dialogue on
music; and to him other treatises on the same subject have also
been, although probably erroneously, attributed. 2 There is, however,
even a personal touch to be traced in the music capitals of Cluny.
In the life of St. Hugh by Gilon 3 we read that the initiative in
the construction of the new abbey church was taken by Gunzo,
whose life was for this miraculously prolonged seven years, from
1088 to 1095. Now these seven years, in which Gunzo was the
active instigator of the works of construction, were precisely the
ones, as we shall see, in which the ambulatory was built. But, this
Gunzo, we are told by Gilon, was an accomplished musician —
psalmista precipuus. We easily gather that it was Gunzo who in- ) >
spired the glorification of the divine art in the choir of the abbey !
of Cluny.
The other capitals of Cluny are no less fine than those representing
the modes of music. The Four Rivers of Paradise (111. 5) are full of
the spirit of water. The lines flow with the smoothness of a swirling
stream. Compared with these figures, the river-gods of Rome seem
coarse, and the symbolic figures in Christian mosaics inexpressive.
1 To appreciate the exceedingly fine quality of the Cluny capitals, we can not do better than
to compare the face of the Third Tone (111. 7) with the very inferior copy on the column from
Coulombs, now at the Louvre (111. 1472).
2 A manuscript, containing a treatise on music which seems to have relationship to the
-Cluniac monasteries of Burgundy, is preserved in the imperial library at Vienna (it has been
illustrated by the Soc. Fr. Rep. Min. Peint., 19 13, PL XIX). The subject of the miniatures
recalls the capitals of Cluny, but the style is rather analogous to Autun.
3 Mortet, 272.
80 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The delights of the terrestrial paradise are suggested by a foliage of
incomparable beauty.
It is under this same leafage, watered by the morning dew, fra-
grant with the perfume of the fig and olive, that is set the drama of
Adam and Eve. It is an incomparable rendering of this theme so
ancient, but for the artist always new. The yielding to temptation
of the fascinated, yet terrified couple; their wistful spying from the
bushes when, in the cool of the evening, God walks in the garden ;
each act of the tragedy is portrayed with subtle and profound psy-
chology. The nudes are drawn with the tenderness of Masolino, but
the understanding of character suggests rather Sassetta.
But the greatest glory of the capitals of Cluny is a quality that has
been considered a defect. They are admirably mannered. Mediaeval
art can show nothing comparable. In an age of manner, these are
the supreme examples. 1
The troubled question of the date of these masterpieces must now
be considered.
St. Hugh began to build a new abbey church at Cluny in 1088. 2
Seven years later, in 1095, advantage was taken of the presence of
the pope Urban II in the monastery to celebrate the consecration of
the high altar. 3 This ceremony is represented in a miniature of a
manuscript of 11 88 formerly belonging to St.-Martin-des-Champs.
Here the choir at least of the church is shown as completed. 4
Gilon's life of St. Hugh states that that abbot built the church in
twenty years, and that it would have been astounding if an emperor
1 1 shall return to this subject elsewhere.
2 Plancher, I, 302; Mortet, 271.
3 Praeterea [Urbanus II, 1905] rogatus a domno Hugone ipsius monasterii venerabili Abbate
altare majus novae basilicae, astantibus plurimis Episcopis, monachis, clericis quoque, ac
plebe innumerabili, in honore resurrectionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi et beatae semper vir-
ginis Mariae sanctorumque Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac protomartyris Stephani devotissime
consecravit VIII. Kal. Novembris, indictione IIII. et praecepit ut in ipso die eadem basilica
oportuno tempore dedicaretur. (Baluze, VI, 474). A forced and unjustifiable interpretation
of the last phrase has led to the conclusion that in 1095 nothing but the foundations had been
built. The consecration of 1095 was also recorded in a lost inscription of the choir, published
by Virey in Millenaire i II, 247.
4 This miniature is reproduced by HaselofT", in Michel, II, 1, 307..
CLUNY 8 i
had constructed so great an edifice in so short a time. 1 This text can
only be interpreted to mean that the church was practically finished
when St. Hugh died in 1109. Mabillon, who saw the archives while
they were still intact, says that the church was built in twenty years. 2
Dom Plancher states that the church was actually finished in
1112. 3 An inscription in the choir, now destroyed, but a copy of
which has been published by Virey 4 states the construction lasted
twenty-five years (1088-1113).
St. Hugh in 1109 was buried in the choir of the church which he
had constructed. 5
In 1 1 24 St. Bernard delivered his celebrated harangue against the
luxe of church-buildings. 6 This sermon seems to have been aimed
especially against the newly constructed church of Cluny.
The church was certainly entirely finished before n 25, for in that
year the vaults fell. Obviously they could not have fallen had they
not been built. Besides, the text which tells us of this catastrophe,
explicitly mentions that the church had recently been erected. 7
Six years later, the damage had been repaired, and the completed
church was consecrated 8 by the pope Innocent II. Although the
building has been destroyed almost entirely, it is still easy to trace
the alterations made 11 25-1 131. The original vaults had been semi-
circular. Until the XIX century, these still existed in the choir. 9
They were replaced by the pointed vaults which may yet be seen in
1 Incepit, et Deo juvante, talem basilicam levavit intra viginti annos, qualem si tam brevi
construxisset imperator, dignum admiratione putaretur. (Mortet, 273).
2 Tanta basilica . . . opus est annorum viginti. (Mabillon, V, 235).
3 I, 512.
4 Millenaire, II, 246. Major ecclesia est opus anno XXV constructore sancto Hugone.
5 Ex utraque chori parte cernitur ambo unus, in quo lectiones olim recitabantur. . . . Sub
altari matutinali St. Hugonis abbatis, immensi que istius aedificii auctoris, tumulus visitur ab
haereticis violatus. (Mabillon, reprinted by Virey, in Millenaire, II, 234).
6 Mortet, 366.
7 (ii25). Ipsa die terribile prodigium illic contigit. Ingens basilicae navis, quae nuper
edita fuerat, corruit; sed, protegente Deo, neminem laesit. Sic pius Dominus omnes pro
temeraria invasione inspirata ruina terruit, sua tamen omnes immensa benignitate salvavit.
(Oderici Vitalis, Ecclesiastic ae Historiae, XII, XXX, ed. A. le Prevost, IV., 426).
8 Virey, in Cong. Arch., LXXX, 73 ; lost inscription in the choir, published by Virey in
Millenaire, II, 246.
9 See the lithograph of Sagot, reproduced in the Millenaire de Cluny, II, PI. III.
82 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the transept. It is certain that the ambulatory was not rebuilt in
1125-1131, for had it been, pointed arches would surely have been
introduced, as in the rest of the edifice ; but Sagot's lithograph dis-
tinctly shows that all the arches of the chevet, including that of the
nave vault, were semicircular.
The church was damaged in the Revolution, but was not destroyed
until the XIX century. 1
The documents therefore are clear and unequivocal : the choir
begun in 1088 had been built in 1095 when the high altar was conse-
crated ; and the entire building was finished within a few years after
the death of St. Hugh in 1109, that is, in 11 12 or 11 13.
These dates show that the church of Cluny was built with extraor-
dinary speed. Until the construction of the modern St. Peter's at
Rome Cluny was the largest church in Europe. Yet it is by no means
impossible that it should have been constructed in twenty-five years,
or that the choir should have been built in seven years. If Cluny was
the largest church-building in Europe, the abbey also disposed of
unparalleled resources. Gilon expressly says that the building of so
1 En 181 1, bien que la main des utilitaires eut deja disperse et vendu les pierres du temple,
bien qu'un grand chemin coupat deja par la moitie l'immensite de la basilique, cependant trois
enormes clochers, couverts en ardoises, et brillant de loin au soleil ; le grand portail surmonte
desaroseet encadreentre deux grosses tours carrees;quelquesarceaux de la grande nef suspen-
dus dans Tair et interrompant la vue du ciel d'espace en espace : les colonnesdu choeur encore
debout; Tabside presque intacte avec ses vielles peintures, et quelques chapelles des bas-cotes,
temoignaient assez de la splendeur et de la mesure du colossal edifice. . . . Au fond du vesti-
bule se presentait le portail veritable et primitif de la basilique ; ce portail, devenu interieur,
avait 20 pieds de hauteur et 16 delargeur. Ses j ambages etaient decor 6s de huit colonnes,
quatre de chaque cote, dont les intervalles etaient remplis par des ornemens riches et varies;
trois etaient d'un seul bloc. . . . Les battans de la porte avait ete recouverts de peintures.
(The lintel, he goes on to state, contained twenty-three — recte 24? — figures, doubtless rep-
resenting elders). Dans le tympan du portail dominait une majestueuse figure assise, tenant
un livre de la main gauche, et de la droite donnant sa benediction. A ses cotes etaient repre-
sentes les figures symboliques des quatre evangelistes, et quatre anges, portes sur des nuages,
embrassant et comme supportant le m6daillon ovale dans lequel le trone du Christ etait en-
ferme. La premiere archivolte qui couronnaitle bas-relief se composait d'une suite de petits
cintres, sous chacun desquels etait des anges en adoration, hors dans celui du milieu qu'occu-
pait le Pere Eternel. Deux autres archivoltes concentriques a la precedents presentaient, la
premiere, des feuillages, et la seconde, des medaillons d'ou sortaient des tStes toutes vari6es
d'expression. . . . Sur la muraille, comprise entre cette galerie supeneure et les cintres du
portail, on avait sculpt6 en bas-relief quatre statues d'apotres d'environ cinq pieds de grandeur
(Lorain, writing in 1839). See the lithograph of the portal by Sagot, reproduced in the Mil-
//«*;><?, II, PI. II.
CLUNY 83
great a church in so short a time was a feat which no emperor would
have been able to accomplish. In point of fact, however, the speed
was not greater than in other contemporary buildings. We are too
apt to assume in Romanesque constructions the interminable de-
lays which became characteristic of building in the Gothic period.
But the complicated mouldings, the ubiquitous decoration, the gen-
eral complication which made building slow in the XIII and follow-
ing centuries, had in the XI not yet been invented. And in fact even
great churches were erected at this time with astonishing speed. The
basilica of Monte Cassino, one of the most important churches of
Europe, was erected in the space of five years, 1066-107 1. In this
time, not only was the church constructed, but the site was pre-
pared, by planing down the jagged mountain-top. Materials had to
be carried 500 metres up a steep mountain side. Columns were
brought from Rome for this construction, as they were for Cluny. 1
Three years after the main church had been consecrated, the second-
ary church at Monte Cassino, S. Bartolommeo, was dedicated. 2
St. Mark's at Venice, begun in 1063, was eight years later suffi-
ciently advanced so that it could be used for services. The abbey of
St. Albans in England, a church of immense size, 275 feet long, was
built in eleven years, from 1077-1088. 3 The choir of Vezelay was
built in eight years, 1096-1104. The choir of St.-Denis was erected
in four years, from 1140-1144.
What generally delayed mediaeval constructions was not the
slowness of the workmen, but lack of funds. In the case of an estab-
lishment like Cluny that disposed of unlimited resources, work could
be pushed through promptly. It became a matter of pride that it
should be.
We note, moreover, that the two statements that the choir of
Cluny was built in seven years, and the entire church was built in
twenty-five are entirely consistent with each other. From the accu-
1 In the early XI century columns had been brought from Rome for St.-Benoit-sur-Loire.
(Mortet, 34). Later Suger planned to bring some for St.-Denis.
2 Bertaux, Ital. Me'r., 158.
3 Perkins.
84 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
rate plan published by M.Virey, 1 we learn that the choir was almost
exactly one-fourth the length of the entire church. Supposing the
same rate of building to have been maintained throughout the edi-
fice, it would consequently have required one-fourth of twenty-five
years, or a little more than six to construct the choir. This is not
very different from the seven which the documents tell us actually
were taken.
The documentary evidence that the choir of Cluny was built be-
tween 1088 and 1095 is therefore intrinsically credible.
It has nevertheless been set aside by orthodox archaeology.
The reason for doing so is that the style of the capitals of the an-
cient ambulatory now preserved in the Musee Ochier (111. 5-9), is
said to show that they are of the XII century.
The matter has been very little discussed, and no one seems to
have felt it worth while to show why the style could not be that of
the XI century. In general the capitals have been quickly passed by
with the mere statement that they are of the XII century. This
vague dating at least possesses the advantage of a certain generosity.
It gives a lee-way of a hundred years. Prudent scholars must have
felt confidence that there would be latitude for all eventualities. One
can not, however, help feeling a certain astonishment that one of the
most important monuments of French Romanesque art should have
been left in this indeterminate position, and that those who have set
aside the documents indicating a date in the XI century have never
stated why they have done so, nor placed the capitals of Cluny in re-
lation with the monuments of the XII century with which they are
said to be contemporary.
Let us suppose that the orthodox archaeologists are right, and
that the capitals of Cluny date from the XII century. Where in that
century, a little more precisely, may we place them ?
Is it rather to the first or to the second half of the century that
these capitals are to be ascribed ? Their delicacy might make us at
first think of monuments of about 1 180. We should perhaps have no
1 In the Millenaire y II, 230.
CLUNY 85
great rlculty in believing them part of that wave of delicacy in
techr que that spread over the architecture of France in the last half
of the XII century, and culminated in the south transept of Soissons.
However, we search northern figure sculpture in vain for work analo-
gous to the capitals of Cluny. The Cluny artist remains different and
apart. Whether we compare Cluny with the Toulouse Annunciation
(111. 480-485) in the South, or with Senlis (111. 1 505-1 513) in the
North, or with the tomb of St.-Lazare at Autun in Burgundy (111.
147-149), we perceive that the spirit is not that of the second half of
the XII century as we know it elsewhere. In fact, after the construc-
tion of the western portal of Chartres in the fifth decade of the XII
century, figure sculpture abandoned the ideal of delicacy. The dra-
peries tend to become ever more substantial, the folds heavier, the ,
figures more ponderous. It is the Cistercian frost blighting the dainty
wild flowers of the Cluniac spring. If the ideal of delicacy touched!
for a moment the mouldings and capitals, it was a late back-draft,
without real analogy to the sculptures of Cluny.
The ascription to the second half of the XII century must there-
fore be abandoned.
M. Vitry, who is I think the only orthodox archaeologist who has
ventured to propose a definite date for the capitals of Cluny, as-
cribes them to the middle of the XII century.
Since no specific grounds for this attribution are vouchsafed, we
can only test its accuracy by comparing the capitals of Cluny with
surely dated monuments of the period in question. Happily we need
not seek far to find such. The church of St.-Andre-le-Bas of Vienne
preserves two capitals dated 11 52 by an inscription. Since Vienne is
geographically not very far separated from Cluny, we have here an
excellent opportunity for comparison.
Put the Vienne capital representing Job (111. 121 8) beside the
Cluny capital representing the Third Tone (111. 7). In each we have
the figure of a bearded man in a somewhat similar posture. But what
a vast gulf separates the two works ! Compare the naif and schema-
tised working of the eye at Cluny with the elaborate and conscious
86 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
execution at Vienne ; the archaic hair and beard at Cluny f i the
deeply undercut and naturalistic hair and beard at Vienne ; t. un-
modelled face of Cluny with the wrinkles and detailed realism of the
face at Vienne ; the simple draperies of Cluny with the elaborate and
deeply undercut folds of Vienne ; the schematised ear at Cluny with
the naturalistic ear at Vienne. Or compare the modelling of the nude
as shown in the bare leg of the Vienne Job (111. 121 8) with that of the
Cluny Rivers of Paradise (111. 5). In the one we have an almost ex-
aggerated articulation of the muscles, a realistic rendering of the
cords and even veins, in the other no attempt to reproduce the details
of anatomy. See how much more realistic are the hands and feet at
Vienne than at Cluny. We notice, too, that the capital at Vienne
is full of plastic feeling; it is essentially conceived in the round;
while that of Cluny is essentially flat, a translated drawing. It is
evident that Vienne represents the end, Cluny the beginning, of a
tradition.
The capitals of Cluny are therefore not of the middle of the XII
century, but earlier.
Shall we then ascribe them to the second quarter of the XII cen-
tury ? The naturalistic foliage makes the attribution tempting. It
will be remembered that the Gothic artists of the Ile-de-France be-
gan about 1 135 to introduce the leaves of plants into their capitals,
and thus inaugurated the Gothic decorative style. It is natural to
suppose that the capitals of Cluny reflect this same movement.
However, as we compare more closely the Cluniac foliage with that
of the Ile-de-France, the analogy which we had believed to find evap-
orates. The Gothic foliage of the XII century is strictly architectural
and highly conventionalized. It is derived from the ornamentation
(perhaps chance) of the uncarved leaves of a Corinthian or Corin-
thianesque capital and from capitals of the XI century like those at
Santiago de Compostela. The Cluny capitals on the other hand
show the close imitation of actual leaves and fruit, represented not
conventionally, but realistically. Even the purely naturalistic carv-
ing of the Flamboyant period can hardly show such exact obserza-
/
/
/
CLUNY 87
tion of nature ; and plant forms of equal beauty were hardly attained
again until Giotto painted the Arena chapel.
To find a real analogy for the naturalistic foliage of the Cluny cap-
itals we have to go back to that XI century with the style of which
they have been called incompatible. We find leaf forms and animals
very like those of the Cluny capitals on a sculptured column in the
museum of Tschinili-Kiosk at Constantinople. 1 This is certainly
anterior to 1100, and indeed may well be much older. There is leaf-
age similar to that of the capitals of Cluny on a capital of the crypt
of the church of S. Niccola at Bari, 2 dating from 1090. The study of
natural forms is one of the striking characteristics of the Benedic-
tine art of Monte Cassino in the second half of the XI century. 3 From
Monte Cassino this characteristic came to the frescos of the lower
church of S. Clemente at Rome executed between 1073 and 1084.
Here the birds and fruit of the dado, and the fish swimming about
the submerged chapel are among the most realistic achievements of
mediaeval art, in spirit entirely similar to the capitals of Cluny. In
view of the many bonds between Cluny and Rome it is hardly sur-
prising that this motive should have been borrowed at Cluny from
Italy. From the capitals of Cluny it found its way to a few other
French monuments of the early XII century; to the cloisters of
Moissac of 1100 (111. 279), to Vezelay (1104-1120) — 111. 32 — and
to Saulieu (consecrated in 11 19) — 111. 53.
Among the monuments of the second quarter of the XII century
there is therefore none which shows analogy with the capitals of
Cluny. But when we come down to the first quarter of the century,
we begin to find similarities.
It is in fact not only in the foliage that the capitals of Saulieu are
like those of Cluny. The two series are obviously related in many
particulars.
1 Illustrated by Strzygowski, Byz. Plus, der Blut. y Taf. I, II.
2 Illustrated by Wackernagel, Taf. XVI b.
3 Les peintres du Mont Cassin acquirent une virtuosite qui tenait du prodige. En quelques
annees de travail discipline" ils apprirent non seulement a copier, mais a regarder; ils mel£rent
aux imitations des figures byzantines de veritables Etudes d'apres nature. (Bertaux, ItaL
Mer., 273).
88 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
However, when we compare with attention the capitals of Cluny
(111. 5-9) with those of Saulieu (111. 52-61) we can not but be con-
vinced that Cluny is much earlier. The foliage of the Saulieu capital
of the Temptation (111. $3), for example, is executed with an insist-
ence upon meticulous detail which makes that of the Cluny Rivers
of Paradise (111. 5) seem very primitive. The Saulieu capitals are
much more plastic, and use many more planes. The faces are far
more naturalistically rendered. Compare, for instance, the face of
the angel behind Christ in the Saulieu Temptation (111. 53) with that
of the River of Paradise at Cluny (111. 5). Or compare the Balaam
at Saulieu (111. 56) with the Third Tone at Cluny (111. 7). It is clear
that the Saulieu sculptor thinks in the round, in three dimensions ;
while the Cluny master thinks only in two ; that the Saulieu sculptor
is stronger and more vigorous, while the Cluny Master is more subtle
and delicate ; that the Saulieu Master is more naturalistic, the Cluny
sculptor more archaic. The many resemblances abundantly prove
that Saulieu must be directly or indirectly a derivative from Cluny.
In view of all this it seems certain that Cluny is earlier, and notably
earlier than Saulieu. The nave of the latter, which is the only part
that has come down to us, was presumably begun immediately after
the consecration of the choir in 11 19; Cluny must then be notably
earlier than 11 19.
According to the documents, a consecration was celebrated at
Vezelay in 1104. It is probable that this referred only to the choir
which no longer exists. The nave which has been preserved to us
was apparently attacked immediately afterwards. There is not the
slightest evidence that the fire which in 11 20 injured the monas-
tery 1 occasioned damage to the structure of the stone and vaulted
church. In fact, an inscription on one of the key-stones explicitly
states that the church was only damaged by smoke. 2 The Pilgrims'
Guide > written probably in n 29, speaks of the church as if it were
finished. 3 The porch and the narthex were completed without doubt
1 See de Lasteyrie, 425.
2 SVM MODO FVMOSA SED ERO POST HEC SPECIOSA. Illustration by Por6e, 17.
3 In quo etiam loco ingens ac pulcherrima basilica monachorumque abbatia constituitur.
(Miracula S. Jacobi, IV, 8, ed. Fita, 29).
CLUNY 89
when "the church of the pilgrims" (i.e., the narthex) was consecrated
in 1 132 ; l and the entire basilica was finished before 1138. 2
Orthodox archaeology has as usual set aside the documents, and
declared that the church must be later.
The proof is supposed to be the transept capital representing
Adam and Eve (111. 28) which is said to be much more primitive in
style than any other capital in the church. 3 Since this capital is also
broken, it is identified as an authentic remnant of the church of
1 104-1 1 20 ; its presence, it is believed, suffices to show that the exist-
ing nave was erected after the fire of 11 20.
Even were the capital in question earlier than the others, that
would not prove that the existing church might not be of 1 104-1 120.
An earlier fragment might as easily have been incorporated in a
building begun in 1104 as in one begun in 11 20.
As a matter of fact, however, the capital in question is certainly
contemporary with the others in the church. The fact that it is
broken means nothing ; before the restoration many of the capitals
were broken, as any one may see by a glance at the fragments in
the narthex. This particular capital is, indeed, by the hand of one of
the easily distinguishable sculptors at Vezelay, by whom are also
other capitals (see for example, 111. 29) , 4 which no one has ever
thought of calling primitive. Neither is the statement that the
Adam and Eve capital was not made for its present position, true ;
the necking fits the shaft (111. 28) perfectly. If the abacus appears
too large for the capital (111. 28), it is because the broken volutes
of the bell have not been restored, whereas the abacus, which was
doubtless also broken, has been remade. The volutes once filled the
now vacant angles, precisely as in the capital of the Death of Cain
(111. 3$). The Adam and Eve capital is therefore not an earlier frag-
ment, but certainly sculptured for the existing church.
1 Ch6rest, 197. Note, however, that there was a church of St. James at Vezelay, so that the
application of this text to the narthex is not absolutely certain. For a discussion of the dates,
see Cong . Arch.^ LXXI V, 27 ; de Lasteyrie, 425.
2 Poree, 15.
3 Michel, I, 2, 638.
4 Compare the head of the female figure second from the right (111. 29), with the head of
Eve (111. 28).
9 o ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Moreover, if we suppose that the new church of Vezelay was de-
stroyed in 1 1 20, we are forced to suppose that the ruins were cleared
away and the great nave and narthex built in the twelve years that
elapsed between the fire and the consecration of the narthex in 1132.
The existing church is entirely homogeneous ; there are no breaks
nor reconstructions visible in the masonry. From the work of 1104-
11 20, according to the orthodox theory, only one broken capital was
saved. Now although Romanesque churches were undoubtedly often
built more rapidly than is usually believed, it is hardly credible that
the nave and narthex of Vezelay could have been erected in only
twelve years.
The sculptured key-stone l is a dated monument of 11 20, for the
reference to the fire in the inscription makes it certain that the carv-
ing was executed immediately after that event. Now the style of
this sculpture is evidently more advanced than the style of the
capitals of the nave. The garments have ornamented borders, and
folds indicated by parallel incised lines, features lacking in the
earlier capitals of the nave, but present in the later capitals of the
narthex. The nave capitals are therefore earlier than this dated
sculpture of 11 20 ; the narthex capitals contemporary with it.
There are, indeed, many proofs that the nave of Vezelay dates
from exactly the time which the documents would lead us to suppose.
If we compare its sculptures (111. 28-51) with those of Moreaux
(111. 1067, 1068) dated about 1140 or with those of St.-Denis, dated
1137-1140 (111. 1437-1457,) we shall be convinced that they are ear-
lier, and notably earlier. We must therefore place them in the first
quarter of the XII century. That they are earlier, not later than
1 1 20, may be proved by comparing them with the capitals of Sau-
lieu, begun, as we have seen, in 11 19. Those of Vezelay, and espe-
cially of the more eastern bays at Vezelay (111. 28, 31, ^ y 42), are
distinctly more primitive than those of Saulieu (111. 52-61). The
chronological order is clearly : Cluny, Vezelay, Saulieu.
When we compare the capitals of Vezelay with those of Autun
1 Illustrated by Poree, 17.
CLUNY 91
(111. 67-79), we see again that those of Vezelay are simpler, less de-
veloped, more archaic. Now Autun was begun about 1120. 1 Again
we can without difficulty establish the chronological sequence :
Cluny, Vezelay, Autun.
If we compare the capitals of Vezelay with those from Moutier-
St.-Jean (111. 62-66) now in the Fogg Museum, 2 remnants of the
church built by the abbot Bernard II (1109-1133), 3 we perceive
again that the nave of Vezelay is earlier, and that the chronological
sequence runs : Cluny, Vezelay, Mcutier-St.-Jean.
If we compare the capital of Vezelay (111. 43) representing the
Sacrifice of Bread in the Old Law, with Guglielmo's relief of Enoch
and Elijah at Modena, dated 1099-1106, 4 and note the similarity of
the figures and especially of the faces, we shall not doubt that the
existing nave of Vezelay is the one begun in 1 104.
If we compare the capital of Vezelay (111. 23) representing Daniel
with the capital of the crypt of St.-Parize-le-Chatel (111. 25) repre-
senting the sciapodes, we can not doubt that the two are closely re-
lated and contemporary. Now the capital of St.-Parize-le-Chatel
is dated 11 13.
A point of support for dating the capitals of Vezelay is afforded
by the sculptured key-stone representing the Church, a monument
surely dated 1 120 by the inscription. Characteristic of this sculpture
are the ornamented border and the parallel drapery lines. These
features are found only in the later capitals of Vezelay in the western
part of the nave and in the narthex. The capitals of the eastern part
of the nave are unmistakably earlier in style, therefore anterior to
1 1 20.
A comparison of the capitals of Vezelay (111. 28-46) with those of
Cluny (111. 5-9) shows that Cluny is the earlier of the two, and that
the capitals of Vezelay are in fact thence in part copied.
Take for example the famous Adam and Eve capital at Vezelay
1 De Fontenay et de Charmasse, 408.
2 I have published these capitals in the Fogg Museum Notes, 1922, I, 2, 23.
3 Plancher, I, 516.
4 Illustrated in the Gazette des Beaux Arts, LXI, 1919, 50.
92 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
(111. 28) and place it beside the capital of Cluny representing the same
subject. 1 It is evident at a glance that the Cluny rendering is much
finer and more subtle. That of Vezelay is in comparison coarse and
commonplace. But it is no less evident that the Cluny capital is
earlier. The figures at Vezelay are more articulated, more plastic.
The anatomy is far more realistically rendered. The muscles of the
calves and thighs of Adam at Vezelay are carefully and thoroughly,
if incorrectly, expressed ; at Cluny they are simply ignored. Eve's
breasts at Vezelay are portrayed with realism, but are passed by in
silence at Cluny. The faces, the eyes and the hair are all far more
naturalistic at Vezelay.
Or compare the Cluny capital representing the Rivers of Paradise
(111. 5) with the one of the same subject at Vezelay. 2 The relation-
ship of the two is evident. There are the same volutes ending in each
case in a flourish of foliage. In both capitals one of the rivers is repre-
sented in each corner as a naked beardless figure crowned, holding
a stream in his hands. The convention for representing the flowing
water by means of parallel incised lines is the same. Obviously one
of these capitals must be a copy of the other. As to the relative qual-
ity we can not for a moment be in doubt. The delicacy, refinement
and charm which make of the Cluny fragment one of the master-
pieces of mediaeval art have disappeared at Vezelay. It is clear that
Cluny is the inspired original, Vezelay, the commonplace copy. It
is equally clear that Vezelay shows a style later in date. The work
there is bolder, coarser, more plastic, more deeply undercut. The
faces are more naturalistic, more modelled and show greater feeling
for the third dimension. The crown which is simple at Cluny, is
given at Vezelay a gratuitous ornament.
The foliage of the Cluny Rivers of Paradise capital (111. 5) should
be compared with that of the hunting capital at Vezelay (111. 32).
The sculptor of Vezelay seems here to have taken over directly the
Cluny vine; but his design is coarser, less decorative. And note
1 Illustrated by Terret, PI. XLV.
2 Illustrated by Pouzet, 105. g
CLUNY 93
again that the Vezelay figures are more modelled, more naturalistic,
but less beautiful. 1
Let us continue the comparison to the two capitals representing
the Four Winds (111. 31). 2 The similarity is again striking. There
are the same volutes, the same foliage, the same four figures crouch-
ing over the same bellowses, and these bellowses are indicated by the
same convention of wattling. Since the Winds are thus represented,
to the extent of my knowledge, nowhere else in mediaeval art, there
can be no question of the direct connection between Cluny and Veze-
lay. Again, however, we notice that Cluny is both simpler and of
higher quality. How much broader and more beautiful is the treat-
ment of the draperies, how much more delicate the feet ! The grace
and daintiness of Cluny are coarsened at Vezelay ; the greater elab-
oration of the draperies, the stronger plastic feeling are powerless to
compensate for the verve that is lost. In this case, moreover, we
have absolute proof that Cluny is the original. The iconographic
program is, as we have remarked, unusual. There is no especial
reason why it should have been introduced at Vezelay among capi-
tals representing unrelated subjects. At Cluny, on the other hand,
it was logically included in the parallel between the eight Tones, the
four virtues, the four seasons, the four Rivers of Paradise.
Now let us put the Vezelay Luxury (111. 34 a) beside the Cluny
Rivers of Paradise (111. 5). The general similarity of the figures is
again striking. The position is very similar ; the right arms are held
in the same attitude, the legs are very like. The serpent of the Veze-
lay figure has lines which resemble those of the river at Cluny. Again,
however, we notice the same differences. Vezelay is larger in scale
and coarser; the fine crispness of Cluny has disappeared ; the foliage
so dainty and fresh at Cluny has at Vezelay become rank ; the hair
so broad and simple at Cluny at Vezelay is more elaborate, but
hardly as effective.
1 This capital was imitated at Notre-Dame-du-Port of Clermont-Ferrand (111. 1 174). Facilis
decensus Averno I
2 The Cluny capital is illustrated by Terret, Plate LVI.
94 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Or take the Vezelay capital representing Daniel (111. 33). This is
a strange iconographic conception — the placing of Daniel in an
aureole would be singular, but the putting of the lions also in one
is astounding. There can be no question that the sculptor was here
solely occupied with reproducing the decorative effect produced by
the aureoles of the Cluny capital of the Tones (111. 7). How clumsy
and uninspired this Vezelay capital is, however, compared with the
glorious original ! How heavy and badly proportioned the body,
how commonplace the face, how inexpressive the draperies ! The
figure of Daniel, indeed, is imitated not from the Cluny capital of
the Tones, but from that of the Sacrifice of Isaac (111. 10). The
hair and face of Daniel recall, in fact, the angel to the right of the
Cluny capital. In other words, two distinct models by different
hands are copied and combined in a single capital of Vezelay. One
could hardly ask for more eloquent proof that Vezelay is a deriv-
ative of Cluny.
It is interesting to follow the further fortunes of this motive. It
reappears at St.-Benoit-sur-Loire (111. 1415) and Rieux Minervois
(111. 1404). Something very like it was found in a capital of Savigny,
which I know only from the drawing published by Dalmace. 1 Judg-
ing on this insecure basis I should suppose that the capital in ques-
tion was derived from Cluny rather than from Vezelay, for another
capital of the same series seems to show unmistakably the direct in-
fluence of Cluny. Since the church of Savigny was in construction
in the last years of the XI century, this analogy is another indication
of the early date of Cluny.
It was undoubtedly the capital of Vezelay, however, that is copied
in a capital of St.-Nectaire representing the martyrdom of St.
Sebastian. 2 The aureole, the position of the figure, the draperies, the
hair are all taken from the Vezelay capital of Daniel ; but since the
subject required an archer, the St.-Nectaire sculptor hunted about
the Burgundian abbey until he came upon the figure of an archer in
the capital representing the Death of Cain (111. 35). This he then
1 407. 2 Published by Brehier.
CLUNY 95
reproduced nearly without changes. We have here, therefore, clear
proof of the genealogy Cluny, Vezelay, St.-Nectaire.
One of the striking facts which become evident from the compari-
son of the capitals of Cluny and Vezelay is that the easternmost, and
therefore presumably earlier capitals at Vezelay, are the ones which
are most nearly like Cluny. Among the numerous hands which may
be distinguished at Vezelay it is that which I have ventured in the
atlas to distinguish by the name of "Cluny master" who shows the
closest affinities, and, indeed, in general contents himself with repro-
ducing the models of Cluny (111. 30, 3 1 , 32, 23) • Now the work of this
master is found only in the nave, and often rather far east in the
nave. On the other hand, the "Bathsheba master" (111. 44), who
worked on the western bays of the nave and on the narthex still cop-
ies Cluny, but in a different way. Compare, for example, his work at
Vezelay with the Grammar of Cluny (111. 6). He seeks to reproduce
the spirit rather than the letter of his great original. Certain details
of the folds of the draperies, or of the shoes we find, indeed, taken
over ; but what impresses us is how this, the greatest of the Vezelay
sculptors, has caught the line, the grace, the delicacy of his master.
It is a calamity that the deplorable restoration of Viollet-le-Duc has
left us only copies and scrapings of the work of this artist. In what
remains, however, it is abundantly evident that his style in its more
developed articulation, in the freedom of the drawing, in the realism
of the faces, in the greater elaboration of the draperies belongs to a
later age than that of Cluny.
From all this it seems certain that Cluny is anterior to Vezelay,
and consequently to 1104.
Let us now examine whether the style of Cluny is really inconsist-
ent with a date in the XI century.
Certainly among the striking characteristics of the Cluny capitals
are their feeling for line, and their daintiness of execution. We have
found that in these qualities the capitals are hardly equalled in the
XII century, even in works directly inspired by Cluny. But it is easy
to find parallels of the last quarter of the XI century. Put the capi-
96 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
?* tals of Cluny (111. 5-9) beside the sculptures of Santo Domingo de
• Silos (111. 666-673). The spiritual relationship of the two works is
at once evident ; there is the same sense of line, the same refinement,
the same delicacy, the same crispness. The folds of the draperies
although different, fall in similar broad curves ; the zig-zag edges are
alike. The faces in both are archaic and unindividualized. The
letters of the inscriptions are generally similar. The raised hand of
God in the Adam and Eve capital of Cluny is the same dainty, un-
articulated XI century hand which we have learned to know at Silos.
Moreover, we notice that the subtle rhythm so characteristic of Silos
is also a conspicuous merit of Cluny. The hair convention of the
Third Tone at Cluny (111. 7) is the same as the hair convention used
at Silos, as is also the beard convention of the same figure. We notice
that the curious boots of the Cluny capitals (111. 6) reappear in the
Silos Deposition (111. 669) and in the Madrid Virgin of Sahagun
— 1089-1099 — (111. 770).
Delicacy like that of Cluny is also to be found in the miniatures of
the Greek Physiologus of Smyrna, edited by Strzygowski, a manu-
script dating from about 1100.
Such delicacy is, moreover, characteristic of the Benedictine art
of Monte Cassino of the second half of the XI century, and it is,
indeed, probably from here that it came to Cluny. We find it, for
example, in the frescos of the lower church of S. Clemente at Rome
(1073-1084), with which Cluny presents so many other analogies as
well ; and also in the Last Judgment of S. Angelo in Formis, painted
in the last quarter of the XI century.
The peculiar convention for representing the undersleeve in the
Cluny capital of Summer with a series of rings like bracelets, is char-
acteristic of the XI century. It is found, for example, in the Area of
San Millan (111. 638) and in the Oviedo Area Santa of 1075 (111. 657).
The elongation of the figures characteristic of the capitals of Cluny
(111. 5, 6) also accords with a date in the XI century. M. Diehl has
supposed that the mannerism originated in the mosaics of the dome
of Sta. Sophia of Salonica, of the first half of the XI century, and
CLUNY 97
that it was here instituted to off-set the effects of fore-shortening. I
should question the explanation, for there is an example of marked
attenuation in the miniature representing Christ in the house of
Mary and Martha in the Perikopenbuch Kaiser Heinrichs II, which
was executed before 1014. 1 It is probable, however, that the motive
originated in the Orient, for it is found in a statue of Kwannon, be-
lieved to be Korean, in the Museum at Nara, and dating from the
VII century.
In the second half of the XI century, and especially in the last
quarter of that century, the motive was taken up by the school of
Monte Cassino. It occurs in the miniatures of an unpublished manu-
script which I have seen in the library of the abbey. 2 It also is found
in the Last Judgment of S. Angelo in Formis, painted in the last
quarter of the XI century, although it is absent in the earlier frescos
of the same church. It is similarly very prominent in the frescos of
the lower church of S.Clemente at Rome, executed before 1084. 3 It
is found in a miniature of the Bible of S. Paolo at Rome, now in the
Vatican. 4 By the beginning of the XII century the idea had spread
throughout Europe; we find it in English miniatures of Bury St.
Edmund's, 5 in Austrian miniatures of Salzburg 6 and in the Greek
Physiologus of Smyrna. 7
The wattling convention used to represent the folds of the socks
on the capitals of Cluny (111. 7) is one of the peculiarities of the style,
which was hence widely copied in XH-century sculpture. The mo-
tive may have been originally suggested by the thonging of the feet
and ankles common in miniatures. 8 I know of no earlier instance of
1 Illustrated by Leidinger, V, 34.
2 Homilae, No. 98, H.
3 Cf. Bertaux, Ital. Mer. y 276 ; Dans les oeuvres de technique ais£e, comme la miniature et la
peinture murale, les proportions des figures commencerent a prendre, sous le gouvernement de
l'abbe Oderisius (i.e., in the late XI century) un allongement qui s'exage>a bientot de facon
ridicule (sic),
4 Moscioni photograph, 8014.
5 Illustrated in the Burlington Catalogue, PI. 23, 28.
6 Perikopenbuch von St.-Erentrud, Munich, Kgl. Hof- und Statsbibliothek, No. Clm. 15903.
7 Ed. Strzygowski.
8 See for example the Bible of Charles le Chauve in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris ; a
98 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the use of this mannerism in the West ; it is, however, found in the
colossal bronze statue of Barletta, believed to represent the emperor
Heraclius and to have been executed in the VII century. The use of
the motive at Cluny was consequently not entirely without prece-
dent.
It may be objected that the arches which appear in the main ar-
cades of the surviving transept of Cluny are pointed, and therefore
inconsistent with the early date indicated by the documents. In
point of fact, the arches of the ambulatory, which is the portion of
the church with which we are here concerned, are shown as round in
Sagot's lithograph; 1 but were they pointed, I should not be dis-
quieted. Pointed arches were in fact known in the XI century. In-
deed, they are used as early as the IX century in the Orient, as in the
mosque of Ibn Tulun at Old Cairo, 2 and are frequent in the archi-
tecture of Armenia of the X century. 3 Apparently about the middle
of the XI century the motive found its way into France at St.-Front
of Perigueux. A few years later, between 1063 and 1095 we find it in
the narthex of St. Mark's at Venice. Contemporaneously it appears
in the cathedral of Pisa (begun in 1063). 4 Still another example is
extant in the porch of S. Angelo in Formis, dating from the seventh
decade of the XI century. That the pointed arch should therefore
have found its way to Cluny by 1088 is neither impossible nor even
surprising.
It should be observed that the legs of the Adam on the capital of
Cluny are modelled very similarly to those of the Christ of the Ma-
drid crucifix, a dated work of 1063 (111. 654).
The capitals of Cluny and Vezelay are, beyond any possible
doubt, inspired chiefly by manuscripts, or a manuscript of the
school of Winchester. This delightful type of English illumination
came out of the Psalter of Utrecht, which is now thought to
have been produced at or near Reims in the first third of the IX
Monte Cassino MS. of the late XI century illustrated by Bertaux, Ital. Mir., 203; the Bari
Exultet y etc.
1 Millenaire, II, PI. III. 2 Rivoira, Arch. Mus. 3 144.
3 Ibid., 232. 4 Rizzo e Toesca, 550.
CLUNY 99
century. 1 The school of Winchester did not attain its zenith, how-
ever, until the second half of the X century. It came to an end
with the Norman conquest in 1066.
Now the capitals of Cluny and Vezelay show all the characteristics
of drawing of the miniatures of this school. The facial types are the
same, and this is the more striking that they are highly distinctive.
Compare, for example, the beardless faces of Vezelay (111. 28-46)
with the miniature of 1016-1020 illustrated by Herbert, 2 or those of
Cluny (111. 5-10) with the gospels of Besancon 3 or the Rouen mis-
sal. 4 The close relationship is obvious. The bearded as well as the
beardless faces of the capitals approach very closely the Benedic-
tional of St. Aethelwold, a dated manuscript of c. 980. 5 Compare es-
pecially such faces as that of the St. Anthony of the Vezelay narthex
(111. 42). The St. Paul on folio 8 of the manuscript is like the St. Paul
of the "mill" capital of Vezelay (111. 40) even to the peculiar shape
of his head.
The draperies fluttering behind, so characteristic of the Burgun-
dian school, are found in the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold, which
dates from 980, in a miniature representing Christ in glory. 6 The
spiral folds of the drapery, typical of Burgundian sculpture, are
taken over from the same source, and perhaps originated in Car-
lovingian manuscripts. This convention in a miniature has a certain
meaning, for it seeks to indicate the spherical form of certain por-
tions of the anatomy ; in sculpture it becomes purely decorative, for
the form is already indicated by the relief. Nothing could prove
more clearly the dependence of the sculptures upon the miniatures
than the taking over of this singular convention. The clinging dra-
peries introduced into Burgundian sculpture are similarly derived
1 Erst die von Fleury vermittelte und von Mannern wie Dunstan, Aethelwold und Oswald
in den sechziger Jahren in Sud-England eingefuhrte Cluniacensische Reformbewegung hat, wie
es scheint, den gewaltigen kunstlerischen Aufschwung herbeigefuhrt, dem wir eine solche Fulle
von Meisterwerken verdanken. (Homburger, 7).
2 PI. XIII.
3 Homburger, Taf. VI.
4 Ibid., Taf. X.
5 Illustrated by Warner and Wilson.
6 Homburger, I.
ioo ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
from the same source, in which they are constantly used. The slen-
der long feet and hands, characteristic of the sculptures of Autun
(111. 67-81) are found in the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold. In the
Benedictional of Rouen 1 is represented, as in the tympanum of
Vezelay (111. 47-49), Pentecost. The apostles are seated about a
curved table as at Charlieu (111. no). The edicular canopies so
typical of Burgundian sculpture appear in this miniature as in one
of the Benedictional of Paris. The calligraphic quality of Burgun-
dian drawing is evidently derived from the delicate outlines in pen
of the miniaturist. There are the same lyric curves, the same caress-
ing outlines. The motive of crossed legs appears in the Besancon
gospels. The Bodleian gospels 2 have flirted garments and attenu-
ation. Flying angels, agitated draperies, aureoles, movement, con-
torted postures, revealing draperies, fluttering scarfs quite of the
Burgundian manner, are found in the charter of King Edgar to New
Minster, Winchester, a manuscript dated 966* The strange lower
borders of the garments in the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold re-
appear in the capitals of Cluny ; there are the same loops, and the
lower folds are over-turned similarly. The peculiar oval folds about
I the knees of certain figures of Cluny, like the Grammar (111. 6) are
I precisely like those of the Xl-century miniature of St. John in the
I manuscript of Lord Leicester. 4 The flat folds of Burgundian drap-
eries are anticipated in a south Anglo-Saxon manuscript of the XI
century, the Bede of St. Petersburg 5 and in the gospel of St. Gallen. 6
There was, therefore, nothing new in the artistic formula used by
the sculptor of Cluny. He merely translated into stone the types of
singular beauty perfected long before by the miniature artists of
Winchester. When we look at the capitals of Cluny from this point
of view, we are not at all surprised that they should have been exe-
cuted in the XI century. We have seen abundant evidence that the
1 Homburger, VI. 2 Ibid., XI.
3 Brit. Mus. Cotton MS. Vespasian A. VIII, f. 2 b, illustrated in British Museum Reproduc-
tions from Illuminated Manuscripts •, Series I, PI. IV.
4 Dorez, Catalogue, PI. III.
6 Lat. Q. v. I, n. 18, fol. 26 b, illustrated by Zimmermann, 332.
6 No. 51, p. 267, illustrated by Zimmermann, 188.
CLUNY 101
artists of the XI century were fully masters of their chisels. There
is no reason why they could not express in stone what they had long
been accustomed to express with their pen. We perceive, too, why
it is that Romanesque sculpture was never, in any true sense of the
word, archaic. 1 It was not forced to pass through that struggle with
material form which fell to the lot of other periods.
The style of the capitals of Cluny is, therefore, in entire agreement
with .the documentary evidence that they were executed between
1088 and 1095.
Before leaving the subject of the capitals of Cluny, the air should
be cleared of a myth which has been widely circulated in regard to
them. Orthodox archaeologists unwilling to admit that they date
from the XI century, yet having too much conscience to disregard
entirely the documentary evidence that the church was constructed
from 1088-1113, have often suggested the hypothesis, nay, asserted
as an obvious fact, that the capitals were carved long after having
been placed in the building. This theory has been applied to other
monuments as well ; and as it has been made a basis for the late
dating of much Romanesque sculpture, it will be well to remind
the reader that mediaeval sculptures were carved before they were
placed.
The question has already been investigated by Prof. Voge in one of
the most fundamental passages of his fundamental work. 2 His re-
searches have made it perfectly clear that in the Romanesque period
sculpture was executed before the blocks were set up in the building.
The evidence accumulated by Prof. Voge on the subject is quite con-
clusive. Since, however, certain scholars have continued to date mon-
uments on the opposite theory, it may be well to add further proofs.
There are extant a number of representations of mediaeval mas-
ters at work. At Maastricht 3 and in the cloisters of the cathedral of
Gerona 4 we see masons sculpturing blocks before they are placed
in the building. Whether in these cases we have to do with the carv-
1 1 owe this observation to Mr. Berenson. 2 Anfange, 267 f.1
3 Ligtenberg, Taf. XXIII. 4 Michel, II 1, 256.
102 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
ing of capitals or reliefs, or only with the squaring of dressed blocks
is not altogether clear. There is no doubt, however, that in two rep-
resentations at S. Zeno of Verona, and in others at S. Maria Mag-
giore of Bergamo, at Modena, 1 in the museum of Toulouse 2 and at
San Cugat del Valles 3 we have represented the making of capitals.
All these show that the capitals were sculptured in the atelier, and
when held reversed between the knees of the sculptor, or, as at San
Cugat and Toulouse, placed horizontally before him. The reliefs at
Bergamo are late — 1405 — but they are of particular interest be-
cause they show a sculptor touching up a finished capital after it had
been placed. This, as Prof. Voge has recognized, was doubtless also
the custom at an earlier period. A Byzantine miniature 4 represent-
ing the construction of a building, shows that capitals were carved
before being placed, but touched up afterwards. A fresco of Benozzo
Gozzoli in the Pisa Campo Santo shows that the practice of executing
sculpture before placing the blocks in the building continued until
the XV century ; the builders at work upon the tower of Babel are
hoisting into position the already carved architectural decorations.
The evidence is conclusive; mediaeval sculptures were executed in
the atelier, and merely touched up after being placed in position.
Indeed, the excellent craftsmanship displayed by mediaeval capi-
tals could hardly have been attained if the sculptor had been obliged
to work upon the stone in the disadvantageous position in which it
was fixed after being placed in the building. We have only to exam-
ine the care and skill with which Romanesque sculpture is executed,
to be convinced that the artists must have taken advantage of every
means of securing technical excellence. In this connection the experi-
ence of the builders at Bryn Athyn is instructive. At first the capi-
tals were carved after being placed in the modern manner ; but it was
soon found that the technical perfection of mediaeval work could be
imitated only if the sculptor were enabled to work the capital at his
1 For all these, see my Lombard Architecture, I, 14.
2 Illustrated by Revoil, III, id.
3 Puig y Cadafalch, II, 61.
4 Illustrated by Diehl, 369.
CLUNY 103
ease, turning it as he pleased. The system was therefore changed,
and now capitals are carved before they are placed.
An examination of almost any capital of the XII century will show
that the sculptor was able, during the execution, to place the capital
so as to give a blow with his chisel from any angle or direction de-
sired. It is clear that much of the work was done with the capital
upside down, and held below the level of the eye of the artist. Capi-
tals were in general intended to be looked up at; but obviously it
would be exceedingly difficult for the artist to work them above his
head. By holding them upside down below his eye, he was able to see
them in the same relative position in which they would be seen when
finished, and still work at them with ease.
The evidence of the buildings themselves re-enforces that which
we have drawn from representations of masters at work. In the mon-
astic buildings of Marcilhac are twin capitals (111. 1145) set side by
side. The faces of these capitals which nearly touch are carved with
the same finesse as the other faces. Now these interior faces not only
can hardly be seen, but it would have been physically impossible to
insert a chisel to sculpture them in the narrow space between the two
capitals. They were then sculptured before they were set in position.
Similar instances abound in mediaeval work.
In the portal of Romans (111. 1335) are inserted in either jamb a
pair of sculptured figures. These piers, one suspects, were originally
carved for a cloister, and later diverted to their present position ; but
however that may be, one of the figures on each side faces diagonally
in against the wall. Now these figures are completely finished, even in
the surfaces which nearly or actually touch the face of the wall. It is
consequently certain that they were sculptured before they were set up.
In the northern upper lunette at Corme Royal (111. 10 13) is a
sculptured voussure. It is evident that owing to a miscalculation
there was not space enough to fit in the two upper figures. Accord-
ingly a slice has been sawed off the head of each to accommodate the
sculpture to the space available. Clearly then these reliefs must have
been made before being placed.
io 4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
At S. Ambrogio of Milan, in the portal, is a capital with inscription
inserted upside down. It is clear that by error two capitals were
made for the right-hand side of the door. In order to make one fit
the left-hand side, it had to be put in up-side down. The existence of
such a mistake shows that capitals were carved before being placed
in position, since otherwise it could not have occurred.
Often capitals forming an iconographic sequence are inserted out
of order, as for example, in the cloister of the cathedral of Gerona. 1
Had it been the custom to carve capitals after they were placed,
we should certainly find, in view of the slow and frequently much
delayed progress habitual in mediaeval building, numerous edifices
with capitals of a much later period than the architecture, or in
which the capitals had remained unfinished to our own days. Now
there is nothing of the sort. I know of no instance of a mediaeval
church with capitals carved at a much later period than the date of
the structure itself. I have never seen a church of the XII century
with capitals of the XIII or XIV century. We have a great number
of churches begun in the XII century, left unfinished, and completed
only in the Gothic period or perhaps not at all. In every one of
these, the capitals of the Romanesque portions are Romanesque ; we
look in vain for an example of a capital in the Romanesque portion
of the building finished in the Gothic style. What we do find rarely,
are capitals left either partially or entirely unfinished. One of these
for example exists at Aulnay, 2 another in the gallery of Notre-Dame
of Paris. I have observed several examples in Auvergne, at St.-
Menoux, St.-Genou, etc. A superficial criticism has concluded that
the existence of such unfinished capitals proves that carving was
executed after capitals were placed. But what justifies such a con-
clusion ? Aside from the fact that many of these so-called unfinished
capitals are really not unfinished at all, but have merely lost their
original painted decoration, it is as easy to suppose that a capital
which was left unfinished was intended to be carved in the chantier
as in position. When the masons had to place a capital in the church,
1 Puig y Cadafalch, III, 241-242. 2 Cong. Arch., 1913, I, p. 100.
CLUNY 105
before they could proceed to the construction of the arch above, it
must inevitably have happened at times that a slow workman had
not completed the carving of the capital. Suppose that it would take
him two weeks more to finish it. Either the entire construction
would have to be delayed two weeks, and the masons kept idle, or
the capital would have to be inserted partially finished. The latter
expedient was occasionally adopted. The very fact that these capi-
tals remained unfinished may be interpreted as an indication that
capitals were carved before being placed ; otherwise they could easily
have been completed afterwards.
It was probably precisely with a view to avoid blocking the con-
struction by obliging the masons to wait for the completion of carved
members, that such were generally executed at the very beginning
of the construction. An instructive example has recently come to
light in the church of the Annunciation at Nazareth. 1 A XH-century
church was here in building, when the construction was brusquely
and forever interrupted, presumably by the advance of the Saracens.
Excavations have brought to light the mediaeval chantier, which
was in the hands of European, and doubtless French, builders. We
see a Romanesque church in the actual building. The foundations
have barely been laid ; only the base moulding of the portal is in posi-
tion. Yet the elaborately and beautifully sculptured capitals of this
portal are almost completed ; most of them are entirely finished, on
one alone there lack a few touches. It is certain that here the capi-
tals were executed not only before being placed, but even before the
building had been begun. It was only in this way that danger of
blocking the masons by obliging them to wait for the work of the
sculptors could be avoided.
In the abbey of S. Trinita at Venosa, in Apulia, we have another
admirable opportunity to study the building methods of the XII
century. This great building (111. 167-171) has remained half con-
structed. We see that it Was built not in vertical sections, but in
irregular horizontal sections. The piers of the nave have some of
1 Egidi.
106 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
them been built and crowned with entirely finished capitals ; but the
archivolts were never placed upon them. As far as the construction
has gone, not a bit of the decoration is unfinished. It is clear that
here again the sculpture was executed before it was placed. In fact,
capitals and lions, carved for this building, but never used, still exist
in the neighbourhood in considerable abundance (111. 170, 171). The
side portal (111. 169) is completely finished in the most minute detail,
although not a stone of the clerestory has been laid.
Indeed, not only capitals, but all architectural sculptures, tym-
pana, friezes, voussures or incidental reliefs were executed before
being placed. In voussures, a single subject was commonly sculp-
tured on each stone, for convenience in setting up, but often also a
single subject runs over more than one block. In such cases the re-
liefs were carved just the same way in the atelier, were then taken
apart, and put together again when they were set up in the building.
Reliefs of considerable size almost always occupy more than one
block. A careful inspection of any Romanesque tympanum will
bring to light evidence that the stones were sculptured in the chan-
tier, and assembled in the construction already carved. There is a
particularly clear example at Donzy (111. 1 14). Here the block to the
right of the three of which the tympanum is composed has been
badly placed, so that the level of the background projects beyond
that of the other two blocks. This fault is concealed by bevelling
the edge of the projecting block. Such an error could only have oc-
curred in sculptures carved before being placed.
It is sure that random bits of sculpture inserted in the facades of
churches like S. Michele of Pavia or of the church at Champagne
(Ardeche) must have been executed before being placed. Along the
pilgrimage route and in Spain, it seems to have been the custom to
accumulate great quantities of sculpture before the construction was
begun. Either there was no very definite plan as to how this was to
be used, or else the scheme was changed before the building was
erected. At any event, the sculptures were commonly inserted quite
at hap-hazard, and not in the positions they were intended to occupy.
CLUNY 107
Obviously, these reliefs were carved long before being placed. San-
giiesa (111. 749-754) and the Puerta de las Platerias at Santiago (111.
676) offer good examples of this manner of building in Spain, Civray
(111. 1 1 22-1 131) and Loches (111. 1111-1119) in France. At Reims,
statues executed for the west portal could not be placed as originally
intended, because plans were radically changed between the time
the sculptures. were made, and the building of the portal. These
statues were made a half century before the portal was actually
erected. In the facade of Notre-Dame-la-Grande of Poitiers (111.
956) a column cuts across the figure of Adam. The string-course
over the figure of Nabacchodnosor (111. 958) has a different profile
from that over the prophets, and is discontinued altogether at their
right (111. 958). Such irregularities could only have arisen in sculp-
tures carved before being placed. 1
In the light of all this evidence we may conclude that the capitals
of the ambulatory of Cluny were not carved after being placed, and
that they really were executed between 1088 and 1095.
It must not be forgotten that the abbey of Cluny possessed other
Romanesque sculptures besides the ambulatory capitals. In the
Musee Ochier there is preserved a capital, quite different in style
from those of the ambulatory, and coming from the church (111. 10).
I conjecture that it belonged to the nave. The style is puzzling. The
heavy stocky figures are at the opposite pole from the delicate grace-
ful work of the ambulatory ; they seem to be related, though in gen-
eral character rather in detail, to the work at Charlieu (111. 4). At
first they give the impression of being earlier than the ambulatory
capitals ; but on closer study, especially of the faces, it becomes clear
that the reverse is the case. This capital was, however, in all proba-
bility, executed before 1108.
1 Certain reliefs of Poitou have uncarved blocks inserted in the middle. Such are found, for
example, in the Constantine (111. 1 1 26) and voussures of Civray, in the voussures of St.-
Pompain (111. 1058), and before the restoration existed in the voussures of Ste.-Croix of Bor-
deaux. These uncarved blocks must have been inserted to replace weathered portions of the
sculptures in some restoration, perhaps of the XVIII century. It was doubtless the intention
to carve them, but this was never carried out. The same explanation applies to the uncarved
blocks replacing statues on the facade of Perignac (111. 1020, 1021).
108 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The great portal at Cluny was part of the church of 1088-1113. 1
Since it was situated at the western end of the church, it would pre-
sumably have been erected rather towards the end of this time. It
has been totally destroyed, and Sagot's lithograph appears to be phe-
nomenally inaccurate, so that it is impossible to judge of the style.
The composition is known from descriptions and the lithograph. 2
In the immense tympanum, sixteen feet broad, appeared the figure
of Christ in an aureole sustained by four angels ; about were the
symbols of the four evangelists. Below, on the lintel were the four
and twenty elders ; and above, in the spandrels, four apostles. In the
inner row of voussures about the tympanum were sculptured reliefs
of angels ; and on the third voussure were twenty-five medallions,
each containing a head in profile.
1 1 was wrong in my surmise that it was one of the portions of the church rebuilt in 1125-
113 1. The proofs that it must have belonged to the earlier construction will appear in a later
chapter.
^Millinaire.W, Plate II.
VII
THE DIFFUSION OF CLUNIAC ART
IN BURGUNDY
The glorious tympanum of Vezelay (111. 47-49), like so much else
in that abbey, is evidently derived from Cluny. The subject, it is
true, has been changed ; we no longer have the Majestas Domini of
the Cluny tympanum, but Pentecost. 1 The great figure of the Deity
in an aureole still, however, continues to be the central point of the
composition ; there is still a lintel forming a base to the tympanum ;
and the great size of this superb lunette could only have been in-
spired by Cluny.
The nave of Vezelay was finished in 11 20, the narthex was conse-
crated in 1 132. The portal would seem to belong to the nave rather
than to the narthex, and consequently to belong with the earlier
rather than with the later date. However, it should be observed
that the hand of the master of the tympanum can be recognized in
none of the capitals of the nave, but only in those of the narthex.
This seems to indicate that the master of the tympanum was not at
work at Vezelay when the nave was being built, but that he was there
when the narthex was being constructed. The conclusion is therefore
justified that the tympanum dates from shortly before 1132.
Another derivative of the tympanum of Cluny is that of Autun
(111. 80, 81). Although not a Cluniac priory, like Vezelay, the ca-
thedral of Autun was nevertheless closely connected with the great
1 The iconography of Vezelay should be compared with the mosaic in one of the domes of
St. Mark's at Venice representing the same subject. Here below the apostles are shown the
nations called to the faith — Romani, Judaei, Cretes, Arabes, Parthi, Medi, Aelamitae, Meso-
potamia, Judaea, Cappadocia, Pontum, Asiatici, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Aegyptus, Lybia. Ac-
cording to Marco Polo there were dog-headed men in the island of Agaman (Andaman) in the
Gulf of Bengal. These are illustrated with a miniature in the manuscript Fr. 2810 of the
Bibliotheque Nationale. The same conception re-appears in Oderico da Pordenone's descrip-
tion of Nicobar, also illustrated in the same manuscript. The conception of dog-headed men
is familiar in Japanese and Chinese art.
no ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
abbey. The bishop Etienne de Bage (1112-1139) by whom the
cathedral was built, went to Cluny to die ; documents speak of the
cathedral as associated {conjunctd) with Cluny. 1 The subject of the
tympanum is changed again ; in this case it is the Last Judgment.
The theme once established at Autun was sculptured in the western
tympana of countless churches of the Occident. Perhaps it came to
Autun from the painted Last Judgment, which St. Hugh had caused
to be executed in the refectory which he had built at Cluny. 2 The
subject is ultimately of Oriental origin. 3
The composition of the tympanum retains the essential lines of
that of Cluny. Again there is the figure of Christ in the aureole in
the centre ; again the narrow lintel crowded with little figures. Again
the tympanum is of enormous size.
We are fortunate in knowing the name of the sculptor who ex-
ecuted the tympanum of Autun ; he has signed his name, Gislebertus
— Gilbert. 4
It is evident that Gilbert's manner, like that of the sculptor of the
Cluny capitals, was largely formed on miniatures. The angels
plunging downwards head-foremost, recall, for example, the Sac-
ramentary of Henry II 5 and the IX-century Apocalypse of Treves. 6
The spiral belly folds must certainly have come from a manuscript —
we find precisely such in a miniature representing Christ between
evangelists and prophets in the Louvre Bible of Charles-le-Chauve,
in a miniature of St. Matthew in the Perikopenbuch Kaiser Hein-
richs II, a work of the Reichenau school of before 1014 ; 7 in another
1 Bullarium, 215. 2 Lorain, 91.
3 Last Judgments had been painted in fresco in the West at St. George, on the island of
Reichenau, about the middle of the XI century, and at S. Angelo in Formis at the end of the
XI century. The subject appears to have been represented as early as the end of the IX century
in the lower church of S. Clemente at Rome. That the inconographical conception came from
the Orient is the opinion of Bertaux {Ital. Me'r., 259). M. Diehl (228) has remarked that it
appears in the Cosmas Indicopleustes, which is a IX-century copy of a Vl-century original.
4 GISLEBERTVS HOC FECIT
5 Illustrated in Michel, I, 2, 733.
6 Bibl. de la Ville, No. 31, illustrated by Boinet, PI. CLV. The motive also occurs in an ivory
of the Kaiser Friederich Museum at Berlin. This work, which dates from the middle of the
XI century, has been illustrated by Goldschmidt, II, No. 34.
7 Illustrated by Leidinger, V, 2.
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY in
miniature, representing the dormition of the Virgin in the same
manuscript, 1 in an Armenian manuscript of the X-XII centuries, 2
and in the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold of the school of Win-
chester. 3 The motive may be traced back as far as an ivory diptych
of the VI century in the British Museum. 4
Gilbert's manner of covering his draperies with a net-work of fine
lines is also probably derived from a manuscript. We find something
very similar in the IX-century gospels of Lothaire. The motive may
very probably have originated in Byzantium. It is found on the
Christ of the gold and enamel paliotto of St. Mark's at Venice ; 5 this
appears to be a Byzantine work of the X century. In sculpture we
find similar technique in the late XI century in a capital of Otranto, 6
and at the end of the XII and beginning of the XIII centuries in
sculptures of Catalonia, at Perpignan (111. 618-620), Elne (111. 623-
626), Arles-sur-Tech (111. 627).
The curious leg-bands which appear on the thighs of several of
Gilbert's figures, perhaps originated in a bracelet, which was mis-
understood and transferred from the arm or ankle to the thigh and
treated as a part of the drapery. Such leg-bands are probably of
Byzantine origin, since they are found in Japanese art also. In
occidental art we find them in a miniature of the Evangelium Kaiser
Otto III, 7 and in a IX-century German pyxis in ivory of the British
Museum. 8 The motive became characteristic of English miniatures
of the School of Winchester. 9 It is also found in the Xl-century Area
of San Felices at S. Millan de la Cogolla (111. 662), and had appeared
1 Illustrated by Leidinger, V, 23'
2 Paris, Bib. Nat. Syriaque 344, fol. 5 verso.
3 Illustrated by Homburger, I.
4 Illustrated by Pelka, 69.
5 Illustrated by Venturi, II, 649.
6 Illustrated by Wackernagel, Taf. IX e.
7 Illustrated by Leidinger, I, 13.
8 Illustrated by Dalton, PI. XXIII, 43.
9 It is found, for example, in the Descent to Limbo of the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold
o(c. 980, illustrated by Homburger, I; in the Register of New Minster, Winchester off. 1030,
British Museum, Stowe MS. 960, illustrated by Bond, Thompson and Warner, II, 17; and
in a miniature of the end of the X century representing St. Michael, in Cottonian Psalter,
Tiberius C VI, British Museum, illustrated by Westwood, PI. 46.
ii2 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
in sculpture in the St. James of the Puerta de las Platerias at Santiago
(111. 676) before it found its way to Autun.
A figure with its head turned directly back, like the soul on the left-
hand side of the tympanum of Autun (111. 80) is found in the Register
of New Minster, of the Winchester School. 1 The capital of the nave
of Autun, by Gilbert, representing the angel appearing to St. Peter
in prison (111. 79) has the subject enclosed in an arch, as do the min-
iatures of the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold. The devil represented
on one of the capitals of the nave 2 is precisely like the devil of a
miniature of the Liber Vitae of the school of Winchester. 3
From these analogies, we may draw the conclusion that Gilbert
founded his art upon Cluniac tradition, but that he was deeply in-
fluenced, like all Burgundian sculptors, by miniatures of the school
of Winchester. He also probably knew German miniatures.
The cathedral of Autun was begun in 11 19 or 11 20; it was conse-
crated in 1 132 and a second time in 1146, 4 The capitals of the nave
and the tympanum belong to the campaign of 1119-1132.
That the nave is substantially contemporary with the tympanum
is proved by the fact that the hand of Gilbert may be recognized in
several of the capitals — those representing the Fall of Simon Magus
(111. 75), St. Peter in Prison [(111. 79), Music, Noli me tangere
(111. 78), the Ravishing of the Magdalen, 5 the Temptation. 6
If we compare the tympanum of Autun (111. 80, 81) with that of
Vezelay (111. 47-49), we shall easily convince ourselves that the two
are contemporary. The style is very different — each is the work
of a highly individual hand. They are none the less clearly products
of the same art and of the same time. Now we have found reason to
believe that the tympanum of Vezelay was sculptured before 1132.
We are therefore justified in believing that the tympanum and nave
1 British Museum, Stowe MS. 960, illustrated by Bond, Thompson and Warner, II, 17.
2 Illustrated by Terrey, PI. I.
3 British Museum, Stowe MS. 944, illustrated by Herbert, PI. XIII.
4 For a study of the documents, see De Fontenay and De Charmasse, p. cxlj f.
5 The authorship of this capital was first recognized by M. Male.
6 Illustrated by Dechelette, 20 ter.
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY 113
capitals of Autun belong to the period of building activity at Autun
extending from 11 19 to 1132.
When we compare the capitals of the nave of Autun (111. 67-79)
with those of the nave of Vezelay (111. 28-46), executed between
1 104 and 1 1 20, we perceive that the Vezelay work is rougher, more
vigorous, less refined. The Autun capitals have a decadent quality
that is lacking at Vezelay. We easily perceive that the nave of
Vezelay is earlier than the nave of Autun.
It is only in the western bays of the nave at Vezelay, and espe-
cially in the narthex, built from 11 20 to 1132, that we find capitals
really analogous to those of Autun. The work of the "Bathsheba
Master" (111. 44) has the same languor, the same sweet sweeping
lines, the same refinement, the same seduction of decadence that is
characteristic of the work at Autun (111. 68-81). The "Tympanum
Master " of Vezelay in his capital representing Samson and the Lion
(111. 46) approaches so closely the capital representing Duke Hugh II
presenting the cathedral to St.-Lazare at Autun (111. 74) l that one
is tempted to call them the work of the same hand. It seems to me
that it is more probable, however, that we have merely a strong
influence exerted by the master of the Vezelay tympanum upon a
sculptor of Autun. 2
Our impression of the date of the capitals and tympanum of Autun
is confirmed by a study of the capitals of Saulieu. This collegiate
church was associated with Cluny ; 3 the existing nave was erected
after the translation of relics in 1119. 4
When we compare the capitals (111. 52-61) with those of the nave
of Vezelay (111. 28-35, 39~4 2 > 44)> we perceive that those of Saulieu
are later. At Saulieu there is more attenuation, more manner, more
movement, more disparity of scale in the figures. If, for example,
we put the Vezelay capital of the Death of Cain (111. 35) beside the
1 1 am mortified to be obliged to illustrate this capital from the modern copy. A photograph
of the original has been published by Dechelette, 20.
2 I presume it must have been these capitals that M. Male had in mind when he stated
that the same sculptors worked at Vezelay and at Autun.
3 Bullariunty 216; Bruel, IV, 410.
4 De Fontenay et De Charmasse, p. cxlj.
1 1 4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Saulieu capital of the Noli me tangere (111. 55), we shall be convinced
that the Saulieu master is softer, more graceful, more decadent. \ Or
if we compare the facial types in the Vezelay capital of the Stolen
Blessing (111. 37) with that of the Balaam at Saulieu (111. 56), we shall
quickly convince ourselves that Saulieu is more realistic, more plastic,
less archaic. Compare also the draperies in the same two capitals —
it is evident how much more naturalistic are those of Saulieu. When
we put the Saulieu capital of the Temptation (111. 53) beside that of
the Vezelay Temptation of St. Anthony (111. 42) we see at once that
the Saulieu demon is more accomplished, more exaggerated, more
naturalistically rendered. Or if we compare the lions on the Vezelay
capital of the burial of St. Paul 1 with those of the capital at Saulieu
(111. 61), it becomes evident how much more naturalistic is the work
at Saulieu.
From all this we may conclude that the nave of Saulieu was built
not before, but after, the translation of relics in 11 19.
That on the other hand Saulieu is not later than the third decade
of the XII century, is proved by comparing the capitals with those
of Moutier-St.-Jean, now in the Fogg Museum. These capitals are
certainly earlier than 1133, since the church from which they come
was built by the abbot Bernard II who died in that year. 2
Now if we compare the lion of the Moutier-St.-Jean capital repre-
senting Samson 3 with that of the capital of Saulieu, we shall at once
perceive how closely the two resemble each other. If we put the
Moutier-St.-Jean Journey to Emmaus (111. 65) beside the Saulieu
Noli me tangere (111. 5$), we see that the facial types in the two
works are very similar, the eyes indicated by the same convention,
the hands similarly rendered, the hair and beard represented in the
same way, the draperies adorned with the same bead border. Mou-
tier-St.-Jean seems contemporary with, or if any thing a little later
than, Saulieu. Similarly, if we place the Moutier-St.-Jean capital of
Cain and Abel (111. 66) beside the Saulieu capital of the Temptation
1 F. M. S. phot. 7789. 2 Plancher, I, 516.
3 Illustrated in the Fogg Museum Notes, I, 2, Fig. 6.
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY 115
(111. $3), and compare the face of Christ at Saulieu with that of Cain
at Moutier-St.-Jean and the draperies of the two capitals, we shall
be convinced that the two works are contemporary. The capitals of
Saulieu must consequently have been sculptured in the years imme-
diately following 1119. 1
When we compare the capitals of Saulieu (111. 52-61) with those
of Autun (111. 67-79), we perceive that the latter are less vigorous,
but more lyric. Yet the two are so much alike that we can not doubt
that they are contemporary. Take, for example, the two Flights into
Egypt (111. 54 and 111. 71). The close resemblance of the two repre-
sentations, extending even to the strange rosettes under the feet
of the donkey, 2 is evident. If Saulieu is more naturalistic, Autun is
more polished and refined. The donkey in the Autun capital repro-
duces, almost line for line, the donkey of Balaam at Saulieu (111. 56).
The Devil in the Judas capital of Saulieu (111. 52) is very like the
Devil in the Temptation at Autun. The Judas of Saulieu (111. 52)
seems clearly contemporary with the disciple to the left in the Wash-
ing of the Feet at Autun (111. 70). We have, therefore, another indi-
cation that the capitals of the nave of Autun are of 11 20-1 132.
Still further confirmation is afforded by comparison with the
capitals of Moutier-St.-Jean, which, as we have seen, must be earlier
than 1 133. The general similarity in the types and in the draperies
is evident at a glance. (Compare 111. 62-66 with 111. 67-79.) The
wing of the angel in the Moutier-St.-Jean capital of the Journey to
Emmaus 3 is precisely like the wing in the Autun Fall of Simon
Magus (111. 75). If we put the Fogg Annunciation to Zacharias (111.
63) beside the Autun Washing of the Feet (111. 70), we shall perceive
that there are the same draperies, the same working of the eye, the
1 Capitals strikingly analogous to the unfigured capitals of Saulieu are found in the cathedral
of Troia in Apulia (illustrated by Bertaux, Ital. Mer. y 459). One of the bronze doors of this nave
was made in 11 19, the other in n 27, so the structure must be about contemporary with
Saulieu.
2 Similar rosettes are found on a capital of the crypt of Otranto in Apulia which was conse-
crated in 1088 (illustrated by Wackernagel, IX b). Are they connected with the lotus-blos-
soms of Oriental art ?
3 Illustrated in the Fogg Museum Notes, I, 2, Fig. 4.
n6 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
same conventions for the hair and beard, the same facial types. It
is impossible to doubt that works so similar are contemporary. We
therefore again conclude that the nave of Autun is of n 20-1 132.
As closely as Autun resembles these works of the third decade of
the XII century, does it differ from those of the fifth. In the Ar-
chaeological Museum of Dijon is preserved a tympanum represent-
ing the Majestas Domini (111. 134, 135), found in 1833 embedded in
the substructions of a buttress on the east side of the north transept
of the church of St.-Benigne. This relief bears an inscription stating
that it was restored under the abbot Peter. 1
As there were two abbots of St.-Benigne by the name of Peter, one
of whom held office from 1129-1142 and the other from 1142-1145,
it is not clear to which the inscription refers — we can only be certain
that the relief is anterior to 1145.
However, it is known that in 1137 the city and suburbs of Dijon
were devastated by a great fire. "L'eglise de Saint-Benigne en fut
presqu'entierement ruinee; il fallut dix ans entiers pour la re-
tablir." 2 Now there can be no doubt that our tympanum was part
of the restorations carried out by either one or the other Peter after
this fire; it therefore dates from between 1137 and 1145.
The composition of this tympanum (111. 134, 135) shows that it is
another derivative of the destroyed portal of Cluny. We have only
to put it beside the tympanum of Autun (111. 80, 81) to be convinced
that it is much later than Autun in style. This difference is so
marked that since the Dijon tympanum can not be later than 1145,
we must place the Autun tympanum at least as early as 1132.
Nor does the Majestas at Dijon stand alone. In the same Archaeo-
logical 'Museum is preserved another tympanum (111. 136) represent-
ing the Last Supper. This also comes from St.-Benigne, and more
precisely from the portal of the refectory, where it was seen and en-
graved by Dom Plancher 3 in the early part of the XVIII century.
1 REDDEDIT AMISSUM MICHI PETRI CVRA DECOREM
*ET DEDIT ANTIQUA FORMAM MVLTO MELIOREM
2 Plancher, I, 494.
3 1, 520.
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY 117
His drawing shows it surmounted by a row of sculptured voussures,
purely Gothic in character. Now this tympanum also bears an in-
scription, similarly stating that it was restored by the abbot Peter. 1
It therefore is contemporary with the first relief, and dated between
1 137 and 1 145.
When we compare this second tympanum with Autun (111. 80, 81),
we again perceive that Autun must be at least as early as 1132.
A comparison of the two tympana of Dijon (111. 134, 135 and 111.
136) with each other shows that marked difference of style which we
have already found is so often characteristic of contemporary
sculptors in Burgundy, even when working in the same atelier. The
tympanum of the Last Supper is obviously an imitation of the work
of the head master at Chartres — the latter must in consequence be
earlier than 1145. Although drinking from fountain-heads of such
purity, the sculptor of the tympanum of the Last Supper shows the
same defects of weakness and decadence that are characteristic of the
Majestas Domini. In any other period these productions would pass
as masterpieces; but when we come fresh from Autun and Cluny,
they seem faded.
There remains one other monument of Burgundian sculpture of
certain date. It is the tomb of St. Lazare of the cathedral of Autun,
carved by a monk of the name of Martin in the time of the bishop
Stephen (1170-1189), as is known from a destroyed inscription. 2
The monument has been broken up, but fragments are preserved
in the Musee Lapidaire installed in the church of St.-Pierre. In
quality these sculptures (111. 1 47-1 49) are among the finest produc-
tions of the second half of the XII century. The style evidently
takes us into a different era from the one which we have been
studying.
There are therefore not a few monuments of Burgundian sculpture,
the date of which can be determined by documentary evidence.
These all seem entirely consistent with each other, and show a logical
1+ CV RUDIS ANTE FORM DEDIT HANC MICHI PETRVS HONOREM
* MVTANS HORROREM FORMA MELIORE PRIO[REMl.
2 De M61y, 36.
n8 x ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
and convincing evolution of the style. There is consequently no
necessity for setting aside this mass of documentary evidence. The
monuments and the documents correspond in an entirely satisfactory
and convincing manner.
The dated monuments are distributed over the century from 1080
to 1 1 80 with sufficient evenness to form an outline into which it is
not difficult to fit the monuments for which there is no documentary
evidence of date.
The new art created at Cluny spread quickly through Burgundy.
The earliest extant imitation appears to be the altar at Avenas
(111. 1 1-15). Surely no other sculptor came as close to the manner of
the great original (111. 5-10). Yet his inferiority is, of course, patent.
Compare the Third Tone at Cluny (111. 7) with the Christ at Avenas
(111. 12). The coarseness, rigidity, jerkiness of the Avenas figure
contrast with the exquisite grace and rhythm of Cluny; the great
clumsy hands of Avenas are doubly disquieting when placed in jux-
taposition to those of Cluny ; the dainty grace of the Cluniac dra-
peries makes those of Avenas seem rigid and not well understood. But
the Avenas altar still remains a work of great merit. The sculptor
has certainly sought his inspiration at Cluny, but he has not merely
copied. He has developed a style of his own, which is of decided
originality and charm ; his work haunts the memory with singular
persistence. We can not but respect the crispness of his carving, the
sureness of his touch.
As for date, his work must evidently be later than Cluny, therefore
later than 1095. On the other hand, his style seems entirely free from
the influence of the other great ateliers which soon succeeded Cluny.
I can detect no signs of the influence of Vezelay (111. 28-51). Com-
pared with Vezelay indeed, Avenas seems distinctly earlier. If we
put, for example, the Christ of Avenas (111. 1 2) beside the Daniel of
Vezelay (111. 33), we see that at Vezelay the eye is drawn more
naturalistically, and the draperies are more advanced. It is prob-
able, therefore, that Avenas is earlier than 1 104. We shall not go far
astray if we ascribe its production to c. 1100.
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY 119
The relief of the refectory at Charlieu (111. 16), on the other hand,
is obviously later. The relationship to Cluny is still patent ; but
the draperies are more complicated than at Avenas, and a border
ornament of perforated holes is introduced. This is evidently a
very archaic example of a motive developed at Saulieu (111. 55) and
destined to attain great popularity about the middle of the XII cen-
tury. The eyes in the Charlieu relief are rendered by the same pe-
culiar convention which is characteristic of the "Vezelay Master
No. 1" (111. 34). We may consequently conclude that the Charlieu
relief is contemporary with the atelier of Vezelay (1104-1120). It
is a singular fact that the wings of the angel seem to be executed in
the Toulousan, not in the Burgundian manner ; they resemble those
of the reliefs of the ambulatory of St.-Sernin (111. 297-300) —
c. 1 105 — rather than those of the tympanum of that church (111. 309)
— c. 1 1 15. This would lead us to place the Charlieu relief about
1 1 10. That such a dating is approximately correct we may convince
ourselves by comparing the relief with the earlier tympanum of 1094
(111. 4) on the one hand, and the later porch of c. 1140 (111. 108-110)
on the other. The refectory relief is obviously closer to the former
than to the latter.
An entirely new note is struck by the superb Christ of St.-Amour
(111. 106). This is one of the unforgettable creations of mediaeval
art, in its way as inspired and as imaginative as the capitals of Cluny.
The style falls quite outside the development of the Burgundian
manner; the forms of beauty which crowded to the mind of this
artist were as impatient of conventional expression as of realism and
the possibilities of space. He makes us think on the one hand of the
wild fantasies of the Irish miniaturists ; on the other of the sculptures
at Nara. 1 His is, in its way, an equally supreme achievement. The
date of this masterpiece is not easy to determine, because of its very
originality. Surely such draperies could not have been conceived
1 His draperies are indeed much closer to those of Japanese art than any I know in the Occi-
dent. See especially the gilt bronze figure earlier than 781, owned by the Imperial Household,
and exhibited in the Kyoto Exposition. It is illustrated in the catalogue. I am indebted to
Mr. Clapp for making me acquainted with this, and so many other superlative examples of
Far-Eastern art.
120 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
before Cluny. On the other hand, they are in some respects rather
similar to, though apparently earlier than, those of the tympanum
of Fleury-la-Montagne (111. 107) which seems to be an inferior pro-
duction of c. 1 1 20. The chair at St.-Amour is like the chair of the
Christ at Avenas (111. 12). If we place St.-Amour about 11 10, we
shall probably not be very wide of the mark.
Perrecey-les-Forges was a priory dependent upon St.-Benoit-sur-
Loire. 1 The tympanum (111. 84) certainly belongs to the first half
of the XII century. This Christ in majesty, mysterious and silent as
a sphinx, charms as does a madonna of Bellini, but never cloys. The
cherubim flanking the aureole are superbly mannered. Chronologi-
cally, the sculpture must be placed between the archaic simplicity of
the older portal at Charlieu (111. 4) — 1094 — an d the refined man-
nerism of Gilbert's tympanum at Autun (111. 80) — 1132. It seems
more advanced than the capitals of the nave of Vezelay (11 04-1 120)
(111. 28-44). It may therefore be assigned to about 1125.
Anzy-le-Duc was a priory dependent upon St.-Martin of Autun. 2
The architecture of the church seems imitated from Charlieu ; it is
consequently later than 1094. The sculptured capitals (111. 17-23)
are exuberant, even rough ; but finely spirited and full of imagina-
tion. Chronologically they seem about abreast of the tympanum of
Fleury-la-Montagne (111. 107), a monument of c. 11 20.
The capitals of the nave of Anzy-le-Duc (111. 17-23) should be com-
pared with those of the crypt of St.-Parize-le-Chatel (111. 25, 26). If
we put that of Anzy representing an acrobat (111. 21) beside that of
St.-Parize representing the Sciapodes (111. 25), we shall be convinced
that the two are very closely related. Now it is known that in 11 13
the bishop Hugh IV of Nevers gave the church of St.-Parize to the
canons of his cathedral. 3 There seems every reason to suppose that
the crypt of St.-Parize belonged to a reconstruction undertaken in
consequence of this donation. The capitals may in consequence be
1 Mortet, 507.
2 Thiollier, 73 ; Rhein in Cong. Arch., LXXX, 269.
3 Le Nivernois, 237.
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY 121
considered dated monuments of 11 13. The nave of Anzy-le-Duc
must also date from about the same time.
The western portal of Anzy-le-Duc is of a different and much more
developed art. The style (111. 96, 97) seems clearly more archaic than
that of the tympana of Vezelay (111. 47-51) and Autun (111. 80, 81),
both dating from about 1132. It may therefore be assigned to about
1 125. The elders floating upon the voussures suggest the influence
of the school of the West.
A second portal is preserved at Anzy-le-Duc (111. 95), not in the
church, but in the priory buildings. The style is totally different
from that of either the capitals or the western portal of the church ;
and when we come to the portal that has been transferred to Paray-
le-Monial (111. 98, 99), we shall find still a fourth manner of sculp-
ture. All these must have flourished at Anzy-le-Duc within a few
years of each other. It is usually supposed that the portal of the
priory is much earlier than that of the church, but I do not believe
that this point of view can be justified. The style in fact shows many
points of contact with the tympana of Vezelay (111. 47-51) and Autun
(111. 80, 81), both monuments of about 1132. It is, therefore, prob-
able that the two portals of Anzy-le-Duc are about contemporary
with each other.
kThe same serpentine, El Greco-like style is found in the portal at
Neuilly-en-Donjon (111. 93, 94). We have here the work of a hand
very closely related to, if not identical with, the one that sculptured
the priory portal at Anzy-le-Duc (111. 95).
From the priory portal at Anzy-le-Duc and the tympanum of
Neuilly-en-Donjon seem to be descended the celebrated outer portal
of Charlieu (111. 108-1 io). 1 This imaginative work possesses a Hindu-
like exuberance of ornamentation. As for its date, a glance is suffi-
cient to reveal that we are here dealing with the late autumn of
Burgundian art. The Charlieu sculptures (111. 108-110) are ranker,
more mannered, less fresh than the tympana of Vezelay (111. 47-51)
1 The circular table in the Last Supper suggests Byzantine influence ; compare the Armenian
manuscript of the Bibliotheque Nationale, Etchmiadzin, 362 G. fol. 8 vo. ; Codex Purpureus
of Rosano of the VI century, illustrated by Haseloff, Taf. V.
122 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
and Autun (111. 80, 81), hence later than 1132. On the other hand,
the puristic tendencies of Chartres are notably absent. We have
already seen that these began to make themselves felt in Burgundy
before 1145. Charlieu can consequently not be later than 1140. The
tympanum of St.-Julien-de-Jonzy (111. in), smaller, but better
preserved, is a work of the same hand. Its composition is the same
as that of the older portal at Charlieu (111. 4).
The delicate tympanum of Montceaux-FEtoile (111. 104, 105) and
the sculptures of St.-Paul-de-Varax (111. 86-91), with their striking
effects of space, both are close to the tympana of the side portals of
Vezelay (111. 50, 51). The enigmatic tympanum which is the most
conspicuous remains of the ancient cathedral of St.-Vincent at Macon
(111. 92) seems to be a conglomeration of fragments which were per-
haps disposed like the sculptures of St.-Paul-de-Varax. The original
tympanum of much smaller size, representing the Majestas Domini,
the apostles and the two witnesses of the Apocalypse was at a later
period combined with parts of a frieze like that of St.-Paul-de-Varax
(111. 86, 87, 89, 90) to form a much larger tympanum representing
the Last Judgment. The wings of the upper angels recall Perrecey-
les-Forges (111. 84). The original sculptures may have dated from
about 1 130. Montceaux-FEtoile (111. 104,105) is perhaps a little
earlier, St.-Paul-de-Varax (111. 86-91) a little later, than the Vezelay
work. A third portal of Anzy-le-Duc, now in the Musee Eucharis-
tique at Paray-le-Monial (111. 98, 99) is marked by a style which is
more advanced than that of St.-Paul-de-Varax. The draperies of
Christ seem already to show something very like the Chartres-esque
formula. On the other hand this tympanum seems distinctly earlier
than the Dijon tympana (111. 134, 136) and also earlier than the outer
portal at Charlieu (111. 108-110). It may therefore be as early as
1135.
The fragments of the church of St.-Sauveur of Nevers (111. 126-
133), gathered together in the Musee de la Porte du Croux, are of
more than common interest. The capital representing St. Peter and
St. John (111. 132) shows points of marked similarity with the capital
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY 123
of Tobias (111. 45) in the narthex of Vezelay. Since the latter dates
from before 1 132, the Nevers capital may very probably be of c. 1 135.
The tympanum representing the Giving of the Keys (111. 133) is by
the same hand as the capital. Since the tympanum is signed, we have
the name of this interesting, if somewhat mediocre sculptor — Mavo.
The style of the work at St.-Sauveur of Nevers does not seem
entirely Burgundian. It has a certain dryness which recalls much
more the school of the West. The gracious movement, the swirling
lines, the fluttering draperies of Burgundy are strangely absent. We
are therefore not entirely surprised to find the hand of this same
artist in a capital of Fontevrault (111. 923). The abbey of Fonte-
vrault was consecrated in 11 19; his work there must then be con-
siderably earlier than that at Nevers. It is strange that at Fonte-
vrault in the heart of the West, Mavo seems as Burgundian as he
seems Western at Nevers. He was possibly born and formed in the
region between Burgundy and the West.
When we compare the tympanum of St.-Sauveur (111. 133) with
that of St.-Benigne of Dijon representing the Last Supper (111. 136),
we are in no doubt that St.-Sauveur is earlier. It is clear that the
St.-Benigne tympanum was executed under the strong influence of
the head-master of Chartres. This is evident not only in the facial
types, the draperies, the borders of the garments, the folds of the
table-cloth, but even, as Mr. Priest observes, in the composition.
This is, in fact, a reversal of the composition of the Last Supper on
one of the capitals of Chartres. 1 Now these Chartres-esque man-
nerisms which abound at St.-Benigne, are lacking at Nevers. We may
consequently conclude that Nevers is earlier. Since the St.-Benigne
Last Supper is anterior to 1145, the Giving of the Keys of St.-
Sauveur must be still earlier, or of about 1135.
Indeed, the comparison of the tympana of these two Cluniac
priories suggests a more daring conclusion. If we divest the Dijon
1 The composition was made popular at Chartres (it was copied thence also on a capital of
La Daurade of Toulouse — 111. 471 — ), but was not originated there. Mr. Cook has called
my attention to the fact that it is found in the Area of S. Felices at S. Millan (III. 661).
i2 4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Last Supper of its Chartres-esque mannerisms, so evidently a super-
ficial affectation, we should have left a style strangely like that of the
Nevers Giving of the Keys. The head of the right-hand apostle at
Nevers is very like that of the third from the right at Dijon. There
is the same trick of shortening the figures to make them fit under the
curve of the lunette. There are the same faults of proportion — com-
pare for example the figure second from the left in both tympana.
At Dijon have we Mavo trying to imitate Chartres ?
It is clear that the sculptor of the tympanum of Donzy (111. 112-
114) also knew Chartres. If we compare his composition with the
tympanum of the southern portal at Chartres, we shall have no
doubt of the fact. His Virgin sits in the same position, holding the
Child straight in front of her ; in each case she is under a canopy sup-
ported on columns (that at Chartres has been broken away) ; the
posture of the angel to the left, the sweep of his wings, even the posi-
tion of his left hand and arm is the same. The bottom folds of the
drapery of the Virgin's dress are in the two cases very similar. The
crowns are alike. The right hands of the Virgins are precisely the
same. The tympanum of Donzy is certainly inspired by Chartres.
Yet at Donzy there is much more than mere copying of Chartres.
It is impossible to remain in the presence of this noble work, without
the conviction that it was produced by an artist of strong individual-
ity, with a vision of beauty that was characteristically his own. Now
this personality which persists underneath the superficial influence
of the Master of the Angels, is singularly like that of the sculptor of
the outer porch of Charlieu (111. 108-110) and of St.-Julien-de-Jonzy
(111. 111). If we compare the face of the angel at Donzy (111. 112)
with the face of the angel in the corresponding position at St.-Julien
(111. in) ; the flutter of drapery in front of the angel at Donzy (111.
112) with that behind the left-hand angel at St.-Julien ; the folds and
lower edge of the garment about the left knee of the left-hand angel
at Charlieu (111. 108) with the fold about the right knee of the Virgin
at Donzy (111. 113) ; the execution of the feathers of the wing of the
angel at St.-Julien (111. in) with that of the wing of the angel at
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY 125
Donzy (111. 112); the draperies to the right of the feet of the Deity
at Charlieu (111. 108) with those about the feet of the Child at
Donzy (111. 113), we shall, I think, be tempted to conjecture that all
three tympana are by the same sculptor.
A problem no less interesting is afforded by the two portals of La
Charite-sur-Loire (111. 11 5-1 22). Here, again, the composition of
the lintel repeats with extraordinary exactitude that of the lintels
of the south portal of Chartres. In this instance the question is com-
plicated by the existence of a third rendering of the same theme in
the frieze of Montmorillon (111. 1072 a, 1073). If we place the three
versions beside each other, 1 we shall be in no doubt that they are
closely related. The similarities are extraordinary. The scene of the
Nativity, for example, is represented in all in the same peculiar way ;
the Virgin lies in bed ; above her is a sort of shelf, on which the Christ
Child, the ox and the ass are, or were, placed. St. Joseph stands in
all cases at the head of this arrangement ; his garment falls over his
left arm in precisely the same way. The angel of the Annunciation
at Chartres and La Charite is represented in the same manner ; his
wings are similarly placed, 2 even the feathers are executed with the
same convention. At Montmorillon this angel has been transferred
from the scene of the Annunciation to that of the Shepherds. 3 The
1 Excellent reproductions of the sculptures of Chartres are available in the monograph of
M. Houvet.
2 This arrangement of the wings is an old Byzantine motive, the history of which I have
sketched in Lombard Architecture, I, 285. In addition to the instances there cited it should be
remarked that it also occurs in a manuscript of Monte Cassino, dated 1072, No. 99 H, Homiliae
diversae; in an ivory-carving representing the Dream of Joseph in the South Kensington Mu-
seum, called an Italian work of the XI-XII centuries, and illustrated by Graeven, II, 57 ; in
another in the same museum, a work of the Ada group dating from the IX century illustrated
by Goldschmidt, I, No. 14. This motive had been naturalized in the sculpture of western
France from at least the time when the sculptures of Villogen (111. 1083) were executed. We
have here another indication that the composition which we are studying originated where this
motive was at home, i.e. y at Montmorillon, and not in Burgundy nor the Ile-de-France, where
it had been previously unknown.
The angel of the Montmorillon Annunciation is very like the second angel from the bottom
in the inner voussure on the right-hand side at Le Mans. It is evident, however, that the
Montmorillon angel is the original, the Le Mans version a derivative.
3 This detail is puzzling, and to some extent contradicts the conclusions at which we shall
arrive. I can only suppose that the St.-Gilles Master of Chartres, a veritable vagabond, knew
the rendering of the theme at La Charite" as well as that at Montmorillon. Mr. Priest has
observed that certain heads at La Charite* — notably the Virgin (111. 118) and the second king
126 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
altar on which the Christ Child is presented is of the same peculiar
form ; * in all it resembles a pagan pedestal. But enough has been
said of the similarities, which no one will doubt. The differences are
more significant for our purpose.
We notice, therefore, that the Montmorillon sculptor is fond of
movement, which the sculptor of Chartres avoids. Compare, for
example, the two angels of the Annunciation. That at Montmorillon
rushes, while that at Chartres hardly moves. The shepherds at
Chartres are more rigid than those at Montmorillon ; the virgin in
bed raises her knees and lifts her elbows ; at Chartres she lies corpse-
like. The work at Chartres is more monumental and architectural ;
that at Montmorillon more lively and naturalistic. The figures at
Montmorillon have not the attenuated proportions of those of
Chartres. The draperies, moreover, have a different character. At
Montmorillon the folds are broader and more theatrical.
All these facts seem to indicate that Chartres is later than Mont-
morillon. The great changes of style introduced by the atelier of
Chartres were the abandonment of the movement which had been
before in vogue, and the elaboration of a new type of drapery.
However, the instances we have already found of minor sculptors
in the provinces who reproduced pages of the gospel of Chartres,
and numerous others of similar character which we shall come upon
in the future, raise the a priori suspicion that we may have here
merely another instance of the diffusion of a Chartrain motive. It
is hence desirable to find definite proof that Chartres can not be the
original from which the other two are derived.
Fortunately, such is at hand. At Chartres the scene of the Adora-
tion of the Magi is omitted, but this is included at both Montmorillon
of the Adoration (111. 1 1 8) have a somewhat Chartres-esque quality, while others recall the
Betrayal of the St.-Gilles frieze (111. 1319, 1320). Did the St.-Gilles Master, who worked at
St.-Gilles and Chartres, and who also knew La Charite, bring thither these ideas ?
1 A similar altar is found in the lintel of Bitonto (111. 232). In the Benedictional of St. Aethel-
wold, a manuscript of the School of Winchester of c . 980 preserved at Chatsworth, is a minia-
ture representing the Presentation, with a square altar seen diagonally. The Virgin holds the
Child somewhat as at Montmorillon. Illustrated by Wilson and Warner, folio 35.
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY 127
(111. 1073) and La Charite (111. 118). 1 The composition, it is true,
is reversed; but details like the peculiar caned chair with a foot-
stool in which the Virgin is seated (such a chair is found nowhere at
Chartres) ; the halo of the Christ Child ; the drawing of the first
magus, prove that the two compositions are related. Another detail
is also conclusive. At Montmorillon (111. 1073) and La Charite (111.
119) in the scene of the Presentation the Christ Child is held above
the altar; at Chartres he stands upon it. That Montmorillon and
La Charite have common characteristics different from Chartres
proves that Chartres is not the common ancestor.
We notice, furthermore, that La Charite shows little trace of the
style of Chartres in the details of the execution. On the other hand,
the influence of Montmorillon is patent. The folds of the drapery
falling from the left arm of the Christ in the tympanum of La
Charite (111. 116) are evidently inspired by those of the Joseph in the
Presentation of Montmorillon (111. 1073). The halo of Mary in the
Presentation at La Charite (111. 119) is bent back over the string-
course, precisely as are the halos at Montmorillon (111. 1072 a, 1073) ;
there is nothing analogous to this at Chartres. The little square altar
which appears in all these reliefs in the scene of the Presentation has
no prototype in Burgundy nor in the Ile-de-France. It is, however, at
home in the West, being found in a capital of L'lle-Bouchard (111.
1 102), in which the Presentation is represented with this same pecu-
liar iconographic formula. The style of the sculptor of La Charite
shows numerous signs of having been influenced by the West. One
suspects, indeed, that he is not Burgundian at all. The prophets
flanking the aureole (111. 115, 117) are not very close to the nearest
Burgundian prototypes, like the figures of the "Mill" capital of
Vezelay (111. 40) ; their scrolls, their beards, their sinuous contours
show that they must be rather descendants of the Isaiah of Souillac
(111. 344). The crouching figure in the right-hand corner of the
1 The scene of the Visitation, which occurs at Chartres and at La Charit6, does not appear
at Montmorillon. It certainly, however, once existed. These reliefs are not in their original
position. When they were moved this panel must have been destroyed. Part of it is still
visible to the right of the Annunciation (111. 1072 a).
128 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
tympanum at La Charite (111. 117) looks as if it might be a derivative
of the figures in the same position at Angouleme (111. 937). All this
gives reason to believe that Montmorillon is the common ancestor,
La Charite and Chartres derivatives.
We may even go so far as to conclude that Chartres is later than
La Charite. If we compare the latter with the Dijon Majestas
Domini, we shall be convinced that the two are closely related. The
right hand of the Christ at Dijon (111. 135), for example, is precisely
like the right hand of the Christ at La Charite (111. 116) ; the simi-
larity of feeling in the draperies and various details is unmistakable.
It is, however, equally clear that La Charite is more archaic. Dijon
is notably more sugary, more relaxed, more naturalistic. Since the
Dijon relief can not be later than 1145, it can not be much later than
Chartres ; La Charite, which seems so much more primitive, must be
earlier.
It seems surprising that the great atelier of Chartres should have
condescended to copying works so little known as Montmorillon and
La Charite. Should we, therefore, suppose the existence of a common
prototype, now lost, for all these works ? I do not think the hypoth-
esis is necessary. The lintel at Chartres in which this passage
occurs is not by any of the four great masters who worked upon that
facade, but by a fifth and much inferior hand, that of the St.-Gilles
master. We shall later see that one of the chief characteristics of this
sculptor was the literalness with which he reproduced other people's
compositions.
Moreover, the atelier of Montmorillon which seems obscure to us
to-day may not have been so in the XII century. The provenance of
these sculptures is unknown. That they exerted great influence upon
Romanesque art is proved not only by the copies at Chartres and La
Charite, but also by the sculptures of the west wall at Souvigny
(111. 124, 125). This Cluniac priory is situated a little to the west of
Burgundy; it is still, however, geographically far removed from
Poitou. The debris of sculptures which have been set up in their
present position in modern times, perhaps originally belonged to a
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDYjj 129
jube ; * they were already in their present position when drawn by
Chenevard in 1838. The style is evidently closely related to Mont-
morillon. The wings of the angel are broken, but were probably held
as in the Montmorillon Shepherds ; the draperies are precisely those
of Montmorillon ; and the curious caning of the chair is like that of
the chair and the bed at Montmorillon.
The new style introduced at Souvigny seems to have spread to
St.-Menoux in Auvergne. In the narthex of this church (111. 1257,
1258), and in the museum at Moulins (111. 1259) are preserved frag-
ments of a screen similar to that of Souvigny. When we compare the
Christ of St.-Menoux (111. 1257) with that of Souvigny (111. 125),
we perceive how painstakingly the Auvergnat sculptor has copied his
original. The folds of the drapery are precisely the same. It is evident,
however, that all the freshness and vigour of the work at Souvigny
are lost in this uninspired imitation. In the bishop at St.-Menoux
(111. 1257) is reproduced line for line, the bishop of Souvigny (111. 124).
The sculptures from Ebreuil (111. 1 254-1 256), now in the museum
of Moulins, are a hardly less patent imitation of Souvigny. Compare,
for example, the undergarment of Christ in the two works (111. 125
and 111. 1254). Ebreuil is, however, even clumsier and more uncouth
than St.-Menoux. Another echo of Souvigny may be found in the
Christ at Vizille (111. 1185).
To return from this digression in uncreative Auvergne to the fertile
soil of Burgundy, we find one more monument which shows relation-
ship to La Charite. It is the tomb of Ste. Magnance (111. 146). While
the facial types and the general treatment are clearly close to La
Charite (compare, for example, with the Mary in the Presentation —
111. 119), the workmanship is distinctly inferior. The execution of the
folds of the draperies is £very similar to that of the Christ at St.-
Menoux (111. 1257) ; I should not be surprised if it proved to be
another production of the same plodding hand. 2
1 Crosnier's drawing seems to show at La Charite" fragments of a screen like the one at Sou-
vigny. Compare also the fragments of an altar reredos at Maastricht, illustrated by Ligten-
berg, Taf. IV.
2 1 am indebted to Mr. Royall Tyler for having called my attention to the existence of
sculptures at Ste.-Magnance.
130 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
It is a delight to turn from such troubled waters to the limpid
beauty of the little relief at Bois-Ste.-Marie. I can detect no traces
of Chartrain influence in this masterpiece (111. 142) ; the style seems
wholly Burgundian, a development of the lyric mood already ini-
tiated in the lintel of Anzy-le-Duc (111. 98) now at Paray-le-Monial.
The naturalism of the drawing argues a date about 1 160 ; so satisfying
a composition was hardly again achieved until Benedetto created his
lunette in the Parma baptistry.
Delightful, too, is the portal at Avallon (111. 137-141). Of all the
Chartres-esque portals of France, this is the most archaic and the
most crisp. At Ivry-la-Bataille the jamb figure is more elongated
(111. 1478), but the voussures (111. 1474-1477) show an art which is
already Gothic in feeling, while those of Avallon are still thoroughly
Romanesque. They are, indeed, closely imitated from the portal at
Vezelay ; and the style of the tympanum sculptures, with figures of
extreme elongation, recalls works like those of the Tobias master at
Vezelay (111. 45). Obviously this good Burgundian sculptor let him-
self be dazzled only to a very limited extent by the glitter of Chartres.
An innovation of capital importance was the division of the portal
into two halves by a central column with arches. 1 At Santiago twin
portals had been used, and at Vezelay there had been introduced a
trumeau (111. 47). At Avallon, however, there were twin arches under
a single great tympanum, 2 now unfortunately destroyed.
The type of Burgundian portal initiated at Avallon was developed
in the west portal of St.-Benigne of Dijon, now entirely destroyed.
From the engraving of Dom Plancher 3 (Ill. 144) we are able to recon-
struct the composition. Like the destroyed tympanum of Avallon
this was another derivative of the portal at Cluny, but into the
Majestas Domini was unexpectedly projected (at least if the drawing
According to Revoil, III, 22, there was an earlier example of this motive at St.-Pons; but
the upper tympanum was not sculptured, whereas the two minor portals had sculptured
tympana.
2 This tympanum represented the Majestas Domini. St. Lazare was on the trumeau; on the
jambs to the left was the Annunciation, on those to the right two prophets (Fleury, 132, citing
a document of 1482). Drawings of the portals, showing three jamb figures in the central portal,,
and four in the side portal were published by Plancher (I, 514) in 1739.
3 1, 503.
CLUNIAC ART IN BURGUNDY 131
may be trusted) the Church and the Synagogue. The voussures were
all sculptured in the Gothic manner, so the portal is presumably
later than Avallon. The extreme elongation of the jamb figures has
also been discarded ; it is striking that they have been moved up to
the top of the columns. On the trumeau was a great statue of St.-
Benigne. The head of this statue, after having been long exposed
in the wall of the Hotel Gossin, has found its way into the archaeo-
logical museum at Dijon. The style (111. 145) shows evident kinship
with the St. Andrew from the tomb of St. Lazare at Autun (111. 149) ;
the Dijon portal may, therefore, be assigned to c. 1170.
The arches at St.-Benigne are still all semicircular; among the
sculptured Romanesque portals of Burgundy, it is only at Semur-
en-Brionnais (111. 143) that the pointed arch appears. The composi-
tion of the Semur tympanum, like that of the tympanum at Charlieu
(111. 108), repeats once more the formula enunciated at Cluny.
VIII
THE DIFFUSION OF CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE
OF BURGUNDY
We have seen that in Burgundy, and possibly at Charlieu (111. 4),
was originated a new formula of composition for tympana. This con-
sisted of the representation of the Deity in an aureole supported by
angels. Variously embellished and amplified, the motive was con-
stantly repeated in monuments of Burgundy.
It was, indeed, destined to spread far beyond the limits of that
province, and its frequent presence in distant lands is proof of the far-
reaching influence exerted by the Cluniac school of sculpture. Thus
we find it in Auvergne (in more or less modified form), at Thuret
(111. 1 139), Meillers (111. 1251), Mars (111. 1140), Autry-Issard (111.
1141) and Mauriac (111. 1246); in Languedoc at St.-Chamant (111.
1 276) ; in Germany in the Marktportal at Mainz, 1 and in the tym-
panum from Petershausen near Constance, now in the Vereinigte
Sammlungen at Karlsruhe ; 2 in Austria, at St. Stephen of Vienna ; 3
in England at Ely, 4 Water Stratford 5 and in the south portal of
Malmesbury abbey ; 6 in Lombardy at Torre dei Piccenardi ; 7 in Tus-
cany at the cathedral of Lucca (111. 247) ; in the Capitanata at
S. Leonardo (111. 214) ; 8 in Catalonia at Corneilla (111. 528), and in a
1 Illustrated by Dehio und von Bezold, XII, 12.
2 Illustrated ibid., XII, 9.
3 Illustrated ibid., XII, 12.
4 Illustrated by Prior and Gardner, 206.
5 Illustrated ibid., 195.
6 Illustrated in Bell's handbook, 72.
7 Illustrated in Porter, Lombard Architecture, IV, Plate 115, Fig. 3.
8 These sculptures are not as late as has been supposed. They should be classed not so much
with the tympanum of S. Maria at Monte S. Angelo (111. 231) as with the sculptures by Acuto
at Pianella in the Abruzzi (111. 217, 218). Indeed, I almost question whether they be not by the
very hand of Acuto. Now Pianella was rebuilt after a destruction in 1 158. The lintel (111. 218)
is closely related to that of S. Clemente di Casauria (111. 220) which is a dated monument of
1 1 76. The style of the sculptures at S. Leonardo is also similar to that of the master who
worked upon the cathedral (111. 204-206, 208-211) and Ognisanti (111. 201-203) of Trani. The
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 133
somewhat modified form (the Labarum being substituted for the
Deity in an aureole), at St.-Feliu-d'Amont (111. 548) ; in Aragon at
San Juan de la Pena (111. 545) and with the same modification at
Huesca (111. 529, 531, 532) ; and in the Basque provinces, in an even
more modified form, at Armentia (111. 766).
The Burgundian lintel, as well as the Burgundian tympanum, was
copied throughout the length and breadth of Europe. At Charlieu
(111. 4) the motive is enunciated in its essence ; here the cycle of the
apostles is represented, each under the arch of an arcade. Lintels so
composed had been known in Burgundy before Charlieu, since one
is already found at Chateauneuf (111. 2) ; and something very like
the motive occurs at St.-Genis-des-Fontaines (111. 513) and St.-
Andre-de-Sorrede (111. 514) in the Pyrenees. Charlieu, however,
appears to be the earliest instance extant in which such a lintel is
placed below a tympanum.
The motive in whole or in part was repeated in various regions.
At Rutigliano in Apulia (111. 163) it was reproduced quite exactly
as early as 1108. In Germany, the portal of Petershausen, near Con-
stance, now in the Vereinigte Sammlungen at Karlsruhe, 1 echoes all
the essential parts of the Charlieu composition, except that the ar-
cades of the lintel are omitted. In the Galluspforte at Basel, on the
other hand, the composition has been entirely changed; only the
fact of the lintel witnesses the survival of the Burgundian tradition. 2
In Lombardy the lintel with the arcade was taken over by Nicolo
and used by him at Piacenza, 3 Ferrara 4 and S. Zeno of Verona. 5 But
for the single figures of apostles which at Charlieu had been placed
beneath the arches of the arcade, Nicolo substituted reliefs repre-
senting scenes usually from the life of Christ. This version of the
motive was then carried back again to France at Bourg-Argentai
bronze doors of the cathedral of Trani were made about 1175; it is absurd to suppose that the
jambs can be later. All this brings us to about 1 175 for the date of the S. Leonardo sculptures.
1 Illustrated by Dehio und von Bezold, XII, 9.
2 Ibid., XII, 9.
3 Illustrated in my Lombard Architecture ; IV, Plate 181, Fig. 1; Plate 182, Fig. 4.
4 Illustrated ibid., Plate 89, Fig. 5.
5 Illustrated ibid., Plate 225, Fig. 2.
134 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
(111. 1150), Valence (111. 1188) and — in a frieze — at St.-Trophime
of Aries (111. 1374). 1
At St.-Trophime of Aries (111. 1366) and St.-Chamant (111. 1276)
the Burgundian apostles were again reinstated in the lintel below the
Majestas Domini of the tympanum. Thence the motive made its way,
without the tympanum, to several monuments of Tuscany of the
second half of the XII or the XIII century — it is found at S. Bar-
tolommeo in Pantano (111. 190) and S. Pietro Maggiore (111. 228) of
Pistoia and S. Giovanni of Lucca (111. 227). Only at the cathedral of
Lucca (111. 247) is it found in connection with a tympanum.
In France, the motive made its way to Ganagobie (111. 1236), to
Mauriac (111. 1247), to St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges (111. 323), to
St.-Sernin of Toulouse (111. 310) and to Cahors (111. 422). At St.-
Sernin (111. 310) and Mauriac (111. 1247) the arches are omitted, so
the lintels show, perhaps, the influence of Cluny rather than of
Charlieu. There is, at any rate, no doubt that the row of elders be-
low the tympanum of Moissac (111. 339) is derived from Cluny, since
w here as there elders are substituted for apostles. At Moissac (111. 339)
the lintel tends to be absorbed in the tympanum ; at Beaulieu (111.
409) the reduction of the lintel was carried still further, and at St.-
Denis it disappeared altogether (111. 1439). The lintel was, however,
& reinstated by the head-master at Chartres. Here we have an archais-
tic revival of the motive in its original Burgundian form ; every es-
sential feature of Charlieu (111. 4) is present, including the arches and
the apostles. The only innovation was the addition of two extra fig-
ures, possibly intended to represent the witnesses of the Apocalypse. 2
These seem to be derived from the lintel of Etampes (111. 1462) which,
together with the tympanum, forms a composition representing the
Ascension, a subject in which the witnesses are regularly represented
with the apostles, in accordance with the Biblical text. From Char-
tres the motive spread in all directions — we find it repeated in
1 It was probably from Provence that the sculptor of the tomb of S. Vicente at Avila came
by the motive, which he combines with Etampes canopies (111. 850, 851).
2 This idea was first suggested to me by Mr. C. S. Niver.
4
CLUNIACMRT OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 135
France at Le Mans, at Bourges, at St.-Loup-de-Naud (111. 1492) ;
it formerly existed at Angers, St.-Ayoul of Provins and Ivry-la-
Bataille. It travelled as far as Sangiiesa in Spain (111. 742), and in a
modified form to the cathedral of Genoa in Italy (111. 254).
In the portal of Cluny, as we have seen, a notable advance was
ade over Charlieu. The tympanum was made of immense size —
sixteen feet in width. The arches in the lintel were suppressed, and
for the twelve apostles were substituted the four and twenty elders.
In the tympanum were introduced, in addition to the Majestas
Domini and angels, the symbols of the four evangelists.
The composition of the tympanum of Cluny was reproduced at
Moissac (111. 339) ; the only essential difference is that at Moissac,
for lack of space, some of the elders are crowded over into the tym-
panum. This tympanum, like that of Cluny, is of great size, whereas
the earlier tympana of Aquitaine and Spain, like St.-Sernin (111. 308)
and Santiago (111. 678-680) had been of small dimensions.
The style of the tympanum of Moissac is entirely different from
that previously practised by the sculptors of Languedoc. It is only
necessary to compare the photographs of it (111. 339-342) with those
of the earlier work at Moissac (111. 262-287) an< 3 Toulouse (111. 288-
322) on the one hand, and with the capitals of Cluny (111. 5-10) and
the tympanum of Vezelay (111. 47-49) on the other, to be convinced
that the sculptor, while undoubtedly influenced by local tradition,
was still essentially Cluniac. It was only in Burgundy that he could
have learneqLhis elongatedjjroportions, his calligraphic lines, all with-
out precedent at Toulouse. Compare, for example, the angel to the
left in the Moissac tympanum (111. 340) with the Grammar of Cluny
\\\\. 6). We are at once struck by the similarity in the bend of the
figures, the tip of the heads, the movement of line, the attenuation.
The resemblance extends even to details. The folds of the drapery of
the left knees fall in the same characteristic oval lines. Now put
beside these two figures the angel in the corresponding position of the
St.-Sernin tympanum (111. 308). It is clear what a gulf separates
Moissac from the heavy massive art of Toulouse, and what close
<B
136 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
bonds connect it with Cluny. The face of the Deity at Moissac
(111. 341) is totally different from that of the Deity at St.-Sernin
(111. 309), whereas it closely resembles the Deity in the tympanum of
Vezelay (111. 48 a) — there are the same eyes, the same long narrow
head, the same extraordinary beard with little strands ending in
spirals and with moustache carried over the beard, the same conven-
tion for indicating the hair, the same nose. The broad flat folds of
(£) the Moissac draperies (111. 340-342) are essentially Cluniac, and en-
tirely different from the round folds of St.-Sernin (111. 309, 310). The
drapery edges at Moissac as, for example, on the cloak falling in the
lap of the Deity (111. 341), are without analogy at Toulouse (111.
308-321), but are very similar to the draperies of Cluny — see, for
example, the veil of the figure called Iron Work (111. 9). The striking
beards of the Moissac elders (111. 340) are without resemblance to the
beards of the St.-Sernin sculptures (111. 310), but are an obvious elab-
oration of such beards as that of the Third Tone at Cluny (111. 7).
Even where Moissac seems to resemble St.-Sernin, it is probable that
T both may be derived from Cluny, for, as we shall presently see, there
is no doubt that the St.-Sernin portal was influenced also by the
Burgundian monastery. Thus the tipped heads of the apostles at
St.-Sernin (111. 310) might easily seem to be the prototype of the
same motive found in the elders of Moissac (111. 339). But Sagot's
lithograph, 1 inaccurate as it is, suggests that the heads of the elders
at Cluny were also tipped. Similarly, the face of the left-hand angel
at Moissac (111. 340) seems to be a development of that of the angel
in the corresponding position of the tympanum of St.-Sernin (111.
308). But here again the type of face seems to be Burgundian rather
than Toulousan ; it goes back rather to the Grammar of Cluny (111. 6)
than to such figures as the angels of the St.-Sernin ambulatory (111.
297-302). Nor is the movement, which begins in the St.-Sernin tym-
panum (111. 308) and is carried much .farther in the tympanum of
Moissac (111. 339), a native growth. It had been, we have seen, one of
the chief characteristics of the art of Cluny, and before that of the
1 Reproduced in Millenaire, II, PI. II.
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 137
miniatures of the school of Winchester. The tympanum of Moissac
may therefore be considered essentially Burgundian in style.
The date of the tympanum of Moissac has been much discussed.
A late chronicle calls it the work of the abbot Ansquitil (1085-1 115).
This statement would seem entirely credible, did not the chronicler
Aymery proceed to give his reasons. These are couched in a Latin
that is unintelligible; 1 the attempts to explain the passage made by
modern scholars do not carry conviction, so that we are left in doubt
as to what the chronicler's authority for his statement may have
been, and the suspicion that it was not very good.
Above the porch is the statue of the abbot Roger (1 11 5-1 131). In
the inscription the abbot is called " beatus"; the statue was conse-
quently set up after his death, or after 1131. Now the style of this
statue (111. 379) seems to differ materially from that of the porch be-
low (111. 360-377) ; but that of the companion statue (111. 380) is less
unlike the work on the porch. The conclusion seems justified that the
statue of Roger was here placed because the porch was the work of
the abbot in question, and that hence the porch was erected be-
tween 1 1 15 and 1 131.
In this connection attention should be called to the fact that in
11 22 relics were translated into the abbey. 2 It may well be that the
works of embellishment of which the porch was part, were under-
taken in consequence of this translation.
The style of the sculptures of the porch differs notably from that
of the tympanum. Although the technical details are closely copied,
so as to give the work the appearance of a sort of unity, the trumeaii
and porch are surely by a weaker and far inferior hand. We have only
to place the St. Peter of the jambs (111. 360) beside the angel to the
left in the tympanum (111. 340) to perceive the superiority of the
latter; the carving is crisper and more vigorous, the draperies far
better understood and more competently rendered. The face of St.
Peter is more advanced and naturalistic than the faces of the elders
of the tympanum (111. 339-342) ; but how much more commonplace,
1 See Mortet. 2 Rupin, 66 f.
138 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
less characterful, less original. Compare the left arm of the St. Peter
(111. 360) with the right arm of the Deity in the tympanum (111. 341) ;
how the defects of the latter have been caricatured, its beauty lost in
the poor copy. The fussy and weak border ornaments of the draperies
of the St. Peter and Isaiah of the jambs (111. 360, 361) contrast with
the strong vigorous ornaments in the tympanum (111. 340-342). Or
compare the weak characterless faces of the Virgin and Child in the
Adoration (111. 375) with the strong archaic beauty of the face of the
angel to the left in the tympanum (111. 340). There can be no ques-
tion that the sculptures of the porch are inferior in quality.
There are good archaeological reasons for believing that the tym-
panum is not now in its original position, but that it was moved from
over the western portal when the existing porch was erected. 1 We
must, therefore, conclude that the tympanum is earlier than the
porch.
Are we justified in placing it as early as the time of Ansquitil, or
before 1 1 1 5 ? We can only arrive at a satisfactory answer to the
problem by comparing it with other works of the Cluniac school to
which it belongs.
When we compare the tympanum of Moissac (111. 339) with that
of Vezelay (111. 47) dated 1 132, we see at once that Moissac is earlier.
The composition is much closer to that of Cluny ; the draperies are
1 * far simpler and more Cluny-like; the manner is less extreme; the
facial types less varied and less naturalistic. In the light of the much
more advanced manner of Vezelay we are forced to conclude that
the tympanum of Moissac can hardly be later than 11 20.
Similarly, when we compare the tympanum of Moissac (111. 340-
342) with the capitals by the "Bathsheba Master" at Vezelay
(111. 44), a sculptor who worked on the western bays of the nave and
the narthex, and who was consequently active about 1115-1132, we
^ feel that Moissac is more archaic. There is a perfection, a refine-
ment, a decadent quality in the work of the exquisite artist of Veze-
lay, which makes Moissac seem very vigorous, very primitive. It is
^leury, 91.
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 139
only when we compare the Moissac tympanum (111. 340-342) with
the masters of the nave of Vezelay who were active before 1 120, that
we find real points of contact. Thus the beards of the "Vezelay
Master No. 3 " as, for example, in the capital representing the Mill of
St. Paul (111. 40), are not without analogy with the beards of the
Moissac elders ; the facial types of this capital distinctly recall those
of the Moissac elders ; the faces of the Moissac angels are evidently
analogous to the beardless faces of the "Cluny Master" as seen, for
example, in the capitals of the Winds (111. 31) and of Daniel (111. 33).
From all this we may, I think, safely infer that the Moissac tym-
panum can not be very much later than 11 20. Whether it be as
early as n 15, and hence the work of Ansquitil, seems to me too
delicate a question to be safely decided on the basis of the evidence
available. Until the corrupt text of Aymery has been satisfactorily
elucidated, I should not be ready to conclude that his statement is
untrustworthy.
Archaeologists have probably been influenced in assigning a late
date to the tympanum of Moissac by the circumstance that it is evi-
dently contemporary with the rib vault of the porch, since the latter
rests on capitals by the same hand (111. 337-338). It was formerly
believed that the rib vault found its way into the Midi only at an
advanced period of the XII century. However, the rib vault was
known in Lombardy from shortly after 1040 ; it is found in Apulia in
the church of S. Benedetto of Brindisi, begun in 1090, where it is
already profiled; in 1093 the profiled form was already known at
Durham in England ; it is found in Brittany in the church of Ste.-
Croix of Quimperle consecrated in 1073 ; in Poitou, in the clocher of
St.-Hilaire of Poitiers, consecrated in 1096 ; in Provence in the porch
of St.-Victor of Marseille, which must date from the last years of the
XI century, in an ornamented form in the choir of St.-Gilles, a
church begun in 11 16 and the facade of which was in construction
c. 1140, and in the profiled form at St.-Jean of Valence, which ap-
pears to be of the first quarter of the XII century. In the Ile-de-
France, the profiled form had certainly been in regular use since
i 4 o ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
before noo. The use of the unproflled rib vault at Moissac is,
therefore, no reason for believing that the tympanum could not have
been sculptured about 1120, or in 11 15, for that matter.
The influence of the tympanum of Cluny by no means ended with
Moissac. The tympanum of Rochester in England reproduces the
composition exactly. 1 There are other derivatives at Champniers, 2
Ganagobie (111. 1236), Sauveterre (111. 488) and Bourg-Argental (111.
1 1 50). In the fourth decade of the XII century, an abbreviated ver-
sion came into popularity. In this the angels supporting the aureole
are omitted ; the composition is reduced to the figure of the Deity in
an aureole surrounded by the symbols of the four evangelists. An
early rendering of the theme so modified seems to have existed in the
Puerta Francigena at Santiago. It was this form of the motive which
undoubtedly existed at St.-Gilles (111. 13 18), although the original
sculptures have been replaced by Renaissance imitations ; it was re-
peated in several monuments derived from St.-Gilles — Aries (111.
1372), Vizille (111. 1 185), Maguelonne (111. 1384), and the destroyed
portal of Nantua. The head master of Chartres influenced doubtless
by some frescoed arts of the Bawit type took the motive over and
from here it ran through Europe. Thus we find it at Angers (111.
1 501), at Issy (111. 1489), at St.-Loup-de-Naud (111. 1492), in both
churches at Provins (111. 1490 and 111. 1496), at Le Mans, at Bourges,
at St.-Benoit-sur-Loire (111. 15 19, 1520), at St.-Pierre-le-Moutier
(111. 1275), at Valcabrere (111. 501, 502), at St.-Aventin (111. 508) ; it
formerly existed at Chalons-sur-Marne and Ivry-la-Bataille (111.
1474). Outside of France we find it in Spain at Tarragona (111. 603),
at Besalu (111. 602), at Tudela, at Sepulveda (111. 799), at Agiiero
(111. 547) and at Soria (111. 795) ; at the cathedral of Genoa (111. 254)
in Italy, in Germany at Soest ; 3 in Austria and Hungary at Lavanthal 4
and at Tischnowitz. 5
1 Illustrated by Prior and Gardner, 198.
2 There is a wretched reproduction of this relief in the Catalogue du Musie de la Societe
Archeologique et Historique de la Charente, 1 57.
3 Illustrated by Dehio und von Bezold, XII, 8.
4 Hamann, 125. 5 Ibid., 126.
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 141
Another composition for the tympanum possibly invented in Bur-
gundy was also destined to have illustrious descendants. At Anzy-le-
Duc (111. 96) the Ascension was represented. It was a variation of the
Majestas Domini motive, and is repeated in a very similar form at
Montceaux-rEtoile (111. 104), and St.-Paul-de-Varax (111. 88). The
earliest example of this subject in a tympanum which I know is not
in Burgundy, but at St.-Sernin of Toulouse (111. 308). The motive
also found its way to Etampes (111. 1462). It was taken over in the
northern tympanum of Chartres, a work of the Master of the
Angels. The composition at Chartres approaches very closely that
at Etampes ; but it is certain that the Master of the Angels knew, and
knew well, the tympanum of Anzy-le-Duc (111. 97). It is thence that
his angels of the southern tympanum are derived. The angels of the
northern tympanum must also be of Burgundian origin.
It must then be admitted that Burgundian tympana in general,
and the tympanum of Cluny in particular, exerted an enormous in-
fluence upon the art of Europe. Shall we go still farther and say that
all tympana, that the motive of the tympanum itself, is thence de-
rived ? It has recently been claimed that the sculptured tympanum
is a French invention, and that all sculptured tympana are to be
classed as French, all portals without tympana as Italian.
Such assertions are not comforted by the facts. The motive of the
sculptured tympanum originated neither in France nor in Italy ; it
is found in the East from a very early period, as, for example, in the
portal of Daschlut x now in the Cairo Museum. It was from the
Orient that it came to Italy and France and Spain as well. The
sculptured tympanum of the north portal of the cathedral at Borgo
S. Donnino 2 is as little French as the tympanum-less portals of the
cathedral of Reims are Italian.
The portal of Cluny must be credited with an important part in
spreading through Europe the motive of the elders. There is an
earlier rendering of the subject in sculpture on a capital of the clois-
1 Illustrated by Strzygowski, Hell, und Kopt. Kunst, 22.
2 Illustrated in my Lombard Architecture y IV, Plate 29, Fig. 5.
i 4 2 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
ter of Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 668), so that the popularity of
the theme is evidently not entirely due to Cluny ; there can, however,
be little question that its use on the portal of Cluny was observed
and copied by sculptors in widely separated regions.
This motive of the elders seems to have originated in Roman
mosaics. It appeared in the arch of triumph of S. Paolo f. 1. m. in
440; it was repeated in the apse arch of S. Prassede, 817-824, and
in the frescos of Castel S. Elia in the first half of the XI century.
The composition of the Cluny portal, with a lunette above, and
a base band beneath, recalls Roman mosaics, like the apse of S.
Prassede. A certain influence of Roman mosaics upon French
sculpture must be admitted. The tympanum of Senlis appears to
have been inspired by the apse of S. Maria in Trastevere. The four
figures in the spandrels at Cluny recall the six in the spandrels at S.
Clemente, which is the earliest example I know of this persistent
motive.
At S. Paolo and S. Prassede, the elders had been represented bare-
headed and bare-footed, carrying their crowns in their hands. At
Castel S. Elia they still stand erect, or rather move slowly in stately
procession, and they are bare-footed ; but their crowns are on their
heads, and in their right hands they carry a chalice on a veil. In the
capital of Santo Domingo de Silos of the last third of the XI century
(111. 668) they are still erect, but they carry not chalices, but musical
instruments and phials. At Cluny they were erect and carried musi-
cal instruments. 1 They were represented on the destroyed Area of
St.-Gilles, and must here have carried musical instruments, for the
inscription preserved in the Pilgrim'' s Guide contained the line:
Dulcia qui citharis decantant cantica claris. On the tomb of St.-
Junien (111. 450) the elders are seated and carry musical instruments
and phials. This iconography perhaps originated in Beatus manu-
scripts like that of St.-Sever, in which elders of this type are asso-
ciated with the Apocalyptic Vision. Such miniatures may have
influenced the iconography and even the composition of the tym-
1 Terret, in Millenaire y II, 3.
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 143
pana of Cluny and Moissac, although I can detect no stylistic
affinities. At Moissac (111. 339) the elders are seated, crowned,
bare-footed, and they hold chalices and musical instruments. In
the upper gallery at Parthenay (111. 1055, 1056) they were erect,
and held phials and musical instruments. The veiled hands recall
Castel S. Elia, and foreshadow Chartres. At Airvault and Anzy-
le-Duc (111. 96) the elders were represented upon the voussures of
the portal. The motive is developed in the portal of Parthenay
(111. 1048, 1051); from this model it found its way to the Ile-de-
France, to St.-Denis (111. 1439), to Etampes (111. 1461) and to
Chartres. Like everything at Chartres, the voussures with the
elders were imitated. They were repeated almost literally at Angers
(111. 1502), at Avallon (111. 137, 138). Meanwhile in the West, a
new form of the motive had been developed. At Ste.-Croix of
Bordeaux (111. 920), at Aulnay (111. 979) and at Varaize (111. 100 1),
the elders are placed in the voussures, but turned at right angles,
so as to radiate. This version became especially popular in Spain.
We find it at Soria (111. 797), at Sepulveda (111. 800), at Toro (111.
13S)y at Carrion de los Condes and in the Portico de la Gloria of
Santiago (111. 824-828). At Morlaas, Oloron-Ste.-Marie (111. 461),
and St.-Guilhem-le-Desert (111. 1400-1402), the Santiago version of
the theme was repeated. The processions of the elders at Ripoll (111.
585) and S. Isidoro of Leon (111. 696) are not derived from Chartres,
but more probably from Cluny directly.
The motive of spandrel figures, which we have seen, came to the
portal of Cluny from Roman mosaics, 1 spread from Cluny to the
School of the Pilgrimage. It seems probable that the portals of
Santiago were influenced by the Burgundian monastery. In the
destroyed Puerta Francigena, the composition of the tympanum
which represented Christ in an aureole surrounded by the evangelists
was perhaps derived from Cluny. The spandrel figures which still
exist in the Puerta de las Platerias (111. 675-677) I suppose to have
come from the same source. At Cluny we know that the spandrel
1 See above, p. 142.
144 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
figures represented the four apostles James, Peter, Paul and John.
The Pilgrim's Guide tells us that at Santiago three of these — James,
Peter, John — reappeared. There can, therefore, be no question of the
relationship. This same motive found its way subsequently to St.-
Sernin of Toulouse (111. 311, 312), S. Isidoro of Leon (111. 696, 697,
700, 701), S. Salvador of Leire (111. 712-714) and La Madeleine of
Chateaudun (111. 1425). It was later taken over by Nicolo in Lom-
bardy, and repeated at Piacenza, 1 Ferrara, 2 the cathedral 3 and S.
Zeno 4 of Verona. Angels were substituted for prophets in the
destroyed metal altar-piece of the abbey of Stavelot, in Belgium,
dating from soon after 1130, and known from a drawing reproduced
by Helbig. 5 Angels in the spandrels of arches also appear at Bourg-
Argental (111. 1149), Notre-Dame of Etampes (111. 1460) and S.
Niccola of Bari (111. 200).
At Cluny, in the inner row of voussures were sculptured under
little arches the figures of fourteen angels in adoration, and in the
centre, Christ, also under a little arch. 6 In the third voussures were
sculptured a series of heads in medallions. 7 It seems probable that
we have here the prototype of the motive of voussure sculptures de-
veloped in the West into forms of such loveliness.
The angels' heads, without the little arches, were reproduced in
Apulia, in the archivolt of the cathedral of Monopoli (111. 158-162)
begun in 1107. At Conversano in Apulia (111. 179) the motive of
heads in medallions is also introduced in the archivolt. This portal
is a dated monument of 1159-1174. 8
1 Ilustrated in Porter, Lombard Architecture, IV, Plate 181, Fig. I.
2 Illustrated ibid., Plate 88, Fig. 3.
3 Illustrated ibid., Plate 217, Fig. 5.
4 Illustrated ibid., Plate 225, Fig. 2. 5 56.
6 La premiere archivolte qui couronnait le bas-relief se composait d'une suite de petits
cintres,sous chacun desquels 6taient des anges en adoration, hors dans celui du milieu qu'occu-
pait le Pere eternel. (Lorain.)
7 Deux autres archivoltes concentriques a la prec6dente pr£sentaient la premiere des feuil-
lages, et la seconde, des medaillons d'ou sortaient des tetes toutes variees d'expression. (Ibid.)
8 The dates were misread 1369 and 1373 by Schulz, I, 94. The inscription is:
f A. D. M. C. LIX. PSES ECCLIA. CU. EI'. ALIS. ICEPTA FUIT._
FSIDETE. DNO. P. DE ITO. EPO CVP(ER)SAN. PTER. T. T. IFF ECC.
ET FINITA. TEPOR. EIUSDE. A. M. C. LXXIIII. Q. FIERI FE
CIT. P(RO)RIS. SUPTIB. HOSPICIU. NOUU. SIC. P(RO)TEDIT. A. CAPPE
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 145
The archivolt of Calvenzano in Lombardy * has radiating com-
partments like those of the tympanum of Vezelay (111. 47-49) also
suggesting proto-voussures. The style of Calvenzano is, however,
far more primitive than that of Vezelay, being, indeed, allied to that
of the sculptures in another Cluniac priory of Lombardy, Pontida. 2
The latter are dated 1095. Pontida, in turn, seems to be stylistically
related to the capital of the nave of Cluny (111. 10).
The heads in medallions of the third archivolt of the portal at
Cluny reappear in the archivolt at Bourg-Argental (111. 1149). Evi-
dently then the sculptor of this remarkable portal knew Cluny. The
zodiac of his outer archivolt is placed under little arches, precisely
as had been the angels of the Cluny archivolt. Clearest proof of all,
the composition of the tympanum with the Majestas Domini and
angels is clearly derived from the tympanum of Cluny.
But Cluny was far from being all that the sculptor of Bourg-
Argental knew. The figures in relief at the summits of his archivolts
have a curiously Catalan air, and bring to mind the much later work
at Agramunt (111. 632)'
It is, however, with the work of the Lombard sculptor Nicolo that
the Bourg-Argental portal shows the most striking analogies. The
very idea of a porch in relief, supported on columns rising above the
archivolts, is without analogy in France, but is an evident modifica-
tion of the Lombard porch used by Nicolo at Piacenza, 3 at Ferrara 4
and at the cathedral 5 and S. Zeno 6 of Verona. 7 The rinceau and
LLA. IFF. HOSPICII. USQ. AD. ECCLIA. ET META. ALIA. BNFlA.
FECITjTUS. ET. EX. CIUITATE. CUIUS. ANIMA. REQUIE
SCAT. I. PAC. AMEN.
1 Illustrated in Porter, Lombard Architecture, IV. Plate 42, Fig. 7.
2 Illustrated in Porter, Lombard Architecture, Plate 189, Fig. 1, 2.
3 The work of Nicolo at Piacenza is illustrated in my Lombard Architecture, Plate 181, Fig. 1;
Plate 182, Fig. 4.
4 Illustrated ibid., Plate 88, Fig. 1, 2, 3; Plate 89, Fig. 3, 4, 5.
5 Illustrated ibid., Plate 217, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 5.
6 Illustrated ibid., Plate 225, Fig. 2; Plate 227, Fig. 4; Plate 229, Fig. 2, 3, 4; Plate 234,
Fig. 3-
7 The porch at Bourg really resembles the Apulian porch of S. Niccola at Bari (111. 200) more
closely than any of the Lombard examples, not only because of the angels in the spandrels (see
above, p. 144), but also because the columns are carried to the level of the top of the archivolts,
whereas in Lombardy the capitals are at the level of the imposts of the archivolts. The col-
umns are however restored.
146 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
guilloche beneath the lintel are very similar in feeling to those of the
Ferrara and Verona portals. The lintel is divided into a series of
arcades by little arches supported on colonnettes, and in these ar-
cades are sculptured reliefs. Now this motive, we have already seen,
is characteristic of the work of Nicol6, being found at Piacenza, at
Ferrara and at S. Zeno of Verona, 1 but is exceedingly rare in France. 2
Moreover, the analogies in the execution of this series of reliefs in
arcades at Bourg and in the works of Nicolo are close. Thus in the
spandrels of the arches at Bourg are little circular turrets ; these re-
appear at both Ferrara and Piacenza. In both cases the colon-
nettes of the arcade are decorated with diaper patterns; now the
spiral which occurs on the two extreme colonnettes at Bourg is the
same as that on the colonnette between the Baptism and the Flight
at Piacenza. The second, fourth and fifth colonnettes at Bourg have
a pattern of interlacing strings ; so has the colonnette in the midst
of the Piacenza Temptation. The Adoration of the Magi at Bourg
is the only subject which is given more space than a single arcade ; it
runs over into three. Similarly at Ferrara the same subject is the
only one accorded more than a single arcade. The iconography of
Bourg follows incident for incident that of the north portal at Pia-
cenza, with, however, the peculiarity, common in mediaeval copies,
that the composition is reversed. The Visitation at Bourg repro-
duces line for line the Visitations at Piacenza and especially at Fer-
rara ; 3 the posture of the arms, the placing of the figures, even the
facial types are the same. The Virgin in the Adoration at Bourg is a
reversal of the Virgin in the same subject at Piacenza. In the scene
of the Nativity, the Christ Child appears in the same cradle, wrapped
in the same swaddling clothes, and below the same ox and ass at
Ferrara and at Bourg. Inscriptions are placed on the horizontal
bands dividing or limiting the composition at both Bourg and Pia-
1 See above, p. 133.
2 The only analogy I know north of the Alps is the font at Hulla, illustrated by Roosval,
Taf. XII.
8 The same composition is found on a capital of Gargilesse (111. 83) and on the voussures of
St.-Loup-de-Naud (111. 1492).
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 147
cenza. The horse of the magi at Bourg repeats line for line the horse
of the Flight in the Piacenza archivolt, except in the head, where the
inferior sculptor found himself unable to copy his model. Finally,
the important motive of jamb sculptures, which is one of the most
striking characteristics of the Bourg portal, is also found in Nicolo's
jambs at Ferrara and the cathedral of Verona.
A hand as crabbed and constipated as that which we have learned
to know in the portal at Bourg-Argental — if indeed it be not the
same — reappears in the lintel now in the wall adjoining the facade
of the church of St.-Martin-d'Ainay at Lyon. There is the same
jerky dividing up of the lintel into separate compositions ; the same
use of arcades ; the same square undercutting ; the same puggy faces ;
the same scratched draperies. The Lyon relief shows, however, less
evidently the influence of Cluny and Nicolo.
Are we to conclude from this that the sculptor of Bourg was a
native of Lyon or of the Rhone valley ? The fact that this relief is the
only work in the region related to his style would seem to indicate
that such is not the case. The capitals of the choir of St.-Martin-
d'Ainay belong to the church consecrated in 1107; they are rough
works l obviously influenced by Guglielmo da Modena, and not
without points of contact with the capitals of Gofridus at Chauvigny
(111. 904, 905) and the sculptures of Ste.-Radegonde of Poitiers (111.
907-911). Except, however, for the common fact of crudity and
Lombard influence, they show no points of contact with the portal
at Bourg, which must be besides some thirty years later. The capi-
tals of the nave at St.-Martin-d'Ainay are polished works of the
school of Burgundy, at the opposite pole from Bourg. Nor do the
sculptures of the Manecanterie at Lyon (111. 1243, 1244) offer analo-
gies with those of our sculptor. The Bourg artist has, therefore, little
connection with the school of Lyon.
To understand the real character of this sculptor, we must imagine
him divested of the superficial elements which he evidently absorbed
from the study of highly polished works like the portal of Cluny and
1 Good illustrations in the Cong. Arch., LXXIV, 530, 532.
148 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the sculptures of Nicolo. It is reasonable to suppose that from such
masterpieces he must have borrowed not only the formulae of certain
compositions, but also details of style, the handling of draperies, a
certain restraint. Now if we imagine the sculptor of the Bourg portal
stripped of the Cluniac and Nicolo-esque influences, we should have
left a personality strangely like that of the master of the cloisters of
S. Orso at Aosta. 1 The all-over decoration applied to the colonnettes
at Bourg (111. 1149) recalls the decorated columns characteristic of the
Aosta school, and found, for example, in the pulpit at Isola S. Giulio. 2
The strong classic feeling in the cornice of the Bourg portal is analo-
gous to the classic feeling in the pulpit. Many technical details are
common both to the Aosta cloisters and the Bourg portal. Thus the
curious little trick of finishing the lower end of the sleeve with a series
of concentric rings like bracelets occurs on the right arm of Rebecca
at Aosta, and on the right arm of the Deity at Bourg-Argental ; the
same strange hair convention appears in the Jacob at Aosta and in
the Deity at Bourg ; the beards of the same two figures are exactly
alike ; so, too, the moustache and the mouth ; the same widely spread-
ing broad noses are found in both ; Jacob's skirts at Aosta resemble
those of the Deity and first magus at Bourg ; the convention for the
eyes is precisely the same in both works, and different from any other,
to the extent of my knowledge, in mediaeval art ; the cowl of Rebecca
at Aosta is not without points of contact with the cowl of Elizabeth
at Bourg. The figure of Nebuchadnezzar eating grass on one of the
capitals of Bourg is particularly close to the figures at Aosta. The
most convincing similarity of all, however, is a certain feeling of the
personality of the artist, a comic uncouthness, a jerkiness, which is
toned down at Bourg by the influence of more refined sculptors, but
which still shows through, while it is unrestrained at Aosta. 3
1 Illustrated in my Lombard Architecture, IV, Plate 13, Fig. 1, 3; Plate 14, Fig. 1, 2, 3;
Plate 15, Fig. 3.
2 I have illustrated this pulpit in the American Journal of Archaeology \ 1920, XXIV, 126.
It was, I suppose, from Lombardy that the motive found its way to St.-Denis (111. 1443, 1444).
3 Before leaving Bourg-Argental and the subject of Italian influences in France, I take ad-
vantage of the opportunity to add two notes to the study of the style of Nicolo which I have
already published in my Lombard Architecture (I, 277 f.). The first is that the draperies of
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 149
Let us now return to the study of the influence exerted by the
sculpture of Cluny.
It should be remarked that the folds falling in broad ovals over the
legs in the Grammar (111. 6) of Cluny reappear in the tomb of Widu-
kind at Herford in Germany. 1 This tomb Creutz has shown dates
from the very beginning of the XII century. It gives then another
proof of the early date of Cluny. The shoes and sloping shelf be-
neath the feet of the Herford figure, as well as the arch in which he is
placed, recall not Cluny but Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 669-673).
The horizontal lines on the shelf are analogous to the Moissac clois-
ter reliefs (111. 262-273).
The broad folds of the drapery to the right of the Externstein 2
seem to show the influence of Cluny. The figure of God above to the
left is distinctly Burgundian, and already suggests the manner of
Montceaux-PEtoile (111. 104). The Externstein is a dated monument
ofni5.
The influence of Burgundy soon spread to Auvergne. The sculp-
tured capitals of the ambulatories of Clermont-Ferrand, Issoire, St.-
Nectaire, Volvic, merely repeat the motive initiated at Cluny. The
horizontal band running about the capital at Issoire representing the
Last Supper (111. 1 214), formed by the table, and cutting the capital
in two parts, is a reminiscence of the capital of the Tones at Cluny
(111. 8). The virtues of the Psychomachia capital at Clermont-Fer-
rand (111. 1 182) are copies of the Prudence of Cluny. We have al-
ready seen 3 that the St. Sebastian capital at St.-Nectaire is a copy
of the capital of the Tones at Cluny (111. 7). At Gargilesse (111. 82,
83) and St.-Reverien (111. 100-103) are sculptures completely Bur-
Nicold at S. Zeno of Verona, executed in 1138, already show the influence of those of St.-Denis,
begun in 1 137 — a remarkable example of the celerity with which artistic ideas were trans-
mitted across Europe in the XII century. The second is that the composition of Nicolo's reliefs
at S. Zeno, especially the Creation of Eve and the Creation of the Animals, is analogous to the
Salerno altar-frontal.
1 Illustrated by Creutz, Taf. Ill, b.
2 Illustrated ibid. y Taf. V.
8 See above, p. 94.
ISO ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
gundian in style. They are both among the inspired productions of
mediaeval art.
In the museum at Toulouse are preserved fragments coming from
the destroyed cloister of St.-Etienne (111. 434-449). These consist of
five capitals and twelve reliefs representing the apostles. The reliefs
originally belonged to the jambs of the portal of the chapter-house.
There are four pairs coupled together, and four single figures. An
old drawing 1 seems to show that there was a pair and two single
figures on either jamb; the position of the remaining two pairs of
figures is not indicated, and it is far from being certain how far the
drawing is to be trusted. St. Andrew and St. Thomas (111. 434) are
distinguished among the apostles by inscriptions with their names ;
St. Peter (111. 440) may be recognized by his keys; the apostle
coupled with him carrying a book (111. 440) may be St. Paul ; and
St. Philip carries a cross with a double bar (111. 443). The others can
not be identified.
The two labelled statues of St. Andrew and St. Thomas were also
signed. Each bore at the base an inscription with the name of Gi/a-
bertus — Gilbert. These inscriptions have been broken away with
the exception of the initial letter "G," but are known from copies in
old catalogues of the museum. 2
The hand of Gilbert may be found not only in the two signed
statues of the Toulouse museum. The Virgin of the Cloister at
Solsona in Catalonia (111. 552) is in my opinion also his work. 3
If we compare this Virgin (111. 552) with the Toulouse St. Thomas
(111. 436), we perceive that the facial type is similar — both heads
are imprinted with the same grave beauty. The drawing of the eye
in the two is identical. The right hand of the Solsona Virgin is the
same as the right hand of the Toulouse St. Thomas. In both the gar-
1 Nodier, Taylor et de Cailleux, Languedoc, PI. 29-30.
2 In the catalogue of 181 8 the inscriptions are given : (under the St. Thomas) Gilabertus me
fecit (87) ; (under the St. Andrew) Vir non incertus me celavit Gilabertus (88). The inscrip-
tions are given in the same form in the two catalogues of du M£ge of 1828 (107, 310) and 1835
(200) and in that of Roschach of 1865.
3 This statue has been published by Riu, who believed it to be a work of the VIII century.
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 151
ments are trimmed with an elaborate border ; x now the pattern of
this border consisting of circles in squares with a border of dots is the
same in the border running diagonally over the Virgin s breast, and
the neck band of the St. Thomas. The draperies are extraordinarily
alike ; in both the surface is covered with a net-work of fine lines ; the
peculiar and characteristic folds of the right shin of the St. Thomas
and the left shin of the St. Andrew are but slightly varied on the left
shin of the Virgin ; the folds of the draperies on the Virgin s right
knee are like those below St. Andrew's left hand ; the draperies of St.
Andrew's right sleeve are repeated on the thigh of the Child at
Solsona ; all three figures have the same narrow, sloping shoulders.
When we turn to the remaining apostles of the St.-Etienne series
with the knowledge of the personality of Gilbert gained from these
three statues, it is at once clear that they are not by his hand. We
have only to put the St. Philip (111. 443) beside the real works of Gil-
bert to perceive how utterly different and how much inferior it is.
The refinement and delicacy of Gilbert are at the opposite pole from
the rough vigour of this Toulousan master. This same inferior hand
appears in the apostle now beside the St. Philip (111. 443). The head
of this figure (111. 442) is an attempted imitation of the head of Gil-
bert (111. 436) ; but how weak in comparison ! It is clear, therefore,
that in the apostles of St.-Etienne we have two sculptors at work —
Gilbert who did with his own hand the St. Andrew and the St.
Thomas; and a Toulousan assistant who did the St. Philip and the
companion apostle.
The remaining apostles at Toulouse are the work of the inferior
master, who, however, consciously imitated Gilbert. It is probable
that Gilbert even personally touched up in places the work of his
companion, just as the head master at Chartres touched up the work
of the St.-Gilles master, and the draperies of the Etampes master
(for example, the lower part of the inner figure of the north jamb of
1 Such borders to garments hardly appear in French sculpture before the time of Gilbert.
They are, however, of much more ancient origin, since they are found in the art of the Far East
from a very early period.
152 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the northern portal). Thus at Toulouse in the St. Peter (111. 440) and
the St. Paul (111. 440) border ornaments such as we have learned to
recognize as characteristic of Gilbert are introduced; on the left-
hand edge of St. Peter s drapery is the same ornament of little dots as
in the corresponding positions of the St. Andrew (111. 434) and the
St. Thomas (111. 436) ; the drapery of St. Peter's right thigh repeats
that of the right thigh of St. Thomas; the zig-zags in which it ends are
identical ; the draperies of St. Peter s right shin are like those of St.
Thomas 1 right shin ; the curious little zig-zag ornament on the folds
is the same. The folds of St. Peter s under-garment are the same as
those in the corresponding position of St. Thomas. Yet we have only
to compare the hands, or the faces, or the proportions or the com-
position of the St. Peter and St. Paul with the St. Andrew and the St.
Thomas, to perceive that the former can not be by Gilbert, but must
on the contrary be by his assistant, working, however, under his
direction, and perhaps with his help.
A similar problem is offered by the capitals of St.-Etienne (111.
444-449). These, like the apostles, show a sliding scale of style.
That representing the Passion of the Baptist (111. 446) is most like
Gilbert ; then that representing the Wise Virgins (111. 445) ; the
others somewhat less so. The evidences of relationship between
these capitals and the style of Gilbert are numerous and striking.
The facial types are similar; the draperies in both cases are in-
dicated by a net-work of fine lines ; the garments have the same
borders as those of Gilbert ; the crown of Herod is not unlike that of
the Virgin of Solsona (111. 552) ; the sceptre of the Virgin at Solsona
is identical with that of the Virgin of the Toulouse Adoration (111.
447) ; the beaded slipper of the Solsona Virgin reappears in the Tou-
louse Salome (111. 446) ; the star-inscribed halos of the capitals are
like those of Gilbert's assistant (111. 436-443). l
1 This motive was probably of Byzantine origin, and found its way into the art of China and
Japan as well as into that of the Occident. It was very widely difFused in Europe. We find it,
for example, in the Ada gospels of Treves, Bib. de la Ville, No. 22, illustrated by Boinet, PI.
VIII ; in the IX century Gospel of Lorsch, Rome, Vat. Pal. Lat., 50, illustrated ibid., PI. XVII;
in the IX century Gospel of St.-Medard of Soissons, Bib. Nat. lat. 8850, illustrated by Boinet,
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 153
Nevertheless, these capitals are all of inferior quality to the au-
thentic work of Gilbert, and must, I think, be the work of another
assistant working under his direction. The Wise Virgins (111. 444),
for example, display a heavy stocky character, which is certainly not
that of Gilberts figures. The heads are too big, the legs are too short.
The square hunchy shoulders of the second virgin from the left
contrast strongly with Gilbert's slim slinking shoulders. The legs of
the virgins, especially those which are crossed, seem to lack knees ;
they are round and heavy, very different from Gilbert's slender,
well-articulated legs. The handling of the drapery is heavy and
stupid ; the folds are meaningless copies of Gilbert's formulae, not
understood; the attack entirely lacks Gilbert's crispness. The
clumsy hands are not Gilbert's hands, and are too large for the
bodies.
The hand of this assistant of Gilbert's may, I think, be recognized
in the tomb of St.-Junien (111. 450-452). The Virgin here (111. 451)
recalls the Virgin of Solsona (111. 552) and that of the Adoration of
the St.-Etienne capital (111. 447). Her bordered garment falls diag-
onally across her breast, like that of Herod in the St.-Etienne capital
of the Passion of the Baptist (111. 446). She holds a sceptre of the
same peculiar form as the sceptres of the Virgins of the St.-Etienne
Adoration (111. 447) and of Solsona (111. 552). The posture of the
figure is identical, except that the legs are a little more widely spread
apart. All three Virgins are alike in that the Child is not held di-
rectly in front, as was usual in the XII century, but naturalistically,
to one side, as in an Italian Quattrocento Madonna. The folds of
the drapery are very similar ; the borders of the garments of the St.-
Junien Christ (111. 452) have ornamented bands. The Virgin at St.-
Junien (111. 451) has a star-inscribed halo, like the saints at Toulouse.
The faces are of the same type. The colonnettes of the St.-Junien
PI. XXI ; in a Carlovingian ivory of the IX century in the British Museum, illustrated by
Dalton,Pl. XXII, 42 ; in the frescos of the ceiling of Bjeresjo, illustrated by Roosval, Taf. LX;
in the tympanum of the Cacilienkirche at Cologne (illustrated by Clemen, 788) ; in the Grab-
stein der hi. Plektrudus (illustrated ibid., 789) ; in the archivolts of S. Marco at Venice, at
Bamberg, in Nicolo's sculptures at Ferrara, at Bourg-Argental, in the vault sculptures of
Crouzilles, etc.
154 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
tomb are ornamented with the same patterns as the colonnettes of
Nicolo's architraves ; and we shall see that there is obvious connec-
tion between the art of Nicolo and that of Gilbert's assistant at
Toulouse. The beards of the elders at St.-Junien are some of them of
the same type as Gilbert's St. Thomas. The drapery of the left knee
of the elder in the top row to the left at St.-Junien is precisely like the
drapery of the left knee of the Virgin at Solsona. The folds between
the legs of the elder to the right in the upper row at St.-Junien are
identical with those between the legs of the Solsona Virgin.
There can therefore be no doubt of the close relationship of the
tomb of St.-Junien to the atelier of Gilbert. On the other hand, it
can not be by the master himself. We have only to put the photo-
graphs of the tomb (111. 450-452) beside those of the authentic
works of Gilbert (111. 434-436, 479, 552) to perceive what a great
difference in quality separates the two. The dry plodding execution
at St.-Junien is far inferior to that of either the Solsona Virgin or the
Toulouse St. Andrew and St. Thomas. The character of the carving
is different ; the draperies are clumsier, the facial types less clarified.
Now in all these points in which the tomb of St.-Junien differs
from the manner of Gilbert, it resembles that of his assistant on the
capitals of St.-Etienne.
In fact, if we make mental abstraction of the touches by Gilbert
on the St.-Etienne capitals (111. 444-447) and compare what is left
with the St.-Junien tomb (111. 450-452), we shall perceive how very
much alike the two are. The rounded jointless knees of the St.-
Etienne Wise Virgins (111. 444) which impressed us as being so un-
Gilbertian, are entirely matched by the upper angels about the au-
reole of the Virgin at St.-Junien (111. 451). The crown of the Virgin
at St.-Junien (111. 451) is exactly the crown of the Herod on the
front face of the St.-Etienne capital of the Passion of the Baptist
(111. 446). The convention of representing the lower sleeve by a
series of rings, unthinkable in Gilbert, occurs constantly both at
St.-Junien (e.g., on the sleeves of the Virgin — 111. 451 — ) and on
the Toulouse capitals (e.g., on the right sleeve of the Wise Virgin to
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 155
the right of 111. 444). The stupid wattling of the sleeve of the Christ
at St.-Junien (111. 452) or of the figure with the "pudding cap" in the
St.-Etienne capital of the Passion of the Baptist (111. 446) is equally
discordant with the manner of Gilbert. The facial types are pre-
cisely the same at St.-Junien and in the St.-Etienne capitals, flabbier
and less characterful than those of Gilbert. The draperies, the hair
and beard conventions, the petalled halos, the drawing of the hands
are all the same at St.-Junien and in the St.-Etienne capitals. It
seems, therefore, clear that the capitals of St.-Etienne are by the
St.-Junien Master, with a few retouches by Gilbert.
Comte de Lasteyrie, in studying the tomb of St.-Junien, which he
assigned to the school of the West, 1 wrote of it : " C'est une oeuvre
d'un style remarquable, s'il est vrai qu'elle a ete executee par ordre
du prevot Ramnulfe au commencement du XIP siecle." * In view of
the sad results which have come about from following theory rather
than documents I am sorry to have to confess that in this case I
entirely share the eminent archaeologist's mistrust of the evidence
of a late chronicle. It is difficult for me to believe that the tomb of
St.-Junien can be earlier than about the middle of the XII century.
When we compare the Virgin of St.-Junien (111. 451) with the Vir-
gin of Marseille (111. 1284) dated 1122, we note a marked resem-
blance, especially in the facial types. The Marseille Virgin however
seems stifFer, more mannered, more archaic. It seems as if the St.-
Junien Virgin must be notably more advanced, hence later than 1 122.
The St.-Junien tomb must be later than the St.-Etienne capitals.
The Chartrain and Burgundian character, which is its most striking
characteristic, can only be due to the influence of Gilbert. There is
nothing in Languedoc from which it could have sprung. Neither
Moissac (111. 360-380) nor Beaulieu (111. 409-420) nor St.-Antonin
(111. 358, 359) nor the tympanum of Conques (111. 392-401) has any-
thing similar to show. 2 The facial types are obviously of Gilbertian
^666.
2 It is only in the Annunciation of the transept at Conques (111. 386) that we find draperies
which tend towards something of the same character. But even here the difference is so great
as to be unbridgeable. The draperies of the Conques Annunciation (111. 386) are derived from
1 56 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
inspiration, as are also many details of the style at St.-Junien, such
as the petalled halos, the borders of the garments, the sceptre of the
Virgin, the drawing of the feet of the Christ, the position of the Child.
Since the St.-Etienne capitals are not anterior to the fifth decade of
the XII century, we are forced to conclude that the St.-Junien tomb
can not be earlier than 1150.
If, indeed, we compare the tomb of St.-Junien (111. 450-452) with
the fragments of what must have been a tomb very similar in com-
position at St.-Sernin (111. 296-305), we shall perceive at once what a
wide gap stylistically separates the two. Now the St.-Sernin tomb
we have seen really does date from the early years of the XII
century. It is clear that St.-Junien must be at least half a century
later.
The canopies over the elders on the St.-Junien tomb (111. 450) are
totally different from the canopies of the early XII century, as, for
example, those of the cloisters of Moissac (111. 262-273), a dated
monument of 1 100. They are more elaborate than those of the facade
of St.-Denis, a monument of 1137-1140 (111. 1441, 1442), or of the
Area of Santo Domingo de Silos which dates from about 1 1 50. They
are, on the other hand, very similar to those of Cahors (111. 427),
which date from the sixth decade of the XII century. This is another
indication that the St.-Junien tomb dates from shortly after 11 50.
Still another train of reasoning leads us to the same result. The
draperies of the St.-Junien tomb are very like the work in the side
portals at St.-Gilles. The curious folds about the breast of the Virgin
at St.-Junien (111. 451) are singularly like those about the breasts of
the Synagogue (111. 1385) in the St.-Gilles tympanum of the Cruci-
fixion. The girdle of the Virgin at St.-Junien is very like the girdle of
the St. John in the St.-Gilles tympanum (111. 1385). The movement
of the St.-Junien angels is like that of the St.-Gilles Synagogue. The
folds about the knee of the St. John in the St.-Gilles tympanum (111.
1385) recall those about the knee of the St.-Junien Christ (111. 452).
The feeling of the draperies throughout the later work at St.-Gilles
the Puerta de las Platerias at Santiago (111. 675-693), which is also the ultimate source for the
Gilbertian draperies in part at least.
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 157
is very like that of St.-Junien. It is certain that there must be a
close connection between the two. There are, it seems to me, good
reasons for believing that the side portals at St.-Gilles are later than
the central part of the facade and may in fact date from as late as
about 1 1 80. St.-Junien can, therefore, hardly be earlier than 11 50.
The tomb of St.-Junien belongs indeed to an art which is widely
diffused, the roots of which perhaps spring from Burgundy and
which was elaborated in southern France about the middle of the
XII century. In addition to the monuments already mentioned,
Nantua in Dauphine (111. 1 214 a), the southern portal of S. Salvatore
in Lucca (111. 225), the lintel of S. Giovanni Fuorcivitas in Pistoia
(111. 199) dated 1162, and the work of Benedetto in Lombardy (last
quarter of the XII century) are closely related.
Another assistant of Gilbert seems to have accompanied him into
Catalonia. A column of the cloister of Solsona, which has given its
name to Gilbert's Virgin, is sculptured with four engaged figures
(111. 551). These are obviously related to the apostles of St.-Etienne,
but are by the hand neither of Gilbert nor of any of the assistants
who worked with him on the Toulouse jamb figures. Yet it is obvi-
ously a production of the atelier of Gilbert. The draperies over the
heads of the female figures of the Solsona column are exactly like the
draperies on the heads of the Toulouse virgins (111. 444). The faces
are the same, with the same small eyes, the same round cheeks ; the
leaf of the capital overhanging the figures recalls the niche in which
stand the Toulouse apostles ; there are the same folds of the draper-
ies, executed in the same heavy way as in the St.-Junien tomb (111.
450-452).
The question remains whether the Gilbert of Toulouse can be
identified with the Gilbert whom we have already learned to know
at Autun.
It must be granted, to begin with, that the manner of the Gilbert
of Toulouse shows little connection with the style of Languedoc.
His delicacy, his refinement are totally unlike any works produced
by that school. We have only to compare his apostles at St.-Etienne
158 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
(111. 434) or his Virgin at Solsona (111. 552) with the tympanum of St.-
Sernin (111. 309) or with that already largely Burgundian one of
Moissac (111. 340-342) to be convinced of the fact. He was a for-
eigner at Toulouse, who introduced a strange and new style, unre-
lated to what had gone before.
Now as completely as Gilberts style differs from that of Langue-
doc, does it resemble that of Autun.
Let us place Gilbert of Autun's capital representing the angel ap-
pearing to Peter (111. 79), beside Gilbert of Toulouse's St. Thomas
(111. 436). We perceive that the facial types are identical. The beard
and hair conventions are very similar. The drapery on the right leg
of the Toulouse figure, and which we have seen is one of the most
persistent mannerisms in the work of Gilbert of Toulouse, is identical
with that on the left leg of the Autun St. Peter — in each case there
are three little parallel oval welts. The border of St. Peter's sleeve
has a pattern of dots like the falling edge of St. Thomas' mantle. The
ear of the Autun angel is the same peculiar ear as the ear of the Tou-
louse St. Andrew (111. 435) ; the ear of the Autun St. Peter is like that
of Herod in the Toulouse Dance of Salome (111. 446). The capitals of
the niche at Autun have foliage of the same character as the capitals
of the niches at Toulouse. At Toulouse and at Autun there is the
same fondness for border ornaments; the same pre-occupation with
covering the entire surface with decorative lines. The feet are not
very dissimilar — compare the St. Peter of the Autun tympanum
(111. 80) with the Toulouse Christ (111. 445). The horizontal bandings,
so characteristic of Autun, reappear on the leg of the Virgin at Sol-
sona (111. 552) and on the capitals of Toulouse (111. 446). The slim
sloping shoulders characteristic of Autun reappear at Toulouse. The
legs of the beardless apostle holding a scroll at Toulouse (111. 438)
have draperies very like those of the right leg of the tall standing
figure to the left of the Autun aureole (111. 80). The drapery over the
left knee of the angel supporting the aureole below to the right in the
Autun tympanum (111. 81) is the same as that which falls from the
left hand of the St. Andrew at Toulouse (111. 434).
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 159
These resemblances make it clear that the art of Gilbert of Tou-
louse is the art of Autun. Since the name Gilbert is not of the com-
monest, the simple explanation seems to be to suppose that at Tou-
louse we have a later phase of the artist we have learned to know and
admire at Autun.
It must be admitted that there are notable differences between
his work at Autun and at Toulouse. The attenuation and movement
which are so striking at Autun have disappeared at Toulouse; the
manner is much less exaggerated.
We are, perhaps, apt to underestimate the variations in manner
which mediaeval artists might undergo. The cloister of Moissac and
the portal of Chartres might have been executed within the life-time
of a single sculptor. Obviously a man who in 1 100 was working in
the manner of Moissac must in 1 140 have been working in a very
different manner. We are all aware how versatile are living artists of
to-day. Paradoxical as the statement may seem, it is probably true
that mediaeval sculptors were more individualized, freer, less tram-
melled by convention than artists of the present time. We have al-
ready found several instances in which a sculptor's manner was not-
ably altered by the sight of a new masterpiece.
Now differences of style between the sculptures of Autun and those
of Toulouse are precisely such as we would imagine might have been
produced upon a sensitive artist by an acquaintance with the work
which was produced shortly after the completion of Autun at St.-
Denis and Chartres. The obvious and close relationship between
Gilbert's apostles at Toulouse (111. 434-443) and the destroyed
jambs of St.-Denis (111. 1445-1457) is well known ; since it is not dis-
puted, it is unnecessary to weary the reader by insistance upon the
fact. It seems to me certain that Gilbert of Toulouse knew the new
art of the North. The problem consequently appears to be very
simply solved. Gilbert of Autun, plus St.-Denis, equals Gilbert of
Toulouse. 1
1 That a Burgundian sculptor should have been called to Toulouse is to be explained not
only by the fact that Toulouse was a focal point of the pilgrimage road, but also by the fact
160 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
There can be no question that Gilbert did much to spread Bur-
gundian art through southern France and Spain. His Virgin and the
column of his assistant at Solsona exerted great influence upon the
sculpture of Catalonia and the Pyrenees in the second half of the XII
century. They were, indeed, imitated even beyond the boundaries
of Catalonia. The column in the cloister of St.-Bertrand-de-Com-
minges (111. 492-495, 497) must have been inspired by that of Sol-
sona. The draperies of the Annunciation (111. SS3~55^) l from the old
cathedral of Lerida show the covering of the surface with fine lines,
characteristic of the manner of Gilbert. The introduction of jamb
sculptures at Ripoll (111. 572, 573) must be credited to his account.
So, too, a group of monuments of the very end of the XII or begin-
ning of the XIII century, in which the draperies are indicated by a
net-work of lines covering the entire surface of the stone — the
sculptures at Perpignan (111. 618-620), the tombs at Elne (111. 623-
626), Arles-sur-Tech (111. 627) and St.-Genis-des-Fontaines (111.
621-622). 2
that the canons regular of St.-Etienne had been put under the jurisdiction of Cluny by Isarnus
in 1077 (Bruel, IV, 630).
1 1 am indebted to Miss King for having called my attention to these sculptures, and to Miss
E. H. Lorober for her photographs of them, which she has kindly allowed me to reproduce.
2 These Catalan draperies without question also show the influence of Tuscan sculpture.
The Tuscan school may be considered to have been formed by Guglielmo da Innspruch with
the production of his Pisa pulpit (111. 1 86-1 88) now at Cagliari. In this he applied the draperies
of Provence to native Tuscan figures and to the type of pulpit which had before his time been
consecrated at Pisa (111. 1 81-185) and which continued to be popular with the Tuscan school
until the time of Giovanni Pisano. It is a curious fact that the supporting lions which
formed so characteristic a feature of Tuscan pulpits seem to have been derived by Gugli-
elmo da Innspruch, not from neighbouring Lombardy, as might be supposed, but from Aries.
At least, the face of the surviving lion of the Cagliari pulpit (111. 188) seems to have been in-
spired by the face of the lion beneath St. Peter on the facade of St.-Trophime (111. 1371).
The work of Guglielmo da Innspruch had enormous influence. He was himself called to exe-
cute the lintel of S. Bartolommeo in Pantano at Pistoia (111. 190) in 11 67. This introduced his
manner at Pistoia. The artists who worked upon the lintel of S. Andrea in the same city
(111. 191) were influenced by him, as he was himself in turn influenced by Gruamonte; and
Guido da Como, when many years later he executed the pulpit at S. Bartolommeo in Pantano
(111. 234) could do nothing better than copy Guglielmo's Pisa pulpit (111. 186-188). Guglielmo's
"organ-pipe" draperies run through much of the subsequent work in Tuscany — we recognize
them in the pulpit at Volterra (111. 196), in the lintel of S. Giovanni Fuorcivitas of Pistoia (111.
199), in Biduino's western portal of S. Casciano of 11 80 (111. 223), in the lintel of the southern
portal of S. Salvatore of Lucca (111. 225) and in the pulpit (111. 229) and St. Michael (111. 230)
of Groppoli, of 1 194.
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 161
The capitals of St.-Etienne were closely, though feebly, imitated
by one of the sculptors who worked, perhaps much later, upon the
second campaign in the cloister of La Daurade at Toulouse (111. 464-
471). The jamb sculptures of the chapter-house of the same priory
(111. 474-479) obviously owe much to the cycle of Gilbert and his
assistant.
Gilbert's art at Autun shows points of contact with Germany. His
extreme elongation is matched in certain miniatures of the XII cen-
tury. 1 A book-cover in the University Library of Wiirzburg 2 is
strangely like the Autun capitals. The divided beard of the «SV.
Andrew possibly echoes the tradition witnessed by the St. Paul of an
ivory-carving in the Cluny Museum at Paris, by the Echternach
master, dating from the end of the X century. 3
In the Autun capital of the angel appearing to St. Peter (111. 79)
the latter crosses his arms with a gesture which recalls in spirit
rather than in detail Sienese Virgins of the Annunciation like the
Andrea Vanni Annunciation of Death in the Fogg Museum. A
marked, though not always definable, kinship of feeling unites the
arts of Romanesque France, Trecento Siena and Tang China.
The sculptures at Malmesbury in England show strong Burgun-
dian influence. We have already remarked that the southern tym-
panum repeats the composition of Charlieu. The style is exceed-
ingly close to St.-Sauveur of Nevers — compare, for example, the
detail illustrated by Messrs. Prior and Gardner 4 with the St. Peter
and St. John capital in the Musee de la Porte du Croux (111. 132).
The voussures of the southern portal 5 are very like those of Avallon
(111. 137-138). All this offers an interesting confirmation of Prof.
Moore's dating of Malmesbury to 1140, arrived at by an entirely
different chain of reasoning.
The type of twin portal initiated at Avallon was repeated at
1 See, for example, the Traite de Muslque, at the Imperial Library of Vienna, MS. 51, fol.
35 vo., illustrated by Soc. Fr. Rep. Min. Peint., 1913, PI. XIX.
2 Illustrated by Pelka, 1 56.
8 The Toulouse St. Andrew and St. Thomas should also be compared with the Harbaville
triptych of the Louvre.
4 188. 5 Illustrated by Prior and Gardner, 54.
1 62 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Oloron-Ste.-Marie (111. 461), Sauveterre (111. 488) and Morlaas
(111. 458) x in France and S. Vicente of Avila (111. 844) in Spain.
The composition of the Presentation of the architrave of La
Charite-sur-Loire (111. 119) reappears in the wooden doors of St.
Marien im Kapitol at Cologne. 2
The western portal of St.-Benigne of Dijon (111. 144) inspired the
composition of the Portico de la Gloria at Santiago (111. 820-840).
Burgundian influence was also diffused through Chartres. We
have already seen that the head master picked up ancient Burgun-
dian motives to re-use in his central tympanum and lintel. There
can be no doubt that he owed much else besides to Burgundy, di-
rectly or indirectly. It is only from Burgundy ultimately that he
could have derived his ideals of delicacy and refinement. The tym-
pana of Autun (111. 80, 81) and Vezelay (111. 47-49) offer prototypes
of his draperies. Compare, for example, the folds and edge of the
upper drapery falling over the right knee of the seated apostle to the
right of the aureole in the Vezelay tympanum (111. 48 a) with the dra-
peries in the corresponding position of the Christ at Chartres. 3 Or
put the same draperies at Chartres beside those of the right leg of the
angel to the right of the aureole at Autun (111. 81). Or compare the
bottom folds over the feet of the Christs at Chartres and Autun
(111. 81). The Master of the Angels at Chartres manifestly found the
inspiration for the lovely angels of the tympana of the side portals
in the no less lovely and more vigorous angels of the tympanum of
Anzy-le-Duc (111. 96, 97) . 4 It is certain that the school of the West,
1 It is possible that Morlaas may be derived from St.-Pons.
2 Illustrated by Dehio und von Bezold, XII, 13.
3 Illustrations by Houvet.
4 See the forthcoming article by Mr. Priest in Art Studies.
The Master of the Angels at Chartres seems also to have known ivory-carvings. His dra-
peries recall an Ada group panel now in the Victoria and Albert Museum at London (illustrated
by Goldschmidt, I, No. 14). The nervous line formed by the upper garment cutting across the
knees of his angel to the left in the southern tympanum at Chartres (Houvet, PI. 59) should be
compared with the corresponding drapery edge of the St. John in the ivory. The drapery folds
to the right of the left knee of the St. John in the ivory are like those to the right of the right
knee of the angel to the right of the southern tympanum at Chartres (illustrated by Houvet,
PI. 51). The folds at the bottom of the draperies of the angel to the left of the southern tym-
panum at Chartres (illustrated by Houvet, PI. 59) are like those of the corresponding position
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 163
which also shows so many connections with Chartres, came under
the strong influence of Burgundy; but such close resemblances as
exist between Burgundy and Chartres can not be explained on the
supposition of an indirect influence of Burgundy upon Chartres by
way of the West ; the head master, and the Master of the Angels
must have drunk at the fountain-head.
Of the five sculptors who collaborated upon the western portal of
Chartres, the most Burgundian is assuredly the master of Etampes.
By his hand are the three northern jamb sculptures of the northern
portal, less the heads which do not belong to the statues, and less
much work upon the innermost figure which was certainly touched
up by the head master. To him should also be credited considerable
work upon the capitals — we easily recognize his touch in the Anne
and Joachim story ; but it is difficult to be sure that he may not
here have been collaborating with another sculptor. Certain cap-
itals, like the Adoration of the Magi, must surely be the work of
the St.-Denis master, and others look as though they were the
joint work of the Etampes and St.-Denis masters and possibly
other hands as well.
The master of Etampes seems to have worked unaided upon the
portal at Etampes (111. 1460-1464).
His style is strongly Burgundian, and is close especially to the
work of Gilbert both at Autun and at Toulouse. He has the border-
ornaments, the characteristic shin draperies, the leg bands we have
learned to recognize as characteristic of this sculptor. The braided
hair of the left-hand figure of the west jamb at Etampes (111. 1463)
is like that of the Virgin at Solsona (111. 552). The same curious zig-
zagging occurs upon the fold of the right thigh of the central figure
at Chartres and in the folds at the bottom between the legs of the
apostles at Toulouse. The draperies which fall from the left hand of
the central figure of the left jamb at Etampes (111. 1463) are the same
in the Virgin of the ivory. The flutters of drapery falling from the arms of the two angels in the
upper compartment of the ivory, recall those falling from the right-hand arm of the elder to
the left in Houvet's Plate 50.
164 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
as those which fall from the left hand of the St. Andrew at Toulouse
(111. 434). The hand of the St. Andrew is very like the hand of the
innermost figure of the left-hand jamb at Etampes. The pattern of
dots we have noticed as characteristic of Gilbert is found on the
border of the book of the central figure of the jamb at Chartres. The
draperies which flutter at the sides of the angels in the Etampes
spandrels (111. 1460, 1461) and certain figures in the Anne and Joa-
chim capital are very like the draperies fluttering behind Christ in
the Autun capital of the Temptation.
These similarities made me at one time suppose that the master of
Etampes was only another phase of the versatile personality of Gil-
bert. In this, however, I was wrong. Gilbert at Autun and Toulouse
is refined ; the Etampes master has a streak of coarseness which can
not be reconciled with the blithe character of the Autun sculptor.
The rank folds of his drapery fairly out-Charlieu the Charlieu mas-
ter (111. 108-111) ; we are surely here at the very end of a decadent
tradition. But the analogies between Gilbert and the Etampes mas-
ter abundantly prove the closest connection between the two ; each
must have exerted a strong direct influence upon the other.
Prof. Voge is inclined to identify with the master of Etampes some
of the work upon La Madeleine at Chateaudun. The rough drawings
of the destroyed sculptures certainly suggest in their vagaries the
work of the master of Etampes (111. 1426, 1427) ; however, the frag-
ments of sculpture which still remain in the other portal seem to
show that the Chateaudun sculptor was another, although equally
bizarre, artist (111. 1 428-1 430), who derives his art, quite naturally,
from such work as the Wheel of Fortune at Beauvais (111. 1423,
'1424).
An interesting problem is that of the relative age of the portals at
Chartres and Etampes. It is the orthodox view that Chartres is
earlier ; but Dr. Buschbeck, one of the most intelligent students of
Romanesque sculpture, has lately advanced the opposite view, un-
fortunately without stating his reasons. Mr. Priest is inclined to
agree with Dr. Buschbeck. He observes that the canopies at Char-
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY 165
tres are more elaborate ; 1 that the Etampes sculptures show no trace
of the influence of Chartres, and it is almost inconceivable that a
man who had worked at Chartres should not have been affected by
the style of the head master ; that the work of the Etampes master
at Chartres is unmistakably finer and more advanced than at
Etampes ; that the work at Etampes struggles unsuccessfully with
several problems which had been solved at Chartres. It is obvious
that Etampes is more Burgundian than the work by the Etampes
Master at Chartres; the figures have more movement, and occa-
sionally, as in the angels of the spandrels, burst into Autunian agita-
tion and swirls.
These arguments seem to me convincing, and to out-weigh those
which may be urged on the other side. It must be admitted, how-
ever, that the voussures at Etampes look more advanced than those
of Chartres.
A school of sculpture not unrelated to the master of Etampes
flourished in Vienne about the middle of the XII century. The point
of departure for the study of this important and little known group
of monuments is the church of St.-Andre-le-Bas (111. 121 8, 121 9).
An inscription on the base of one of the piers gives the date, n 52,
and the name of the sculptor, Guillaume, son of Martin. 2 The style
of the capitals shows affinity with the school of Provence ; the Job
(111. 1 21 8) repeats almost line for line the right-hand patriarch of the
1 The Etampes canopies are probably a development of those which had been characteristic
of Spanish monuments of the XI century, like the San Isidoro casket (111. 651-653) or the
cloisters of Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 671). They are found in the Ile-de-France in the altar-
frontal of St.-Benoit-sur-Loire (111. 1421, 1422), a monument which adjoins the school of the
West, and in the retable of Carriere-St.-Denis, now in the Louvre (111. 1485), a monument
which is by the hand of a Western artist. In the West itself the motive is found in the sculp-
tures of Giraud Audebert at Foussais (111. 1063). Did the Etampes master derive this feature
as well as his voussures from the West? At all events, the motive spread to Spain; it was
adopted in the tympanum of Cahors (111. 422) and in the frieze of Carrion (III. 722). It is also
found at Estabaliz (111. 772), in a capital of the Museo Arqueologico of Madrid (111. 792). In
Dauphine we find the Etampes canopies copied in capitals of the cathedral of Vienne : it was
from this region, doubtless, that the motive was exported to the Church of the Annunciation
at Nazareth.
2 ADORATE DNM IN AVLA SCA EIV
+ ET CV STATIS ADORANDV RE[MI]TTITE SI QVID HABETIS ADVER SVS
ALIQVE VSQ LXXES VIIES + WILLELMVS M[ART]INI ME FECIT ANO MILL.
C. LII. AB INC D
166 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Aries facade (111. 1370) — the two faces are, in fact, identical teethe
drawing of the cheek-bone and the wrinkles of the nose. The Samson
(111. 1219), on the other hand, seems derived from the youth to the
right in the scene of the money-changers of the St.-Gilles frieze (111.
13 1 6). The facial type is the same ; there is the same wattling of the
sleeves ; the drawing of the eye is like that of the master of the St.-
Gilles frieze (111. 13 16), the draperies are those of Brunus (111. 1302,
1303, 1306-1311). Moreover the Samson capital presents evident
affinities with the capital depicting the same subject, coming from
the cloister of Notre-Dame-des-Doms l at Avignon, and now in the
Fogg Museum (111. 1342). There are besides at Vienne indications
of that Apulian-Lombard influence so characteristic of the art of
Provence. At St.-Andre-le-Bas is a Lombard supporting figure; in
the museum which has been gathered together at the church of St.-
Pierre are two lions, of completely Lombard character, and which
once evidently supported the columns of a Lombard porch ; a similar
one is in a neighbouring garden. 2
Guillaume has left traces of his activity not only at St.-Andre-le-
Bas. Closely related to him, if not by his hand, is a relief from the
tympanum of St.-Pierre (111. 1219a); engaged sculptures representing
St. Paul (111. 1217), St. Peter (111. 1216) and St. John (111. 1215), now
in the north porch of the cathedral, and perhaps jambs from a
destroyed portal ; a capital of the cathedral of Lyon ; 3 and several
of the cathedral St.-Maurice of Vienne. 4 Now the jamb sculptures
of St.-Maurice show manifest affinity with the jamb sculptures of the
Etampes master (111. 1463, 1464) ; the garments have the same bor-
ders, there are similar leg bands, the posture of the figures is evi-
dently analogous. Moreover, several capitals of the cathedral have
canopies of the peculiar type characteristic of Chartres and Etampes
(111. 1463, 1464). Evidently then, the school of Guillaume was in-
1 Labande : De Lasteyrie, 631. A capital of unknown provenance representing the story of
Job and now in the Musee Calvet of Avignon (111. 1341) is by the same hand.
2 I am indebted for these indications and a photograph to Major Royall Tyler.
3 Illustrated by B6gule, 106.
illustrated ibid., 116, 121, 122, 131.
CLUNIAC ART OUTSIDE OF BURGUNDY
167
fluenced by the North as well as by the South. The spirit of his art
is closely allied to that of the master of Etampes. His spiral folds and
violent movement could only have come out of Burgundy. As so
often in Romanesque art, we have influences converging from many
directions.
It is with this group of sculptors, partly Chartrain, partly Bur-
gundian, partly Provencal that should be classed the hand which
executed in far-away Palestine and in the year 11 87 the capitals of
the church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, destined to remain
unfinished. 1 This artist is a little finer, a little more Burgundian than
Guillaume; his draperies have, however, the same spiral folds, the
same heaviness, the same admixture of Provencal elements. The
leg bands and borders of the garments are like the Etampes master,,
and so is the spirit of the execution. The canopies recall equally
Chartres and Vienne.
Thus we see the influence of the art of Cluny extending as far as,
England, Galicia, Germany, Apulia, and even to Palestine.
1 Illustrated by Egidi.
PART II
PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE
PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA
It seems, singularly enough, that the modern age of creeping
scholarship is moved by the tomb of St. James, less universally
surely, but perhaps hardly less potently, than the Middle Age of fly-
ing faith. The cult of the students began when Fita published, a half
century ago, the itinerary of the pilgrims, contained in the last part
of the pseudo-Callistine codex. His was, certainly, a beautiful dis-
covery ; and a paper-bound pamphlet of a few badly printed pages
has guided scholars toward the solution of their difficulties, much as
the stars of the milky way reminded the mediaeval sinner of the road
to Compostela. And the modern pilgrimages have also been illumi-
nated with miracles. On the road to St. James, M. Bedier has found
the key which unlocks mediaeval literature. Sceptics may doubt
whether the body at Compostela be that of St. James; but it is
certain that there lies buried the mystery of the XII century.
The modern pilgrim to Santiago journeys those long, but delicious
kilometres, not entirely, nor even chiefly, to admire the miracles of
scholarship already performed, nor even in the hope (inevitably pres-
ent, however fatuous) of himself assisting at others. There is in the
place, and in the road, a singular poetry. One feels, as nowhere else,
wrapped about by the beauty of the Middle Age. One is, as perhaps
never before, emotionally and intellectually stimulated. Chords of
the memory, long unused, are set vibrating. The actuality of the pil-
grimage, like a cosmic phenomenon, overwhelms with the sense of its
force, its inevitability. It seduces one, irresistibly, farther and far-
ther from his way, to linger over every turning ; not, as the student is
possibly simple enough to believe, because the pilgrimage peppered
the art of Europe with stars and cockle-shells ; nor even because of
172 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
its deeper and more spiritual impress upon culture, so that to it we
owe much that is fine in XH-century music, the chansons de geste and
the Gothic cathedrals ; nor yet because of a sentimental sympathy
with the myriad human beings who trudged unending leagues to lay
their gratitude and their remorse, their wealth and their sins at the
feet of the apostle; nor because of all these and many other like
things together ; but because of an inner vitality, whether poetic or
spiritual I know not, but still forcefully living at Santiago, and un-
quenchably beautiful there; beautiful none the less because seen
across swarms of well-fed priests and a pestilence of syphilitic beg-
gars, just as the living Romanesque core of the basilica shines out
through an external coating of barocco, fine, too, in its way, yet
writhing in the agony of dissolution.
Hardly less poignant, emotionally, than the road itself, is the twin-
sister of the road, the Callistine codex. It is regrettable that no com-
plete edition of this manuscript has yet appeared ; and although the
different parts have been separately printed, they are dispersed
among books all of which are seldom to be found in the same library. 1
The dividing up of the manuscript began in the XVI century, when
some zealous cleric, loving Saint James more fervently than the
truth, sought to save the credit of the Miracles for a sceptical age by
tearing from them the Chronicle of Turpin. Fit a, in recent years, de-
tected the trick, and restored the codex to its integrity. But the
parts had been edited separately. The absence of a critical edition of
the entire codex is the more unfortunate, because appreciation of the
quality of the book as a whole depends upon grasping its unity.
The codex opens with a liturgical introduction, which is, indeed,
extended to disproportionate lengths. The ritual is interspersed with
sonorous prophecies, authentic and apocryphal, and punctuated by
lyrics and a miracle play.
The ultramundane prologue is followed by the intensely human
1 Lopez Ferreiro, Hist. Sant. y I, 412 f. ; Bollandists, Acta Sanctorum, t. VI de Julio, 47 f. ;
Castets, Turpini Historia Karoli Magni, Montpellier, Societe pour l'Etude des Langues Ro-
manes, 1 880 ; Fita y Vinson, Le codex de Saint Jacques de Compostelle. Liber de Miraculis sancti
Jacobi, Liber IV. Paris, 1882.
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 173
book of the Miracles. Tender as the Fioretti, romantic as a play of
Calderon, this is one of the great imaginative productions of the
Middle Ages. The legends deal with pilgrims, and the scene is the
road.
The next part of the codex deals with the end of the pilgrimage,
the tomb of the apostle. His life and passion are told; how he
preached in ^pain ; how he became bishop of Jerusalem ; and how he
was beheaded by Herod. But the strangest part of the tale follows —
how his disciples carried his body into a boat; how they brought it
without sails or rudder to Galicia ; how it lay for long centuries un-
known; and hew it was miraculously revealed.
Suddenly the codex becomes epic. It is the famous chronicle of the
pseudo-Turpin. Saint James appears to the emperor Charlemagne.
"You who have f/eed all other lands, why have you not freed my
land and my road !" Charlemagne becomes the first pilgrim to Com-
postela ; the archbishop Turpin dedicates the basilica. The emperor
conquers all Spain ; at his approach the walls of Pamplona sink ; at
his curse Lucerna is turned into a salt lake, inhabited only by large,
black fish. Before the reader passes the glamour of chivalry, the
superdeeds of heroes, the Christian conquering the infidel, the dream
of a Spain liberated from the Saracens by the help of France. Against
this background is woven the story of Roland — his duel with the
giant Ferragudo, the battle of Roncevaux, and the wail of the oli-
phant, echoing through the ports of the Pyrenees.
But it is the last book, the Pilgrim's Guide, which for the modern
reader is the most precious. Under the guidance of the writer, we
suddenly become XH-century pilgrims, setting out on the journey to
Compostela. Through his eyes we see all. We learn the details of the
roads — the alternate routes, how they forked and intersected. We
journey across the plains of France, through the mountains and
plateaux of Spain. We stop to worship at the tombs of saints along
the way. Here and there we catch glimpses of great Romanesque
basilicas just finished or in building. We learn the characteristics of
various nations — which peoples were kindly, which treacherous,
i 74 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
which dirty ; where wine was good, and where food was bz.d ; at what
places rivers could be forded, and where inns or hospices afforded
shelter for the night. Finally, our author leads us into the cathedral
of Santiago ; he shows us every detail of the architecture ind arrange-
ment. Through his XH-century eyes we see the Xll-century basilica.
We examine the sculptures in detail ; he patiently expla ins to us the
iconography. We compare, stone by stone, the existing church with
the basilica of the XII century. Our eyes are no longer blinded by
the deceptions of eight centuries. Mystery after mystery of XII-
century art is suddenly revealed. What had been mos: obscure, now
is evident.
That the codex might carry greater authority, t\e propagandist
who compiled it thought it well to ascribe the va/ious portions to
different well-known people. It is a question immaterial to our pur-
pose how far he himself may have believed in these attributions, and
to what extent he consciously fabricated them. It is certain that
those to the archbishop Turpin and the pope Callixtus are false.
There has been much discussion as to the date at which the propa-
gandist did his work. It was surely in the first half of the XII cen-
tury, that is to say, at a time when the pilgrimage had already been
in full progress for upwards of a hundred years. The pseudo-Callis-
tine codex was, therefore, less a cause than a product of the pilgrim-
age. It is undoubtedly this fact that gives the book its peculiar vital-
ity. In the last analysis it is folk-lore, of which the fundamental
character is not altered by forged signatures. The pilgrimage grew
up spontaneously in the heart of the mediaeval world ; but from an
early period it was exploited by scheming clerks.
Surely no capitalist of the XIX century ever promoted more
shrewdly, nor any diplomat of the XVI played politics more cleverly,
than the Cluniac monks, who to, if not for, their own advantage, set
all Europe a-journeying, quite literally, to the ends of the world.
The rulers of the great abbey were quick to realize the success of the
pilgrimage, and far-sighted in driving, at an early date, their finger-
nails firmly into the carrot of Saint James.
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 175
The pilgrimage road may be compared to a great river, emptying
into the sea at Santiago, and formed by many tributaries which have
their sources in the far regions of Europe. All these streams, gather-
ing force as they descend, flowed together at Puente la Reyna,
whence the river, runs in its full strength to Compostela.
Now Cluny possessed priories or affiliations along the pilgrimage
route^t St.-Martin-des-Champs and St.-Julien-le-Pauvre of Pans ;
at Longpont, Montlhery, Vezelay, Blazimont, Moissac, St.-Gilles,
St.-Jean-d'Angely, Montierneuf of Poitiers, St.-Eutrope of Saintes,
St.-Martial of Limoges, St.-Etienne of Nevers, Morlaas, La Sauve
Majeure, St.-Macaire, La Daurade and St.-Etienne of Toulouse,
Lezat, San Juan de la Pena, Leyre, Estella, Irache, Najera, Santa
Colomba of Burgos, San Pedro de la Cardena, Fromista, Carrion de
los Condes, Benevivere, Sahagun, San Pedro de las Duefias, San Sal-
vador of Astorga, Villafranca, Ferreiros. 1 On referring to the list of
establishments affiliated with Cluny published in the Bullarium^ one
is surprised to find included in the number not only direct dependen-
cies, but cathedral churches, colleges of canons and even monasteries
of other orders. Among the churches along the road given in this list
as Cluniac are : St.-Vincent of Macon, St.-Philibert of Tournus, the
cathedrals of Autun and Narbonne, St.-Benoit-sur-Loire, St .-Denis,
St.-Mar tin of Tours, t he abbey of Bernay, St.-Pons, Montmajour,
St.-Androche of Saulieu, the cathedral of Santiago, St.-Hilaire of
Poitiers, the cathedral of Pamplona, Sagra S. Michele, S. Isidoro of
Leon, the cathedral of Nimes, the cathedral of Burgos, Montierneuf
of Poitiers, Beaulieu, Donzy, La Charite-sur-Loire, St.-Etienne of
Nevers, St.-Martial of Limoges. It is therefore evident that Cluny
1 Bruel, V, i$6 mentions the following Cluniac dependencies which may have been on the
road: S. Martini de Juvia quod in diocesi Minduniensis ecclesie situm esse cognoscitur juxta
flumen Juvie in territorio Trasanguis; Sancta Crux, in Castanneda, juxta ripam fluminis quod
vocatur Pisuenna ; San Salvador de Comeliana quod situm est apud Asturias, in territorii de
Siilas inter duo flumina, Nouaia et Narceia ; Botinio in Gallicia in terra Tuorii, in ripa fluminis
Munei, territorio Rudensi, prope ipsam urbem Tudam, ad radicem rupis magne, que vocatur
Vulturaria; Sancte Marie, quod cognomento Vimiverium vocatur in territorio Bracarensi.
Cf. also Marrier, 1746 : Prioratus S. Saluatoris de Villaviridi in Gallicia, Austericensis diocesis;
Prioratus de Valla-viridi, in Gallicia, Lucensis diocesis; Prioratus S. Vincentij de Palumberiis
in Gallicia, Lucensis diocesis.
176 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
held in her grip the entire lower, and consequently richer, course of
the gold-scattering stream, as well as the strategic points of the head-
waters.
VsThe pilgrimage to Saint James thus became for Cluny an impor-
tant source of material prosperity. A quaint document of 1188 1
shows that the clergy were quite conscious of these benefits. The
prior of Villafranca brought suit against the prior of a neighbouring
hospital, because the latter in peregrlnis sua jura injuste usurpabat !
It is therefore not surprising that Cluny should have stood ready to
help Santiago to crush, or compromise with, rivals in relics, and in
every way to foster the pilgrimage.
I We may gather from a few instances the means by which Cluny
' was enabled to control even those important churches along the road
which were not directly subjected to her discipline. The bishop of
Santiago, Dalmatius, under whom the choir was constructed, and
who gave the golden altar, was an ex-Cluniac monk, who returned to
Cluny to die in 1095. Isarne, who became bishop of Toulouse in
1 07 1, was a strong supporter of Cluny. In 1074, ne donated the
1 locum de S. Genio to the Burgundian monastery. Three years later*
he made a much more important donation of the great Cluniac mon-
astery of La Daurade. He reformed his own canons, doubtless ac-
cording to Cluniac ideas. We shall study later his attempt to trans-
fer St.-Sernin to Cluny. In 1088 and 1096 the same bishop again
appears as the strong supporter of Cluny. His successor, Amelius,
gave a church to Cluny in 1 1 10 ; and in this same year one to Moissac
and another to Cluny. Durande, the predecessor of Isarne, was a
Cluniac monk and abbot of Moissac. It is therefore clear that the
two crucial bishoprics of Santiago and Toulouse were completely
under the control of Cluny. Her alliance with the secular powers was
not less firm. Among all the benefactors of the monastery, none was
so circumstantially honoured as the Aragonese king, Alfonso. He,
doubtless, was the most generous of all to the abbey, and it seems to
have been chiefly at his expense that the new church of Cluny was
1 Buel, V, 680.
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 177
built. It is unnecessary to question the sincerity of his piety. But
one more than suspects that he saw in Cluny a material as well as an
immaterial comfort. Cluny aided in bringing French pilgrims to
Santiago ; these pilgrims were potential crusaders capable of playing
an important role in driving the Moors from Spain.
Thus by the skilful playing of many cards, bit by bit, the fame of
Saint James and his road was increased. The journey to Galicia be-
came incredibly popular. The only remaining rivals were Jerusalem
and Rome. The wisest policy, and the one doubtless at first adopted,
was to pool the interests of all three, and encourage a circular pil-
grimage which should include the Holy Land and Italy as well as
Galicia. It was folly for Santiago to enter into rivalry with Jerusa-
lem and Rome . The bishop of Santiago, Diego Gelmirez, nevertheless
embarked on this ill-advised course. The outstripping of Rome may
have been the work the pseudo-Callistine codex was intended to ac-
complish. We begin to suspect why it was put in the mouth of a
Roman pontiff. At any rate the doubt soon began to be whispered
abroad, whether, after all, Saint James was not greater than Saint
Peter. In the portals of many pilgrimage churches, the son of Zebe-
dee elbows from the position of honour the prince of the apostles.
About the pilgrimage was thrown every lure that could fascinate
the mediaeval mind. Relics were the passion of the age, and these
in profusion were dangled before the eyes of the intending pilgrim to
Compostela. The tomb of the apostle was of course the goal of his
journey; at Santiago were also the relics of the lesser St. James;
on the way there and back many spiritual treasures could be visited
with little extr a effort. The itinerary of the pilgrims was arranged
with especiar~care from this point of view. The tomb of Ste. Foy at
Conques ; that of St. Trophime at Aries ; that of St. Gilles in the
monastery of the same name ; that of St. Guilhem in his desert ; that
of St. Sernin at Toulouse ; that of S. Isidoro at Leon ; that of St.
Leonard near Limoges ; that of St. Front at Perigueux ; those of Ste.
Radegonde and St. Hilaire at Poitiers; that of the Magdalen at
Vezelay ; that of St. Eutrope at Saintes ; that of St. Seurin at Bor-
178 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
deaux ; that of St. Veronica at Soulac ; that of St. Facundus and
St. Primitivus at Sahagun ; that of St. Martin at Tours are only a
few among the more important of an unending number of relics
which lined the road to Santiago. Hardly less seductive to the medi-
aeval pilgrims were the associations of the chansons de geste. The
Church cleverly extended to these secular heroes the cloak of sanc-
tity. On the road were seen and visited the very field of Roncevaux ;
Blaye where St. Roland was buried ; Bordeaux where the oliphant
was preserved (St.-Sernin of Toulouse also claimed to have the oli-
phant, but the Guide passes this pretention by with scornful silence) ;
Belin, where were buried Oliver and other piers of Charlemagne;
Sahagun, near which the Christians' spears burst into foliage.
Into the psychology of the pilgrimage there must also have en-
tered love of wandering for its own sweet sake. Ever since the days
of Odysseus, and doubtless long before, men have passionately de-
sired to see strange countries. The same restlessness that creates the
modern tourist spurred on the men of the Middle Ages to rove.
Chaucer's pilgrims to Canterbury told their tales to while away the
time on their journey ; it is easy to see that the pilgrimage on the
whole was a thoroughly delightful experience. The pilgrims of Saint
James similarly sought solace from monotony in the Chanson de
Roland and the Chanson de Guillaume; they, too, doubtless found
travelling, for all its discomforts and even perils, pleasurable. The
efforts of Cluny and of pious individuals had resulted in making the
road relatively safe and comfortable. Hospices were provided at
needed points, 1 bridges built, the roads repaired. 2 The Callistine co-
dex lays great stress upon the terrible vengeance that Saint James
might be expected to visit upon whoever molested, or even failed to
aid, his pilgrims. His wrath, it was known, was especially liable to
fall upon unscrupulous inn-keepers. No sin could be more heinous
than to defraud pilgrims' of money which otherwise would be given
1 As early as 969 a donation was made in pago Matisconensi (Macon), in Villa Rufiacensi to
Cluny ut peregrini et non habentes inde sustententur et recreentur (Bruel, II, 345).
2 A merit of Santo Domingo de la Calzada was, as his name implies, that he built and kept in
repair a portion of the road of St. James.
■\
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 179
to the Church. Fraternities were formed everywhere to aid pilgrims.
He who went to Saint James was wrapped about by a sort of sanctity
that was a powerful protection and a help in case of need.
So the journey was not over-full of hardships. Neither was it very
expensive. M. Thorel has estimated that the return trip from
Amiens cost about $200 in modern money. This certainly seems rea-
sonable for a journey that must have lasted several months, since we
are told that the return trip from Toulouse required thirty-six days.
Travelling was assuredly slower than to-day, but perhaps not dearer
nor less agreeable. This explains the fact that the pilgrims were not
satisfied with their long trip to Santiago. They pushed on two long
days further to see where St. James landed at Padron, and to gather
cockle-shells on the shores of the western ocean. Indeed, the going to
Notre-Dame of Finisterre, the westernmost land, was an integral
part of the regular pilgrimage route.
By no means the least glamour of the pilgrimage was and is that
of art. The four roads to Santiago lead, even to-day, past an incom-
parable series of mediaeval monuments.
Leaving St.-Jacques of Paris, of which only the tower remains to-
day, passing under the shadow of the cathedral, near St.-Julien-le-
Pauvre and St.-Germain-des-Pres out the rue St.-Jacques and
through the Porte St.-Jacques the pilgrims went to Longpont, St.-
Sulpice-de-Favieres, Etampes, Orleans, Blois, Amboise, Tours,
Cormery, Beaulieu-les-Loches, Loches, Parthenay, Thouars, St.-
Jouin-de-Marne, Champdeniers, Poitiers, Montmorillon, Moreaux,
Civray, Melle, Aulnay, Saintes, Bordeaux, Dax, Mimizan, Bayonne,
Sauveterre,Roncevaux, Pamplona, Puente la Reina, Estella,Hirache,
Logrono, Najera, Santo Domingo de la Calzada, Burgos, Fromista,
Villacazar, Carrion de los Condes, Sahagun, San Miguel de Escalada,
Leon, Astorga and so to Santiago ; returning they might pass Oviedo,
Santa Maria de Lena,Arbas, Armentia,Vitoria,Estibaliz, Leyre, San
Juan de la Pena, Santa Cruz de la Seros, Jaca, Oloron-Ste.-Marie,
Morlaas, St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges, Valcabrere, Lezat, Toulouse,
Carcassonne, Rieux-Minervois, Narbonne, Beziers, St.-Guilhem-le-
.*$
*
1 80 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Desert, Aniane, Montpellier, Maguelonne, St.-Gilles, Aries, Nimes,
Le Puy, Brioude, Lavaudieu, Issoire, St.-Saturnin, Clermont-Fer-
rand; or if the alternate routes were chosen, Hagetmau, Bazas,
Blazimont, Perigueux, Limoges, St.-Leonard, Nevers, Vezelay,
Castelvieil, La Sauve Majeure; Moissac, Cordes, Conques; and
possibly Cahors, Rocamadour, Figeac, Souillac, Martel, Carennac,
Beaulieu. Kilometre for kilometre it would be, I think, impossible
to trace another itinerary in Europe passing as many important
monuments of the early part of the XII century. It is clear that
there was a distinct tendency for Cluniac priories, for relics, and
for monumental sculpture to gather along the road.
That the r oad should have be en adorned with art, as it was with
legends and epics, is in no way s urprising, ^l jie mere material pros-
'foefity brough TTy the streams of pilgr ims would explain much .
Mbreover7~large towns and arteries of communication naturally
gravitate together. Behind all this there was however, I suspect, the
directing hand of the monks of Cluny. At this period Cluny was the
champion of all the arts, but especially of sculpture. Itjvasthrough
Cluny that stone sculpture was first really popularized in the We st ;
and Cluny remained the chief foyer of the art until the rising power
of Citeaux broke the prestige of the older order, and soured its sweet-
ness with the gloom of Puritanism. After Saint Bernard, art could
hardly flourish in any monastery, more than it could, after Luther,
in any church. But in the first third of the XII century Cluny, the
lover of art and beauty, was still at the zenith of her power ; and those
pre cious momen ts never to return she used to line th^ yn^frnm
Paris to Santiago, with a series of masterworks. The influence ex-
erted upon sculpture by these pilgrimage churches was exceedingly
Many of the sculptures of northern Spain not upon the road seem
to be derivatives of monuments which are. Santa Marta de Terra
comes out of Santiago (111. 675-691). Moarves (111. 729) is evidently
copied from Carrion de los Condes (111. 722-726). The jamb sculp-
tures of San Martin at Segovia (111. 755-756) may have been inspired
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 181
by Sangiiesa (111. 743-746). The large figures in the cloister of San-
tillana del Mar (111. 867-868) come out of Oviedo (111. 869, 870). The
caryatid figures under the cupola at Santiago (111. 694, 695) ' are
analogous to those at Hirache, Armentia (111. 767), Ciudad Rodrigo,
Toro, Salamanca (111. 736-739), Conques (111. 388, 389), Aix, Ven-
asque and Carpentras.
The history of Spanish Romanesque sculpture might be graphi-
cally represented by taking a pen, full of ink, and tracing with it upon
wet blotting paper, the road of St. James.
Nor, does it appear, was the case in France essentially otherwise.
Certainly the school of the West had important centres at Blazimont,
Parthenay, Melle, Aulnay, Saintes and Poitiers, all on the road. The
school of Provence similarly centres in Aries, St.-Gilles, Nimes, St.-
Guilhem-le-Desert, all on the road. That of Velay radiates from Le
Puy, which is on the road. That of Auvergne is grouped about
Issoire and Clermont-Ferrand, both on the road. By far the moat
import ant centres of south-western France were Moissac and Tou-
l ouse, both o n th e road. The Burgundian-Languedocian manner was
originated at Cluniac Moissac (111. 339-342), on the road; thence it
spread to Beaulieu (111. 409-420). Other centres were formed at
Cahors (111. 422-429) and Conques (111. 386-401), both on the road.
From Conques, the art spread to Espalion (111. 402). The last phase
of Languedocian Romanesque sculpture, charactenzedjr^ the ap-
pearance of the influence of Lhartres, tound centres in the Cluniac
priory of "La Daurade at Toulouse (111. 462-479), on the road, and at
St.-Etienne (111. 434-449) of the same city, hence also on the road,
and also under strong Cluniac influence.
Lombardy was connected with the rest of Europe by the pilgrim-
age routes. Many Lombards made the journey to Compostela, as we
learn from the book of the miracles and other sources. Nicolo, who
1 The motive is doubtless of Byzantine origin, since found in Armenia at Kumurdo, a church
which according to Strzygowski, 782, dates from the second half of the X century. In Byzan-
tine mosaics the evangelists were regularly represented in this position.
The existing sculptures in the pendentives of Santiago seem related in style to the work of
Mateo and are perhaps not earlier than the second half of the XII century, but they must
replace earlier sculptures of the same subject.
1 82 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
had certainly been in Spain, carved the figures of Roland and Oliver
on the jambs of the cathedral of Verona. Moreover, two important
pilgrimage routes, those to Rome and Jerusalem, crossed Lombardy,
passing through Susa, Sagra S. Michele, Vercelli, Sannazaro Sesia,
Pavia, Piacenza, Borgo S. Donnino, Parma, Modena, Bologna.
Indeed, the roads to Rome and to the Holy Land were connected
with that to Compostela, and were no less important in transmitting
artistic influences. A long series of accounts written by pilgrims at
various periods of the Middle Ages has been published by the Pales-
tine Pilgrims' Text Society. Less condensed and vivid than the Guide
to Compostela, this valuable series of documents nevertheless
informs us in detail of the journey to the Holy Land in mediaeval
times. The great number of alternative routes is sharply brought
to our attention. We are apt : to~1bTgeT~that irTtne XII century7~as
now, there were many different ways of going from one place to
another. Pilgrims who had gone to Santiago by the regular route,
might return by way of Catalonia, visiting the great shrines at Zara-
goza and Montserrat, and passing, perhaps, by Solsona or Ripoll,
thence via Puigcerda to Villefranche with its church of St.-Jacques
and the pilgrimage of Mont Romeu. So pilgrims to the Holy Land
went occasionally, especially in early times, over-land the entire dis-
tance — this was the route taken by the Bordeaux pilgrim in 333,
by St. Antoninus c. 570 and by Mandeville. In the XII century,
however, the usual route was by sea. The pilgrim might embark at
Venice or at Rome, but he was more likely to sail from an Apulian
port. The one selected seems to have depended upon circumstances.
Seawulf (1102-1103) writes: "Some embark at Bari, some at Bar-
letta, some at Siponto or Trani, and some even at Otranto. We,
however, went on board ship at Monopoli." After having been ship-
wrecked, he re-embarked at Brindisi. Other pilgrims mention that
they took ship at Taranto. The great shrines at Monte Gargano
and Bari were, however, regularly included in the itinerary.
The pilgrimages to Rome and the Holy Land undoubtedly played
a large part in uniting the art of Apulia and Lombardy with that of
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 183
the rest of Europe. We find the influence of Lombard architecture
appearing in Normandy, at Jumieges, at precisely the moment when
the Normans began to pass through Lombardy frequently on their
way to Apulia. The connection between the Bayeux tapestry, the
relief at Angouleme (111. 939), the Porta della Pescheria at Modena,
and the Porta dei Leoni at S. Niccola of Bari (111. 156) has doubtless
the same explanation. The occupation of Apulia by the Normans
must have caused much travelling back and forth from Normandy
through Lombardy to Apulia even by those who were not pilgrims.
Journeys undertaken for many different reasons led travellers
along the same routes. Suger, for example, made three trips to
Italy, and went as far south as S. Niccola of Bari. We are not there-
fore surprised to find him introducing at St.-Denis numerous fea-
tures of Italian art — mosaics, Lombard anthemia, bronze doors,
jamb sculptures. Artists themselves often travelled. We have al-
ready found many instances, and shall find even more striking ones
in subsequent chapters. The pilgrim who signed his initials and
added the word peregrini to the marble epitaph of Ponce de Brou at
Narbonne * was only one of many who combined the business of art
with the spiritual benefits of a pilgrimage. It was another, I sus-
pect, who (pelegrinus, not Pellegrinus) executed in 1273 the windows
for Charles d'Anjou in the castle of Pontano at Foggia. 2
The roads crossing Lombardy without question aided in the
transmission of artistic ideas to and from that province. Lombard
sculpture was formed at Modena, which lies on the road.
From Modena it spread to Nonantola, to Cremona, to the Clu-
niac S. Benedetto Po. The second phase of Lombard sculpture was
formed by Nicolo at Sagra S. Michele and Piacenza, both on the
road. From there it spread to Ferrara and Verona. From Ferrara
the style was carried to France, to Chamalieres (111. 11 54-1 156) in
the Cevennes. At Parma, on the road, was formed the art of Bene-
detto, which spread to Milan, to Venice, throughout Lombardy.
Corneto, on the road to Rome, and the Apulian cities on the road
1 de M61y, 61. 2 Lenormant, I, 40.
(
i8 4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
to the Holy Land, both developed during the XII century an art of
the pilgrimage type. In both the architectural forms in the early part
of the century are Lombard ; in both these are later supplanted by
the early Gothic forms of northern France. The same succession of
Lombard and French influences is notable in the sculpture of Apulia.
In other provinces of Italy the influences of the pilgrimages can be
traced. The sculptures of the cathedral of Genoa (111. 254-258) are
derived from Chartres; those of the cathedral of Lucca (111. 247)
from Burgundy. I suspect that Giovanni Pisano may have absorbed
the French influences which form so important an element in his
style from pilgrims and travellers passing through Pisa on their way
to Rome.
The discoveries of Strzygowski leave no doubt as to the reality of
Byzantine influence over the art of the Occident. A venerable tra-
dition had, indeed, always asserted the fact, and Syrian monuments
had already given good reason to suspect that the Orient counted
for more in Western productions than the wildest dreamer could
have imagined. Now that Armenian architecture has been opened
up to us, we are face to face with the fact that Western art was
largely inspired by the East. Thence were derived many motives
we have considered characteristic of Western Romanesque — cubic
capitals, triangular arches, arched corbel-tables ( ?), blind arches,
plans of the Germigny-les-Pres type, arched squinches, apses polyg-
onal externally semicircular internally, barrel-vaulted naves with
transverse arches, compound piers, Le Puy vaults, pointed arches,
horse-shoe arches, alternation of supports, griffes, sculptured tym-
pana, columns supported on lions (?), figure sculpture, zig-zag dentil
string-courses, transverse arches, squinch sculptures. From the
East came the Auvergnat vaulted basilicas, with central cupola
buttressed by vaults raised over the side aisles. Thence also were
derived the mosaic pavements characteristic of Romanesque
churches in Italy and France — such pavements were common in
Byzantine churches of the IV-VI centuries in the East. 1 To the
l Diehl,2ii.
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 185
same source was due sculpture in stone which is found in Armenia
in the church of Mzchet, dating apparently from the VIII century, 1
at Kars (928-951) 2 and at Achthamar (921.)
Not only separate motives, but entire buildings appear to have
been transported, as it were bodily, either from Armenia or from the
source of Armenian architecture. Among these is the cathedral of
Pisa, a city on the road to Rome. The cathedral of Pisa seems to
have inspired in turn an entire school of Romanesque architecture in
Tuscany ; and it was also copied in the cathedral of Troia in Apulia,
which in turn was reproduced at Foggia and Siponto.
An undoubted result of the pilgrimages was to diffuse through
the West copies of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem.
The characteristic features of this structure were : first, that it was
of central or circular type ; and second, that it consisted of a build-
ing within a building, since the rotunda had been constructed about
the tomb itself. Avowed or evident reproductions are numerous
in the West, and exist, or existed at St.-Leonard, Montmorillon,
Parthenay, Ste.-Croix of Quimperle, St.-Bonnet-la-Riviere, Laon,
Neuvy-St.-Sepulcre, Eunate, El Sepulcro of Torres, Santa Cruz of
Segovia, Cambridge, the Temple Church at London, S. Sepolcro of
Barletta, S. Stefano of Bologna. M. Brehier has suggested that the
old rotunda of St.-Benigne of Dijon should be added to the list, and
the strange church of Charroux should almost certainly be grouped
under this head.
Western iconography, until 1140 almost exclusively, and always
in great part, was under the influence of Byzantine models. The
pilgrimages may have played no small part in carrying such con-
ceptions from the East, and in renewing constantly contact with
the fountain-heads.
S. Marco of Venice, and the domed churches of the west of France,
are certainly derived from Eastern models. This type of architecture
may well have been brought to the West by means of the pilgrimages.
The church of Canosa in Apulia was vaulted with domes on penden-
1 Strzygowski, 81. J Ibid., 84.
1 86 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
tives of the same diameter in iioi ; this church and S. Marco and
St.-Front of Perigueux were all important pilgrimage centres.
Other types of vault may well have come from the East. The
barrel-vaulted basilicas of the Asturias recall strangely those of Asia
Minor. The singular ribbed cupola of Casale Monferrato is precisely
like the similar vaults at Cordoba and San Baudelio in Spain and
Aklepat in Armenia.
Along the road of St. James followed by the Lombard^pilgrims, the
forms ofXombard art begin to appear, and spread thence to the
neighbouring districts. The apse of St.-Guilhem-le-Desert, on the
road, is completely Lombard. The alternate system, introduced at
St.-Nazaire of Carcassonne, on the road, spread thence to Bozouls.
The rib vault is introduced at Frejus, on the road (for pilgrims doubt-
less came by the shore as well as by the Mt.-Cenis), at St.-Victor of
Marseille, on the road, at Maguelonne, on the road, at St.-Etienne
of Toulouse, on the road, at Moissac, on the road, at St.-Hilaire of
Poitiers, on the road. 1 The Cistercian rib vaults of Lombardy 2 pene-
trated into the porches of St.-Guilhem-le-Desert on the road and
St.-Martin-de-Londres. These Lombard influences were doubtless
brought not only by pilgrims. The architecture of Catalonia, French
as well as Spanish, was under strong Lombard influence. Lombard
masters were probably often employed — at least it is certain that
this was the case at Seu d'Urgell. These masters journeyed over the
same road taken by the pilgrims.
Lombard rib vaults were introduced into Central Italy at Corneto
and at Montefiascone on the road. Thence the idea spread to S.
Robano, to Sovana, perhaps even to Aversa, Teramo and S. Maria di
Ronzano. In Apulia Lombard rib vaults were introduced at S. Bene-
detto of Brindisi, on the road.
The type of Romanesque cloister, consisting of twin columns sup-
porting round arches with piers at the angles, is closely associated
1 The rib vault of Ste.-Croix of Quimperle, however, appears to be earlier than any of the
examples on the road. The construction early spread to the Ile-de-France and to England.
2 Or did these profiled ribs come from the North? St.-Jean of Valence gives some reason to
think such may have been the case.
\
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 187
with the pilgrimage road. We find it at Santo Domingo de Silos in
the eighth decade of the XI century (111. 666). Such cloisters be-
came characteristic of the Romanesque architecture of Spain and
Catalonia ; they are found at the cathedral and Sant Pere de Galli-
gans of Gerona, Estany, Perelada, Bages, Sant Pere de Roda, Sant
Pere de les Puelles (destroyed), Ripoll, Elne, San Cugat del Valles,
San Pedro of Huesca, San Pedro of Estella, Santillana del Mar. In
France the type was introduced from Spain, at Mqissac, on the road.
Later it appears at St.-Trophime of Aries, on the road, at Mont-
majour, at St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges, on the road, at Notre-
Dames-des-Doms of Avignon (now destroyed), and at Aix-en-Pro-
vence. It found its way, too, into Lombardy; to S. Orso of Aosta,
S. Stefano of Bologna, the cathedral and S. Zeno of Verona ; thence
to Ss. Quattro Corona ti (c. 11 13) and other cloisters of Rome and
Sicily. It was doubtless one of the many artistic ideas which the
Lombard pilgrims brought back from their journey to Compostela.
The motive of crossed legs in sculpture, wherever it originated,
found itself established at an early period in the Spanish-Aquitanian
school. At Compostela and Toulouse it was known from at least the
second decade of the XII century. Thence it spread through the pil-
grimages over Europe — to Ferrara in Lombardy, to Bamberg in
Germany, to St.-Gilles in Provence, to St.-Denis and Senlis in north-
ern France.
Architectural motives travelled as easily along the pilgrimage
routes. Miss King has shown that the west front of Le Puy, on the
road, is derived from Santiago, and Lamperez that the cusping of
St.-Michel-de~r Aiguille is inspired by the same source.
It has long been known that the horsemen sculptured on the fa-
cades of several churches in the west of France represent Constan-
tine. It has been conjectured that pilgrims to Rome had been im-
pressed by the statue of Marcus Aurelius, now on the Capitoline,
but then near the Lateran, and which had mistakenly been believed
to represent Constantine. Upon returning home, it is supposed, they
caused the statue to be copied.
1 88 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The fact, however, I confess, seems to me far from certain. Con-
stantine is a subject well known to Byzantine iconography. Strzy-
gowski x has suggested that the motive of the victorious rider, trans-
fixing with his spear his fallen enemy is of ancient Egyptian origin,
since it is found in a relief representing Horus, now in the Louvre.
In any event, the motive was very frequent in the Christian art of
the Copts ; almost any saint 2 might be represented in this form
among others, Constantine. 3 Now there are several clear indications
that the Constantines of western France are derived from Eastern
tradition, not from the Marcus Aurelius of Rome.
Constantine was represented in a mosaic of the church of the Holy
Sepulchre at Jerusalem. 4 This monument has unhappily perished,
and we know it only through over-brief descriptions. One detail is,
however, significant. Opposite the emperor was represented the
female figure of the empress Helena. This suggests an explanation
of the female figure which appears beside the Constantines at Cha-
1 Hell, und Kopt. Kunst, 26.
2 Clermont-Ganneau, 398, mentions an instance in which Christ is represented as a horse-
man ; he also speaks of " deux intailles d'hematite a la Bibliotheque Nationale, ou Ton voit un
cavalier percant de sa lance un ennemi a terre, avec le nom de Salomon." Every one is familiar
with representations of St. George and St. Martin as horsemen. According to Strzygowski,
Kopt. Rett., 51, there are at the monastery of St. Paul at Mar frescos of 1713 representing six
cavaliers, all different saints and labelled. In the south monastery of St. Anthony at Gallale
are ten or twelve riders (52), and many single representations occur elsewhere (53).
3 Grueneissen, 63. A partir de l'epoque imp6riale, les images des vainqueurs terrassant
l'ennemi sont multiples : on les voit sur les bas-reliefs, sur les medailles et ailleurs. . . . Le type
de cavalier vainqueur foulant aux pieds Tennemi desarme etait tres repandu dans Tart alexan-
drin populaire. De petites figurines en argile, creees pour le grand marche, prouvent avec
evidence, que la formule simplificatrice n'est point une invention copte. L'image de Con-
stantin est la premiere dans la longue serie des saints guerriers intrepides, et celle de saint
George ne sera pas, certainement, en Egypte, la plus frequente. Dans le nombre des cavaliers
qui ornent les murs de Baouit, on trouve les noms de St. Victor, de Orion, Bonakh et Askla,de
Sisinnios. Dans la chapelle XXVI sont repr6sentes quatre cavaliers affrontes dont un seul
conserve la legende fragmentaire ; peut-£tre Jean le martyre. Sur une ampoule en plomb, on
trouve un cavalier avec le nom de S. Theodore. Enfin, il existe beaucoup d'autres cavaliers,
surtout dans l'art textile, mais ils ne sont pas encore identifies. Strzygowski (Aachen, 48) has
identified the Barberini ivory of the Louvre as a Constantine, and believes that it was exe-
cuted at Alexandria in the IV century. For the origin of the iconographical tradition of repre-
senting Constantine as a horseman, see Clermont-Ganneau, 398: "L'empereur (Constantin)
s'6tait fait representer en personne dans le role d'adversaire du dragon. Ce fait enregistr£ par
Eusebe, confirm € par la numismatique, est egalement atteste par les historiens orientaux qui
mentionnent, parmi les statues d'airain de Constantinople, un cavalier arm 6 d'une lance et
percant un serpent."
4 Jeffery, 36.
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 189
teauneuf-sur-Charente (111. 1008), Angouleme and St.-Jouin-de-
Marne (111. 947). These, I suspect, represent not the Church, as
M. Male has supposed, but Helena. The presence of these female
figures in several of the French monuments, inexplicable on the
theory that the theme is derived from the Roman Marcus Aurelius,
is easily comprehensible in the light of Byzantine tradition. 1
The prostrate figure at the feet of the horse, characteristic of the
French sculptures, might well be derived from the East. Such a
figure occurs under the feet of one of the four horsemen represented
on a Byzantine ivory box of the X century in the museum at Arezzo.
One, too, is found in the Barberini ivory of the Louvre, which is an
Alexandrine work of the IV century. The same motive recurs in a
Coptic manuscript of the X or XI century and in a miniature of the
ChludofT psalter, a palimpset erased in the XII century, but of which
the illustrations belong to an earlier period. 2 The fifty-ninth psalm
appears, in fact, to have been interpreted as symbolical of Constan-
tine. We find the prostrate figure at the feet of the horseman also in
the XIII century wooden doors of Kasr-es-Scham'a at Old Cairo. 3
There is nothing in this motive therefore which might not have found
its way into French sculpture from Oriental sources. 4
In western France, Constantine on horseback is regularly bal-
anced by Samson wrestling with the lion. The Hebrew hero is
astride the back of the monster, and breaks his jaws with his hands.
Now this peculiar iconography seems to be taken over from reliefs
representing Mithra and the bull 5 which were common in Egypt as
well as elsewhere. In these Mithra is seen on the back of the ani-
1 Helena is often represented with Constantine 'in Byzantine iconography, as e.g., in an
ivory triptych of the X century in the Bibliotheque Nationale, illustrated by Schlumberger,
Ep. Byz., I, 17 ; in an ivory triptych of the XI century in the Berlin museum, illustrated ibid.,
II, 76; in a reliquary of the XI-XII centuries at Nonantola, illustrated ibid., II, 81 ; in a reli-
quary of Cologne, illustrated ibid., II, 177; in a steatite carving of the XI-XII centuries in the
cathedral of Lentini, illustrated ibid., Ill, 804.
2 Illustrated by Tikkanen, Taf. I, Fig. 1. Compare also Lefebvre des Noettes, Fig. 6.
3 Strzygowski, Kopt. Reit., 55.
4 The horseman at S. Maria Antiqua, Rome, seems to have had two prostrate figures be-
neath his horse's hoofs (Griineisen, PI. IC. XVI).
5 Two of these are illustrated by Strzygowski, Cairo Cat., 8-10. Many others illustrated by
Frothingham, passim.
i 9 o ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
mal, grasping its head in precisely the same manner. Both Constan-
tine and Samson appear therefore to be motives of Egyptian origin.
Several of the earlier Constantines in the West — those of St.-
Jouin-de-Marne (111. 947) and Angouleme — are low reliefs, and in
the former case of very small dimensions. The early cavalier of
Par then ay-le-Vieux (111. 924), it is true, is of the established type;
but in general there seems to be a distinct evolution towards larger
and higher reliefs, a fact which makes it seem probable that the west-
ern cavaliers are derived from miniatures rather than from the Ro-
man statue in the round.
It is certain that the silver Constantine presented by Charles,
Duke of Berry, in 1414, had a Greek inscription. 1 Therefore at least
one image of Constantine had been imported into France from the
East. Nor is there reason to suppose that it was the only one.
A marked peculiarity of the Constantines in the West is the coat
fluttering behind. This is excellently preserved, for example, at
Surgeres (111. 1092, 1093) an d Parthenay-le-Vieux (111. 924). Now
this motive is characteristic of Byzantine art, 2 but is not found in the
Marcus Aurelius. This fact is conclusive.
Indeed, a well-known anecdote suggests that the Marcus Aurelius,
1 Strzygowski, Hell, und Kopt. Kunst, 27-28.
2 The coat flutters behind Constantine on horse-back in a Byzantine miniature of the X cen-
tury in the Bibliotheque Nationale, illustrated by Schlumberger, I, 605. It also flutters behind
the equestrian St. Sisinnios of Bawit illustrated by Gruneisen,Pl. XXXV. St. Minas is depicted
as a horseman with coat fluttering behind, and a naked bather at the feet of his horse in a
Nubian miniature of the IX century, illustrated by Kaufmann, 33. Horsemen in Byzantine art
are, in fact, regularly represented with the coat fluttering behind — e.g., on an ivory box of the
XI century at Troyes, illustrated by Diehl, 615 ; in an ivory casket of the X century at Liver-
pool, illustrated by Graeven, I, 13 ; in a miniature illustrated by Schlumberger, Ep. Byz., I,
740; in an ivory of the XI or XII century in the museum of Angers, illustrated ibid., II, 132 ;
in a miniature of the X-XI centuries in the library of St. Mark's at Venice ; illustrated ibid., II,
473 ; in an ivory box of the X or XI century in the Bargello at Florence, illustrated ibid., Ill,
17 ; in miniatures of the XI century at Jerusalem, illustrated ibid., Ill, 32, 37 ; in a casket of the
XI century at Bologna, illustrated by Graeven, II, 4 ; in a miniature of the Utrecht Psalter
(f. 7 b) ; in one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse of St.-Sever (1028-1072), illustrated by
Haseloff in Michel, II, 1, 752 ; in the rider of the pulpit at Aachen, an ivory plaque of ancient
Alexandrian origin inserted in the Romanesque work of 1002-1024; in the rider of the tym-
panum at Daschlut, illustrated by Strzygowski, Hell, und Kopt. Kunst, 21 ; in a miniature of
the Greek manuscript, Vatican 11 56, illustrated by Millet, Fig. 95; in a Tetrevangile of the
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, 74, illustrated ibid., Fig. 100; in a fresco of Kalinic, illustrated
ibid., Fig. 154; in a Macedonian relief of the Louvre, illustrated by Lefebvre des Noettes,
Fig. 21.
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 191
far from inspiring the French statues, was dubbed a Constantine
from its resemblance to the traditional representations of that saint.
It is said that a French noble when visiting Rome was so shocked to
find the statue deprived of the cloak usual in his country, that he
presented one. It is certain that in the XII century the significance
of the Marcus Aurelius was disputed. In the Descriptio Plenaria l
we read : Laterani est quidam caballus aereus qui dicitur Constantini,
sed non ita est. Another pagan statue near by was called Samson,
probably because Samson commonly balanced Constantine on the
facades of Pictave churches. 2
Not all the cavaliers of western France are Constantines. Very
few of them are actually named ; because it is known that equestrian
statues of Constantine existed, it has been assumed that all eques-
trian statues represent Constantine. Such, however, is not the case.
At Surgeres (111. 1092, 1093) there are two horsemen, only one of
whom can be Constantine. The second figure is inexplicable on the
theory that these cavaliers are derived from the Roman Marcus
Aurelius. In the East, however, we have seen that many different
saints, of whom Constantine was only one, were represented as
horsemen. 3 In the frescos of St.-Jean of Poitiers, in addition to the
Constantine, three other horsemen appear. This iconographical
scheme has no analogy with the Marcus Aurelius ; on the other hand,
it is entirely parallel to the chapel at Bawit, also adorned with four
cavaliers in fresco 4 and to the southern monastery of St. Anthony at
Gallale, where the same peculiar iconographic composition is re-
peated. 5 It therefore seems certain that the French cavaliers are de-
rived not from Rome, but from the East.
At Bamberg, where the influence of the East as well as of France is
strong, is a rider whom there is no especial reason for believing a
representation of Constantine.
3
\ his
1 Ed. Urlichs, 98. 2 IbUL, 136.
At S. Zeno of Verona, Theodoric appears as a horseman, as he did also in the pediment of
palace at Ravenna.
Griineisen.
These frescos are of 1 508-1 540. See Strzygowski, Kopt. Reit. % $$.
i 9 2 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Two reliefs in Spain, at Santa Maria of Carrion de los Condes (111.
774) and at Armentia (111. 763) show every characteristic of the
French Constantines. But here again the significance is not certain.
At a later period St. James in Spain often appears in the form of a
victorious horseman, 1 and the conquered province at his feet be-
comes a Moor. The researches of Miss King have proved that the
conception of St. James as a horseman is indeed at least as old as the
end of the XI century ; it is he who appears in the psychostasy at
Pontida. 2
What part, if any, the pilgrimages played in diffusing the motive
of the rider through western Europe remains then problematical.
In other features of iconography, however, the influence of the
pilgrimages is unmistakable. It is evident that the popularity of St.
James reflected glory on his colleagues. Through the pilgrimage of
Santiago, the entire group of the apostles came to the foreground
with a conspicuousness that they had never before enjoyecL^ Their
images commenced first to be represented in the pilgrimage churches.
An early sculptured cycle of the apostles is found in the cloister of
Moissac (111. 262-273). Soon after, the subject was taken up at
Santiago, and many times repeated ; then it occurs in the cloister of
St.-Etienne of Toulouse, which adjoined the pilgrims' hospital; then
at Oviedo, then in the Cluniac Daurade of Toulouse, then in Mateo's
Portico de la Gloria. From the pilgrimage churches it spread to
northern France, to Chartres, to Amiens and to Reims. Even as late
f as 1324 the cycle of the apostles was repeated in the pilgrimage
chapel at Paris. Five of these statues, the work of Robert de Launoy,
have been excavated and are in the Museum of Cluny. Germany
also brought back from Spain the cycle of the apostles, and adopted
it with enthusiasm. Certain of the apostles of the Liebfrauenkirche
of Halberstadt have their legs crossed, probably an indication that
1 He is already so represented at Betanzos (111. 895). The female figure here is, I suppose, a
donor.
2 I illustrated this relief, of which I missed the iconographic significance, in my Lombard
Architecture^ IV, Plate 189, Fig. 1. Santiago is conceived of as a cavalier in the XIX miracle
of the Callistine codex, ed. Lopez-Aydillo, 45. He also appears as such in the codex known as
Tumbo A of the cathedral archives at Santiago, Mas phot., C 29435.
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 193
they are derived from the South-west. The apostles of Bamberg
evidently owe much to Toulouse and Santiago.
The basilica at Compostela was begun in 1078 ; the choir was con-
secrated in 1 102 ; and in 11 24 the building was finished. This edifice
marks a notable advance in architectural art. It has been much dis-
cussed whether the church should be classed as French or Spanish.
In point of fact, at Santiago, as in other important mediaeval
buildings, the best workmen were summoned from wherever they
could be found, and artistic ideas were collected wherever suitable
ones could be met with. From these mixed elements was formed an
indigenous atelier. Precisely the same process took place when the
basilica of St.-Denis and the cathedral of Canterbury were con-
structed, and was the natural proceeding when there must be built a
church so great as to be beyond the ordinary resources of the country.
It may well be that the master-builders of Santiago, Bernard and
Robert, were Frenchmen. It is certain that closer precedents for the
style of the building are to be found in France than in Spain. The
ambulatory, the most conspicuous feature of the plan, is surely not
of Spanish origin. The motive appeared in Lombardy toward the
end of the X century — at S. Stefano of Verona, c. 990 and in the
cathedral of Ivrea c. 1000 — and also, it seems, about the same time
in France. The earliest extant example north of the Alps is at Tour-
nus. 1 It was certainly from France and more precisely from northern
1 M. Br6hier believes that the motive of the ambulatory was originated in the cathedral of
Clermont consecrated in 946, and was copied thence at St.-Martin of Tours, Ste.-Croix of
Orleans (989), Notre-Dame-de-la-Couture of Le Mans (c. 997) and the cathedral of Le Mans
(951-970). I confess, however, to distrust of deductive reasoning based solely upon excavated
foundations. Nothing is easier to misunderstand. The dates can not be controlled by study
of the style. Especially hazardous in my opinion are the conclusions which have been risked
upon St.-Martin of Tours. If we believe Comte de Lasteyrie and M. Male the basilica erected
there in 994 was the prototype of the entire Santiagoan family of churches. This theory is
based upon the admittedly inaccurate reports of excavations conducted in an entirely unscien-
tific manner. Such evidence hardly justifies the assumption that a church of this type existed
at Tours a century earlier than elsewhere ; especially since we have the explicit statement of
the contemporary Pilgrim's Guide that the church of St.-Martin was built in imitation of that
of Compostela: super quern (the tomb of St. Martin) ingens basilica veneranda sub eius honore,
ad similitudinem scilicet beati Jacobi, miro opere fabricator. The Santiagoan church was doubt-
less erected after the fire of 1123. It is less improbable that the church of St.-Martial of
Limoges, begun in 1063 and consecrated in 1095, was of the Santiagoan type shown in draw-
ings of the edifice destroyed in the XVIII century that have come down to us. The debris
i 9 4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Auvergne that the ambulatory, and other features of design also,
were brought to Compostela. The significant fact, however, is that
out of these ancient elements was produced a new whole ; that the
atelier of Santiago became, for a century, one of the most advanced
and productive centres of artistic creation in Europe ; and that it
exerted a dominating influence upon the development of architecture
and sculpture in the XII century.
The type of architecture originated at Santiago became the standi
ard for a g reaTnumber of churches alon g the pilgrimage road, andTn —
Lole dist ricts ot France. St.-Serninof Toulouse is an evident copy
(j)f the basilicaTt C6inposfeia ; so is Ste.-Foy of Conques and so were
probably St.-Martin of Tours and St.-Martial of Limoges. The great
/abbey of Cluny itself was influenced by Santiago. From these
/ centres, all, except Cluny, on the road, the type spread through
whole districts of France, through Limousin, through Languedoc,
through Auvergne, through Burgundy. Compostela was the model
from which, directly or indirectly, was derived a majority of the
great Romanesque churches of the XII century in France. The type,
modified it is true, but still unmistakable, was carried into Italy, to
Acerenza, to Venosa, to Aversa, to S. Antimo. The church at Cavag-
nolo Po, dedicated to the pilgrimage saint, Ste. Foy, clearly shows
the influence of this type of construction. In Languedoc and Pro-
vence a modification of the Santiagoan type was introduced. The
ambulatory was replaced by apses, and the barrel vaults were
pointed. St.-Trophime of Aries, on the road, may have been one of
the centres from which the type spread. /\
The Ile-de-France owes much to Compostela. We have already rb
remarked that the broad-leaved and crocketed capitals characteristic
of the transitional style of the middle of the XII century are in-
spired, not by nature, as has been supposed, but by the Xl-century
work at Santiago. The half-barrel vaults thrown across the galleries
of the abbey, now gathered together in the Musee Adrien Dubouche (No. 3s, 3^, 37, 3 8 > 39>
41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, S3, 54, 72 — see Texier, PI. I, Fig. 3), show such nondescript
workmanship that it is difficult to judge of their date. It is however more natural to suppose
that the church of St.-Martial was reconstructed after the fire of 11 22 (C. de Lasteyrie, 295).
THE PILGRIMAGE TO COMPOSTELA 195
of St.-Etienne of Caen, and long erroneously (as M. Lefevre-Pontalis
has shown) believed to be the germ from which the flying buttress
developed, may have come to Caen from the pilgrimage churches
as well as from Auvergne. 1
With the XII century passed the glory of Cluny. The power of
the art-loving monastery was supplanted by that of the art-hating
Cistercians. The popularity of the pilgrimage continued, but the
first fine fire of enthusiasm had passed. And Spanish sculpture be-
gan to decline. Like the pilgrimage, Spanish plastic art reached its
highest point of development in the XII century. Nevertheless, even
in decadence, the pilgrimage road continued to be the centre from
which artistic influences spread. It was, however, as in France itself,
no longer the Cluniac monasteries, but the secular churches, which
fostered the ateliers. On the pilgrimage route there sprang up in
Santo Sepolcro of Estella and in the cathedrals of Leon, Burgos,
Vitoria and Pamplona schools of sculpture completely French in
character. From these centres the art spread throughout Spain. At
Villacazar on the road was another centre, cruder, less purely French
in character. From the centre at Santo Domingo de la Calzada on
the road, still another manner of sculpture spread to San Millan.
The developed Gothic architecture of northern France was intro-
duced into Spain in the cathedrals of Leon and Burgos, on the road ;
thence it spread. In southern France a local Gothic style appeared
at St.-Nazaire of Carcassonne, St.-Etienne of Toulouse and the
Cathedral of Narbonne,all on the road. It was astyle of merit which,
as in the cathedral of Narbonne with its flying battlements, rises at
times to an unexpected height.
The stained glass of the North was introduced at Beziers and St.-
Nazaire of Carcassonne on the road. The latter atelier seems to show
affiliations with that of Ste.-Radegonde of Poitiers. The art spread
to St. -Michel at Carcassonne, to Albi, to Santes Creuz in Catalonia
and to Narbonne. St.-Nazaire of Carcassonne became, indeed, the
centre of an important school of glass-making, which preserved the
1 Half-barrel vaults over the galleries buttressed the dome of St.-B6nigne of Dijon.
*\
196 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
traditions of the XIII century almost unmodified long after they had
been abandoned in the North. The church at Caylus contains a win-
dow with small medallions and Gothic colouring executed in the XV
century. At Leon, on the road, arose another school of glass-
painting.
As late as the XV century the Romanesque architecture of Com-
postela still haunted the memory of artists in northern Europe. The
background of Van Eyck's Annunciation at St. Petersburg repre-
sents the interior of the transept of the cathedral at Santiago. 1
It is therefore evident that the pilgrimages are an important fact
in the history of mediaeval art. The pilgrimage roads were a route
along which ideas travelled in both directions with extraordinary
facility. The pilgrimages united the art of all Europe and even of
Asia. But the most important contribution of the pilgrimages to
mediaeval art was the group of sculptures produced in the XII cen-
tury along the lower part of the road of St. James. It is to these re-
markable monuments and their influence that will be devoted the
remaining chapters of this book.
.___ x Bulletin Monumental, 1909, 1 50-1 51.
II
MOISSAC AND SOUILLAC
11 Pour la sculpture romane" M. Bertaux has written, "// riy a pas
de Pyrenees." It is a commonplace of history that the existing fron-
tier between France and Spain was first established by St. Louis.
Before the XIII century the mountains formed no barrier. The same
peoples, Basques or Catalans, lived, as they still live, on both slopes.
This fundamental fact has nevertheless been ignored by archae-
ologists and historians of art. All students of Romanesque sculpture
have followed one another in establishing a rigid division following
the modern frontier. They have seen in Toulouse one school, in
Spain another school. And especially if the author was French, he
has found at Toulouse originality, power, inventiveness; in Spain
thoughtless copying of French motives. The fact that at this period
Toulouse was not French had no power to dampen the enthusiasm
of patriotism. National vanity found the liveliest satisfaction in de-
preciating the monuments on the Spanish side of the frontier, and in
praising those on the French side.
Interest in this sport appears to have blinded all eyes to the still
surely obvious truth, that the art of the two sides of the frontier is
precisely the same. One style stretched from Santiago along the pil-
grimage road to Toulouse and Moissac and Conques. This art is
neither French nor Spanish. It is the art of the pilgrimage. It is as
idle to discuss whether its creative centre was at Toulouse or at
Santiago, as it is to discuss whether that of northern French sculp-
ture was at Chartres or Reims. Both Toulouse and Santiago were
centres. The same sculptors were active at both. Religiously and
consequently financially, Santiago was certainly the more important.
The cathedral possessed six sculptured portals against the single one
of St.-Sernin. The atelier at Santiago hence naturally employed more
artists than that of Toulouse ; among the extant fragments we can
198 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
trace seven times as many hands at Santiago (111. 674-695) as at St.-
Sernin (111. 296-322). The average quality of the work at Toulouse
may be slightly above the average at Santiago, although the best
work at Compostela equals if it does not surpass anything at St.-
Sernin. Nothing in Spain is more degraded than the portal at Es-
palion (111. 402-408), or some of the work at St.-Aventin (111. 508-
10) and St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges (111. 323-326). Sculptors from A
Santiago — not from Toulouse — were called to work upon the church
of San Isidoro of Leon (111. 696-702) and upon Ste.-Foy of Conques
(111. 386, 392-401).
A peculiarity of the school of the pilgrimages is the creation of
oases of art in the midst of deserts. Sculr^tu£e^ou£ished, as a rule,
only in pilgrimage churches throughout the entire South-west. Tou-
louse and Moissac are as isolated in sterile Languedoc as Santiago in
the wilds of Galicia. Exceptionally the art spread from the pilgrim-
age churches to the abbeys or cathedrals or parish churches not on
y the road — to Segovia (111. 755-760), Sepulveda (111. 799-805) or
! ^ Soria (111. 795-798) in Spain, to Albi (111. 453-455) or St.-Antonin
(111. 358-359) in France. Several of the off-shoots north of the
Garonne showed great vitality; but in southern Languedoc, as in
Spain, they withered and died. It was from the pil grimages that the
art was bor n ; it was by the pilgrimages that it lived; ancH t was only
in the pilgrimage churches that it really flowered.
t-S ~TEe earliest extant monument of pilgrimage art is really the clois-
ter of Santo Domingo de Silos that we have already stud ied. The
monastery lies to the south of Burgos, and a day's journey from the
regular route of the Pilgrims. It may be conjectured, however, that
not a few would detour to visit so holy a place ; the pilgrim's wallet
and cockle-shell of the Christ in the Journey to Emmaus (111. 667)
argue that pilgrims were often seen in the abbey. This is, I believe,
the first time in art that Christ at Emmaus is represented as a pil-
grim to St. James. 1
1 M. Omont has published from a manuscript of Beauvais a mystery of tie XII century
dealing with the Journey to Emmaus.
MOISSAC AND SOUILLAC 199
The school of sculpture, so brilliantly inaugurated at Santo Do-
mingo de Silos, did not remain without descendants. At Souillac, in
the valley of the Dordogne, are incorporated in the west wall of the
church fragments of an ancient portal (111. 343-352). These sculp-
tures, it is evident enough, are closely related to those of Santo Do-
mingo (111. 666-673), but one feels, especially in certain of the faces,
the freshness of the fountain-head of Cluny. The aesthetic value of
the work is uneven. Something of the sense for composition of the
Santo Domingo sculptor is carried over into the relief with the story
of Theophilus (111. 347-348). The two seated saints flank the central
group, as Memmi's Santa Giulitta and Sant' Ansano flank Simone's
Annunciation. The figure of the prostrate Theophilus, to whom the
Virgin returns his bond, combines with the shrine to form a sort of
arch over the-four figures enacting the central portion of the drama.
It is, indeed, probable that this composition is taken over directly
from Silos. In the wall of that church, near the door of the Camara
Santa, is a relief of the XIII century representing Santo Domingo
like a good pilgrimage saint delivering prisoners. 1 Now the composi-
tion of this late relief, with a large figure at either side, while the
prisoners are grouped in the centre under an arch, is strikingly like
that of the Souillac Theophilus. It is probable that there was in the
cloister at Silos, or at least by the sculptor of the cloister, a relief with
this composition which was reproduced at Souillac and by the later
sculptor at Silos.
The same sense for composition which is remarkable in the Souillac
Theophilus, presides also in the altogether remarkable trumeau
(111. 349-352). Here in the midst of apparent confusion all is order.
The thrice repeated figure of a bird-headed monster divides the front
face into carefully balanced and rhythmic patterns. The entwined
figures of the farther side (111. 350) are among the inspired creations
of mediaeval art. Satisfying, too, even in ruin, is the Joseph (111.
343, 346) that once doubtless flanked the portal ; while the opposite
Isaiah (111. 344-345) haunts every memory. There is, it is true, in this
1 Illustrated by Roulin, 9.
\
aoo ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
figure a certain something which leads one to understand why solemn
archaeologists, notwithstanding his clearly engraved name and
ample beard, have set him down as a "foolish virgin " ; but the move-
ment of the figure is so stimulating, the swirl of the draperies so
intoxicating, the lines of the scroll so decorative, that the severest
critic must capitulate.
The sculptor of Souillac worked also upon the portal of St.-Martin
of Brive (111. 353-354.)- Fragments of this which have been recovered
by excavations are now assembled in the Musee Massenat. 1 It is
curious, in view of the Spanish origin of this master, to observe that
Viollet-le-Duc remarked Arab character in the capitals. 2
The capitals of St.-Martin of Brive are not by the hand of the
master of Souillac. We have only to compare the clumsy and form-
less draperies (111. 355~35j) with the exquisitely modelled ones of the
trumeau at Souillac (111. 349-352) ; the heavy proportions and over-
large heads of the capitals of St.-Martin (111. 355-357) with the slen-
der proportions and dainty heads of the master of Souillac (111. 343-
354) ; or most of all the general inferiority of execution in the capitals
(111. 355-357) with the superlative technique of the Souillac artist
(111. 343-354) to be convinced of the fact. However, it is none the
less certain that the sculptor of the capitals imitated carefully the
style of the master of Souillac. The head of his Christ (111. 355) is an
obvious copy of the Souillac master's Adam (111. 353). The face of his
executioner (111. 355) recalls that of the St. Stephen at Souillac
(111. 347). The draperies of his angel (111. 356) are evidently an imita-
tion of draperies of the type of those of the Souillac Isaiah (111. 344).
We have, therefore, in the St.-Martin capitals an inferior sculptor
who imitates very exactly certain details of the style of the Souillac
master.
A problem of unusual interest is the question of the relationship of
the St.-Martin capitals to the pulpit at Volterra, in distant Tuscany
(111. 194-196). The style of the pulpit is clearly compounded of many
different elements. The Visitation (111. 196) reproduces line for line.
1 Bonnay, 237. 2 Forot, 68.
\
MOISSAC AND SOUILLAC 201
the same subject on the impost of S. Andrea of Pistoia, by Enrico
(111. 192). A much stronger influence, however, is that of St.-Gilles.
The ram in the bushes of the Volterra Sacrifice of Isaac (111. 195) re-
produces precisely the last sheep to the right in the St.-Gilles scene
of the Money Changers (111. 13 17). The curious draperies, the folds
of which are indicated by a slash ending in an "eye," for example in
the Abraham (111. 195), could only have been derived from the work
of Brunus at St.-Gilles (111. 1303). The facial types are many of them
directly taken over from St.-Gilles — the Zacharias (111. 196) repro-
duces the last figure to the right in the lintel of the central portal at
St.-Gilles (111. 13 1 8) ; the face of the angel at Volterra (111. 196) is like
that of the executioner to the left in the St.-Gilles Betrayal (111.
1319); the facial types in the Volterra Last Supper (111. 194) are
analogous to those of the St.-Gilles Betrayal (111. 13 19, 1320).
It is certain, therefore, that the sculptor of the Volterra pulpit had
been at St.-Gilles, and had taken thence many details of his style.
Now if we subtract from his work at Volterra what he had learned at
St.-Gilles and at Pistoia, we have left a personality strangely like
that of the master of the Brive capitals. The head of the Abraham
at Volterra (111. 195) is a head of the Souillac master, precisely like
that which the sculptor of the capitals had reproduced in his Christ
at Brive (111. 355). The head at the feet of the Volterra Abraham
(111. 195) recalls the seated executioner in the Brive capital (111. 3$$).
The head of the angel at Volterra (111. 195) is like that of the execu-
tioner at Brive (111. 355). The face of St. Peter in the Brive Giving
of the Keys is reproduced in that of Christ in the Volterra Last Sup-
per (111. 194). There are at Brive and Volterra the same heavy fig-
ures, the same disproportionate heads. There is the same copying of
the manner of more gifted sculptors. I have little hesitation in con-
:luding that the Volterra pulpit, although the style seems superfi-
cially so different, is really by the same artist as the Brive capitals,
but executed at a later phase of his career, and after he had studied
St.-Gilles and the sculptures of Tuscany.
/ We have remarked that the Volterra pulpit shows draperies copied
ao2 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
from those of Enrico at S. Andrea of Pistoia. Now these draperies
of Enrico are themselves in turn derived from the Pisa pulpit of
Guglielmo Tedesco now at Cagliari (111. 186-188). Since this pulpit
was executed in 1 158— 1 162, we may infer that the work of Enrico at
S. Andrea of Pistoia (111. 1 91-193) is later than 1162, and the Vol-
terra pulpit later still.
Romanesque sculpture offers no more baffling problem than the
relationship of Souillac to the porch at Moissac. It seems clear that
the tympanum of Moissac (111. 339-342) is earlier than any of the
work at Souillac (111. 343-352). On the other hand, the reliefs of the
porch at Moissac (111. 360-377) appear to be the work of an inferior
artist who imitated alternately the earlier tympanum (111. 339-342)
and Souillac (111. 343-352). His trumeau (111. 362) is inspired by that
of Souillac (111. 349-352) ; but the admirably subordinated detail of
the original has been suppressed, and the crisscrossed monsters are
copied from the earlier capitals (111. 337) of the Moissac porch. The
trumeau (111. 362) has gained a certain brutal power, but has lost
the finer and more imaginative qualities of the Souillac original (111.
349-352). The prophet (111. 363, 365) in relief on the east side of the
trumeau is obviously imitated from the Souillac Isaiah (111. 344, 345) ;
but the life, the movement and the vigour of the original figure are
lacking. Santo Domingo draperies have been supplanted by the
Cluniac draperies of the tympanum ; the figure, notwithstanding its
mannerisms, is dull. Even more commonplace is the prophet of the
west jamb (111. 364), and how inferior to the Joseph of Souillac (111.
343) ! But it is in the Peter (111. 360) and the Isaiah (111. 361) flanking
the doorway that the inferiority of the Moissac artist is most appar-
ent. The Peter (111. 360) is an unhappy adaptation of the angel to the
left in the tympanum (111. 340) ; the Isaiah (111. 361) repeats the out-
lines of the Souillac Joseph (111. 343). The reliefs with scenes from
the story of Lazarus (111. 366-36^), like those opposite dealing with
the early life of Christ (111. 372-375), are plodding imitations of the
manner of the tympanum. In the representation of the vice of
Luxury (111. 371), however, the sculptor shows quite unexpectedly
MOISSAC AND SOUILLAC 203
wealth of imagination and tragic power. This is a great grotesque.
Opposite, the Visitation (111. 377) also rises to extraordinary heights.
I should hardly know where to find more sensitive line, more ex-
pressive drawing, more delicate finish. One is tempted to conjecture
that these masterpieces are by another and much finer hand.
The influence of Santo Domingo de Silos continued to be exerted
until a late period of the XII century. The series of reliefs, part of
which is preserved at St.-Guilhem-le-Desert (111. 1399) and part at
the University of Montpellier (111. 1397, 1398), is derived from this
original. 1 jf^^^ r^^sV ^f^
The cloister of Moissac (111. 262^2^7}.' was, as an inscription proves,
in construction in 1100, and the preflsculptures appear to have been
executed in this year. Moissac was a Cluniac abbey on the road ; but
inspirat^'lvalr^ught not in Burgundy, but in Santo Domingo de
Silos (111. 666^677$. Thence is derived the architecture of the cloister
with its coupled columns (the pointed arches are, of course, the result
of a later reconstruction) ; thence the pier sculptures, thence the
plastic style.
The Cluniac grace and movement which bubble at Santo Domingo
have dried up at Moissac. These reliefs seem made of cast iron. The
scale has been coarsened ; the figures appear frozen. This immobility
produces at first sight an impression of archaism ; but on closer
study it becomes evident that the Moi ssac sculptures must j )g later
thanji^ntQ-Domingo. The facial types, while closely related to those r
of the Spanish cloister, are more varied and far better characterized. 4/
The conventions for the hair and beard, while very similar, are at-A
Moissac more naturalistic. The gestures are more varied and freer^j
than at Santo Domingo. Finally, to resort to a mechanical proof, the
form of the letters of the inscriptions at Santo Domingo is more^
primitive than at Moissac.
The internal evidence of style entirely reinforces, therefore, the
documentary evidence that the Mgis^acjcloister is later than Santo
Domingo. It is hardly necessary to point out how closely the Moissac -*^~~
1 They are executed by the hand of the Third Master of St.-Gilles.
204 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
sculptor has followed his predecessor. The conventi on of two paral lel
lines used to indicate the folds of the draperies, the drawing of the
eyes, the gestures,~tKe position of the feet placed on a sloping shelf,
many other details betray a close relationship. Indeed the Spanish^
^ influence at Moissac was always strong. " On remarque sur un chapi-
teau des caracteres arabes maladroitement copies par un lapidaire igno-
rant leur signification." 1 The crossed animals of the porch capital are
similar to those of a Mozarabic codex of the X century published by
Gomez-Moreno.
Like the sculptor of Santo Domingo, the master of the Moissac
cloister made much use of ivory-carvings. It seems to have been
directly from this source, ratFer than from Santo Domingo, that he
derived the arches under which his figures are placed. The horizontal
bottom line of the draperies and the modelling of the faces is strik-
ingly analogous to the ivories of the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cam-
bridge 2 and the Stiftsbibliothek of Frankfurt. 3 The motive of two
angels carrying a medallion, which is found on one of the capitals of
the Moissac cloister, also occurs in an ivory of the Ada group,, now in
the Victoria and Albert Museum of London. 4 The fac e of the S t.
James of the cloister pier (111. 265) and wKicETater reappears in the
Christ of the Flagellation in the tympanum of Santiago (Ill.ffiq) is
closely analogous to that of St. Peter in an ivory of the Museo
Civico of Bologna assigned to c. 500. There is the nose, the same eye,
the same mouth. 5 I suspect, indeed, that the sculptor of the Moissac
cloister held in his hand an ivory, probably of the Ada group. The
peculiar stiffness and coarseness of his figures can only be due to this
inspiration. So, too, their strength. ATtePgK^ ffij^^tHiT^arliest 6
extant cycle of the apostles in French sculpture is also the most un-
forgettable.
1 Michel, I, 2, 617.
2 Goldschmidt, I, No. 120. 3 Ibid. y No. 121.
4 Ibid., No. 14. This motive occurs frequently on ancient sarcophagi. But I can see little
evidence that the master of the Moissac cloister made any use of Roman models. The motives
of ancient sculpture which are found in his work may well have come to him through the
ivories.
5 Illustrated by Graeven, II, 1. 6 Except Azay-le-Rideau (111. 896).
MOISSAC AND SOUILLAC 205
It may be common derivation from Ada group ivories (or, as Mr.
Morey would have it, miniatures) which explains the analogies
between the cloister of Moissac and the works of Guglielmo da Mo-
dena. At all events it is certain that the latter also fell under this
influence. His style is distinctly foreshadowed in an ivory of the
X century in the John Rylands collection at Manchester; 1 while
his curls, which also appear at Moissac, may be traced as far back
as Irish manuscripts. 2
The capitals of the Moissac cloister (111. 274-287) are the work of
the same atelier that executed the pier sculptures, if not of the same
master. They are less under the influence of Santo Domingo de Silos.
There was here orlginateoT^n IconograpHic program to which the XII
century repeatedly turned for inspiration.
In the ambulatory of St.-Sernin of Toulouse are enwalled sculp-
tures (ILL 296-305) which are clearly related to the pier reliefs of
Moissac. Since the original position of these reliefs in the church is
unknown, it is impossible to determine their date with accuracy by
documentary evidence, although the building dates of the church
have come down to us. A new basilica was begun, presumably soon
after the foundation of the chapter regular in 1077 ; this was conse-
crated a first time in 1096 and a second time in 1 1 19. When St. Ray-
mond died in 1 1 18, the nave was finished up to the level of the clere-
story windows. 3
St.-Sernin stood in the same relation to Compostela as S. Niccola
of Trani to S. Niccola of Bari — it was an imitation which threatened
to develop into a serious rival. Among the fabulous relics claimed by
the chapter were the oliphant and the bodies of six apostles, includ-
ing " the greater part " of that of St. James himself ! The new basilica,
1 Illustrated by Goldschmidt, I, No. 27.
2 See the Landisfarne Gospels, Book of St. Chad, Litchfield, fol. 1 42, illustrated by Zimmer-
mann, 246. From Irish manuscripts, too, seems to have come the wavy line of the lower edges
of the draperies, characteristic both of Lombardy and of Aquitaine — see the Kells Gospel,
Trinity College, Dublin, No. A. I. 6., fol. 32 b, illustrated by Zimmermann, 171.
3 Quid tandem de egregio ecclesie Sancti Saturnini opere, cui per multa annorum tempora
prefuit, et preter capitis membrum, quod jam completum fuerat, corpus a fundamentis in-
cipiens, ante obitus sui (diem), divina opitulante misericordia, parietes in circuitu ad fenes-
trarum completionem usque perduxit (cit. Mortet, 262).
206 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
begun in the latter part of the XI century, was almost the exact du-
plicate of the great church at Compostela. All this was too much for
the patience ofJClunj£_ which had the interests of the pilgrimage so
vitally at heart. The Cluniacizing bishop of Toulouse found a pre-
text for expelling the canons (1082), and installed monks of Cluny i
their place. 1 But a year later the pope, who doubtless began to be
already somewhat alarmed at the growing power of Santiago, inter-
vened through his legate to restore the canons. These had now, how-
ever, learned their lesson ; they perceived that their best interests,
like those of Cluny, lay in fostering the pilgrimage. The guide of the
XII century makes of St.-Sernin one of the principal pilgrimage
churches, but the author feels called upon to warn the reader against
the spurious relics of St. James.
The provenance of the sculptures now enwalled in the ambulatory
of St.-Sernin (111. 296-305) has remained a mystery. The suggestion
that they are fragments of a destroyed tympanum is so obviously
wide of the mark that it may be at once dismissed. The close resem-
blance of the Toulouse reliefs to those of the piers of Moissac (111.
262-273) nas given some ground for supposing that_the St.-Sernin
sculptures are fragments from a similar cloister, which were enwalled
in the ambulatory at a comparatively recent date. It is, however,
evident that the St.-Sernin sculptures could never have been placed
on the piers of a cloister. The Majestas Domini (111. 296) must have
once formed the centre of a composition ; to the right of Christ stood
the cherub (111. 297) and to the left the seraph (111. 298) as indicated
by the inscriptions. The other two angels (111. 300, 302) similarly
form a pair, which presumably also flanked a now lost central com-
position, perhaps a Virgin. Finally the two saints (111. 303, 304) also
must have been symmetrically disposed. Now these balanced reliefs
would be inexplicable in a cloister ; they might, however, very easily
1 (Isarnus episcopus) querelam habuit cum canonicis sancti Saturnini, qui pontificiam sub-
jectionem detrectabant; quapropter Hunaldo Moissiacensi et Hugoni Cluniacensi abbatibus
eorum ecclesiam tradidit an. 1082, instante Guillelmo comite pro monachis canonicorum loco
substituendis ; sed donatio contradicente Richardo pontificio legato, suum sortita non est
effectum, nam anno sequente canonici regulares revocati sunt in eamdem ecclesiam {Gallia
Christiana, XIII, 13).
MOISSAC AND SOUILLAC 207
have been arranged about an altar ; on the chief face the Majestas
Domini, the cherub and the seraph (111. 296, 297, 298) ; on the re-
verse the lost Virgin flanked two angels (111. 300, 302) ; on either end
a saint (111. 303, 304).
The St.-Sernin relief of the Majestas Domini follows precisely the
formula consecrated for altar-frontals. Christ is seated in an oval
aureole, pointed at the top and bottom (111. 296) ; at the four corners
are the symbols of the four Evangelists, bringing the panel to a rec-
tangular shape, higher than broad. This peculiar composition was
probably first invented for a book-cover, 1 but in the XII century had
become the stock theme for the decoration of the front face of ante-
pendia. In the Palio d'Oro of S. Ambrogio, 2 which dates from the IX
century, the Majestas Domini already occupies the centre of the
principal face, but the symbols of the Evangelists, instead of being in
the corners, are in the arms of the cross radiating from the central
medallion. In the even earlier altar of Cividale 3 Christ in an aureole
similarly occupies the centre of the front face. In later times the
Majestas Domini was regularly represented in the frontals of altars
in precisely the peculiar oblong composition we find in the St.-Sernin
relief. We learn from the Pilgrims' Guide that the destroyed Area of
St.-Gilles had on the front a Majestas Domini placed between a
cherub and a seraph ; the analogy with St.-Sernin is therefore com-
plete. At St.-Junien (111. 450-452) the Majestas Domini is in the
panel at the end, instead of in the front ; the composition is, however
precisely that of the St.-Sernin relief. At Airvault (111. 964) there is
extant an altar-frontal which presents the closest points of contact
with the St.-Sernin fragments. The Majestas Domini shows the
usual composition ; and this central group is flanked by figures stand-
ing in arches, exactly like the cherub and seraph of St.-Sernin. The
Majestas Domini from Briare (111. 1434) now in the museum at Or-
leans is a fragment of an altar-frontal also very similar in composition
1 See, for example, the silver one at Spalato, illustrated by Folnesics, Dalmatien, 104.
2 Illustrated in Porter, Lombard Architecture •, IV, Plate 122, Fig. 3; Plate 123, Fig. 1, 2;
Plate 124, Fig. 1, 2.
3 Illustrated ibid., Plate 3, Fig. 2.
208 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
to the Toulouse relief of the same subject. The fragments of the other
altar at St.-Benoit-sur-Loire (111. 1421, 1422) show that here, too,
there was a series of figures under arches. The usual composition of
the Majestas Domini is found on the front face of the altar at Avenas
(111. 11). Similar, too, is the Majestas Domini of the Area Santa of
Oviedo (111. 656) and here, also, is found the motive of flanking fig-
ures in arches. The same composition is repeated in a wooden altar-
frontal from Sigena, now in the museum of Lerida (111. $55) and in
another of the museum of Vich. The formula more or less varied is
repeated many times in the superb collections of painted antependia
assembled in the museums of Barcelona and Vich. A composition
precisely analogous to that of St.-Sernin, with a Majestas Domini
flanked by figures of equal height under arches, is found in the enamel
altar-frontal of Santo Domingo de Silos now in the museum of Bur-
gos. The altar-frontal of S. Marco at Venice was made originally in
1 105, but in 1205 enamels from Constantinople executed between
1 1 18 and 1 143 were added, and the whole was re-made in 1345. On
this is represented the Majestas Domini, and St. Michael bearing the
scroll Ari02, Ari02, AriOS which is the Greek version of the
words Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus inscribed on the scrolls of the St.-
Sernin cherub and seraph. The altar-frontal of Citta di Castello has
the Majestas Domini like that of St.-Sernin, and the frontal from
Bale now in the Musee de Cluny has full-length flanking figures under
arches like St.-Sernin. In view of these analogies there can be little
doubt that notwithstanding their somewhat extraordinary height
the St.-Sernin fragments are from a sculptured altar or Area.
It remains uncertain whether this was the high altar of the church.
It is tempting to connect the sculptures with the consecration of
1096; but the style gives reason to believe that they are a decade
\ later. . In fact, the sculptures of the St.-Sernin ambulatory (111. 296-
305) seem to be derived from the reliefs of the piers of Moissac (111.
262-273), which are dated 1 100. The close relationship of the two is
obvious. Figures of the same adamantine hardness are placed under
similar arches; the proportions and the general effect are strikingly
/
MOISSAC AND SOUILLAC 209
analogous. The cimous^ings^of the Toulous e ang els recurjn^ejrtain^
capitals of the Moissac cloisters (111. 281, 282, 284). The Toulouse
sculptures appear, however, later and inferior. The drapery folds,
although very similar, are more complicated and less well under-
stood ; the eyebrows are rendered by a convention more naturalistic,
but less effective ; the drawing of the feet is much poorer ; the faces
are less well done; the hair conventions are weaker. On the other
hand, it is certain that the sculptor of St.-Sernin was alsojnfluenced
by Spanish art. His style shows close analogies with the Area of San
Felices (111. 661-664). The facial types, the folds of the drapery indi-
cated by two parallel lines, the fondness for beardless faces,the hands
raised, palm outwards, the hair conventions to a certain extent, but
much more the conventions of the beard, and the peculiar diamond
ornament introduced on the edges of the tunic of Christ in the Area
(111. 661) and in the aureole at Toulouse (111. 296) all bear witness to
a close relationship. The drapery folds indicated by two parallel
lines is an old motive, which can be found almost anywhere ; Spain,
however, possesses, I believe, the earliest example in the celebrated
" Lady of Elche." l The convention persisted in later times, being
found, for example, in the Bible of Avila. 2 It may have come to both
Moissac and Toulouse from Spain. The peculiar shin line, character-
istic of the Toulouse sculptures (111. 304), is found as early as 1075 on
the Area Santa of Oviedo (111. 658). The composition of the Majestas
Domini of the St.-Sernin ambulatory was precisely that destined to
become so popular in the Catalan antependia.
The jjculptor of the St.-Sernin ambulatory reliefs was also in-
fluenced by SantoJ Domingo d e Silos. If we compare the face of his
seraph (111. 299) with the harpies of the dated capital of 1073-1076
at Santo Domingo (111. 666), we find the same long nose, the same
badly placed eye, the same low head, the same omission of the fore-
head. The Toulouse ambulatory sculptures are, in fact, extraordi-
narily unpleasant productions. They may be assigned to about th e \
1 See the illustration in the American Journal of Archaeology, 1921, 368.
2 Illustrated by Schultz.
/
•^
aio ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
year 1105, and it may be conjectured that the canons of St.-Sernin
having learned of the new sculptures of Moissac, lost no time in
causing them to be imitated.
Thus the sculpture of Languedoc, like nearly all mediaeval art,
was compounded of many elements derived from various sources.
German ivories, Spanish manuscripts, Spanish sculpture and Bur-
gundian sculpture each contributed a quota. It has been believed
that the sculpture of Languedoc gave all and received nothing.
Such a facile formula will hardly satisfy longer thoughtful students.
Moissac and Toulouse in the XII century not only radiated in-
fluences to the other schools of sculpture in Europe, but received
influences.
Ill
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS
The Mephistophelian south portal of St.-Sernin (111. 308-315)
must have been executed before, and probably considerably before,
the consecration of 11 19. It has evidently undergone a very radical
restoration in modern times, presumably under Viollet-le-Duc in
1855. The first impression, indeed, is that of being in the presence of
a modern work. The restoration may account, at least in part, for
the ugliness. We are fortunately able to judge of what must have
been the quality of the original from other productions of the same
artist — a fragment of a seated figure in the museum of Toulouse
(111. 306), and certain sculptures at Santiago (111. 679, 681, 684).
This master appears, as has often been pointed out, to have derived
his art from the ambulatory sculptures. Undoubtedly, however, he
also sought inspiration in Burgundy; thence must have come the
movement, the composition of the lintel, the throwing back of the
heads of the apostles.
In the spandrels, on either side of the archivolt, were placed the
figures of St. James (111. 311) and St. Peter (111. 312). M. Male be-
lieves that these are by the same hand as the similar figures at Santi-
ago (111. 676). There is, beyond question, a resemblance; but the
much finer quality of the Santiago figures (111. 676) and numerous
other differences seem to indicate that these are not the works of the
same master. It is, however, evident that one must have influenced
the other. Which is the original ?
The documents do not determine the question. The St.-Sernin
portal was doubtless finished before the consecration of 11 19; but it
is hardly conceivable that it could have been executed before 11 10.
The choir of Santiago appears to have been completed in 1102; the
nave was at once attacked, and finished in 11 24. The transept por-
\
212 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
tals would presumably have been sculptured in the earlier rather than
in the later part of this building campaign, say between 1102 and
1 1 12. No definite conclusion as to priority between the sculptures of
Santiago and those of St.-Sernin can be drawn from these data.
The internal evidence of the Santiago portal is in the highest de-
gree confusing and complicated. M. Bertaux was the first to observe
that the sculptures (111. 674-691) are not all of the same style ; he be-
lieved that he could distinguish the work of two different hands. It
seems to me that the sculptures are the work of many distinct artists,
perhaps as many as fourteen.
A glance at the present Puerta de las Platerias suffices to reveal the
fact that we have to do with a conglomeration of fragments not in
their original position. No order is traceable in the composition as a
whole. Little statues, big statues, pieces of statues are walled in
helter-skelter. The little figures of apostles above the eastern portal
(111. 676) look as if they were fragments of a stone altar-frontal like
that of Tahull. The man riding on a monster of the west tympanum
(111. 679) is inserted horizontally. The woman holding a skull just
below (111. 679) has had her shoulder and part of her head cut off to
adapt her to her present position. The flying angel in the spandrel to
the right, above this same tympanum, cuts across the archivolt
(111. 676). Romanesque sculptures, we have seen, were carved before
being placed ; and Spanish Romanesque builders were notoriously
careless in their assembling of these previously prepared decora-
tions. It is, however, incredible that misfitting should have been
carried to this degree. Moreover, details like the beginning of an
archivolt under the feet of the third apostle, upper row, left-hand
side (111. 675), show that certain sculptures have been wrested from
a very definite place in which they belonged.
The description in the Pilgrims* Guide proves, indeed, that certain
ones — the Expulsion l (111. 675) and the sign of the zodiac, Sagit-
tarius (111. 675) — which are now in the south portal were originally
1 The companion relief of the Expulsion, mentioned in the Guide as in the north portal and
representing God reproving Adam and Eve is now in the museum (111. 693).
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 213
in the north portal. It has been supposed that when the latter was
reconstructed in the XVII century, the discarded reliefs were added
to the previously intact sculpture of the south portal. That sculp-
tures of the north portal were introduced into the south portal is cer-
tainly true. But recognition of that fact does not solve the mystery
of the south portal.
The truth is, I think, that the Puerta de las Platerias has been
twice rebuilt. The mouldings of the two arches have advanced
Gothic profiles (111. 676). They are far more developed than, for ex-
ample, those of the portal of St.-Sernin (111. 308). The bracketed lin-
tel (111. 681) is similar to Mateo's in the Portico de la Gloria (111. 829).
The least difficult hypothesis seems to be that Mateo reconstructed
the Puerta de las Platerias in the second half of the XII century. It
may be conjectured that at this time he incorporated fragments from
the west facade. In fact, the God the Father in white marble (111.
676), now in the spandrel between the two portals, may be, I suspect,
the same as that described in the Guide as forming part of the
Transfiguration of the west facade.
The incoherencies of the composition, it is true, can only be par-
tially explained on this hypothesis. The same extraordinary mixture
of subjects that exists to-day in the tympana (111. 678-680) is very
exactly described in the XH-century Guide. The four angels in the
spandrels (111. 675-677), the lions over the central columns are all as
they were. On the other hand, there are notable points of diver-
gence between the description and the existing monument. One of
the "feroces leones" has disappeared. 1 The jamb sculptures are not
those described in the Guide. Instead of the existing Sign of the
Lion, St. Andrew, Moses and a bishop, there were four apostles.
"In liminaribus eiusdem introitus, sunt duo apostoli quasi valvarum
custodes, unus ad dexteram, et alius ad sinistram, similiter in alio
introitu sinistrali, in liminaribus scilicet, alii duo apostoli habentur"
1 These lions (111. 674) were copied nearly half a century later by the sculptor who executed
the fragments now incorporated in the so-called "throne of the popes" in the cathedral of
Avignon (111. 1339, 1340). Here the lion of St. Mark (111. 1339) has the same peculiar paws, the
same sardonic expression and the same tail curled around behind his leg.
2i 4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Such discrepancies indicate that the portal has undergone a radical
reconstruction. The j amb sculptures could hardly have been changed
without tearing the portal down and rebuilding it.
The Puerta de las Platerias, therefore, consists of fragments of at
least three different portals, heaped together at two reconstructions,
one of the second half of the XII century and the other of the XVII
century. Fortunately, however, the description mentions specifically
certain reliefs which can still be identified. These must without any
question have belonged to the original portal.
Among the sculptures thus described in the Guide is the St.
James (111. 676), * which resembles the statue at Toulouse (111. 311) 2
and the Christ (111. 676) in the spandrel between the two arches.
These figures the Guide tells us belonged to a cycle of Christ and the
apostles, several other figures (111. 676) of which, more or less muti-
lated, are still in their original position, while others have disappeared.
Happily for our investigations, the description mentions in detail the
woman holding a skull in her lap of the west tympanum (111. 679). It
gives, indeed, an explanation of the subject which otherwise would
entirely escape us. The figure represents the vice of Luxury, typified
by the legend of the adulterous wife, whose husband forced her to
fondle twice a day the head of her lover while it corrupted in her
hands. This same subject is represented in a capital of Santa Marta
de Tera, 3 a church in which the Toulousan master seems also to have
worked.
The interesting part of this relief is that it really is by the hand of
the sculptor of the portal of St.-Sernin. Doubt is not possible. Not
1 Some light upon the singular form given to the cypress trees in the Santiago and Toulouse
reliefs is furnished by a Byzantine ivory triptych of the X century at the Louvre. On the re-
verse of this (illustrated by Schlumberger, I, 1 28), are represented unmistakable cypress trees
with a vine wound around them. The peculiar trees at Santiago must be a further convention-
alization of a form like this.
2 Miss King, op. cit. Ill, 252, deduces, from the iconography that the Toulouse St. James
must be derived from the similar figure at Santiago. This conclusion is confirmed by the study
of the style of the two sculptures. There must have been a continual interchange of masters
between the two ateliers of Toulouse and Santiago.
3 See the illuminating publication by Gomez-Moreno who appears to have been the first to
perceive the relationship of Santiago to the rest of Europe in its true light.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 215
only are the types, facial modelling, draperies, hands, feet and hair
conventions identical, but there are the same mannerisms like the
horizontal line following down the shin line and the incision in the
bulge of the drapery folds.
The work of our sculptor at Santiago did not end with the Luxury.
The man riding a monster inserted horizontally above (111. 679) is by
his hand; as are also two of the jamb sculptures, the St. Andrew of
the east jamb of the west portal (111. 681) and the woman with
crossed legs holding a lion of the east jamb of the east portal (111. 684)
and the boy holding a cock just below her.
These unrestored sculptures give an opportunity to judge of the
artistic stature of our artist. He is surely of higher rank than one
would suspect from St.-Sernin: He possesses vigour and power, and
attains a certain effect at the expense of the finer qualities.
The woman holding the lion (111. 684) is a strange subject. We
should be entirely embarrassed for an explanation, were it not that
the theme recurs in a relief now in the museum of Toulouse and com-
ing from St.-Sernin (111. 322). Here are seen two women, similarly
seated with crossed legs, one holding in her lap a lion, the other a
lamb. It is the illustration, as Lahondes recognized, of a legend at-
tributed to St. Augustine, but manifestly of much later date, accord-
ing to which, in the time of Julius Caesar, strange prodigies took
place at Toulouse, at Rome and at Jerusalem. At Toulouse, notably,
two women bore one a lion, the other a lamb, symbolic of the two
natures of the coming Messiah. 1 It is evident that we have here an-
other attempt of the canons of St.-Sernin to rival Santiago. For the
usual triad Compostela, Rome, Jerusalem, is substituted the triad
Toulouse, Rome, Jerusalem. It was entirely natural that the miracle
should have been commemorated in the sculpture of St.-Sernin. The
meaning was underscored by the inscriptions, which have, however,
been so strangely misunderstood — Signum leonis. Signum arietis*
Hoc fuit factum Tiplosae) tempore Julii Cesaris.
Now there can be little doubt that this subject was originally
1 Lahondes, 460.
216 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
created at Toulouse, where it was at home, and copied at Santiago,
where there was no reason for it to be represented. Hence several
important conclusions. The Toulouse sculptures of the lion and the
ram, although of much finer quality than those of the south portal,
must be about contemporary with them; and our sculptor of the
south porch of Santiago and of the south portal of St.-Sernin must
have been at Toulouse, and, presumably, have worked there, before
he copied at Santiago the productions of his more gifted contempo-
rary.
But we are by no means at the end of the complications ! Did the
sculptor of the Toulouse " Signs " also work at Santiago ? Close to his
manner are the David (111. 687), the Creation of Adam (111. 686) and
the Sacrifice of Abraham (111. 690). These works are much finer than
the sculptures of the master of the south portal of St.-Sernin, or for
that matter than anything in the lower portion of the Puerta de las
Platerias. On the other hand, they seem a little off from the Signs of
St.-Sernin, as if an inferior artist had collaborated. But the frag-
ments of the cycle of the apostles in the spandrels is of the very high-
est quality, and obviously related to the "Signs" on the one hand,
and the group of lower sculptures we have indicated at Santiago on
the other. The close relationship of all these sculptures is undeniable,
and so is their superior excellence. An easy explanation seems to be
to suppose that they are the work of one gifted and highly versatile
artist. Whether this sculptor was a native of Santiago or of Toulouse
there is nothing to indicate. His David (111. 687) sits under an arch
like those of the Moissac cloister (111. 262-273) ; DUt this same motive
had long been characteristic of the art of Spain, being found, for
example, in the Area Santa of Oviedo (111. 656). The motive, more-
over, we have seen was characteristic of ivories, and our sculptor be-
trays knowledge of this medium. The David (111. 687) recalls an
ivory of the same subject at the Bargello at Florence. 1 In the two
works, the mantle slung from shoulder to shoulder falls in the same
"U" curves. The type of face is similar, in both the eyes are curi-
1 Illustrated by Graeven, II, 23.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 217
ously round, and similarly drawn. 1 Folds of the drapery like those of
the Santiago David (111. 687) are found in two ivories of the X cen-
tury of the .British Museum. 2 The long straight legs of the Adam in
the Santiago Creation (111. 686) recall those of the scenes of Genesis
in a Byzantine ivory casket of the X-XI centuries at Darmstadt. 3
This Adam also shows analogies with the Adam and Eve capital of
Cluny ; our sculptor was perhaps influenced by Burgundian models
here and in the fluttering draperies of the "Signs." He is certainly
an important figure in the history of art. Nothing at Toulouse
equals or foreshadows the superb Christ of the spandrel (111. 676), a
figure which was a century ahead of its time, and inspired whole,
cycles of later art. Among other things which must be set down to
the credit of this artist is the idea of representing the Sacrifice of
Abraham with upright figures on the jambs of the portal (111. 690) —
a motive later taken over and developed by the Gothic sculptors of
Senlis (111. 1508) and Chartres.
It is important to observe that the master of the south porch of
St.-Sernin may have executed jamb sculptures at Santiago. Two of
his works — the St. Andrew (111. 681) and the Sign of the Lion (111.
684) — are now used as jamb figures, and jamb figures of the most
primitive type ; that is, reliefs of the inner jamb, at right angles to the
door. The description makes it certain that in the early XII century
both the northern and southern portals had jamb sculptures. Those
of the north portal represented the four apostles, St. Peter, St. Paul,
St. James and St. John ; all held books in their left hands, and their
right hands were raised in benediction. The relief embedded in the
west buttress (111. 685), next to the lion, may be one of these apostles.
In the jambs of the south portal were four other apostles whom the
Guide does not name more specifically ; it is probable that St. Andrew
may have been among them, and that the St. Andrew (111. 681) which
still exists is in the original position.
1 This ivory is called a French work of the X century — but is it ?
2 Illustrated by Dalton, PI. XXIV, 46.
3 Illustrated by Schlumberger, I, 59.
2i 8 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The fact that jamb sculptures, set at right angles to the door, were
found at Santiago, is significant. Guglielmo used this same motive
at precisely this moment at Cremona (1107-1117); his prophets,
like the Santiago apostles, are on the inner face of the jambs, at
right angles to the door. Did Guglielmo copy from Santiago or the
Santiagoan sculptor from Guglielmo ? Or both from a common
original ?
The idea of flanking a portal with full-length figures in relief is at
least as old as the Heroon at Tyrsa. In this, which is probably the
most primitive form of the motive, the statues are placed not in the
jambs of the portal, but in the wall beside it. In such a form the
motive is found at Elindsche, near Garni in Armenia. 1 This simple
version also found its way into the Occident. At La Couture of Le
Mans (111. 1412) in northern France there exists an example very
crude in style, and presumably of early date. We find the motive in
southern France and in Italy, at Souillac (111. 343, 344), Moissac (111.
360, 361), Beaulieu (111. 417, 418), Notre-Dame-du-Port of Cler-
mont-Ferrand (111. 1 162, 1 163), S. Maria Maggiore of Toscanella,
S. Antonino of Piacenza, S. Quirico d'Orcia. It probably also existed
at [St.-Michel-de-Cuxa in Catalonia (111. 558, 559), although the
fragments of the portal are no longer in their original position. The
only instance of the motive that I know in Spain is in the com-
paratively late work at Leire (111. 715). In Dalmatia the motive
appears in the portal at Trau. It is also found at Zara; here we
have older fragments of the XII century, incorporated in the portal
of 1320. The reliefs are at present in two rows ; very possibly the
original arrangement in this particular may be preserved, for jamb
sculptures in two rows, first initiated by Guglielmo at Cremona were
frequently repeated in later monuments. 2 Of the simple flanking
type, like those of Zara, examples are extant in the Abruzzi at S.
Clemen te de Casauria (111. 219) and in the Basilicata at Marsico
Nuovo.
1 Illustrated by Strzygowski, Arm., 812 f.
2 At Bamberg in Germany, at Las Caldas de Oviedo and San Julian de Moraime in Spain.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 219
The second step in the evolution of jamb sculptures would be to
transfer the relief which had been placed in the wall flanking the por-
tal, to the face of the jamb, at right angles to the door. This form of
the motive we find at Santiago and Cremona. It appears to have
been more at home in Italy than in Spain, for it survives in several
late monuments all in Italy — the cathedral of Foligno, the cathedral
of Lodi, S. Andrea of Barletta (111. 252).
What seems to be a development of the motive is found at St.-
Antonin (111. 358, 359) in Aquitaine. The gallery of the H6tel-de-
Ville has piers upon which are engaged sculptures that produce the
effect of adossed reliefs. These may conceivably be inspired by the
jambs of Santiago. The Adam of St.-Antonin (111. 358) faintly recalls
the Adam of the Creation at Santiago (111. 686). Stylistically, how-
ever, the work at St.-Antonin shows the influence of Burgundy in the
draperies, and especially in the spirals of the knees. Its closest rela-
tive is the tympanum at Moissac (111. 339-342).
The third step in the evolution of the Gothic portal was to replace
the sculptures of the inner jambs by a series of sculptures on the vari-
ous orders of the portal. At first these sculptures were placed in
niches upon rectangular members. In this form the motive is found
on the portal of the cathedral of Ferrara, sculptured by Nicolo in
1 135. It was repeated soon after in the portal of the chapter-house of
St.-Etienne of Toulouse (111. 434-443). * The sculptures in niches are
re-echoed in Nicolo's holy-water font at Chamalieres (111. n 54-
1156).
The fourth step was to transfer these little figures in niches on the
rectangular members of the portal to the engaged colonnettes of the
portal, without altering the size of the sculptures. This phase we find
in Nicolo's portal of the cathedral of Verona of 1 139. It is echoed in
late monuments in widely separated regions — in the strongly Lom-
bard facade of the Schottenkirche at Regensburg, and in two
destroyed churches of Holland — the Johanniskirche of Utrecht
1 There was probably a lost original from which both these works are derived.
220 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
(rebuilt after a fire in 1 148) and St. Odilienberg. 1 In Spain the motive
in this form is found only in late monuments — at Monterey, 2 Las
Caldas de Oviedo (111. 881-882), Villaviciosa (111. 884, 885) and San
Julian de Moraime. 3
We must at this point turn aside to consider an alternative possi-
bility in the development of jamb sculptures. 4
In the portal of Santiago are incorporated three marble columns
(111. 688, 690, 691) entirely covered with sculptures of figures stand-
ing in arched niches. Since the description of the XII century refers
to these remarkable 'productions, there is no doubt that they be-
longed to the original construction. To cover a column with arched
niches filled with reliefs is a Byzantine idea; it occurs in the columns
of the ciborio of S. Marco at Venice. 5 The actual workmanship at
Compostela is undoubtedly local ; the figures are of the pilgrimage
style, and similar to the other reliefs executed before 11 24.
The suspicion arises that these columns may have inspired the
much later colonnettes of the convent of the Benedictine nuns (111.
705-708). On each are adossed the figures of three apostles. 6 I was
unable to obtain access to the originals of these sculptures, which I
know only from the casts in the chapter-house of the cathedral.
Hence I have no helps but the style to establish the date. It is evi-
dent that they must be much later than the work anterior to 1 124 in
the Puerta de las Platerias. The close analogy between the heads
(111. 708) and that of Nicolo's Oliver at the cathedral of Verona sug-
gests that the Santiago colonnettes are not earlier than the fourth or
fifth decade of the XII century. On the other hand they certainly
1 The fragments of the former are in the Stadischen Museum at Utrecht, those of the latter
in the Niederlandischen Museum at the Hague. Illustrated by Litgenberg, Taf. V.
2 Illustrated by Fatigati, 18.
3 Illustrated by Garcia de Pruneda, 159.
4 Something like jamb sculptures are found at Grossenlinden in Germany and Millstadt am
See in Austria. (Illustrated by Hamann 1, 130).
5 The motive was taken over in the west portal of Chartres, probably from Santiago. Illus-
tration by Houvet, 11.
6 The handle of a flabellum of the XII century, called southern French, in the British Mu-
seum, has apostles coupled in niches in the manner of the Santiago columns. This has been
illustrated by Dalton, PI. XXXVI, 76.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 221
appear much more primitive than the jamb sculptures of St.-Etienne
of Toulouse (111. 434-443).
There exist several other examples of the motive of three or more
figures adossed to a column. The earliest is at Solsona in Catalonia
(111. 551). From there the motive was carried to St.-Bertrand-de-
Comminges in the French Pyrenees (111. 492). It is also found in a
fragment from Notre-Dame of Chalons-sur-Marne of unknown date
(111. 1 487) which has found its way to the Louvre. 1
Now it is easy to imagine that the three or four figures engaged
upon a column of a cloister might easily have been reduced to one.
And in fact we find numerous examples of such in nearly all parts of
Europe. One of the most significant are the three colonnettes from
St.-Quentin-les-Beauvais, now in the Museum of Beauvais (111. 1431-
1433). The style of these figures is primitive — they have every ap-
pearance of being earlier than St.-Denis (111. 1437-1457).
Similar sculptured colonnettes are found in the museum which has
been installed in the archeveche at Albi (111. 453-455). These are
said to be fragments of a secular building, such as the sculptures of
St.-Antonin (111. 358, 359) still adorn. Inscriptions — REX SAUL,
REX SALAMON — leave no doubt as to the iconographical mean-
ing of two of the figures. Of the other two, representing women, one
(111. 454) is probably the Queen of Sheba. The style seems to show
derivation from many different sources. Draperies of Chartres and
Beauvais, postures from the Moissac porch, limbs of Santiago, hands
of Rieux-Minervois (111. 1404) are combined with the manner of the
third quarter of the XII century.
Elsewhere in France we find the motive in the cloisters of Aix (111.
1 407, 1408), and Ganogobie (111. 1237, 1238). An old drawing shows
that it formerly existed in the cloisters of St.-Georges-de-Bocherville
in Normandy 2 — this is significant, as the monument appears to
have dated from about 11 40. The theme also formerly existed in the
1 In the museum of Calcutta, India, is a square pillar, coming from Bharhut, on which are
adossed three figures in relief. (Illustrated by L. A. Waddell, in the Asiatic Quarterly Revievo>
3d series, 191 2, XXXIII, 104.)
2 Nodier, Tayler et de Cailleux, II, PI. 116, Fig. 2, 9.
222 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
cloisters of Lavaudieu l and Avignon, 2 the latter dating from about
1155.
Outside of France we find sculptures adossed to colonnettes at
Chur in Switzerland, and in the facades of the cathedral at Genoa
and the Pieve at Arezzo.
Now it is easy to imagine the motive of a sculptured column like
those of the museum at Beauvais transferred from a cloister to the
portal of a church. The portal of St.-Denis might have been pro-
duced in this way as well as by copying of the Italian portals.
Between the two genealogies, — Cremona, Ferrara, destroyed
monument like the cathedral of Verona, St.-Denis ; and Santiago
sculptured column, colonnette of the convent of Benedictine nuns,
Beauvais colonnettes, St.-Denis — it is not altogether easy to choose.
The former, on the whole, seems perhaps somewhat smoother and
more convincing, but gives no explanation of the fact that sculp-
tured colonnettes seem to have existed before St.-Denis. The truth
probably is that both evolutions took place, not independently, but
with constant cross-influences.
When in 1137 the abbot Suger undertook the reconstruction of
St.-Denis, he faced a peculiar situation, which it is well to bear in
mind in studying his work.
First of all, Cluny was already discredited. The art-loving order
was on the wane, and the art-hating Cistercians were waxing in
power and prosperity. St. Bernard's strictures had killed the tender
art of the early XII century. A wave of puritanical austerity swept
across Europe. An order which condemned sculpture, which ban-
ished stained-glass and frescos, which reduced architecture to dreary
and barn-like monotony, became the fashion of the hour. It was a
tide too strong to be opposed. The downfall of Cluny and of Cluniac
ideals of art became certain.
Suger, a clever politician, was assuredly not unaware of the Cis-
tercian tide, nor could he have failed to be influenced by the current
1 The sculptured column of Lavaudieu has been sold.
2 Illustrated by Labande, PI. LXXVI.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 223
running so strongly in his time. And in fact the element of Cistercian
austerity was an important one in his achievement, and perhaps its
chief defect. It must be said in Suger's praise, however, that by
nature he was little inclined to puritanical ideals. His personal rela-
tions with St. Bernard show him as a temporizing, but never enthusi-
astic, follower of the great reformer. The Cistercian movement, we
feel, was a force so powerful that he dared not but conform to it,
although his heart was cold. When St. Bernard praises Suger's be-
haviour, we seem to read between the lines that the actions com-
mended had been motived by fear rather than by love.
We may conjecture that Suger felt notably that the hostility
towards art preached by the Cistercians was a mistake. His own
tastes, doubtless, corresponded much more nearly with the Cluniac
ideal. He perhaps viewed with something like dismay a movement
which threatened to stamp out Romanesque art. His politician's
mind conceived the idea of producing a new style, which should
preserve the loveliness of Cluniac production, while at the same
time satisfying the Cistercian austerity. Cluniac art should, in
fact, by a process of reform, be made endurable for Cistercian Puri-
tans.
Suger was regent of France, and St.-Denis was the royal abbey.
The abbot had the interests of the crown at heart. He was, more-
over, a man who had travelled wide, and seen many countries, no-
tably Italy. He was aware of what had been produced by the archi-
tecture of other lands, and surely perceived how far that of his own
country lagged behind. It is perhaps not too much to credit him
with an understanding of the advantages a superior art could bring
to the French crown. In any event, whether by conscious reasoning
or by intuition, what he did was to create a national style. The polit-
ical importance of this move can hardly be over-estimated. It was
an important step in that centralizing policy, which became for so
many centuries the aim of the French kings, and which is still a liv-
ing factor in French economy. The value of a national and central-
ized art, first perceived by Suger, was understood by his followers in
224 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the French government throughout the centuries. It is still part of
the French government policy of to-day.
The problem of Suger was, therefore, to create an art which should
be national, that should be recognized as superior even by foreign
nations, thus gathering glory for the name of France, that should
perpetuate what was great in the art of Cluny, and that should sat-
isfy the puritanical exactions of the Cistercians.
He found native in the Ile-de-France a finely archaic architecture
well suited for his purpose. His task was to combine this architecture
with the figure arts of the south, so as to produce a whole which
might be impregnated with theological and scholastic dogma to an
extent which would disarm the strictures of the Cistercians, and at
the same time produce a compelling work of art.
Thus St.-Denis was compounded of elements brought from many
sources. It combines the building forms of the Ile-de-France with
sexpartite vaults of Normandy, sculptures of Aquitaine and vous-
sures of Saintonge. Enamel workers were summoned from Ger-
many. M. Male believes that even the hollow work at Beaulieu con-
tributed its quota. Whence the glass came, no one knows, but it is
hardly likely that Suger invented the art. The windows of St.-Denis
are obviously not the first attempt of a novice, but the production of
artists who were working in a medium with which they were well
acquainted. Suger, moreover, expressly states that his glass-workers
were imported. It is also sure that Suger was in touch with the build-
ing operations at Cluny. He writes of bringing marble columns by
water from Rome in evident imitation of what had actually been
accomplished in the Burgundian monastery.
It is not less certain that the art of St.-Denis was influenced by
Lombardy, especially in its ornamental and decorative details. The
mosaics were assuredly purely Italian. 1 The sculpture is as little in-
digenous. The style shows no relationship to the crude earlier work
1 Mosaic pavements are found in Germany and in several French churches, such as Cruas
and Thiers, as well as in Italy. Cruas is dated 1098. Thiers must be of the XII century, al-
though it has been called Carolingian. The mosaics of St.-Denis differ from these because
partially made of glass.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 225
in the Ile-de-France at St.-Etienne of Beauvais (111. 1423, 1424), St.-
Quentin-les-Beauvais (111. 1431-1433), Bury. The supporting fig-
ures of the western portal are a characteristically Guglielmo-esque
motive (111. 1438, 1441-1443), though derived perhaps via Beaulieu
(111. 41 6). * Nothing could be more completely Lombard than the lion
with his tail between his legs supporting the colonnette (111. 1443).
This colonnette is decorated with spirals and ornaments in the man-
ner peculiar to the masters of the Isola S. Giulio pulpit and S. Orso
cloister. The reliefs of the zodiac show analogies with the sculptures
of the same subject at Modena. A capital of the crypt has on its
abacus a completely Lombardic anthemion (111. 1436). The angels
in the voussures (111. 1440), heavy and expressionless, are of Lom-
bardic rather than of Aquitanian type. The figures of the virgins in
arches surmounted by tabernacles (111. 1441, 1442) recall Guglielmo's
prophets at Modena. The peasant quality of the broad, squat figures
is also reminiscent of Guglielmo.
It is therefore entirely within the bounds of possibility that the
jamb sculptures of St.-Denis came from Lombardy. On the other
hand, it is certain that St.-Denis was much influenced by pilgrimage
art. It was itself a pilgrimage church, part of the chain which
stretched from Santiago to the remote ends of Europe. It is certain
that the sculptor whom we call the St.-Denis Master owes important
peculiarities of his style to the West and South.
Before leaving the subject of jamb sculptures, a word should be
said of the holy-water basin at Chamalieres (111. 11 53-1 156). This
has four adossed figures in niches, like the jamb sculptures of the
cathedral of Ferrara and of the chapter-house of St.-Etienne of Tou-
louse (111. 434-443). It is evident, however, that the Chamalieres
basin is related to Nicolo's work at Ferrara much more closely than
to the Toulouse apostles. In fact, the Chamalieres basin appears to
be a work by Nicolo's own hand, and dating from his Ferrarese
period. The style is far more suave and developed than in his earlier
productions at Piacenza. On the other hand it seems less mannered
1 The Bury figures beneath the vault show the same influence.
226 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
than the jamb sculptures of the cathedral of Verona. The peculiar
braided ornament on the border of the drapery of one of the figures
of the Chamalieres basin recurs on the St. John the Baptist in the
spandrels of S. Zeno at Verona. It is, however, with Nicolo's work
at Ferrara that the Chamalieres basin shows the closest analogies.
There are the same draperies, the same hands, the same eyes, the
same beards, the same noses, the same lips, the same scrolls, the same
niches, the same hair. Indeed, the basin at Chamalieres resembles the
jambs of Ferrara much more closely than do Nicolo's signed works at
Sagra S. Michele and Verona. It seems, therefore, impossible to
doubt that it is by his hand.
The question arises how this work found its way into the heart of
the Cevennes. Did Nicolo undertake a journey into the Velay ?
There is plenty of evidence to show that he did travel in France, al-
though rather in the South-west, in Languedoc and Aquitaine. It
seems to me, however, more probable that the basin was exported
from Italy, and carried to Chamalieres. It will doubtless be objected
that the basin is an exceedingly heavy object to have been trans-
ported in this manner. Yet we know that far more complicated ship-
ments were made in the XII century. The great ambulatory columns
of Cluny, for example, the transportation of which would be some-
thing of a problem at the present day, and in comparison with which
the Chamalieres basin seems a trifle, were brought all the way from
Rome to Burgundy. The transportation of the Chamalieres basin
would have been comparatively easy, because it could have been sent
most of the way by water, across the sea, and up the Rhone.
But the fortunes of the motive of jamb sculptures have led us far
away from Santiago. Returning thither we notice that the sculp-
tured columns of the Puerta de las Platerias are by no means the
only traces of Byzantine influence. One suspects it, indeed, of under-
lying much of the work, and if we knew more of Byzantine sculpture,
it is likely that we could detect definite traces. One fragment is, in-
deed, certainly Byzantine. It is that strange bust (111. 676) inserted
in the spandrel between the two doorways, and which the Guide
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 227
shows to have originally belonged to the Transfiguration of the west
facade. The Byzantine foliage in the boss betrays the origin of the
sculptor. But this is not all. A head of similar character is found in a
relief of S. Marco at Venice representing the sacrifice of Isaac. 1
There is a head resembling the one at Santiago (111. 676) in the
portal of Santillana del Mar (111. 860). The other sculptures of this
facade are of far inferior quality.
In the relief of the Temptation in the western tympanum of the
Puerta de las Platerias is introduced the trilobed arch, destined to be-
come important in northern art. The motive is found in a Carlovin-
gian miniature of the Gospels of Soissons, in what would seem the
more advanced polylobed form ; 2 it also occurs in the trilobed form
in an Anglo-Saxon manuscript of the IX century, 3 and there is some-
thing very like it in the scene of the Adoration of the Magi 4 of the
Hildesheim doors. The popularity of the motive, however, especially
in architecture seems to have been established by Spain. It is found
in Mohammedan architecture from the IX century, 5 coming accord-
ing to Rivoira from India, 6 and in the X century it is already accli-
mated in the mosque of Cordoba. It occurs in the Area de San
Felices (111. 661) in a form very similar to that of the Puerta de las
Platerias. At Santiago it is used not only in the relief, but architec-
turally as well. Its diffusion thence in architecture we have already
noticed. 7 In the plastic arts we find it reproduced in a miniature rep-
resenting the Feast at Emmaus in a Limoges manuscript of the XII
1 This relief has been variously assigned from the III to the XIII century. It is, however,
certainly of the early XII century. This may be proved by comparing it with the relief of
Hercules and the Ceryneian deer of the same basilica. The latter is a Venetian copy of a Byzan-
tine work, not earlier than the XII century. It is evident that the heads in the two works have
the same character. Probably much Byzantine sculpture dates from the XI-XII centuries.
The relief at Xeropotamon (Mt. Athos) reproduced by Brockhaus Taf. 9 reproduces line for
line an ivory of the XI century in the museum of Berlin (illustrated by Schlumberger, II, 89).
That the S. Marco Sacrifice of Isaac is Byzantine, seems to me certain. It has nothing to do
with contemporary work in Italy. Was it imported from Constantinople in 1204, like so many
other marbles of S. Marco, or was it executed in situ by a wandering Byzantine sculptor ?
2 Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 8850, illustrated by Boinet, PI. XXI.
3 Lord of Leicester's Library, illustrated by Dorez, Catalogue, PI. III. Cf. a miniature in the
Gebhards-Bibel at Admont, illustrated by Buberl, 25.
4 Illustrated by Dibelius, Taf. 8. 5 Puig, III, 385.
6 Arch. Mus., 374. 7 See above, p. 187.
228 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
century in the Morgan Library * and in the altar-piece of the abbey
of Stavelot in Belgium, known from a drawing reproduced by Hel-
big, 2 and dating from soon after 1130.
One of the most interesting of the artists who worked at Santiago
is the master who executed the three figures, probably of apostles, at
the left-hand edge of the upper row (111. 675), the Expulsion just be-
low (111. 675), the relief representing God reproving Adam and Eve
now in the museum at Santiago (111. 693), the angels blowing trump-
ets (111. 675-677), the lions (111. 674), four figures at the right-hand
edge of the lower row (111. 677), the figure just above the Sacrifice of
Abraham in the east buttress (111. 688), the Healing of the Blind
(111. 680), 3 the Adoration of the Magi (111. 680) 3 and the Betrayal of
the eastern tympanum (111. 680). Since the Expulsion is mentioned
in the description of the XII century, our master worked upon the
original construction.
This artist shows close relationship to some of the work at Conques.
If we compare the draperies of Christ and Judas in the Santiagoan
Betrayal (111. 680) with those of the prophets in the niche to the left
of the Abraham at Conques (111. 397) ; the head of Christ in the San-
tiagoan Betrayal (111. 680) with the head of the second prophet in the
niche to the left of Abraham at Conques (111. 397) ; the rosettes in the
cornice at Santiago (111. 677) with the stars inside the aureole of
Conques (111. 393) ; the angels blowing trumpets at Santiago (111.
675-677) with the angels of Conques (111. 394), we shall be convinced
that the two groups are related. Conques seems distinctly more
naturalistic and advanced in style than Santiago.
Another sculptor at Santiago shows even closer analogies with a
second sculptor at Conques. This is the artist who executed at Com-
pos tela the Flagellation (111. 680) and the Crowning with Thorns
(111. 680) in the centre of the lower register of the east tympanum ;
the Adoration of the Magi (111. 680) just above; 4 the neighbouring
grotesque (111. 680) ; 4 an angel carrying a crown near by (111. 680) ; 4
1 No. 101. 2 56.
3 In these works, I suspect, another sculptor collaborated.
4 In these works his companion seems to me to have collaborated.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 229
the Temptation of the western tympanum (111. 678, 679) ; and the
west jamb figure of either portal representing Moses with the tablets
of the law (111. 682) and a bishop (111. 683). A curious convention for
representing the lower edge of the draperies with redoubled folds is
like the signature of this artist. Now precisely this same convention
recurs at Conques in the group of figures to the left of Christ (111.
395, 396). The similarities do not end here. The figures in the two
monuments are of the same stocky types. The head of the Christ
in the Flagellation at Santiago (111. 680) is like the head of the king
at Conques (111. 395). The short skirts of the executioner at San-
tiago are like those of the same figure at Conques (compare 111. 680
with 111. 395). The square hair line is characteristic of both works.
The draperies of the Moses at Santiago (111. 682) are entirely similar
to those of the abbot leading the king (111. 395) at Conques.
The figures in both works wear the same block shoes. The face of
the abbot at Conques (111. 396) is the same as the face of the execu-
tioner to the left at Santiago (111. 680). The attitude of the angel
Gabriel in the Annunciation of the transept at Conques (111. 386) is
taken, line for line, partly from the Christ, partly from the angel in
the Temptation of the Santiago tympanum (111. 678). The face of
the Virgin in the same relief at Conques (111. 386) is the face of the
angel swinging a censor in the same relief of Santiago (111. 678). The
lower fringe of the drapery of the handmaiden in the Conques An-
nunciation is the same as that of the Christ at Santiago (111. 678).
That the two groups are by the same hand seems certain. Again,
however, we note that the sculptures of Conques are more advanced.
The Betrayal by the first master of Santiago must have formed
part of the same series of reliefs with the Crowning with Thorns and
Flagellation by the second. Therefore the two worked together at
Santiago. We are justified in concluding that the same pair worked
together also at Conques.
The question of the origin of these sculptors is an interesting prob-
lem. I can see no reason to doubt that the one who executed the
Flagellation at Santiago is Spanish. The work at Conques is evi-
230 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
dently more advanced than that at Compostela. It is, moreover, as
evidently of Spanish character. The brilliant polychromy suggests a
Spanish origin ; it is, perhaps, by way of Conques that the tradition
reached Auvergne. The facial types are thoroughly Spanish; they
already foreshadow those of Mateo. The devils, too, are of Spanish
type, and not unlike those of the western tympanum of Santiago.
Moreover, the manner of this sculptor is very close to the Bible of
Avila, a XII century manuscript of Spanish origin in the Madrid
Library. 1 The only analogies with his work outside of Spain that I
know are not more than might easily have come to him second-hand.
Thus his characteristic folds are somewhat like those of the bronze
tomb-stone of Rudolf von Schwaben, a monument of the Dom at
Mersburg, dating from soon after 1080. 2 They also resemble those
of an ivory-carving of the South Kensington Museum, called Italian
of the XI-XII centuries. 3 But his personality at bottom is, so far as
I know, unlike anything outside of Spain.
The case is different with the other sculptor whom we may call the
Master of the Santiago Betrayal. There is a close prototype to his
style at Conques itself. The tomb of the abbot Begon III in the ex-
terior of the south wall of the nave does not seem to have attracted
the attention of archaeologists to the extent it deserves. This tomb
is adorned with a relief (111. 387) which represents Christ, two angels
and Ste. Foy (she is the figure to the right — her crown is the same
peculiar one that appears in the golden image — ) receiving into
paradise the dead abbot. Since this tomb was presumably erected
soon after the death of the abbot, it may be considered a dated monu-
ment of 1 107.
Now the style of this relief shows singular points of contact with
that of the Betrayal Master. Compare, for example, the face of the
Christ (111. 387) with that of the Christ in the Santiago Betrayal
(111. 680). There are the same eyes, the same type of face. The face
1 Illustrated in the Boletin de la Sociedad Espanola de Excursiones, Ano V, 1897, 100.
2 Illustrated by Dehio, abb. 420.
3 Illustrated by Graeven, 57.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 231
of Ste. Foy is like that of the figure to the right in the Betrayal. The
hair of the angels in the Conques relief (111. 387) is like the hair of
Christ at Santiago (111. 680). The draperies of the right shoulder of
Christ at Conques (111. 387) are the same as those of the right shoul-
der of Judas at Santiago (111. 680). The bottom folds of the draperies
at Conques have something of the character with which we are al-
ready familiar in the draperies of the Betrayal Master at Santiago.
On the other hand the tomb of Begon is distinctly cruder, distinctly
earlier. The work at Santiago shows the strong influence of the sculp-
tor of the south portal of St.-Sernin, which is lacking at Conques.
Let us now extend our study to the angels in the pendentives of
Conques (111. 388, 389). Compared with the tomb of Begon III (III.
387), the Conques angels appear much superior (111. 388, 389). The
draperies are more coherent and better rendered ; they tend already
to approach the Santiagoan type; the proportions are better and
more slender. The facial types, however, are the same and the dra-
peries fundamentally alike. It is evident that the angels represent the
tomb of Begon plus an immense improvement brought about by the
influence of Santiago. The angels are, however, still far from equal-
ling the work of the Betrayal Master at Santiago (111. 680). Were we
placing these reliefs in order, we should certainly arrange them :
tomb of Begon, angels of Conques pendentives, Betrayal Master at
Santiago, Betrayal Master at Conques.
The sculptures of the transepts (111. 390,391) are assuredly more
advanced than the angels of the pendentives (111. 388, 389). The in-
fluence of Santiago is stronger. The folds of the mantle of Isaiah (111.
391) are a debased copy of the much finer ones of the mantle of David
at Compostela (111. 687). The facial types are, however, those of the
tomb of Begon (111. 387) and of the angels of the pendentives (111.
388, 389). We are still less advanced than the work of the Betrayal
Master at Santiago. Our series must be extended : tomb of Begon,
angels of Conques pendentives, transept sculptures, Betrayal Master
at Santiago, Betrayal Master in the western tympanum of Conques.
I confess that between the tomb of Begon and the western tym-
232 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
panum of Conques there seems to be a difference not only of style,
but of quality, that makes it difficult to believe that all these works
can be by the same hand. They would, however, have fallen within
a single lifetime ; and if we suppose two hands, it is very difficult to
say where one stops and the other begins. What seems certain is this.
There existed at Conques from the beginning of the XII century an
atelier of sculpture, which from crudity rapidly rose to great excel-
lence under the influence of Santiago ; and this atelier culminated in
the production of the western tympanum of Conques (111. 392-401),
the work of two masters, both of whom had worked at Santiago, one
of whom was perhaps Spanish by birth, but the other of whom came
out of the native atelier of Conques.
It is evident that orthodox archaeology has made a serious error
in ascribing the tympanum of Conques to the end of the XII or to the
XIII century. The style is entirely that of the second quarter of the
XII century. The faces (111. 393-401) are analogous to those of
Vezelay (111. 28-46) — 1 104-1 120. Certain figures, like the one with
the cane, the third to the left of Christ (111. 396), show points of con-
tact with the pulpit of Isola S. Giulio, which dates from c. 1 120. 1 The
star-bedecked aureole, and other peculiarities as well, recall the Sal-
erno altar-frontal which dates from the last quarter of the XI cen-
tury. The conspicuous position given to the cross in the composition
of the tympanum at Conques (111. 392) shows that the work is not
later than the middle of the XII century. It was in the XI century
that the cross became a prominent feature of Last Judgments. It is
inconspicuous in the early XI century at Oberzell in Reichenau, but
it is central in the late XI century at Burgfelden. 2 In the Perikopen-
buch of Kaiser Heinrich II, the cross already holds a prominent place
in the composition of the Last Judgment. 3 In sculpture of the first
half of the XII century, the cross is prominent ; it dominates the com-
1 Noak, in the Dritten Bericht uber die Denkm'dler Deutscher Kunst, 43, notes analogies be-
tween the pulpit at Isola and the east choir at Mainz. The latter he dates 1 125 on independent
grounds. It is reassuring that his chronology, arrived at by entirely other ways, should agree
to within a year with mine.
2 Dehio, abb. 360, 361. 3 Ed. Leidinger, V, 38.
)
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 233
position at Beaulieu (111. 409) and at St.-Denis (111. 1439). It was
first dropped at Autun (111. 80). After St.-Denis (1140) it no longer
is conspicuous. In this particular, therefore, Conques shows the
manner of the third or fourth decade of the XII century. The
iconography of the tympanum is, moreover, in other respects archaic.
Christ does not show his wounds as at St.-Denis (111. 1439) and in
later works. The Gothic formula has not yet been found — the com-
position is arranged in a fashion that foreshadows the final solution,
but which is evidently earlier and tentative. 1
The evidence of the iconography is confirmed by that of the style.
Since sculptors who worked at Santiago before 1 1 24, and presum-
ably considerably before, executed the tympanum of Conques, it is
evident that the latter must certainly fall within the first half of the
XII century. Is it possible to determine the date more exactly ?
The tomb of Begon furnishes a sort of speedometre by which we
can measure the rate of progress in the atelier of Conques. We can
compare the state of sculpture in 1 107 as witnessed in this monument
(111. 387) with that attained by the Betrayal Master at Santiago (111.
680) before 11 24. If so much water had flowed under the bridges in
seventeen years or less, we can hardly assume that more than ten
years separated the Puerta de las Platerias (111. 674-691) from the
western tympanum at Conques (111. 392-401). That would bring us
to 1 134 at latest for the date of the latter.
This agrees well with what we can deduce of the history of the
building of the basilica at Conques. We know from the epitaph of
Begon III, who as we have seen died in 1 107, that he constructed the
cloister, in the north gallery of which he was buried. His epitaph
says nothing of his having reconstructed the church ; evidently then
the church had not been begun at the time of his death.
It must, however, have been commenced very soon afterwards.
There are many proofs that the existing church is later than the
cloister. The masonry of the south transept reveals that the church
1 There are striking similarities between the inscriptions at Conques and those at St.-Denis.
It is a question, however, how far either are to be trusted.
234 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
was built around the previously existing cloister. The earliest capi-
tals of the church — those of the east end — are evidently later in
style (but only slightly later) than those which still survive of the
cloister. 1 The angels of the pendentives (111. 388, 389), falling mid-
way in style between the tomb of Begon of 1107 (111. 387) and the
Puerta de las Platerias (111. 674-691), can hardly be later than 11 15.
The choir must already have been in construction at this time.
Fifteen years later the western facade might well have been building.
Everything, therefore, indicates that the tympanum was executed
between 1130 and 1135, contemporaneously with the other great
tympana of Autun (111. 80), Vezelay (111. 47) and Beaulieu (111.
409).
Ste.-Foy of Conques, inspired by Santiago, seems on the other
hand to have been the point of departure for the Romanesque school
of Auvergne. The latter appears to have been formed at Notre-
Dame-du-Port of Clermont-Ferrand, an edifice later than c. 1140. 2
The crudity of many works in this remote and mountainous region
1 The enfeu of Begon III seems to have been established in its present form after the re-
construction of the church, but of the fragments of the original tomb.
2 There is indeed a text which proves that work was still in progress upon the church as late
as 1 1 85 (Michel, I, 2, 605). The sculptured capital of the southern side aisle representing the
Temptation (111. 1 1 84) shows a style notably later than that of either the ambulatory capitals
(111. 1 1 67-1 1 83) or the sculptures of the portal (111. n 58-1 163). If the church was begun about
1 145 with the east end (as usual the sculptures for the ambulatory capitals and the portal
would have been the first things executed), it is easily conceivable that the nave might not have
been entirely finished forty years later. It has been supposed that the finer sculptures of
the lintel are of a later period than the capitals of the ambulatory, and the former have been
associated with the document of 11 85. It is true that two very different hands maybe dis-
tinguished in the portal at Notre-Dame-du-Port. Robert, who comes out of the atelier of Con-
ques, executed all the capitals of the ambulatory (111. 1167-1183), that of the exterior of the
south transept representing the Sacrifice of Abraham (111. 1 165), the St. John (111. 1 163) and the
Isaiah (111. 11 62) of the portal, and the reliefs of the Annunciation (111. 11 64) and Nativity
(111. 1 166) above. The second hand, which as we shall see comes out of Souvigny, executed the
lintel (111. 1 1 58, 1 1 59) and tympanum (111. 11 60, 1161). Now it is impossible to put thirty-five
years between the work of these two masters. They certainly were active at Notre-Dame-du-
Port at the same time. The analogies of the second master to Souvigny show that he worked
in the fifth or sixth decade of the XII century, which is precisely the time to which the work of
the first master must also be ascribed. More than this the two masters evidently co-operated
upon the south portal, since the hands of both can there be found. Finally the Isaiah of Robert
(111. 1 162) shows copying of the style of the second master. The folds of the draperies over his
left knee (111. 1 162) obviously reproduce those over the left knee of the Christ in the tympanum
(111. 1 1 58). Both sculptors are therefore contemporary, and were active upon the church about
1145-1150.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 235
handicapped by rough and unworkable building materials has led to
their being generally considered older than they probably are in fact.
At any event there can be no question of the great debt which
Notre-Dame-du-Port owes to Conques. We have only to compare
the St. John of Conques (111. 390) with the St. John of Notre-Dame-
du-Port (111. 1 163), or the Isaiah of Notre-Dame (111. 1162) with the
angel in the pendentives at Conques (111. 388, 389), or the long scroll
of the Isaiah of Conques (111. 391) with those of the capitals at Cler-
mont (111. 1 179) to be convinced of the fact. But Notre-Dame is
clearly a later and inferior copy. Compare the face of the Conques
St. John (111. 1 163) with the Clermont rendering of the same subject
(111. 390). How the fine spirituality of the Conques face has vanished
in the Clermont version, and there remains an unmeaning expression
of tricky slyness. The Clermont sculptor has been able to imitate
very exactly the strands of the hair, the folds of the drapery ; but he
has been powerless to give his figure the dignity of pose, the expres-
sive significance of the Conques prototype. It is in vain that he has
covered every inch of the surface with fussy ornament. The effect of
austerity and dignity which the Conques master attained by this
means entirely slips through his fingers. Similarly when we compare
the Isaiah of Clermont (111. 1 162) with the angel of Conques (111. 388)
we are at once conscious, for all the similarities of posture and of
detail, how much more significant the figure at Conques is. The
raised right hand of the Conques angel (111. 388) convinces us,
whereas that of the Clermont Isaiah seems futile (111. 1162). The
resemblance of the draperies is patent, although the Clermont sculp-
tor has evidently attempted to introduce certain new improvements ;
but how much better contained is the Conques figure, how much
firmer the outlines.
It was not only to Conques that the sculptors of Notre-Dame went
to seek models. The lintel (111. 1160, 1161) is a close imitation of the
screen at Souvigny (111. 124, 125). The draperies of the Virgin in the
Clermont Adoration (111. 1160), for example, are clearly thence de-
rived. The folds of the upper part of her garment (111. 1160) repro-
236 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
duce line for line those in the corresponding position of the Christ at
Souvigny (111. 125) ; those of her skirts recall the figure to the left of
the Souvigny Christ (the extreme figure to the left in 111. 125). The
draperies about the knees of Christ in the Clermont tympanum (111.
1 160) are imitated from those about the knees of the Christ at Sou-
vigny (111. 125). Since Souvigny is not earlier than c. 1 140, the sculp-
ture at Notre-Dame-du-Port must be later than that date.
The hand of the master of the Clermont-Ferrand lintel reappears
in the tympanum of Valence (111. 1189). The style of the two works
is so similar that it is difficult to determine which is older ; Valence,
however, seems somewhat more purely Burgundian than Notre-
Dame-du-Port.
One of the features introduced at Conques and taken over at
Notre-Dame-du-Port is the pedimented lintel. The origin of the
motive is obscure. The earliest example with which I am acquainted
is that of the church of S. Lorenzo of Zara, now in the museum assem-
bled at S. Donato. 1 It is, perhaps, not earlier than the XI century,
although it has been called Carlovingian. The motive also found its
way to Belgium. It seems to have been known in Spain, since it is
found at Barbedelo, Santa Maria del Sar and perhaps at S. Isidoro of
Leon. 2 It was probably from Spain that it came to Conques. At all
events there can be no doubt that from Conques it was taken over at
Notre-Dame-du-Port (111. 11 60, 1161) and copied thence throughout
Auvergne — at Mozat (111. 1223), in the lintel now enwalled in the
Place des Gras at Clermont-Ferrand (111. 1205), at Chambon (111.
1250), at Thuret (111. 1139), at Meillers (111. 1251), at Champagne
and at Autry-Issard (111. 1141).
Reliefs inserted in the exterior of the church of St.-Austremoine
at Issoire representing the Sacrifice of Abraham (111. 1210), Abraham
and the Three Angels (111. 1 209) and the Miracle of the Loaves and
Fishes (111. 121 1) are obviously derived from the atelier of Conques.
The style approaches closely that of the angels of the Conques pen-
dentives (111. 388, 389). One is almost tempted to suppose that they
1 Illustrated by Gurlitt, 70. 2 King, II, 192.
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 237
are earlier fragments re-employed in the existing church. However,
certain details, like the folds about the left leg of the angel in the
centre of the Three Angels appearing to Abraham (111. 1209), or the
perforated borders of the garments show that we have here late imi-
tations of earlier models. The style is entirely different from that of
other reliefs enwalled in the choir representing the zodiac (111. 1208)
and also from that of the capitals of the ambulatory (111. 121 2-1 214).
These all, like the capitals of the ambulatory at Notre-Dame-du-
Port of Clermont-Ferrand (111. 1167-1183) show a strong classic
character, and the influence of southern models — especially of the
frieze at Beaucaire (111. 1 292-1 298) and the works of Guglielmo and
Nicolo in Lombardy. At Issoire, as at Notre-Dame-du-Port we
doubtless have two ateliers, with widely divergent manners, working
upon the church contemporaneously, or nearly so. Notre-Dame-du-
Port seems to stand in relation to Auvergne in much the same rela-
tion that Cluny stands to Burgundy. It is the centre from which
radiate the influences which bore fruit at Champagne (111. 11 86), St.-
Nectaire (111. 1 190-1204), Volvic (111. 1206, 1207), Issoire (111. 1208-
1214), Mozat (111. 1 223-1 227) and many minor edifices. 1
The Virgin of the Annunciation at Conques (111. 386) appears to
have been known to the sculptor who executed the Virgin of the
Annunciation under the vaulting ribs of La Trinite at Vendome
an. i 5 i 7 ).i
The influence of Conques was therefore exceedingly great. Nor is
the impression which it produced upon contemporary artists to be
wondered at. It moves as profoundly the spectator of to-day. Not-
withstanding the somewhat restless and confused effect of the divi-
sion into zones by bands with inscriptions, the freshness of the poly-
chromy, the quaintness of the faces, and the vigour of the modelling
1 St.-Nectaire and Champagne resemble Notre-Dame-du-Port most closely. Issoire is more
advanced, while Mozat shows the style in its ultimate phase. Indeed, the style of the capitals
at Mozat (111. 1 224-1 227) seems about abreast of that of the tomb in the church of La Magda-
lena at Zamora (111. 890, 891), a monument which is probably not anterior to the XIII century.
2 An unexpected relationship of the Vendome sculptures is with the work of Nicolo. The head
of the youthful bishop at Vendome (111. 151 8) reproduces almost line for line the head of the
St. Zeno in the tympanum of S. Zeno at Verona.
238 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
combine to make of this one of the grand achievements of Roman-
esque art.
Before leaving this pair of sculptors who worked together at Santi-
ago and at Conques, it is interesting to note that the relief of the
Flagellation (111. 680) at Santiago appears to have been the starting-
point for a whole group of interesting sculptures. If we compare this
Flagellation with the one at Beaucaire (111. 1297), we shall be in no
doubt as to whence the Beaucaire sculptor derived his inspiration.
Now from Beaucaire in turn are derived the series of reliefs deal-
ing with the Passion which belonged to the pulpit and screens
of the cathedral at Modena, and the celebrated frieze of St.-
Gilles.
Still another sculptor of Santiago has left us the relief of the Crea-
tion of Adam embedded in the east buttress (111. 689). He is an in-
ferior creature who plods along at a respectful distance behind the
master of the south portal of St.-Sernin. He follows him so faithfully
that he must have worked about the same time.
The hand of the same master may be recognized in the portals of
San Isidoro of Leon (111. 696-702). * This church seems to have been
the object of a number of reconstructions which succeeded each other
from the middle of the XI century until the final consecration of
1 149. The style of the sculptures of S. Isidoro is not sensibly differ-
ent from that of the works of the same master in the Puerta de las
Platerias. His Santa Sabina (111. 697) shows him still assiduously
copying the work of his more gifted contemporary and co-worker
upon the Puerta de las Platerias ; his S. Isidoro (111. 698) is a faithful
reproduction of the St. Peter by the same master at Toulouse (111.
312). The tympana of S. Isidoro have a certain impressionistic effect
which is finer than anything our master accomplished at Santiago ;
I can not detect, however, any real sign of progress or of development
in his style. It is therefore probable that the work at S. Isidoro is
1 The eastern portal (111. 696-699) is perhaps later than the western (111. 700-702). The heads
of the spandrel figures (111. 700, 701) have been remade. The draperies of the tympanum
(111. 702) show the influence of Aragon (111. 535-543), those of the spandrel figures (111. 700,
701) of Moissac (111. 262-273).
LA PUERTA DE LAS PLATERIAS 239
approximately contemporary with that at Compostela. We may
consequently assign it to about 11 20.
It was apparently from the already troubled waters of Leon that
somewhat later the sculptor of St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges drew the
inspiration — if that word can be applied to so sorry a performance
— for his tympanum (111. 323-326).
IV
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE
With the completion of the cathedral of Santiago in 1 124 ends the
great creative cycle of the pilgrimage school. From this time the
sculpture of Spain and Aquitaine reflects various foreign influences.
It veers about like a weathercock, pointing now to Burgundy, now
to Lombardy, now to the West, now to Provence, now to the Ile-
de-France. The strangers, constantly passing back and forth on
the road, brought with them motives from the four quarters of the
world. The most distant and unexpected models were copied. The
pilgrimage churches became an international mixing-pot of styles.
In the third decade of the XII century, the influence of Burgundy
was assuredly the most prominent. The great tympanum of Moissac
(111. 339-342), we have seen, was executed under this inspiration. At
Leire (111. 71 1-7 16) Burgundian influences are at work too ; but com-
bined with other elements. The St. James (111. 713) is another replica
of the over-copied St. Peter (111. 312) of Toulouse; the Annunciation
(111. 714) is reminiscent of that of the Moissac porch (111. 376) ; the
skirts of the figures in the tympanum fall in folds precisely like those
of the figure to the right in the tomb of Begon at Conques (111. 387),
the flaring lower garment and the trailing sleeves recall Notre-Dame-
la-Grande of Poitiers (111. 960, 961) ; the caryatid lions, Lombardy.
^ The same polyglot and cosmopolitan character permeates the well-
known jamb sculptures from the chapter-house of St.-Etienne in
Toulouse (111. 434-443). The assistant of Gilbert marks at once the
extreme development and the extreme degradation of the Toulousan
style. Cynicism could go no further. These strange creations in their
mocking, demoniac attitudes, their stocky proportions, their coarse
quality make us understand the character of the Albigensian heresy ;
after studying them, one almost finds St. Louis sympathetic. Like
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 241
all the sculpture of the South-west of this period they reflect a multi-
tude of foreign influences. The sculptor seems to have been formed
in that atelier of ivory-carving which produced the New York Jour-
ney to Emmaus and Noli me tangere (111. 709). His facial types seem
to be derived from a master of Santiago — the one who did the St.
James (111. 676) and the St. Peter (111. 675). They are, however, ob-
viously much later and more advanced. Some of the draperies come
from the same source. The master also knew the "Signs" (111. 322)
of St.-Sernin. Other draperies are inspired by the tympanum of
Moissac (111. 339-442). Nicolo's earlier, crisper and more archaic
work at Ferrara is perhaps derived from the same lost original as the
figures of Gilbert's assistant. 1 The capitals of the niches show the
influence of the Moissac cloister ( 111. 262-273). The movement of the
draperies of certain figures is Burgundian, the draperies, the hair and
beard conventions, and the ornamented borders of others are derived
from St.-Denis (1 137-1 140) — 111. 1437-1457 — or Chartres. There
is a XIII century feeling in the faces and hair conventions which
suggests a date in the second half of the XII century. If we com-
pare these heads with those of Beaulieu {c. 1 135) — 111. 409-420 — ,
we shall be convinced that they are notably later. The tomb of
Dona Blanca (1 156) — 111. 719 — at Najera 2 is from the point of
view of style closely related to the St.-Etienne sculptures. The
analogies in the draperies are striking. Two capitals of the cloister of
St.-Etienne show motives (lions' heads from which issues a stem (111.
448), little nude men climbing among vines) 3 that are familiar in
Apulian art of the second half of the XII century (see, for example,
the Duomo and later portions of S. Niccola at Bari). Other decora-
tion is very analogous to that of the tomb of the bishop Jean at St.-
Etienne of Perigueux (f 1 169). Compared with the sculptures of St.-
1 The Ferrara sculptures can not be derived from the Toulouse cycle, for they are earlier in
date. Moreover, the work at Ferrara shows points of contact only with Gilbert's assistant,
not with Gilbert himself. This would hardly be conceivable, had Nicolo seen the work at
Toulouse.
2 The tomb at Najera is in turn closely related to the portal of Santa Maria at Sepulveda
(111. 799-804).
3 This motive is also found on one of the columns of the west facade of Chartres.
242 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Denis (111. 1437-1457) the faces of Gilbert's assistant appear more
advanced and Gothic-like than any of the work in that portal. More-
over, the Toulouse apostles are all of the same height ; now in the
early cycles at Verona, at St.-Denis, at Etampes and at Chartres the
statues had been of varying heights — it was only later that they
were made uniform as in the Toulouse series. From all this we con-
clude that the activity of Gilbert's assistant can hardly fall before
the fifth decade of the XII century.
The study of the style of Gilbert himself leads us to the same con-
clusion. He comes out of Autun (1132) — 111. 67-81 — and shows
the strong influence of St.-Denis (1137-1140) — 111. 1437-1457 —
if not also of Chartres. He has close points of contact with Chaden-
nac (111. 1034-1040), which is a dated monument of 1 140. Compared
with St.-Denis (111. 1437-1457) his draperies are clearly finer, more
elaborate, more complicated, more advanced. The draperies of his
Virgin at Solsona (111. 552) are indeed strikingly analogous to those
of the tympanum of St.-Trophime of Aries (111. 1372) which dates
from 1 1 52. A date about 1145 for the cloister of St.-Etienne would,
therefore, be in accordance with what we can deduce from the style
of the two masters.
The capitals of the cloister of La Daurade at Toulouse, now gath-
ered together in the museum, are of two distinct periods. The earlier
group (111. 288-295) is closely analogous to the cloister at Moissac
(111. 274-287), as we may easily convince ourselves by comparing the
two Daniels (111. 278 and 111. 288). It is, indeed, difficult to determine
which is the older. On the whole, the Daurade seems to be slightly
the more archaic ; but in any case the two monuments must be nearly
contemporaneous. It is evident that the cloister of Santo Domingo
de Silos (111. 666-673) was well known to these artists. The second
group of Daurade capitals (111. 462-473) is of much later date. Some
of them are by the same hand as the jamb sculptures of the chapter-
house (111. 474-479) ; others show clumsy imitation of the capitals of
Gilbert's assistant at St.-Etienne (111. 444-447). A peculiarity of
several of these capitals is the hanging arches from the abacus divid-
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 243
ing the bell of the capital into two fields (111. 464-466, 468, 469).
This motive is also found on a capital of Notre-Dame-des-Doms at
Avignon, now in the Musee Calvet, 1 a monument which dates cer-
tainly from the second half of the XII century. Buschbeck 2 has
recognized that the later capitals of La Daurade (111. 462-473) are
closely related stylistically with the cloister of St.-Bertrand-de-
Comminges (111. 492, 494, 496).
The sculptures of the jambs of the chapter-house of La Daurade
were seen by Du Mege while they were still in their original position,
before the destruction of the cloister in 18 13. He thus describes
them : "La porte de la Chapelle du chapitre avait huit statues tenant
lieu de colonnes ; le montant de gauche contenait un bas-relief en
marbre peint, representant la Sainte-Vierge tenant l'Enfant-Divin
sur ses genoux ; en regard paraissait David assis, accordant sa harpe.
... En avant du portail et faisant saillie, etaient, de chaque cote
deux bas-reliefs representant un Roi, une Reine et deux saints ou
prophetes. Dans Tepaisseur de la saillie et dans le retour, il y avait,
de chaque cote, et faisant de meme avant-corps, un bas-relief." 3
The fact that the reliefs of La Daurade were jamb sculptures in-
serted in the door of the chapter-house at once suggests that they
are derived from the analogous sculptures of St.-Etienne. The style
of the Daurade fragments (111. 474-479) is, however, notably differ-
ent from that of the St.-Etienne apostles (111. 434-443). It is evident
at a glance that they are much less vital. They are, as Voge recog-
nized nearly thirty years ago, flat imitations of Chartres. One per-
ceives, however, that they are much later in date than their original.
This is clear not only in the less vigorous modelling, in the monotony
of the composition, and the general commonplaceness of the execu-
tion, but in certain of the heads which have already Gothic character.
There is, indeed, proof that this master worked about the end of
the century. 4 The draperies of the jamb sculptures of the Daurade
1 Illustrated by Labande, PI. LXXV1II. 2 54.
3 Du Mege, 246-247.
4 Buschbeck, 40, has discovered documentary evidence that the cloister was finished before
1205.
244 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
(111. 474-479) are precisely like those of the celebrated Annunciation
of the Toulouse Museum (111. 480, 48 1). 1 The head of the Gabriel
(111. 482, 483) 2 is exceedingly like that of one of the Daurade proph-
ets (111. 474, figure at right). The draperies of the Virgin of the
Annunciation (111. 481) are like those of the next Daurade prophet
(111. 474). The lower border of the garment of the Gabriel (111. 480)
is similar to that of the Daurade Virgin (111. 479). But the quality of
the Daurade sculptures is much poorer than that of the Annuncia-
tion. It is evident that the master of the Daurade jambs knew and
copied the Annunciation. Therefore the Daurade must be later.
But can we determine the date of the Annunciation ?
The head of the Gabriel (111. 482, 483) is very similar to the heads
of the jamb sculptures (111. 498-500) that raise the portal of Val-
cabrere to more than antique heights. There is in both the same
pointed chin, the same mouth with lips rising in the corners, the same
long hooked nose, the same low forehead, the same naturalistic ear.
Moreover, in both works the eye is placed in the horizontal (or nearly
so) portion of the socket, not vertically in the cheek as in nature. It
is this peculiarity which gives the sculptures their character.
On observing more attentively the sculptures of Valcabrere, we
perceive that the radiance of this remarkable work proceeds from
the heads, or to be more exact, from three of the heads, and from the
outer figure on the right-hand side ; the rest is not only inferior, but
intolerably blundering. There can be no doubt that two very unequal
hands worked together on this portal.
The finer of these hands, as we have said, is close to the master of
1 The types of the Toulouse Annunciation could only have originated in Byzantium. Their
spirit can hardly be equalled except in the technically dissimilar relief of Adalia, illustrated by
Pace, 103. The closest prototype which I know is the ivory Annunciation in the Trivulzio col-
lection at Milan, illustrated by Venturi, II, 616. This it is now believed to be a fragment of the
Grado throne, an Alexandrine work of the VI century. During the XI and XII centuries the
Grado throne seems to have been copied by artists of widely separated parts of Europe. It
served as model to the ivory-carver of the altar-frontal at Salerno, and to Nicolo when he com-
posed his reliefs on the facade of S. Zeno of Verona. The Toulouse Annunciation may be an-
other derivative, direct or indirect. The close resemblance of the Toulouse angel to the Byzan-
tine angels of S. Marco at Venice has been remarked by Buschbeck (39) — see especially the
one illustrated by Ongania, PI. 376.
2 Unfortunately the nose of the Virgin (111. 484, 485) is modern.
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 245
the Toulouse Annunciation. His heads have the same stern quality
as that of the Gabriel ; like that, one could almost believe them in-
spired by an archaic Greek model. They are, indeed, extraordinarily
fine. In looking at them, we seem to breathe the atmosphere of demi-
gods and heroes. This XH-century artist of the Pyrenees attains all
that Rome would have been, but never was.
His uncouth assistant (111. 501-502) is of little intrinsic merit, and
probably a local light, since we find his hand again in the adossed
figures of the neighbouring cloisters of St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges
(111. 492-495, 496). x In the tympanum of Valcabrere (111. 501, 502)
he seems to be trying feebly to imitate Burgundian models. His was
clearly an unskilful chisel of the end of the XII century.
Indeed, the significance of the Valcabrere sculptures in this con-
nection lies in the fact that their date can be determined. The church
of Valcabrere was consecrated in 1 200. The portal must, therefore,
have been executed somewhat before this time.
All this brings the date of the Toulouse Annunciation and the
Daurade fragments down to at least the last quarter of the XII cen-
tury. It is exceedingly improbable that they are earlier than 1175.
Other trains of reasoning bring us to the same conclusion. If we
compare the Virgin (111. 479) with the Virgin of Gilbert at Solsona
(111. 552) or with those of his assistants at St.-Junien (111. 451) or on
the capitals of St.-Etienne (111. 447), we shall perceive that the sculp-
tor of the Daurade owed much to the art of Gilbert. The facial type
of his Virgin (111. 479) is, indeed, that of the Virgin of Solsona (111.
552) ; but how weak and spineless it is in comparison, how lacking in
character ! We feel in one the strength and vigour of a living and
progressing tradition, in the other the languid imitation of a deca-
dent age.
It was, however, not only in Spain that the master of the Daurade
cloisters sought inspiration. The canopy under which his Virgin sits
connects his work with a series of Virgins similarly placed under can-
opies. The earliest example of this type I suppose to be the Virgin
l The same, or a very closely related hand, worked also at St.-Aventin (111. 508-510).
246 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
(111. 1299) which once formed part of the Adoration in the tympanum
at Beaucaire, and which, wickedly restored, still exists in the house
of the priest in that city. This probably inspired by some means the
very different version of the theme in the southern tympanum of
Chartres as it did the Virgin at York in England. 1 The Virgin at
Donzy (111. 113) is obviously a derivative of the one at Chartres.
The sculptor of La Daurade certainly knew Chartres ; but it is rather
in the Midi that he sought the inspiration for his Virgin. The statue
of Beaucaire (111. 1299) had had descendants along the Mediterra-
nean as well as in the North. The Virgin from Fontfroide, now at the
University of Montpellier (111. 1301) is certainly a derivative. Here,
too, the subject is the Adoration ; the posture of the child is identical ;
the Virgin is in the same position, her right hand similarly raised, the
knees spread apart in the same manner. The similarity of the long
folds of the draperies over the knees is unmistakable. Indeed, the
two sculptures were, perhaps, more closely alike than we should sus-
pect, for the head of the Beaucaire statue is a modern restoration.
The chief difference in the two works, and what shows the Font-
froide Virgin to be later, is not only its inferior quality, but the less
attenuated proportions. In the second half of the XII century atten-
uation went out of fashion, and the figures tend to become ever
heavier.
In the northern tympanum of St.-Gilles is another Adoration (111.
1386) which must be a third member of this series. The relationship
to Beaucaire (111. 1299) is clear — in both we have the Virgin in the
Adoration seated under a canopy in the middle of a tympanum. The
position of Virgin and Child is still precisely the same. The Child is
still seated on the left knee of His mother ; He raises His right hand
with exactly the same gesture ; the Virgin has the same knees, widely
spread apart ; her right hand is in the same position. The folds of the
left knee of the Virgin (111. 1386) resemble those of the Virgin of Font-
froide (111. 1301) rather than those of the Virgin of Beaucaire (111.
1 Illustrated by Prior and Gardner, 135. I am indebted to Mr. Eric Maclagen for having
suggested to me this comparison.
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 247
1299). The chair of St.-Gilles is also the chair of Fontfroide, not that
of Beaucaire. But the composition, the placing of the subject in a
tympanum, must have come from Beaucaire, not from Fontfroide.
Therefore, the sculptor of St.-Gilles knew both Beaucaire and Font-
froide. He is consequently the latest of the three. This conclusion is
confirmed when we observe that his proportions are heavier than
those even of the Fontfroide sculptor ; attenuation has definitely dis-
appeared. The series therefore runs: Beaucaire, Fontfroide, St.-
Gilles.
Now we shall see that the tympanum of St.-Gilles is certainly later
than the central portion of the facade, which was erected about
1 1 40; and there is reason to believe that it may not have been
executed until about 1180. 1
When we place the Virgin of La Daurade (111. 479) in comparison
with this series we easily perceive that she is the latest of the se-
quence. The proportions are the heaviest of all. The draperies full
of many fine folds at Beaucaire gradually become simpler and
broader at Fontfroide and St.-Gilles, but at La Daurade they are the
simplest and broadest of all. The canopies at Beaucaire and St.-
Gilles are destroyed, but it is clear that that of La Daurade is far
more elaborate and developed than that of Fontfroide. The engaged
pediment over the arch with plate tracery indeed is strangely like
Gothic architecture of c. 1200.
Another Virgin of this series is in the cloister of Santillana del Mar
(111. 867). She is obviously the broadest, the squatest, and the latest
of them all. In fact, there are independent reasons for believing that
she can hardly be earlier than the end of the XII century. Yet it is
evident that this very late Virgin is a close relative of the Virgin
of La Daurade. The capitals and ornament of the canopy are very
much the same ; the folds of the drapery over the right knees, the
right upper arms and the lower edge of the garments are similar.
A clumsy imitator of Gilbert's assistant, if I mistake not the very
1 See below, p. 301. For a discussion of the fragmentary Adoration of the Magi at St.-Gilles,
and other workr which also belong to this series, see below, p. 277.
248 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
same who is responsible for many of the Daurade capitals of the
second series (111. 462-473), executed the holy-water basin from Nar-
bonne, now in the Toulouse Museum (111. 486, 487). This, too, must
then date from about the eighth decade of the XII century.
A tympanum of peculiar interest is that of the Cluniac priory of
Carennac (111. 381-385). This is by the hand of a sculptor whom we
have little difficulty in recognizing in the tympanum of another
Cluniac priory, that of Mauriac (111. 1246, 1247) in Auvergne. This
artist certainly has little connection with the school of Toulouse. I
should not be surprised if he came out of some such atelier as that
which created the tomb of the daughters of Ramiro I at Jaca (111.
527). But if he was Aragonese by birth, it is clear that he wandered
far, and absorbed a curious mixture of foreign influences. One of the
most notable is that of Lombardy. The head of the apostle to Christ's
left in the second row of the Carennac tympanum (111. 383) is a faith-
ful reproduction of that of Guglielmo's Jeremiah at Cremona. The
lion beneath the jambs at Mauriac (111. 1249) is certainly the echo of
a Lombard motive. It may be debated whether our sculptor, if he be
Aragonese, derived his knowledge of Lombard art directly or from
the atelier in which he was educated. The school of Aragon shows the
strong influence of Guglielmo, from whose art it is assuredly derived.
The draperies of the skirts of the two figures supporting the aureole
in the tomb of the daughters of Ramiro I (111. 527) are precisely like
those of Enoch and Elijah in the Cremona relief. 1 The gesture and
posture of the angels is exactly that of the Cremona prophets. In the
tomb, draperies are indicated by two parallel incised lines, just as in
the works of Guglielmo. There can then be no doubt of the very close
dependence of the school of Aragon upon Lombardy. Our sculptor's
Lombard draperies, lions and facial types may then have come to
him without a trip to Lombardy.
The Majestas Domini which occupies the centre of the Carennac
tympanum (111. 383) may be derived from the fragments of the
St.-Sernin altar, now enwalled in the ambulatory (111. 296-307). The
1 1 have illustrated this relief in the Gazette des Beaux- Arts, 1919, LXI, 51.
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 249
peculiar division by vertical and horizontal bands in the Carennac
tympanum seems, in fact, to be due to the attempt to adjust to a
lunette a composition which was certainly created for a field of far
different shape. We can feel the effort of the sculptor to accommo-
date a rectangular original to the space of a tympanum.
The horizontal and vertical bands which he introduces recall
Conques (111. 392) on the one hand, and St.-Junien (111. 450) on the
other.
An unexpected affinity of our sculptor is with Germany. The fig-
ure to the extreme right in the upper zone of the tympanum at Car-
ennac (111. 384) reproduces line for line the figure in the right-hand
corner of a miniature of the Perikopenbuch von St. Erentrud in
Munich 1 representing the Crucifixion. There is an unmistakable
similarity between the style of the Carennac artist and that of the
master who executed the tympanum of the Galluspforte at Basel. 2
The animals in the decorative frieze which runs below the tym-
panum at Carennac (111. 382, 383) are among the most spirited and
naturalistic in mediaeval art. They are only rivalled by those of the
St.-Gilles frieze (111. 1315-1317; 1321, 1322), and perhaps also come
eventually from Apulia.
The tympanum at Mauriac (111. 1246, 1247) is certainly later than
that at Carennac (111. 381-385). Burgundian influence is barely per-
ceptible at Carennac (111. 381-385) ; 3 at Mauriac it is predominate
(111. 1246, 1247). It is apparent in the composition, which is pre-
cisely that of Montceaux-1'Etoile (111. 104), in the angels in violent
movement on either side of the aureole and in the leg bands of several
of the apostles (111. 1247). We may safely conjecture that our master
went to Burgundy after he executed Carennac, and before he worked
at Mauriac.
This journey to Burgundy probably took place about 1130, since
our artist brought back the composition of the tympanum of Mont-
1 Illustrated by Swarzenski, No. 200.
2 Illustrated by Dehio und von Bezold, XII, 9.
3 Chiefly in the drapery edge of the upper garment falling diagonally across the knees of
Christ (111. 383).
ISO ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
ceaux-l'Etoile and the motive of leg bands, both of which were con-
spicuously in the air about that time.
Another pilgrimage sculptor of interest is the one who executed the
tympanum of Cahors (111. 421-429) and whose hand it is easy to
recognize also in the sculptures of St.-Martin of Souillac (111. 430)
and in the tympanum of Martel (111. 431-433). The latter, indeed,
if abstraction be made of the modern heads, is one of the most
heraldic and haunting compositions achieved by the school of
Languedoc. The artistic genealogy of our master is not altogether
easy to disentangle. The faces of the Cahors apostles are certainly
derived from the Carennac Master — compare, for example, the
apostle to the right in 111. 427 with the one to the right in 111. 382.
The angels on either side of the aureole (111. 422, 424) are literal copies
of those of the tympanum of Mauriac (111. 1246), which is a work of
the Carennac Master. In the folds of the draperies (111. 429, apostle
with crossed legs, lower half) our sculptor shows knowledge of the
porch of Moissac (111. 377). The composition of the tympanum is
obviously inspired by that of the tympanum of Moissac. (Compare
111. 339 with 111. 422.) Other draperies (for example, the skirts of the
apostle with crossed legs, 111. 429) seem derived from the work of the
Angouleme Master of St.-Gilles (111. 1304). The short tunics of the
figures in the scenes from the life of St. Stephen (111. 423, 426) recall
those of the frieze of St.-Gilles (111. 131 5-1322). l Our artist uses con-
stantly the whisk of drapery consisting of a groove separated by two
sharp edges from turned-over folds (e. g., apostle to extreme right, 111.
429, drapery between feet) which we shall see was invented at Beau-
caire (111. 1299) and copied at St.-Gilles. 2 His canopies seem a de-
velopment of those of the capitals of Chartres, but the trilobed arch
is a Spanish motive. From all this we conclude that the Cahors
tympanum was hardly produced before about 11 50. It is probably
the latest work of the series; the fine simplicity of Martel suggests
that it is earlier, while St.-Martin of Souillac is dull, and presumably
immature.
1 This was suggested to me by Mr. Priest.
2 See below, p. 277, 278.
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 251
It is obvious that the chief inspiration for the frieze of Carrion de
los Condes (111. 722-726) was the lintel of Cahors (111. 427-429). In
the broad lines of the composition, the Majestas Domini reproduces
the type which we have found at St.-Sernin (111. 296), Carennac (111.
381-385) and St.-Junien (111. 450). Here again we have the impres-
sion that an area has been reproduced — the apostles in arches recall
the elders at St.-Junien (111. 450). But in this case I suspect that the
inspiration came not so much from a sculptured tomb, as from a
Limoges chasse. I even venture to suggest that the very model may
have been the reliquary formerly at Santo Domingo de Silos, but
now preserved in the museum of Burgos.
The Limoges origin of this area, generally admitted, has recently
been combatted by Leguina ! who supposes it made in Orense. The
purely Spanish type of the figures will be denied by no one familiar
with Romanesque sculpture, but precisely such figures are character-
istic of the entire group of enamels that pass as work of Limoges.
Limoges was a station on the pilgrimage road ; its great basilica was
another replica of Santiago, and the enamels called Limoges are only
a branch of the art of the pilgrimage. 2 Enamels may be credited with
having played a large part in carrying to the Rhine, and indeed
throughout the world, the forms of pilgrimage sculpture.
There is the same uncertainty regarding the date of the Silos area
as about its place of origin. Rupin, with evident error, assigns it to
the XIII century. Roulin was doubtless closer to the mark in ascrib-
ing it to the last third of the XII century, and Dieulafoy closer still
in placing it in the second half of the XII century. 3 Its figures, in
fact, show the style of c. 11 50.
Now the composition of this chasse is similar to that of the Car-
rion frieze ; and there is furthermore good reason to believe that the
1 167 f.
2 Cf. Molinier, in Michel, I, 2, 871 discussing this area : II semblerait m&me, a certains details
de dessin, que les ouvriers qui ont imagine cette decoration ont pu avoir sous les yeux certains
modules orientaux importes d'Espagne. La chose ne serait pas autrement etonnante puisque,
sur un assez grand nombre de monuments limousins, nous relevons des imitations de caracteres
arabes transform es en ornament et n'ayant plus aucune signification litt6rale.
3 7. Dieulafoy suspected the piece might be Spanish.
252 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
head master at Carrion (for he obviously did not work alone) had
seen the chasse. His style shows close relationship to that of the well-
known Annunciation of the Santo Domingo cloister (111. 72 1). 1 I
almost question, in fact, whether that work be not by his very hand.
In any event, the master of Carrion had certainly been at Silos. The
chasse must then almost surely have come under his observation.
He also sought inspiration in many other quarters besides. He
seems to have known the work of the Charlieu master (111. 108-1 11),
and to have derived thence his hands and feet of such peculiar type,
and the angel sculptured in relief on the column. The draperies of
his Christ are very similar to those of the Virgin of the Charlieu mas-
ter at Donzy (111. 112-114). 2 The canopies which surmount the
apostles are no longer the simple round arches of the Silos area,
which are so strangely like those of St.-Denis (111. 1441, 1442), but
elaborate polylobed canopies which must have come directly from
the lintel of Cahors (111. 427), but ultimately from the capitals of
Chartres or Etampes (111. 1463, 1464). It should be observed, how-
ever, that these canopies probably first originated in Spain, in ivories
like the San Isidoro casket (111. 65 1-653). 3 Certain capitals of
Carrion and the "organ-pipe" draperies are taken from the facade of
St.-Trophime of Aries (111. 1 366-1 377). From Provence came also,
probably, the idea of a sculptured frieze, although the composition at
Carrion resembles Ripoll (111. 584, 587) and Sangiiesa (111. 748) more
closely than anything beyond the Pyrenees. The bestarred aureole
may have been inspired by Conques (111. 393). The drapery about
the legs of the second apostle from the left at Carrion (111. 722) is like
that about the legs of the Virgin in the cathedral of Zamora (111. 740).
The voussures are derived from some monument of Saintonge, pos-
sibly Aulnay (111. 979). Numerous motives have been taken from
Toulouse and the Puerta de las Platerias (111. 674-691).
* The flying angels about the head of the Virgin in this Annunciation seem to have been
copied at St.-Jean-le-Vieux of Perpignan (111. 618).
2 Such tortured draperies are already found in a Carlovingian ivory of the IX century in the
British Museum, illustrated by Dalton, PI. XXII, ai.
8 See what has been said of this motive above, p. 45 f.
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 253
Since our sculptor knew the facade of St.-Trophime (111. 1366-
1377), he must have worked after 11 52. On the other hand, he was
earlier than Mateo. He shows no knowledge of the Portico de la
Gloria (111. 820-840), although he was clearly acquainted with the
earlier work at Santiago (111. 674-691). The activity of Mateo must
have begun in the early 7o's. We may, therefore, date the Carrion
frieze to c. 1165.
Aesthetically, this is one of the grand achievements of the XII cen-
tury. Ruined and battered as it is, we recognize in it immediately
the expression of a great creative mind. The apostles, especially to
the left, are of superb contour and delicious rhythm.
The much-restored Christ of the north portal of Lugo (111. 728) is
inspired by the Christ of Carrion (111. 724).
The inferior and later work at Mimizan (111. 490, 491) also evi-
dently owes much to Carrion. Not only is the motive of a frieze with
the Majestas Domini in the centre and six apostles on either side
taken over directly — for without doubt the fragments of Mimizan
(111. 490, 491) must have formed precisely such a composition — but
numerous details of the drawing of the draperies, the faces, the pos-
ture of several of the apostles as well. Mimizan (111. 490, 491) in turn
seems to be related to the north transept portal of Chartres, built by
the Spanish queen, Blanche of Castile. The sculptures of Mimizan
were also certainly known to the sculptor of the north portal at St.-
Benoit-sur-Loire (111. 1519-1527) who perhaps also saw Carrion (111.
722-726). 1
A curious combination of influences is shown by a capital coming
from Sahagun, now at San Marcos of Leon (111. 768). The artist had
been to Santo Domingo de Silos and had been impressed by the sculp-
tures in the cloister. He combines heads copied from the early work
of the XI century (111. 671) with draperies taken from the Annun-
ciation (111. 721). He must, therefore, have worked after 1160. His
activity is doubtless to be connected with the consecration of 1183.
l The tympanum of St.-Pierre-le-Moutier (111. 1275) * s an evident copy of St.-Benoit-sur-
Loire (111. 1519, 1520).
254 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
A different set of influences came to the front in the extraordinary
sculptures of Sangiiesa (111. 742-754). The close relationship to the
jamb sculptures of Chartres is obvious. The master of the left-hand
side (111. 746) — he has signed his name, Leodegarius (Leger) —
seems, indeed, to have drawn his inspiration solely from Chartres;
but the finer artist of the right-hand jamb (111. 743-745) knew St.-
Loup-de-Naud and Autun as well. The head of the central figure of
the right-hand jamb at Sangiiesa (111. 744) is like that of the jamb
figure left of the portal at St.-Loup (111. 1493). 1 The sensitively
modelled heads and the draperies of the master of the right jamb of
Sangiiesa (111. 746) both recall the Autun tympanum (111. 80, 81). In
the tympanum (111. 747) and upper part of the facade (111. 748-754)
at Sangiiesa other hands are at work. The Last Judgment (111. 747)
of rudimentary type recalls the Moissac tympanum (111. 339), but it
surmounts a Virgin and Apostles in arches after the manner of Char-
tres. The spandrels are filled with miscellaneous bits of sculpture,
some of which show Lombard influence ; the upper part of the portal
with statues in niches is inspired by Pictave models. The style of
certain of the statues in niches is like that of the sculptures flank-
ing the shafts on the facade of Civray (111. 11 22, 11 23, 11 25).
The all-over sculpture of the spandrels, and in fact the entire ar-
chitectural composition, recall Notre-Dame-la-Grande of Poitiers
(111. 951-962). The rows of damned and blest in the tympanum
(111. 747) seem analogous to those of the frieze of St.-Trophime (111.
1366, 1375).
The date of Sangiiesa is a delicate question. The church was given,
it is known, to St. John of Jerusalem in 1 132. It would be natural to
suppose that the reconstruction was begun immediately afterwards.
The sculptors of the portals, however, knew Chartres ; and it is the
orthodox belief that the portal of Chartres was not begun until 1 145.
Of all the derivatives of Chartres, Sangiiesa is by far the most ar-
chaic; we may, therefore, assign the portal to c. 11 55.
1 It is just possible, however, that both may be derived from the work of the head master at
Chartres — see the figure to the left, in Houvet's Plate 42.
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 255
The same combination of widely divergent influences is character-
istic of the remarkable sculptures of Ripoll. Mediaeval art has
created little that is lovelier than certain passages of this rich facade
(111. 560-593). The jamb sculptures (III. 572, 573) must be due to the
influence of Gilbert — his peculiar draperies are reproduced in the
folds of the leg of St. Paul. We also notice rinceaux taken from
Nicolo's work at Sagra S. Michele, voussures from St.-Denis, a saw-
tooth moulding from Rome, monsters from Lombardy, drapery and
heads from the work of Guglielmo. The most significant analogy,
however, is with the bronze doors of Novgorod in Russia. The simi-
larity in the treatment of the draperies is indeed striking. That there
is a direct connection does not seem open to doubt, and in this case
we are able to guess at an explanation. The bronze doors of Nov-
gorod came originally from Plock in Poland. 1 Closely related doors
are those which still exist at Gnesen (Gniezno). Now these Polish
doors were perhaps actually manufactured in Germany ; at any event
they belong to the Teutonic tradition of bronze-casting which
centred at Hildesheim. On the other hand, a local tradition, referred
to by Lamperez 2 claims the facade of Ripoll as the work of a German
monk. We can therefore easily understand how the basis of the art
of this master was the technique of the Saxon bronze-casters. We
can also understand how in his travels a multitude of foreign influ-
ences were grafted upon it.
Since our sculptor worked in Catalonia it is not surprising that he
absorbed elements of the local style. It was perhaps at Solsona that
he came to know the work of Gilbert. Certain of his draperies (111.
565) suggest that he had seen the St. Peter (111. 558) and the St. Paul
(111. 559) of St.-Michel-de-Cuxa. Others are like those of the Joseph
in the Huesca Adoration (111. 532). But we can trace even more ex-
actly how the master of Ripoll absorbed Catalan influences. Senor
Pijoan has demonstrated that in sculpturing the facade of Ripoll the
artist held in his hand a Catalan miniatured Bible of the X century
like the Bible of Farfa — perhaps that very Bible itself — and trans-
1 Furmankiewicz, 365. 2 I, 399.
256 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
ferred from its pages to his walls scene after scene with only minor
changes.
As for date, the facade of Ripoll gives the impression of being later
than Sangiiesa, but it must have been executed before 1160.
San Miguel of Estella (111. 777-785) is distinctly more advanced.
The convention of hatching to represent the feathers of the wings,
common in Spanish sculpture of this period, is, perhaps, derived from
Byzantine originals through ivories of the Ada group. The heads of
the adossed figures of Estella (111. 782, 784) are inspired by those of
the right jamb at Sangiiesa (111. 743-745), but are coarser and later.
Certain draperies seem to have been influenced by the master of Car-
rion (111. 722-726). Others recall the facade of St.-Trophime of Aries
(111. 1366-1377). The prophets seem inspired by those of the Dau-
rade at Toulouse (111. 474-478). We are evidently about 1185.
The master of San Miguel of Estella worked also at Tudela (111.
786-791) and in the cloister of Salamanca (111. 775, 776). Although
the Tudela sculptures have been extravagantly praised, they do not
seem, in point of fact, to be of extraordinary merit.
The work at Armentia (111. 761-767) is more interesting. This is
in some ways the most typical of all the pilgrimage churches. Ideas
are borrowed from everywhere, and the motives of other sculptors
are reproduced with a fidelity that is extraordinary.
A most striking analogy exists between the relief of the Entomb-
ment at Armentia (111. 761) and that representing the same subject
at Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 670). The composition of the two is
the same. The field in each case is divided into two halves by the
horizontal line formed by the tomb, on which lies the body of Christ.
Below are the sleeping guards — an unusual addition to the scene of
the Entombment, found only so far as I know in these two repre-
sentations. Above to the right in both reliefs is the group of the three
Maries ; Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus bend over the body of
Christ, the empty spaces are filled with angels. There can be no
doubt, therefore, that the composition of the Armentia relief was
directly taken over from Santo Domingo. Indeed, the sculptor of
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 257
Armentia copied more than the composition of his great predecessor.
The faces of his three Maries are precisely those of the three Maries
of Santo Domingo — the two middle ones are so similar that we might
easily take them to be the work of the same hand, instead of sepa-
rated by nearly a century. The wings of the angel to the right of the
Armentia relief are clearly copied from the wings of the angel at
Santo Domingo. The body of Christ at Armentia is a crude imitation
of the splendid body of Christ at Santo Domingo. The draperies of
the Maries at Armentia are obviously inspired by the much better
draperies of the corresponding figures at Santo Domingo. The flame-
shaped pebbles below the sarcophagus at Armentia recall those of
the Deposition at Silos (111. 669).
How weak and emaciated is, however, the Armentia version com-
pared with the vigour and noble simplicity of the Silos original ! Nor
has the Armentia sculptor been able to avoid the introduction of
mannerisms of his later age. The round holes on his sarcophagus
recall the friezes of Beaucaire (111. 1298) and St.-Gilles (111. 1391) ;
the flying angels to the left above (111. 761) make us think of the later
work at Santo Domingo (111. 721). The supporting figures (111. 761)
recall Civray (111. 11 28, 11 29) and St. Jacob of Regensburg.
But it was not only at Santo Domingo de Silos that our sculptor
sought inspiration. His adossed figures must come ultimately from
Chartres — not directly, but through some intermediary which I
can not determine ; l the porch with side reliefs was probably copied
from that of St.-Martin of Brive (111. 353, 354) which also was sculp-
tured with reliefs representing the Harrowing of Hell ; in the pen-
dentives of the dome tetramorphs (111. 767) replace the angels of
Compostela (111. 694, 695) ; 2 the tympanum (111. 764, 765) seems like
the weakest and faintest echo of Autun (111. 80, 81) ; the Annuncia-
1 Probably not Civray (111. 1122-1131).
2 The style of the Santiago angels seems related to that of Mateo. To place the evangelists
in pendentives was in accordance with a venerable Byzantine tradition. For the iconography
of the tetramorphs see Bertaux, Italie Meridiona/e, 218. The motive which originated in the
Orient at least as early as the VI century was soon diffused in the West. It is found, for exam-
ple, in an early Irish manuscript — the Gospel of Kells, at Trinity College, Dublin (No. A. 1. 6
(58), fol. 28 ver. illustrated by Zimmermann, 173) ; in a Merovingian manuscript illustrated by
258 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
tion (111. 762) recalls the later work in the cloisters of Santo Domingo
de Silos (111. 721) ; draperies are borrowed now from Aries (111. 1366-
I 377)> now from the master of Carrion (111. 722-726), now from
Chartres ; a labarum and two angels (111. 766) are like the magnifica-
tion of an abacus in the cloister of Moissac (111. 282). Yet for all the
plagiarism and obviously second-rate quality the sculpture at Armen-
tia is far from being despicable. These artists have known how to
impart to their borrowings an atmosphere of wistful tenderness. We
return to their works with a pleasure which is surprising in view of
the technical mediocrity.
The sculptures of Armentia were donated by the bishop of Cala-
horra, D. Rodrigo Cascante (1146-1190). The style indicates that
they were executed in the later rather than in the earlier part of his
pontificate. The work at Armentia seems about abreast of that of
San Miguel of Estella (111. 777-781). On the other hand the sculptors
do not seem to have known Mateo's work at Santiago (111. 820-840).
We may infer, therefore, that Armentia dates from about 1180.
A typical monument of pilgrimage art is, or alas was, the church
of Ste.-Foy at Morlaas (111. 456-460). A Cluniac priory on the road
and dedicated to the great saint of Conques, it naturally fell under
precisely the same influences as the monuments beyond the Pyrenees.
The restoration of the XIX century has unhappily reduced the mag-
nificent portal (111. 456-460) to a pitiable state. What remains is, in-
Leprieur in Michel I, 1, 314; in an English Gospel of the XII century, illustrated Burlington,
PI. 24 ; and in the Perikopenbuch von St. Erentrud, Munich, Kgl. Hof- und Statsbibliothek,
Clm 15903, c. p. 52; in a capital of Moissac, and in two Beatus manuscripts.
It was not, I think, as one might be tempted to suppose, from the sculptures placed under
pendentives like Conques (111. 388, 389) and Santiago (111. 694, 695) that are derived those of
the vaulting ribs of the Catedral Vieja of Salamanca (111. 736-739). The latter are much more
probably inspired from northern France. As early as the end of the XI century, sculptures
were placed flanking the vaulting shafts at Airvault (111. 898-900). At Bury these sculptures
had already been moved to the base of the ribs. It was, however, especially in the Loire valley
that the motive became popular ; we find it at Cormery, at Crouzilles, at St.-Martin of Angers,
in the porch of Loches, at La Trinit6 of Vendome (111. 151 6-1 5 18). It was from this region that
the motive found its way into Spain, to the porch of San Martin of Segovia, to Salamanca (111.
736-739), to Ciudad Rodrigo (111. 873), to the Portico de la Gloria at Santiago (111. 837, 838).
The style of San Martin of Segovia resembles that of the West in several particulars. The
jamb sculptures (111. 755, 756) are extraordinarily close to those of Vereaux (111. 1479-1481) a
monument which if not situated in Poitou is still well west of Burgundy.
LATER PILGRIMAGE SCULPTURE 259
deed, modern. A few fragments preserved in the local museum and
casts under the rafters of the roof are all that can give an idea of the
quality of what must have been one of the most interesting portals
of southern Europe.
Light is thrown upon the original character of Morlaas by a com-
parison with the portal of Ste.-Marie at Oloron (III.461). This monu-
ment has also suffered from a reconstruction almost as radical, but
some bits of the ancient work have happily survived. Although the
restorations undergone by both monuments make any close analysis
of style impossible, there can be little doubt that the two are the
work of the same artist. In both two minor tympana are grouped
under a larger one. The grotesque figures in the two archivolts show
the closest analogies. The peculiar ornament of rosette-like flowers
is repeated in both works. So also is the moulding ornamented with
a series of little round balls. The strings of the outer archivolt are
identical in the two monuments. In both the figures are placed float-
ing in space as it were, without the indication of any support be-
neath their feet.
A conspicuous element in the style of both portals is the evident
Burgundian influence. The motive of twin portals with tympana
grouped under a larger tympanum recalls Avallon. It is true that
twin portals are also characteristic of Santiago ; and it is certain that
our sculptor knew the work of Mateo and his predecessors. The
elders of Oloron are obvious derivatives of those of the Portico de la
Gloria (111. 824-828) ; and the iconography of Morlaas with Christ
and the evangelists has equally evident analogies with the Puerta
Francigena. But the borrowings of our master from Burgundy are
even more patent. The Flight into Egypt of the right-hand tym-
panum of Morlaas (111. 458) resembles vaguely the unforgettable
rendering of the same theme at Bois-Ste.-Marie (111. 142). The
adossed jamb figures at Morlaas are placed high up, in the Burgun-
dian manner (which, however, was also copied in the Portico de la
Gloria). The floating of the figures in space (to which attention has
already been called), suggests the figures on the archivolt of Anzy-
26o ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
le-Duc (111. 96). The movement of the angels in one of the capitals
to the left at Morlaas (111. 460) is distinctly Burgundian. There is
noticeable, likewise, the influence of the master of the southern porch
of St.-Sernin (111. 308-316) who also worked at Santiago. His are the
draperies, his the feet, his the movement of the apostles at Morlaas.
From Lombardy came the caryatids of the trumeau of Morlaas and
of the voussures with the elders. The Morlaas elders themselves, like
the figures of the outer voussures, all seated on a roll-moulding, are
perhaps later derivatives of the north portal at Toro (111. 734). We
are clearly in the last quarter of the XII century.
In the cloister of Oviedo are two curious reliefs (111. 869, 870), dat-
ing, perhaps, from about 1200, representing St. Peter and St. Paul.
This strange art, in which the vigorous archaic modelling of the dra-
peries and bodies contrasts so strangely with the Gothically immobile
faces, reappears at Santillana del Mar, where in the cloister are, by
the same hand, a Virgin (111. 867), a Santa Juliana with devil and a
most impressive Christ (111. 868). A singular echo of the style of this
pilgrimage artist may be found in the distant Capitanata in a relief
at Rapolla, dated 1209. 1 The strange altar at Santillana (111. 861) is
of a different, though not unrelated style; and to the same atelier
belong the capitals of the cloister (111. 862-866). This group of sculp-
tors is, perhaps, connected with Leire (111. 71 1-7 16) on the one hand,
and the Puerta de las Platerias (111. 674-691) on the other.
The crude sculptures of San Quirce (111. 717) may be considered
another off-shoot of the pilgrimage style. They are possibly distant
relatives of Leire (111. 71 1-7 16).
1 Illustrated by Bertaux, Ital. Mer. y 517.
V
THE PORTICO DE LA GLORIA
We have now arrived at the moment when there dawned in Spain
a third period of sculpture, unhappily of brief duration, but in some
respects even more brilliant than that which opened the XII century.
This golden age is ushered in by the sculptures of the Camara Santa
of Oviedo (111. 811-819). In the dim light of a small chapel, the fig-
ures of supernatural apostles are adossed two by two against the
vaulting-shafts. An Egyptian solemnity invests these sculptures,
which, indeed, unite the fervour and imagination -of Spain, the
restraint of France, the delicacy of Burgundy, the strength of Tou-
louse, with an exaltation that could only be mediaeval. In compari-
son even the Portico de la Gloria (111. 820-840) seems coarse and
cold. This, not that, is the supreme master-work.
Who was this superlatively gifted sculptor ? I was at one time
tempted to believe that the Oviedo Camara Santa was an early
work of Mateo. But the hypothesis, seductive as it is, can not be
held. Notwithstanding the many analogies, the difference in style
is too great. The Oviedo master is a comet which flashes with ex-
traordinary brilliance across the horizon, then disappears. At a
period when the sculptors of northern France were listlessly repeat-
ing the time -worn gospel of Chartres ; when Provence was sinking
into such senility as the tympanum of Maguelonne (111. 1384) ; when
Benedetto had not yet awakened Lombardy to new life; when his
own compatriots were patching together works out of stolen frag-
ments with as little conscience as a modern architect and as little
coherence as a crazy quilt, this unknown artist created out of his
own genius a great and a new manner. In his work there breathes
the spirit rather than the detail of the destroyed jamb sculptures of
St.-Denis (111. 1445-1457) ; his draperies are analogous to those of
262 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the Romanesque tomb now incorporated in the north transept portal
of Reims ; his beard conventions recall the XI T century crucifixes of
S. Isidoro (111. 654,703) and the Cutbrecht Gospels of Vienna; 1 he
shows relationship to, perhaps even derivation from, the master of
Carrion (111. 722-726). Yet when we have deduced from his manner
all this and much else which cleverer eyes than mine will still discover,
we have not plucked the heart of his mystery. A great artist is always
incomprehensible. And this sculptor was great. Nothing in Tou-
louse, nothing in Languedoc, nothing in Spain (unless it be Santo
Domingo de Silos), I almost wrote nothing in Europe, surpasses the
apostles of Oviedo.
Mateo knew Oviedo, certainly. He knew much else besides. The
Christ of the Puerta de las Platerias (111. 676), which must be part
of the original doorway, since specifically mentioned in the Guide y
exercised a profound influence upon Mateo as, indeed, upon much
other work of the XII century. Mateo's lovely St. James (111. 830)
is certainly derived from this model.
From Burgundy Mateo came by his jamb sculptures, raised above
the columns ; the great figure of the Deity in the centre of the tym-
panum, and the figure on the trumeau below; perhaps, too, the
idea of a porch. From Lombardy — or was it peradventure Apulia ?
— came the portrait of the artist (111. 831), and the monsters under
the columns (111. 832), the latter, perhaps, by the way of Provence.
From Aries came, I suppose, the proportions of his jamb figures,
which seem to approach this canon more closely than that of north-
ern France.
The result of these influences, plus the genius of M? teo, was the
first work of Gothic sculpture in Europe. Neither the Porte-Ste.-
Anne of Paris, nor the jambs of Senlis (111. 1508) foresnadowed to
such an extent the future development of the style. It is not too
much to say that the work of Mateo stood to the XIII :entury in
much the same relationship as that in which the early school of the
pilgrimages stood to the XII century.
*Lat. 1224, fol. 17 b, illustrated by Zimmermann, 297.
THE PORTICO DE LA GLORIA 263
Little of Mateo's life is known. We find him at work at Santiago
in 1 168; twenty years later the doors of the Portico de la Gloria
(111. 820-840) were hung, so that the sculptures must have been
essentially finished by this time. As late as 1217, however, he was
still master-builder at Compostela.
The Portico de la Gloria is in quality less fine than the Camara
Santa (111. 81 1-8 19) of Oviedo. This or that detail has been surpassed
by this or that master of northern France. But for the sum of the
impressions it remains, perhaps, the most overwhelming monument
of mediaeval sculpture.
Notwithstanding the casts which were made for the South Ken-
sington Museum, the polychromy is still on the whole well preserved.
This singularly increases the realism of the figures. In northern
Europe the colouring of the statues has usually been destroyed ; but
one suspects that it was never as vivid and naturalistic as that which
still remains on Mateo's work. These figures are, indeed, almost
startling, they seem so to jump out at us; their effect may be com-
pared to that produced by certain Florentine painters of the Quattro-
cento such as Castagno or Pollaiuolo. Their existence is realized with
extraordinary facility. They anticipate the naturalism of Claus
Sluter.
We have here not the symbolic and dogmatic art of the Gothic
cathedrals of the North ; it is much more a good-natured realism not
without a streak of vulgarity ; an art which would impress quickly
the passing crowd and required no painstaking study for its appre-
ciation. In all this it is fair to see the point of view of the average
pilgrim with his interest in the extraordinary, his bonhommerie, and
his, perhaps, not over-profound intellect.
The influence of the art of Mateo, as might be expected, was
enormous. The sculptures of the cathedral of Orense (111. 852-859)
have long been recognized as having been inspired by the Portico de
la Gloria. Although they are assuredly far from equalling their
original, they by no means deserve the aspersions which it has been
fashionable to heap upon them. The western portal of San Vicente
264 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
of Avila (111. 841-849) is one of the best works inspired by Mateo ; in
quality it is indeed little if at all below his level. It seems here as if
the Mateo tradition had been purified by fresh drafts from Bur-
gundy. The Annunciation (111. 841) of the south portal, as M.
Bertaux recognized, is by the same hand. Ciudad Roderigo (111.
876-878), Toro (111. 886-889), the portal of the Colegio San Jeronimo
at Santiago, may all be considered as derivatives of the Portico de la
Gloria. 1 Miss King recognizes the same influence at S. Julian of
Moraime. Even as late as 1404, the sculptor of the portal of S.
Martin of Noya still repeated the types of Mateo.
But it was not only in Spain that the influence of Mateo was felt.
His art, as little as that of his predecessors, found in the Pyrenees a
barrier.
The sculptors of Bamberg sought inspiration from Mateo. It has
been much discussed whether the apostles and prophets of the choir-
screen are derived from Saxony, from Byzantine tradition, or from
Toulouse. It is probable that the sculptor was acquainted not only
with Saxony and the sculptures of St.-Etienne (111. 434-443) and
Cahors (111. 422-429), but also with the jamb sculptures of Santiago
(111. 820-840). His Isaiah 2 is reminiscent of the prophet to the left
of the left-hand doorway at Santiago (111. 820). This Compostelan
prophet seems, indeed, to have inspired the facial type of the school
of Bamberg. The Bamberg sculptors were also influenced by the
Daniel of Santiago (111. 829 b). The Hosea 3 of Bamberg is mani-
festly inspired by this model of which it reproduces even the curls.
The Bamberg "smile" may as well be derived from Santiago direct,
as via Reims.
Internal evidence, therefore, justifies the inference that the mas-
ter of Bamberg had been to Compostela. Now there is external proof
that he had been to Palestine. He has sculptured his own portrait in
the tympanum of the Gnadetiir. On the sleeve of his coat may
clearly be seen a cross, indicating that he had made the pilgrimage to
1 See Buschbeck, 48 f.
2 Illustrated by Weese, 5. It is the prophet holding a saw, next to the David.
3 Illustrated by Weese, 4.
THE PORTICO DE LA GLORIA 265
the Holy Land. We are probably justified in assuming, that, like so
many others, he combined this journey with that to Santiago.
It was, however, in France that the work of Mateo proved most
fecund. His St. James on the central trumeau of Santiago (111. 830)
is the ancestor of the Beaux Dieux of Chartres and Amiens. The
great porches of Chartres were, perhaps, inspired by Mateo's Portico
de la Gloria, which, as originally built, must have produced a not
dissimilar effect. It is certain that the masters of Chartres had
studied Santiago. The head of the Queen of Sheba of the north por-
tal of Chartres l reproduces exactly the head of the queen on the outer
respond of the Portico de la Gloria (I1L 839). The torso of a jamb
sculpture from Notre-Dame of Paris, now in the Musee de Cluny, 2
reproduces, line for line and stroke for stroke, the corresponding
portions of the Daniel of Santiago (III. 829). The elders now in the
Musee Archeologique of Montpellier 3 (111. 1400-1402) and said, I
know not on what authority, to come from St.-Guilhem-le-Desert,
are evident copies of the voussure sculptures of the Portico de la
Gloria (111. 824-828).
In Switzerland we find the Portico de la Gloria accurately copied
in the cathedral of Lausanne ; 4 the apostles of the Miinster at Basle
owe their draperies to the same original. 5 In England, as Mssrs.
Prior and Gardner have recognized, the celebrated statues of York
repeat the models of Mateo. 6
The sculptors of Reims sought inspiration at Santiago. The
statue of Daniel, on the left jamb of the Portico de la Gloria (111.
829, 829 b) determined the type which gives the school of Reims its
peculiar and unforgettable character. It is the influence of archaic
Santiago that lifts Reims above the classicism and monotony of the
work at Amiens or the south portal of Chartres. Everywhere through
the cathedral of Reims echoes and re-echoes the theme of the Daniel
of Santiago, but varied and beautified. We recognize it in the angels
1 Illustrated by Houvet, 41. 2 Photograph by Stoedtner, No. 130058.
3 14 rue Eugene Lisbonne. 4 Illustrated by Michel, II, 1, 196.
5 Illustrated by Lindner, Taf. VIII. 6 See Prior and Gardner, 214.
266 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
of the buttresses, in the angel of the Annunciation (829 a), almost
unaltered in the Sourire, embellished and transposed, but still unmis-
takable in the Joseph, in the Anna, in the Queen of Sheba, in the
Solomon, in the caryatid of the west facade, in the angels of the
Coronation. 1 The smile of Reims is indeed as old as archaic Greece
and as young as the Mona Lisa. It had lurked upon the lips of num-
berless Buddhas before it alighted on those of the angels of Mono-
poli (111. 158). It continued to fascinate the sculptors and ivory-
carvers of the XIV century.
It is, I think, admitted by competent critics that the sculptures of
Reims show German influence. It has not, however, so far as I am
aware, been remarked that the head of a prophet about the rose of
the south transept 2 reproduces the Jonah of the Bamberg choir-
screen. 3 The Reims figure, I think, must be a work of that sculptor
of the second atelier at Bamberg, who has been suspected on inde-
pendent grounds of having been connected first with the earlier
atelier at Bamberg, then with Reims (where he shows himself espe-
cially familiar with the transepts) before being called to direct the
second Bamberg atelier. I detect, indeed, his hand at Reims also in
an angel of a buttress of the south facade. 4 The suspicion arises that it
may have been this master who fetched the smile of Mateo's Daniel
from Santiago and handed it on to the " Joseph master " of Reims.
However this may be, the debt of the sculptors of Reims to San-
tiago does not end with the smile. Other facial types appear to be
derived from the same original. More than this, the Reims sculptors
owe to Santiago one of their happiest innovations. At Chartres, at
Amiens, at Senlis, in all the older northern French portals, the jamb
figures stand in rigid rows, facing nearly or quite stark outwards.
Mateo had animated his (111. 829, 834) ; they turn as if to talk with
one another. Now this motive of Mateo's is reproduced at Reims.
1 All these sculptures are reproduced by Vitry.
2 Illustrated by Vitry, II, PI. LVII.
3 Illustrated by Weese, II, 4
4 Illustrated by Vitry, II, PI. LXVIII.
VI
ST.-GILLES
We are fortunate in being able to commence our study of the
Provencal school with a dated monument. The sculptured altar of
St. Cannate and St. Antonin in the Cathedrale Ancienne at Marseille
(111. 1283, 1284) seems to have escaped the attention of those who
have written upon the controverted subject of southern French
Romanesque. Yet this monument contains the solution of nearly all
the difficulties, for it was erected in 1 122. 1
The style is singularly archaic in the draperies, singularly ad-
vanced in the facial types. The sagging folds in the middle of the
skirt of St. Cannate are more finely executed, but essentially like
those of one of the figures flanking the vaulting shafts of the church
at Airvault (111. 899), a monument consecrated in 1100. The side
folds also recall the same model. Indeed, it is probable that these
draperies show that there was already an influence of the school of
the West in Provence. The facial types on the other hand seem to
foreshadow much later work. That of the Virgin is closely analogous
to Gilbert's Virgin at Solsona (111. 552).
This Virgin of the Marseille altar seems, indeed, to have exerted a
peculiar influence upon monuments of the fifth decade of the XII
century. It apparently was the original from which was derived the
Virgin of the south tympanum at Chartres. When we place these
two sculptures beside each other, we perceive that the composition
is the same in both. In both the Virgin is seated on a throne; in
both she holds the Child square in the middle of her lap ; in both the
Child's feet hang stiffly down below the bottom of His draperies ; in
1 Caeteras SS. Cannati et Antonini Reliquias, clero prius populoque palam ostensas, decenti
arcae inclusit Raymundus Massiliensis episcopus anno 1122 die Assumptae in coelo Virgini
Mariae sacro, cujus quidem rei ex Archivis ecclesiae Massiliensis Henricus de Belzance sequens
testimonium exhibet, etc. {Acta Sanctorum, 15 October VII, 1, 20.)
268 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
both the Virgin's feet emerge stiffly below hers ; the left hand of the
Virgin in both is held in the same position ; the right hand of Christ
was in both raised in blessing ; the facial type of the Virgin is in both
the same ; the crown of the Virgin has in both the same form ; the
face of the Christ Child is in both the same ; there is even a certain
similarity in the draperies, although those of Marseille are obviously
more archaic. It appears, therefore, that the Master of the Angels,
when he sculptured the southern tympanum of Chartres, set the
Virgin of Marseille under the canopy of Beaucaire and added a pair
of Burgundian angels.
The advanced facial types of the Marseille area recall the fact that
the school of Provence was distinguished for the naturalism of its
faces as early as the XI century, as is witnessed by the tomb of St.
Isarneof 1048 (111. 1278).
In the portal of the cathedral of Maguelonne constructed in 1 178 l
(as recorded in verses by the celebrated troubadour Bernard de
Treviis inscribed upon it) 2 are incorporated earlier fragments of
sculpture. These consist of the crouching forms of St. Peter (111.
1287) an d St. Paul (111. 1288), obviously fragments of a tympanum,
and two consoles (111. 1285, 1286). It is a curious fact that the faces
of the tympanum sculptures are repeated on the consoles. Evidently
then the consoles also represent St. Peter and St. Paul.
The style of these figures at Maguelonne (111. 1 285-1 288) does not
seem to be closely related to that of the Marseille altar (111. 1283,
1284). At Marseille we found advanced faces and archaic draperies;
at Maguelonne the draperies seem more developed than the faces.
Yet there are similarities between the two works. There is the same
peculiar little spiral in the draperies on the right shoulder of the
Marseille St. Cannate (111. 1283) anc * on tne r ig nt shoulder of the
Maguelonne St. Paul (111. 1288). The grooving of the draperies
if AD PORTV VITE: SITIENTES QVIQ VENITE:
HAS INTRANDO FORES: VESTROS COMPONITE MORES:
HINC INTRANS ORA TVA SEP(ER) CRIMIfNA PLORA:
QVICQD PECCATVR: LACRIMA(RVM) FONTE LAVATVR f
BD' III VIIS FECIT HOC f ANO INC D\ MCLXXVIII
2 See Joubin.
ST.-GILLES 269
about this shoulder of the Marseille St. Cannate (111. 1283) resembles
the grooving in the skirts of the right thigh of the Maguelonne Si.
Paul (111. 1288). The facial types are not without affinity, although
Marseille is finer. In both there is the same bald handling, the same
love of broad surfaces, the same tendency towards conventionali-
zation.
A closer parallel to the fragments of Maguelonne is to be found in
the lunettes of Angouleme. This cathedral we shall see was begun in
mo and finished about 11 28. The composition of the lunettes (111.
936-940) with two crouching figures at the ends, and a third figure
between them, is precisely the composition of the Maguelonne tym-
panum (111. 1287, 1288). Moreover, when we compare the draperies
of the right thigh of the Maguelonne St. Paul (111. 1288) with those
between the legs of the central figure in the Angouleme lunette
(111. 938) we see that there is a similar division into strands ending in
a curve which is like a Greek fret made very rapidly. Again, there-
fore, we feel the influence of the school of the West upon Provence.
This crouching attitude is very characteristic of sculptures of the
first quarter of the XII century. We find it, for example, in the
bronze doors of Rogerius, made for the mausoleum of Bohemond at
Canosa, a dated monument of im-1118, in the figures just below
Christ, variously explained as princes, or as personages of the Trans-
figuration. 1
The tympanum of San Pablo al Campo of Barcelona, a church
consecrated in 11 25, has precisely the same composition which must
have existed at Maguelonne. In the centre is Christ (111. 550) ; at the
ends the two crouching figures of St. Peter and St. Paul. The simi-
larity does not, however, extend to the style ; the draperies of the
Barcelona sculptures impress one as much more advanced than
those of Maguelonne (111. 1285-1288).
The Maguelonne fragments also present points of contact with the
ambulatory sculptures of St.-Sernin (111. 296-305) which date from
1 This attitude is found as early as 980 in the figure of St. Paul in a miniature of the Bene-
dictional of St. Aethelwold at Chatsworth, of the school of Winchester, illustrated by Warner
and Wilson, /. 96.
270 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
about 1 105. There is the same love of polished surfaces, the same
brutality of treatment, the same vigour. Maguelonne is, however,
patently later. The faces are more characterized, and indicated in
more detail ; there is more movement — in this respect Maguelonne
is abreast of the tympanum of St.-Sernin (111. 308-317); — the
draperies are far more developed and more naturalistic.
From all this we conclude that the fragments of Maguelonne must
be considerably later than 1 105 and somewhat earlier than 1 125. We
may ascribe them to c. 11 20 with confidence. They, without doubt,
belonged to the choir of the cathedral built by the bishop Galterius
(mo-1133). 1 In 1 178, they were incorporated in the reconstruction
of the bishop Jean II de Montlaur (1159-1190). 2
The next monument shows a most notable development. It is the
area (111. 1289, 1290) of St.-Hilaire, first bishop of Carcasonne, now
preserved in the church of the town of the same name.
The form of this sarcophagus shows the evident copying of a Ro-
man model ; it is the earliest example in Provence of that classic in-
fluence which has been so widely remarked in the sculpture of the
school. I suspect that this may first have come in through the copy-
ing of an antique sarcophagus in an area precisely like this one at
St.-Hilaire. Our sculptor without question owed much to his antique
original. He preserved, however, his own tradition. The draperies
indicated by angular grooves (111. 1289, 1290) are a development of
those we have already observed about the legs and in the girdle of
the St. Paul of Maguelonne (111. 1288). The violent movement came
from the same source. It is also certain that our sculptor held in his
hand a Byzantine ivory. His facial types are peculiar, and without
relation to others that I know in sculpture. The forehead is low, the
eye-brow deeply arched, the nose sharp, the eye of a peculiar pointed
oval type. Now precisely such faces are found in a Byzantine ivory
casket of the XI century in the Museo Kirchiano at Rome. 3
1 Galterius caput ecclesie Magalonensis ruinosum fulcivit {cit. Mortet, 90).
2 Videns ecclesiam ruinam minari, . . . eccelesia vetus demolita est et nova ex majori parte
constructa {ibid., 91).
8 Illustrated by Graeven, II, 59.
ST.-GILLES 271
The area of St.-Hilaire is evidently much more advanced than the
fragments of Maguelonne (111. 1285-1288). Since the latter we have
seen must date from about 11 20, St.-Hilaire may be ascribed to c.
1 130.
The celebrated frieze at Beaucaire (111. 1 292-1 298) is related to
the St.-Hilaire area (111. 1289, 1290). The draperies in both cases are
formed on the same system of angular grooving. There is the same
tendency to cover the entire surface with these grooves. Beaucaire
is the logical culmination of the method of design inaugurated at
Maguelonne (111. 1285-1288). The relationship of Beaucaire and St.-
Hilaire is, moreover, witnessed by a similarity of spirit ; both works
are vigorous and determined, full of movement and naturalism.
It is therefore entirely probable that the Beaucaire sculptor came
out of the same atelier as the one of St.-Hilaire, or at least from one
closely allied. His style was, however, deeply influenced by the work
of the Flagellation Master at Santiago (111. 680). In fact, if we put
the Christ at the Column of Beaucaire (111. 1297) beside the render-
ing of the same subject at Compos tela (111. 680), we shall perceive
how much the Beaucaire sculptor owes to this source. The two
Christs are in fact strikingly alike. The right arm is held in the same
position, there is the same too large head, the expression is the same,
the features are of the same cast, the hair falls down the back in the
same manner, the two loin-cloths are alike even to the knot in front.
It is evident that the Beaucaire rendering is more naturalistic, more
brutal. The hair and face are more realistic. The Santiago Christ
is more refined, more restrained, more sensitive, more archaic.
It is probable that the Beaucaire Master took over not only this
figure of Christ from the Puerta de las Platerias. Unfortunately both
series of reliefs are fragmentary. In each probably was represented
at length the story of the Passion, 1 but it so happens that Christ at
the Column is the only subject which has been preserved in both.
1 It is true that the missing scenes at Santiago are not mentioned in the Guide. They may-
well, nevertheless, have existed. The sculptured cycles were doubtless originally inspired by
some miniature, like that of the cathedral of Auxerre.
272 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
When we see how exactly the Beaucaire Master has taken over this
one figure, we can hardly doubt that the entire frieze of Beaucaire
was little more than a transcription of the reliefs at Santiago. We are
confirmed in this conjecture by observing that the cross which is seen
in the hands of an executioner at Santiago (111. 680) is precisely like
the cross which is carried by Christ at Beaucaire (111. 1297, 1289).
The tympanum of Beaucaire, of which the Virgin (the subject
represented was the Adoration of the Magi) still survives (111. 1299)
was certainly not by the master of the frieze. The long straight folds
of the drapery, the attenuation, the finer quality, show a very differ-
ent, and much superior, touch. These " organ-pipe " draperies must
be derived from the Christ of the Puerta de las Platerias (111. 676).
In fact, the master of the Beaucaire tympanum was clearly well
acquainted with Compostela. His composition is evidently inspired
by the eastern tympanum of the Puerta de las Platerias (111. 680).
Here, in fact, we have the same subject similarly placed in a tympa-
num ; the Virgin is seated precisely as at Beaucaire ; the Child is
seated in the same way on her left knee ; her left hand touches His
elbow in exactly the same manner ; even the folds of drapery about
her neck are the same. The tympanum of Beaucaire was a reproduc-
tion of the tympanum of Santiago, plus the draperies of the Santiago
Christ, and plus certain other new features.
The latter, I think, were probably derived from a Byzantine
ivory Madonna of the XI century of the well-known type of which
there is an example in the Metropolitan Museum at New York. 1
Here we find draperies which might have given to the Beaucaire
Virgin everything which the Santiago Christ did not supply. The
general type is strikingly analogous to that of the Beaucaire Virgin.
There is the same attenuation, the same thin hands, the Child's head
is set on the body in the same jerky way, the Child's right hand is
similarly extended, the Virgin's right hand is in the same position,
her feet are similarly treated. The distinctive feature of the Beau-
caire tympanum is the introduction of a canopy over the Virgin. It
1 Illustrated in Art in America, 1922, X, 198.
ST.-GILLES 273
was this which seems to have particularly struck contemporary
sculptors, and was, as we have seen, 1 frequently reproduced. Now
this motive of a canopy must certainly have come from Byzantine
ivories, in which the motive is frequent. There may, in fact, very
well have been just such a canopy over the New York Madonna,
since the background of the figure, which once existed, has been
broken away.
The much finer quality of the work in the tympanum of Beau-
caire might make us suppose it later than the frieze. There is, how-
ever, proof that the two are contemporary. In the scene of the Maries
buying spices the sculptor of the frieze has copied the draperies of
the Master of the Tympanum. The skirts of these three figures
(111. 1298) are evidently reproductions of those of the Virgin (111.
1299).
The date of Beaucaire may be determined from the circumstances
that the frieze is later than St.-Hilaire (c. 1130) and, as we shall
presently see, earlier than St.-Gilles which dates from about 1140.
We shall therefore not risk falling into serious error if we assign it to
c 1 135.
Several hands may be distinguished in the sculptures of the facade
of St.-Gilles (111. 1302-1328).
By the first, whom I shall venture to designate as the Angouleme
Master, is the St. Thomas (111. 1304), the podium reliefs representing
the Sacrifice of Cain and Abel (111. 1325) and the Murder of Abel
(111. 1324) and the relief under the columns representing David and
Goliath (111. 1326). This sculptor also, I think, touched up some of
the draperies of the *SV. James the Less (111. 1305) by the Third
Master.
The Angouleme Master has usually been considered Toulousan
for no better reason than that the legs of the St. Thomas (111. 1304) are
crossed. There can, however, be little doubt that he really came
from the West. If we compare the St. Thomas with the lunettes of
1 See above, p. 245 f. The canopy was also copied in the tympana of the cathedral of Valence
(111. 1 1 89) and Notre-Dame-du-Port of Clermont-Ferrand (111. 1158).
274 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the cathedral at Angouleme (111. 936-940), we shall at once perceive
that the two works are characterized by the same movement, the
same draperies, the same technical peculiarities. At St.-Gilles, how-
ever, the style is notably more advanced and exaggerated.
The relief of David and Goliath (111. 1326) may be compared with
a capital representing the same subject at Notre-Dame-de-la-Couldre
of Parthenay (111. 1045).
It is certain that this master, like the sculptors of Angouleme, fell
under the strong influence of miniatures. The relief of the Sacrifice of
Cain and Abel (111. 1325) for example, shows unmistakable indica-
tions of having been inspired by this source. 1 The ideas may well
indeed have come to our sculptor from the X-century Bible of St.-
Aubin of Angers. 2 The sculptors of Angouleme also fell under the
spell of manuscripts. The resemblance between Angouleme and
St.-Gilles is, however, much greater than can be accounted for by a
common manuscript source. If we compare the apostle to the right
of the lunette to the south of the portal at Angouleme (111. 938) with
the Cain in the St.-Gilles Sacrifice (111. 1325), we shall be convinced
that the St.-Gilles artist knew the work at Angouleme.
The second hand which may be distinguished at St.-Gilles is that
of the sculptor Brunus. His signature may be read near the statue of
St. Matthew (111. 1302). 3 The St. Bartholomew (111. 1303) which is
the next statue to the south shows a style identical with that of the
St. Matthew (111. 1302) ; it also, therefore, must be by the hand of
Brunus. The four statues flanking the central portal — St. Peter
(111. 1308, 1309), St. John (111. 1306, 1307), St. Paul (111. 131 1) and
St. James the Less (111. 13 10) — are notably more advanced in style,
but are also by the hand of Brunus. As this has been generally ad-
1 See, for example, St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 902, illustrated by Merton, PL IL and
L, No. 2 ; Perikopenbuch von St. Erentrud of Munich, Kgl. Hof- und Stadtsbibliothek, Clm.
15903, c. p. 52, illustrated by Swarzenski, No. 200; Bamberg Apocalypse, ed. Wollflin; minia-
ture of Christ before Pilate in Perikopenbuch Kaiser Heinrichs II, Reichenau school before
1 01 4, illustrated by Leidinger, V, 1 8 ; or the draperies of a bed-cover in a miniature of an Eng-
lish manuscript of the XII century, Brit. Mus. MS. 37472, No. 1.
2 Compare the Christ illustrated by Boinet, PI. CLII. The manuscript is preserved in the
Bibliotheque de la Ville at Angers, No. 4.
3 BRVNVS ME FECIT.
ST.-GILLES 275
mitted by the critics, and as the reader has the photographs under
his eyes, it is unnecessary to weary him with a repetition of the
reasoning which leads to the attribution.
These works show an extraordinary variation of style. If we should
try to place them in chronological order, we should have to arrange
the series: St. Matthew (111. 1302), St. Bartholomew (111. 1303), St.
James the Less (111. 1310), St. Peter (111. 1308, 1309), St. Paul (111.
131 1) and St. John (111. 1306, 1307).
Brunus worked not only at St.-Gilles. The sculptures of the portal
of Romans (111. 1334, 1335) have been recognized to be by his hand.
These are evidently the latest of the series.
We have, therefore, not a few works through which we can trace
the growth of this artistic personality. In the St. Matthew (111. 1302)
we find him gruff, coarse and heavy. The folds of the undergarment
over the chest show the unmistakable influence of the school of the
pilgrimage — compare for example the David of Santiago (111. 687).
These folds are much modified in the St. Bartholomew (111. 1303) ; but
in the later works they are no longer found. There are, however, even
in the later works, numerous reminiscences of the pilgrimage school.
The peculiar series of tight-clinging folds like metal rings, in which
terminates the right sleeve of the St. Bartholomew of St.-Gilles (111.
I 3°3)i is precisely the same mannerism as that which is found in the
right sleeve of the Christ at Santiago (111. 676). The lower skirts of
the draperies of the St. Bartholomew (111. 1303) and especially of the
St. John (111. 1307) at St.-Gilles are certainly derived from the skirts
of the Christ at Santiago (111. 676). Only thence could have come the
long parallel folds, the wavy bottom edge, the "organ-pipe" effect.
The folds on the left leg of the St.-Gilles St. Matthew (111. 1302) are
like those on the right leg of the Santiago St. James (111. 676). The
peculiar ornament of the border of St. Peter's garment (111. 1308)
must have been inspired by some border ornament like those of the
Souillac Isaiah (111. 344) of the Moissac Beatus Rogerus (111. 379), or
Virgin of the Adoration (111. 375). The face of the St. Peter (111. 1308)
at St.-Gilles is distinctly reminiscent of the facial types of the
276 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Betrayal Master of Santiago (111. 680) and Conques (111. 392-401).
The draperies of the upper part of the left sleeve of the St.-Gilles
St. Bartholomew (111. 1303) reproduce those of the lower part of
the left sleeve of the angel facing to the right in the St.-Sernin
ambulatory (111. 300). We may conclude that Brunus knew pilgrim-
age sculpture before he executed any of the works which have come
down to us.
Other features of his early style show different influences. The
wattled socks of the St. Matthew are a motive we have already found
at Cluny (111. 7) ; but in Brunus' version it has become strangely
clumsy and heavy. In his later work the motive is transferred to the
sleeves of the St. Paul at St.-Gilles (111. 131 1), and to those of the two
figures of the south jamb at Romans (111. 1335). The edge of the over-
mantle of the St. Bartholomew (111. 1303) falling across the left knee,
is like the edge of the over-garment of the St. Paul of Maguelonne
(111. 1288). The papery edges of the draperies of the St. Matthew
(111. 1302) and the St. Bartholomew (111. 1303) seem to be derived
from those of the Angouleme Master's St. Thomas (111. 1304). So
also are the incised drapery folds below the scroll of the St. Bartholo-
mew (111. 1303). The curious convention of indicating the drapery
folds on the right leg of the St. Matthew (111. 1302) consisting of a
curved groove ending in a little round hole is peculiar. In the later
work of Brunus it recurs in the St. James (111. 13 10) and the St. John
(111. 1306, 1307). We have seen that this mannerism was copied by
the St.-Martin master at Vol terra (111. 194-196). A similar pecu-
liarity is found in the work of the Charlieu Master at Donzy (111.
1 1 2-1 14).
The type of drapery which Brunus took over, as we have seen,
from the Christ of Santiago, and applied somewhat timidly in the
skirts of his St. Matthew (111. 1302) grew upon him in his later works.
As his style advances, this type of drapery is gradually, but consist-
ently, developed. At Romans (111. 1334, 1335) it entirely predomi-
nates. The change in the draperies is accompanied by a correspond-
ing development in the character of the sculptures. The fussy.
ST.-GILLES 277
awkward and angular manner of the St. Matthew (111. 1302) has be-
come at Romans (111. 1334, 1335) suave, dignified and classic. The
heavy and stocky proportions have become slim and graceful.
Certainly, if we did not have the intermediate statues, we should
hardly suspect that the St. Matthew (111. 1302) of St.-Gilles and the
right jamb of Romans (111. 1335) were the work of the same artist.
This change in the style of Brunus was no doubt in part due to his
own growing maturity, but even more I suspect to the influence of
other artists with whom he came in contact. It is, for example, cer-
tain that he took, directly or indirectly, ideas from the Beaucaire
tympanum. This lovely work was indeed copied at St.-Gilles. In the
ruins of the choir may be still seen a fragment of relief (111. 1329)
which obviously once formed part of an Adoration of the Magi,
which was the subject of the Beaucaire tympanum. The lower part
of the Virgin's legs and the torso of a kneeling king only survive. The
king kneels to the left of the Virgin, and is of smaller stature, pre-
cisely as in the Virgin of Fontfroide (111. 1301), which, we have seen,
reproduces the composition of the Beaucaire tympanum. Moreover,
when we place the St.-Gilles fragment beside the Virgin of Beaucaire
(111. 1299), the relationship is patent. The draperies are of the same
"organ-pipe" type. The spread-apart knees are held in precisely the
same position ; the bottom fringe of the draperies is the same, the
sagging folds between the legs identical. At St.-Gilles the propor-
tions are less slender, and the over-skirt, which at Beaucaire sags
between the legs, is carried horizontally across. 1
Now the grave and noble style of the Beaucaire tympanum could
not have left unaffected a much less sensitive artist than Brunus.
And in fact its influence becomes unmistakable in the jamb figures
of St.-Gilles (111. 1302, 1303, 1306-13 11). The folds of the over-
skirt of the St.- Peter (111. 1309) have in the middle "organ-pipe" a
groove separated from two rounded-over folds by sharp edges, and
ending at the bottom in a curve something like the figure "3." Now
1 Other Adorations belonging to this cycle may be found in the Baptistry of Parma, the
cathedral of Verona, the Goldene Pforte of Freiberg i. Sa. and St. Paul in Lavanthal.
278 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
there are folds of precisely this character in the Beaucaire Virgin in
the draperies following down the centre of each leg (111. 1299). The
sharply pointed sagging folds several times repeated at the bottom
of the skirts of the St. Peter (111. 1308, 1309) are like those between
the legs of the Beaucaire Virgin (111. 1299). But it was not only tech-
nical tricks that Brunus learned from this masterpiece. His in-
creasing use of "organ-pipe" draperies, the greater emphasis of the
vertical line, the poise and dignity of his later figures must be due to
this inspiration.
The third hand which may be recognized in the portal of St.-Gilles
is to be found in the St. James the Less to the north of the central por-
tal (111. 1305) and in the four unnamed apostles of the southern half
of the facade (111. 1312-1315). The St. James the Less (111. 1305)
seems to have been touched up by the Angouleme Master, the two
apostles to the extreme right by Brunus (111. 13 14). The style of the
Third Master was clearly much controlled by Brunus, more perhaps,
however, in the broad lines of the composition than in the details,
although the latter, too, have been imitated — for example, the right
sleeve of the first apostle south of the central portal (111. 131 2) ends
in the same series of little circles which Brunus had taken over from
Santiago in his St. Bartholomew (111. 1303). The head of the apostle
to the south of the central portal (111. 13 13) is a notable achievement.
It foreshadows to a singular degree the style of the XIII century. 1
It appears to have been inspired by the head of Brunus' St. Paul (111.
131 1 ), and in turn to have been the inspiration of certain of the
apostles of St.-Etienne of Toulouse (111. 437) and of the jamb sculp-
tures of Senlis (111. 1509). Perhaps a conscious purpose to imitate the
manner of the Midi determined our master to cross, so badly and
ineffectually, the legs of one of his apostles (111. 13 12). Behind all
this forced mannerism, however, the true nature of the artist emerges
here and there unmistakably into sight. He is, in fact, Burgundian.
The heavy spiral on the right of the chest of the apostle to the
1 See for example the head of the St. Jude of the south portal of Chartres illustrated by
Houvet, 37.
ST.-GILLES 279
extreme south (111. 1314) is a south Burgundian mannerism — we
find similar draperies in the work of Guillaume Martin at Vienne
(111. 1 21 8). But our artist, while he may have seen the work in south
Burgundy, still comes from farther to the north. The bit of drapery
which falls over the right shoulder of the second apostle south of the
portal at St.-Gilles (111. 13 12) is exactly like the drapery on the zig-zag
edge of the over-garment about the legs of the angel to the right of
the aureole in the Autun tympanum (111. 81). The draperies about
the right shin of the same apostle at St.-Gilles (111. 13 12) are precisely
like those about the shin of the St. Michael of the Autun tympanum
(111. 81). The bunch of drapery to the right of the knee of the first
apostle at St.-Gilles (111. 13 12) is like that to the left of the feet of the
St. Michael (111. 81) in the Autun tympanum. There can be no ques-
tion that our master knew Autun well.
The closest analogies which he shows, however, are with the tym-
panum of the Majestas Domini of St.-Benigne of Dijon (111. 134, 135).
It is evident that his system of draperies is precisely the system of
this commonplace and uninteresting artist of Burgundy. In both
there are ornamented borders. In both there are the same character-
less, banal folds. The draperies of the left leg of the angel to the right
of the aureole at Dijon (111. 135) repeat those of the left leg of the first
apostle at St.-Gilles (111. 131 2). Both works are characterized by the
same spineless inanity, the same stupidity.
I suspect that the classic character of the architecture of the facade
of St.-Gilles may be due to the influence of Burgundian motives im-
ported by the Third Master, as well as to the direct copying of Ro-
man ruins. The fluted pilasters, so striking at St.-Gilles, had long
before been acclimated in Burgundy. The Greek frets of St.-Gilles
(111. 1321, 1325) recall the equally classic ones of La Charite (111.
118). It is certain that the composition of the central tympanum of
St.-Gilles repeated a Burgundian motive.
The hand of the Third Master of St.-Gilles reappears in the series
of reliefs now divided between St.-Guilhem-le-Desert (111. 1399) and
the University of Montpellier (111. 1397, 1398).
280 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The fourth hand which may be distinguished at St.-Gilles is that
of the master who was at least in part responsible for the frieze, and
whom I venture to designate by the term "St.-Gilles Master."
The frieze (111. 1315-1322) is surely not all the work of one hand.
We have already remarked that the scene of the Betrayal (111. 13 19,
1320) seems to show, at least in part, the hand of the Master of
the Bari Throne. 1 The hand of the Third Master seems to me to
be traceable in certain draperies in the first scene of the Money-
changers (111. 13 1 6), and in the entire figure, second from the right
of this scene (111. 13 16), also in the head of Christ in the scene of the
Denial (111. 1316). There are doubtless retouches here and there by
various ones of the sculptors who worked upon other portions of the
church. The end portions of the frieze over the two side portals, as
we shall see, are of a different period. With this exception, however,
the frieze as a whole has a distinct and unified character, and in it the
personality of one artist is clearly felt.
The most striking fact about the frieze is that the composition is
copied, episode for episode, from the frieze of Beaucaire (111. 1292-
1298). If, for example, we compare the two scenes of the Denial (111.
1293 an d HI. 13 16), we shall perceive that in both Christ is placed to
the right ; then comes Peter, with the cock in front of him, then
other disciples. At St.-Gilles the number of these has been increased,
and the composition is more complicated. The scene of the Washing
of the Feet is also analogous in the two works (111. 1292, 1293,
and 111. 131 8). St. Peter is seated to the right; his right foot is
held by the kneeling Christ over a tub of water ; to the left is a col-
umn, on the top of which hangs a towel. The two Last Suppers (111.
1292, 1294, 1295 and 111. 13 1 8) follow as nearly as it is possible to tell
in the present mutilated condition of the St.-Gilles version, the same
composition. In both there is an apostle seated at either end of the
table ; in both the right-hand apostle cuts in the middle a loaf of
bread held in his left hand. Christ is in the centre, St. John at his
right leans against his bosom ; Judas is the second apostle to the
1 See above, p. 61.
ST.-GILLES 281
right, and the Saviour gives him the sop. The table furnishings are
the same, even the cloth is indicated by a similar convention. 1 Then
follows in both series the scene of Judas receiving the price of his
treason (111. 1295, I 3 I %> 1319) — he kneels before the high priest. 2
The group of spectators is the same with a shorter figure placed
directly in front of a taller one (at Beaucaire the panel with the
spectators has been by error placed in the resetting to the right,
instead of to the left of the central group). The composition is simi-
lar in both works, but as usual St.-Gilles is more expanded, more
elaborate, amplified. The next scene in both series is the Betrayal
(111. 1295 an d HI. 1319, 1320). In each case an executioner stands to
the right ; then comes the group of Judas embracing Christ, the Sav-
iour to the left, a little taller, Judas' left hand upon His right shoul-
der. Behind is a group of executioners ; the Peter and Malchus at the
extreme left of the St.-Gilles composition perhaps once existed also
at Beaucaire, but if so, have been lost. Again we note that St.-Gilles
is more diffuse, more complicated. The two scenes of Christ before
Pilate (111. 1296 and 111. 1321) are as similar. In each case Pilate is
seated to the right; he is in precisely the same posture; even the
draperies of the upper part of his tunic fall in the same folds. The
minister at his left in the Beaucaire version is omitted at St.-Gilles —
this is one of the very few instances in which a figure of the Beaucaire
rendering is eliminated at St.-Gilles. To Pilate's right stands another
minister in both versions; even the peculiar face seen in profile is
alike in the two reliefs. Then follows an executioner dragging Christ
by the hands ; behind at St.-Gilles is another executioner who is lack-
ing at Beaucaire. In the two scenes of the Flagellation (111. 1297 and
111. 1322) the column is represented in both versions in precisely the
same way ; Christ in the same attitude is to the left of it ; His hands
crossed and tied in front are represented in exactly the same way
even to the leather thongs which tie them. At Beaucaire the exe-
x The Last Supper of St.-Gilles was imitated at Nantua (111. 1214 a), Vizille (111. 11 85) and
S. Giovanni Fuorcivitas of Pistoia (111. 199).
2 Comte de Lasteyrie, 108, seems to have entirely overlooked this scene. He tried with evi.
dent error to interpret the panels of the Money-Changers as a representation of this subject.
282 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
cutioners which surely once existed have disappeared. The final
scene of the Carrying of the Cross was quite as similar at Beau-
caire (111. 1297, 1298) and St.-Gilles (111. 1321). Christ carries the
cross of the same form and size held in the same diagonal position ;
He is followed by executioners, destroyed at St.-Gilles, but who
doubtless once carried, as they still do at Beaucaire, nails and
hammers.
There is therefore no doubt of the close relationship of the two
friezes. It is equally certain that the St.-Gilles version is later than
that of Beaucaire. We have seen that throughout it is an expansion,
an elaboration of the simpler original. We have only to compare the
draperies of the two Pilates (111. 1296 and 111. 1322) or of the two
Christs at the Column (111. 1297 and 111. 1322) to perceive that St.-
Gilles is fussier, more elaborate, more naturalistic.
Now while the St.-Gilles Master has taken over from Beaucaire
quite slavishly his composition, certain draperies like those of his
Pilate (111. 1296 and 111. 1322) and even facial types like that of the
executioner at Pilate's left (111. 1296 and 111. 1322), it is nevertheless
evident that important elements of his style can not be accounted for
solely on the basis of the Beaucaire frieze. He fell under other in-
fluences as well.
Since the St.-Gilles Master had certainly been at Beaucaire, we
are not surprised that he should have studied the tympanum as well
as the frieze. In fact, he takes over in the skirts of the executioner
to the left of Christ at the Column (111. 1322) the peculiar " organ-
pipe" draperies which we have seen are characteristic of the Virgin
of Beaucaire (111. 1299). The most distinctive feature of these dra-
peries, it will be recalled, is a strand following down the front of
each leg, with a groove separated from two rounded-over folds by
sharp edges, and ending at the bottom in a curve something like
a figure "3." Now exactly these draperies occur in the skirts of the
executioner at St.-Gilles, and also the sagging folds between the
legs which are likewise characteristic of the Virgin of Beaucaire.
It is clear, therefore, that the St.-Gilles Master acquired these
ST.-GILLES 283
draperies directly from Beaucaire, and not from Brunus, although
we have seen the latter also borrowed them in his St. Peter
(111. 1309).
It seems also certain that the St.-Gilles Master fell under the in-
fluence of an ivory-carving — probably a Byzantine work of the XI
century, or some occidental imitation of such. His work shows close
analogies with a Byzantine ivory casket of the XI century in the
Museo Kirchiano at Rome. 1 In both there are the same stocky fig-
ures in violent motion with over-large heads and short skirts. The
clumsy animals are almost as uncouth as those which the St.-Gilles
Master perpetrated in the scene of the Money-Changers (111. 13 17).
Two ivory panels in the Metropolitan Museum of New York 2 also
resemble the St.-Gilles frieze. These represent the labour of Adam
and Eve ; they are Byzantine since they have Greek inscriptions, and
are assigned to the XI century. Again we have short heavy-headed
figures 1 , full of energetic motion, and with facial types and draperies
strikingly like those of the frieze. The sleeves have the same wat-
tling, the leggings the horizontal striping which occurs in some of the
St.-Gilles figures. The garments have a border of little dots, like the
lower border of the garment of the executioner dragging Christ before
Pilate at St.-Gilles (111. 1321). The frieze even shows analogies with
ivory-carvings of an earlier time. The proportions of the figures and
the facial types should be compared with a Byzantine ivory of the
VI century in the British Museum. 3 The spiral leggings, which are a
marked peculiarity of the style of the St.-Gilles Master (they are
found, for example, in the executioner to the left of Christ in the
Carrying of the Cross, 111. 1321) occur in the Grado throne, an
Alexandrine work of the VI century, which was much copied at the
end of the XI and in the early XII century. 4 It was undoubtedly
from some ivory, if not this one, that the St.-Gilles Master came by
1 Illustrated by Graeven, II, 57-61. The casket was presented to a Byzantine emperor and
has a Greek inscription ; it may, however, have been made in the provinces.
2 Accession numbers 17. 190. 138 and 17. 190. 139.
8 Illustrated by Graeven, I, 24, 25.
4 Illustrated by Venturi, II, 626 and by Maclagen, Plate II, II.
284 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the motive, which is not common. 1 A German pyxis of the IX cen-
tury in the British Museum 2 also presents points of contact with the
frieze.
To the other influences which the St.-Gilles Master underwent
must certainly be added that of antique sarcophagi. So much has
already been said upon this subject that it is useless to insist upon it
further. The sarcophagus which resembles his work more closely
than any other which I know is that of Tarragona. 3 It should be re-
marked, however, that many of the details which the St.-Gilles Mas-
ter appears to have taken from classical sculpture might easily have
come to him through the medium of Byzantine ivories.
It is a striking fact that the composition inaugurated in the
frieze of Beaucaire was echoed not only at St.-Gilles. At Modena the
same cycle of scenes is repeated in the reliefs of the pulpit, episode
for episode. The Modena version is the finest, the most elaborated
and the latest of the three. It must be, as M. Male has recognized, a
derivative, not a prototype of Beaucaire, and executed under strong
Provencal influence. Like the apostles of the Milan pulpit of 1186,
these reliefs bear witness to the wave of Provencal artistic ideas that
swept over northern Italy in the last quarter of the XII century.
In France the Beaucaire frieze was as industriously copied. A very
literal version seems to have existed at Savigny. 4 The procession of
the executioners reappears in a capital of LTle-Bouchard (111. 1105).
The capitals of Issoire (111. 1214) owe something to this source. The
Last Supper of Nantua (111. 1 214 a) is derived from that of St.-Gilles
(111. 13 1 8). The arches representing the temple in the two panels of
St.-Gilles showing the Money-Changers (111. 13 16) are repeated in
the wooden doors of St. Marien im Kapitol of Cologne. 5
Mr. Alan Priest 6 has made the very interesting suggestion that the
1 It occurs on the cover of the Oviedo Area Santa of 1075 (111. 660) and in a miniature of the
Missal of Robert of Canterbury at Rouen, illustrated by Westwood, PI. 40.
2 Illustrated by Dalton, PI. XXIII, 43.
3 Illustrated by Puig, I, 83.
4 Illustrated by Thiollier, PI. XXVII.
5 Illustrated by Dehio und von Bezold, XII, 13.
* See his forthcoming article in the first number of Art Studies.
ST.-GILLES 285
St.-Gilles Master may have worked upon the cathedral of Chartres.
In fact, he is unquestionably right in holding that in addition to
the four principal hands recognized by Prof. Voge in the west
facade, and since his time universally accepted — the hands of the
head master, the Etampes Master, the St.-Denis Master and the
Master of the Angels, there must also be recognized a fifth hand. To
this sculptor are to be attributed the two lintels of the southern por-
tal * except the left-hand figure in the upper zone which is by a St.-
Denis-esque master. In the Grammar this fifth artist is evidently
co-operating with a St.-Denis-esque master ; his touch is especially
unmistakable in the heads of the two children. In the lintel he was,
as we have already seen, 2 copying detail by detail the frieze of Mont-
morillon and the lintel of La Charite. He was, moreover, working
under the supervision of the head master, who even seems to have
touched up with his own hand the draperies in various places.
Now when we divest the fifth master at Chartres from the super-
ficial characteristics obviously borrowed from Montmorillon, from
La Charite, from the head master, from the St.-Denis and Madonna
Masters, we have left, as Mr. Priest saw, the personality of the St.-
Gilles Master. In fact, if the reader will put M. Houvet's excellent
reproductions of Chartres beside our reproductions of the frieze of
St.-Gilles (111. 13 1 5-1322), he will observe:
(1) The sheep at Chartres show the same wooden and lifeless
drawing as the animals in the scene of the Money-Changers at St.-
Gilles. The horn of the ram to the left of the group of animals at
Chartres curls completely around the ear and ends in a point below
the lower lobe. Now the horn of the ram, the second animal from the
right in the group of animals at St.-Gilles, curls around in precisely
this same way. The eyes of the two rams are executed in exactly the
same fashion in the two works. So are the nostrils and the mouth. It
is true that the sheep of Chartres are very conventionalized, much
less naturalistic than those of St.-Gilles. This may be due partly to a
1 Houvet, 51, 52, s 3y 54, $S> 5^ 57, 58.
2 See above, p. 1 25 f.
286 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
conscious purpose on the part of the sculptor to adapt them to the
more dignified and monumental style of the head master of Char-
tres, partly to the study he must have made of the sheep of Mont-
morillon (they have been destroyed, but we can judge of their style
from the fragment that remains, 111. 1072 a, and from the sheep
of Parthenay, 111. 1054, t0 which they must have been very similar).
If the animals in the scene of the Money-Changers at St.-Giiles,
those by the Master of the Bari Throne below the frieze at St.-Gilles,
and the sheep at Chartres be all placed together, we shall at once
feel that the animals of Chartres and of the Money-Changers belong
in one group, those below the frieze in another.
(2) It is characteristic of both the Chartres lintels and the St.-
Gilles frieze that the heads are too big for the bodies. At Chartres,
the St.-Denis Master occasionally runs into this fault, but in general
it is found only in the sculptures which we attribute to the St.-Gilles
Master. This mistake is typical of the drawing of the St.-Gilles
frieze — see, for example, the Washing of the Feet.
(3) The heads are badly put on the bodies in the two works. Com-
pare, for example, the Simeon of Chartres with the Christ of the
Washing of the Feet at St.-Gilles.
(4) The same facial types are found in the two works. The head of
the Gabriel in the Chartres Annunciation is the face of the apostle
next to the right-hand end of the table in the St.-Gilles Last Supper.
The face of the seated figure in the Money-Changers of St.-Gilles is
very like the face of the Simeon in the Chartres Presentation. The
face of Joseph in the scene of the Presentation at Chartres is the face
of Christ in the Betrayal of St.-Gilles. The face of the child with
curly hair in the Grammar of Chartres is like the face of the fourth
figure from the left in the Betrayal of St.-Gilles, and also, most un-
expectedly, like the face of an executioner in the capital of Christ
Taken at Brive (111. 35$). The face of the third figure from the left
in the Chartres Presentation is like that of the figure on the right-
hand angle of the St.-Gilles Betrayal. Undoubtedly the Chartres
faces show greater repose, less characterization, less naturalism than
ST.-GILLES 287
those of St.-Gilles. The change must be ascribed to the influence of
the head master. Still the St.-Gilles master's innate love of natural-
ism every now and then shows through. The shepherds of Chartres
are as realistic, as finely characterized as any of the figures at St.-
Gilles. I should hardly know where to find a more dramatic repre-
sentation of what Shakespeare would have called a natural.
(5) In both series of reliefs the drawing of the eye is precisely the
same. The opening of the lids is of almond shape, sharply pointed at
both ends ; a double line indicates the upper lid, the pupil is repre-
sented by a round bored hole. It is the boring-out of the pupil which
is especially characteristic. At Chartres this convention is rarely
found except in the works of the St.-Gilles Master.
(6) A peculiar hair convention at St.-Gilles consists in drawing
an incised spiral upon a rounded bump. This, for example, is found
in the Peter of the Betrayal at St.-Gilles and in the executioner which
is the next figure but one to him to the right. Now this convention
is repeated at Chartres. We find it in the third figure from the left
in the Presentation ; and in the child to the right in the Grammar.
(7) This sculptor was clearly fond of copying other people's com-
positions. At St.-Gilles he reproduces the frieze of Beaucaire, at
Chartres that of Montmorillon.
(8) The peculiar drapery folds of the skirts of the executioner to
the left of Christ at the column at St.-Gilles which we have already
seen the St.-Gilles Master took over from the tympanum at Beau-
caire, 1 reappear at Chartres, in the skirts of the two shepherds, espe-
cially the one playing a flute to the right.
(9) The wattling of the draperies of the sleeve, both on the fore-
arm and on the upper arm is a constant mannerism in both series of
reliefs.
(10) The convention of representing the end of the sleeve by a
series of circles like metal rings, which Brunus had fetched from San-
tiago 2 was taken over by the St.-Gilles Master in his frieze at St.-
Gilles. We find it, for example, in the figure to the right of the pair
] See above, p. 282. 2 See above, p. 275.
288 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
at the extreme left of the first relief of the Money-Changers, and on
the right sleeve of the executioner behind Christ in the Christ before
Pilate, and in other places as well. Now this same convention is
typical of the work of the St.-Gilles Master at Chartres, being found
for example, in the right sleeve of the third figure from the left in the
Presentation, and in the right-hand shepherd.
(n) Perforated borders are characteristic of the style of both
series of reliefs. Compare, for example, that of the skirts of the ex-
ecutioner to the right of Christ at the Column of St.-Gilles with that
of the over-garment of the third figure from the left in the Presenta-
tion of Chartres.
(12) The most striking similarity of all is the spiral leggings.
This mannerism we have seen came to the St.-Gilles frieze from
ivories, and is introduced several times — in the executioner behind
Christ in the Carrying of the Cross, in the executioner behind Christ
in the Christ before Pilate and in the merchant to the right of
Christ in the second relief of the Money-Changers. Now this ex-
tremely rare 1 motive reappears at Chartres in the Joseph of the
Nativity.
(13) The short skirts of the shepherds at Chartres vividly recall
the costumes of the frieze at St.-Gilles.
The conclusions to be drawn from these analogies will doubtless
give rise to difference of opinion. I do not conceal my own suspicion
that the St.-Gilles Master of Chartres had actually worked upon the
frieze of St.-Gilles, widely divergent as the two styles appear to
be. We have already found ample proofs that Romanesque sculp-
tors travelled far, and underwent extraordinary changes of manner.
Whether the same sculptor wandered from St.-Gilles to Chartres
is, however, an academic question which students of the future may
be left to argue. What becomes certain in the light of Mr. Priest's
observations is that the master of the southern lintel at Chartres is
very closely related to the master of the frieze of St.-Gilles. It is also
** I know it elsewhere in Romanesque sculpture only at St.-Ursin of Bourges (111. 1263) and in
a capital of Santo Domingo de Silos (Byne phot.).
ST.-GILLES 289
clear, that of the two, St.-Gilles is the older. The central frieze of St.-
Gilles shows no trace of the influence of the head master of Chartres.
Were the influence from Chartres to St.-Gilles, it is inconceivable
that only technical mannerisms of the Fifth Master, but none of the
great innovations of the chief sculptor, should have been taken over.
The striking resemblances between the adossed statues of St.-
Gilles and Aries, on the one hand, and St.-Denis and Chartres on the
other, have been much discussed. We may now, I think, safely say
that Chartres certainly did not influence the earlier work at St.-
Gilles. It is more likely that knowledge of Provencal motives was
brought to Chartres by the master of the southern lintel. We have
seen that the Virgin of the southern tympanum at Chartres is
derived from Marseille and Beaucaire. That there was influence of
St.-Gilles upon Chartres is entirely probable. It may also be that
St.-Denis influenced directly or indirectly St.-Gilles. The jamb
sculptures of Chartres seem to proceed directly from St.-Denis, and
those of St.-Gilles directly from Lombardy and Santiago ; but that
the two were connected by innumerable cross-currents will not be
doubted by any one familiar with the multiplicity of artistic waves
radiating in all directions from every mediaeval atelier of im-
portance.
Before leaving the St.-Gilles Master, a word should be said of his
relationship with Lombardy and Apulia. The spiral curls, which we
have mentioned as peculiar to his style, were in all probability
brought to him by the Master of the Bari Throne, of whose work we
have seen, they are characteristic. 1 He might, however, have come
by them as well from Byzantine ivories, for the motive is of ancient
Eastern origin. The "snail curls" of Oriental Buddhas are perhaps
not unconnected. Both are possibly descendants of archaic Greek
works, like the Harmodios. However this may be, spiral curls already
appear in the same form in which the St.-Gilles Master uses them in
a Coptic relief of St.-Menas from Thekla. 2 They also found their
way into the Grado throne, which is believed to be an Alexandrine
1 See above, p. 61. 2 Illustrated by Kaufmann, 6$.
2 9 o ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
work of the VI century. 1 We have seen that the Grado throne shows
more than one point of contract with the St.-Gilles frieze.
These same curls are found in North Italian sculpture. They oc-
cur, for example, in the left-hand saint above in a relief of S. Marco
of Venice. 2 They are also found in a relief representing Hercules and
the Nemaean Lion at Borgo S. Donnino. 3 The style of this relief
comes indeed very close to that of the St.-Gilles Master. The head
is obviously related to that of the third figure from the left in the
Chartres Presentation. Benedetto, who worked later at Borgo,
shows the strong influence of St.-Gilles. This relief, however, seems
to belong to an earlier atelier. It seems very Byzantine in character.
It is not probable that the Borgo Hercules was influenced either by
St.-Gilles or Chartres. There is far more likelihood that either it, or
other works of the school to which it belonged, exerted an influence
upon the St.-Gilles Master. 4
The fifth hand which may be distinguished at St.-Gilles is that of
the Master of the Bari Throne. We have already discussed his work
at St.-Gilles. 5 I have nothing to add at this point beyond what has
already been said, except that his exquisite heads in profile in relief
(111. 13 16) seem to have relationship to one of similar character on
the area of St.-Hilaire (111. 1289).
In addition to the five distinct hands which we have distinguished
at St.-Gilles, a separate group should be made of the two tympana
of the side portals (111. 1385, 1386), the frieze of these portals (111.
1387-139 1 ) and the two angels at either end of the facade (111. 1392-
1396). These are all certainly additions made to the original facade
a considerable time after the rest of the work had been completed ; 6
1 Illustrated by Maclagen. 2 Illustrated by Ongania, PI. 279.
3 Illustrated by Venturi III, 331.
4 Similar spiral curls are found in the Daniel of the Portico de la Gloria (111. 829 b).
5 See above, p. 59 f.
6 The original scheme for the facade of St.-Gilles seems to have contemplated a single
portal like that of Aries (111. 1366). This was subsequently enlarged by the addition of two
side portals. The iconography of the frieze was pieced out by adding to the north the much
expanded scene of the Entry into Jerusalem; to the south the story of the three Maries.
The scene of the Feast in the House of Simon, out of its logical position, proves the change in
the iconographic program.
ST.-GILLES 291
yet the style is so similar to that of the earlier work that the break
might easily escape casual inspection. The apparent coherence is
probably in part due to conscious imitation of the earlier work ; but
also, I fancy, to the fact that at least one of the old masters was re-
called to add the side portals. The southern angel, in fact, seems to
be by the same hand as the apostle south of the central portal — we
can easily convince ourselves by comparing the two heads (111. 1395
and 111. 1313). The draperies of the northern angel (111. 1392) are not
unlike those of the second statue south of the central portal (111.
131 2). The draperies of the Virgin in the tympanum of the Adora-
tion (111. 1386) are very close to those of the first statue south of the
central portal (111. 13 12). If we suppose that the Third Master was
called back to make the additions to the original facade, we can ex-
plain facts which would otherwise be puzzling : why the draperies of
the earlier frieze are reproduced in the later work with entire success
(for as we have seen the Third Master co-operated with the St.-
Gilles Master in the production of the original frieze, and hence
would, of course, be thoroughly in touch with all the details of the
technique) whereas the draperies of Brunus are imitated with dili-
gence, but never really caught (compare the angel, 111. 1396, with
Brunus* St. Bartholomew, 111. 1303) ; how the sculptor of the later
work knew the model, the frieze of Beaucaire, from which the St.-
Gilles Master had taken the composition of his frieze, and was able
to continue to copy the same original in the new scenes which he
added in the southern lintel (compare 111. 1298 with 111. 1391).
It is clear that the Third Master had come in contact with new in-
fluences after he worked upon the earlier portions of his frieze, and
before he undertook the later. The imitation of La Charite is not
evident in his earlier sculptures, but is prominent in his later work.
It is not surprising that a Burgundian should have re-visited his
native land in the thirty years which appear to have separated the
two periods of building at St.-Gilles. The peculiar ornament consist-
ing of three perforated dots 1 which we find on the socks of the first
1 The motive of three dots is as old as archaic Greece and diffused from Persia to Ireland.
292 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Magus at La Charite (111. 118) reappears on the garment of the
Church in the St.-Gilles tympanum of the Crucifixion (111. 1385).
The facial types of the angels of St.-Gilles (111. 1393, 1395) are
strongly reminiscent of those of the angels of La Charite (111. 117).
It is also clear that the Third Master was influenced by Chartres
after he had completed the first part of his frieze, for many Chartres-
esque mannerisms are found in the later part, while such are notably
absent in all the earlier work at St.-Gilles. Thus the angel of the St.-
Gilles Adoration (111. 1386) reproduces one of the angels of the north-
ern tympanum of Chartres. The rhythm of the Entry into Jerusalem
(111. 1388) is distinctly Chartres-esque, and is very different from the
jerky rhythm of the earlier portions of the frieze (111. 13 15-1322).
The fine parallel folds of the later draperies, contrasting with the less
rhythmical folds of the earlier work, show unquestionably the in-
fluence of Chartres. The folds of the sleeve of the third figure from
the left of the Entry into Jerusalem (111. 1388) reproduce exactly a
familiar mannerism of the head master of Chartres. 1
Finally, the draperies of the later work at St.-Gilles clearly show,
as has already been remarked, the influence of the tomb of St.-
Junien (111. 450-452) . 2
It may well be that two or even more artists were employed upon
the enlargement of the original facade ; but although the style does
not seem entirely coherent, I am unable to differentiate with any
clarity the hands. I shall only remark that the tympanum of the
Crucifixion (111. 1385) seems very inferior in quality to that of the
Adoration (111. 1386). We can discuss the date of the later work at
St.-Gilles more intelligently after we have studied the question of
the date of the earlier atelier.
The diurch of St.-Gilles was begun in 11 16, as is recorded in an
inscription on a buttress of the south exterior wall of the nave. 3 The
1 All these similarities with La Charite and Chartres were first brought to my attention by
Mr. Priest.
2 See above, p. 1 56.
3 [ANN]0 DNI MCXVI HOC TEPLV
[SANCTI AE]GIDII AEDIFICARI CEPIT
... PL FRII. IN OCTAB. PASCHE
ST.-GILLES 293
construction doubtless began with the rib-vaulted choir. It may well
have been some years before the west facade was attacked. The
foundation wall of this was, however, laid before 1 142, since an epi-
taph of this date is inscribed upon it. 1 Indeed, I think more may be
inferred from this inscription. It seems unlikely that any one should
be buried in this spot while the facade was still in process of con-
struction. It is not too much to conclude that the facade was finished
before 1142.
Let us now compare this documentary evidence with what we may
deduce from the style of the sculptures.
It was certainly an egregious error to ascribe the frieze to the end
of the XII century. From what has been said above it is evident that
the frieze of the central portion of the facade is contemporary with
the great statues below.
The superior limit for the date of the St.-Gilles frieze is determined
by several sculptures which must be later. One of the most interest-
ing of these is the pulpit at Cagliari in Sardinia (111. 186-188). This
remarkable monument, which passed as a work of Fra Guglielmo, the
assistant of Niccola Pisano and as executed in 1260, now appears to
be instead a signed work of that Guglielmo Tedesco or da Innspruch
who in 1 174 began with Bonnano the construction of the cathedral
of Pisa. 2 Not only that, but the pulpit is dated 11 58-1 162. It was
made for the cathedral of Pisa, but was removed when Giovanni
Pisano constructed his pulpit in 1302-13 10. It was then carried by
ship to Cagliari. It has unfortunately been split up into two ambos,
and otherwise mutilated, but the sculptures still remain. Now these
are evidently under the influence of the school of Provence. 3 Gugl-
ielmo Tedesco had certainly seen the St.-Gilles frieze, for he repro-
1 1 HIC SEPVLTVS
EST CAVSITVS
ANN DNI M:C:XLII
ORATE PRO EO
2 See the important study by Scanno, 277 f. Prof. Voge first called my attention to the im-
portance of the Cagliari pulpit.
3 Labande, 82, cites a document which shows that in 11 56 monks of Avignon went to Pisa
and Carrara for marble with which to build the cloister of St.-Ruf. There were evidently
many ways in which artistic ideas might be exchanged between Tuscany and Provence.
294 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
duces the arcades which stand for the temple in the St.-Gilles scenes
of the Money-Changers (111. 13 17) in his relief representing the Pres-
entation (111. 187). But he had seen not only St.-Gilles. His "organ-
pipe" draperies are of a type more advanced than any achieved by
Brunus ; he must have known a work as late as the cloister of St.-
Trophime at Aries, probably that cloister itself. Therefore the early
portions of the cloister at Aries are anterior to 1158, and the facade
of St.-Gilles is considerably anterior.
Guglielmo da Innspruch was not the only sculptor who went to
Provence in search of ideas. Guillaume Martin of Vienne also made
the journey. In the church of St.-Andre-le-Bas he sculptured a
capital representing Samson and the Lion (111. 121 9). Now in the
face of the Samson he reproduces, stroke for stroke, the face of the
youth to the extreme right in the first St.-Gilles relief of the Money-
Changers (111. 13 16). Happily, the sculptor not only signed his name
to his work at St.-Andre-le-Bas, but added the date 1 152. Therefore
the St.-Gilles frieze is anterior to 1152.
We may even draw a more radical inference from the work of
Guillaume Martin at St.-Andre-le-Bas of Vienne. On another
capital he has sculptured the story of Job. Now the face of Job
(111. 1 21 8) reproduces, line for line and wrinkle for wrinkle, the face
of the patriarch to the right in the frieze of the Aries facade (111.
1370). Therefore the facade of Aries is anterior to 11 52. Now the
Aries facade is much more advanced than St.-Gilles. It is more de-
veloped than the cloister (111. 1 344-1 348), and the cloister in turn is
more developed than the latest work of Brunus at Romans (111.
1334, 1335). Ten years is the least we can allow for such progress as
took place between the facade of St.-Gilles and that of Aries. This
brings us to the conclusion that the facade of St.-Gilles is anterior
to 1142. Our deductions from style entirely confirm the documen-
tary evidence.
The lintels of S. Salvatore of Lucca (111. 225) and S. Giovanni
Fuorcivitas of Pistoia (111. 199) show strong Provencal influence.
They are indeed closely related to the lintel at Nantua (111. 1214 a).
ST.-GILLES 295
Now S. Giovanni Fuorcivitas is dated 1162. Therefore Nantua is
earlier than 1162. The facade of St.-Trophime at Aries is earlier
than Nantua, and St.-Gilles is earlier than Aries. We are forced to
conclude that the frieze of St.-Gilles can hardly be later than 11 40.
Another train of reasoning brings us to the same result. The
facade of Chartres was begun very shortly before 1145. We have
seen that Chartres is later than the frieze of St.-Gilles. Therefore the
frieze must be earlier than 1145.
Again, the master of the Bari Throne worked at Bari in 1098. Let
us suppose that at this time he was as young as possible, let us say
twenty. He could hardly have been older than seventy when he
worked upon the St.-Gilles frieze. That would prove that St.-Gilles
was executed not more than fifty years later than 1098 or before 1 148.
We may therefore feel confident that the facade of St.-Gilles was
erected before 1142.
An inferior limit of date is obviously furnished by the inscription of
1 1 16. The sculptures were not executed before the church was begun.
We therefore conclude that the facade was erected between 11 16
and 1142. Is it possible to determine more accurately the date be-
tween these uncomfortably broad limits ?
The facts that the Master of the Bari Throne, who was already ac-
tive in 1098 worked upon the facade ; and that the Angouleme Mas-
ter shows points of contact with the lunette sculptures of Angouleme
which must have been executed c. 11 15, might be taken as indica-
tions that the facade dates from the earlier, rather than the later
part of the period in question. Neither is, however, a proof; the Bari
Master might still have been working as late as 1148, and the
Angouleme Master might have kept a retarded style.
There are other considerations which force us to place the facade
of St.-Gilles, in the later part of the period in question, in the years
immediately preceding 1142.
First of all there is a documentary hint. It is natural to suppose
that the reconstruction of the church was begun at the east end. I
seem to find an indication that such was indeed the case at St.-Gilles.
296 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The description in the Pilgrims' Guide, written probably in the i i2o's,
does not mention the church, as it does in the case of nearly all the
other important centres of pilgrimage — Perigueux, Saintes, St.-
Sernin of Toulouse, Santiago. The explanation doubtless is, that at
that period there was not much church to mention. Otherwise the
guide would surely have praised it, for the desire and intention to
"puff " everything at St.-Gilles is unmistakable. It is not inferring
too much to conclude that at this period the facade had not yet been
constructed.
On the other hand, the choir may have been finished. The style
of the existing remains accords perfectly with the date 1116-1129.
Moreover, the Guide describes at length the golden altar ; this, there-
fore, was already in place. It is probable, that as at Santiago, the
altar was made upon completion of the new choir.
We therefore infer from the documents that the facade of St.-
Gilles was not begun before 1130.
The internal evidence of style leads to the same conclusion. It is
clear that the source of much at St.-Gilles lies beyond the Alps. The
Master of the Bari Throne doubtless brought with him knowledge of
Apulian and Lombard buildings which was turned to full account in
the design of St.-Gilles. Thus the jamb figures of the St.-Gilles portal
(111. 1302-13 14) are clearly derived from Guglielmo's work at Cre-
mona (1107-1117); the figures are similarly placed in the inner
jambs ; the resemblance of type, even of the faces, is striking ; Brunus
in his St. Peter (111. 1308) has even taken over the accentuated cords of
the hands so characteristic of Guglielmo. Yet Brunus' figures with
their conscious and elaborate draperies, their developed style, are
obviously of a later generation. Twenty years is the least we can
place between the two. Similarly the lions, monsters and caryatids
under the columns and statues of St.-Gilles are evident derivatives
from Lombard prototypes, but more elaborate and advanced than
any we find in the work of either Guglielmo or Nicolo. They can not
be earlier than the late 3o's. Again the idea of a frieze is Lombard,
and was first introduced by Guglielmo at Modena. At St.-Gilles it
ST.-GILLES 297
was taken over, via Beaucaire (111. 1 292-1 298), but how advanced
this frieze of St.-Gilles is, compared with the Lombard ! The idea of
seeking inspiration in ancient Roman remains may also very prob-
ably have come to St.-Gilles from Italy. Guglielmo had copied
antique models at Modena, and the rinceaux at St.-Gilles are almost
precisely like those of the Pisa facade. Here again one feels, however,
that Brunus carried much farther the principles of his predecessors.
Another road leads us to the same result. We have seen that
Brunus worked also at Romans. Now the church at Romans was
not begun until 1133. 1 The nave must have been in construction in
the late jo's, for one of the capitals (111. 1338) is by a sculptor of the
North, of the Montmorillon-La Charite group. The facade must be
slightly later, say of the early 4o's. Now the close relationship in
style between these sculptures (111. 1334, 1335) and Brunus* latest
work at St.-Gilles (111. 1306-1311) forces the conclusion that the
latter can not be very much earlier.
Even more conclusive is the evidence of style afforded by the Third
Master. We have seen that he knew and copied the tympanum of
Autun (111. 80, 81) ; therefore he worked after 1132. More than that
he shows close relationship with the sculptor of the tympanum of the
Majestas Domini of St.-Benigne of Dijon (111. 315). Now we have
seen that this tympanum is later than 1137.
All this leads us to conclude that the west facade of St.-Gilles was
erected in the years immediately preceding 1142. The variation of
style displayed by the works of Brunus justifies the conclusion that
the construction lasted some years — it may possibly have been
begun as early as 1135.
When the date of St.-Gilles has been determined, the remaining
monuments of Provence quickly fall into place. If we put beside each
other Brunus' work at Romans (111. 1334, 1335), the St.-Trophime
from the cloister at Aries (111. 1345, 1346) and the adossed sculptures
of the Aries facade (111. 137 1, 1373), we shall perceive a close rela-
tionship, and a steady development, especially in the "organ-pipe"
1 Giraud, 193.
298 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
draperies. Romans (111. 1334, 1335) is clearly the earliest; then the
cloister of Aries ; and the facade of Aries is latest. Now it is possible
to date the facade of Aries very precisely. We have seen that it was
copied in 1152 by Guillaume Martin at St.-Andre-le-Bas of Vienne.
It was therefore completed by this time. It could not, however, have
been erected much before, for ten years is the least we can allow for
the evolution we have indicated, and which began in 1142 or there-
abouts. Now the conclusion we have drawn from the style that the
facade was completed in 11 52 corresponds with the documentary
evidence. For we know that in this very year the body of St.-
Trophime was translated from the Aliscamps into the church, which
in consequence changed its title from St.-Etienne to St.-Trophime.
Without doubt the translation took place when the new facade had
been finished. We may therefore consider the facade of Aries as a
dated monument of 11 52.
We have remarked that the earliest part of the cloister, the north
gallery and especially the west end of the north gallery, seem a little
earlier than the facade. That the north gallery is anterior to 11 51 is
indicated by an epitaph of that date in the wall. 1
The sculptures of St.-Trophime are evidently direct derivatives of
St.-Gilles. Undoubtedly, however, they were also influenced from
other directions as well. Certain draperies surely came from Char-
tres. The face of the Christ in the Majestas Domini of the tympanum
(111. 1372) recalls somewhat vaguely the face of the Christ in the
tympanum of Moissac (111. 341). The scene of the Temptation (111.
1 3^7)> tne corded hands and feet (111. 137 1) and the supporting figure
below the trumeau (111. 1366) make us think of the art of Guglielmo ;
the superb nude reclining figure of the south podium (111. 1368) re-
calls the Eve of Autun ; the three patriarchs with souls in their bosoms
(111. 1370) could only have been derived from Byzantine icon-
1 VI. IDVS OCT
OBIIT PONCIVS DE
BABICO CAPVT SCOLE ET
CANONICVS REGVLARIS
SCI TROPHIMI ANNO
DNI MCLI
ST.-GILLES 299
ography ; the Three Maries of the cloister (111. 1344) are possibly de-
rived from lost reliefs of Beaucaire, and foreshadow Armentia (111.
761) and Estella (111. 785) ; the Ascension of the cloister (111. 1353),
like the entire design of this part of the structure, is probably derived
from Santo Domingo de Silos (111. 672) ; and the gored caps in the
Stoning of St. Stephen of the facade (111. 1374) come from Toulouse
(111. 310,312).
In the east gallery of the cloisters, the style of the sculptures
changes. It is evident that construction proceeded slowly, and that
this gallery, especially its southern end, is notably later than the
north gallery. By an entirely different hand are the Gamaliel (111.
1362), the figure adossed to the next pier to the north (111. 1358),
several capitals and the holy-water basin (111. 1363) . l
The limit ante quern for the eastern gallery is supplied by an epi-
taph of 1 181 in the wall. 2 This documentary evidence is confirmed
by a study of the style. The folds of the draperies of the "Gamaliel
Master," especially those of the supporting figure of the holy-water
basin, are much like those of the consoles which are the only sur-
viving remains of the once splendid portal of Ste.-Marthe of Taras-
con (111. 1404 a, 1404 b). Only it is evident that the folds of Aries are
less developed, slightly earlier. Now the portal of Ste.-Marthe was
part of the church begun in 11 87 and finished in 1197. 3 The sculp-
tures of the cloister at St.-Trophime are therefore earlier than 1 187 ;
we may assign them to c. 11 80, which agrees with the documentary
evidence of the epitaph, showing that they were completed before
1181.
1 The strongly Nicolo-esque character of the supporting figure should be compared with the
holy-water basin at Romans and with the lions in the court-yard of Fenway Court.
2 III IDVS SEPTEBRIS OBIIT . . . etc.
ANNO DNI MCLXXX PRIMO
3 Inscription east of portal:
VIGITI: NOVIES: SEPTE: CU: MILLE: RE
LAPSIS: ANO: POSTREMO: NOBIS: PA
TET: OSPITA: XPE MILLE DUCETIS
TRASACTIS MINVS AT TRIBVS: AN
NIS UMBERTUS: PRESUL: ROSTAG
NO: PRESULE: SECUM: IN PRIMA:
IUNII:CONSECRAT: ECCLESIAM:
300 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The sculptured frieze of the cathedral of Nimes (111. 1378-1383) is
clearly a derivative of the frieze at St.-Gilles (111. 1315-1322), but one
which in brutal energy, in realism and in vigour of modelling sur-
passes its original. It must date from about 11 50.
The powerful lions of Aix-en-Provence (111. 1331) show the same
vigour and massiveness; they doubtless date from about the same
period. It is believed that they once formed the support of a throne,
which indeed, may very well have been the case. The coarse and
rather uninteresting work in the cloister of Aix (111. . 1406-1408)
seems midway between the cloister of Notre-Dame-des-Doms of
Avignon (111. 1342, 1343) and the last work in the cloister of St.-
Trophime (111. 1359— 1365) ; it may be ascribed to c. 1165.
The sculptures now l flanking the portal in the cloister of Mont-
majour (111. 1332, 1333) are related to the work of the Third Master
at St.-Gilles, but are evidently later, as the draperies are more de-
veloped. They were perhaps executed about 1 145.
Let us return to the later work at St.-Gilles. We have already
remarked that this shows the influences of La Charite (111. 11 5-1 22),
Chartres and St.-Junien (111. 450-452) which are not traceable in the
original facade. 2 Since St.-Junien is not earlier than 11 50, the later
work at St.-Gilles must certainly fall within the second half of the
XII century.
One of the peculiarities of the later work at St.-Gilles is the perfo-
rated ornament on the garment of the Church (111. 1385). The earliest
example of this system of decoration with which I am acquainted is
the halo of the Moon in the Santo Domingo de Silos Deposition (111.
669). Perforation is here used with the utmost restraint and timid-
ity; and so it continued to be used throughout the first half of the
XII century. At St.-Jouin-de-Marne (1132) the garment of the St.
Peter is decorated with a pattern formed of three perforated dots
arranged to form a triangle (111. 949), and the same motive reappears
in a fragment of a lectern in the museum of Marseille (111. 1410). It is
1 They are not in their original position.
2 See above, p. 292.
ST.-GILLES 301
perhaps the translation into stone of a motive which was already old
in Irish manuscripts ! and which still survives in Asia Minor rugs of
the XVI century. At La Charite (111. 115-118) about 1140, per-
forated decoration was carried to a point hitherto unequalled in
sculpture. But at La Charite the motive is used with much greater
moderation than in the Church (111. 1385) of St.-Gilles. Such exuber-
ance is surely a mark of the last quarter of the XII century, and
recalls the works of Benedetto. The Church in the Parma Deposition
of 1 178 has for example a garment very like that of the Church at
St.-Gilles. The relationship of our artist with Benedetto is still
further suggested by the figure to the extreme left in the tympanum
of the Crucifixion, which has a face of strongly Antelami-esque
character, and by the position of the Synagogue 2 at St.-Gilles, rigidly
tipped as Benedetto so often drew his figures.
Other mannerisms of the tympanum, however, suggest works
nearer home. The face of the Sun (111. 1385) is very like the face of
the Gamaliel of the St.-Trophime cloister (111. 1362). The draperies
at the bottom also have the same stupid character as those of the
"Gamaliel Master." The draperies on the left thigh of the southern
angel at St.-Gilles (111. 1394) have an unmistakable resemblance to
those of the "Gamaliel Master" even while reproducing most assidu-
ously Beaucaire (111. 1299). The draperies of the northern angel,
despite Brunus-esque digs, have also obviously a late character
(HI. 1392).
The composition of the southern tympanum (111. 1386) was cer-
tainly very directly inspired by Beaucaire (111. 1299) where, as we
have seen, 3 the same subject was represented in the tympanum in the
same manner. The Crucifixion tympanum on the other hand appears
to have been imitated from Die (111. 1230) and Champagne (111.
1 186). It seems that passing years had no power to eradicate the St.-
1 See, for example, the Book of Kells, fol. 28 b, illustrated by Zimmermann, III, Taf. 173.
2 The Church and the Synagogue seem to have been introduced into the iconographic for-
mula of the sculptors in stone about the eighth decade of the XII century. The earliest example
of their appearance which I know is the tympanum of St.-Benigne of Dijon (111. 134), a monu-
ment not earlier than 11 70.
8 See above, pp. 277, 278.
302 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Gilles habit of taking over other people's compositions. The move-
ment of the St.-Gilles angels x (111. 1392-1396), the posture of the
Virgin in the Adoration (111. 1386), the insipidity of the draperies of
the prophet in this tympanum (111. 1386) and the general flabbiness
of modelling throughout show close relationship between the later
work at St.-Gilles and the tympanum of Maguelonne (111. 1384).
The latter we have seen is a dated monument of 1178. 2
Finally, we notice that the peculiar ornament on the neck-band of
the third apostle to the left of Christ in the scene of the Magdalen
Anointing Christ's Feet (111. 1390) is like the neck-bands of the
apostles from St.-Benoit of the Musee des Antiquaires de l'Ouest at
Poitiers (111. 1133). 3 There are many reasons for believing that the
latter can not be earlier than 1170.
So we are confirmed in our conclusion that the later work at St.-
Gilles dates from about 11 80. But it is time to turn to earlier and
more vital works.
1 The composition of the southern angel at St.-Gilles recalls an ivory book-cover in the
Stadtsbibliothek at Leipzig, a work of the Ada group of the IX century, representing St.
Michael (illustrated by Goldschmidt, I, No. n a).
2 See above, p. 268.
3 Mr. Priest calls my attention to the fact that this ornament seems like the simplification
of one used by the Etampes Master at Chartres.
VII
ANGOULEME
In the West of France, sculpture developed later than in Bur-
gundy, Lombardy or Spain. The school of the XI century which has
left us such astonishing creations at Hildesheim, at Arles-sur-Tech
(111. 518), at Regensburg (111. 1 279-1 282), at Santo Domingo de Silos
(111. 666-673), at Oviedo (111. 656-660), at Sahagun (111. 770), at
Charlieu (111. 4) and at Cluny (111. 5-9), did not flourish on the wind-
swept Atlantic sea-board. When, however, we reflect how close this
region lies to the Ile-de-France, where sculpture worthy of the name
did not appear at all until the fourth decade of the XII century, the
wonder perhaps is not that the XI century carving of the West was
crude, but that figure sculpture existed at all.
The church of Airvault, begun between 1093 and 1096 * and conse-
crated in 1100, 2 possesses sculptures adossed to the wall flanking the
vaulting capitals (111. 898-900), and also sculptured capitals. We
have here a dated and admitted work of the end of the XI century.
The striking fact in regard to the sculptures of Airvault, aside from
their crudity, is the similarity in the folds of certain draperies to
those in the south portal of St.-Sernin of Toulouse (111. 308-318).
Now St.-Sernin of Toulouse is later than Airvault, but it is difficult
to admit that the advanced school of the pilgrimage could have been
influenced by the retarded work in the West. The explanation I be-
lieve is this : The ateliers of Toulouse and Santiago were closely in-
terrelated, and we find the same sculptors travelling back and forth
from one to the other. Now while no work anterior to the XII cen-
tury has come down to us at Santiago, it is certain that an atelier of
sculpture must have existed there much before, and probably from
the beginning of the reconstruction of the cathedral in 1078. It is not
1 Robouchon, 6. 2 Cong. Arch., 1910, LXXVII, 119.
3o 4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
unreasonable to suppose that the work at Airvault may have been
influenced by the Xl-century atelier of Santiago.
In addition to the sculptures which actually form part of the build-
ing, Airvault contains a sculptured tomb (111. 903) and a sculptured
altar- frontal (111. 964). The tomb is that of the abbot Pierre who
built the church and died in 11 10. It may consequently be consid-
ered a dated monument. The altar-frontal is of very similar style,
but since it is, perhaps, a little more advanced, it may be assigned
to about 1 1 15.
All the work at Airvault is characterized by that strong Lombard
influence which we shall find is one of the marked and unexplained
peculiarities of the school of the West. The architecture of the
church is adorned with arched corbel-tables ; the capital of Adam
and Eve (111. 901) distinctly recalls the manner of Guglielmo; the
supporting figures under the tomb of the abbot Pierre (111. 903) are
obviously of Lombard derivation.
The two reliefs of Ste.-Radegonde of Poitiers (111. 907, 908) are of
better quality. One feels distinctly in them, although in strangely
weakened form, the inspiration which emanated from Cluny. They
are degenerates, but after all of the race of the older portal at Char-
lieu (111. 4) or of the Virgin at Sahagun (111. 770), as the animals of one
of the capitals of the ambulatory (111. 911) are an echo of the much
finer ones of the nave of St.-Martin-d'Ainay at Lyon. The Ste.-
Radegonde reliefs obviously are not now in their original position,
but were embedded at a comparatively recent epoch in the narthex
below the tower. It unfortunately seems impossible to determine
where they were placed. Their style, however, justifies the conclu-
sion that they belonged to the church built between 1083 and 1099.
They are, in fact, by the same hand as the Daniel capital of the am-
bulatory (111. 909) which is admitted to be of 1083-1099.
When we turn from Ste.-Radegonde to the sculptures of the
lunettes of the cathedral of Angouleme (111. 936-940), we recognize
between the two a close relationship. There are the same draperies
cut in the same rope-like forms, and falling in the same characteristic
ANGOULEME 305
wave-patterns along the lower edges. Angouleme appears slightly
more advanced; the execution is better, and there is more move-
ment. Seven or eight or at most ten years might easily account for
this development. It is therefore with considerable astonishment
that we find current archaeological opinion ascribes the facade of
Angouleme to the second half of the XII century. And when we
compare the primitive style of these sculptures with that of monu-
ments with which they are supposed to be contemporary, such as,
for example, the west portal of Chartres or the transept portals of
Bourges, our astonishment deepens into amazement.
We naturally turn with haste to the reasoning on which this dating
is based. We are told, first of all, what alas is only too true, that the
cathedral of Angouleme lost all character in the XIX century resto-
ration. To study its archaeology we are therefore advised to go not
to the building itself, but to the manuscript study of Michon who
saw the church before it was reconstructed. Now Michon thought
that the western bay was earlier than the rest of the church; we
are asked to accept this as a proof that it and the facade are a half
century later!
Nor do I find the other arguments for the late dating of Angou-
leme more convincing. The lunette sculptures of Angouleme (111.
936-940), we are told, are by the same atelier (sic) as the sculptures
of St.-Amand-de-Boixe (111. 941^945). These last are thought to be
dated 1170.
Now it is true that St.-Amand-de-Boixe was consecrated in 1170.
But there was an earlier consecration in 11 25. The monument as
it stands corresponds perfectly with the documents. Begun at the
eastern end, as was the custom (the choir was rebuilt in the XIV
century), the transepts with the sculptures and the east bay of
the nave were finished in 11 25. Then work was interrupted, ap-
parently for a number of years. Subsequently the construction of
the nave was resumed and completed in 1170. Nothing could be
clearer.
Since, however, the fact that the western part of the nave is later
306 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
seems to have escaped attention, it will be well to note down some of
the proofs that such is the case :
(i) The capitals of the nave, broad-leaved and crocketed, are of
a strikingly different, and obviously later type from those of the
transepts. They must be separated by an interval of at least twenty-
five years.
(2) There is an equally striking difference of style between the
west portal, 111. 1135 (that is to say the little of it that is an-
cient), and the decoration of the west facade of the north transept
(111. 944, 945).
(3) The design of the church was completely changed when work
was resumed after it had been interrupted at the east bay of the
nave,
(4) The groin vaults of the side aisles in the east bay of the nave
are replaced by barrel vaults in the western bays.
(5) The ornamental frieze on the north exterior wall, begun in the
east bay, is discontinued in the western bays.
(6) The side-aisle window in the east bay is placed higher than in
the western bays.
(7) The string-course of the abacus of this window is brusquely
interrupted where the two constructions adjoin.
(8) In the barrel vault of the nave is visible a break in the masonry
between the easternmost and western bays of the nave.
(9) This break continues in the masonry of the easternmost piers
of the nave on both sides.
(10) The arcade arch of the east bay of the nave is narrower and
higher than those of the western bays.
(11) The high dado separating nave and side aisles in the eastern
bay is discontinued in the western bays.
(12) The abacus string-course of the eastern bays is brusquely
interrupted at the point of junction, and a new string-course begun
a metre further down.
(13) On the south side of the nave the design of the upper string-
course is changed at the point of junction.
ANGOULEME 307
(14) The capitals of the side-aisle responds are placed at a lower
level in the eastern bay than in the western bays.
(15) Blind arches, decorating the side-aisle wall, non-existent in
the eastern bay, are introduced into the western bays.
It seems therefore evident that it is a grave error to consider the
sculptures of St.-Amand-de-Boixe as dated monuments of 1 170. They
are indeed dated, but they belong to the church consecrated in 1125.
There is consequently no reason for assigning the facade of Angou-
leme to the second half of the XII century. The documents inform
us categorically that the cathedral was begun by the bishop Girard,
who was elected in 1101 ; built by him (he died in 1136) and conse-
crated in 1128. 1 It follows that the fagad e sculptures were ex e-
cuted between 1101 and 1128.
There is, indeed, even more conclusive documentary evidence
upon the subject. In the spandrel between the two great engaged
arches which on the southern side of the facade rise from the ground
to the top-most gallery is inscribed a monogram. M. de Mely 2 has
read this; it is the name Itius. Now there is in the cathedral of
Angouleme an epitaph of Iteus Archembaldi who died in 11 25, can-
onicus huius matricis aecclesiae in qua multa bona operatus est. A con-
temporary chronicle is a little more explicit in regard to the good
works of I tier Archembauld. He furnished half the funds for the con-
struction of the walls of the new cathedral. 3 We begin to understand
why his monogram was placed upon the facade. It was because it
had been built, at least in part, at his expense. Since Itier Archem-
bauld died in 11 25, and his monogram is placed in the upper part of
the facade, it is clear that the facade up to this level, or nearly so,
must have been erected from funds given by him before 1125.
1 A document of 1128 signed by the bishop of Angouleme, Girard, is dated tertio die post
dedicationem. The author of the article in the Congres Archeologique, 191 2, LXXIX, 61, tried to
explain this away by supposing that it was a quotation from the calendar of the diocese ; he
believed it to mean the third day after the day on which the anniversary of the dedication is
celebrated. That also this interpretation is impossible has already been shown by M. de la
Martinere. (See Bulletin Monumental, 1920, 173). There is no doubt that the cathedral of
Angouleme was consecrated in 11 28.
2 294. 3 Bulletin Monumental, 1920, 274-275.
3o8 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
Comparison of the style of Angouleme with numerous other dated
monuments leads us to the same conclusion. The abbey of Fonte-
vrault was consecrated in 1119. Parts of earlier buildings were in-
corporated, and additions were subsequently made, but it is clear
that the nave which has come down to us belonged to the building
consecrated by Callixtus II. Now the style of the capitals of this
nave (111. 923) is obviously contemporary with that of the sculptures
of Angouleme. 1
The style of the facade of Angouleme is also obviously contempo-
rary with that of the east end of St.-Eu trope of Saintes (111. 918).
But the construction of the choir of St.-Eu trope was doubtless under-
taken when the crypt was finished in 1096, and the church was com-
pleted, or virtually so, when visited by the author of the Pilgrims'
Guide about 11 29. Again we are led to the conclusion that Angou-
leme must be of the first third of the XII century.
We know that in general Romanesque sculptures were executed
before being placed in position in the building, and we know that
they were often prepared at the very beginning of the works that
they might be ready when the masoris had need of them. Mediaeval
buildings were constructed sometimes in vertical, sometimes in hori-
zontal sections. At least the facade of Angouleme was constructed
horizontally. The sculptures are of three distinct styles : the lunettes
are the oldest, then the sculptures in the arches above and finally
those of the top-most story. If we compare the latter, the angel of
St. Matthew (111. 929), for example, with the tympanum of St.
Michel d'Entraigues (111. 1006), dated 1137, we shall perceive that
the cathedral sculptures are distinctly earlier. The facade of Angou-
leme must therefore have been completed by 11 28 or at least very
shortly after.
Everything would therefore indicate the lunette sculptures were
executed about 1 1 10 or soon after. They have much such movement
as is characteristic of the tympanum of the south portal of St.-Sernin
1 Nothing but an inveterate habit of post-dating everything can account for the ascription
of this nave to the second quarter of the XII century {Cong. Arch., 1910, LXXVII, 50).
ANGOULEME 309
(111. 308-318). Closer analogies are, however, to be f ound with the
sculpture of Lombardv . The draperies are those characteristic of
Guglielmo. 1 The same folds with the same wave pattern at the
bottom are found, for example, in the angel of the Cremona Expul-
sion, a work executed between 1107 and 11 17. These draperies are
originally derived from manuscripts. They are found in miniatures
of the German school of the X century, 2 in bibles of Angers, 3 and
Amiens 4 of the same period, and in an English manuscript of the
XII century. 6 It is not entirely clear whether these manuscript
draperies were first translated into stone by Guglielmo and copied
from him by the master of Angouleme, or whether the reverse was
the case. I incline, however, to think the latter and to suppose
that Guglielmo, especially in his later works, was influenced by
Angouleme. The draperies in question are found more consistently
and persistently at Angouleme than at Cremona ; at Modena they
hardly occur.
The conjecture may indeed be risked that Guglielmo and the mas-
ter of Augouleme came into personal contact with each other. At
any rate, it is certain that the Angouleme work was strongly in-
fluenced by Italian models. Like Guglielmo, the Angouleme m aster
keeps bo th feet of his figures fir mly planted on the ground, even
when the figures are in motion ; like Guglielmo, he uses two parallel
lines to indicate the modelling of his draperies. The ornamental
de coration at Ang ouleme is strongly Lombardic. The rinceau be-
neath the lunette might have been sculptured for a church of the
Parmigiano c. 11 10; the interlaces of animals and foliage over the
lunettes are equally north Italian. Most striking of all is the frieze
to the right of the central portal beneath the lunette. We have
1 The wide diffusion of the art of Guglielmo throughout Europe is becoming increasingly
evident. Dehio, 176, has remarked that the portal of Andlau in Alsace is inspired by Nonan-
tola.
2 See, for example, the Perikopenbuch Kaiser Heinrichs II, Reichenau school, before 1014,
illustrated by Leidinger, V, 1 8 or the Bamberger Apocalypse, ed. Wollflin.
3 Bible of St.-Aubin of Angers, Angers, Bibl. de la Ville, No. 4, ed. Boinet, PI. CLII.
4 Illustrated by Haseloff in Michel, I, 2, 748.
5 British Museum MS. 37472, No. 1.
3io ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
already seen * how closely this is connected with ultramontane
monuments.
The crouching attitude of the lunette figures at Angouleme is
probably derived from manuscripts. We find parallel drawing in the
elders of the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeran of Ratisbonne, 2 a manu-
script which dates from 870, and in the sacramentary of Mar-
mou tiers 3 of c. 850.
The motive of placing three figures crouched or in motion in a
tympanum or lunette enjoyed a certain popularity in the first third
of the XII century, before the more elaborate compositions inaugu-
rated at Cluny came into vogue. This is the type of the tympanum
at San Pablo del Campo (111. 550) of Barcelona, a church consecrated
in 1 1 25. It appears also to have been the type of the ancient tym-
panum of Maguelonne (111. 1287, 1288), which as we have seen 4 must
date from c . 1 1 20.
In the local museum at Angouleme is preserved a relief by the same
hand that executed the lunette sculptures of the cathedral. This,
too, seems to have come from a lunette. I am tempted to conjecture
that it may have formed part of the central tympanum, destroyed in
the XVTIT . century, an d nowurpl a c^d-by—a^modern pas.fi ch#. The
museum fragment is of importance because unrestored. It therefore
affords an opportunity for obtaining a more exact conception of the
style and quality of our master.
The first atelier at Angouleme seems to have influenced later
sculptors of distant regions, more apparently than the later work of
the upper zones of the facade. We have already seen that the Angou-
leme Master of St.-Gilles derived his art from this source. 5 He
worked at St.-Gilles in the fourth decade of the XII century, or
twenty years after the Angouleme lunettes had been executed.
Another interesting derivative of the lunettes of Angouleme is the
relief representing St. Paul and St. John at the cathedral of Zamora
1 See above, p. 63.
2 Munich, Kgl. Bibl. lat. 140,000, illustrated by Boinet, PI. CXVI.
3 Preserved at Autun, Bibl. de la Ville, No. I9bis, ed. Boinet, PI. XLIII.
4 Above, p. 270. 5 See above, p. 273, 274.
ANGOULEME 311
(111. 740). The relationship to Angouleme is evident. The posture
of the St. John must have been inspired by the apostle to the left of
the northernmost lunette at Angouleme (111. 936) ; the facial type of
the St. John seems studied from the central apostle of the same
lunette ; the hair convention of the St. John is the hair convention
of the apostle to the left in the Angouleme lunette ; the folds of the
draperies of the upper part of the under-garment of the St. John
reproduce the corresponding ones of the apostle to the right in the
Angouleme lunette ; the face of the St. Paul is the face of the apostle
to the right of the lunette north of the central portal at Angouleme ;
the vertically falling folds of the outer mantle of both the Zamora
figures is evidently derived from those of the Angouleme lunettes ;
the draperies of the thigh of the St. Paul (111. 740) are like those of
the thigh of the central figure in the northern lunette at Angouleme
(111. 936). It is therefore certain that the Zamora sculptor had seen
and studied the lunettes of Angouleme.
It was not only Angouleme that he observed on his journey to the
North. The swirl of drapery to the right of St. John can only be de-
rived from Burgundy. His second tympanum of Zamora (111. 741),
representing the Virgin enthroned under a canopy between angels,
is obviously copied from the southern tympanum of Chartres. The
Child, however, is not placed in the frontal position, but on the left
knee as at Beaucaire (111. 1299).
I suspect that the same sculptor may be responsible for the figures
under the vaulting ribs of the Catedral Vieja of Salamanca (111. 736-
739). The draperies, it is true, are different ; but the face of the figure
trampling a dragon at Salamanca (111. 736) is the face of the Virgin
at Zamora (111. 741), and the face of the crouching figure at Sala-
manca (111. 739) is the face of the St. Paul of Zamora (111. 740).
Moreover, the draperies for all their apparent dissimilarities have
many points of contact. If the identification of these hands be ad-
mitted, we may infer that our master also brought from the West of
France, possibly from Cormery, the idea of placing sculptures below
the vaulting ribs.
312 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
It is known that the cathedral of Zamora was built by the bishop
Esteban (n 50-1168) and was consecrated in 1174. 1 Since our sculp-
tor shows knowledge of no monuments in the North later than the
southern tympanum of Chartres which was probably finished by
1 1 50, he might have worked at Zamora at any time between 11 50
and 1 174. That his activity is to be assigned to the earlier rather
than to the later part of this period is indicated by the fact that the
sculptures are placed upon the facade of the south transept, which
would presumably have been one of the parts of the building erected
rather early, and also by the finely archaic vigour and delicacy of his
style. The sculptures of the Catedral Vieja of Salamanca must surely
date from about 11 50. Senor Lamperez discards the consecration
date of 1 160, but thinks that the cathedral was begun before 1130,
and that the choir and transepts were finished by 1 1 50. 2
Another derivative of the first Angouleme atelier somewhat nearer
home is the portal of the refectory of St.-Aubin of Angers (111. 965-
972). We have here the work of an excellent sculptor who imitated,
about 1 130, the manner of the earlier work at Angouleme, but shows
no traces of having been influenced by the poorer sculptures of the
upper stories.
The relationship of the Angouleme lunettes to the frescos of
Catalonia is a puzzling one. The analogies in the working of the
draperies are obvious, and closer than can be accounted for by
common derivation from Othonian miniatures. Catalan fresco
painters were evidently in close touch with work in France ; one of
them indeed executed the frescos at Vicq, 3 which, too, are related
to the Angouleme lunettes. The question of the date of the Catalan
frescos is still unsolved. The churches of Sant Climent de Tahull
and Santa Maria de Tahull were consecrated in 1 123 ; I can see no
reason to doubt that their frescos are of this time. On the other
1 1 150. X. sed. Stefanus. Eccl. Cathedr. aedif. et dedicatur 15 IX. 1174. fl. 1168 (Gams).
3 A comparison between the frescos at Vicq and those of Catalonia was first suggested to
me by Mr. Cook; Mr. Melville Webber has pointed out that the Vicq frescos are especially-
close to Santa Maria de Bohi. There are illustrations of all these frescos in Les Pintures
Murals Catalanes published by the Institut d'Estudis Catalans.
ANGOULEME 313
hand, the frescos from Mur, now in the Boston Museum, are later,
perhaps c. 1 1 50 ; they are related to St.-Gilles and Chartres (as Mr.
Cook has recognized), as well as to Angouleme.
When we pass from the sculptures of the lunettes at Angouleme
(111. 936-940) to the reliefs of the upper stories (111. 929-935), we are
at once conscious of a change of style. All of the sculptures included
under the great arcades and in the arches flanking the central win-
dow seem to form an homogeneous group, which is distinguishable
from the lunettes. Yet the two are only very slightly separated.
Whether this difference is to be explained by supposing that the
upper sculptures are later, or the work of a different master, it is diffi-
cult to determine in the present restored condition of the edifice*
The photographs made before the restoration are unfortunately not
sufficiently clear to be of much assistance. As nearly as it is possible
to judge, the differences of manner are sufficient to justify the in-
ference that the upper sculptures are both later and by another
hand.
There can in any case be no doubt that the top-most sculptures
(111. 929-930) are by a different master, although still closely re-
lated. The figures are often elongated; the draperies are finer and
more clinging; the execution more skilful. The subject of this re-
markable composition is not, I think, the Last Judgment. The
angel blowing a trumpet indicates that as little here as does the
similar figure in the Puerta de las Platerias at Santiago from which
it is perhaps copied. 1 The subject is the apocalyptical vision, pre-
cisely as in the sculptures in the gable of the cathedral at Modena.
1 It is true that the Pilgrims' Guide speaks of the angels at Santiago (111. 675-677) as cornua
singula tenentes, Judicii diem pronuntiantes. But the composition obviously does not and never
did represent the Last Judgment. Angels blowing trumpets without connection with the Last
Judgment abound in mediaeval iconography; to cite the first examples that come to mind,
they are found in a miniature of the Utrecht Psalter, fol. 36 b; in a miniature of the Benedic-
tional of St. Aethelwold at Chatsworth, a work of the school of Winchester of c. 980, illus-
trated by Wilson and Warner, fol. 20; in the Exultet roll of Bari; in the capital representing
the Journey to Emmaus from Moutier-St.-Jean (111. 65) now in the Fogg Museum ; in the tym-
panum of Neuilly-en-Donjon (111. 93) ; on the facade of St.-Jouin-de-Marne (111. 946) ; in a
fresco of S. Pietro di Civate, illustrated by Toesca, no; in one of the sculptures under the
vaulting ribs of the Catedral Vieja of Salamanca (111. 737). The motive is probably reminiscent
of a Last Judgment, which is all that the text in the Guide means to imply.
I
3 1 4 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
We have, indeed, here another proof of the relationship between
Angouleme and the Emelian cathedral.
I The master of the upper sculptures remains under the influence of
miniatures — at least I take it that the busts in medallions are de-
rived from manuscripts rather than from other sources, although it
is impossible to be certain in the case of a motive so widely diffused. 1
It is, however, reasonable to suppose that German miniatures of the
X century continued to be the source of inspiration for the sculptors
of the West.
Especially notable are the angels sculptured at Angouleme on the
voussure of the central arch over the Christ (111. 929). The motive,
characteristic of the school of the West, is here found in its fully
developed form.
Turning now to the sculptures of St.-Amand-de-Boixe (111. 941-
945), we perceive that the work is indeed strikingly analogous to
Angouleme (111. 929-940). There are the same lunettes with three
figures, with the same friezes and ornamental patterns. But is cur-
rent archaeology correct in calling them the work of the same mas-
ters ? Notwithstanding the bad preservation of the reliefs of St.-
1 Heads in medallions are found: in an ivory box of the IV century in the museum at Brescia,
illustrated by Graeven, II, 1 1-15 ; in frescos of the late IV or early V century at S. Paolo f. 1. m.
at Rome (mostly destroyed) ; in the Christ of the triumphal arch of the same church of about
the middle of the V century ; in the Christ of uncertain date incorporated in the apse mosaic
of S. Giovanni in Laterano at Rome ; in the mosaic of S. Pier Crisologo of Ravenna, of the VI
century; in the mosaics of the early VIII century at S. Demetrius of Salonica; in the V century
mosaic of the basilica of Fausta at S. Ambrogio of Milan ; in the mosaics of S. Vitale at Ra-
venna of the VI century ; in innumerable coins ; in mosaic in the facade of the chapel of S. Zeno
at S. Prassede at Rome (817-824) ; in a fresco at Bawit in Egypt, illustrated by Griineisen, PI.
XLII; in a Byzantine ivory triptych of the X (?) century at the Vatican; in a Byzantine
enamel box of the same collection; in innumerable other enamels; in two Byzantine ivory
caskets of the X century in the Metropolitan Museum of New York ; in an ivory triptych of the
Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, illustrated by Schlumberger, Ep. ByZ., I, 17; in an ivory
diptych of the X century (ibid., S3) ; in a triptych of the X century of the Louvre (ibid., 64) ;
in a mosaic of the XI century at St. Luke of Phokis (ibid., 165, 341) ; in an ivory casket of the
X or XI century at Lyon (ibid., 281) ; in a destroyed icon of the XI century (ibid., 353) ; in a
mosaic of 1040 at Kief (ibid., 373) ; in the XII century mosaics at Cefalu, the Cappella Pala-
tina of Palermo, the Martorana of Palermo, Monreale; in an early Italian ivory of the XII
century in the Barberini library at Rome, illustrated by Graeven, II, 56 ; in a plaster relief of
S. Ambrogio, in the church of S. Ambrogio at Milan ; in stone sculpture in Armenia, in the
church at Achthamar of the early X century, illustrated by Strzygowski, Arm., 291 f.; in the
destroyed portal of Cluny; and in German ivories and miniatures of the X century — e.g.,
those of the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, illustrated by Goldschmidt, I, No. 38.
ANGOULEME 315
Amand, and the restoration at Angouleme, I have little hesitation
in replying in the negative. St.-Amand is the work of an inferior
copyist. He has taken his conception from Angouleme, but his exe-
cution is entirely different. His lunette figures are weak and timid
compared with their originals. They have not the movement, the
vigour, the daring, nor the decorative quality of the Angouleme
lunettes. The technical details are different. The St.-Amand artist
introduces a beaded ornament in his halos and on the robes of his
ecclesiastics, which is not found at Angouleme. His draperies are of
another type. They seem, indeed, inspired by the master of the up-
per row of reliefs at Angouleme. This point is important. Since St.-
Amand was consecrated in 11 25, we are confirmed in our dating of
even the latest work of the Angouleme facade to within the third
decade of the XII century.
St.-Jouin-de-Marne (111. 946-950) was begun in 1095; m 11 3 q1
the church was consecrated. The western bays of the nave seem to
be the latest part of the construction ; we may assume that the facade
dates from the years immediately preceding 1130. The style of the
sculptures seems, in fact, a little more advanced than that of the
latest work at Angouleme. 2 The draperies are more clinging, less
schematized, more naturalistic. The heads of the St. Peter (111. 950)
and of the St. John (111. 949) are finer than any of the heads at Angou-
leme (111. 929-940). In the upper figure to the left of the window
(111. 947) and the Delilah (111. 948) appear those trailing sleeves 3
which were to become characteristic of the school of the West in the
fourth decade of the century. These are barely foreshadowed in the
angel of St. Matthew (111. 929) at Angouleme. The heads of the two
apostles (111. 949, 950) below the Annunciation have already a Char-
train quality.
1 Altare princeps Ecclesiae S. Iohis Euang. anno 1130 denuo consecratu fuit ab Epo cujus
nomen reticetur, in honorem sanctorum Jouini, Martini atque Sebastiani {Chartularium
Monasterii S. Jovini de Marnis, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Fond Latin, No. 5449, fol. 5).
2 Yet according to the Cong. Arch.> 1903, LXX, 71, these are "des bas-reliefs plus anciens"
"appliqu6s dans le plein des murs. "
3 They are also characteristic of Far Eastern art from a very early period. Compare, e.g. y
the gilt bronze image owned by the Imperial Household, and anterior to 781, exhibited in the
Kyoto Exposition. It is illustrated in the catalogue.
316 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
St.-Jouin-de-Marne (111. 946-950) was a pilgrimage church. Al-
though apparently not directly on the road, the rich relics it con-
tained must have induced many to detour on their way to Santiago
or Rome. On the upper gable is sculptured a procession of pilgrims
— the same subject that was later repeated in the pilgrimage church
of Borgo S. Donnino in Lombardy. The facade of St.-Jouin-de-
Marne shows the characteristics of pilgrimage art in the many for-
eign influences it reflects. The strongest of these is that of Lom-
bardy. The division into three parts by shafts ; the ending of these
shafts inconsequentially ; the setting-in of random bits of sculpture
in high relief; the arched corbel-tables ; the grotesques of the capitals ;
the cross in the gable ; many of the anthemia and rinceaux, are evi-
dently inspired by models in Italy, and more especially in the neigh-
bourhood of Pavia. The sculpture, on the other hand, shows rather
French and Spanish influences. The Annunciation (111. 948) recalls
the master of the Creation of Adam at Santiago (111. 686) ; the
two statues below (111. 949, 950) seem to be reminiscent of the
Puerta de las Platerias (111. 674-691), of Cluny (111. 5-10) and
of Charlieu (111. 4) ; the Luxury possibly recalls Moissac (111. 371).
It is worthy of remark that the school of the West is by no means
so exclusively under the influence of Toulouse as has generally been
assumed. That wind, however, did unquestionably blow. The pecul-
iar stomach folds in the draperies, so characteristic of later work in
the West> are found in the cloister of Moissac (111. 273). This partic-
ular resemblance, however, may possibly be due to derivation from
a common original. Precisely such stomach folds are found in a man-
uscript life of Ste. Radegonde, illuminated about 1050 and now
preserved in the Bibliotheque Municipale of Poitiers 1 and also in
Spanish ivories (111. 664).
In addition to St.-Michel-d'Entraigues, which is a dated and ad-
mitted monument of 1137 (111. 1006), there remain two more works
of sculpture in the West, the date of which may be considered to be
accurately determined by documentary sources.
1 MS. 250 fol. 40, illustrated in the Bulletin de la S. F. R. M. P., 1914.
ANGOULEME 317
The little church at Chadennac (111. 1 034-1 040) offers the lover of
XH-century art an unexpected delight. These sculptures, lost in the
country and mentioned only cursorily in out-of-the-way books deal-
ing with the antiquities of the region, are a masterpiece of the first
rank. Their quality is even finer than that of Chartres. They lack,
it is true, the repose and monumental grandeur of the work at Par-
thenay; their merits are rather delicacy and finesse. This sculptor
was the Pisanello of Romanesque art. Like the Italian he delights in
the world — the pomp of extravagant costume, the beauty of lithe
and graceful limbs. Like Pisanello, too, he takes particular joy in ani-
mals. Indeed, I suspect that the slender hounds, so characteristic of
the Veronese artist's work, and which came to him from French min-
iatures, may be the lineal descendants of the no less lovely ones
sculptured on the portal of Chadennac. 1
The date of this important monument — 11 40 — is happily de-
termined by an inscription, 2 which if not of great antiquity, doubt-
less still preserves an authentic tradition. Several heads are abso-
lutely Chartrain in style, as, for example, the restored male portrait
in the cornice over the central portal. One of the heads in the vous-
sures (111. 1035) is very close to those of Gilbert at Toulouse (111.
434-436).
The portal of Blazimont (111. 1041-1044) is another work by the
sculptor of Chadennac. The arch of the door-way at Blazimont is
pointed ; the attenuation of certain figures is more extreme ; the style
a little more mannered; but on the whole the two works are very
much alike. The draperies, the animals, the drawing, numerous
technical peculiarities are the same. The angel on the column at
Chadennac (111. 1039) ls the sister of the angels in the inner vous-
sures at Blazimont (111. 1043). Like Chadennac, Blazimont is a pure
and beautiful example of the quasi-Burgundian art of the West.
There are, it is true, details of this portal at which criticism must
cavil ; but in its entirety it is a master-work. Here, indeed, is the per-
1 The Chadennac hounds are, perhaps in turn, derived from those of the Utrecht Psalter,
f. 23, 24 b, 33.
2 Dangibeaud, id.
3 i8 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
fection of manner. Charm of line and grace of contour unite with
delicacy of execution.
The derivation of this art from the tympanum of Autun — 1 132 —
(111. 80, 81) is obvious. So is its relationship with St.-Michel — 1 137
— (111. 1006) in which we perceive the same tendencies. If Blazi-
mont is purer, more Burgundian, that is doubtless because its sculp-
tor came in more direct touch with the fountain-head. Blazimont
was probably executed about 1145.
A confirmation of this dating may be derived from an English
manuscript of 1 1 19-1 146. l The angels here have the same elongated
and crossed legs as in our sculptures. The two works must be nearly
contemporary ; but one has the impression that in this case the min-
iature is not the original but the copy. If this feeling be correct, we
must place Blazimont before 1146. 2
The angel on the outer voussure of the portal at Varaize (111. 1002)
comes exceedingly close to the style of the Chadennac Master, but
the inner voussures are of an entirely different manner.
The sculptures at Moreaux (111. 1065-1068) are even less known
than those of Chadennac. Indeed, when I visited the ruins of this
chapel in 1921, the reliefs had entirely disappeared underneath a
luxuriant growth of ivy. Since some of the vines were several inches
thick, it was evident that the sculptures had not been seen by human
eyes since Longuemar copied the inscriptions more than half a cen-
tury ago.
These inscriptions, which may still be read, imply that the chapel
was erected by Grimoard and Guillaume Adelelme, bishops of
Poitiers, and Arnaud, arch-deacon. 3 Now Guillaume Adelelme was
1 Reproduced by Haseloff in Michel, II, 1, p. 312.
2 This type of angel became typical of English manuscripts of a late period — see the calen-
dar of c. 1200 illustrated in the Burlington Catalogue, PI. 34; the Psalter of St. Mary's of
Winchester, c. 1 220-1 240 (ibid., PI. 37); the Psalter of St. Swithun's Priory, Winchester,
British Museum, Cotton MS., Nero, C. IV, f. 39 ; the late XII century Life of St. Guthlac of
Croyland, Brit. Mus. Harley Roll Y. 6, ed. British Museum Reproductions from Illuminated
Manuscripts, Series I, viii.
3 Inscription of central portal :
VT FVIT INTROITVS TEMPO SCI SALOMON1S:
t SIC EST ISTIVS IN MEDIO BO VIS ATQ: LEONIS:
ANGOULEME 319
elected bishop of Poitiers in 1 128 ; he died in 1 140, and was succeeded
by Grimoard, who died two years later, in 1142. Since both bishops
are mentioned in the inscriptions, the chapel must have been begun
before 1140, and finished after, but before 1142. It is, therefore, a
very precisely dated monument of 1140.
Two other monuments should perhaps be considered of deter-
mined date, although the documentary evidence in regard to them is
circumstantial rather than explicit. The church of St.-Vivien was
given by the bishop of Bazas to the priory of La Reole in 1144; l
since the style of the existing sculptures (111. 1085, 1086) is precisely
that of this date, we are justified in concluding that the donation
occasioned a reconstruction of the church. Similar considerations
lead me to place both friezes of Selles-sur-Cher (111. 1074-1082) in
H45. 2
In fact one of the flanking statues stands on a lion, the other on a bull. Left of the portal :
DS MISEREATVR GRIMOARDI
PICTAVENSIS EPI ET ARNAVDI
ARCHIDIACONI PAT NR.
Right of the portal :
DS MISEREATVR GVILMI ADALELMI PICTAVENSIS EPI ET ARNAVDI ARCHI-
DIACONI PAT NR.
1 Archives de la Gironde, V, 151.
2 See what has been said above, p. 24 f.
VIII
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST
We have now passed in review, at least so far as known to me, the
monuments of sculpture in the school of the West, the date of which
can be determined by documentary evidence. The list is meagre, es-
pecially in view of the large number of undocumented monuments
extant ; yet by rare good fortune the dates are distributed over the
first forty years of the XII century with sufficient frequency to de-
termine the development of sculpture in this critical period. After the
formation of the Gothic style at St.-Denis (111. 1437-1457) in 1140,
the course of art runs smooth. The documents, therefore, help us out
precisely at the point where we have most need of them.
Several undated monuments are still of importance for compre-
hending the evolution of sculpture in the West.
Among these, one of the best known is certainly Notre-Dame-la-
Grande of Poitiers (111. 951-962). Because of its analogy with
Angouleme (111. 929-940), which as we have seen has been much
post-dated, archaeologists have generally considered this facade as
of c. 1 1 80. That would make it about contemporary with Senlis
(111. 1 505-1 5 13) and the Portico de la Gloria at Santiago (111. 820-
840). It is only necessary to compare Notre-Dame-la-Grande (111.
951-962) with these two monuments to be convinced of the extrava-
gance of the theory.
The facade of Notre-Dame-la-Grande (111. 951-962) is certainly
more unified than that of Angouleme (111. 929-940) ; it is, however,
possible to trace in the sculptures the work of three different hands.
To the first belong all the reliefs to the left of the central portal (111.
956-959), also the Joseph (111. 962) and the wrestlers (111. 962) to the
right. By the second are the Visitation (111. 960) and the Nativity
(111. 961) ; and by the third the apostles (111. 952-955) above. It is
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 321
evident that the first two masters worked contemporaneously ; if the
third came after them, it must have been by a comparatively short
interval of time, since his style hardly seems essentially more
advanced.
Comparison with Angouleme (111. 929-940) gives the impression
that the facade of Notre-Dame (111. 951-962) was begun later. At
Poitiers the design is more coherent ; the pointed arches introduced
in the side lunettes have no counterpart at Angouleme. The lunette
sculptures of Angouleme (111. 936-940) are obviously more primitive
than any of the work at Notre-Dame-la-Grande. But if the Pictave
facade was begun later, it may well have been finished about the same
time. In fact the sculptures seem contemporary with the later work
at Angouleme (1128) and St.-Amand-de-Boixe (111. 941-945) — 1125.
The rudimentary Jesse Tree (111. 959) must have been executed
before this motive received its definitive form at St.-Denis. We
may, therefore, assign Notre-Dame-la-Grande to c. 1130. The
trailing sleeves of the figure to the right of the Visitation need not
disquiet us in this dating. We have seen that such sleeves are also
found at St.-Jouin-de-Marne (111. 946-950) which was completed in
1 130.
The iconography of these sculptures is interesting. Beginning in
the spandrel above the northern great arch to the left we have repre-
sented the Temptation. The inscription is now in part illegible, but
can be reconstituted with the help of the copy of Lecointre, pub-
lished by Longuemar : 1
ADA: EVA CRIMEN FERT HOMINI PRIMORDIA
LUCTUS
Then follows the figure of Nebuchadnezzar; the inscription
NABVCODNOSOR REX is still well preserved.
We have next four prophets, the two at the ends holding scrolls,
the two in the centre, books. The first is Daniel ; on his scroll can
still be read: CV VENERIT SCS SCORVM CES(^7 unctio
vestra). The second holds a book; he is Moses and he once was
322 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
supplied with the inscription : PROPHETAM DABIT VOBIS DE
FRATRIBUS VESTRIS ET NON ESTIMA. The third was
Jeremiah ; he once was supplied with the inscription : POST HAEC
IN TERRIS VISUS EST ET CUM HOMINIBUS CONVER-
SATUS EST. The fourth was Isaiah ; on his scroll was inscribed :
EGREDIETUR VIRGA DE RADICE JESSE, ET FLOS DE
RADICE EJUS ASCENDET.
The next scene is the Annunciation ; then Jesse, with a tree grow-
ing from his head, on the top of which perches the dove of the Holy
Spirit ; last the Nativity.
It is generally admitted that this peculiar order of scenes was in-
spired by a miracle play. That may be, although I do not know any
text with which the sculptures correspond.
It has been held in particular that the four prophets holding scrolls
or books with inscriptions are derived from a miracle play, and that
the proof of this is to be found in the quotations selected for the
scrolls.
Now it is true that these quotations are peculiar. That of Daniel
does not correspond precisely with any text in the scriptures, but is
taken from a pseudo-Augustine sermon. This sermon, 1 which en-
joyed universal popularity in the Middle Ages, to the point that it
was incorporated as a regular part of the liturgy, was written in the
form of a dialogue. The theme is the confutation of the Jews from
the mouths of their own prophets. Character after character is in-
terrogated, and answers. First Isaiah comes forward. Die, says the
writer, Ysaia, testimonium Christo. Isaiah replies with the text :
Ecce inquit virgo in utero concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitur nomen
ejus Hemanuhel. 2 Then comes Jeremiah. Die et tu, Jheremia, testi-
monium Christo. Hie est, inquit, Deus noster et non estimabitur alius
absque Mo qui invenit omnem viam scientie et dedit earn Jacob puero
suo et Israel dilecto suo. Post hec in terris visus est et cum hominibus
conversatus est? Next is Daniel : Die, sancte Danihel, die de Christo
1 Published by Migne, Pat. Lat. } XLII, 1123.
2 Isai., vii, 14. 3 Bar., iii, 36, 37.
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 323
quod nosti. Cum venerit, inquit, Sanctus Sanctorum, cessabit unctio
(vestra). 1 Die et Moyses . . . testimonium Christo. Prophetam, in-
quit, vobis suscitabit Deus de fratribus vestris; omnis anima que non
audivit prophetam ilium, exterminabitur de populo suo. 2 Accedat
autem David sanctus. Adorabunt inquit eum omnes reges terre, omnes
gentes servient illi. 3 Die et tu Abacuch propheta testimonium de
Christo. Domine, inquit, audivi auditum tuum et timui ; consideravi
opera tua et expavi. 4 Then comes Simeon : Nunc dimittis, Domine,
servum tuum in pace, quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum. h Zacha-
rias and Elizabeth testify: Tu puer propheta Altissimi vocaberis,
preibis ante jaciem Domini par are viam ejus. 6 Then is mentioned the
scene of the Visitation; Elizabeth adds: Unde mihi hoc ut veniat
mater Domini etc. 7 John the Baptist is also introduced. Then comes
Virgil : Jam nova progenies celo dimittitur alto. 9. The next witness is
Nebuchadnezzar: Die, Nabuchodonosor, quid in fornace vidisti
quando tres viros justos injuste illuc miseras, die, die quid tibi fuerit
revelatum. — Nomine inquit tres viros misimus in fornace ligatos. — Et
aiunt ei, Vere rex. — Ecce inquit video quattuor viros solutos deambu-
lantes in medio ignis et corruptio nulla est in eis et aspectus quarti simi-
lis Filio Dei. 9 Last comes the Sibyl with the verses made celebrated
by St. Augustine :
Judicii signum tellus sudore madescet ;
E celo rex adveniet per seclafuturus, etc.
This sermon, already half dramatic, incorporated in the ritual of
the Church, seems to have developed into a miracle play. The vari-
ous parts were presumably first read by different members of the
clergy; then costumes came to be assumed, and finally the sermon
was re-written in dramatic form, the dialogue being put into rhyme.
Now whether the iconography of Notre-Dame-la-Grande is in-
spired by a lost prose version of the drama of the prophets, or di-
1 Cf. Dan., ix, 24. 2 Deut., xviii, 15.
3 Ps., lxxi, 11. 4 Hab., iii, 1 ; cf. Eccle., vii. 14.
5 Luc, ii, 29. 6 Luc, i. 76.
7 Luc, i, 43. 8 Ecloga, IV, 7.
9 Dan., iii, 92.
324 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
rectly by the sermon is a very open question. There is no proof that
the play entered into the composition. That it did has simply been
assumed by writers anxious to make their point. The question is
perhaps at bottom an academic one. The sermon slipped into the
drama by imperceptible degrees. The conceptions of the sermon were
so striking that they impressed themselves indelibly upon the XII
century, and found expression in different forms.
That the iconography of Notre-Dame-la-Grande goes back
directly or indirectly to the sermon is certain. In no other way can
be explained the juxtaposition of Nebuchadnezzar and the prophets.
The sermon also explains the association of the scene of the Visita-
tion with these other subjects. Moreover, the scrolls of the prophets
are quotations not from the scriptures, as we have observed, but
from the sermon. Only Isaiah is given a verse which is taken from
his prophecy, and not quoted in the sermon. The prophets selected
at Notre-Dame are among those that appear in the sermon —
Moses, Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah.
It has been claimed that the motive of prophets holding scrolls was
first introduced at St.-Denis ; this is said to have been a translation
into stone of the drama of the prophets, and from there the motive
spread over Europe.
In point of fact the motive of prophets holding scrolls goes back to
the earliest times of Christian art. We find them, for example, in the
Codice Sinopense, an Asia Minor manuscript of the VI century. 1
Here scenes from the Testaments are flanked on both sides by a
prophet holding a scroll on which is inscribed a sentence from his
prophecy. In the Codice Purpureo of Rossano, a contemporary
monument, scenes from the New Testament have placed below them
four prophets with similar scrolls. Prophets similarly flanking scenes
from the Gospels are also found in the Greek St. Matthew of the VI-
VII centuries. 2 In the Occident we find the motive in the Utrecht
Psalter. 3 In the XI century the motive appears in the destroyed
1 Bib. Nat. Supp. gr. 1286.
illustrated by Omont, PI. XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX.
» Folio 6 b.
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 325
mosaics of Capua, 1 in the frescos of S. Angelo in Formis, and in the
mosaics 2 of Daphni. 3
The texts selected for the scrolls of the prophets do not seem to
have been rigidly fixed. There appears to have been considerable
variety and freedom of choice at all times. From the beginning of the
XII century we begin to feel the influence of the pseudo-Augustine
sermon in the texts selected, and in the prophets represented. Thus
at Cremona, in Lombardy, in the jambs sculptured by Guglielmo
(1 1 07- 1 1 17) we have represented the four prophets Daniel, Jeremiah,
Isaiah and Ezekiel. All except Ezekiel are among those mentioned
in the sermon ; and the scrolls of the first three are quotations not
from the scriptures, but from the sermon. 4 In Nicolo's work at Fer-
rara (1135) are the same four prophets, with the same inscriptions,
obviously taken over from Cremona. 5 But at the cathedral of Verona
in 1 139 Nicolo has given a different selection of prophets. David,
Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel and Habakkuk are the same as appear in
the sermon ; with the exception of David their scrolls are either quo-
tations from the sermon, or the texts cited in it; but to these have
been added Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, Micah and Joel, who do not
appear in the sermon. 6 In a cupola of S. Marco at Venice, which is
one of the earliest mosaics of the church, and probably executed not
x Bertaux, Ital. Mer. y I, 187.
2 Scrolls were given not only to prophets. The seated consul holds a scroll with inscription
in the Probianus-Diptychon of the Berlin Staatsbibliothek (illustrated by Pelka, 58). A per-
sonage, identified as St. Mark by Mr. Maclagen, carries a scroll in an ivory-carving from the
throne of Grado now in the Museo Archeologico of Milan, a Coptic work of the VI century, but
this piece is perhaps a later restoration (illustrated by Maclagen, PI. Ill, xii) ; scrolls are car-
ried by St. Mark and St. John in a miniature of the Gudohinus Gospel at Autun (No. 3), which
is earlier than 750. St. Matthew carries a scroll in a miniature of the Codex Aureus of Stock-
holm, fol. 9 b ; the motive is also found in a South Anglo-Saxon Gospel of the IX century, illus-
trated by Zimmermann, 314 (Rome, Vat. Barb. Lat. 570) ; and in the Landisfarne Gospels of
the British Museum (Cotton MS. Nero D. IV, fol. 209 b, illustrated by Zimmermann, 226).
Christ is represented carrying a scroll with inscription in a Byzantine ivory of the X century
in the museum of Berlin, illustrated by Schlumberger, II, 460. A book-cover of the Cluny
Museum, at Paris, by the Echternach master, a work of the end of the X century, represents
St. Paul carrying a scroll with the inscription : Gratia dei sum id quod sum. It is the same in-
scription which is repeated on the scroll of the St. Paul of the facade of St.-Gilles (111. 1311).
8 Millet, 83.
4 See my Lombard Architecture, II, 386-387.
5 Ibid., II, 419, 420. 8 Lombard Architecture, III, 476.
326 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
long after the mosaic decoration was commenced in 1070, are repre-
sented a series of prophets with scrolls. Solomon, Malachi, Zecha-
riah, Haggai, Sophonias, Jonah, Abdias are not included in the cycle
of the sermon ; David is, but his scroll is not the text cited in the ser-
mon ; however, Habakkuk, Daniel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah have
scrolls which are either quotations from the sermon, or repetitions
of the texts there cited. 1 In the east window of the cathedral of
Piacenza is sculptured the Annunciation and the two prophets
Balaam and Isaiah. Isaiah bears a scroll with the text cited in the
sermon ; Balaam does not appear in the sermon, but was introduced
into the mysteries at an early date — first apparently in the Mystery
of Adam, which is in certain ways more primitive than that of Rouen.
It is therefore not impossible that we have here some influence of the
drama. In the apse arch of S. Clemente at Rome, in a mosaic of
1 108, is represented Jeremiah with a scroll on which is inscribed the
text quoted by the sermon. Isaiah with the text quoted by the ser-
mon is represented at Moissac (111. 361). The same prophet is found
at Conques (111. 391) and Notre-Dame-du-Port of Clermont-Ferrand
(111. 1 162) balancing St. John the Baptist. The coupling of these two
characters must certainly be ascribed to the influence of the sermon.
At Ancona Jeremiah has the text cited by the sermon, and Habakkuk
a quotation from the sermon. In the pulpit of S. Leonardo at Arcetri
(111. 226) Moses has the text cited by the sermon, and Daniel a quo-
tation from the sermon. 2 At Orense Daniel has a scroll with a
quotation from the sermon (111. 855). At S. Pellegrino at Bomiaco in
the Abruzzi are frescos of 1 263 ; Daniel holds a scroll with a quotation
from the sermon. 3 Three scenes from Duccio's Siena reredos are
flanked by prophets holding scrolls. The Isaiah of the Berlin Nativ-
ity still has the same text cited by the sermon. At S. Marco of Venice,
a mosaic by Pasterini dating from 1634 still shows Jeremiah carrying
a scroll with the text cited in the sermon.
We may conclude that the motive of prophets holding scrolls with
1 Saccardo in Ongania, 305. 2 Durand, 26.
3 Bertaux, ltd. Mer., 291.
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 327
a quotation from their prophecies is an exceedingly old one, which
may be traced back as far as the VI century. These scrolls at first
contained texts from their prophecies ; but about the end of the XI
century preference came often to be given to the texts cited in the
pseudo-Augustine sermon, and even quotations from the sermon
came to be substituted for the scriptures.
It is not true that the scrolls of Guglielmo's prophets at Cremona
are copied from those of Notre-Dame-la-Grande. We have only to
compare the scrolls of the two Jeremiahs to perceive that the two are
derived from a common original, the sermon, and that neither is
copied from the other. The scroll at Poitiers was : Post haec in terris
visus est et cum hominibus conversatus est . . . ; that at Cremona is :
hie est inquit deus noster et non estimabitur alius absque illo qui invenit
omnem viam scientie et dedit earn lacob puero suo et Israel dilecto suo.
We should, indeed, hardly suspect that the two were related, did we
not possess the key in the common source.
Although the scrolls are derived independently from a common
original, there is still no doubt that the first hand which we have dis-
tinguished in the sculptures of Notre-Dame-la-Grande shows points
of stylistic contact with the work of Guglielmo. One of Guglielmo's
marked peculiarities is the habit of representing his figures in full
face, but showing the feet in profile. Now the sculptures at Notre-
Dame-la-Grande of Poitiers show this same mannerism, for example,
in the handmaiden to the right of the Visitation (111. 960). The
Joseph of Notre-Dame is remarkably similar to the Elijah of
Guglielmo at Modena. 1 The Poitiers Temptation (111. 957) is not
without resemblances to Guglielmo's rendering of the same theme at
Modena and Cremona. Moreover, the arched corbel-tables of the
facade of Notre-Dame-la-Grande and much of the decoration are
strongly reminiscent of Lombardic models. Our artist seems to
have known Souillac also ; his wrestlers (111. 962) are a weak echo of
those on the sculptured column (111. 350), and recall the similar
1 This figure should be compared with a Byzantine ivory casket of the IX century, in the
Museo Kirchiano at Rome, illustrated by Graeven, II, 58.
328 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
motive sculptured on the portal of the cathedral of Trani in Apulia
(111. 206).
The Visitation (111. 960) of the second sculptor is close to the
Temptation of Christ in the Puerta de las Platerias (111. 678). The
embroidered borders of the draperies are indicated by perforations —
the earliest completely developed example I know of a feature later
so popular, and which is only foreshadowed at St.-Jouin-de-Marne
(111. 949)-
The composition of the Majestas Domini in the upper gable (111.
951) looks as if it might have been inspired by a seal. 1
The portal at La Lande de Fronzac (111. 916, 917) seems to have
been inspired by an ivory casket like the one of 1005 preserved in the
cathedral of Pamplona. 2 The eyes are executed according to the same
convention ; 3 the draperies are similarly rendered, there are the same
stiff skirts, the same stocky figures, the same relief in two planes, the
same angularity of drawing. Most striking of all, the decorative in-
terlace of the guilloche of the box is reproduced on the inner archi-
volt of the portal.
The style is crude and barbarous, but perhaps not as primitive as
it appears. The sleeves of the principal figure already tend to trail, a
characteristic which we have seen appear at Angouleme only in the
2o , s. 4 However, our doorway can hardly be as late as that. /
A striking feature of La Lande de Fronzac is the proto-voussure
sculptures, 5 forming an evident link between the Burgundian type,
such as we have it in the portal of Cluny or at Calvenzano and the
developed motive as we have seen it at Angouleme (111. 929) in 11 28.
La Lande de Fronzac evidently falls at an early stage of this evolu-
1 1 owe this suggestion to Mr. Berenson.
2 This analogy was called to my attention by Mr. Breck.
3 See the Mas photograph, no. C 151 64.
4 This motive was especially popular in France from 1 1 20-1 150, but was certainly known at
an earlier date. Since, as we have already remarked (see above, p. 315), it is common in Far
Eastern art, it is indeed probably of very ancient origin. It is found in the ivory box of Pam-
plona of 1005 ; in the sculptures of 1060 from the Mauritzkirche, now in the Westfalischen
Landesmuseum at Minister; and in the pier sculptures of the Moissac cloisters of 1100 (111.
269).
6 Proto-voussure sculptures are also found at Grossenlinden.
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 329
tion. Moreover, the iconography, taken from the first chapter of the
Apocalypse, is unusual. We should hardly find this particular sub-
ject after the stock Burgundian themes had been elaborated. I am
therefore inclined to believe that this portal dates from the first
decade of the XII century.
We are confirmed in this dating by observing that the style of the
sculptures at La Lande de Fronzac seems analogous to that of one of
the capitals (111. 913) of St.-Hilaire-le-Grand of Poitiers. The facial
types are very similar, and so are the short stocky skirts. This capi-
tal assuredly belongs to the works executed when the wooden roof
of the church was replaced by a vault ; a document of 1 130 mentions
that this alteration had been made within the memory of those until
recently living, hence at the end of the XI century. 1 Contemporary
capitals at St.-Hilaire (111. 915) are of a different style, and indeed
recall rather the monuments of the Velay. In fact, close connections
existed between the collegiate church of St.-Hilaire and Le Puy,
where the canons had retired when forced into exile in the IX cen-
tury.
An unexpected connection of the master of the tympanum of La
Lande de Fronzac (111. 917) is with a capital at Anzy-le-Duc in Bur-
gundy (111. 17). This capital falls as completely out of the Burgun-
dian tradition, as it is obviously closely related to the style of the
tympanum at La Lande de Fronzac. It must be the work of a sculp-
tor of the West who wandered to Burgundy, and unless I mistake, of
the very master of the Lande de Fronzac tympanum. From this re-
lationship we can draw another confirmation of our dating of the
Lande de Fronzac sculptures. On the nave of Anzy-le-Duc there
worked also a Burgundian master who executed a peculiar capital
(111. 21). Now this same hand reappears at St.-Parize-le-Chatel
(111. 25), a monument which is dated n 13.
The influence of Moorish ivories upon Romanesque sculpture is
not an isolated phenomenon which occurs only at La Lande de
Fronzac. The same source of inspiration lies at the base of much of
1 Mortet, 142.
330 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the decorative ornament of the school of the West of the XII cen-
tury. A common origin in Moorish ivories explains analogies be-
tween works of sculpture widely separated geographically. Thus the
two pulpits by Nicodemo in the Abruzzi, one at Moscufo, dated 1 159
(111. 180), and the other, an extraordinarily exact duplicate, at
Cugnoli, dated 1166, 1 are not really influenced by the school of the
West, but the resemblance to this work is due to the fact that they
are copied from originals similar to those imitated in the West. The
analogy of the facial types at La Lande de Fronzac (111. 917) with
those of the "Tomba de Rotari" at Monte S. Angelo (111. 197, 198)
might be explained in the same way; but at Monte S. Angelo the
draperies have a distinctly Western character which gives reason to
believe that we have here direct influence.
The facade of Ste.-Marie-des-Dames at Saintes (111. 974-976)
dates from two distinct periods. The upper story is analogous in
style to the western portal of St.-Amand-de-Boixe (111. 1 135) ; it must
therefore have been erected in the second half of the XII century.
The lower story is obviously more archaic. It seems like a direct de-
velopment from La Lande de Fronzac with the influence of Moorish
ivories still predominating in the ornament. However, if this church
owed much to Spain, it also gave much. We have here one of the
earliest examples of voussure sculptures (111. 974) as well as of rows
of figures placed parallel to the radii of the portal (111. 975, 976). The
latter motive was taken over by the Spanish sculptors at Toro (111.
734), in both churches at Carrion de los Condes (111. 773), at Sepul-
veda (111. 802), at Soria (111. 795) and in the Portico de la Gloria at
Santiago (111. 824-828). This interchange of influences between
Saintes and Spain is easily explained by the position of the former on
the road of St. James.
In the luxuriant barbarity of its decoration, as well as in individual
motives, the portal of Ste.-Marie-des-Dames (111. 974-976) resem-
1 Illustrated by Poggi, 74.
Nicodemo worked also at S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta in collaboration with Roberto. See
Bertaux, Ilal. Me'r.^ 562.
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 331
bles S. Michele of Pavia. Its wildness suggests a date within the first
quarter of the XII century ; it will be recalled that at Angouleme re-
finement and delicacy had begun to supplant the earlier more savage
manner before 1128. The voussures of Angouleme are distinctly
more developed than those of Ste.-Marie. It is therefore probable
that the portal of Ste.-Marie dates from not later than 11 25.
The church of Aulnay (111. 979-986) is situated some distance from
the village, and on the pilgrimage road. We may, indeed, recognize
in the architecture and sculpture a pilgrimage character, not only in
the extraordinary sumptuousness of the decoration, but in the in-
fluences to and from Spain. The inspiration of Moorish ivories is still
patent in the facial types of the transept portal (111. 979) and in the
ornament, even in the elephants sculptured on one of the capitals.
Pilgrimage character is also evident in the building in other foreign
influences : the arched corbel-tables and much of the ornament is
Lombard; and the sculpture, especially of the facade, shows Bur-
gundian tendencies.
It is evident that the portal of the transept (111. 979) is earlier than
the facade (111. 983-986). The transept doorway (111. 979) is indeed
the nee plus ultra of the line of development we have been following
out. More exquisite drollery than that of the outer voussures has
rarely been attained. Grotesque art can go no farther.
A comparison of the transept portal of Aulnay (111. 979) with that
of Ste.-Marie-des-Dames (111. 974-976) shows how greatly superior
was the Aulnay sculptor. He has suppressed the numerous small
members, the confusion of detail which make the work of his prede-
cessor restless and confusing. He has made his orders all rectangular,
his voussure sculptures all of the radiating type. In short, there is in
his work a sense of order, of subordination of the details to the whole,
which is characteristic of the second rather than the first quarter of
the XII century. In detail his figures are better executed and more
advanced in character than those of Saintes. Although far from
being as fine as the later work at Angouleme, they may none the less
be contemporary; the master of Aulnay was essentially a dec-
33 2 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
orator rather than a figure-carver. His portal may be assigned to
c. 1 130.
The western portal of Loches (111. 1111-1119) is clearly related to
the transept portal of Aulnay. It is, perhaps, the work of a sculptor
trained in the Saintonge school of the 3o's who a score of years later
still repeated a formula by that time entirely demode. In the outer
voussure (111. 1116), however, he shows himself conscious of the new
movements — the figures here are quite Chartrain in character. The
fragments of sculpture enwalled above the portal are certainly not in
the position for which they were carved ; probably as in Spain they
were sculptured some time before the church was actually built, and
when the construction came to be carried out they were not set up as
originally intended. At all events four of the figures (111. 1115, 1 1 17)
are adossed on colonnettes, which must have been intended to stand
free. The position of the Virgin holding the Child in the frontal posi-
tion recalls Chartres ; but the subject, — the Adoration of the Magi,
— the canopy over St. Joseph (111. 1 1 13) and the folds of the drapery
which covers the bed of the Magi (111. 11 14) must be derived from
Beaucaire (111. 1299).
A more interesting sculptor executed, doubtless somewhat earlier,
two consoles in the church (111. 1108-1110). The same hand reap-
pears in the capitals of LTle-Bouchard (111. 1100-1107) and in the
zodiac of Aubeterre (111. 1098, 1099). Among the Romanesque sculp-
tors of France known to me, there is none so strongly Guglielmo-
esque in character. This artist must assuredly have been formed
in Lombardy. He uses Guglielmo's faces, Guglielmo's draperies,
Guglielmo's proportions, Guglielmo's beards, and most striking of all
his spirit is Guglielmo's. But although he imitates so assiduously the
manner of the early years of the XII century, our artist obviously
worked at a later time. This is evident not only from the character
of the architecture at Loches and at LTle-Bouchard, but also in cer-
tain details of his style. His garments have the ornamented borders
which hardly came into general use before 1135 ; the composition of
his capital with the Last Supper at LTle-Bouchard (111. 1104) is like
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 333
that of the capital of the same subject at Issoire (111. 1214), with the
table forming a skirt cutting the bell of the capital into two parts ;
his Visitation at LTle-Bouchard (111. 1101) recalls the composition
of Nicolo at Ferrara ; the architecture of his gates of Paradise (111.
1 106) at L'Ue-Bouchard is advanced in style. The activity of our
master must be placed in the 40^ and 5o's. A comparison of his
style, with that of the Chadennac master (111. 1 034-1 040) who
worked contemporaneously in the same region, is eloquent proof of
the freedom and individuality of Romanesque sculptors.
Returning to Aulnay, we notice that the pointed window above
the transept portal, with the superb psychomachia sculptured upon
the voussures (111. 980), seems to be contemporary with the portal,
or nearly so, but is of a very different style.
A different and later art, on the other hand, appears in the western
facade (111. 983-986). Burgundian influence is evident in the flat
folds of the draperies, in the elongated proportions, in the sweeping
contours. Calligraphic line is indeed here, as frequently in the Bur-
gundy-izing work in the West, carried to a sugary extreme which
the wiser artists in the land of its origin were clever enough to avoid.
In Burgundy I know of nothing quite so obviously graceful as the
Foolish Virgins of Aulnay (111. 985). The spirit of this work has evi-
dently much in common with Chadennac (111. 1034-1040) — 1140
— with which it must be about contemporary.
The same hand which executed the western portal at Aulnay (111.
983-986) reappears at Argen ton-Chateau (111. 987-996). Fenioux
(111. 997-998) is also so closely related that I am inclined to think the
three monuments all the work of the same sculptor. The portal at
St.-Pompain (111. 1058) signed by Guillaume (GIEGLELM) is also
close to this group, but I think Guillaume is an imitator, not to be
identified with the finer sculptor of Aulnay and Argenton-Chateau.
The west facade of Aulnay was imitated at Pont-l'Abbe-d'Ar-
noult (111. 1003-1005). Not only was the composition of the tym-
panum of the side lunette representing the Crucifixion of St. Peter
(111. 1005) repeated in a form that is singularly reminiscent of Aulnay
334 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
(111. 983), but the arrangement of the subjects, and the general
scheme of the two central portals is very much alike (111. 984 and
111. 1004).
Two distincj: hands may be distinguished in the sculptures of
Notre-Dame-de-la-Couldre of Parthenay. To the one belong the
sculptures still in place on the ruins of the facade of the church (111.
1047-1052) ; to the other the two capitals now enwalled in the gate
of the neighbouring school (111. 1045, 1046) and the six reliefs now
divided between the Louvre (111. 1 053-1 057) and the collection of
Mrs. Gardner. The distinction of style is so sharp that it is natural
to suppose that it corresponds with a difference in date; yet there
can be no great interval of time between the two groups.
The reliefs from the Louvre and at Mrs. Gardner's can only be a
small part of the sculptures which once existed on the upper part of
the facade. This must have been, indeed, one of the most lavishly
decorated monuments in France. And what is singular is that the
simple and rather commonplace lower part of the facade which still
survives gives no hint of the splendour of the destroyed upper por-
tions.
These facts can, I think, be best explained by reference to the his-
torical events of the time. It is in fact known that in 1135 a church
of Parthenay, which is traditionally identified as Notre-Dame-de-
la-Couldre, was the scene of a celebrated event. St. Bernard at the
portal completely and almost miraculously converted the stubborn
and recalcitrant duke of Aquitaine, Guillaume IX. We may suppose
that the lower part of the facade had been finished just before this
dramatic scene; and that the upper part was added immediately
afterwards to commemorate the occurrence, and possibly at the
expense of the duke.
However this may be, it is certain that the later sculptures must
have been executed about 1 140. The style is exceedingly close to that
of Chadennac (111. 1 034-1 040) ; so close, in fact, that I almost sus-
pect that they may be by the very hand of that artist. If so, they are
earlier, for they distinctly fall away from Blazimont (111. 1041-
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 335
1044). At any event, the head of Mrs. Gardner's elder with the
goatee beard is very like the head of the Gilbertian prophet at Chad-
ennac (111. 1035) ; the draperies on the upper part of the body of the
Louvre elder with the bag-pipe (111. 1057) are precisely like those of
the corresponding portions of the Virtue at Blazimont (111. 1042) ;
the naturalistic sheep of the Louvre relief (111. 1054) make us think
of the animals of Chadennac (111. 1036-1040) and Blazimont (111.
1041-1044) ; the fluttering draperies of the Parthenay elders (111.
1057) recall those of the angel on the column at Chadennac (111. 1039).
Whether or not this identification of hands be accepted, it is cer-
tain that the later work is exceedingly close to Chadennac, and not
much later than Chadennac, and Chadennac is a dated monument
of 1 1 40.
Furthermore the second atelier at Parthenay is very closely con-
nected with the later work on the Moissac porch. If we compare
the Abraham of the Parthenay capital (111. 1046) with the Simeon
of the Moissac Presentation (111. 372), we shall be convinced of the
very close relationship between the two. The eyes, the shape of
the head, the beard, the draperies are all similar. We feel that the
Parthenay work can not be very much later. Now the adjustment
work ori the Moissac porch we have seen is probably not later than
1 130. This, again, would lead us to place the Parthenay sculptures
in the fourth decade of the XII century.
On the other hand, the Parthenay elders show obvious relation-
ship with those of Chartres. The vase held by Mrs. Gardner's left-
hand elder 1 is of exactly the same form as the vases held by the two
elders in the lowest voussures at Chartres. 2 The Parthenay elder
holds the end of his long trailing sleeve to veil his hand, precisely as
does the elder to the right at Chartres. The similarity in the folds
of the two sleeves is unmistakable. 3 On the other hand, it is certain
that the Parthenay elder is not copied from Chartres. The Parthe-
1 Photographs of Mrs. Gardner's elders may be obtained from Thomas E. Marr and Son,
1 80 Tremont Street, Boston, Mass.
2 Illustrated by Houvet, 50.
3 This comparison was first suggested to me by Mr. C. S. Niver.
336 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
nay work shows no trace of the Chartrain draperies and other man-
nerisms; the resemblance between the two figures is only general.
The head master of Chartres was inspired by these originals, but he
did not slavishly reproduce them. The Parthenay work is obviously
more archaic, more primitive. Since Chartres was begun before 1145,
and Parthenay is earlier, we are brought again to the date 1140 for
Parthenay.
The shape and size of the relief of the Shepherds (111. 1053) shows
that it must originally have formed part of a frieze, such as still
exists, although no longer in its original position, in the not very dis-
tant church of Montmorillon (111. 1072 a, 1073). Such friezes were in
fashion about 1 140 ; we have seen that they were introduced at Beau-
caire (111. 1 292-1 298), St.-Gilles (111. 13 15-1322), St.-Trophime of
Aries (111. 1375, 1377), Dax (111. 327-332), Selles-sur-Cher (111.
1078-1082), St.-Paul-de-Varax (111. 86-90), Carrion de los Condes
(111. 722-726), Moarves (111. 729), Nimes (111. 1378, 1379), Ripoll
(111. 560). Friezes are also found at Modena and Cremona in Italy
and St. Jacob of Regensburg in Germany. Like the Montmorillon
frieze (111. 1072 a, 1073), that of Parthenay doubtless represented a
cycle of scenes dealing with the story of the nativity of Christ. Mrs.
Gardner's rider is shown by its height and shape to have belonged to
this frieze. The subject of the relief has been called the Entry into
Jerusalem, but this identification is doubtful. The Entry into Jeru-
salem could hardly have formed part of the same cycle of reliefs with
the Shepherds. It is much more likely that we should have had some
scene connected with the Nativity. Moreover, the figure seated
upon the female animal — whether it is a horse or donkey is not en-
tirely clear — is crowned ; Christ is never represented crowned in the
Entry into Jerusalem. It is far more probable that the relief is a
fragment from the scene of the Journey of the Magi ; the broken
object which the king carried in his left hand was possibly a gift, al-
though this naturalistic sculptor may have represented there a tree,
like the one he has put in front of the animal's head. The fatigue of
the animal after the long journey is admirably rendered.
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 337
The work at Foussais (111. 1061-1063) is interesting, not only be-
cause of its own intrinsic qualities, but because the northern lunette
(111. 1061) is signed by a certain . . . RAVDVS AVDEBERTVS
( = Giraud Audebert) of St.-Jean-d'Angely. This sculptor seems to
have been called in to supply the plastic decoration for the two
lunettes, representing the Feast in the House of Simon, the Noli me
Tangere and the Deposition. The central portal with radiating vous-
sures (111. 1062) is by a coarser hand. The analogies of Giraud Aude-
bert's work (111. 1061-1063) with Chartres are striking. The aedicule
separating the two reliefs in the south lunette is precisely similar to
the aedicules over the capitals and above the statues at Chartres.
The folds of the table-cloth and of the draperies below it are like those
of the figures in the central tympanum at Chartres, although some-
what coarser. The horizontal banding on the dresses, on the other
hand, seems derived from the tympanum of Autun (111. 80, 81).
Something in the disjoin tedness of the anatomy, the wattling of the
sleeves and certain draperies seems to foreshadow the later work at
La Daurade of Toulouse (111. 474-479). The "ribbed" draperies are
like those of St.-Antonin (111. 359).
A much more unexpected analogy is with the capitals from St.-
Pons (111. 1265, 1266) now in the Fogg Museum. Not only is the
composition of the two representations of the Feast in the House of
Simon strangely similar, but the figure to the left in the Foussais re-
lief (111. 1 061) has the same hair convention as the three figures in the
St.-Pons Journey to Emmaus ; the head has the same top-heavy pro-
portions. The draperies of the body of the figure to the extreme right
in the St.-Pons Journey to Emmaus are formed by parallel bands,
separated by raised rolls bounded by sharply incised lines. The same
peculiar convention occurs at Foussais, in the figure to the extreme
right of the Feast at the House of Simon. It is, indeed, characteristic
both of Foussais, and of one of the sculptors of St.-Pons. The skirts
of the figure to the extreme right in the St.-Pons Journey to Emmaus
are exactly the same as those of the Moon in the Foussais Crucifixion
(111. 1061).
338 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
The explanation of these similarities may give rise to difference of
opinion. We have seen that similar marked analogies, combined with
strong differences, occur not infrequently between widely separated
monuments of Romanesque sculpture. It is my hypothesis that
Romanesque sculptors underwent swift changes of style as they fell
under successive influences, or worked with different colleagues ;
and that the analogies are due to identity of hand. I should not dare
to say that the points of resemblance between Foussais and St.-Pons
are numerous enough, or striking enough, to prove that the Fogg
capital is by Giraud Audebert. I confess, however, to a suspicion
that such may have been the case. What is certain is that the St.-
Pons capital representing the Feast in the House of Simon (111. 1266)
belongs neither to the school of Aries, as Prof. Voge would have it,
nor to that of Toulouse, as M. Andre Michel claimed, but to that of
the West. In view of the geographical position of St.-Pons the fact
is strange.
We have already remarked that the St.-Pons capitals are not all
by the same sculptor. In the capital of the Journey to Emmaus
(111. 1265) we have unmixed the hand which I am tempted to identify
with that of Giraud Audebert. The capital representing the Feast in
the House of Simon is suaver in style, although the scene in the
kitchen (111. 1266) still retains many technical tricks of the first
sculptor, and the composition of the feast repeats, as we have re-
marked, that of Foussais. I think we have here probably the Giraud-
Audebert-esque artist working in collaboration with another sculp-
tor, who worked alone in the capital now in the Boston Museum
(111. 1267). This second hand has a strangely Gothic character — his
facial types and draperies recall the south portal of Chartres. Pos-
sibly he finished, long after, a capital which had been blocked out
by the Giraud-Audebert-esque sculptor. The manner of this second
master shows that he also came from the West. His style, in fact, is
close to that of the master who executed the apostles from St.-Benoit
now in the Poitiers museum. If, for example, we compare the folds
between the legs of Christ in the Fogg Museum capital representing
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 339
Christ in the house of Mary and Martha with those between the
legs of the apostle to the right in the Poitiers fragment shown in 111.
JI 33> we notice a certain similarity. The folds across the chest of
the seated male figure in the capital of the Boston Museum are
made with the same modification of the Giraud Audebert mannerism
which we find in the apostle in the middle of the same fragment
at Poitiers (111. 1133). The spirit of the draperies is similar in the
two works. The Giraud-Audebert-esque sculptor had already in-
troduced draperies of similar broad character in the Christ of his
Crucifixion at Foussais (111. 106 1).
A third hand may be distinguished in the Fogg capital represent-
ing the Majestas Domini and twelve apostles (111. 1270), and in the
two capitals now in the University of Montpellier (111. 1268, 1269).
This master makes use of draperies of the Giraud Audebert type ;
his faces are executed with extraordinary delicacy ; he seems to fall
between the two hands we have already distinguished.
How to account for the co-operation of these widely different
hands upon the same capitals I hardly know. The old theory, to
which I myself have subscribed, that the St.-Pons capitals are the
work of an atelier the activity of which continued during a con-
siderable period, with a gradual development of style, leaves the
close inter-relationship of the sculptors unaccounted for. On the
other hand I now find it hard to believe that men so divergent in
style should have worked at the same time. In any event prob-
ably none of the work of this second atelier is earlier than the sack
of the monastery in 1170. 1
If Giraud Audebert worked at St.-Pons in n 70, it is not abso-
lutely impossible that he might have executed his Foussais sculp-
tures before Chartres was begun in 1145. It is difficult to suppose
that he could have known the sculpture of Chartres, and picked up
from it only insignificant details.
The portal at Cognac (111. 1096) has certain heads which recall
vividly the style of Giraud Audebert. In other particulars, however,
1 Sahuc, 13.
3 4 o ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
the manner is notably different from his. The poppy eyes of some
figures recall the sculptor of Selles-sur-Cher (111. 1074-108 1).
While it is evident that the head master of Chartres was chiefly
formed at St.-Denis, it is also clear that he owes much to the West.
Numerous anticipations of his style in this region have already been
remarked. His voussure sculptures surely come from the West di-
rectly, and probably from the Chadennac (111. 1 034-1 040) master,
rather than via St.-Denis (111. 1437-1457). His elders, we have seen,
his facial types, his gravity, are inspired by Parthenay (111. 1045-
1057). From Montmorillon (111. 1072 a, 1073), one of the finest monu-
ments in the West, came, not only as we have already seen 1 the com-
position of the lintels of the southern portal at Chartres, but much
of the head master's drapery. Moreover, the mixture of Burgundian
and Spanish-Aquitanian mannerisms, so noticeable in the style of
the head master, is a characteristic of this school. Only here could
the sculptors of Chartres have found that blending of grace and
dignity, of delicacy and strength, which they carried to such per-
fection.
A confirmation of the debt of the sculptor of Chartres to the West
is afforded by the arched corbel-tables which he introduces so unex-
pectedly in the right-hand tympanum. The arched corbel-table is
notoriously a Lombard motive, and nothing could be more surprising
than to find it here. Are we to suppose that the master of Chartres
had studied GugliehWs frieze at Modena ? It is not probable. In
fact, we have seen that the school of the West fell strongly under
Lombard influence, and among the motives taken over was precisely
the arched corbel-table. Now the arched corbel-tables of Chartres
are not of purely Lombardic, but of Western, type (compare the
portal of Montbron).
It seems to be a curious fact that the influence of Chartres, which
spread so rapidly over the Ile-de-France, and reached remote regions
of Spain, never deeply affected the art of the West. I do not know
in that region a single instance of jamb sculptures, nor (except Cham-
1 See above, p. 125 f.
LATER MONUMENTS OF THE WEST 341
pniers) of a tympanum with the Apocalyptic vision l anterior to the
introduction of the Gothic style in the west facade of the cathedral
of Angers (111. 1 501-1503).
When the influence of Chartres does appear in the West the style
was already in full decadence. 2 This is the case at Civray where
1 The tympanum at Civray is modern.
The portal of Rochester in England shows interesting relationship with the school of the
West. The jamb sculptures seem to have been set in at a later date; the tympanum repro-
duces the composition of Cluny, but the style comes closer to Angoul^me or Notre-Dame-la-
Grande of Poitiers. Owing to the erroneous dating of the latter to c. 1180 the tympanum at
Rochester has been assigned to 1178 (Prior and Gardner, 198) ; but it would be astonishing if
it is really so late.
2 No region of Europe is as rich in monuments of Romanesque sculpture as the west of
France. The limits of the reader's already I fear sorely over-tried patience forbid that I should
here undertake a separate study of each one. Besides, the illustrations in the atlas will give
a far better idea of their beauty and interest than I could hope to convey by description.
1 shall therefore content myself with a chronological table of those of which 1 have not already
spoken.
The terminus ante quern for this group of monuments is the year 1 166, when the cathedral of
Poitiers was begun, and introduced the Plantagenet Gothic style into the region. The dating
of the sculpture can be confirmed by a study of the architecture. This, unfortunately, has never
been systematically undertaken, yet I note with satisfaction that the few dates assigned by
the Congres Archeologique {passim) on the basis of the architecture, correspond in general
with those at which I have arrived solely through the study of the sculpture.
Here then are the dates which seem to me probable :
St.-Symphorien, portal (111. 919) ; upper sculptures, c. 1135 (111. 1007).
St.-Maixent. Relief of a saint with crozier under an arch, now in Musee des Anti-
quaires de l'Ouest, Poitiers.
Parthenay-le-Vieux (111. 924, 925).
Ste.-Croix of Bordeaux (111. 920-921).
Chateauneuf-sur-Charente, portal (111. 973) — compare Fontaine d'Ozillac. III.
978 — ; upper sculptures, c. 1135 (111. 1008-1010).
Fontaines d'Ozillac (111. 977, 978).
Maillezais (111. 963).
Castelvieil (111. 926-928).
Pengnac (111. 101 8-1024).
Echillais.
Melle, St.-Hilaire (111. ion).
Corme Royal (111. 1012-1017).
Matha (111. 1031-1033).
Montmorillon, Octagone (111. 1030).
Ruffec (111. 1025-1029).
Melle, St.-Pierre (111. 1090, 1091).
Thouars, St.-Medard, sculptures restored (111. 1059, 1060).
Trois Palis (111. 1064).
St.-Aubin of Angers, cloister (111. 1069, 1070).
Surg£res (111. 1092, 1093).
Poitiers, St.-Hilaire-de-la-Celle, tombeau de St. Hilaire (111. 1134).
La Villedieu (111. 11 20, 11 21).
St.-Saturnin (111. 1071, 1072).
c.
1115.
c.
1 1 20.
c.
1 1 20.
c.
1 1 20.
c.
1 1 25.
c.
1 130.
c.
1 130.
c.
1 130.
c.
1135.
c.
1 135.
c.
H35-
c.
1 135.
c.
1 1 40.
c.
1 140.
c.
1 1 40.
c.
1 140.
c.
1 140.
c.
1 140.
c.
1 145.
c.
1 1 50.
c.
1 1 50.
c.
1 1 50.
c.
1 1 50.
342 ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE
adossed statues flanking the shafts of the facade (111. 1122, 11 23,
1 1 25) are introduced. This is a development of the motive in the
nave of Airvault (111. 898-900) which had opened the cycle of sculp-
ture in the West ; it had once before been tried on a facade at Chalais
(111. 1087).
c. 1 160. Gensac-la-Pallue (111. 1094, 1095).
c. 1 165. Civray (111. 1122-1131).
c. 1 170. Vouvant (111. 1136).
c. 1 175. Crouzilles (111. 1137).
LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO
Abbate, Enrico. Guida dell' Abruzzo. Roma, Club Alpino Italiano, Sezione di
Roma, 1903. 2 vols. 120.
Album des monuments et de Fart ancien du midi de la France. Toulouse, 1897. 4*0.
Allmer, A. et Terrebasse, Alfred de. Inscriptions antiques et du moyen dge de
Vienne en Dauphine. Vienne, Girard, 1875. 7 vols. 8vo.
Anonymous. Description de la basilique Saint-Remi & Reims d V usage des visiteurs.
Reims, Monce, s. d.
Latin Psalter in the University Library of Utrecht. London, Spencer, Sawyer, Bird
and Co., s. d., Folio.
Aubenas, J.-A. Histoire de Frejus. Frejus, Leydet, 188 1. 8vo.
Aubert, Marcel. Leglise abbatiale de Selles-sur-Cher. (Bulletin Monumental, 1913,
LXXVII, 387.)
Aznar, F. y R. Espana, detalles arquitectonicos de sus principales monumentos.
Madrid, Fuencarral, 1902. 4to.
Baillet, Dom Louis. Les Miniatures du "Scivias" de sainte Hildegarde. (Fonda-
tion Piot, 191 1, XIX, 49.)
Baluze, Etienne (Stephanus Baluzius). Miscellaneorum libri septem. Parisiis,
Muguet, 1700. 3 vols. 120.
Barret, P. Le tympan de Vancienne eglise romane d'Issy. (Bulletin Monumental,
1902, LXVI, 296.)
Bauer, Adolf und Strzygowski, Josef. Eine Alexandrinische Weltchronik. (Denk-
schriften des kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-His-
torische Klasse, L, 1904, II, 1.)
Baum, Julius. Romanische Baukunst in Frankreich. Stuttgart, Hoffmann, 1910.
4to. English edition under title: Romanesque architecture in France. London,
Heinemann, 191 2. 4to.
Bayet, Charles. Recherches pour servir & V histoire de la peinture et de la sculpture
chretiennes en Orient avant la querelle des Iconoclastes. Paris, Thorin, 1879. 8vo.
Bedier, Joseph. Les legendes epiques. Paris, Champion, 1913. 4 vols. 8vo.
Bedin, P. Saint Bertrand, evdque de Comminges. Toulouse, Privat, 191 2. 120.
Begule, Lucien. Leglise Saint-Maurice, ancienne cathedrale de Vienne. Paris,
Laurens, 1914. 4to.
Berchem, Max van; Strzygowski, Josef. Amida. Heidelberg, Carl Winter,
1 9 10. 4to.
Bernouilli, Rudolf. Die romanische Portalarchitektur in der Provence. Strassburg,
Heitz, 1906. 4to.
Bertaux, Emile. Exposicion retrospectiva de arte. Zaragoza, La Editorial, 1908.
4to.
Lart dans Tltalie miridionale. Paris, Fontemoing, 1904. 4to.
L 'email de Saint-Nicolas de Bari. (Fondation Piot, 1899, VI, 61.)
Bertoni, Giulio. Atlante storico-artistico del duomo di Modena. Modena, Orlandini,
191 2. 8vo.
344 BOOKS REFERRED TO
Bilson, John. Les origines de T architecture gothique. (Revue de V art chretien, 1901,
XLIV, 36s, 463; 1902, XLV, 213.)
Boinet, Amedee. La miniature carolingienne. Paris, Picard, 1913. Folio.
Bond, E. A. and Thompson, E. M. The Palaeographical Society facsimiles of manu-
scripts and insciptions. London, 1 873-1 894. 4 vols. Folio.
Bonnay, Louis. Description des decouvertes archeologiques faites cl Veglise Saint-
Martin de Brive. (Bulletin de la Societe Scientifique, Historique et Archeolo-
gique de la Correze, 1878, I, 233.)
Bouillart, Dom Jacques. Histoire de Vabbaye royale de Saint Germain des Prez.
Paris, Dupuis, 1724. Folio.
Bouillet, A. L'eglise et letresor de Conques. Rodez, Carrere, 19 14. 120.
Bouillet, A. et Servieres, L. Sainte Foy vierge et martyre. Rodez, Carrere, 1900.
4to.
Boyer, Victor. La cite de Carcassonne. Paris, Cham erot, 1884. 120.
Breck, Joseph. Spanish ivories in the Morgan Collection. (American Journal of
Archaeology, 1920, XXIV, 217.)
Brehier, Louis. L'art chretien. Paris, Renouard, 191 8. 4to.
Les miniatures des homelies du moine Jacques et le theatre religieux a Byzance.
(Monuments Piot, 1920, XXIV, 101.)
Les origines de l'art roman. (Revue de Tart ancien et moderne, 1920, XXXVIII,
129,231,263.)
Broche, Lucien. La date de la chapelle de Vheche de Laon. Caen, Delesques, 1903,
8vo. (Extrait du Bulletin monumental, 1902.)
L'eglise dePresles. Caen, Delesques, 1905. 8vo. (Extrait du Bulletin monumental,
1904.)
Bruel, Alexandre. Receuil des chartes de Vabbaye de Cluny par August Bernard.
Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1 876-1 903. 6 vols. 4to. (Documents inedits sur
l'histoire de France.)
Brutails, Jean-Auguste. Les vielles eglises de la Gironde. Bordeaux, Feret et Fils,
1912. 4to.
Notes sobre l'art religios en el Ro'ssello. Barcelona, Tip. l'Avenc, 1901. 8vo.
Buberl, Paul. Die illuminierten Handschriften in Steiermark. 1 Teil. Leipzig,
Hiersemann, 191 1. Folio.
Bullarium sacri ordinis Cluniacensis. Lugduni, Antonii Jullieron, 1680. Folio.
Burlington Fine Arts Club, London. Exhibition of illuminated manuscripts. London,
Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1908. Folio.
Buschbek, Ernst H. Der Portico de la Gloria. Berlin, Bard, 1919. 8vo.
Camera, Matteo. Memorie storico-diplomatiche delV antica citta e ducato di Amalfi.
Salerno, Tipografico Nazionale, 1 876-1 88 1. 2 vols. 8vo.
Catalogue du Musee de la Commission des Antiquites du Departement de la Cdte-
d'Or. Dijon, Lam arche, 1894. Folio.
Chalvet de Rochemonteix, Ad. de. Les eglises romanes de la haute Auvergne.
Paris, Picard, 1902. 4to.
Charles-Roux, J. Frejus. Paris, Blond, 1909. 120.
Saint-Gilles. Paris, Lemerre, 19 10. 4to.
Chenevard, A. L ancien Bourbonnais> histoire i monumens, moeurs. Par Achille
Allier continue par A. Michel et L. Batissier . . . sous la direction d'A. Chena-
vard. Moulins, Desrosiers, 1838. 3 vols. Folio.
BOOKS REFERRED TO 345
Cherest. Les documents ecrits ne constatent-ils pas V introduction du style ogival d
Veglise de Vezelay des la premiere moitie du XII siecle? (Congres Scientifique de
France, 1858, XV, 2, 191.)
Chifflet. Histoire de Vabbaye royale de la ville de Tournus. Dijon, 1664. 4to.
Chomton, Abbe L. Histoire de Veglise Saint-Benigne de Dijon. Dijon, Jobard, 1900.
Folio.
Clemen, Paul. Die romanische Monumentalmalerei in den Rheinlanden. Dusseldorf,
Schwann, 191 6. 4to.
Clermont-Ganneau, Charles. Horus et Saint Georges. (Revue archeologique,
1876, XXXVI, 196,372.)
Codice diplomatico barese. Bari, Vecchi, 1 897-1914. 8 vols. 4to.
Congres Archeologique de France. Paris, Picard, 1833 sec L* 82 vols. 8vo.
Creutz, M. Die Anfdnge des monumentalen Stiles in Norddeutschland. Koln, Du-
mont-Schauberg, 19 10. 8vo.
Crozes, Hippolyte. Travaux de restauration et d y achievement de la cathedrale de Sainte-
Cecile d'Albi. Paris, Victor Didron, 1 861. Pamphlet.
Dalton, O. M. Catalogue of the ivory carvings of the British Museum. London,
Longmans, 191 9. 4to.
Dangibeaud, Charles. Uecole de sculpture romane saintongeaise. Paris, Imprimerie
Nationale, 1910. 8vo. (Extrait du Bulletin archeologique, 1910.)
Debenga, Alvaro. Los marfiles de San Milldn de la Cogolla. (Arte Espanol, 1916,
V, 243, 296, 328.)
Dechelette, Joseph. Guide des monuments d'Autun. Paris, Picard, 1909. 8vo.
Dehio, Georg. Geschichte der deutschen Kunst. Berlin und Leipzig, de Gruyter,
1 92 1. 2 vols. 4to.
Dehio, Georg und von Bezold, Gust. Die Denkmdler der deutschen Bildhauerkunst.
Berlin, Wasmuth, s. d. 3 vols. Folio.
Delisle, Leopold. Vie de Gauzlin, par Andre de Fleury. Orleans, Jacob, 1853. 8vo.
(Extrait du tome II des Memoires de la Societe Archeologique de l'Orleanais.)
Delort, J. Notice sur Veglise de S aint-P i err e-des -Cuisines. (Memoires de la Societe
Archeologique du Midi de la France, 2me serie, XII, 1 880-1 882, 200.)
Demay, Germain. Le costume au moyen dge d'apres les sceaux. Paris, Dumoulin,
1880. 8vo.
Devic, Dom CI., et Vaisette, Dom J. Histoire generale de Languedoc. Ed. Dulaur-
ier, Mabille et Barry. Toulouse, Privat, 1 852-1 892. 15 vols. 4to.
Dibelius, Franz. Die Bernwardstur zu Hildesheim. Strassburg, Heitz, 1907. 8vo.
Didron. Manuel d'iconographie chretienne grecque et latine. Paris, Imprimerie
Royale, 1845. 8vo.
Diehl, Charles. Les mosa'iques byzantines de Saint-Luc. (Monuments Piot, 1896
III, 231.)
Manuel d' art by zantin. Paris, Picard, 19 10. 8vo.
Diehl, Charles et le Tourneau, M. Les mosa'iques de Saint-DSmStrius de Salonique.
(Fondation Piot, 1910, XVIII, 225.)
Diehl, Charles, le Tourneau, M., Saladin, H. Les monuments chretiens de Saloni-
que. Paris, Leroux, 1918. 2 vols. Folio.
Dieulafoy, Marcel. La statuaire polychrome en Espagne. Paris, Hachette, 1908.
Folio.
346 BOOKS REFERRED TO
Dorez, Leon. Les manuscrits a peintures de la bibliotheque de Lord Leicester a Holk-
ham Hall, Norfolk. Paris, Leroux, 1908. Folio.
Doring, Oskar. Der romanische Grabstein in Altenplathow. (Zeitschrift fur christ-
liche Kunst, 1907.)
Duchesne, L., Saint Jacques en Galice. Toulouse, Privat, 1900. 8vo.
Dufourcet, J.-Eugene. Les voies romaines et les chemins de Saint-Jacques dans
Vancienne Novempopulanie. (Congres Archeologique de France, 1888, LV, 241.)
Durand, Georges. Eglises romanes des Voges. Paris, Champion, 1913. 4to.
Durand, Julien. Monuments figures du moyen age executes d'apres des textes litur-
giques. Caen, Delesques, 1889. 8vo. (Extrait du Bulletin monumental, 1888,
LIV )5 2i.)
Ebersolt, Jean. Mission archeologique de Constantinople. Paris, Leroux, 1921. 8vo.
Egidi, Pietro. / capitelli romanici di Nazaret. (Dedalo, 1921, 1, 761.)
Escalona, Romualdo. Historia del real monasterio de Sahagun. Madrid, I barra,
' 1782. 4to.
Escher, Konrad. Die Miniaturen in den Easier Bibliotheken, Museen und Archiven.
Basel, Spittlers, 191 7. Folio.
Espitalier, l'Abbe H. Les eveques de Frejus. Draguignan, 1894. Pamphlet.
Fage, Rene. Leglise de Luhersac (Correze). (Bulletin monumental, 191 2, LXXVI,
38.)
Fatigati, D., Enrique Serrano. Escultura romanica en Espana. Madrid, Sales,
1900. 4to. (Boletin de la Sociedad Espanola de Excursiones, 1900, VIII,
181.)
Esculturas de los sighs IX al XIII. (Boletin de la Sociedad Espanola de Ex-
cursiones, IX, 1901, ^Si 59-)
Portadas artisticas de monumentos espanoles. Madrid, Hauser y Menet, (1907).
4to.
Portadas del periodo rorndnico y del de transicion al ojival. (Boletin de la Sociedad
Espanola de Excursiones, 1906, XIV, 6.)
Fayolle, Marquis de. La basilique Saint-Front de Perigueux. (Bulletin monu-
mental, 1920, LXIX, 197.)
Felibien, Dom Michel. Histoire de Vabbaye royale de St.-Denis en France. Paris,
Leonard, 1706. Folio.
Ferotin, D. Marius. Histoire de Vabbaye de Silos. Paris, Leroux, 1897. 8vo.
Recueil des chartes de Vabbaye de Silos. Paris, Leroux, 1 897. 8vo.
Ferrari, Filippo. Santa Maria Maggiore di Guardiagrele. Guardiagrele, Palmerio,
1905. 4to.
Fett, Harry. Billedhuggerkunsten i Norge under Sverreaetten. Kristiania, Cammer-
meyer, 1908. 4to.
Fita, F. Le codex de Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle. Paris, Maisonneuve et Cie.,
1882. 8vo.
Fita, P. Fidel y Fernandez-Guerra, D. Aureliano. Recuedos de un viage d San-
tiago de Galicia. Madrid, Lezcano, 1880. 4to.
Fleury, Edouard. Antiquites et monuments du departement de VAisne. Paris,
Claye, 1877-1882. 4 vols. Folio.
Fleury, Gabriel. Etude sur les portails images du XI P siecle. Mamers, Fleury et
Dangin, 1904. 4to.
BOOKS REFERRED TO 347
Fogolari, Gino. Cividale del Friuli. Bergamo, Istituto Italiano d'arti Grafiche,
1906. 8vo. Italia Artistica, No. 23.
Folnesics, Hans. Die illuminierten Handschrijten in Dalmatien. Liepzig, Hierse-
mann, 1917. Folio.
Die illuminierten Handschrijten im Oesterreichischen Kiistenlande in Istrien und
der Stadt Triest. Leipzig, Hiersemann, 191 7. Folio.
Foncin, Pierre. Guide & la Cite de Carcassonne. Toulouse, Pri vat, 1902. 120.
Font, Francois. Histoire de Vabbaye royale de Saint-Michel de Cuxa. Perpignan,
Comet, 1 88 1. 120.
Fontenay, Harold de et Charmasse, Anatole de. Autun et ses monuments. Autun,
Dejussieu, 1880. 120.
Forot, Victor. Catalogue raisonne des richesses monumentales et artistiques du
departement de la Correze. Paris, Schemit, 1 913. 8vo.
Frothingham, A. L. A new Mithraic relief from Syria. (American journal of
archaeology, 191 8, XXII, 54.)
Furmankiewicz, Casimira. La porte de bronze de la cathedrale de Gniezno. (Gazette
des beaux-arts, 1921, 361.)
Gabelentz, Hans von der. Mittelalterliche Plastikin Venedig. Leipzig, Hiersemann.
1903. 8vo.
Gall, Ernst. Die Apostelreliefs im Mailander Dom. (Monatshefte fur Kunstwissen-
schaft, 1 92 1, XIV, 1.)
Garcia de Pruneda, Salvador. Cuatro iglesias romdnicas en la ria de Camarinas.
(Boletin de la Sociedad Espanola de Excursiones, 1907, XV, 156.)
Gauthey, J. Christophe. Mosa'iques dans les ruines de Veglise prieurale de Gana-
gobie. (Revue de l'art chretien, 1898, XLI, 310.)
George, J., et Guerin-Boutaud, Al. Annexe de V interpretation du monogramme de la
cathedrale. (Bulletin mensuel de la Societe Archeologique et Historique de la
Charente, Serie VIII, No. 92, Mars, 1920, 6.)
Gerola, Giuseppe. An old representation of Theodoric. (Burlington magazine, 191 8,
XXXII, 146.)
Girardin. Histoire de la ville et de Veglise de Frejus. Paris, Delaulne, s. d. 120.
Giraud. Essai historique sur Vabbaye de S. Barnard et sur la ville de Romans. Lyon,
Perrin, 1856. 8vo.
Goldschmidt, Adolph. Der Albanipsalter in Hildesheim. Berlin, Siemens, 1895.
8vo.
Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der Karolingischen und Sdchsischen Kaiser.
Berlin, Cassirer, 1914. 2 vols. Folio. Denkmaler der deutschen Kunst.
Die Stilentwickelung der romanischen Skulptur in Sachsen. (Jahrbuch der koniglich
preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 1900, XXI, 225.)
G6mez-Moreno, Manuel. Iglesias mozdrabes. Madrid, Centro de Estudios His-
t6ricos, 1 91 9. 2 vols. 4to.
San Pedro de la Nave. (Boletin del Centro Excursionista de Zamora, Agosto-
Diciembre de 191 1, Ano II, Numero 9.)
Santa Marta de Tera. (Boletin de la Sociedad Espanola de Excursiones, 1908,
XVI, 81.)
Graeven, Hans. Friihchristliche und mittelalterliche Elfenbeinwerke in photo-
graphischer Nachbildung. Serie I. Aus Sammlungen in England. Serie II.
348 BOOKS REFERRED TO
Aus Sammlungen in Italien. Gottingen, Archaologische Institut, 1898. 2 vols.
120.
Die Vorlage des Utrechtpsalters. (Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft, 1898, XXI,
28.)
Grasset, M. La Societe Archeologique de Montpellier, ses travaux et ses collections.
Montpellier, Martel, 1882. 8vo.
Gruneisen, W. de. Les caracteristiques de Vart copte. Florence, Alinari, 1922. 4to.
Sainte-Marie Antique. Rome, Bretschneider, 191 1. Folio.
Hamann, Richard. Deutsche undfranzosische Kunstim Mittelalter. Marburg, Kunst-
geschichtliches Seminar, 1922. 4to.
Helbig, Jules. La sculpture et les arts plastiques au pays de Liege et sur les bords de la
Meuse. Bruges, Desclee, de Brouwer et Cie., 1890. 4to.
Herbert, J. A. Illuminated manuscripts. London, Methuen, 191 1. 8vo.
Homburger, Otto. Die Anfdnge des Malschule von Winchester im X. Jahrhundert.
Leipzig, Weicher, 191 2. 8vo.
Houvet, Etienne. Cathedrale de Chartres. Chartres, Durand, (1920). 6 vols. 4to.
Ivekovic, Cirillo M. Dalmatiens Architektur und Plastik. Wien, Schroll, 1910.
5 vols. Folio.
[James, M. R.] Catalogue of the manuscripts and early printed books of the library of
J. Pierpont Morgan. London. Privately printed for the Chiswick Press, 1906.
Folio.
Descriptive catalogue of the Latin manuscripts in the John Ry lands Library at Man-
chester. Manchester, University Press, 1 92 1. 2 vols. 4to.
Jara, Alfonso. Impresiones de una visita d Segovia. (Boletin de la Sociedad Espanola
de Excursiones, 1900, VIII, 49.)
Jeffery, George. A brief description of the Holy Sepulchre Jerusalem. Cambridge,
University Press, 191 9. 8vo.
Joubin, Andre. Quelques aspects archeologique s du Languedoc mediterraneen. (Revue
archeologique, 1920, 269; 1921, 37.)
(Juenin.) Nouvelle histoire de Vabbaye . . . de Saint Filibert et de la ville de Tournus.
Dijon, Fay, 1733. 4 to.
Karlinger, Hans von. Die hochromanische Wandmalerei in Regensburg. Miinchen,
Schmidt, 1920. 4to.
Kaufmann, Karl Maria. Die Menasstadt und das Nationalheiligtum der altchrist-
lichen Aegypter. Leipzig, Hiersemann, 19 10. Folio.
Kondakoff, N. Histoire de Vart byzantin y considere principalement dans les minia-
tures. Traduction de M. Trawinski. Paris, Ronam, 1886. 2 vols. 4to.
Kowalczyk, Georg. Denkmdler der Kunst in Dalmatien. Berlin, Verlag fiir Kunst-
wissenschaft, 1 910. 2 vols. Folio.
Kurth, G. Renier de Huy y auteur veritable des fonts baptismaux de Saint- Barthelemy
de Liege et le pretendu Lambert Patras. (Academie Royale de Belgique, Bulle-
tins, 1903, 519.)
Labande, L.-H. Leglise Notre-Dame-des-Doms d y Avignon des origines au XIII e
siecle. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1907. (Extrait du Bulletin archeologique,
1906.)
Lacroix, J. Espalion. Esquisses et souvenirs. (Bulletin de la Solidarite Avey-
ronnaise, 1914, VIII, 78.)
BOOKS REFERRED TO 349
Lahondes, Jules de. Les monuments de Toulouse. Histoire, archeologie, beaux-arts.
Toulouse, Privat, 1920. 4to.
Lamperez, y Romea, Vicente. Historia de la arquitectura cristiana espanola en la
edad media. Madrid, Blass, 1909. 2 vols. 4to.
Lasteyrie, Charles de. Labbaye de S. Martial de Limoges. Paris, Picard, 1901. 8vo.
Lasteyrie, Robert de. Etude archeologique surVeglise St.-Pierre d'Aulnay. Gazette
archeologique, 1886, XI, 277.)
Etudes sur la sculpture frangaise au moyen age. (Fondation Piot, 1902, VIII, 1.)
U architecture religieuse en France a T epoque romane. Paris, Picard, 191 2. 4ta
Ueglise Saint-Martin de Tours. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1891. 4to. (Extrait
des Memoiresde l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, XXXIV, iere
partie.)
Laurent, Marcel. Les ivoires pregothiques conserves en Belgique. Bruxelles, Vro-
mant, 1912. 8vo.
Laurin, Abbe L. Notice sur V antique abbaye de St.-Victor de Marseille. Marseilles,
Aschero-Vial, 1915. 120.
Lavergne, Adrien. Les chemins de Saint-Jacques en Gasco^ne. Bordeaux, Chollet,
1887. (Extrait de la Revue de Gascogne.)
Lefebvre des Noettes. La tapisserie de Bayeux datee par le harnachement des
chevaux et Vequipement des cavaliers. (Bulletin monumental, 1 912, LXVI, 213.)
Nouvelles remarques sur la date probable de la tapisserie de Bayeux. (Bulletin monu-
mental, 1914, LXXVIII, 129.)
Lefevre-Pontalis, Eugene. Deux statues du XII sikle au musee de Bourges.
(Bulletin monumental, 1913, LXXVII, 140.)
L architecture religieuse dans Vancien diocese de Soissons au XP et au XII siecle.
Paris, Plon, 1 894. 2 vols. Folio.
Ueglise de la Celle-Bruere. (Bulletin monumental, 1910, LXXIV, 272.)
Les campagnes de construction de Notre-Dame d'Etampes. (Bulletin monumental,
1909, LXXIII, 5.)
Leguina, D., Enrique de. Encuadernaciones romano-bizantinas. (Boletin de la
Sociedad Espanola de Excursiones, 1895, H 2 4^-)
Esmaltes espanoles. Madrid, Fe, 1909. 160.
Leidinger, Georg. Miniaturen aus Handschriften der kgl. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek
in M'unchen. Munchen, Riehn und Tietze, s. d. 5 vols. Folio.
Lemaire, R. Les origines du style gothique en Brabant. Bruxelles, Vromant, 1906.
8vo.
Lenoir, Alexandre. Monumens des arts liberaux, mecaniques et industriels de la
France. Paris, Techener, 1 840. Folio.
Musee des monumens franqais. Paris, Guilleminet, 1800-182 1. 8 vols. 8vo.
Leve, A. Anteriorite de la tapisserie de Bayeux sur la chanson de Roland. (Bulletin
monumental, 1913, LXXVII, 1913, 129.)
Ligtenberg, Dr. Raphael. Die romanische Steinplastik in den nordlichen Nieder-
landen. Haag, Nijhoff, 1918. 4to.
Lindner, Dr. Arthur. Die Basler Galluspforte und andere romanische Bildwerke der
Schweiz. Strassburg, Heitz, 1899. 8vo.
Locquin, Jean. Nevers et Moulins. Paris, Laurens, 1913. 4to. (Les villes d'art
celebres.)
350 BOOKS REFERRED TO
Longuemar, M. de. Epigraphie du haut Poitou. (Memoires de la Societe des Anti-
quaires de l'Ouest, 1863, XXVIII, 43.)
Lorain, M. P. Essai historique sur Vabbaye de Cluny. Dijon, Popelain, 1839. 8vo.
Lucot, M. le Chanoine. Leglise de Binson et sainte Posenne. Chalons-sur-Marne,
«*4 Thouille, 1882. 120.
Mabillon, Jean. Annates ordinis Sancti Benedicti. Lucae, Venturini, 1740. 6 vols.
Folio.
Maclagen, Eric. An early Christian ivory relief of the miracle of Cana. (Burling-
ton magazine, 1921, XXXVIII, 178.)
Male, Emile. La part de Suger dans la creation de V iconographie du moyen age.
(Revue de l'art ancien et moderne, 19 14, XXXV, 91, 161, 253, 339.)
Lart allemand et Vart frangais. Paris, Colin, 1917. 120. Replies by German
scholars in Monatshefte fur Kunstwissenschaft, X Jahrgang, 19 17, 127.
L'art du moyen dge et les pelerinages. Les routes d'ltalie. (Revue de Paris, 15 Oc-
tobre, 1919.) Les routes de France et d'Espagne. (Revue de Paris, 15 Fev-
rier, 1920.)
Le portail de Senlis et son influence. (Revue de l'art ancien et moderne, 191 1, 161.)
Les chapiteaux romans du musee de Toulouse. (Revue archeologique, Troisieme
Serie, 1892, XX, 2, 28, 176.)
Les influences du drame liturgique sur la sculpture romane. (Revue de l'art, 1907,
II, 81.)
Manerba, D. Pasquale. Memorie sulla origine della citta di Foggia e sua mag-
gior chiesa. Napoli, Morelli, 1798. 8vo.
Marignan, A. La decoration monumentale des eglises de la France septentrionle du
XI P au XI IP siecle. Paris, Leroux, 191 1. 120.
Le portail occidental de Notre-Dame de Chartres. (Le moyen age, 1898, 2e serie, II,
34i.)
Lecole de sculpture en Provence du XII au XIII siecle. (Moyen age, 1899, 2e serie,
Marrier, Dom Martin et Chesne, Andre du. Bibliotheca Cluniacensis. Paris,
1614.
Martene, Edmund, et Durand, Ursin. Thesaurus novus anecdotarum. Lutetiae
Parisiorum, Sumptibus bibliopolarum Parisiensium, 1727. 3 vols. Folio.
Martin, Camille. Lart roman en France. L'architecture et la decoration. Paris,
Eggimann, s. d. 3 vols. Folio.
Mayeux, Albert. Saint-Jean-le-Vieux a Perpignan. (Bulletin monumental, 1913,
LXXVII, 73.)
Mayeur, P. Le portail occidental de Ste. -Marie d'Oloron. (Revue de l'art chretien,
1909, LIX, 23.)
Leglise de Vancien prieure clunisien de Charlieu. (Revue de l'art chretien,
1909, LII, 33.)
McDougall, Dorothy. The choir capitals of St.-Pierre-en-Haute, Chauvigny
(Poitou). (Burlington magazine, 1920, XXXVI, 11.)
Mege, Alexandre du. Description du musee des antiques de Toulouse. Toulouse,
Douladoure, 1835. 8vo.
Le cloitre de la Daurade. (Memoires de la Societe Archeologique du Midi de la
France, 1834-1835,11,241.)
BOOKS REFERRED TO 351
Notice des monuments antiques et des objets de sculpture moderne conserve dans le
musee de Toulouse. Toulouse, Douladore, 1828. 120.
Melida, Jose Ram6n. La iglesia de San Juan de Rabanera en Soria (Boletin de la
Sociedad Espanola de Excursiones, 19 10, XVIII, 2.)
Mely, F. de. La renaissance et ses origines franqaises. (Revue de l'art ancien et
moderne, 1906, 62.)
Les primitifs francais et leurs signatures. Les sculpteurs. Paris, TAmi des Monu-
ments et des Arts, 1908. 8vo. (Extrait de l'Ami des monuments et des
arts.)
Nos vieilles cathedrales et leurs maitres d'oeuvre. (Revue archeologique, 1920.
290; 1921, 77.)
Merton, Adolf. Die Buchmalerei in St. Gallen. Leipzig, Hiersemann, 1912. Folio.
Michel, Andre. Histoire de l'art. Paris, Colin, 1905-1913. 10 vols.- 8vo.
Les accroissements du departement des sculptures au Musee du Louvre. (Gazette des
beaux-arts, 191 7, LIX, 49.)
Les sculptures de Vancienne fagade de Notre-Dame-de-la-Couldre & Parthenay.
(Monuments Piot, 191 8, XXII, 179.)
Michel, Edmond. Monuments religieux y civils et militaires du Gdtinais. Paris,
•"—** Champion, 1897. 2 vols. 4to.
J Millenaire de Cluny. Macon, Protat, 19 10. 2 vols. 8vo. (Annales de l'Academie de
S— _ Macon. 3me Serie, tome XV, ie et 2e partie.)
Millet, Gabriel. Le monastere de Daphni. Paris, Leroux, 1899. Folio.
Mosaiques de Daphni. (Fondation Piot, 1895, H> 197.)
Recherches sur V iconographie de Vevangile aux XIV, XV et XVI siecles. Paris,
Fontemoing, 191 6. 8vo.
Mitchell, H. P. Some enamels of the school of Godefroid de Claire. (Burlington
magazine, 1919, XXXIV, 85; 1920, XXXV, 34, 92, 217; 1920, XXXVI, 18,
128.)
Molinier, Emile. Histoire generate des arts appliques d, Vindustrie. Paris, Levy,
18961". 6 vols. Folio.
Monaca, Andrea della. Memoria historica delV antichitd, della cittcL di Brindisi.
(The title page is lacking in the copy in the library at Brindisi.)
•Monteverdi, Angelo. II duomo di Cremona. Milano, Bonomi, 1911. 120. L'ltalia
Monumentale, No. 18.
Monumentos arqu'itectonicos de Espana, publicados de rl. orden. Madrid, Imprenta
nacional, 1877 seq. 35 cuadernos. Great Folio.
Morellet, Barat, Bussiere. Le Nivernois, album historique et pittoresque. Nevers,
Bussiere, 1838. 2 vols. Folio.
Mortet, Victor. Recueil de textes relatifs d, V histoire de V architecture et d la condition
des architectes en France , au moyen dge. Paris, Picard, 191 1. 120.
Mulbe, W. H. von der. Die Darstellung des jiingsten Gerichtes an den romanischen
und gotischen Kirchenportalen Frankreichs. Leipzig, Klinkhardt und Biermann,
191 1. 8vo.
Museo espanol de antigiiedades. Madrid, Fortanet, 1872^ 11 vols. Folio.
Nella terra di Bari. Ricordi de arte medioevale. Trani, Vecchi, 1898. 4to.
Nicolas, Abbe C. Construction et reparations de Veglise de Saint-Gilles. (Memoires
de l'Academie de Nimes, VII serie, 1900, XXIII, 95.)
2$<i BOOKS REFERRED TO
Nodier, Ch., Taylor, J., et de Cailleux, Alph. Voyages pittoresques et roman-
tiques dans Vancienne France. Paris, Didot, 1825. 7 vols. Folio.
Notice des tableaux^ statues^ busies, bas-reliefs et antiquites composant le musee de
Toulouse. (Toulouse, 181 8.) 120.
Omont, H. Le mystere d'Emmaus. Paris, 1913. (Extrait de la Bibliotheque de
l'Ecole des Chartes, LXXIV, 1913.)
Peintures de Vevangile de saint Matthieu. (Fondation Piot, VII, 1900, 175.)
Peintures d'un evangelaire syriaque du XIP ou XIIP siecle. (Fondation Piot,
191 1, XIX, 201.)
Pace, Biagio. Escursioni in Asia Minore. Monumenti medievali de Adalia e
Conia. (Rassegna d'Arte, 1920, XX, 102.)
Pagenstecher, Rudolf. Apulien. Leipzig, Seemann, 1914. 120. Beruhmte Kunst-
stadten, No. 65.
Pelka, Otto. Elfenbein. Berlin, Schmidt, 1920. 120.
Perdrizet, P. et Chesnay, L. La mStropole de Serres. (Fondation Piot, 1903, X,
123.)
Perkins, Thomas. The cathedral church of Saint Albans. London, Bell, 1903.
120.
Philippe, Andre. Leglise de la Charite-sur-Loire. (Bulletin monumental, 1905,
LXIX, 469.)
Pijoan, Joseph. Les miniatures de Voctateuch a les biblies romaiques catalanes.
(Institut d'Estudis Catalans, Annuari, Any 4, 475.)
The Mozarabic churches of the ninth and tenth centuries in Spain. (Burlington
magazine, 1922, LX, 214.)
Pillion, Louise. Deux vies d'eveques sculptes & la cathedrale de Rouen. (Gazette des
Beaux Arts, 1903, 441; 1904, 149.)
Les soubassements des portails lateraux de la cathedrale de Rouen. (Revue de Tart
ancien et moderne, 1905, 81, 199.)
Pinard, M. Monographic de Veglise Notre-Dame de Corbeil. (Revue archeologique,
1845,11,165,643.)
Plancher, Fr. Urbain. Histoire generale et particuliere de Bourgogne. Dijon,
Antoine de Fay, 1739. 4 vols. Folio.
Plat, Abbe Gabriel. Notes pour servir & Vhistoire monumentale de la Trinite de
Vendbme. Vend6me, Vilette, 1907. 8vo. (Extrait du Bulletin de la Societe
Archeologique du Vendomois.)
Poggi, Giovanni. Arte medioevale negli Abruzzi. Roma, Itala Ars, 19 14. Folio.
Polentinos, Conde de. Excursion d Santillana y San Vicente de la Barquera. (Bole-
tin de la Sociedad Espaiiola de Excursiones, XVI, 1908, 68.)
Poree, Charles. Labbaye de Vezelay. Paris, Laurens, s. d. 120.
Porter, A. Kingsley. La sculpture du XIP Siecle en Bourgogne. Paris, Gazette des
beaux-arts, 1921. 4to. (Extrait de la Gazette des beaux-arts, 1920, 5e Periode,
n, 73.)
Les debuts de la sculpture romane. (Gazette des beaux-arts, 19 19, LXI, 47.)
Lombard architecture. New Haven, Yale University Press, 191 6. 3 vols. 8vo
and atlas in Folio.
Pilgrimage sculpture. (American journal of archaeology, 1922, XXVI, 1.)
Romanesque capitals. (Fogg Museum Notes, 1922, 1, 2, 23.)
BOOKS REFERRED TO 353
The development of sculpture in Lombardy in the XII century. (American journal
of archaeology, 19 15, XIX, 137.)
The sculpture of the West. Boston, Marshall Jones, 1921. Pamphlet.
Two romanesque sculptures in France by Italian masters. (American journal of
archaeology, 1920, XXIV, 121.)
Poussin, Abbe. Monographic de Vabbaye et de Veglise de St.-Remi de Reims. Reims,
Lemoine-Canart, 1857. 120.
Pouzet. Notes sur les chapiteaux de Vabbaye de Cluny. Paris, Champion, 191 2. 4to.
(Extrait de la Revue de Tart chretien, 1912.)
Prior, Edward S., and Gardner, Arthur. An account of mediaeval figure-sculpture
in England. Cambridge, University Press, 191 2. 8vo.
Puig y Cadafalch, Falguera, Antoni de, Goday y Casals, J. L arquitectura romdn-
ica a Catalunya. Barcelona, Institut d'Estudis Catalans, 1909. 3 vols. 8vo.
Quicherat, J. Histoire de la costume en France. Paris, Hachette, 1875. 8vo.
Rapport de la commission chargee de Vexamen des travaux a executer pour la restaura-
tion et Vassainissement de Veglise St.-Etienne de Nevers. Bulletin de la Societe
Nivernaise des Sciences, Lettres et Arts, 1854, 1, 109.)
Revoil, Henry. Architecture romane du midi de la France. Paris, Morel, 1874.
3 vols. Folio.
Riehl, Berthold. Geschichte der Stein- und Holzplastik in Ober-Bayern. (Abhand-
lungen der historischen Klasse der koniglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, 1906, LXXVI, I.)
Riu y Cabanas, Ramon. Efigie de Nuestra Senora del claustro en la catedral de Sol-
sona. (Boletin de la Sociedad Espanola de Excursiones, 1895, III, 94.)
Rivoira, G. T. Architettura musulmana. Milano, Hoepli, 1914. 4to.
Rizzo, G. E., e Toesca, Pietro. Storia delV arte classica e italiana. Torino, Unione
Tipografico-Edi trice Torinese, in course of publication.
Roblot-Deloudre, Louise. St.-Loup-de-Naud. (Fondation Piot, 1913, XXI, III.)
Rochias, Abbe G. Les chapiteaux de Veglise de Saint-Nectaire. (Bulletin monu-
mental, 1909, LXXIII, 213.)
Rodrigo, Juan Pedro. Recuerdo del monasterio de Santo Domingo de Silos. Madrid,
San Francisco de Sales, 191 6. 120.
Rohault de Fleury. La sainte Vierge. Paris, Poussielque, 1878. 2 vols. 4to.
Roosval, Johnny. Die Steinmeister Gottlands. Stockholm, Fritz, 191 8. Folio.
RoschAch, Ernest. Catalogue des antiquites et des objets d'art. Musee de Toulouse.
Toulouse, Viguier, 1865. 8vo.
Roulin, Dom Eugene. L'ancien tresor de Vabbaye de Silos. Paris, Leroux, 1901.
4to.
Les cloitres de Vabbaye de Silos. (Revue de Tart chretien, 1909, LIX, 75, 166, 359 ;
i9io,LX, 1.)
Les eglises de Vabbaye de Silos. (Revue de Tart chretien, 1908, LVIII, 289, 371.)
Oeuvres de sculpture de Vabbaye de Silos. (Revue de l'art chretien, 1909, LIX, 1.)
Orfevierie et emaillerie mobilier liturgique d'Espagne. (Revue de l'art chretien,
1903, XLVI, 19, 201, 292.)
Roux, Abbe J. La basilique S t. -Front de Perigueux. Perigueux, Cassard, 1920. 4to.
Rupin, Ernest. Labbaye et les cloitres de Mois sac. Paris, Picard, 1897. 4to.
Loeuvre de Limoges. Paris, Picard, 1890. 4to.
354 BOOKS REFERRED TO
Rupp, Fritz. Inkrustationstil der romanischen Baukunst zu Florenz. Strassburg,
Heitz, 1 91 2. 8vo.
Sacs, J. El Beda de Girona. (Veil iNou, Any V, 287, 329, 345, 386, 408.)
Sahuc, J. Lart roman d Saint-Pons-de-Thomieres. Montpellier, Societe Anonyme
de rimprimerie Generate du Midi, 1908. 4to.
Santeramo, S. II simbolismo della cattedrale di Barletta. Barletta, Dellisanti, 1917.
8vo.
Sauerlandt, Max. Deutsche Plastik des Mittelalters. Leipzig, Karl Robert Lange-
wiesche Verlag, s. d.
Scanno, Dionigi. Storia delV arte in Sardegna dal XI al XIV secolo. Cagliari-Sas-
sari, Mon torsi, 1907. 4to.
Schlumberger, Gustave. Bas-relief du campo Angaran & Venlse representant un
empereur byzantin du X Steele. (Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1893, II, 192.)
Deux bas-reliefs Byzantins de steatite. (Fondation Piot, 1902, IX, 229.)
V epopee byzantine. Paris, Hachette, 1 896-1905, 3 vols. 8vo.
Livoire Barberini. (Fondation Piot, 1900, VII, 79.)
Un ivoire chretien inedit y Musee du Louvre. (Fondation Piot, 1894, 165.)
Schmarsow, August. Kompositionsgesetze in der Kunst des Mittelalters. Leipzig^
Teubner, 1920. 2 vols. 8vo and atlas in folio.
Schubring, Paul. Bischofsstiihle und Ambonen in Apulien. (Zeitschrift fur christ-
liche Kunst, 1900, XIII, 193.)
Schulz, Guillermo. Miniaturas de la biblia de Avila. (Boletin de la Sociedad Es-
pafiola de Excursiones, 1897, V, 100.)
Schulz, Heinrich Wilhelm. Denkmdler der Kunst des Mittelalters in Unteritalien.
Dresden, Schulz, i860. 4 vols. 4to and atlas in folio.
Semper, H. Ivoires du musee national de Buda-Pesth. (Revue de Tart chretien,
1897, XL, 389, 477.)
Sentenach, N. Crucifijos romdnicos espanoles. (Boletin de la Sociedad Espafiola
de Excursiones, 1903, XI, 245.)
Miniaturas notables del Museo Arqueologico Nacional. (Boletin de la Sociedad
Espafiola de Excursiones, 1907, XV, 215.)
Relieves en marfil del area de San Milldn de la Cogolla. (Boletin de la Sociedad
Espafiola de Excursiones, 1908, XVI, 4.)
Sepet, Marius. Les prophetes du Christy etude sur les origines du thedtre au moyen
dge. (Bibliothequedel'Ecole des Chartes, 1867, XXVIII, 1, 210; 1868, XXIX,
105, 261.) Published separately, Paris Didier, 1878. 8vo.
Stettiner, Richard. Die illustrierten Prudentiushandschriften. Berlin, Preuss,
1895. 8vo.
Strzygowski, Josef. Catalogue general des antiques egyptiennes du musee du Caire.
Koptische Kunst. Vienne, Holzhausen, 1904. 4to.
Der Bilderkreis des griechischen Physiologus. Leipzig, Teubner, 1899. 8vo.
Der Dom zu Aachen und seiner Entstellung. Leipzig, Heinrichs, 1904. 8vo.
Der koptische Reiterheilige und der hi. Georg. (Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde, 1902, XX, 49.)
Die alt byzantinische Plastik derBlutezeit. (Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1892, 1, 575.}
Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa. Wien, Schroll, 1918. 2 vols. 4to.
Hellenistiche und koptische Kunst in Alexandria. Wien, Mechitharist, 1902. 8vo.
BOOKS REFERRED TO 3$$
The origin of Christian art. (Burlington magazine, 191 1, XX, 146.)
Swarenski, Georg. Die Salzburger Malerei. Leipzig, Hiersemann, 1913. 2 vols.
4to.
Terret, Victor. La sculpture bourguignonne. Paris, L'Art Catholique, 1914.
Testi, Laudedeo. Le baptistere de Parme. Florence, Sansoni, 1916. 4to.
Texier, Abbe. Histoire de la peinture sur verre en Limousin. Paris, Didron, 1847.
120.
Thiollier, F. Lartroman & Charlieu et en Brionnais. Montbrison, Brassart, 1892.
Folio.
Vestiges de Vart roman en Lyonnais. (Bulletin archeologique du Comite des Travaux
Historiques et Scientifiques, 1892, 396.)
Thomas, Abbe Jules. Les vitraux de Notre-Dame de Dijon. Dijon, Jobard, 1898,
120.
Thorel, Oct. Uequipement d'un pe/erin picard & St. Jacques de Compostelle. Amiens.
Yvert et Tellier, 1909. 8vo.
Tikkanen, J. J. Die Psalterillustration im Mittelalter. (Acta Societatis Scientiarum
Fennicae, Helsingforsicae, 1903. 4to. Tomus XXXI.)
Tobler, Titus et Molinier, Augustus, Itinera Hierosolymitana. Genevae, Fick,
1879. 2 v °l s « 8vo.
Tourneau, M. le. Les mosai'ques de Sainte-Sophie de Salonique. (Fondation Piot,
1909, XVI, 39.)
Treneff, D. K. Miniatures du menologe grec du XP siecle de la Bibliothlque Syno-
dale a Moscou. Moscou, 1911. Folio.
Trutat, M. Ancien hotel-de-ville de Saint-Antonin. (Bulletin archeologique de la
Societe Archeologique de Tarn-et-Garonne, 1876, IV, 158.)
Urlichs, Carolus Ludovicus. Codex urbis Romae topographicus. Wirceburgi,
Stahelianis, 1871. 120.
Venturi, Adolfo. Storia delV arte italiana. Milano, Hoepli, 19011". 7 vols. 8vo.
Vigil, Don Ciriaco Miguel. Asturias monumental, epigr&ficay diplomatica. Oviedo,
Hospicio Provincial, 1887. 4to.
Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene Emmanuel. Dictionaire raisonne de P architecture francaise
duXP auXVP Siecle. Paris, Morel, 1867. 10 vols. 8vo.
Virey, Jean. Les dates de construction de Saint-P ho liber t de Tournus. (Bulletin
monumental, 1903, LXVII, 515.)
Vitry, Paul. La cathedrale de Reims. Paris, Librairie Centrale des Beaux Arts,
1920. 2 vols. Folio.
Une ttie de Christ du XII siecle. (Fondation Piot, 1908, XVI, 137.)
Vitry, Paul et Briere, Gaston. Documents de sculpture francaise du moyen dge.
Paris, Longuet, 1904. Folio.
Ueglise abbatiale de Saint-Denis et ses tombeaux. Paris, Longuet, 1908. 160.
Vives, Antonio. Arqueta arabe de Palencia. (Boletin de la Sociedad Espanola de
Excursiones, 1894, 1, 34.)
Voce, Wilhelm. Der provengalische Einfluss in Italien und das Datum der Arler
Porticus. (Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft, 1902, XXV, 409.)
Wackernagel, Martin. Die Plastik des XI und XII Jahrhunderts in Apulien.
Leipzig, Hiersemann, 19.11. 4to.
Die Anfdnge des monumentalen Stiles im Mittelalter. Strassburg, Heitz, 1894. 8vo.
356 BOOKS REFERRED TO
Ueber die Bamberger Domsculpturen. (Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft,
1899, XXII, 94 ; 1901, XXIV, 195, i$s-)
Warner, Sir George. Gospels of Matilda, Countess of Tuscany, 1055-1115. Pri-
vately printed for the Roxburghe Club, 19 17. Folio.
Warner, George Frederic and Wilson, Henry Austin. The Benedictional of St.
Aethelwold. Oxford. Privately printed for the Roxburghe Club, 19 10. Folio.
Weber, Paul. Geistliches Schauspiel und kirchliche Kunst. Stuttgart, von Ebner
und Seubert, 1894. 8vo.
Weese, Artur. Die Bamberger Domskulpturen. Strassburg, Heitz, 1914. 2 vols.
8vo.
Weise, G. Studien iiber Denkmdkr romanischer Plastik am Oberrhein. (Monats-
hefte fiir Kunstwissenschaft, 1920, XIII, 1.)
Westwood, J. O. Facsimiles of the miniatures and ornaments of Anglo-Saxon and
Irish manuscripts. London, Quaritch, 1868. Folio.
Wilpert, Joseph. Die romischen Mosaiken und Malereien der kirchlichen Bauten
von IV bis XIII Jahrhundert. Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, 191 6. 4 vols.
Folio.
Wolfflin, Heinrich. Die Bamberger Apokalypse. Miinchen, Koniglich Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 191 8. 4to.
Zimmermann, E. Heinrich. Vorkarolingische Miniaturen. Berlin, Deutsches Verein
fiir Kunstwissenschaft, 19 16. 8vo and 4 vols. Folio.
Zimmermann, Max Georg. Oberitalische Plastik. Leipzig, Liebeskind, 1897. 4to.
ADDRESSES OF PHOTOGRAPHERS
Alinari, Fratelli. Amministrazione, Via Nazionale 8, Florence, Italy. Stores, Via
Strozzi, Florence ; Via Condotti al Corso Umberto I, Rome ; 3 Via Calabritto,
Naples. The largest collection of any of the Italian commercial houses. Well
arranged patalogues.
Alonso, R. Palencia. A small collection of the city and province of Palencia.
Anderson, D. 7a Via Salaria, Rome. A large collection of exceptionally high
^«j quality. Catalogues.
Antonelli-Matteucci, Cav. Liborio, Via Piccinni, 24, Bari. Collection of Apu-
lian monuments made for the Museo Provinciale of Bari.
Les Archives Photographiques d'Art et d'Histoire. 1 bis Rue de Valois, Paris. A
consolidation of the old collections of the Commission des Monuments His-
toiques, Service Photographique et Cinematographique des Beaux-Arts,
Neurdein, F. Martin Sabon etc., constituting almost a monopoly of photo-
graphs of French monuments.
Armoni, Piazza del Duomo, Orvieto.
Baylac, L. R., 21 rue Bouquieres, Toulouse.
Benvenuti, Cesare, Piazza Superiore S. Francesco, Assisi.
Brogi, Via Tornabuoni, Florence. A collection of importance. Catalogue.
Byne, Arthur, Monte Esquinza 6, Madrid. An exceedingly well-selected collection
of Spanish architecture and industrial arts.
Carboni, Cav., Direttore del Gabinetto Fotografico del Ministero della Pubblica
Istruzione, Via in Miranda, 7, Rome. Italian government photographs.
Giraudon, 9 rue des Beaux-Arts, Paris. Photographs of exceptionally high quality.
Gombau, Venancio, Calle de Prior, 18, Salamanca, Spain.
Kennedy, Prof. Clarence, Department of Art, Smith College, Northampton, Mass.
Photographs of the highest quality. Catalogue.
Kunsthistorisches Seminar, Marburg (Lahn).
Lassalle, C, rue de TEtoile 32, Toulouse.
Lombardi, Via di Citta, Siena, Italy. Catalogue.
Marsal, M., sucesores de, Rambla de Castelar, 36, Tarragona.
Mas, Rosello 277, Barcelona. A remarkably well selected and complete collection of
subjects in Catalonia and Spain.
Millet, Prof. Gabriel, 34 rue Halle, Paris. XI V e . The collection of the Ecole des
Hautes-Etudes consists chiefly of Byzantine subjects.
Moscioni, Via Condotti 76, Rome. Collection includes many unusual subjects.
The catalogue is unfortunately of little use.
Poppi, Pietro, 19 Via d'Azeglio, Bologna.
Remy-Gorget, Pres de la Gare, Dijon.
Roig, J., successor to Laurent y Lacoste, Carrera de San Jer6nimo, $3, Madrid.
Silvestre, rue de Bonnele, 2, Lyon.
Sommer, G., e Figlio, Piazza Vittoria, Naples. Catalogue.
Stoedtner, Dr. Franz, Universitatstrasse 3 b , Berlin N. W. 7. A large and admirably
selected collection. Catalogue.
Tarabelli, Via Torquato Tasso, Bergamo. Catalogue.
Tilli, G., Via Mazzini, Perugia.
Winocio, Calle San Marcelo, Leon.
XVI
DATED MONUMENTS
1022.
1022.
IO24-IO33.
IO25.
IO25-IO45.
I028.
c. 1028-1040.
IO29.
IO3O.
IO3O.
IO3 1.
IO32.
I O36-IO4O.
IO4O.
I O4O-I 063.
I O4O-I 067.
IO42-IO46.
I O42-I 069.
IO43.
IO45.
IO46.
IO47.
IO48.
IO49.
IO49.
IO5O.
c. 1055.
1059.
1059.
1059.
1059-1107.
1060.
Piacenza, S. Antonino. Corbel-tables of nave and transepts.
Hildesheim, Dom. Bronze column (begun after 1015).
Rome, S. Lorenzo f. 1. m. Stucco reliefs in cloister.
Chinon, St.-Mesme. Relief of facade (111. 897).
Limburg a. d. Hardt, Klosterkirche.
Angers, Eglise du Ronceray, consecrated. The galleries
date from this period.
Como, S. Carpoforo. Nave.
Quimperle, Ste.-Croix. Crypt.
Milan, S. Sepolcro.
Sezze, S. Giustina.
Santa Eulalia de Folia.
Ripoll, Santa Maria, consecrated.
Tabernoles, Sant Sadurni.
Sannazaro Sesia, begun.
Jaca, Catedral. Oldest portions.
Jumieges.
Neuvy-St.-Sepulcre.
Elne, Cathedrale, in construction.
Milan, S. Satiro. Campanile.
Verona, S. Zeno. Lower part of Campanile.
Arles-sur-Tech. Older portions consecrated (111. 518).
St.-Front of Perigueux, consecrated; finished in 1077, re-
stored after a fire in 11 20.
Marseille, Tomb of Isarne, abbot of St.-Victor, now in
museum (111. 1278).
Palencia, Catedral. Ivory-box.
Poitiers, St.-Hilaire. Tower and transepts consecrate '
San Miguel de Escalada. Exterior portico and east <
(i.e., between 1049 and 1064) Regensburg, St. Emr
Statues of Christ, St. Dionysus and St. Emmerai
1279-1282).
Florence, Baptistry, consecrated.
Angers, St.-Serge. Transepts in part.
Venosa, La Trinita. Old basilica consecrated. Rebuil
the XIV century.
La Charite-sur-Loire. Lower portions of transepts a
absidioles date from the early part of this period ; t
chevet from shortly before the consecration.
Mizzole, S. Micheletto.
LIST OF DATED MONUMENTS 1
604. Venasque, Notre-Dame-de-Vic. Tomb of Boethius.
670. Bewcastle cross.
740. Hexham cross, now in Durham Library.
848. Naranco, Santa Maria.
848. Naranco, San Miguel de Linio.
893. Val de Dios, consecrated.
1002. Sagra S. Michele. Coro vecchio, Foresteria.
1002-1118. Dijon. Rotunda of St.-Benigne.
1005. Piacenza, S. Savino. Campanile.
1006. Torino, S. Solutore. Church now buried.
1006. Sant Pere de Casserres.
1007. Beaulieu-les-Loches. Oldest portions.
1007- 1026. St.-Martin-de-Canigou.
1008. Torcello, Cattedrale. Nave and apse mosaic.
1008. Vigolo Marchese. S. Giovanni.
1010. Maillezais, Abbaye, consecrated.
1012. Sant Cugat de Salon.
c. 101 2-1020. Angers, St.-Martin. Carved plaque and core of nave.
1013. Bernay, Abbaye. Core of nave piers and south side-aisle
wall.
1015. Hildesheim, Dom. Bronze doors completed (begun after
1 107).
1016. Thiers, St.-Genes. Capitals of apse, north absidiole and
eastern respond of southern side aisle.
[9-1025. Aquileia, Cattedrale. (Rebuilt in 1348.)
JI9-1040. Sant Vincenc de Cardona.
1020. St.-Genis-des-Fontaines. Lintel (111. 513).
1020. St.-Michel-de-Cuxa, campanile.
1020. Carpignano near Otranto, grotto. Frescoed Christ.
In this list are included only monuments, the dates of which can be determined by docu-
jntary evidence, and which are of significance for the chronological problems of the XI and
[I centuries discussed in the following pages. The list makes no pretense of being com-
pete; I hope, however, it may supply a somewhat broader basis for study than has hitherto
jeen available. A few desultory dates before 1000 and after 1200 are included for purposes
of comparison.
INDEX
INDEX
The light italic figures refer to illustrations; the light Roman figures refer to the
text of Volume I. Specially important references in the text are printed in heavy
type.
Aachen, Altar and Ambo, 35; Pulpit, 190.
Aaron, 111. 150, 388.
Abbeville, Gospels called of Charlemagne, 46.
Abbots, 111. 396; Begon, IW.387; Leonas, 111.
219, 220.
Abel, (see Cain and Abel).
Abia, 111. 1 51 2.
Abraham, 111. 166, 366, 398, 87 1, 1209, 1507,
1508, 1 513; With the Soul of Lazarus, 111.
366.
Acceptus, 31f.
Acerenza, Cattedrale, Archivolt, 59 ; Rela-
tion to Compostela, 194.
Achthamar, 18, 27, 185, 314.
Acuto, 132.
Adalia, Relief, 244.
Adam, Creation of, 111. 612, 614, 686, 689;
Labour of, 111. 334; and Eve, Expulsion
of, 111. 252, 316, 673 1 7/3, 1378, 1379;
God reproves, 111. 686, 901, 1172; God
walks in the Garden, 111. 1378, 1382; Shame
of, 111. 95, 1378; Story of, 111. 615, 910,
1378; Temptation of, 111. 28, 53, 93, 94,
95, 252, 334, 358, 420, 609,901, 956, 937,
1103, 1106, 1 171, 1184, 1365, 1367, 1378,
1380; 138 1.
Adelelme, Guillaume, Bishop, 318.
Adeodato, 111. 191.
Admont, Stiftsbibliothek, Gebhardsbibel, 21,
50.
Adoration, 111. 150, 232, 490, 607, 780, 1188,
246, {see also Magi) ; of the Lamb, 111.
1220.
Agnus Bet, 111. 699, 973, 1405.
Agramunt, Portal, western, 111. 633, 145.
Agiiero, Ermita de San Jaime, Sculptures, 111.
347, 140; Capitals of portal, IW.346.
"Ainay Master," 111. 28, 29.
Airvault, 6; Altar-frontal, 111. 964, 207, 304 ;
Capital of nave, 111. 901, 902, 304; Capital,
vaulting, clerestory wall, 111. 900; Elders,
142 ; Spandrel of nave arcade, 111. 898,
809, 49, 258, 267, 303, 342 ; Tomb of Abbot
Pierre de Saine-Fontaine, 111. 903, 304.
Aix-en-Provence, Cath6drale, Cloister, 111.
1406, 1407, 187, 221, 300; Cloister, Col-
umn of, 111. 1408, ii\ ; Relief in choir, 111.
I33 1 , 300.
Aklepat, Relation to Casale Monferrato,
Cordoba and San Baudelio, 1 86.
Albi, Musee de l'Archeveche, Sculptured
colonnettes, 111. 453~455, 198, 221 ; Stained
glass, 195.
Alexander, 111. 461.
Altamira, Cave, Paintings, 14.
Altar-frontals, 207.
Amalek, Battle against, 111. 386, 388, 591,
593-.
Amboise, Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Amiens, Bible, 309 ; Influence of Mateo, 265 ;
Jamb sculptures, 266; Motif of "Apostles,"
192.
Amsterdam, Ryksmuseum, Tympanum, 28.
Ancona, Relation to Sermon, 326.
"Androche Master," 111. 41.
Angels, 111. 79, 97, 108. 109, 112, 137, 138,
138, 139, 160, 161, 162, 166, 172, 179, 190,
200, 206, 227, 231, 259, 274,300,301,302,
3*7, 340, 342, 366, 3 6 7, 372, 38', 384, 385,
387, 388, 389, 402, 424, 430, 431, 433, 450,
451, 460, 488, 501, 502, 304,505; 5u,525,
528, 529, 53i, 532, 548, 549, 576, 617, 675,
677, 686, 688, 694, 695 714, 727, 734, 737,
741, 764, 766, 777, 778, 780, 799, 800, 802,
803, 804, 837, 838, 832, 920, 929, 930, 966,
969, 971, 972, 973, 974, 977, 978, 984, 994,
997-1004, 1016, 1017, 1043, 1049, 1050,
1039, 1070, 1 122, 1123, 1130, 1131, 1 144,
1 168, 120J, 1209, 1231, 1273, 1406, 1460,
1461, 1474-1476, 1490, 1492, 1498, 1499,
1502, 1 322-1 324, 30; holding an Aureole,
30, 74f.; guarding Gates of Paradise, 111.
1174; Guardians of Gift, 111. 1207; Rebel-
lious, Fall of, 111. 1083, 1394-1396.
Angers, Bible of St.-Aubin, 309: Cathedrale,
Lintel, Influence of Chartres, 135; Portal,
western, 111. 1302, 1303; Tympanum,
western, 111. 1301, 140, 341 : Eglise du
Ronceray, 5 ; Capital, III. 022, 25 : Mus6e
Archeologique, Capital, from Eglise du
Ronceray, 111. 922, 25; Ivory, XI-XII
century, 190: Prefecture, Portal of St.-
Aubin, 111. 063-972, 312; Sculptures of
St.-Aubin, 111. 1069, 1070, 341 : St.-Martin,
Vault sculptures, 258.
Angouleme, Cathedrale, Combat of cavaliers
362
INDEX
compared with Bari and Modena, 63?.;
Facade sculptures, 111. 929-940; 4, 51, 63,
269, 274, 304, 305, 308; 311, 312, 315,
320f., 321, 328; Medallions, compared
with Achthamar, 1 8 ; Portal, lunettes com-
pared with St.-Gilles facade, 273^; Rela-
tion to Bayeux "tapestry," Modena, and
Bari, 1 83 ; Relation to Saintes, Ste.-Marie-
des-Dames, 331; Sculptures, (in general),
189, 190, 295, 303 f., 341 : Museum, Relief
from lunette, 310.
"Angouleme Master," 250, 273, 295.
Aniane, Pilgrimage Road, 1 80.
Annunciation, (see Virgin and Zacharias).
Anseramo, 111. 260.
Anzy-Le-Duc, i2of.; Capital of nave, 111.
17-23, 329: Priory, Portal, (see Paray-le-
Monial), 111. 95-99, 6$, 122, 130; Tym-
panum, 111. 98, 99; Portal, western, 111.
2 4, 9 6 > 97, Hh H3, 259-260; Tympanum,
western, 111. 97.
Aosta, San Orso, Cloister, 4, 29, 148, 187.
Apocalypse, Horsemen of, 111. 274, 1193,
1 419. Scenes from, 111. 1417, 21. Vision,
111.9/6,917.
Apostles, 111. 2, 4, 11, 13, 105, 108, 109, 115,
117, 123, 124, 125, 163, 165, 190, 227, 228,
3 I0 > 3 2 3, 326, 332, 381, 382, 385, 403, 427,
428, 429, 416-443, 460, 490, 656, 659, 675-
677, 685, 088, 690, 711, 716, 722, 723, 726,
729, 764, 765, 768, 782, 784, 787, 811,
812, 81 5 , 816, 818, 83s, 836, 844, 845, 846,
848, 849, 857, 860, 877, 878, 894, 896, 906,
93r-938, 940, 944, 945, 952-955, 9 6 4, 988,
993, 996, 997, 1022-1024, 1026, 1028, 1072,
1132, 1133, 1140, 1231, 1232, 1236, 1251,
1258, 1259, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1370, 1397,
1398, i399> J422, 1492, 1 5i 4, 1524, 7, 20,
51,54, 192.
April, 111. 1098.
Aquarius, 111. 1438.
Arbas, Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Arcetri, San Leonardo, Pulpit, 111. 226, 326.
Archangels, 111. 594, 946.
Arches, Figures standing under, 30; Horse-
shoe, 38 ; Pointed, 98 ; Reliefs placed under,
45f.; Trefoiled, 38; Trilobed, 227, 250.
Arezzo, Museum, Byzantine box, X century,
1 89. Pieve, Facade, 222.
Argenton-Chateau, Portal, western, 111. 987-
99 6 , 333-
Ark, of the Lord, 111. 568, 1169.
Aries, Musee Lapidaire, Fragments, 111. 516,
20: St.-Trophime, Cloisters, 187; Capital
of, 111. 1360, 294; Holy-water basin in, 111.
1363, 1364; Pier of. 111. 1344-1362, 57, 294,
297, 298, 300; Reliefs of, 111. 1361, 1365:
Egtfdjt m.1366-1369, 1374-1377, 8, 134,
252, 253, 254, 256, 258,^295, 298, 336;
Frieze of, 111. 1375, 295, 336; Jam sculp-
tures, 262; Pilgrimage Road, 180, 194;
Portal, western, 111. 1370-1373, 70, 140,
160, 165, 242, 294, 297; Sculptures, Rela-
tion to Achthamar, 1 8 ; to Autun capital,
Armentia, Beaucaire, Byzantine influence,
Estella, Guglielmo's work, Moissac tym-
panum, St.-Gilles, Santo Domingo de
Silos, Toulouse, 298-299 : School of Pro-
vence, 181.
Arles-sur-Tech, Fragments of Tomb of Guil-
laume Guacelme, 111. 627, in, 160; Tym-
panum, western, 111. 518, 19f., 33, 72, 303.
Armenia, (see Achthamar).
Armentia, San Andres, Pilgrimage Road,
179 : Relation to Santiago de Compostela,
181 ; to Aries, St.-Trophime, 299; Cupola,
Corbel, 111. 767, 256f. ; Relief in porch,
southern, 111. 761-764, 192, 256f. ; Tym-
panum of porch, southern, 111. 765, 766,
133-
Arts, of Architecture and Miniature-paint-
ing, 111. 9, 78, 136 ; Liberal, 111. ////.
Ascension, (see Christ).
Aspic, 111. 127, 172.
Ass, with a Book, 111. 24.
Assumption, (see Virgin).
Astorga, San Salvador, Pilgrimage Road, 175,
179.
Aubeterre, St.-Jacques, Facade, western, 111.
1097-1099,332
Audebert, Giraud, 1001, 164.
August, 111. 580, 995, 1096.
Aulnay, Pilgrimage Road, 179; Capitals,
111. 982, 104, 33 if.; St.-Pierre, Facade,
western, l\\. 983, 986,331?., 333; Portal,
southern, 111. 979, 143, 252, 33 if.; Portal,
western, 111. 984, 985, 33 if., 333 ; Window,
eastern, III. 981, 24, 33 if. ; Window, south-
ern transept, 111. 980, 33 if., 333 : School of
the West, 181.
Autry-Issard, Portal, western, Lintel, 111.
1 1 41, 132 f ., 236.
Autun, Cathedrale, 79, 112f. : Capital, now
in Museum, 111. 71, 72; of nave, 111. 67-70,
73, 75-79* 4, 47, 161, 242; of transept, 111.
74: Capitals, compared with Aries, St.-
Trophime, 298; compared with Moutier-
St.-Jean, 115; compared with Saulieu, 115;
compared with Vezelay, oof., 113: Influ-
ence on Sangiiesa, 254; Pilgrimage Road,
175; Sculptures compared with Toulouse,
St.-Etienne, 158; Tomb of St. Lazare, 111.
147-149, 85, 117, 131; Tympanum, west-
ern, 111. 80, 81, 120, 121, 162, 233, 234, 242,
257, 279, 297, 317; Relation to Cluny, 109;
Dijon, 117; Vezelay, 112: Gudohinus Gos-
pel, Miniature, 325: Musee Lapidaire,
Tomb of St. Lazare, 111. 147-149, 117, 131.
INDEX
3 6 3
Auvergne, Ornamental sculpture, XII cen-
tury, 1 6.
Avallon, St.-Lazare, Portal, Central, 111. 137-
139, 130, 143, 161 ; Southern, III. 140, 141,
130; Influence of Chartres, 130; Relation
to Oloron-Ste.-Marie, 259. Tympanum,
southern, 111. 140, 130.
Avarice, 111. 3/0, 1180, 1182.
Avenas, Altar, West front, 111. n-13; North
face, 111. 14; South face, 111. 15; General
references, 118, 120: Relation to Charlieu,
119 ; Cluny, 118 ; V6zelay, 118.
Aversa, Relation to Compostela, 194; Rib
vaults, 186.
Avignon, Musee Calvet, Capital, 111. 1341,
165, 243; Capital, from Notre-Dame-des-
Doms, 243; Capital of cloister, now in
Cambridge, Mass., 111. 1342, 1343, 300;
Cloisters, 187, 222; Relation to Vienne,
St.-Andre-le-Bas, 165; Episcopal Throne,
111. 1330, 1340, 213.
Avila, Bible, 209 : San Vicente, Portal, south-
ern, 111. 841-843, 264 ; Portal, western, 111.
844-849, 161, 264; Tomb of the Saint, 111.
850, 851, 47.
Azay-le-Rideau, Facade, western, Reliefs, 111.
<%rt5,23, 4 6f.
Babylon, 111. 276, 904.
Bages, Cloisters, 187.
Balaam, 111. 36, 216, 323; and the Angel, 111.
525.
Bale, (see Basel).
Bamberg, 21, 191; Apocalypse, 274, 309;
Archivolts, 152; Hofbibliotek, Bible, 35;
Influence of Mateo, 264; Pilgrimage Road,
187; Sculpture in Choir-screen, Influence
on Reims, 266.
Barbedelo, Lintel, 236.
Barcelona, Catedral, Portal, northern, 111.
633, 636; Museum, Catalan Antependium,
S3, 208 ; San Pablo al Campo, Tympanum,
western, 111. 330, 310; Relation to Mague-
lonne, 269.
Barga, Pulpit, 111. 246.
Bari, Duomo, Relation to Toulouse, St.-
Etienne, 241 ; Exultet Roll, 313; Museo,
Cast of Trani Gabriel, 111. 203 ; Pilgrimage
Road, 182 : San Niccola, 15, 59f. ; Architec-
ture compared with Modena, Cattedrale,
67; Capital of Crypt, 111. 151, 67f., 87;
Episcopal Throne, 111. 152, 133, 134, 133,
8, 15, 51, 59f. ; Later Portions, Relation to
Toulouse, St.-Etienne, Capitals, 241 ; Porta
dei Leoni, 111. 136, 62f . ; Relation to Angou-
leme, Bayeux "tapestry," Modena, 183;
Portal, western, 111. 200, 144, 145.
Barletta, Collegiata, Portal, northern, (west
facade) 111. 177; Portal, southern, (west
facade) 111. 176 : San Andrea, Portal, west-
ern, 111. 231, 252, 219; San Sepolcro, Influ-
ence of Jerusalem, Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, 185; Statue, bronze, colossal,
98.
Basel, Altar-frontal, now in Paris, Musee
Cluny, 208 ; Galluspforte, 133 ; Tympanum
of, 249; Miinster, Influence of Mateo's
work at Santiago de Compostela, 265 :
Universitatsbibliotek, Fulda Miniature,
21 ; St.-Gallen Manuscript, 21.
Basle, (see Basel).
Basilisk, 111. 130, 172.
"Bathsheba Master," 111. 44, 113, 138.
Bawit, Fresco, 313; Frescos of Horsemen,
188, 190, 191 ; Wooden consoles (see Cairo),
46, 47.
Bayeux, Cathedrale, Crypt, 5 ; " Tapestry,"
50, 51, 65, 66, 67; Relation to Angouleme,
Modena, (Porta della Pescheria), Bari,
(San Niccola, Porta dei Leoni), 183.
Bayonne, Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Bazas, Pilgrimage Road, 1 80 ; St.-Vivien, 3 1 9.
Bear. 111. 1263.
Beatitudes, The, 111. 279, 631-633, 38f., 45.
Beaucaire,Notre-Dame-des-Pommiers,Frieze,
now in south facade, 111. 1292-1298,
25, 237, 238, 257, 271f., 273, 280, 297,
336; Frieze, Relation to St.-Gilles frieze,
280f., 281, 282; Relation to St.-Hilaire
Area, 271 : Relation to Santiago de Com-
postela, 271 ; Reliefs, (lost), Relation to
Aries, St.-Trophime, 299 ; Tympanum, 111.
1299, 246f ., 250, 272f ., 301, 31 1 , 332 ; Rela-
tion to St.-Gilles, 277f ., 278 ; Relation to
Santiago de Compostela, 272.
Beaulieu, Influence on St.-Denis, 224; Lintel,
southern, 111. 414, 413; Pilgrimage Road,
175, 180; Porch, southern; 111. 419,
420; Portal, southern, 111. 416, 417, 418,
218; Tympanum, southern, 111. 409-413,
134,233,234,241.
Beaulieu-les-Loches, Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Beauvais, Basse-Oeuvre, 22, 23 : St.-Etienne,
Window, northern, 111. 1423, 1424, 164,
225; Portal, western, 111. 1411: Museum,
Sculptured colonnette, (from St.-Quentin-
les-Beauvais), 111. 1 431-1433, 221, 222,
225 ; Sculptured column, 222.
Bellefontaine, 3, 10, 11.
Benedetto, 157, 261, 290.
Benedictine Art, 87, 96; Style, $$'
Benevento, Santa Sofia, Capitals, 65 ; Tym-
panum, 111. 233.
Benevivere, Pilgrimage Road, 175.
Bergamo, Santa Maria Maggiore, Sculptures
representing the making of capitals, 102.
Berlin, Kaiser Friederich Museum, Book-
cover, 45 ; Book-cover, called Franconian,
364 INDEX
76; Bone Box, 24; Byzantine ivory, 46,
325; Byzantine plaque of steatite, 48;
Ivory triptych, (XI century), 189; Sculp-
ture, 28 : Staatsbibliotek, Probianus-Dip-
tychon, 325.
Bernay, Abbey, Pilgrimage Road, 175.
Besalu, Cloister, Tympanum, 111. 602, 140.
Besancon, Gospels, 99, 100.
Betanzos, Santa Maria del Azoque, Sculp-
tures of facade, 111. 893; Tympanum, 111.
892: Santiago, Portal, western, 111. 894,
895,191.
Bethlehem, Church of the Nativity, Mosaics,
21.
Bewcastle, Cross, 7, 16, 21, 22.
B6ziers, Pilgrimage Road, 179, 195.
Bharhut, Pillar, now in Calcutta Museum,
221.
Bianya, Ramon de, 111. 623-625.
Biduino, 111. 223, 224.
" Bifora Master," 111. 42, 43.
Bigarelli, Guido, da Como, 111. 234.
Bishops, 111. 124, 625, 683, 886, 1065, 1067,
1068, 1234, 1257.
Bitonto, Cattedrale, 15 ; Pulpit, 111. 244, 245;
Tympanum, 111. 232, 233, 1 26.
Bjeresjo, Frescos in ceiling, 152.
Blazimont, Pilgrimage Road, 175, 180:
Portal, western, 111. 1041-1044, 317, 334:
School of the West, 181.
Blessing, The Stolen, 111. 37.
Blois, Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Bobbio, Tomb of St. Cumiano, 14.
Bodhisattva, 57.
Bois-Ste.-Marie, Tympanum, southern, 111.
7^,130, 259.
Bologna, Casket, (XI century), 190; Museo
Civico, Ivory, 204 : San Stefano, Cloisters,
187; Influence of Jerusalem, Church of the
Holy Sepulchre, 185.
Bomiaco, San Pellegrino, Frescos, 326.
Bonnano, 293.
Book of Kells, (see Dublin).
Bordeaux, Pilgrimage Road, 179: Ste.-Croix,
Portal, western, 111. 920, 143, 341 ; Sculp-
tures of facade, 111. 921, 341 ; Voussures,
107.
Border Ornaments, 150, 151, 163, 288.
Borgo San Donnino, Portal, northern, 4, 141 ;
Relation to St.- Jouin-de-Marne, 315; Re-
lief, 290.
Boston, Fenway Court, Lions, 299 ; Museum
of Fine Arts, Capital from St.-Pons, 111.
1267.
Bourg-Argental, Halos, star-inscribed, 152;
Portal, western, 111. 1149-1152, 144, 145f.;
Tympanum, western, 111. 1150, 133, 140.
Bourges, Influence of Cluny tympanum
through Chartres, 140; Lintel, influence of
Chartres, 135 ; Mus6e Berry, Statues, (from
St.-Benoit-du-Sault), 111. 1234, 1235; Tym-
panum (from St.-Pierre-le-Puellier), 111.
1262; Portals, Transept, compared with
Angouleme, 305 ; St.-Pierre-le-Puellier,
Tympanum, now in Musee Berry, 111.
1262 ; St.-Ursin, Tympanum, 111. 1263.
Bozouls, Pilgrimage Road, 1 86.
Bradulus, Resurrection of, 111. 1197, 1198.
Brescia, Museum, Ivory Box, (IV century),
313-
Briare, Fragment of Altar-frontal, now at
Orl6ans, Musee Historique, 111. 1434, 207.
Brindisi, San Benedetto, Rib vaults, Lom-
bard influence, 139, 186; Santa Lucia,
Crypt, 111. 178.
Brioude, Pilgrimage Road, 180; St.-Julien,
Capital of nave, 111. 1264.
Brive, Musee Massenat, Fragment of Relief,
(from St.-Martin), III 353>354y 200 » 2 57:
St.-Martin, Capitals, 111. 355-357 ', 286;
Fragment of Relief, now in Musee Mas-
senat, 111. 353,354, 200, 257.
Broad-Leaved Capitals, (see Capitals).
Brunus, 111. 7302, 274f., 275-278, 287, 291,
294, 296, 297.
Brussels, Museum, Book-cover, ivory, Ada
group, 72; Font, 15.
Bryn Athyn, Penn. Collection of Mr. Ray-
mond Pitcairn, Capital (from Cuxa), 111.
557a; Capital (from St.-Guilhem-le-De-
sert), 111. 1403.
Buonamico, 111. 181.
Burgfelden, 232.
Burgos, Catedral, Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179,
195: Museum, Altar-frontal, (from Santo
Domingo de Silos), 47, 208 ; Moorish Boxes,
40; Reliquary, (from Santo Domingo de
Silos), 251 : Santa Colomba, Pilgrimage
Road, 175.
Burgundy, Influence of, 240, 249, 262, 279,
333'
Burial, 111. 1262.
Bury, Sculpture, 225, 258.
Bury-St.-Edmunds, Manuscript, (first half
XII century) 56 ; Miniatures, 97.
Byzantine Influence, 184; Renaissance of
X century, 1 8.
Caen, St.-Etienne-le-Vieux, 195; Relief in
Choir, 111. 1093a; St.-Nicolas, 5, 15.
Cagliari, Cattedrale, Ambo, 111. 186, 187, 160,
202, 293, 294; Pulpit, 8; Sculptures from
Pisa not in Ambo, 111. 188, 202, 293.
Cahors, Cathedrale, Pilgrimage Road, 180,
181; Portal, northern, 111. 421, 164, 250;
Tympanum, northern, 111. 422-429, 134,
156, 164, 250, 252, 264.
Cain, Death of, 111. 35; and Abel, 111. 786,
INDEX
365
947, 982, 1324, 1325; Offerings of, 111. 66,
i3 2 5> I379> J 3 8 3y 2 73 ; Murder of Abel,
111. 1379, 273.
Cairo, Museum, Bone-carvings, III-IV cen-
turies, 21; Coptic Relief, 46; Portal of
Daschlut, 141 ; Roman Relief, 21 ; Wooden
Consoles, (from Bawit), 46, 47; Wooden
Panels, 46: Old, Kasr-es-Scham'a, 189;
Mosque of Ibn Tulun, 98.
Calcutta, Museum, Pillar, (from Bharhut),
221.
Calf, Golden, 111. 39.
Callixtus II, 308.
Calvenzano, Archivolt, 144; Proto-voussure
sculptures, 328.
Cambridge, England, Fitzwilliam Museum,
Ivories, 28, 204; Influence of Jerusalem,
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 185.
Cambridge, Mass., Fogg Museum, Capitals,
(from Cloister of Notre-Dame-des-Doms,
Avignon), 111. 1342, 1343 , 300; (from
Moutier-St.-Jean, 111. 62-66, 91, 313 ; (from
St.-Pons), 111. 1265, 1266, 1 270, 1271, 337.
Cana, Feast at, 111. 007.
Canopies, 45f., 156, 164, 166, 245, 252, 272f.
Canosa, Mausoleum of Bohemond, Bronze
Doors of Rogerius, 269 ; Pilgrimage Road,
1 86; Pulpit, 7, 9,31f.
Capitals, carved before being placed, ioif. ;
broad-leaved, 194, 306 ; crocketed, 194, 306.
Capua, Mosaics, (destroyed), XI century,
325; San Marcello, Portal, southern, 111.
766, 55.
Carcassonne, Pilgrimage Road, 179, 195;
St.-Michel, Stained glass, 195; St.-Na-
zaire, Pilgrimage Road, 186.
Carennac, Pilgrimage Road, 180; Tympa-
num, western, 111. 381-385, 248f., 250, 251.
Carpentras, Museum, Plaque, 22 ; Relation to
Santiago de Compostela, 181.
Carri£re-St.-Denis, Altar-frontal, now in
Paris, Louvre, 111. 1485, i486, 164.
Carrion de los Condes, Elders in Voussures,
radiating, 143 ; Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179;
Relation to Moarves, 180; Santa Maria,
Portal, western, 111. 773, 330 ; Relief south
of portal, 111. 774, 192; Santiago, Frieze of
facade, 111. 722-726, 164, 251, 256, 258,
262, 336 ; Portal, western, 111. 727.
Caryatids, 111. 24,235, 236. {See Supporting
Figures).
Casale Monferrato, Relation to Cordoba, San
Baudelio and Aklepat, Armenia, 186.
Casques, Conical, 61.
Castel S. Elia, Frescos, 108, 142.
Castelvieil, Pilgrimage Road, 180; Portal,
southern, 111. 926-928, 341.
Cavaliers ) jousting, 63, 64.
Caylus, Stained glass, 196.
Cefalu, Mosaics XII century, 314.
Centaur, 111. 57, 216.
Chadennac, Facade, 111. 1037-1040, 4 ; Portal,
111. J034-1036, 4, 242, 316, 317, 318, 333,
334, 33 5 » 340.
Chalais, Facade, 111. 1087-1080, 342.
Chalons-sur-Marne, Notre-Dame, Fragment
of pier, now in Paris, Louvre, 111. 1487, 221 ;
Influence of Cluny tympanum, through
Chartres, 140.
Chamali£res, Fragment of Tomb, 111. 1157;
Holy-water basin, 111. 1153-1156, 219,
225f . ; Lombard sculpture, 1 83.
Chambon, Lintel, western, 111. 1250, 15, 236.
Champagne, Lintel, 236; Sculpture, 106;
Tympanum, 111. 1186, 13^, 301 .
Champdeniers, (j^Champniers).
Champniers, Derivative of Cluny tympanum,
140; Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Chanson de Jeste, Scene from, 111. 156.
Charity, 111. 396, 11 52, 1231; vs. Avarice, 111.
1180.
Charlieu, Inner porch, 71f . ; Inner portal,
161; Inner tympanum, 111. 4, 4, 30; 57,
70, 107, 120, 132, 133, 134, 303, 304, 3i6:
Outer portal, 111. 108, 109, 124; Outer
lintel, 111. 108, 121, 164, 252; Outer tym-
panum, 111. 108, 109, 124, 164, 252; Outer
portal, western window, 111. no, 100, 124,
164, 252: Relief in Cloister, 111. /, 22, 29;
from Refectory, 111. 16, 119; compared
with Avenas, 119 ; relation to Cluny, 119.
Charroux, 6 ; Influence of Jerusalem, Church
of the Holy Sepulchre, 185.
Chartres, Cathedrale, Adossed statues, In-
fluence of St.-Denis, 289 ; " Apostles Mo-
tif," 192; Beau Dieu, Influence of Mateo,
265 ; Burgundian influence diffused through,
162; "Elders Motif," 143; Facade, west,
Relation to St.-Gilles, 285f . ; Head master,
Influence of, 123, 124; Jamb sculptures,
242, 254, 266 ; Portal, north transept, 253 ;
western, 220; Master of Etampes, 163;
Relation to Angouleme, 305; Sculptures,
Relation to : Achthamar, 1 8 ; Armentia, 257,
258; Avallon, 130; Burgundian lintel, 134;
Cahors tympanum, 250; Carri6n de los
Condes, 252; Cluny tympanum, 140;
Etampes, 164; La Chariti-sur-Loire, 125;
Martel, 250; Montmorillon, 125; Parthe-
nay, 33 s ; School of the West, 340 ; Souillac,
St.-Martin, 250; Toulouse, relief, 217; La
Daurade, jamb sculptures of Chapter-
House, 243; St.-Etienne, jamb sculptures
from Chapter-House, 241 ; Tympanum,
northern, 141 ; southern, 246; Relation to
Marseille, Cath6drale Ancienne, Altar,
267 : Mus6e Arch<£ologique, 111. 1504.
Chastity, 111. 991.
366
INDEX
Chateaudun, La Madeleine, Facade, north-
ern, 111. 1 425-142? ; 143, 164; Portal,
southern, 111. 1428-1430.
Chateauneuf, Portal, southern, 111. 2, 77, 133.
Chateauneuf-sur-Charente, Facade, western,
111. 1008-1010, 188; Portal, western, 111.
973* W>
Chatsworth, Library of the Duke of Devon-
shire, Benedictional of St. Aethelwold, 45,
48,75,99, in, 112, 126, 269,313.
Chauvigny, St.-Pierre, Capital of Ambula-
tory, 111. 004, 905, 147.
Cherubim, 111. 100, 101, 297,046, 1159.
Chichester, Cathedral, Reliefs, 55.
Children resuscitated, 111. 1521, 1522.
Chinese statues, Folds of drapery, 30.
Chinon, St.-Mesme, Relief in ancient facade,
111. £97, 23, 4 7-
Chissey, Tympanum, western, 111. 1277.
Chludoff, Psalter, 189.
Christ, 111. no, 124, 125, 133, 163, 172, 173,
250, 253, 274,355,384,387, 417, 425, 430,
45$, 4fy, 54% 55o, 585, 586, 592, 618, 676,
711, 716, 725, 728, 764, 844, 847, 860, 861,
871, 872, 804, 806, 007, 046, 086, 989, 907,
1023, 1072, 1090, 1 130, 1 139, J 142, 1251,
1254, 1277, 1279, I2 ^o, 1397, H I2 > I 5<>4>
1519, 1520, 27, 71, 72, 73, 118, 119, 214,
260, 262 : Ascension, 111. 50, 88, 96, 104,
105, 107, 247, 308, 309, 310, 422, 467, 672,
1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1246, 1247, 1276,
*353> 1460, 1462, 47, 75, 134; Baptism of,
111. 187, 248, 503, 608, 1100, 1 161, 1248,
1485; Betrayal of, 111. 330, 611, 680, 875,
1080, 1 105, 1295, 1296, 1319, 1320, 1361;
Carrying the Cross, 111. 1204, 1212, 1298;
Crowning with Thorns, 111. 680, 25 ; Cruci-
fixion, III 330, 519, fa?* fy* * 6 54, 6 55, 660,
665, 703, 7io, 875, 897, 1 107, 1 1 47, 1 186,
1230, 1274, 1300, 1385, 1 391; Deposition,
111. 157, 197, 249, 461, 470, 629, 669, 702;
Entombment, 111. 670, 8 jo, 1507; Entry
into Jerusalem, 111. 223, 295, 542, 662, 875,
922, 1050, 1 1 03, 1360, 1387, 1388, 1389;
Preparations for Entry into Jerusalem, 111.
1387; Flagellation, 111. 150, 680, 1296,
1297, 1321, 1322, 204 ; Flight into Egypt,
111. 54, 71, 142, 150, 229, 372, 373, 458,
658, 888; Giving the Keys to St. Peter, III.
133, 190, 228, 788; Harrowing of Hell, 111.
150, 157, 232, 233, 294, 353, 761; heals
Blind Man and Paralytic, 111. 663; heals
Leper, 111. 718; Nativity, 111. 51, 121, 122,
144, 150, 186, 229, 246, 537, 658, 795, 960,
962, 1072a, 1077, 1 149, 1 1 50, 1 166, 1 188,
1233,1460,322; Pentecost, 111. 48, 48a, 49,
402, 403, 406, 673 ; before Pilate, 111. 1081,
1296, 1321, 25; Precursors of, 111. 1460;
Presentation, 111. 14, 119, 150, 187, 232,372,
664,792, 888, 1 102, 1 161; Resurrection,
111. 464; and St. Joseph, 111. 1416; Last
Supper, 111. 93, 94, no, in, 136, 174, 194,
199, 260, 331, 470, 543, 661, 728, 875,
1079, 1 104, 1 105, 1 107, 1 136, 1 1 48, 1 185,
1214, 1214a, 1292-1295, 1318, 1361, 116,
280f. ; taken captive, 111. 85, 198, 355; in
Temple, 111. 141 6; Temptation, 111. 336,
677-679; Transfiguration, 111. no, 187,
292, 712, 1 201-1203, 269; walking on the
Water, 111. 788; washing St. Peter's Feet,
111. 70, 1079, 1205, 1292, 1293, 1361, 25.
Chronology, Romanesque, 3.
Chur, 222.
Church, The, 111. 1128, 63.
Citta di Castello, Altar-frontal, Relation to
Toulouse, St.-Sernin, 208.
Ciudad Rodrigo, Catedral, Portal, southern,
111. 871, 872; Portal, western, 111. 876, 877,
878, 264; Relation to Santiago de Com-
postela, 181; Relief in lunette near southern
portal, 111. 874; Sculpture of vaulting, 111.
873, 258; Tympanum, western, 111. 875.
Cividale, Paliotto of Pemmore, 30, 207 ; Pax
of Duca Orso, 28 ; Sculptures, 16.
Civray, Pilgrimage Road, 179; St.-Nicolas,
Facade, western, 111. 1122-1131, 254, 257,
341-342; Portal, western, 111. 1130; Vous-
sures, 107.
Classic influence, in Provencal School, 270.
Clermont-Ferrand, Pilgrimage Road, 180,
193 : Relief now in house, rue des Gras, 111.
1205, 236 : School of Auvergne, 181 : Notre-
Dame-du-Port, 234f.; Capital of Ambu-
latory, 111. 1167-1183, 51, 93, 149; Capital
of southern side aisle, 111. n 84, 50; Capital
of south transept, exterior, 111. 1165; Lin-
tel, southern, 111. 1160, n 61; Reliefs near
southern portal, 111. 1162-1164, 1166, 218,
326; Tympanum, 111. n 58, n 59, 273.
Cloister, Twin columns, 1 86.
Cluny, Affiliations along pilgrimage road,
175: Capitals, 111. 5-/0, 4, 5*> 53> ?7f.,
135, 136, 145, 149, 276 303, 316; from
nave, 107f.; on exterior of absidial chapels,
71; Columns, Ambulatory, 226; Capitals,
relation to Santo Domingo de Silos, 96;
to Vezelay, 91f.; inspired by Winchester,
manuscript, 98f. : Construction of, influ-
ence of Suger, Abbot, 224; Downfall of,
222 : Musee Ochier, Fragment, 111. 27, 6$ :
and Pilgrimage, 1 80 : Portal, 108, 109, 1 16,
130, 314, 328; compared with Dijon, St.-
Benigne, 130 ; Abbaye, relation to Avenas,
118; Charlieu, Refectory, Relief, 119:
Compostela, 194; Souillac, 199f.; Tou-
louse, St.-Sernin, 205: Spandrel figures,
143 ; Tympanum, 131, 135, 140, 145 ; Vous-
sures, 144.
INDEX
367
"Cluny Master," 111. 30-33.
Coat, fluttering behind Constantines, 190.
Cognac, Portal, western, 111. 1096, 339.
Cologne, Cacilienkirche, Tympanum, 152;
Kunstgewerbe Museum, Ivory, (XI cen-
tury, first half), 75; Reliquary, 189; St.
Marienim Kapitol,Wooden Doors, 161, 284.
Combat of Knights, 111. 27.
Conical casques, (see Casques).
Conques, Cupola, central, Squinch, 111. 388,
380, 258; Facade, southern, 111. 387; In-
terior, 111. 386, 390, 391 , 155, 198, 237,
326; Lintel, 236; Pilgrimage Road, 180,
181 ; Relation to Santiago de Compostela,
181, 194, 228f.; Sculptures, 8; Statue, 3$;
Tomb of the Abbot Begon III, 230f.;
Tympanum, western, 111. 392-400, 198,
249, 252, 276.
Conrad, 111. 245.
Consecration Dates, 5.
Constancy, 111. 396.
Constantine, 111. 461, 763, 773, 774, 924, 947,
1008, /oily 103/, 1052, 1093, 1093a, 1097,
1/26, 187f .
Constantinople, Museum of Tschinili-Kiosk,
Sculptured Column, 87.
Conversano, Cattedrale, 8 ; Tympanum,
western, 111. 179, 144.
Corbeil, Notre-Dame, Sculptured jambs now
in Paris, Louvre, 111. 1467, 1468.
Corbie, Notre-Dame, Portal, western, 111.
Cordes, Pilgrimage Road, 180.
Cordoba, Mosque, 227; Relation to Casale
Monferrato, San Baudelio, Aklepat, Ar-
menia, 186.
Corme-Royal, Facade, western, 111. 1012-
1016, 103, 341 ; Portal, central, 111. 1017.
Cormery, Pilgrimage Road, 179, 258.
Corneilla-de-Conflent, Tympanum, 111. 328,
19, 132f.
Corneto, Art of the Pilgrimage Type, 1 83, 1 86.
Coulombs, Sculptured Column, now in Paris,
Louvre, 111. 1471-/471, 79.
Courajod Crucifix, 111. 630, 631.
Covadonga, Sarcophagus of Pelayo, 70.
Creation and Fall of Man, 111. 597.
Cremona, Frieze, 336; Jamb sculptures, 325,
327; Influence of Lombard sculpture, 183;
Reliefs, 4, 72, 73, 2I8, 222; Relation to
Angouleme, 309 ; to Charlieu, 73.
Crocketed Capitals, (see Capitals).
Cross, Carrying of, (see Christ).
Crossed Legs, (see Legs).
Crouzilles, Facade, Statues of, 111. 1137, 1/38,
341 ; Vault sculptures, 152, 258.
Cruas, Crypt, 1 8 ; Mosaic, 74 ; Mosaic Pave-
ments, 224.
Crucifixion, (see Christ).
Crusade, 111. 1268.
Crusaders, 111. 1487.
Cugnoli, Pulpit, 330.
Cypress-Trees, 214.
Daniel, 111. 320, 419, 461,578, 829, 829b, 856,
909, 958, 1 146, 1222, 321,32s ; in the Lion's
Den, 111 1,33,278,288.
Daphni, Mosaics, 325.
Darmstadt, Ivory casket, Byzantine, X-XI
century, 217; Ivory box, late XI century,
75 ; Hessisches Landmuseum, Ivory, 28.
Daschlut, 74, 190; Portal, now in Cairo
Museum, 141.
David, 111. 189, 477, 478, 567, 570, 687, 871,
1 149, 1153, 1327, J 437, 1464, 1495, 1307,
1508, 1513, 216, 325; Angel appears to,
111. 356, 1327; Dance of, 111. 291, 564, 57 1;
and Gad, 111. 570; and Goliath, 111. 34, 283,
1045, 1069, 1326, 273 ; Nathan and Bath-
sheba before, 111. 567; Nathan reproaches,
III 38. .
Dax, Pilgrimage Road, 179; St.-Paul, Relief
in Apse, III 327-332, 22f., 26f., 336.
Deacon with Chalice, 111. 180.
Death, Announcement of, 111. 1262,
Deborah, 111. 1512.
De Caumont, 9.
Deceased, Death of, 111. 890; Soul of, carried
by Angels, 111. 891.
December, 111. 581, 1099, 1443.
Deesis, 111. 251.
Deity, The, 111. 502, 576, 790, 868, 1330.
Delilah, 111. 948, 1029; Samson and, (see
Samson).
Deposition, (see Christ).
Die, Cath6drale, Capitals of narthex, ex-
terior, 111. 1228, 1229; Tympanum, west-
ern, 111. 1230, 301.
Diego Gelmirez, 177.
Dijon, Musee Archeologique, Tympanum
from St.-Benigne, 111. 134, 135 ', /?<*, 116,
123f., 128, 301 : St.-Benigne, Buttresses,
195; Influence of Jerusalem, Church of the
Holy Sepulchre, 185 ; Portal, western, (des-
troyed), 111. 144, 145, 130, 161 ; compared
with Cluny, 130 ; Tympanum from Abbey,
now in Musee Archeologique, 111. 134, 135,
136, 116, 123f., 128, 279, 297, 301.
Dives, Damnation of, 111. 368; Death of, 111.
369; Feast of, 111. 367, 987; and Lazarus,
111. 844.
Domine Quo Vadis, 111. 611, 613, 1213.
Donors, 111. 231, 250, 253, 261, 893, 894,
895, 1016, 1037, I0 3 s > I22 3-
Donzy, Notre-Dame-du-Pr6, Portal, western,
111. 112-114, 106, 124, 252, 276 ; Pilgrimage
Road, 175; Tympanum, 111. 113, 114, 246;
compared with Chartres, 124.
368
INDEX
Dormition, {see Virgin).
Dromedary, 111. 131.
Dublin, Trinity College, Book of Kells, 21,
205, 257, 301.
Durham, Cathedral, 12, 16; Rib vaults, 139.
Ebreuil, St.-Leger, Fragment, now in Mou-
lins Museum, 111. 1234, 129 ; Reliefs, now
in Moulins Museum, 111. 7255, 1236, 51, 129.
Ecclesiastics, 111. 1016, 1017.
Echillais,34i.
Echternach Master, 38, 161, 325.
Egmond, Tympanum, 28.
Elders, 111. 96 137, 138, 339, 340, 342, 450,
457, 461, 50J ; 584, 585, 587, 668, 696, 734,
735, 778, 780, 784, 795, 797-799, 800, 802,
824-828, 920, 979, 1001, 1002, 1048, 1051,
1055-1057, 1400-1402, 1440, 1460-1462,
1474, 1476, 149°, J 499, J 502, 108, 141f.,
142.
Eleventh Century, Sculpture, 18f .
Eli, 111. 1512.
Elijah, 111. 561, 563, 73; Ascension of, 111.
563-
Elindsche, 218.
Elizabeth and a Youth, 111. 62.
Elne, Cath6drale, Cloisters, 1 87 ; Capitals of,
111. 611-614; Tomb of F. de Solario, 111.
623, 624, 19, in, 160; Tomb of unknown
Bishop, 111. 623, 19 ; Tomb of Guillaume de
Jordan, 111. 626, 19, in.
Elongation, 96.
Ely, Cathedral, Tympanum, 132f .
Emmaus, Feast at, 111. 50, 468, 900, 1265,
1409; Journey to, 111. 65, 468, 667, 709,
1336, 42f.
Enel, 38.
Enger, Tomb of Widukind, 8.
Enoch, 111. 105, 1513, 73.
Enrico, 111. 191-193, 201, 202.
Entombment, {see Christ).
Entry into Jerusalem, {see Christ).
Espalion, Pilgrimage Road, 181; Portal,
northern, 111. 404-408, 198; Tympanum,
northern, 111. 402, 403, 198.
Essen, Stiftskirche, Ivories of Abtissen Theo-
phanu, 75.
Estabaliz, Pilgrimage Road, 179; Portal,
southern, 111. 772, 164.
Estany, Cloisters, 1 87.
Esteban, Bishop, 312.
Estella, Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179, 195:
Relation to Aries, St.-Trophime, 299 : San
Miguel, Portal, northern, 111. 778-781,
256 ; Reliefs near northern portal, 111, 783,
783, 256 ; Sculptures of northern facade,
111. 782, 784, 256 ; Tympanum, northern,
111. 777, 256: San Pedro, Cloisters, 187;
Capitals of, 111. 806-8 jo.
Esther, 111. 1463.
Etampes, compared with Chartres, 164:
Jamb sculptures, 242: Pilgrimage Road,
179 : Notre Dame, Portal, Southern, 111.
1460-1464, 134, 141, 143, 144, 163, 252;
Statue, now in Chapel, 111. 1463, 1466;
Tympanum, southern, 111. 1462; St.-Basile,
Portal, western, archivolts, 111. 1413.
Ethiopian, 111. 129.
Etienne presents a Capital, 111. 1183.
Eunate, Influence of Jerusalem, Church of the
Holy Sepulchre, 185.
Evangelists, 111. 173, 180, 186, 234, 246, 251,
55^, p(>5, 79 6 , 951, *23°' (See Majestas
Domini).
Eve, {see Adam and Eve).
Evolution, in medieval Art, 13.
Executioners, 111. 1292, 1297.
Expulsion, {see Adam and Eve).
Externstein, of the Teutoberger Forest, 9, 53,
63, 149.
Ezekiel, 111. 838, 325.
Faith, 111. 989. •
February, 111. 1098, 1099, 1444, 1510.
Fenioux, Facade, western, 111. 997, 333 ; Por-
tal, western, 111. 998, 333.
Ferrara, Cattedrale, Lintel, 74; Lombard
sculpture, 183; Nicolo, work of, 133, 144,
145, 146, 152, 241, 333; Pilgrimage Road,
187; Portal, 4, 219, 222, 225, 226.
Ferreiros, Pilgrimage Road, 175.
Figeac, Pilgrimage Road, 1 80.
Flagellation, {see Christ).
Fleury-la-Montagne, Tympanum, western,
111. 107, 120.
Flight into Egypt, {see Christ).
Florence, Battistero, 16: Bargello, Ivory
boxes, 48, 190; Ivory, 216; Ivory panel,
111. 630, 38, 46; Ivory, X century, 46;
Ivory, XI century, 50: Campanile di
Giotto, 78 : San Miniato, 16.
Flying Buttresses, 195.
Foggia, Castle of Pontano, 183; Cattedrale,
Sculptures in Garden, 111. 242, 243; Influ-
ence of Pisa, 185.
Foliage, naturalistic, 86.
Foligno, Cattedrale, 219.
Fontaines-D'Ozillac, Portal, western, 111.
977,978,34*'
Fontevrault, Abbaye, 308 ; Capital, 111. 923,
123,308.
Fontfroide, Relief, now at Montpellier, Uni-
versity, 111. 1301, 246L, 277.
Fortune, Wheel of, 111. 1423 ; 1424, 164.
Foussais, Facade, western, 111. 1061-1063,
164, 337; Portal, central, 111. 1062.
Fox, and Chickens, 111. 1263; as School-mas-
ter, 111. 12631 and Stork, 111. 1263.
INDEX
369
Fra Guglielmo, 293.
Frankfurt, A./M., Stiftsbibliotek, Ivories,
204.
Frederick II, 111. 245.
Freiberg i. Sa., Goldene Pforte, 277.
Freiburg, Miinster, Nikolauskapelle, Relief,
53-
Frejus, Pilgrimage Road, 186.
Frieze, sculptured, 23, 267f.
Fromista, Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179.
Funeral Procession, 111. 1262.
Gabriel, 111. 177, 201, 480, 482, 483, 554,
829a, 1139, 1516.
Gallale, St.-Anthony, Monastery, 188, 191.
Galterius, Bishop, 270.
Gamaliel, 111. 1362.
Gamaliel Master, 299.
"Gamma" Wings, 125.
Ganogobie, Cloister, 111. 1237, 1238, 221;
Tympanum, western, 111. 1236, 134, 140.
Gargilesse, Capital of nave, 111. 82, 83 , 146,
149.
Gassicourt, Wooden Virgin, 111. 1497.
Gates of Heaven and Hell, 111. 400.
Generosity vs. Avarice, 111. 1182.
Genova, Cattedrale, Cappella San Giovanni,
Area, 111. 248; Facade, western, 111. 238,
1 84, 222 ; Portal, central western, 111. 233,
256, 184; Portal, western, 111. 237 , 184;
Tympanum, western, 111. 234, 135, 140,
184.
Gensac-la-Pallue, Relief of facade, western,
111. 700^/005, 341.
Gerona, Catedral, 21 ; Cloister, 111. 397, 398,
101, 104, 187; Capitals of, 111. 396: San
Feliu, Sepulchral Relief in Church, 111. 617:
San Pedro de Galligans, Cloisters, 187;
Capitals of, 111. 399.
Gideon, 111. 1512.
Gilabertus, {see Gilbert), 111. 434, 150.
Gilbert, 111. 479, no, 150, 157, 160, 163, 164,
242, {see Gilabertus and Gislebertus).
Gilglelm, 111. 1058.
Girard, Bishop, 307.
Giraud Audebert of St.-Jean-d'Ang61y, 111.
1061, 164, 337.
Girauldus, 111. 1263.
Gislebertus, {see Gilbert), 111. 79] 80, 8/, no,
Giving the Keys, {see Christ).
Gnesen, Bronze Doors, Relation to Bronze
Doors of Novgorod, Russia, 255.
Gniezno, {see Gnesen).
God, 111. 9/0, 1220; the Father, 111. 676, 796.
Gofridus, 147.
Grado, Throne, 69, 70, 244, 283, 289, 325.
Grammar, 111. 6, 773, 776, 1116, 135, 149.
Grimoard, Bishop, 318.
Groppoli, Chapel of Villa Dalpina, 111. 230,
160; San Michele, Pulpit, 111. 229, 160.
Grossenlinden, Proto-voussure sculptures,
220, 328.
Grotesques, 111. 176,328, 803, 979.
Grotta Dei Santi, Frescos, 29.
Gruamonte, 111. 191, 160.
Guglielmo, 18, 23, 66f., 67, 72, 73, 202, 218,
237, 255, 293, 294, 296, 297, 298, 304, 309,
325, 327, 332, 340; da Innspruch, {see
Innspruch) ; Tedesco, {see Tedesco).
Guido Bigarelli da Como, 111. 234, 160.
Guillaume, 333 ; de Martin, {see Martin).
Gunzo, 79.
Habakkuk, 111. /, 419, 378, 838, 909, 1222,
325-
Hagetmau, Pilgrimage Road, 1 80.
Haggai,325.
Hague, The, Niederlandischen Museum,
Fragments from St. Odilienberg, 220.
Halberstadt, Liebfrauenkirche, 192.
Halos, Star-insCribed, 152.
Hand, Divine, 111. 974; raised, palm turned
outward, 47.
Heads, 111. 1458, 1459; in medallions, 145,
3*3-
Hebrews murmur against Moses and Aaron,
111. 390.
Helena, Empress, 188.
Hell, 111. 90, 93, 401, 402, 714, 1377; Harrow-
ing of, {see Christ).
Heraclius, 98.
Hercules and the Nemaean Lion, 290.
Herford, Germany, Tomb of Widukind, 149.
Herod, Feast of, 111. 283, 290, 446.
Hexham, Cross, 7, 16, 22.
Hildesheim, Bronze column, 35; Bronze
doors, 15, 34, 36, 50, 227; Psalter of St-
Albans, 64; School of XI century, 303.
Hirache, {see Irache).
Holy Spirit, The, 111. J 10.
Horeb, 111. 3S6, 387, 389.
Horsemen, 111. 1092, 187f.
Hosea, 111. 859.
Huesca, San Pedro el Viejo, Cloisters, 187;
Capital of, 111. 530, 533, 334; Tympanum
of Entrance Portal, 111. 329, 331, 332, 133,
255.
Hugh, 111. 1420.
Hulla, Font, 146.
Humility, 111. 396, 989.
Hunting-Scene, 111. 1263.
Iberian Statue, 111. 637.
Idols, Fall of, 111. 373.
Ile-de-France, Artistic hegemony, 12.
Innspruch, Guglielmo da, 111. 186-188, 160,
293> 294.
37°
INDEX
Irache, Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179; Relation
to Santiago de Compostela, 181.
Isaiah, 111. 110,344,345,361,391, 829, 856,
958, 1162,1507, 1 513, 127, 322, 325.
Isola, San Giulio, Pulpit, 148, 225, 232.
Issoire, Pilgrimage Road, 180: St.-Austre-
moine, Absidial chapel, exterior, 111. 1208;
Capital of Ambulatory, 111. 121 2-1 21 4, 149,
284, 333; Relief of Apse, exterior, 111.
1 209-1 21 1, 236, 237 : School of Auvergne,
181.
Issy, Relief, 111. 1489, 140.
Iteus Archembaldi, 307.
Ivories, Spanish, Early, 37f.
Ivrea, Cattedrale, 193.
Ivry-la-Bataille, Lintel, Influence of Char-
tres, 134; Portal, western, 111. 1474-1478,
130, 140.
Jaca, Catedral, Book-cover, now in Metro-
politan Museum of Art, New York, 111.
519, 37, 41, 48, 52; Capital of Cloister,
111. 522, 523, 524; Capital, exterior, 111.
520, 521, 525, 526, 51 ; Tympanum, west-
ern, 111. 616: Convento de Monjas Bene-
dictinas, Sarcophagus of the Daughters of
Ramiro I, 111. 527, 248 : Pilgrimage Road,
179.
Jacob's Dream, 111. 103, 204, 205; wrestles
with the Angel, 111. 205, 206.
Jamb Sculptures, 217f.
January, 111. 581, 1009.
Jativa, Ablution-basin, 65.
Jephthah, 111. 1512.
Jeremiah, 111. 363, 829, 856, 958, 1493, 1507,
322,325.
Jerusalem, Church of the Holy Sepulchre,
Pilgrimage Road, 185, 188; the Heavenly,
111. 328; Miniatures of XI century, 190;
St. John, Sanguesa dedicated to him, 254.
Jesse, 111. 959, 1 51 3, 322; Tree of, 111. 226.
Job, 111. 1 218, 1341, 165; and the Angel, 111.
462; and his Friends, 111. 462.
Joel, 325.
Joffre, 111. 905.
Jonah, 111. 714, 856; God sends him to Nine-
veh, 111. 576; before Nineveh, 111. 575;
swallowed by Whale, 111. 576; vomited
forth, 111. 575.
Joram, 111. 1512.
Josaphat, 111. 1512.
Joshua, 111. J 512.
Judas, 111. 52, 85, 1357; hangs himself, 111.
52; Kiss of, 111. 85; receives the Price of his
Treason, 111. 1292, 1295.
Judgment, The Last, 111. 80, 81, 92,392,394,
397-401, 409-413, 43{-433> 747, 7^6, 822,
1191, 1 192, 1366, 1369, 1413, 1439, I 440y
96, 97, 232f. ; the Blessed, 111. 398, 838,
1490: the Damned, 111. 23, 89, 837, 1192,
1375, 1490; Souls of, driven into Hell, 111.
90; Tortures of, 111. 89: the Elect, 111. 394,
395, 1 1 91, 1 1 92: Separation of the Elect
and the Damned, 111. 1192.
Judith, 111. 44.
July, 111. 1096.
Jumieges, Influence of Lombard Architec-
ture, 183.
Just, Death of the, 111. 239.
Justice, Divine, 111. 616.
Kalinic, Fresco, 190.
Karlsruhe, Vereinigte Sammlungen, Tympa-
num, from Petershausen, 132f .
Kief, Mosaics, 21, 69, 314.
Kings, of Judah, 111. 475, 476, 1507; Scenes
from the Book of, 111. 564.
Kumurdo, 181.
Kyoto, Exposition, Gilt Bronze Image, 47,
H9,3i5.
Labarum, 111. 505, 529, 531, 532, 548, 617,
766, 799, 804.
La Celle Bruere, Relief of Facade, 111. 1469,
1470,2b.
La Charit6-sur-Loire, compared with Char-
tres and Montmorillon, i25f. : Lintel of
northern portal, 111. 121, 285 : Pilgrimage
Road, 175 : Tower, central, 111. 123; Tym-
panum, northern, 111. 120, 122, 125f. ;
Tympanum, southern, 111. 115-119, 125f.,
161, 279, 292, 300.
"Lady of Elche," 209.
La Lande de Fronzac, Portal, southern, 111.
916, 328f., 329; Tympanum, southern, 111.
9'7> 25, 5i> 328, 33°-
LAne $ui Joue, 111. 26, 126, 1253.
Laon, Influence of Jerusalem, Church of
the
Holy Sepulchre, 185.
La Sauve Majeure, Abbaye, Capital, \W.333-
336, 27; Pilgrimage Road, 175, 180.
Las Caldas de Oviedo, Santa Maria de Pre-
orio, Portal, western, 111. 881, 882, 220;
Tympanum, western, 111. 880.
Later Monuments of the West, 320f .
Lausanne, Cath6drale, Influence of Santiago
de Compostela, 265.
La van thai, Influence of Cluny Tympanum,
through Chartres, 140; St.-Paul, 277.
Lavaudieu, Cloisters, 222; Capital of, 111.
1239; Colonnette of, 111. 1240: Pilgrimage
Road, 180.
La Villedieu, Relief of Facade, western, 111.
1 1 20, 1 1 21, 341.
Lazarus, 111. 366, 367; and Dives, 111. 988;
Resurrection of, 111. 223, 541, 664, 1078,
T 131 5, '3'6, {3*7-
Lefevre-Pontalis, 10.
INDEX
37i
Leg-bands, in, 163, 166, 250.
Legs, Crossed, 20, 21, 51, 187, 317.
Leger, or Leodegarius, 254.
Leipzig, Staatsbibliotek, Ivory Book-cover,
Ada Group, IX century, 302.
Leire, San Salvador, Portal, western, 111.
712-715, SS, 143, 218, 240; Tympanum,
western, 111. 711, 716, 240, 260.
Le Mans, Cathedrale, 193: Lintel, Influence
of Chartres, 135 : Influence of Cluny tym-
panum through Chartres, 140: Notre-
Dame-de-la-Couture ; 193 ; Relief in north-
ern wall, 111. 1412,218 ; Sculptures compared
with Montmorillon, 125.
Lentini, Cathedrale, Steatite Carving, XI-
XII century, 1 89.
Leodegarius, or Leger, 254.
Leon, Catedral, Stained glass, 196: Museo
San Marcos, Capital, from Sahagun, 111.
768, 253; Crucifix, Ivory, from San Isi-
dore, 111. 703, 40f., 70, 262; Sculptured
Colonnette from Sahagun, 111. 769; Sculp-
tured Column, from Sahagun, 111. 771;
Sculptured Fragment, said to come from
Astorga, 111. 704: Panteon de los Reyes,
Capital, 111. 718: San Isidoro, 236 ; Casket,
Ivory, now in Madrid, 111. 651-653, 38f.,
45, 46. 51, 164, 252; Crucifix, Ivory, 111.
654* 655, 52, 54, 69, 98, 262; Crucifix,
Ivory, now in Museo San Marcos,, 111.
703, 40f ., 262 ; Crucifix, 37, 39f . : Pilgrim-
age Road, 175, 179, 195: Portal, eastern,
111. 700, 701, 198; Portal, western, 111.
696-698, 143, 198, 238; Reliefs, 7; Tym-
panum, southern transept, 111. 702, 198;
Tympanum, western, 111. 699, 198; Sagra
San Michele, Pilgrimage Road, 175.
Le Puy, Cath6drale, Derivation of west front,
1 87 : Hotel-Dieu, Columns, now in Mus6e,
111. J 23 1, J 232: Muse6, Capitals, 111. 1233;
Columns from Hotel-Dieu, 111. 1231, 1232:
Pilgrimage Road, 180: St.-Michel-de-
1' Aiguille, Derivation of cusping, 187;
Portal, 111. 1220: School of Velay, 181.
Lerida, Catedral, Fragments, 111. 553,554,
160; Museo, Antependium from Sigena,
111. 555, 208; Fragments from Catedral,
t W. 553, 554- n J
Leyre, Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179.
L6zat, Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179.
Libra, 111. 995.
Licorne, 111. 127.
Liege, St.-Barthelemy, Font, 15.
L'lle- Bouchard, St.-Leonard, Capital of
Ambulatory, 111. 1100-1107, a8 4> 33 2 j
J33>
Limbo, Christ in, (see Christ, Harrowing of
Hell).
Limoges, Enamels, 251; St.-Martial, 193;
Pilgrimage Road, 175; Relation to Com-
postela, 194.
Lintel, Burgundian, 133f.
Lion, 111. 171, 188, 239, 674; and the Man,
111. 239; supporting, 66.
Litchfield, Landisfarne Gospels, Book of St.
Chad, 205.
Liverpool, Casket, Ivory, X century, 190.
Loarre, Capital, 111. 600; Portal, southern, 111.
601.
Loches, St.-Ours, Console in Choir, 111. 1108-
ii 10, 332; Porch, Vault sculptures, 258;
Portal, western, 111. //// — 1*19, 107, 332;
Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Lodi, Catedral, 219.
Logrono, Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Lombard influences, 185f.
London, British Museum, Beatus Manu-
script of, 1 109, written for Santo Domingo
de Silos, 56; Byzantine Ivory, 46, 283;
Charter of King Edgar to New Minster,
(Winchester), 100; Cottonian Psalter, in;
Flabellum, XII century, 220; German
Pyxis in Ivory, in; German Pyxis, IX
century, 284; Gospels, early IX century,
46; Ivory Book-cover, 69; Ivory, Carlo-
vingian, 1 52 ; Ivory Diptych, 1 1 1 ; Ivories of
X century, 72, 217; Landisfarne Gospels,
325 ; Life of St. Guthlac of Croyland, XII
century, 318; Manuscripts, XII century,
274, 309; Manuscript of the Winchester
School, 21 ; Psalter of St.-Swithun's Priory,
21, 318; Register of New Minster, 21, III,
112: South Kensington Museum, Ivory
carving, Ada Group, IX century, 125;
Ivory Carving, Dream of Joseph, 125;
Ivory Carving, (Italian?) XI-XII Century,
230: Temple Church, Influence of Jeru-
salem, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 185 :
Victoria and Albert Museum, Ivory of the
Ada Group, 162, 204.
Longpont, Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179.
Lubersac, Capitals of Apse, exterior, 111.
1 241, 1242.
Lucca, Cattedrale, Tympanum, western, 111.
247, 132f., 184; San Giovanni, Portal,
western, 111. 227, 134; San Salvatore, Lin-
tel, southern, 111. 225, 157, 160, 294; Lintel,
western, 111. 224.
Lugo, Catedral, Portal, northern, 111. 728,
*S3-
Luxury, 111. 34a, 315, 371, 679, 921, 991,
1030, 1 151, 214.
Lyon, Catheclrale, Capital, 166: Ivory Cas-
ket, X-XI century, 314: Man6canterie,
Facade, 111. 1243, 1244 1245, 147: St.-
Martin d'Ainay, 6, 304; Lintel, 147.
Maastricht, Sculptures, 101.
372
INDEX
Macon, St.- Vincent, Pilgrimage Road, 175;
Tympanum, western, 111. 92, 122.
Madrid, Academia de Historia, Missal from
San Millan de la Cogolla, 50: Library,
Manuscript of Spanish origin, XII century,
230: Museo Arquelogico Nacional, Capi-
tals, 111. 792, 793, 164; Crucifix of San Isi-
doro, Leon, 37, 39f. ; Iberian Statue, 111.
637, 57, 72; Ivory Reliefs of the Beati-
tudes, 38f. ; Moorish box from Palencia,
40; Relief, from Sahagun, 111. 770, 57f.,
72 ; Ivory carvings from Leon, San Isidoro,
111. 651-655, 38f., 45, 46, 51, 52, 54, 69, 98.
Magdalen, Mary, 111. 41, 147, 946; anoints
the feet of Christ, 111. 1390; the Ravishing
of, 111. 1404.
Magi, 111. 144,374, 407, 503, 773, 795, ^49,
1150, 1369; Adoration of, 111. 51, 72, 87,
93, 94, 95, 102, 107, 118, 140, 191, 215, 226,
234, 246, 323-325, 375, 447, 532, 604-606,
633, 680, 780, 78/, 807, 802, 905, nu-
ll 14, 1160, 1301, 1328, 1386; before Herod,
111. 140, 191, 530, 806, 1188; Journey of,
111. 102, 140; Sleep of, 111. 1 471; Story of,
111. 1374.
Maguelonne, Pilgrimage Road, 1 80, 1 86 :
Cathedrale, Portal, western, south tran-
sept, 111. 1285, 1286, 268f. ; Relation to
Angouleme lunettes, 269 ; to Toulouse, St.-
Sernin, Ambulatory sculptures, 269; Re-
liefs near Portal, western, 111. 1287, 1288,
268f., 270, 276, 310; Tympanum, 111.
1384, 140, 261, 302.
Maidens, The Three Dowerless, 111. 1128,
1129.
Maillezais, Portal, western, 111. 963, 341.
Mainz, Choir, east, 232; Marktportal, 132f. ;
Tomb-stone of the Archbishop Hatto, 22.
Majestas Domini, 111. 3, 4, 11, 12, 84, 98, 99,
106, 108, in, 116, 120, 134, 135, 143, 144,
214, 254, 296, 321, 339, 341, 381, 383, 402
452, 488-491, 501, 502, 508, 513-515, 5i8,
534, 544, 602-604, 656, 657, 659, 717, 724,
729, 748, 77', 777, 792, 795, 799, 801, 823,
880, 923, 929, 951, 964, 1018, 1059, 1060,
1064, 1 140, 1 145, 1 149, 1 150, 1 158, 1 185,
1 187, 1 189, 1236, 1257, 1270, 1275, 1300,
1372, 1384,1489, 1490, 1492,1496, 1501, 28,
116, 128,135,279,297,328.
Malachi, 111. 859, 325.
Malmesbury, Abbey, Tympanum, 132f. ;
Sculptures, Burgundian influence, 161.
Manchester, John Rylands Collection, Ivory
X century, 205.
Man fighting Bear, 111. 180.
Manna, 111. 586, 587.
Mar, St.-Paul, Frescos, 188.
March, 111. 1098.
Marcilhac, Capital of Cloister, 111. 1145, 103;
of narthex, 111. 11 46; Relief of Portal, south-
ern, 111. 1142-1144.
Maries, The, 111. 610, 746, 753; buying Spices,
111. 1298, 1391; at the Tomb, 111. 150, 157,
186 m, 327, 4(>4, 720, 785, 808, 819,
1087, 1089, 1 190, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1298,
I 39 I -
Marignan, Chronology, 11.
Marmoutier, Sacramentary, 310.
Mars, Tympanum, western, 111. 1140, 132f .
Marseille, Cathedrale Ancienne, Altar-fron-
tal, 111. 1283, J 284, 155, 267, 268; Musee
Borely, Capital, said to come from Mont-
majour, 111. 1109; Fragment of a Pulpit,
111. 1 410; Tomb of St. Isarne, from St.-
Victor, 111. 1278, 32f. ; St.- Victor, 32; Pil-
grimage Road, 186; Rib Vaults, 139;
Tomb of St. Isarne, now in Musee, 111.
1278.
Marsico Nuovo, Basilicata, 218.
Martel, Pilgrimage Road, 180; Tympanum,
western, 111. 431-433, 250.
Martha and Mary supplicate Christ, 111.
I3I5-I3I7-
Martin, Guillaume de, 111. 1218, 12 19, 16c,
166, 279, 294, 298.
Martinus Monachus, 111. 147-149.
Martyrs, 111. 486, 487, 500, 141 4.
Master of the Bari Throne, 280, 286, 289,
290, 295, 296.
Master of Etampes, Chartres, Portal, west-
ern, 163, 164, 166.;
Mateo, 111. 829, 831, 213, 230, 253, 258, 259,
262 ; Portrait of, 111. 831.
Matha, Facade, western, 111. 1031-1033, 341.
Mauriac, Baptismal Font, 111. 1248; Portal,
western, 111. 1249; Tympanum, western,
111. 1246, 1247, 132f., 134, 248f ., 250.
Mavo, 123.
May, 111. 582, 1098.
Meillers, Capital, of Portal, western, 111.
1253; Lintel, western, 111. 1251, 132f., 236 ;
Wooden Statue, 111. 1252.
Melchisadek, 111. 1463.
Melle, Pilgrimage Road, 179; St.-Hilaire,
Portal, northern, 111. ion, 341 : St.-Pierre,
Capital of nave, 111. 1091, 341 ; Relief over
southern Portal, 111. 1090, 341 : School of
the West, 181.
Mercy, Divine, 111. 6/6.
Mersburg, Dom, Tomb-stone of Rudolf von
Schwaben, 230.
Mervilliers, Tympanum, southern, 111. 1482,
1483.
Metz, St.-Pierre de la Citadelle, Stone Sculp-
ture, 46, 48.
Micah, 325.
Milan, Art of Benedetto, 1 83 : Cattedrale, 7 :
Museo Archeologico, Ivory carving from
INDEX
373
Grado Throne, 325 : San Ambrogio, Altar,
8; golden, 16, 207; Basilica of Fausta,
Mosaic, V century, 313; Capital, 104;
Plaster Relief, 314; Pulpit, 111. 174, 175,
67f . : Trivulzio Collection, Ivory, 244.
Millstadt A. /M, {see 220).
Mimizan, Abbaye, 111. 490, 491, 253; Pil-
grimage Road, 179.
Minerva, Statue of, 72.
Miracle, of the Bread, 111. 1082; of the Loaves
and Fishes, 111. 1187, 1189, 1200, 1201,
1211; Play, 322.
Miraculous Draught of Fishes, 111. 286, 540,
1152.
Mithra and the Bull, 189.
Moarves, Capital of Portal, 111. 730-733;
Frieze of Fagade, 111. 729, 336 ; Relation to
Carrion de los Condes, 180.
Modena, Cattedrale, 4, 23, 72, 73 ; Architec-
ture compared with Bari, San Niccola, 67 ;
compared with Charlieu, 73; Frieze, 336;
influence of Beaucaire Frieze, 284; influ-
ence of Lombard sculpture, 183; Porta
della Pescheria, 4, 63 ; Relation to Bayeux
"tapestry," Angouleme, and Bari, 183;
Pulpit and Screens, 238; Relief, compared
with Vezelay, 91; Sculptures, 225; com-
pared with Bari, San Niccola, Throne,
66f. ; in Gable, 313 ; representing the mak-
ingof capitals, 102 ; Work of Guglielmo, 327.
Modes, {see Tones of Plain-Song).
Moissac, Capitals of narthex, 111. 337, 338;
Cloisters, 1 87 ; Capitals of, 111. 274-287, 53,
57, 70, 87, 242, 258; Pier Reliefs of, 111.
262-273, 1 8, 47, 53, 57, 13 5, H9, 156, 192,
238, 241, 316, 328; relation of Pier Reliefs
to Toulouse, St.-Sernin, Ambulatory Re-
liefs, 205f., 206, 208; Cloisters compared
with Santo Domingo de Silos, 54, 203f. :
Pilgrimage Road, 175, 180, 181, 186 •.Porch,"'
111 366-377, 56, 137f., 275, 316, 33s ; rela-
tion to Santo Domingo de Silos, 202; to
Souillac, 202f . ; sculptures above, 111. 378,
379> 380, 275 ; Trumeau of, 111. 363-365,
$3: Portal, southern, 111. 360-362, 218,
326 ; Reliefs compared with Achthamar, 1 8 :
Tympanum, 111. 330-342, 134, 135f., 142,
219, 240, 250, 254; relation to Aries, St.-
Trophime, 298 ; to Souillac, 202f.
Money-changers, 111. 1315-1317.
Monkey, playing the Violin, 111. 126.
Monopoli, Cattedrale, Archivolt, 111. 157-
162, 59f., 70, 144, 266* relation to Spain
and Aquitaine, 70.
Monreale, Mosaics, XII century, 314.
Montceau-l'Etoile, Tympanum, western,
111. 104, 105, 75, 122, 141, 149, 249.
Monte Cassino, Basilica, 55, 83; Manuscript,
125; San Bartolommeo, 83; School, 97.
Montefiascone, Rib Vaults, 186.
Monte Gargano, Pilgrimage Road, 182.
Monterey, 220.
Monte San Angelo, Bronze Doors, 34 ; Pul-
pit, 31, 33; Santa Maria Maggiore, Tym-
panum, western, 111. 231, 15, 132; San
Michele, Tympanum, western, 111. 107,
261, 330; Throne, 68; Tomba di Rotari,
Lintel, western, 111. 108, 330.
Montlaur, Bishop Jean II de, 270.
Montlhery, 175.
Montmajour, Cloisters, 187; Relief in, 111.
'33 2 > J 333> 3co; Pilgrimage Road, 175.
Montmorillon, Facade, 111. 1030, 341 ; Frieze
of, 111. 1072a, 1073, 28 5, 336, 34o; Influ-
ence of Jerusalem, Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, 185; Pilgrimage Road, 179;
compared with Chartres and La Charite-
sur-Loire, 125.
Montpellier, Musee Archeologique, Frag-
ments from St.-Guilhem-le-Desert, 111.
1 400-1 402, 265; Pilgrimage Road, 180;
University Court, Capital from St.-Pons,
111. 1268, 1269; Fragments from St.-Guil-
hem-le-Desert, 111. 1397, 1398, 203, 279;
Sculpture from Fontfroide, 111. 1301, 246.
Mont Romeu, Pilgrimage Road, 182.
Mont-St.-Vincent, Tympanum, western, 111. 3.
Montsaunes, Portal, northern, 111. 503, 504;
western, 111. 505; Capitals of, 111. 506.
Montserrat, Pilgrimage Road, 182.
Monuments, Ile-de-France, Neighbouring
Regions, Accepted Date, 5.
Moorish Ivories, Influence of, 329^, 331.
Moraime, San Julian, 264.
Moreaux, Facade, western, 111. 1065, 1067,
1068, 90, 318 : Pilgrimage Road, 179 : Por-
tal, western, 111. 1066.
Morienval, Gospel of, {see Noyon). Ambula-
tory, 10, 11.
Morlaas, Ste.-Foy, Elders in voussures, radi-
ating, 143: Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179:
Portal, western, 111. 456, 457, 459, 460,
258f. ; Tympanum, western, 111. 458,
161.
Mosaic Pavements, 224.
Moscow, Bibliotheque Synodale, M6nologe
grec,2i.
Moscufo, Santa Maria del Lago, Pulpit, 111.
180, 330.
Moses, 111. 1 io, 588, 682, 756, 820, 871, 958,
070, 1437, 1445, 1463, J 507, 1508, 321 .
Moulins, Museum, Fragment from Ebreuil,
St.-Leger, 111. 1254, 129 ; Fragment of Re-
lief from St.-Menoux, 111. 1259, 129 ; Re-
liefs from Ebreuil, St.-Leger, 111. 1255,
1256,129.
Mt.-Athos,Xeropotamon,Relief,227 ; Mosaic,
48.
374
INDEX
Moutier-St.-Jean, Capitals, now in Cam-
bridge, Mass., 111. 62-66, 91, 313; com-
pared with Autun, 115; with Saulieu, 114f .
Movement, Beginning at Toulouse, St.-Ser-
nin, Tympanum, 136.
Mozat, Capital in Church, 111. 1224-1227,
2 37 ; Tympanum, west facade, south tran-
sept, 111. 1223, 236, 237.
Munich, Kgl. Hof-und Stiftsbibliotek, Book-
cover of Kaiser Arnulf, 29, 35 ; Perikopen-
buch aus Passau, 21 ; von St. Erentrud,
21, 97, 249, 258, 274.
Miinster, Mauritzkirche, sculpture, now in
Westfalischen Landesmuseum, 48, 50,
328 ; Westfalischen Landesmuseum, Sculp-
ture from Mauritzkirche, 48, 50, 328.
Music, 111. 7, 77f.
Musicians, 111. 378; of David, 111. 361, 562.
Mzchet, Tympanum, 20, 74, 185.
Najera, Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179; Santa
Maria la Real, Tomb of Dona Blanca, 111.
7/p,2 4 i.
Nantua, Lintel, western, 111. 1214a, 157, 281,
284, 294, 295; Portal, (destroyed), 140.
Nara, Museum, Statue of Kwannon, 97;
Sculptures, 119; Temple Kofuku-ji, Statue
of Shindatsura-Taisho, 53.
Narbonne, Cathedrale, Ivory, 28 ; Pilgrimage
Road, 175, 179, 183, 195; Stained glass,
195: St.- just, Holy-water basin, now at
Toulouse Museum, 111. 486, 487, 248.
Narni, Palazzo Municipale, Relief, 6$.
Natagis, 111. 1141.
Nativity, {see Christ).
Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation, 164;
Construction of, 105.
Nebuchadnezzar, 111. 936, 958, 1132, 321 ;
Dream of, 111. 576.
Neuilly-en-Donjon, Tympanum, western, 111.
93, 94, 121,313.
Neuvy-St.-Sepulchre, Influence of Jerusalem,
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 185.
Nevers, Musee de la Porte du Croux, Frag-
ments from St.-Sauveur, 111. 126-133, 122 :
St.-Etienne, 6, 9; Pilgrimage Road, 175,
1 80 : St.-Sauveur, Capitals, now in Musee,
111. 126-132, 122f . ; Relation to Malmes-
bury, 161 ; Tympanum, now in Musee, 111.
133, 122f .
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Book-cover from Jaca, Catedral, 111. 319,
37, 41, 48, 52; Byzantine ivory caskets,
313; Byzantine ivory, XI century, 272;
Byzantine ivory panels, 283 ; Capitals from
St.-Pons, 111. 1272, 1273; Crucifix, Ivory,
111. 710, 38, 41f., 43 52, 54, 70;
Ivory plaque, (No.i), 111. 663, 39 f. ; Ivory
plaque, (No. 2), 111. 709, 42f., 49;
Ivory relief, small, 39: Morgan Library,
Gospels of the Countess Matilda, 49, 51,
53, 69; Manuscript of XII century, 69.
Nicodemo, 111. 180, 330.
Nicolo, 111. 244, 245, 133, 144, 145, 146, 147,
148, 181, 183, 219, 220, 225f., 237, 241,
244, 255, 296, 299, 325, 333.
Nimes, Cathedrale, Facade, Frieze, 111. 1378-
1383, 26, 300, 336; Pilgrimage Road, 175,
180; School of Provence, 181.
Noah, 111. 1 513; his Ark, 111. 1379; his Sons
build the Ark, 111. 398; his Sons make
Wine, 111. 596.
Noli me tangere, 111. 50, 33, 78, 463, 709,
1063, 42f.
Nonantola, Influence of Lombard sculpture,
183; Reliquary, 189.
November, 111. 381, 1443.
Novgorod, Bronze Doors, 255.
Noya, San Martin, 264.
Noyon, Morienval Gospel., 45.
October, 111. 380, 383.
Oloron-Ste.-Marie, Pilgrimage Road, 179;
Tympanum, western, 111. 461, 143, 161,
259.
Orense, Catedral, Porch, western, 111. 837-
&59> 263 ; Portal, northern, 111. 833, 854,
263 ; western, 111. 832, 833, 836, 263, 326.
Orleans, Musee Historique, Fragment of
Altar-frontal, from Briare, 111. 1434^ 207;
Pilgrimage Road, 179; Ste.-Croix, 193.
Osnabriick, Ivory Box, XI century, (first
half), 75-
Othonian Miniatures, 18.
Otranto, Capitals, III, 115.
Oviedo, Camara Santa, Area Santa, 111. 636-
660, 15, 3s, 46, 48, 51, 52, 73, 96,. 208, 209,
284, 303; compared with Charlieu, 7if. ;
Capital of Respond, 111. 819, 261f. ; Re-
spond, 111. 81 /-8/8, 261f ., 263 ; Catedral,
Relief in Cloister, 111. 869, 870, 260; Pil-
grimage Road, 179, 192; Relation to
Santillana del Mar, 181.
Owl, 111.^.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Gospels, 100.
Ozias, 111. 1312.
Palencia, Catedral, Moorish Box, now in
Madrid, 40.
Palermo, Cappella Palatina, Mosaics, XII
century, 314; Martorana, Mosaics, XII
century, 314.
Pamplona, Catedral, Capital in Cloister,
111. 720; Ivory Casket, 40, 64, 69, 328;
Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179, 195.
Parable of the Good Samaritan, 111. 280.
Paradise, Rivers of, 111. 3, 22.
Paray-le-Monial, Musee Eucharistique,
INDEX
375
Sculptures from Anzy-le-Duc, 111. 98, 99,
122, 130.
Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Apocalypse of
St.-Sever, 190; Benedictional, 45, 100;
Bibles, of Charles the Bald, 21 ; of Roda,
29; Byzantine miniature, X century, 190;
Codice Sinopense, Asia Minor Manu-
script, VI century, 324 ; German ivories and
miniatures, X century, 314; Gospels of
St.-Medard of Soissons, 46, 152; Horse-
man, 188 ; Ivories, Ada Group, X century,
46; Triptychs, 189, 313; Psalter, 21 ; Tet-
revangile, 190: Musee Cluny, Altar-fron-
tal, from Basel, 208; Apostles Cycle, 192;
Book-cover, X century, Echternach Mas-
ter, 325 ; Echternach Ivory, 46, 161 ; Jamb
sculpture from Notre-Dame, 265 : Musee
du Louvre, Altar, portable, school of Co-
logne, 66 ; Altar-frontal, from Carriere-St.-
Denis, 111. 1485, i486, 164; Barberini
Ivory, 75, 188, 189; Bible of Charles-le-
Chauve, no; Capital from Ste.-Gene-
vieve, 111. 1488; Column from Coulombs,
111. 1 471-1473, 79; Courajod Crucifix, 111.
630, 631; Fragment of Pier from Chalons-
sur-Marne, 111. 148/, 221 ; Harbeville Trip-
tych, 161 ; Heads, stone, 111. 1458, 1439;
Jamb sculpture from Corbeil, Notre-Dame,
111. 1467, 1468; Macedonian Relief, 190;
Metz Group, Ivories, 75; Triptych, X
century, 313; Virgin, in wood, 111. 1484:
Notre-Dame, Gallery, Capitals, 104; Jamb
sculptures, now in Musee Cluny, 265 :
Porte-Ste.-Anne, 262 : Ste.-Genevieve,
Capital, now in Musee du Louvre, 111.
1488: St.-Germain-des-Pres, Pilgrimage
Road, 179: St.-Jacques, Pilgrimage Road,
179 :St.-Julien-le-Pauvre, Pilgrimage Road,
175, 179.
Parma, Art of Benedetto, 183; Battistero,
Sculptures, 4, 277.
Parthenay, Notre-Dame-de-la-Couldre, Capi-
tal, 111. 1045, 1046, 274, 334f ., 340 ; Facade,
western, 111. 1052-1057, 51, 142, 286, 334f. ;
Influence of Jerusalem, Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, 185; Portal, central, Capitals,
111. 1047; Portal, western, 111. 1048-1051,
143, 334f. ; Pilgrimage Road, 179; Rela-
tion to Chartres, 335f. ; School of the West,
181.
Parthenay-le-Vieux, Facade, western, 111.
024, 025, 190, 341.
Patriarchs, 111. 1370, 1474, 1507, 165.
Pavia, M[useo Civico, Tomb of Teodelinda,
14: neighbourhood of, Influence on St.-
Jouin-de-Marne, 315: San Giovanni in
Borgo, Capitals, 6s : San Michele, Relation
to Saintes, and Ste.-Marie-des-Dames, 331 ;
Sculpture, 106 : San Stefano, Relief, 6$.
Peasant warming his Socks by the Fire, 111. 210.
Pebbles, Flame-shaped, 50.
Pedimented Lintel, 236.
Pentateuch, Scenes from, 111. 585.
Pentecost, {see Christ).
Perelada, Cloisters, 187.
Perforated Border, 119.
Perignac, Facade, western, 111. 1018-1024,
' 107, 341.
Perigueux, Pilgrimage Road, 180, 186, 296;
St.-Etienne, Tomb of Bishop Jean, 241 ;
St.-Front, 7; Arches, 98; Tomb of St.
Front, 33L
Perpignan, Vieux-St.-Jean, Portal, 111. 618-
620, 19, in, 160, 252; Tombstone in
facade, 111. 634.
Perrecey-les- Forges, Lintel, western, 111. 85;
Priory dependent upon St.-Benoit-sur-
Loire, 120; Tympanum, western, 111. 84.
Pestilence in Jerusalem, 111. 560.
Petershausen, Tympanum, now at Karls-
ruhe, 132f.
Philosophy, 111. 1116.
Phokis, Mosaics, 48, 49; St.-Luke, Mosaic,
XI century, 314.
Piacenza, Cattedrale, Lintel, 74; Lombard
sculpture, 183; San Antonino, 218, 225;
Work of Nicolo, 133, 144, 145, 146.
Pianella, San Michele, Lintel, western, 111.
218, 132 ; Pulpit, 111. 217, 132.
Pien Luan, 32.
Pilate, 111. 1322.
Pilgrim, 111. 306, 1349, 1350.
Pilgrimage, Relation to Toulouse, St.-Sernin,
205 ; to Compostela, 171 f.
Pisa, Camposanto, Fragments, 111. 181-185,
160; Fresco of Benozzo Gozzoli, 102 : Cat-
tedrale, 185, 293; Arches, 98; Choir, ex-
terior, south side, 111. 180: Fragments of
Pulpit, now at Cagliari, 111. 186-188, 160,
202.
Pistoia, San Andrea, Capitals and Lintel, 111.
191, 103, 160, 202; Impost, northern, of
Portal, 111. 192, 201 ; compared with St.-
Gilles, 201 : San Bartolommeo in Pantano,
Lintel, 111. 100, 134, 160; Pulpit, 111. 234:
San Giovanni Fuorcivitas, Lintel, 111. 190,
157, 160, 281, 294: San Pietro Maggiore,
Lintel, 111. 228, 134.
Pla de Cubra, San Ramon, Portal, southern,
III 632.
Plain-song, Tones of, 111. 7, 8.
Plock, Bronze Doors, of Novgorod, came
from, 255.
Poitiers, Bibliotheque Municipale, Manu-
script, Life of Ste. Radegonde, 316 : Mus6e
des Antiquaires de l'Ouest, Capital, from
St.-Hilaire, 111. 9/3; Fragments, said to
come from St.-Benoit, 111. 1132, 1133, 302,
376
INDEX
339 ; Relief from St.-Maixent, 341 ; Statue
of Minerva, 72 ; "Tombeau de St.-Hilaire,"
Cast of, 111. 1 134: Montierneuf, 6;
Pilgrimage Road, 175: Notre-Dame-la-
Grande, Facade, western, 111. 951-962, 106,
254, 320f., 323f., 324, 327, 341 : Pilgrimage
Road, 179, 186 : St.-Hilaire, 3 ; Capital, 111.
973, 975, 329; Figures now en walled in
Gable of north transept, 23; Pilgrimage
Road, 175; Relief in transept Gable, 111.
912, 914; Rib vaults, 139: St.-Hilaire-la-
Celle, "Tombeau de St. Hilaire," 111. 1134*
341 : St.- Jean, Frescos, 191 : Ste.-Rade-
gonde, 5; Capital of Ambulatory, 111. 909-
911, 304 ; Relief in vestibule, 111. 907, 908,
24, 147, 304 ; School of the West, 181.
Pompain, Portal, western, 111. 1058.
Pontida, Psychostasy, 192: Relation to Cal-
venzano, 145: Tomb of San Alberto, 64;
compared with Bari, San Niccola, Porta
dei Leoni, 62 ; with Bari Throne, 61.
Pont-l'Abbe-d'Arnoult, Facade, western,
111. 1003, 7005, 333 ; Tympanum, central,
111. 1004.
Prehistoric Cave-Paintings, 14.
Presentation, (see Christ).
Prisoner, A Liberated, 111. 213.
Prophets, 111. 16, 40, 114, 775, 777, 208, 209,
2/9, 3f>5, 366> 474, 477, 49°> 49 1 , 5*9 >, tfi,
686, 687, 748, 755, 756, 778, 779, 780, 782,
820, 821, 842, 853, 854, 858, 871, 894, 931,
932, 1010, 1059, io ^7, 1120, 1122, 1123,
1 125, 1 127, 1 153, 1 154, u 55 , 7756, 1445,
1 460-1 462, 1495, 1498, 1507, 1512, 1 513;
holding scrolls, 324f .
Prophetess, HI. 1503.
Provencal School, 267^
Provins, St.-Ayoul, Portal, western, 111.
J 490, 1 491, 140; Tympanum, Influence of
Chartres, 135; St.-Quiriace, Tympanum,
western, Fragment, 111. 1496, 140.
Pseudo-Callistine Codex, I7if.
Pseudo-Pope Leo, Death of, III. 143.
Psychomachia, 111. 927, 965, 967, 968, 971,
977, 980, 984, 985, 997, 998, 999, 1000,
1004, 1007, joii, 1012, 1015, 1019, 1020,
1027, 7047, 7042, 7044, 7048, 7050, 7057,
7058, 7722, 7724, 7725, 7780, 7782.
Psychostasy, 111. 978, 7367, 191.
Puente La Reina, Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Puigcerda, Pilgrimage Road, 182.
Quail, 111. 586, 387, 590.
Queen of Sheba, 111. 455, 475, 839, 842, 843,
877, 7237, 7235, 7358, 7464, 7467, 7478,
7493, su
Quimperle, Ste.-Croix, 3 ; Influence of Jeru-
salem, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 185 ;
Rib Vault, 139, 186.
Ratisbon, (see Regensburg).
Ratisbonne, (see Regensburg).
Ravenna, Archeological Museum, Ivory
Book-cover, 21 ; Murano Ivory, 75 ; Palace
of Theodoric, 191 ; San Pier Crisologo,
Mosaic, VI century, 313; San Vitale, Mo-
saics, VI century, 313.
Regensburg, St. Emmeran, Codex Aureus,
310; Reliefs, 111. 7279-7287, 33, 45, 47, 48,
52, 53, 55, 72, 303 ; s t. Jacob, 257, 336 :
Schottenkirche, Facade, 219.
Reichenau, Oberzell, 232; School, Perikopen-
buch Kaiser Heinrichs II, 274, 309 ; School,
no.
Reims, Cathedrale, "Apostles Motif,"" 192;
Influence of Bamberg, 266 ; of Santiago de
Compostela, 265^; Methods of placing
sculpture, 107; Portal, central, western,
111. 829a.
Resurrection, The, (see Christ) ; of the Dead,
111. 289,398, 402.
Revenga, Eremita, Capital, 65.
Rib Vaults, 139, 186.
Rieux-Minervois, Capital, 111. 7404, 94 ; Pil-
grimage Road, 179.
Ripoll, Santa Maria, Cloisters, 47, 1 87 ; Capi-
tals, 111. 394, 595; Pilgrimage Road, 182;
Portal, western, 111. 575-583 ; Sculptures of
facade, HIV 560-574, 5^4S93, 5^-, H3,
160, 252, 255, 336.
Roberto, 330.
Roboam, 111. 7572.
Rocamadour, Pilgrimage Road, 1 80.
Rochester, Tympanum, 341 ; derived from
Cluny, 140.
Rock in Horeb, 111. 589.
Roda, Sant Pere, Cloisters, 187.
Rodolphus, 38.
Rogerius, Bronze Doors at Canosa, 269.
Roman Sculpture, 111. 576.
Romans, St.-Barnard, Capital of nave, 111.
7338; Holy-water Basin, 299; Portal,
western, 111. 7334-7337, 103, 275, 276, 277,
294, 297, 298; Capitals of, 111. 7336,
*337-
Rome, Museo Kirchiano, Byzantine casket,
IX century, 270, 283, 327: San Clemente,
Apse Arch, 108; Mosaic, 326; Fresco of
lower church, 48, 52, $3, 87, 96, 97 : San
Giovanni in Laterano, Apse Mosaic, 313:
San Paolo f. 1. m., Arch, 108 ; of triumph,
142,313; Bible, 21 ; Frescos, IV- V century,
313: S. Prassede, 142; Arch, 108; Chapel
of San Zeno, Facade, Mosaic, IX century,
313: Santa Maria Antiqua, Horseman,
1 89 : Santa Maria in Trastevere, Apse, 108,
142: Santi Quattro Coronati, Cloisters,
187 : Statue of Marcus Aurelius, 187 : Vati-
can, Barberini Library, Italian Ivory, XII
INDEX
377
century, 314; Gospel, South Anglo-Saxon,
IX century, 325; Bible of Farfa, 255;
Bible of San Paolo, 97 ; Byzantine enamel
box, 313; Byzantine Ivory Triptych, X
century, 313; Gospels of Lorsch, 46, 152;
Gospel, South Anglo-Saxon, 21 ; Manu-
script, Greek, 190.
Roncevaux, Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Rossano, Codice Purpureo, 324.
Rotbertus, 111. 1179.
Rotgerius, Beatus, Abbas, 111. 378, 379.
Rouen, Museum, Ivory, XI century, (first
half), 75 ; Missal, 99, 100, 284.
Rougement, 111. 150.
Ruffec, Facade, western, 111. 1025-1029, 341.
Rutigliano, Lintel, western, 111. 163, 165, 15,
133; Relief over Portal, western, 111. 164,
1 5 ; Tympanum, northern, 111. 259.
Sacrifice, of the Ancient Law, 111. 494;
according to the Old Testament, 111. no;
of Bread, in the Ancient Law, 111. 43,
1 271; of Isaac, 111. 10, 166, 195, 333 ,
352 y S7S, 690, 699, 761, 1046, 1165, 12 JO,
1229.
Sagra San Michele, Lombard Sculpture, 1 83 ;
Work of Nicolo, 226, 255.
Sahagun, Abadia, Capital, now in L6on,
Museo San Marcos, 111. 768, 253 ; Pilgrim-
age Road, 175, 179 ; Relief, now at Madrid,
Museo Arquelogico, 111. 770, 57f ., 72, 303,
304 ; Sculptured Colonnettes, now at Leon,
Museo San Marcos, 111. 769; Sculptured
Column, now in Leon, Museo San Marcos,
111. 771.
Saints, 111. 98, 124, 125, 303-305, 307, 328,
381, 382, 383, 397, 456, 49$ > 499, 500, 51 3 >
3/4, 564, 584S87, 59 2 , 7", 714, 860, 883,
884, 885, 886, 889, 900, 929, 930, 979, 1004,
1012, 1013, 1016, 1059, I0 7 T , f °87, 1088,
1 1 49, 1223, 1248; Death of a Saint, 111. 650.
St. Aethelwold, Benedictional of, 45.
St.-Albans, Abbey, 83.
St. Amand, 111. 941.
St.-Amand-de-Boixe, Reliefs of facade, west-
ern, 111. 941-945, 4, 305f., 314, 321 ; Portal,
western, 111. 1135, 330.
St.-Amour, Relief in Church, 111. 106, 27, 119,
120.
St.-Andr6-de-Sorrede, Fragment, 111. 5/7,
20 ; Lintel, western, 111. 514, 515, 1 5, 20,
28,74,133-
St. Andrew, 111. 149, 479, 68/, 705, 857, 1373,
1374, 215, 217 ; Crucifixion of, 111. 1269.
St. Anne, 111. 658.
St. Anthony, 111. 42, 91; assailed by Dae-
mons, 111. 42; and the Faun, 111. 91.
St.-Antonin, Ancien H6tel-de-Ville, 111. 358,
359, i 9 8,219f.,337.
St. Ausone, 111. 1095.
St. Aventin, arrested, 111. 507; Body of, found
by a Bull, 111. 510; Martyrdom of, 111. 509.
St.-Aventin, Holy-water basin, 111. 511; Por-
tal, southern, 111. 507; Reliefs in south wall,
111. 509, 510, 198, 245 ; Tympanum, south-
ern, IW.508, 140, 198, 245.
St. Bartholomew, 111. 273, 707, 814, 995, 996,
1303, 131 5, 1369.
St. Benedict, 111. 620, 1420 ; Translation of the
Relics of, 111. 1 521, 1522.
St. Benigne, 111. 144.
St.-Benoit-du-Sault, Statues now in Musee
Berry, Bourges, 111. 1234, 1235.
St.-Benoit-sur-Loire, Fragments of Altar-
frontal, 111. 1 42 1, 1422, 164, 208; Capitals,
of Choir, 111. 1 418; of narthex, 111. 1414-
1419, 47, 94; of Triforium, 111. 1420; Col-
umns, 83 ; Lintel, northern, 111. 1521, 1522,
253; Pilgrimage Road, 175; Portal, north-
ern, 111. 1 523-1 527, 253 ; Priory of Perrecey-
les-Forges, dependent on, 1 20. Tympanum a
northern, 111. 1519, 1520, 140, 253.
St. Bernard, 222.
St. Bertrand, 111. 323-325.
St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges, Cloisters, 187;
Capital of, 111. 496, 497; Pillar of, 111. 492-
495, 160, 221, 243, 245; Lintel, western,
111. 326, 198 ; Pilgrimage Road, 179 ; Sculp-
tures, 239 ; Tympanum, western, 111. 323-
325, 134, 198.
St.-Bonnet-la-Riviere, Influence of Jeru-
salem, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 185.
St. Cannute, 111. 1283.
St. Catherine, 111. 1004, 1013.
St.-Chamant, Tympanum, western, 111. 1276,
132f., 134.
St. Clement, 111. 219, 220: Translation of the
Relics of, 111. 219, 220.
St. Cornelius, 111. 219, 220.
St.-Denis, Abbaye, 10, 13, 222f.; Adossed
Statues, Influence on Chartres, 289 ; Capi-
tal of Crypt, 111. 1435, 1436; Choir, 83;
Columns, (intended), 83; Influence on
work of Nicolo at Verona, San Zeno, 148 ; on
Toulouse, St.-Etienne, jamb sculpture
from the chapter-house, 241 ; Jamb sculp-
tures, 242; Mosaics, 224; Motive of
Prophets holding Scrolls, 324; Pilgrimage
Road, 175, 187; Portal, central, 111. 1439-
1442, 134, 143, 156, 221, 222, 233, 252, 320,
340 ; northern, 111. 1437, 1438, 90, 221, 320,
340; southern, 111. 1443, 1444, 221, 320,
340 ; Destroyed sculptures of facade, west-
ern, 111. 1445-1457, ii\, 261, 320, 340; of
Portal, northern, 111. 1454; Voussures, In-
fluence on Ripoll, 255.
St.-Denis Master, 225.
St. Dionysus, 111. 1282.
378
INDEX
St. Durand, 111. 262, 264.
St. Emmeran, 111. 1281.
St. Eusice's Sheep guarded by Wolves, 111.
1082.
St. Eustace, 111. 32.
St.-Feliu-d'Amont, Tympanum, southern, 111.
548, 20, 133.
St.- Gabriel, Facade, western, Relief, 111. 1291.
St.-Gallen, Gospel, 100.
St.-Genis-des-Fontaines, Lintel, western,
111. 5/?, 15, 16, 19f., 23, 27f., 74, 133;
Relief, sepulchral, in facade, 111. 62 J ', 622, 1 60.
St.-Genou, Capitals, 104.
St. George, 111. 250; and the Dragon, 111. 29.
St.-Georges-de-Bocherville, 221.
St.-Gildas-de-Rhuis, Apse, Relief, 6$.
St.-Gilles, Destroyed Altar, 142, 207; Archi-
trave, near Portal, central, 111. 1323; Choir,
Rib Vaults, 139; Facade, western, 111.
1302-13 28; (northern end), 111. 1392-1396,
290f., 291, 292, 296, 301, 302; sculptures
compared with Angouleme, 273^; with
Beaucaire Tympanum, 277f., 278; Frag-
ment now in ruins of Choir, 111. 1329, 277 ;
Frieze, 7, 25, 238; compared with Beau-
caire Frieze, 280f., 281, 282 : Frieze, north
of Portal, central, 111. 1315-1317, 69, 249,
273f., 290, 294; Frieze, south of Portal,
central, 111. 1319-1322, 273f M 280, 300,
336 ; Frieze of Portal, northern, 111. 1387,
290; Frieze of Portal, southern, 111. 1390,
290, 302 : Lintel, central, 111. 1318, 273f. ;
Lintel, northern, 111. IjSo, 1389, 290 : Pil-
grimage Road, 175, 180, 187: Sculptures
near Portal, central, 111. J 304-1 328, 47, 51,
140, 165, 249, 273f., 274, 275, 276, 277,
278, 279, 280, 28 1,282, 283, 284 ; Reliefs near
Portal, central, 111. 1305, 1312-1314, 1324,
1325, 273f., 279, 291 ; Statues near Portal,
central, 111. 1304, 1306-1311, 250, 273f.,
297, 325 : Sculptures near Portal, northern,
111. 1302, 1303, 273f., 291 : Sculptures near
Portal, southern, 111. 131 4, 273f . ; Sculp-
tures of Portals, side, Relation to St.-
Junien, Tomb, 156: Relation (in general),
to Bari Throne, 59f. ; Beaucaire, 250 ; Bor-
go San Donnino, 290; Chartres, west
facade, 285f . ; Monopoli Archivolt, 59f. ;
Pistoia, San Andrea, 201 ; St.-Junien, 292 :
School of Provence : Tympanum, northern,
111. 1386, 246^, 290, 291, 302; Tympanum,
southern, 111. 1385, 290, 292, 300 ; Tym-
panum and Lintel, southern, 111. 139J,
257, 290 : Vaults of Crypt, Key-stone, 111.
1330.
St.-Gilles Master, 28of., 281, 283, 284, 285f.,
291.
St.-Guilhem-le-Desert, Altar- frontal, 111.
I 1300; Apse, 3; Lombard Influence, 186;
Capital, now at Bryn Athyn, Penn., 111.
1403; Fragment, now in Church, 111. 1399,
57, 203, 279; Fragments, now in Musee
Archeologique, Montpellier, 111. 1400-
1402, 143, 265; Fragments, now in Uni-
versity, Montpellier, 111. 1397, 1398, 57,
203 : Pilgrimage Road, 179 : School of Pro-
vence, 181.
St. Helena, 111. 947, 1008.
St. Hilaire, 111. 143, 915, 952, 1037, 1091,
1 134; arrested, 111. 1289; before the Coun-
cil, 111. 143; Death of, 111. 915, 1134; En-
tombment of, 111. 1091.
St.-Hilaire, Area, Relation to Beaucaire
Frieze, 271 ; Tombeau de St. Hilaire, 111.
1280, 1 290, 270f., 271, 290.
St. Isidore, 111. 696, 698.
St. Jacob, 257.
St. James, 111. //o, 263, 265,311, 676, 705,
712, 713, 812, 830, 871,894, 89s, 995, 1 1 5i,
J 334, J S49y J 35o, 1369, '370, '4 22 , *4 2 3>
112, 192, 204, 214, 217.
St. James the Less, 111. 834, 857, 1152, 1305,
1310, 131 5, 1352.
St.-Jean-d'Angely, Pilgrimage Road, 175.
St. John, 111. 13, no, 132, 180, 258,342, 384,
43°> 458, 459, 460, 49 1 , 5<>i> 5*9, 6l 9, 7 11 ,
715, 716, 766, 795, 834, 861, 871, 872, 949,
986, 990, 1215, 1255, 1277, 1306, 1307,
1335, 1344, '3°9* / 37 I , H9 2 , '5^4, '5 2 o,
1523, 217; the Baptist, 111. 48a, 390, 840,
1 163, 1507; Passion of, 111. 283; the Evan-
gelist, 111. 269, 857, 1410.
St. Joseph, 111. 16,343,346, 372,504, 1 1 13,
1 1 14; Angel appears to, 111. 372, 504, 538,
7$3, II 79> I2 5-
St.-Jouin-de-Marne, 6; Facade, western,
111. 947-950, 189, 190, 3°o, 315f., 316, 321,
328; Gable, 111. 946, 313, 315, 321 ; Influ-
ence of Pavia, Neighbourhood of, 315;
Pilgrimage Road, 179.
St.-Julien-de-Jonzy, Tympanum, western,
Ill.///,122,i2 4 ,
St.-Junien, Influence on St.-Gilles, 292, 300;
Tomb of St. Junien, 111. 450-452, 142, 153,
156, 207, 245, 249, 251; Relation to St.-
Gilles, Portals, side, 156.
St. Lazare, 111. 74; Duke Hugh II offers the
new Cathedral to, 111. 74.
St. Leonard, 111. 213.
St.-Leonard, Influence of Jerusalem, Church
of the Holy Sepulchre, 185; Pilgrimage
Road, 180.
St. Loup, 111. 1494; receives a precious Stone
from Heaven, 111. 1494; Scenes from Life of,
111. 1492.
St.-Loup-de-Naud, Influence on Sangiiesa,
254; Portal, western, 111. 1 493-1 495; Tym-
panum, western, 111. 1492, 135, 140, 146.
INDEX
379
St.'Luke, 111. 240, 241,342, 492, 494, 497,
502,587, 006, 930, 1520, 48, 49.
St.-Macaire, Pilgrimage Road, 175.
St.-Maixent, Relief of Saint, now in Musee
des Antiquaires de l'Ouest, Poitiers, 341.
St. Mark, 111. 340, 385, 495, 497, 501, 557,
584, 767, 930, 1339, 1502, 1 519.
St. Martha, 111. 148.
St. Martin, 111. 757, 779, 789, 953, 1040 ;
Apotheosis of, 111. 1415; gives half his Coat
to the Beggar, 111. 789; resuscitates a dead
Youth, 111. 789; Vision of, 111. 789.
St.-Martin-de-Londres, Pilgrimage Road,
186.
St. Matthew, 111. 13, 237, 238, 243, 272,340,
458, 492, 493, 557, 584, 706, 800, 802, 857,
1302, 1355, 1356, 1519.
St. Mathias, 111. 705.
St.-Menoux, Capitals, 104; Fragments, in
narthex, 111. 1258, 129 ; in Porch, 111. 1257,
129; now in Moulins Museum, 111.
1259.
St. Michael, 111. 20, 216, 230, 628, 712, 760,
783, 1012, 1039, '°40, 1075, 1 139, 1141,
1248, 1405; and the Dragon, 111. 628, 783,
862, 1006, 1392, 1393; weighing Souls, 111.
783'
St.-Michel, Tympanum, 111. 1006, 308, 316,
St.-Michel-de-Cuxa, Capital, now at Bryn
Athyn, Penn., \Vi.557a; Fragments of sculp-
ture, 111. 556-559, 18, 19, 218, 255; Reliefs
compared with Achthamar, 18.
St. Nectaire, and the Devil, 111. 1195; or-
dained, 111. 1 194; Resurrection of, 111. n 96,
1198.
St.-Nectaire, Capitals of Ambulatory, 111.
1 190-1204, 50, 94, 149, 237.
St. Nicholas, 111. 224, 225, 879, 1128; Dieu-
donne transported by, 111. 225; Infant,
stands upright in his Bath, 111. 224; offi-
ciating, 111. 879.
St. Odilienberg, (see The Hague, Nieder-
landischen Museum), 220.
St. Ours, 111. ////, 1 1 18.
St.-Parize-le-Chatel, capital of Crypt, 111.
25, 26, 9i,120f.,32 9 .
St. Paul, 111. 3, 36, 40, 187, 242, 261, 271,364,
384, 465, 491, 506, 549, 550, 556, 559, 573,
585, 620, 701 707, 740, 743, 759, 813, 817,
834, 857, 861, 869, 871, 872, 881, 995,
1090, 1 124, 1217, 1256, 1286, 1288, 131 1,
1335. 1353, '373, '374, {466, 1493, 217,
260 ; a Prophet brings to the Mill of, Grain
for the Eucharistic Bread, 111. 40, 127;
Beheadal of, 111. 506, 579: Conversion of,
111. 1360; Imprisonment of, 111. 579.
St. Paul, Karnthen, Ivories, X century, 75.
St.-Paul-de-Varax, Facade Sculptures, 111.
86, 87, 89, 90, 1 22, 336 ; Tympanum, south-
ern, 111. 91; western, 111. 88, 141.
St. Peter, 111. 3, 13 36, 79, 85, 87, no, 132,
'33 > '50, 173, 261, 266, 277,3/2,348,360,
396 417, 440, 459, 465, 491, 506, 549, 550,
556, 558, 572, 577, 619, 675, 688, 691, 700,
706, 74p, 743, 744, 758, 782, 813, 817, 834,
857, 861, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 882, 886,
932, 933, 938, 945, 949, 952, 964, 1009,
1022, 1027, 1090, mi, 1 1 19, 1 123, 1 124,
1 143, 1 216, 1219a, 1 231, 1277, 1285, 1287,
1308, 1309, 1334, 1347, 1348, 1369, 1371,
1465, 1495, 1523, 204, 217, 260; Angel
liberates, 111. 79, 47; Crucifixion of, 111.
277,506,577, 983, '°°5; denies Christ, 111.
1293; cuts off the Ear of Malchus, 111. 85;
resuscitates the dead Man, 111. 87; and St.
John heal the Cripple before the Temple
Beautiful, 111. 132, 574; and St. Paul resus-
citate the dead Youth, 111. 36; and St.
Paul at the Tomb, 111. 465.
St. Petersburg, Manuscript, Bede, 100.
St. Phebus, 111. 219, 220.
St. Philip, 111. 270, 443, 708, 1376.
St.-Pierre, Musee Lapidaire, 111. 147, 148,
149.
St.-Pierre-le-Moutier, Tympanum, northern,
111. 1275, 140, 253.
St.-Pompain, Voussures, 111. 1058, 107, ^ZZ-
St.-Pons, Capitals of Cloister, 111. 1265-1274,
337; Pilgrimage Road, 175; Two minor
Portals, 130; Relation to Morlaas, 161;
Tympanum of Ancient Portal, 111. 1147,
1148.
St. Poragie, Knight doing Fealty to, 111. 1482,
1483.
St.-Quentin-l&s-Beauvais, Sculptured Colon-
nette, now in Beauvais Museum, 111. 1431-
1433, 221, 222, 225.
St. Raphael, 111. 404, 1141.
St.-Reverien, Capital of Ambulatory, 111.
102, 103, 149; Portal, western, 111. 100,
101, 149.
St. Sabina, 111. 697, 850, 851.
St. Saturnin, 111. 285; Martyrdom of, 111.
285, 1290.
St.-Saturnin, Facade, 111. 1071, 1072, 341;
Pilgrimage Road, 1 80.
St. Sernin, 111. 319.
St. Simon, 111. 13, 267, 268.
St. Stephen, III. 77, 250, 275, 347, 422, 506,
'353, '354, '356; Burial of, 111. 1241; Life
of, 111. 422, 423, 426; Passion of, 111. 1355,
'356, 1374', Stoning of, 111. 77, 275, 426,
506, 1250, 1272,1498.
St.-Sulpice-de-Favieres, Pilgrimage Road,
179.
St.-Symphorien, Facade, western, 111. 1007,
341; Portal, 111.9/9,341.
3 8o
INDEX
St. Theodore, 111. 253.
St. Thomas, 111. 434, 436, 469, 814, 992, 1304,
131 5, 2 73 ; Doubting, 111. 469, 533, 671,
680, 866, 1351,38,47.
St. Trophime, 111. 1345, ^34^> I 3^>9-
St. Vincent, 111. 15, 69, 76, 696, 698, 850, 851;
Body of, guarded by Crows, 111. 76; Louis
the Pious offers the Church to, 111. 15.
St.-Vivien, Apse Sculptures, 111. 1085, 1086,
Ste^Foy, 111. 387, 39^39^
Ste. Magnance, 111. 146.
Ste.-Magnance, Tomb of the Saint, 111. 146,
129.
Ste. Radegonde, 111. 008.
Saintes, Musee Archeologique, Capital, 111.
906; Pilgrimage Road, 179; St.-Eu trope,
3, 6; Capital of nave, 111. 918, 308; Pil-
grimage Road, 175, 179, 296; Ste.-Marie-
des-Dames, Portal, western, 111. 974-976,
330f., 331 ;' School of the West, 181.
Salamanca, Catedral Vieja, Capital of Clois-
ter, 111. 775,.77 6 > 256 ; Pendentive, 111. 737,
313 ; Springing of nave Vault, 111. 736, 738,
739, 6$, 258, 311, 312: Relation to San-
tiago de Compostela, 181.
Salamander, 111. 131.
Salerno, Altar-frontal, 72, 148, 232, 244.,
Salome, 111. 753; Dance of, 111. 82, 248.
Salon, St.-Michel, Tympanum, western, 111.
1405.
Salonica, San Demetrius, Mosaics, VIII
century, 313 ; Santa Sophia, 96.
Samson, 111. 166, 180, 773, 925, 948, 1029,
1327, 1368, 1 51 2; and Delilah, 111. 1209,
1 1 36, 1343; and the Lion, 111. 18, 27, 46,
68, 176, 335, 338> ^35, 9 2 S, U36> 1219,
1228,1342, 189.
Samuel, 111. 1307.
San Aselo, 111. 638.
San Baudelio, Relation to Aklepat, Casale
Monferrato, Cordoba, 186.
San Casciano, Archivolt of lateral Portal, 111.
222; of western Portal, 111. 223.
San Clemente di Casauria, {see Torre dei
Passeri).
San Cugat del Valles, Cloisters, 1 87 ; Sculp-
tures representing the making of capitals,
102.
San Etrocio, 111. 638.
San Felices, 111. 640.
San Juan de la Pena, Capital of Cloister,
HI- 535S441 Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179;
Relief in Panteon de los Reyes, 111. 545,
*33>
San Juan de las Abadesas, San Pablo, Tym-
panum, 111. 549; Sculpture in wood, 111.
629.
San Julian de Moraime, 220.
San Leonardo, Portal, northern, 111. 215, 216;
southern, 111. 213, 214, 132f. ; Tympanum,
southern, 111. 214.
San Lorenzo, Sorgenti di Volturno, 48.
San Miguel de Escalada, Pilgrimage Road,
179.
San Millan, 111. 638-640, 642, 643, 645, 647,
648, 649; prays for Wood, 111. 638; Build-
ers of the Granary feasting, 111. 639; put
asleep by an Angel, 111. 640; received by
San Felices, 111. 640; Blind healed at the
Tomb of, 111. 641 ; Oil is miraculously re-
newed in the Lamp, 111. 641; Malefactors,
seeking to burn the Bed of, kill themselves,
111. 642; casts out a Devil from a Deacon,
111. 643; heals the paralytic Woman, Bar-
bara, 111. 643; Devil is exorcised from the
House of Parpalinense, 111. 644; Robbers
with stolen Horse, 111. 645; Two Miracles
of Wine, 111. 646; prophesies the Fall of
Cantabria, 111. 647; Cantabria surrenders
to King Leovigildo, 111. 647; is tempted
by and wrestles with the Devil, 111. 648;
restores Sight of Handmaiden of Sicorio,
111. 648; Death and Burial of, 111. 649.
San Millan de la Cogolla, Area de San Mil-
lan, 111. 638-649, 36, 37f., 46, 48, 49, 50,
51, 69, 96: Area de San Felices, 111. 661-
664, 41, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, hi, 209, 227;
Relation to Toulouse, St.-Sernin, Ambula-
tory Sculptures, 209 : Influence at Santo
Domingo de la Calzada, 195 : Missal, {see
Madrid, Academia de Historia), 50.
San Pedro de la Cardena, Pilgrimage Road,
175.
San Pedro de la Nave, Capitals, 69.
San Pedro de las Duenas, Pilgrimage Road,
*75 :
San Pietro di Civate, Fresco, 313.
San Quirce, Portal, northern, 111. 717, 260.
San Quirico d'Orcia, 218.
San Robano, Rib Vaults, 186.
San Sofronio, 111. 638.
San Stefano di Monopoli, Tympanum, west-
ern, 111. 250.
San Vincenzo, Frescos, 76.
Sanguesa, Santa Maria la Real, Porch, south-
ern, 111. 749, 107; Portal, southern, 111.
742-744, 746, 748, 750-752, 135, 252, 254,
256; Sculptures near, 111. 753, 754; Tym-
panum, southern, 111. 747: Relation to
Segovia, San Martin, 181.
Sant Angelo in Formis, Frescos, 21, 96, 97;
Lunette, Fresco, 75, 325; Porch, 98; San
Antimo, Relation to Compostela Basilica,
194.
Sant Orso, Cloister, 225.
Sant' Agata dei Goti, Capitals, 65.
Santa Cristela, 111. 850, 851.
INDEX
38i
Santa Cruz de la Seros, Pilgrimage Road,
179; Sarcophagus of the Daughters of*
Ramiro I, now in Jaca, 111. 527, 47.
Santa Cruz de Rivas, Capital of Chapter-
House, 65.
Santa Maria del Sar, 236.
Santa Maria de Lena, Pilgrimage Road, 179.
Santa Maria di Ronzano, Rib Vaults, 186.
Santa Marta de Terra, 214; Relation to San-
tiago de Compostela, 180.
Santes Cruz, Stained glass, 195.
Santiago de Compostela, Basilica, 193; Rela-
tion to Toulouse, St.-Sernin, Tours, St.-
Martin, Limoges, St.-Martial, Cluny,
Acerenza, Aversa, Venosa, San Antimo,
194; Catedral, Capitals, Gothic in charac-
ter, 49; naturalistic, 13: Fragment, now
in Museum, 111. 692, 693: Portico de la
Gloria, Capital of trumeau, 111. 833, 258 ;
Pilgrimage Road, 192, 296 ; Portal, central,
111. 824-834, 143, 258, 259, 260f., 320, 330;
northern, 111. 820, 821, 161, 253; southern,
IM.835, 836, 161, 258,261f., 320; Respond,
111. 839, 840, 51, 161, 253, 258, 261f., 320;
Spandrel, northern, 111. 837, 161, 258,261f.,
320; southern, 111. 838, 161, 258, 261f.,
32o;Tympanum, central, 111. 822, 823, 253 :
Puerta de las Platerias, 111. 674-677, 685-
691, 107, 112, 143, 155, 211f., 252, 260,
262, 272, 275, 3 13, 3 1 6 ; Portal, eastern, 111.
683, 684, 1 8 ; western, 111. 681, 682, 1 8, 260 ;
Tympanum, eastern, 111. 680, 25, 135, 204,
260, 271, 272, 276; western, 111. 678 y 679,
135, 260, 328 : Puerta Francigena, 140,
143 : Relation of Catedral to, Toulouse,
St.-Sernin, Southern porch, 260 ; to Oloron-
Ste.-Marie, 259 ; to Conques, 228 ; to Irache,
Armentia, Ciudad Rodrigo, Toro, Aix,
Salamanca, Conques, Venasque, Carpen-
tras, 181 ; to Santa Marta de Terra, 180;
Pilgrimage Road, to Toulouse, Moissac,
Conques, 179, 192, 197: Sculpture in Pen-
dentive, 111. 694, 695, 257, 258: Colegio
San Jeronimo, 264: Convent of Benedic-
tine Nuns, Colonnettes, 111. 705-708, 220,
222: Museum, Fragment from Catedral,
111. 692, 603: Van Eyck, Annunciation at
St.-Petersburg represents transept in Cate-
dral, 196.
Santillana del Mar, Altar, sculptured, 111.
861 ', 260; Cloisters, 187; Capital of, 111.
862-866; Relief in, 111. 867, 868, 247, 260 ;
Facade, 111. 860, 227 ; Relation to Oviedo,
181.
Santo Domingo de la Calzada, Pilgrimage
Road, 179, 195; Saint repaired Pilgrimage
Road, 178.
Santo Domingo de Silos, Altar-frontal, (see
Burgos), 47, 156, 208 : Beatus Manuscript
of 1 109, $6: Cloister, 44f., 198; Capitals
of, 111. 666, 668, 141, 142, 187, 198, 242,
303 ; Gothic in character, 49 ; Piers of, 111.
669-673, 721, 47, 52, 149, 164, 242, 252,
256, 257, 258, 300, 303 ; Relief in, 111. 667,
198, 303 : Relation to Aries, St.-Trophime,
299; to Cluny, 96; to Moissac Cloister,
203f. ; to Moissac Porch, 202; to Oviedo
Apostles, 262; to Toulouse, St.-Sernin,
Ambulatory Reliefs, 209 : Reliefs, 26 ;
Armour, 21; representing the Saint, 199:
Reliquary, now at Burgos, Museum, 251.
Sant Pere de les Puelles, Cloisters, destroyed,
187.
Satan, 111. 402.
Saul, 111. 453, 455,577, I 573l incites the Jews
against the Christians, 111. 577.
Saulieu, St.-Androche, 88 ; Capitals of nave,
HI. 52, 53,55-6i, 87, 90, 119; compared
with Autun, 115; with Cluny, 87f.; with
Moutier-St.-Jean, 114f. ; with Vezelay,
113 : Date, U3f.; Pilgrimage Road, 175.
Sauveterre, Pilgrimage Road, 179; Tym-
panum, western, 111. 488, 489, 140, 161.
Savigny, Abbey, Capital, 94: Influence of
Beaucaire Frieze, 284.
Scale Ornament, 53.
School of the West, Relation to Chartres, 340.
Sciapodes, 111. 25.
Sculptures, carved before being placed, ioif.
Segovia, San Martin, Facade, Relief, 111. 760,
198; Porch, Vault sculptures, 258; Portal,
western, 111. 755, 756, 198; Relief in east
wall, 111. 757, 198; Relation to Sangiiesa,
180: San Miguel, Facade, Relief, 111. 758,
759, J 98 : Santa Cruz, Influence of Jerusa-
lem, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 185.
Selles-sur-Cher, Frieze, lower, of Apse, 111.
1077-1082, 24f . ; Frieze, upper, of Apse,
111. 1082; Relief of Apse, 111. 1075; Relief
in north wall of Choir, 111. 1076; Sculptures
of Apse, 111. 1074, 1075, 1077-108 1 y 319,
336,339-
Semur-en-Brionnais, Tympanum, western,
IU./^,i3i.
Senlis, Catn6drale, Jamb sculptures, 266;
Pilgrimage Road, 187; Portal, western,
111. 1505-^3, 8 5, 108, 217, 262, 278, 320;
Tympanum, western, 111. 15 11 , H 2 *
Sens, Museum, Roman Relief, 46.
September, 111. 580 y 1096.
Sepulveda, Santiago, Facade sculptures, 111.
8o5 y 198; Sta. Maria, Lintel, 111. 803, 804,
198, 241 ; Portal, 111. 8oo y 8o2 y 143, 198,
241, 330; Tympanum, 111. 799, 801 , 140,
198, 241.
Seraphim, 111. 298 y 299,1490.
Sermon, pseudo-Augustine, 322f., 326f.
Settignano, Villa I Tatti, Bodhisattva, 57.
382
INDEX
Seu d'Urgell, Lombard Influence, 186.
Shepherds, 111. 51, 122, 144, 150, 503, 658,
780, 904, 1053, 1054, 1072a, 1149, J 150,
1242, 51.
Shields, pointed, 49f. ; round, 49f.
Shindatsura-Taisho, (see Nara), 53.
Sibyl, 111. 1010.
Siena, Reredos of Duccio, 326.
Sigena, Antependium, now in Lerida, Mu-
seum, 111. 555, 208.
Signs, The, III. 322, 684; of the Zodiac, (see
Zodiac).
Simeon, 111. 1499, 1500, 1507, 1508, 286; de
hac (urbe ?), 111. 261; of Ragusa, 111. 251.
Simon, Feast at the House of, 111. 1063;
fr Preparation of, 111. 1266: and Nero, 111. 87.
Simon Magus, Fall of, 111. 75, 86; Flight of,
™. 73, 3*8.
Siponto, Influence of Pisa, 185; Pulpit, 31.
Siren, 111. 26, 211, 677.
Slaughter of the Innocents, 111. 150, 458, 539,
795, 797, 79 s , II00 > '37p- .
Sleeve, Series of concentric Rings, 148; trail-
ing, 335- , . ,
Smyrna, Greek Physiologus, 97.
Soest, Germany, Influence of Cluny tym-
panum, through Chartres, 140.
Solomon, 111. 453, 455, 475, 842, 871, 1359,
1464, 1468, 1503, 1 51 2; Dream of, 111.
565-566.
Solsona, Catedral, Pilgrimage Road, 182;
Sculptures, 111. 551, 55^, 150f., 157, 163,
221, 242, 245, 267; Work of Gilbert, 25^.
Son, The, (The Trinity), 111. 796.
Soria, San Juan de Rabanera, Tympanum,
111. 879; San Nicolas, Tympanum, 111.
879; Santo Domingo, Portal, western, 111.
795, 797, 79 s , H©, M3, 198, 330; Tym-
panum, western, 111. 796, 198.
Souillac, Fragments, compared with Cluny,
199f . ; Pilgrimage Road, 1 80 ; Sculptures
from destroyed Portal, l\\. 349-352; 199f.,
327; Sculptures in west wall, 111. 343-348,
S3, 57, I2 7, 199f., 218, 275: St.-Martin,
Relief in tower, 111. 430, 250.
Souls, Weighing of, 111. 293.
Souvigny, Sculptures in west wall, 111. 124,
125, 128f., 234, 235, 236.
Sovana, Rib vaults, 186.
Spain, Architecture, during X century, 1 8.
Spalato, Silver Book-cover, 207.
Spandrels, Figures in, 142, 143.
Spiral Curls, 289^ ; Leggings, 283.
Spoleto, Cattedrale, Facade, western, 111.
> 235, 236, 238; Chiesa di Ponziano, 111. 237;
T San Pietro, Sculptures in facade, 111. 239.
Stained Glass of the North, 195.
Stavelot, Belgium, Abbey, Altar-piece, 144,
228.
Stockholm, Codex Aureus, Miniature, 325.
Suger, Abbot, 222.
Supper, The Last, (see Christ).
Supporting Figures, 66f., 68, 69, 74, 76, 166.
Surgeres, Facade, western, 111. 1092, 1093,
190,191,341.
Synagogue, The, 111. 1129.
Tarascon, Ste.-Marthe, Console near Por-
tal, southern, 111. 1404a, 1404b, 299.
Tarragona, Catedral, Capitals, of Cloister,
111. 607-610; of Portal, northern, 111. 605,
606; Sarcophagus, 284 ; Tympanum, north-
ern, 111. 603, 604, 140.
Tedesco, Guglielmo, 202, 293, 294.
Temple, The, 111. 64.
Temptation, (see Adam and Eve) ; of Christ,
(see Christ).
Teramo, Rib Vaults, 186.
Terlizzi, Chiesa del Rosario, 111. 260; Colle-
giata, Tympanum, 111. 260.
Tetramorphs, 111. 767, 257.
Thekla, St.-Menas, Coptic Relief, 70, 289.
Theodoric, 191.
Theophilus, Legend of, 111. 347, 348.
Thiers, Mosaic Pavement, 224.
Third Master at St.-Gilles, 278f., 279, 280,
291, 292, 297, 300.
Thouars, Pilgrimage Road, 179; St.-Med-
ard, Facade, western, 111. 1059, 1060, 341.
Three Children of Israel in the Fiery Furnace,
111. 287, 578.
Three Perforated Dots, 291, 300, 301.
Thuret, Lintel, southern, 111. 1139, 132f ., 236.
Tischnowitz, Influence of Cluny tympanum
through Chartres, 140.
Tobias, 111. 778, 779; anoints his Father's
Eyes, 111. 45.
Tobias Master, 111. 45.
Toledo, Catedral, Byzantine stone Relief, 74.
Tones of Mediaeval Music, 111. 7.
Toro, Portal, northern, 111. 734, 735, 143,
260, 330; western, 111. 886, 887, 888, 889,
264; Relation to Santiago de Compostela,
181.
Torre de' Passeri, San Clemente di Casauria,
Ciborium, 111. 221; Portal, western, 111.
219, 220, 21 8 ; Tympanum, 111. 220, 132.
Torre dei Piccenardi, Tympanum, 132.
Torres, El Sepulcro, Influence of Jerusalem,
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 185.
Toscanella, Santa Maria Maggiore, 218.
Toulonges, Portal, 111. 628.
Toulouse, Eglise des Cordeliers, Sculptures,
111. 480-485: La Daurade, Capitals of
Cloister, 111. 288-295, 462-471, 135, 160,
242f. ; Jamb Sculptures of the Chapter-
House, 243; Pilgrimage Road, 175, 179,
181, 192; Museum, Capitals, of Cloister,
INDEX
383
111. 444-449; Capitals and Fragments of
Cloister of La Daurade, 111. 288-295, 462-
471, 47; Capital from St.-Pons, 111. 1274;
Holy-water Basin from Narbonne, St.-
Just, 111. 486, 487, 248; Sculptures from
Portal of Chapter-House, 111. 434-443,
474-479, 54, 149f . ; Sculptures said to come
from Eglise des Cordeliers, 111. 480-485,
85, 244f. ; Sculptures representing the mak-
ing of capitals, 102 : St.-Etienne, Capitals
of Cloister, 111. 444-449, 50, 245 ; Pilgrim-
age Road, 175, 179, 181, 186, 192, 195;
Sculptures from Portal of Chapter-House,
111. 434-443, 474-479, !49f., 219, 221, 225,
240f., 256, 264, 278, 317, 337; Sculptures
compared with Autun, 158: St.-Sernin,
Capitals, 111. 31 5-317 ', 320, 321; Lintel,
southern, 111. 310, 134, 135; Pilgrimage
Road, 197, 296; Portal, southern, 111. 308-
316,318, 135, 136, 141, 143, 211f., 252,
303, 308 ; Relation to Aries, St.-Trophime,
299 ; to Compostela Basilica, 194 ; to Cluny,
205/.; to Pilgrimage, 205f. ; Relief in
facade, southern, 111. 319, 74; Reliefs in
Ambulatory, (now enwalled in), 111. 296-
307,322, 31, 54, 70, 73, 119, 135, 156, 205,
206f., 248, 251, 276 ; Statue of Christ, com-
pared with Charlieu, 73 ; Relation to Mag-
uelonne, Portal, Fragments, 269; Rela-
tion to Moissac, Pier Reliefs, 205, 206, 208 ;
to San Millan de la Cogolla, area de San
Felices, 209; Tympanum, southern. 111.
308,309, 23,74,135, 260.
Tournus, 193 ; St.-Philibert, Pilgrimage Road,
Tours, St.-Martin, 193; Pilgrimage Road,
175, *79-
Trani, Cattedrale, Bronze Doors, 133 ; Por-
tal, western, 111. 204-212, I32f., 328 ; Tran-
sept, southern, exterior, 111. 240, 241 ; Ogni-
santi, Narthex, 111. 201-203, 132.
Transfiguration, (see Christ).
Trau, Dalmatia, Portal, 218.
Trebizond, The Princess of, 111. 1273.
Treves, Manuscript, IX century, (Apoca-
lypse), no; Cathedrale, Byzantine Ivory
Plaque, 48 ; Gospels, Ada, 46, 49, 152.
Trinity, The, 111. 734, 833.
Troia, Cattedrale, 185; Bronze Doors, 15;
Capitals analogous to Saulieu, 115; Lintel,
western, 111. 173: Lunette, Tympanum,
southern, 111. 172, 15 ; San Basilio, Pulpit, 9.
Trois-Palis, Facade, western, Gable, 111. 1064,
341.
Troyes, Ivory Box, XI century, 190.
Tudela, Colegiata, Capital of Cloister, 111.
787, 256 ; Relief in Cloister, 111. 790, 791,
256; Influence of Cluny tympanum through
Chartres, 140; Portal, northern, 111. 789,
256; southern, 111. 788, 256; western, 111.
786, 256.
Tuscan Sculpture, 160.
Twin Portals, 130, 259.
Tympanum, Master of, 111. 46, 113; with
Ascension, i4of. ; Representation of the
Deity in an Aureole, supported by Angels,
132f.
Tyrsa, Heroon, 21, 218.
Unjust, Death of The, 111. 230.
Ur, 111. 588.
Utrecht, Johanniskirche, (see Stadischen
Museum), 219; Psalter, 69, 75, 98, 190,
3 I 3> 3 J 7> 3 2 4; Stadischen Museum, Frag-
ments from Johanniskirche, 220.
Valcabrere, Pilgrimage Road, 179; Portal,
northern, 111. 498-502, 140, 244f .
Valence, Cathedrale, Lintel of north Tran-
sept, 111. 1 188, 134; Tympanum, south
Transept, 111. 1187, 1189, 236, 273; St.-
Jean, 186; Rib Vaults, 139.
Van Eyck, Annunciation at St.-Petersburg
represents Transept in Catedral, Santiago
de Compostela, 196.
Varaize, Portal, southern, 111. 999-1002, 143,
318.
Venasque, Battistero, 18; Relation to Santi-
ago de Compostela, 181 ; Tomb of Boethius,
J 4-
Venddme, La Trinite, Statues at Crossing,
111. 1516-1518, 237, 258.
Venice, San Marco, 83; Altar- frontal, in,
208; Arches of narthex, 98; Archivolts,
152; Art of Benedetto, 183; Book-cover,
48; Byzantine Angels, 244; Columns of
Ciborio, 220; Eastern Derivation, 185;
Miniature, X-XI century, 190; Mosaic,
in one of the Domes, 109, 325 ; Mosaic by
Pasterini, 326; Relief, 47, 227, 290.
Venosa, Santa Trinita, Building Methods,
105; Capital, 111. 170; Nave, south side,
111. 168; Portal, southern, 111. 169; rela-
tion to Compostela Basilica, 194; Sculp-
tures, 111. 171; View, 111. 167.
Vereaux, Portal, western, 111. 1 479-1 481, 258.
Vermanton, Portal, western, 111. 1498, 1499,
1500.
Verona, Cattedrale, Cloisters, 187; Lintel,
74; Portal, 4, 219; Sculptures, 220; Jamb
Sculptures, 242 ; Lombard Sculpture, 1 83 :
Santo Stefano, 193: San Zeno, Cloisters,
1 87 ; Sculpture, 191; Sculptures of the mak-
ing of capitals, 102; work of Nicolo, 133,
144, 145, 146, 148, 182, 226, 244, 325;
Spandrels, 226 ; Tympanum, 237.
Veste Coburg, Metz Group of Ivories, 75.
Vezelay, Capitals of nave, 111. 28, 30-35, 39-
3H
INDEX
42, 44, 4, 6i, 87, 90, 120, 127, 138, 139;
compared with Autun, 113; Capitals of
narthex, 111. 29, 36-38, 43, 45, 46, iaof.;
compared with Cluny, 91 f. ; Both inspired
by Winchester Manuscript, 98f. ; compared
with Saulieu, 113: Choir, 83: compared
with Avenas, 1 1 8 : Consecration, 88f. ;
Nave, 109, 139 : Pilgrimage Road, 175, 180 :
Portal, central western, 111. 47, 48, 48a, 49,
109, 121, 135, 136, 138, 144, 162, 234:
Sculpture of The Church, 63 : Tympanum,
northern, 111. 50, 122; southern, 111. 51;
western, 111. 48-40; compared with Autun,
112; derived from Cluny Portal, 109.
"Vezelay Master No. 1," 111. 34, 34a, 119.
"Vezelay Master No. 2," 111. 35-38.
"Vezelay Master No. 3," 111. 30, 40, 139.
Vices, 111. 931, 932.
Vich, Antependia, 208.
Vicq, Frescos, 50.
Vienna, Cutbrecht Gospels, 262 ; Figdor Col-
lection, Ivory, 38 ; Imperial Library, Trea-
tise on Music, 79, 161 ; Schatz-Kammer,
Cameo, XI century, 48 ; St. Stephen, Tym-
panum, 132f .
Vienne, Cathedrale, 166; Capitals, 164, 165;
Fragments in north vestibule, 111. I2IJ-
1217, 166 ; Museum, Relief of Tympanum,
from St.-Pierre, 111. 1219a; St.-Andre-le-
Bas, Capital of nave, 111. 72/8, 1219, 165f.,
294, 298 ; compared with Cluny, 85f . ; St.-
Pierre, Relief of Tympanum, now in Mu-
seum, 111. 1219a, 166.
Vigeois, Capital, 111. 357, Reliefs near Portal,
northern, 111. 1260, 1261.
Vilagrassa, Portal, western, 111. 615.
Villacazar, Pilgrimage Road, 179, 195.
Villafranca, Pilgrimage Road, 175.
Villavicioso, Santa Maria, 111. 883; Portal,
western, 111. 884, 883, 220.
Villefranche, Pilgrimage Road, 182. ,
Villogen, Reliefs near Portal, western, 111.
1083,1084, 125.
Virgin, The, 111. 98, 105, 108, 109, 113, 150,
J 73, J 79, 202 , 22 7, 2 3 I , 252, 2 53, 2 59, 26l y
375, 403, 43°, 450, 451, 479, 481, 484, 485,
486, 509, 528, 55 2 , 553, 7", 7i6, 734, 74/,
769, 770, 79s, 867, 871, 874, 876, 883, 986,
1048, 1070, 1094, 1113, 1130, 1223, 1252,
j 284, 1299, 1420, 1484, 1485, i486, 1492,
H97, i5H, 1515, i5n, 56, 57f., 245, 246,
247^, 260, 267; Annunciation, 111. 14, 16,
51, 121, 130, 164, 178, 186, 191, 193, 196,
201, 202, 232, 234, 376, 386, 504, S53, 554,
633, W, 7*4, 7 2 ', 762, 77 2 , 777, 829a, 841,
892, 948, 959, 1048, 1072a, 1101, 1121,
1 149, 1150, 1164, 1175, 1188, 1221, 1291,
1338, J 3 6 9, J 37<>, 14 16 , H85, 1516, 1517,
56, 85, 160, 244, 252, 322; Assumption, 111.
923, 1262; Coronation, 111. 875, 887, 1507,
151 1, 1 51 4; Death, 111. 1262; Dormition,
111. 875; Entombment, 111. 887; Marriage,
111. 780, 781; Resurrection, 111. 1167, I 5°7,
1 51 1; Symbol, 111. 1169, 1170; under
Canopy, 245.
Virgins, Foolish, 111. 490, 491, 984, 985, 989,
996, 997, J oo4, 1 01 2, 1014, 1 13 1, 1 441;
Wise, 111. 444, 445, 49°, 49 1 , 9^4, 9 8 9, 99°,
993, 997, J oo4, 1012, 1130, 1442.
Virtues, 111. 394, 1474.
Visitation, 111. 51, 83, 121, 150, 186, 192, 196,
232, 246, 257, 377, 504, 658,714, 717, 960,
1076, 1101, 1 1 49, 1 150, 1 176, 1 177, 1 291,
1416, 1492.
Vitoria, Pilgrimage Road, 179, 195.
Vizille, Chapelle du CimetieTe, Tympanum,
111. 1 185, 129, 140.
Vol terra, Duomo, Interior, 111. 249; Pulpit,
111. 194-196, 160, 200f., 276.
Volvic, Capital, 111. 1207, 149, 237; Console
in Choir, 111. 1206, 237.
Voussure Sculpture, 144; radiating, 143.
Vouvant, Facade, northern, 111. 1136, 341.
Washing the Feet, {see Christ).
Washington, Freer Collection, 32.
Water Stratford, Tympanum, 132f.
Wattling, 97f.
Widukind, Tomb of, 8, 149.
Wilgelmus, {see Guglielmo).
Wiligelmus, {see Guglielmo).
Winchester, Charter of King Edgar to New
Minster, {see London, British Museum),
100; Psalter of St.-Mary's, 318; Psalter of
St.-Swithun's Priory, now in London,
British Museum, 318; School of, Manu-
scripts inspired capitals of Cluny and Veze-
lay, 9 8f.
Winds, The, 111. 31.
Wisdom vs. Folly, 111. 1180.
Witnesses, 111. 951; of the Apocalypse, 134.
Wrath, 111. 34a, 1181.
Wiirzburg, University Library, Book-cover,
161.
Ydes, Porch, western, 111. 1221, 1222.
Yolande, 111. 245.
York, Influence of Mateo's work at Santiago
de Compostela, 265 ; Virgin, 246.
Youth who was hanged, and miraculously
restored to life by St. James, 111. 743, 745.
Zacharias, 111. 1176; Annunciation to, 111.
63, 191, 192, 281, 1051, 1 177, 1 178, 1267,
1369, 1370.
Zamora, Catedral, Relation to Angouleme,
311 ; Relief of Portal, south Transept, 111.
740, 741, 252, 311, 312: La Magdalena,
INDEX 3%S
Tomb in Church, 111. 890, 891, 237. Zig-zag Edges of Draperies, 72, 73, 74.
Zara, 218; Museo San Donato, Lintel, 28, Zodiac, 111. 48 ', 49, 137, fj8, 490, 491 y 696,
236 ; Sculpture, 65 ; San Lorenzo, 28, 236. 98/, 988, 993^ 997, /Off, 1/49, 1208, 1263^
Zaragoza, Pilgrimage Road, 182. '49$, '499; Aries, Taurus and Gemini, 111.
Zechariah, 325. 1208.
Zelemie, 111. 753. Zwartnotz, Spandrel Figures, 20.
McGRATH-SHERRILL PRESS
BOSTON
22
515J tf>
o
JUN6 1988
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
