Early Medieval Art

According to a recent article in my undergraduate alumni magazine, the imperative to make courses relevant to the lives of students first arose in the late 1960s.  While the care of monuments provides a practical application for the study of early medieval art in Europe, the relatively few early medieval objects in North American museums would hardly justify it as a field of study in American universities, if relevance were a requirement.

The Early Middle Ages offers the point of origin for many modern-day realities- of modern European national identities, of a collective European identity, and of the Christian Church, to name but the most obvious - and the tracing of these traditions to their early medieval origin certainly constitutes a valid undertaking.  To search for reflections of ourselves, however, in this distant past seems to me a bit problematic.  Indeed, I question the need for each and every course to prove itself directly relevant to the lives of students. 

Of course, students may apply the skills acquired in an art history class, such as i have detailed in previous postings (see the category of “Teaching Early Medieval Art”), to others areas of their lives, but does that make the Early Middle Ages relevant? 

Instead, I see great value in course material that is not all about the student.  First, always seeking the relevance of the past to the present somehow denigrates the past, as if it only has meaning if it relates to us and our experience.  Furthermore, approaching the past through such a lens distorts our view of it and thereby does not do right by the past. 

In fact, the irrelevance of early medieval art (or the art of any other distant period) makes it especially valuable for the development of upper-level thinking skills.  In the study of early medieval art, students can develop their upper-level thinking skills with less interference from assumptions and biases. 

More importantly, early medieval art demands especially close looking and extended analysis, and returns that effort with the development of an aesthetic sensibility that challenges modern-day assumptions about beauty and about the power of images and the refinement of sight.

All moments of the past bear relevance, and the most obvious need not be the most valuable.

To conclude the class, we shifted our attention to southern England to look at two manuscripts that demonstrate exposure to and the selective adaptation of Hiberno-Saxon stylistic features.  First, we looked at the Vespasian Psalter (British Library, Cotton MS Vespasian A.i). 

On folio 30v, we encountered our second author portrait of David, the only full-page miniature in the manuscript.  He holds the same lyre as in the Durham Cassiodorus, but is accompanied by two scribes, four musicians, and two dancers.  The scribe to the left writes on a scroll, while the scribe to the right writes on a diptych.  The ornamental pattern in the arch compares well with ornament in the Lindisfarne Gospels, but the composition itself compares best with the portrait of David in the ninth-century Byzantine Khludov Psalter. 

The historiated initials merit extended consideration.  On the recto facing the author portrait of David, the first letter of Psalm 26, D, frames a depiction of David and Jonathan clasping hands, an illustration of 1 Samuel 23.16-18.

And on folio 53r, the first letter of Psalm 52 contains an illustration of David rescuing a lamb from a lion (1 Samuel 17.34-35).

The relating of the scene represented within each initial to the text of the psalm provides ample material for analysis.  The question of the function of the historiated initial also prompts valuable discussion.

The British Library provides an image of facing Folios 30v-31r.  Wikimedia has a larger image of Folio 30v alone.  Folio 53r may be found in the facsimile published by David Wright.

We venture here into even greater obscurity, but the Durham Cassiodorus (Durham Cathedral Library, MS B.II.30) provides a useful comparandum in subsequent classes and therefore merits introduction at this point.

The Durham Cassiodorus returns us to the monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow, whose scriptorium produced the Codex Amiatinus.  So here we see the employment of elements of the Hiberno-Saxon style at a non-Irish foundation.

Folio 81v prefaces Cassiodorus’s commentary on Psalm 51 with an author portrait of David.  One may observe many details.  DAVID and REX float in bubbles on either side of his head.  Upon close examination, one may discern the three marks of a cross in his nimbus.  The cruciform nimbus assimilates David with Christ.  Also, the lyre that David holds compares well with the reconstructed lyre from Sutton Hoo. 

The ornament of the borders and the throne warrant comparison with Hiberno-Saxon examples, but the figure of David himself compares well with the author portrait of Luke in the Corpus Christi Gospels, especially the wrapping of the toga and the indication of its folds.

Folio 172v prefaces Cassiodorus’s commentary on Psalm 101 with a portrait of David Triumphant.  In his right hand, David holds a ring which frames his name.  In his left hand, he holds a spear.  One may, however, easily overlook the most critical feature of this composition - the double-headed serpent underneath his feet, the asp upon which the psalmist walks in Psalm 90.13.  We will encounter multiple illuminations of Psalm 90.13 in subsequent classes.

These two folios also warrant comparison with one another.  First, what features do they share?  A bubble-like background pattern, interlace, spirals for hair, etc.  And how they diverge?  Their coloration, the figural style of David, the indication of folds, etc.  The question of how to account for these differences may prompt a useful discussion.

Wikimedia has both miniatures: Folio 81v and Folio 172v. 

The remaining manuscripts in this class on Irish and Hiberno-Saxon art lead us away from Irish monastic foundations in northern England to areas that employ, either in entirety or in part, the Hiberno-Saxon style. 

The Northumbrian missionary monk Willibrord founded the monastery of Echternach at the end of the seventh century, and the Echternach Gospels (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS lat. 9389) date to the late 7th, early 8th century.  The Echternach Gospels begin the migration of insular forms and ideas either as a manuscript taken from Northumbria to Echternach or as a manuscript created at this Northumbrian foundation on the continent (yet another theory for its origin exists, but it has not gained any traction, and until it does, I do not consider it necessary to include it in an upper-level survey).

Like the Book of Durrow, the Echternach Gospels display full-page representations of the symbols of the Evangelists.  Like the Lindisfarne Gospels, IMAGO HOMINIS/LEONIS/VITULI/AQUILE labels each symbol, and each symbol prefaces its Gospel.  For the Gospel of Matthew, however, the symbol faces the XPI AUTEM of Matthew 1.18, and the LIBER GENERATIONIS of Matthew 1.1 appears on the following recto.  If anyone can explain this curious dis-ordering of the text, please comment.

One may discuss the various explanations for why Matthew’s man has a frame filled in with interlace, while the other Symbols have empty frames.  Each symbol also compares well with its counterpart in the Book of Durrow. 

Mandragore presents all the illuminated folios.  Search for “Latin 9389″ under Cote.  These images, however, do not provide enough detail for the close examination of each symbol.  Marcel Durliat’s Des Barbares a l’an mil (L’Art et les grandes civilisations) publishes large, clear images of Matthew’s Man and Mark’s Lion. 

In the next reincarnation of this course, I will probably divide the Irish and Hiberno-Saxon material into two classes, and the point of separation will likely come just before the later Durham Gospels from Lindisfarne (Durham, Cathedral Library, MS A.II.17). 

Its obscurity could justify bypassing the manuscript, but a recent article with all the necessary textual material makes it hard to ignore its sole, but particularly fascinating miniature.  ‘”Know who and what he is’: the context and inscriptions of the Durham Gospels Crucifixion image,” by Jennifer O’Reilly in Making And Meaning in Insular Art (Triarc Research Studies in Irish Art) fully translates the tituli and also identifies the Gospel chapter and verses on the preceding page.

The image of the Crucifixion on folio 38v compares nicely with same scene in the center panel on the interior of the painted lid of the reliquary of the Sancta Santorum, and finding the sponge and the tip of the spear will train the eye to find these objects in any Crucifixion scene. 

But the text around the frame and its direct address of the beholder make for a most interesting discussion of the devotional power of Crucifixion imagery, as well as the function of images more generally.

Wikimedia has a relatively clear image of Folio 38v.

The colophon attributes the writing of the Lindisfarne Gospels to Eadfrith.  His death in 721, therefore, provides the terminus ante quem.  The colophon also connects the manuscript to the relics of Saint Cuthbert, which in turn provide a context within which to understand the manuscript.

Each Gospel begins with an author portrait followed immediately by facing carpet and initial pages.  Furthermore, facing carpet and initial pages introduce prefatory material, and the XPI AUTEM of Matthew 1.18 also receives ornamentation. 

Comparison of the ornament of the Book fo Durrow and the LIndisfarne Gospels proves helpful.  I compared the cross carpet page on folio 2v of the Lindisfarne Gospels with the double-barreled cross carpet page on folio 1v of the Book of Durrow.  The XPI AUTEM pages also make for a useful comparison. Close-ups greatly facilitate these comparisons.

And of course, analysis of the similarities and differences between the author portrait of Matthew in the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Ezra portrait in the Codex Amiatinus leads nicely to a discussion of how to account for them.

On may also note the tituli in the author portraits, which label the Evangelist Symbols as “the images of” their relative creatures and the Evangelists not as the Latin SANCTUS, but as the Greek HAGIOS.

Bucknell has a Lindisfarne Database in addition to its Durrow Database.  This database lacks the initial pages on folios 3r and 95r, as well as the carpet page and initial page for the Gospel of John, folios 210v and 211r.

But the British Library presents the Lindisfarne Gospels as a Turning the Pages Manuscript, where you can see all of the carpet and initial pages, as well as the tenth-century colophon on the last page.

At this point in the class, we turned to the monastery of Lindisfarne.  I had by this point already detailed the movement of Irish monks first to Iona and then to Lindisfarne, so here we focused on the tomb of Lindisfarne’s most renowned inhabitant - Cuthbert.

Bede wrote multiple accounts of his life, but I chose passages from the briefest, which Bede embedded within his The Ecclesiastical History of the English People(Book 4, Chapter 30).  Although Cuthbert died in 687, not unil eleven years later in 698 did the monks of Lindisfarne place his body in the wood coffin that survives today in pieces at Durham Cathedral. 

Of its 6,000 fragments, about 169 show engraved lines.  The reconstructed program of the coffin includes Christ and the Evangelist Symbols on the lid, apostles and archangels on the sides and one end, and the Virgin and Child on another end.  Runic inscriptions identify the figures and link the coffin to the Ruthwell Cross and the Franks Casket. 

Various objects have come from the tomb of Cuthbert, including the Stonyhurst Gospels and his pectoral cross.  I could not find good photos of these objects on the internet, but the catalogue, The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture Ad 600-900, has nice color photos.

Images of the Coffin of Saint Cuthbert prove even more elusive.  I found some great color slides in the visual collection at FSU, and Ernst Kitzinger’s small booklet on the Coffin offers line drawings of each side.  Here you may find a photographic reconstruction.  Sacred Destinations has some photos taken through the vitrine.  Otherwise, I would welcome any hints on where to find more images. 

Through the texts and objects of the re-burial of Cuthbert, we gain great insight into the development of the cult of one saint.  In my next post, I will look at yet one more object associated with the early cult of Saint Cuthbert, the Lindisfarne Gospels.

From the second half of the 7th Century, the Book of Durrow preserves an entire program of textual illumination.  In publications, folios from the Book of Durrow seldom appear with the facing pages.  In the actual book, the double-barreled cross page faces the four Evangelist Symbols surrounding a cross (Folios 1v-2r).  And Matthew’s Man faces the LIBER GENERA… (the opening words of the Gospel of Matthew, Folios 21v-22r).  But the Eagle of Mark (yes, Mark) does not face the incipit (Folio 84v).  Rather, a carpet page faces the illuminated initals, INCIPIT EVANGELIHU XPI (Folios 85v-86r) [And again, with the calf of Luke and the incipit of the Gospel of Luke (Folios 121v, 125v-126r), and again for the lion of John (Folio 191v, Folios 192v-193r).]  The Book of Durrow also has a decorated initial, XPI AUTEM, at the de facto beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, 1.18, when the narrative begins after the listing of the genaeology of Christ.

The XPI initial offers a good comparison with the earliest Irish manuscripts and will offer a good comparison with later ones, as well.  It shows the same dimunuendo effect as in the Cathach of Saint Columba and the same outlining dots as in the Ussher Gospels.  And the four Evangelist Symbols surrounding the cross share their composition with a book cover rendered in mosaic in the Catacomb of San Gennaro in Naples [Nees in Gesta (1978)].  I have a postcard of this mosaic and don’t know where else to find it in color.  The shared composition reveals a shared function (one may also compare the Bobbio Orosius with the covers of the Stoneyhurst Gospels).

The cloak of Matthew’s Man makes an interesting comparison with the Sutton Hoo purse cover (but students should have already encountered this comparison in the introductory surveys), and the medallions on Folio 3v compare well with the enamelled medallions on the hanging bowl from Sutton Hoo.

I could go on and on: the harmony between ornament and figure, a possible reference to the Holy Land (following Martin Warner), and the apotropaic power of the cross and carpet pages (following Nees). 

Bucknell has a “Durrow Database”, which presents 11 folios, including hard-to-find folio 2r with the four Evangelist Symbols surrounding a cross.  Wikimedia Commons also has a number of folios, but I have not counted how many duplicate images on the Durrow Database.

In this day’s class, we covered many manuscripts, including two known as the Durham Gospels.  For the sake of convenience, I called Durham Cathedral Library, MS A.II. 10 the Earlier Durham Gospels.  

Considered the earliest Hiberno-Saxon (ie., made at an Irish monastic foundation in England) illuminated manuscript, the Earlier Durham Gospels preserves two pages with decorated initials, which introduce interlace and polychromy. 

Folio 3v shows three superimposed Ds.  The Ds frame the explicit for Matthew, the incipit for Mark, and the Pater Noster.  Each D contains a different interlace pattern. This page provides a good exercise for the students in description: how does one describe each type of interlace to distinguish it from the other two? 

The Bobbio Orosius (MIlan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana MS D.23.sup) introduces two important themes, one formal and one contextual. 

First, it takes us to the Monastery of Bobbio, its place of origin.  The Irish monk Columbanus founded the monastery on land given to him by the Longobard King Agilulf.  We may understand the Bobbio Orosius as a product of insular culture on the Italian peninsula.  The transmission of people and ideas emerges then as a second major theme in the study of the art of the early middle ages (the second being the relationship between image and text).

Second, the Bobbio Orosius contains the earliest surviving carpet page.  So in the Cathach of Columba, the Ussher Gospels and the Bobbio Orosius we may see early developments in the ornamentation (as opposed to illustration) of the text.

Wikimedia has an unflattering black-and-white reproduction of the verso carpet page, but lacks the facing recto, which has a decorated initial.  Making And Meaning in Insular Art (Triarc Research Studies in Irish Art) has a nice color photo of both pages.