The Project Gutenberg eBook of The secrets of a great cathedral
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The secrets of a great cathedral
Author: H. D. M. Spence-Jones
Release date: November 8, 2025 [eBook #77195]
Language: English
Original publication: London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd, 1914
Credits: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SECRETS OF A GREAT CATHEDRAL ***
This is companion to the preceding volume--“The Dean’s
Handbook to Gloucester Cathedral.”
[Illustration: MAUSOLEUM OF GALLA PLACIDIA, RAVENNA.
Circa A.D. 440.]
THE SECRETS OF A GREAT CATHEDRAL
BY THE VERY REV.
H. D. M. SPENCE-JONES, M.A., D.D.
_Dean of Gloucester_
_Professor of Ancient History in the Royal Academy_
[Illustration]
LONDON: J. M. DENT & SONS, LTD.
NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.
1914
_All rights reserved_
_This book, “The Secrets of a Great Cathedral,” is, after a fashion,
the sequel to the Dean’s “Handbook to Gloucester Cathedral,” although
it has no special reference to, no real connection with the former
work._
_These “Secrets” belong to no one solitary pile, but are the heritage
of the many Cathedrals, at once the glory and the riddle of Catholic
Europe. Still, references to one pile--Gloucester, the loved home of
the writer of the book--will be found constantly to crop up and appear
unexpectedly in the following pages._
_Like King Charles the First in the “Memorial” of the immortal Mr. Dick
in Dickens’ “David Copperfield,” so is Gloucester ever straying into
the “Cathedrals” of the “Secrets.” Its haunting memory_ will _not be
kept out_.
_The reader must forgive, and perhaps forget, the writer’s fancy,
and--quietly read on._
INTRODUCTORY
The quaint name which the writer has given to his little book, “The
Secrets of a Great Cathedral,” is based upon his desire to answer
briefly some of the leading questions which have been put to him in the
long course of his office as chief custodian of one of the most notable
of Romanesque cathedrals.
For after viewing with more or less interest and care the grey,
time-worn pile of Gloucester, the visitors often long to learn
something of the genesis and meaning of the several principal parts of
the mighty church.
They ask first, naturally enough, what is the meaning of the term
“Romanesque,” which they have often heard now and again popularly
described as “Norman.” Whence then came this massive round-arch
architecture? Is it not perhaps much older than the Norman period,
which only dates from the eleventh and twelfth centuries? If so, who
were the inventors of this widely diffused style? when and where did
they live and work?
The writer of this little book answers the question, and tells the
inquirer that this so-called “Romanesque” style is of very ancient
date, and he traces its wonderful story back for some seven or eight
hundred years _before the coming_ of the Normans into England.
* * * * *
In late years not a few scholars[1] have dwelt with more or less
detail on “the secret” of this wonderful and stately “Romanesque”
round-arch architecture, of which so many splendid examples still
remain in different lands. These scholars give us many important
details, and they suggest various interesting theories on its origin
and development.
But the most exhaustive histories that we possess of Romanesque
architecture have quite lately appeared.[2] One of these belongs to
Italy and is the work of Signor Rivoira; the other to England, and
is from the pen of Sir Thomas Jackson, R.A. They both travel over
much of the same ground, but with infinite varieties of detail and
illustration--both, however, in their own way, telling the most
interesting story that historical ecclesiastical architecture has ever
had to tell. No one, after a careful study of these two great works,
but will feel that the veil which has partly concealed “the secret” of
Romanesque has at length been lifted.
But comparatively few, alas, find the leisure necessary to master the
contents of these four massive quarto volumes.
One word on these great works, not of criticism but of legitimate
comment, is called for.
Rivoira, the Italian scholar, throughout his great study of Romanesque,
seeks and finds in Italy, the old home of Rome and the Empire, the
inspiration and the cradle of all Romanesque. Sir T. Jackson, R.A.,
on the other hand, refers to Constantinople and the near East as
the principal source of this the most famous and enduring of all
architectural schools.
_The Triforium._--The great gallery which appears in so many of the
more important Anglo-Norman churches, and which in Gloucester Cathedral
surrounds the choir, perplexes the student of the architecture of these
mighty churches. What, is often asked, was the purpose of this striking
feature? When and where was it first designed?
The story of the origin of a Triforium is sketched out; the reason for
its exclusive ancient use in the Eastern Church is given, while in
the West (Latin Christianity) it rarely, if ever, for many centuries
appears.
Then its strange reappearance as a conspicuous and characteristic
feature especially in Anglo-Norman Romanesque is discussed.
_The Lady Chapel._--So well-known and frequent a feature in our more
important mediæval cathedrals, abbeys and churches, notably in such
English examples as Gloucester, Westminster Abbey, Salisbury, etc.,
often perplexes the inquirers. Whence, they ask, comes this striking
“annexe” to the great religious piles of our forefathers? It seems to
speak of a cult certainly unknown in the “inspired” writings--of a
cult which is evidently a comparatively late development in Christian
teaching.
The strange story of the “Lady Chapel” is traced in the pages of this
little book.
_The Crypt_ is by no means a universal feature even in Western
Christendom, while in the East it is absolutely unknown. In the West,
however, we frequently find a Crypt in the planning of the more
important churches. The question often is put--What was its use? When
and where was it first introduced? Is it not possibly “the memory” of
some sacred spot once deeply revered and often visited in far-back days
by tens of thousands from many distant lands? Emphatically a strange
mystery hangs over those dark and gloomy Crypts which sleep beneath
such great churches as the cathedrals of Gloucester and Canterbury, the
mighty church of Chartres, the storied abbey of S. Benignus of Dijon.
The true secret of the Crypt is a thrilling story and one that goes
back to the earliest days of Christianity.
Some account is given of the Crypt of S. Peter’s, Rome, the “mother of
Crypts,” and of the strange modern discoveries in that hallowed spot.
_The Cloister_, once so general a feature in the planning of the
abbey and the cathedral church, and which even now has left not a few
examples still striking with their scarred and often ruined beauty--the
Cloister is to many the subject of perhaps a mute inquiry as to its
origin and primitive use.
It is clearly a special adjunct to important Christian buildings, and
was evidently once of the highest importance to the community of the
abbey or the cathedral to which it was annexed.
It has a curious history, and one that is quickly and easily told; but
this history is after all but very little known. It ranks emphatically
as one of the secrets of a cathedral.
_The Altar of S. Petronilla_ is a “memory” that belongs exclusively to
Gloucester Cathedral, the home and the scene of work of the writer of
this book. It is the earliest historical record in the many-coloured
story of this great cathedral, and dates from the far-back early years
of the eighth century. Its curious connection with the mighty church of
the Severn Lands has suggested its inclusion in this work which deals
with “the secrets” of a cathedral church.
The writer of these pages on “the secrets” of a cathedral has drawn
much of his inspiration from the cathedral he loves so well. The
story of S. Petronilla, so curiously and mysteriously linked with the
fortunes of Gloucester Abbey some twelve centuries ago, possesses a
deep and peculiar interest, as it tells of a sainted personage, now
well-nigh forgotten, and round whom, for various reasons, modern
criticism has been curiously busy.
The conclusions of modern critics, some of them of the first rank,
_if accepted_, would destroy the supreme interest which in the early
Christian centuries undoubtedly invested S. Petronilla with a halo of
a rare and peculiar sanctity. The theories of modern critics have been
refuted, mainly on historical grounds, in this study.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY (p. vii-xi)
The meaning of the title of this book, “The Secrets of a Great
Cathedral,” is briefly explained.
The “Secrets” include the leading questions which are often put
to the writer, who is the chief custodian of a great pile, partly
Romanesque, partly Gothic, as to the signification and origin of
certain prominent features of an important Mediæval Church.
These questions include the meaning and history of the term
_Romanesque_ architecture, sometimes mistakenly termed _Norman_.
_The Lady Chapel._--The circumstances are discussed at some length,
which gave rise to this comparatively late addition in the planning
of a great church or abbey.
_The Crypt._--A reply is given to the query--whence comes this
remarkable and little understood feature in many of the cathedrals,
abbeys and large churches--a feature only found in the churches of
Western Christendom.
_The Cloister._--The history of the “Cloister” is given with
some detail--a sketch of what it evidently replaced is briefly
written--some of the early criticisms on the elaborate ornamentation
of Cloisters are discussed.
_S. Petronilla._--This strange memory of a once famous, but now
forgotten Saint--a memory which belongs especially to Gloucester
Cathedral--is referred to. The true history of this Saint is sketched
out.
ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE
“Romanesque” a modern term--When first used--General
signification of the word 3
Romanesque--really a falling back on the ante-classical
style of Roman architecture--Freeman’s definition--Parts of
Diocletian’s palace of Spalatro, the earliest known example
of Romanesque, where the Greek feature of the entablature
is cast away, and the arches rest on capitals of columns 4
A brief review of the architectural story of Romanesque
between the fourth and eleventh centuries--How Ravenna,
from days of Honorius, became a great Art capital--The
splendid Romanesque churches of Ravenna in the days of
her glory--A list of Ravennese churches which have been
preserved 6
After the Lombard conquest, a period of darkness in the
Art world of Italy and the West set in--Renaissance of Art
under the Lombard Queen Theodolinda--Two hundred years of
Lombard rule--Who were the builders under the Lombards 13
History and appearance of the Comacine Guild of Architects 14
The remains of earlier Comacine work under the
Lombards--Lombard Comacine work under Charlemagne 19
Romanesque, or the round-arch style, develops and
penetrates into Gaul and even as far as England 20
The _Byzantine_-domed Basilica. (A Note.) 20
_England._ Lombardic work traced--its slow advance and
progress before the Norman Conquest 22
_Germany._ Little traces of early Romanesque save in the
Palace-chapel of Aix-la-Chapelle 22
The rare examples in Germany before the eleventh century--a
few examples quoted, however, in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries 24
_Gaul--France._ Tells us very little of Romanesque Art
for many centuries, although there were many important
buildings in the fourth and fifth centuries--We learn this
from Sidonius Apollinaris, Gregory of Tours, etc. Very few
Romanesque remains, however, exist dating from Merovingian
and Carlovingian times 24
_Something_ had happened in Gaul between the sixth and
eleventh centuries to account for the absence of remains
of early churches. In truth, the country was subjected,
in a special degree, to disastrous invasions--by sea and
land. (1) The Saracens. (2) The Northmen--Catalogue of
devastated cities at hands of Northmen--Special reason for
the complete destruction of churches in these raids--Rare
facilities for these raids in Gaul 25
At the end of the tenth century, comparative stillness
prevailed in France--Settlement of Northmen in Normandy
and Northern France--We have in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries many Romanesque buildings--not a few of an
elaborate type 28
Varieties of Romanesque in the different Gallic
provinces--Thus we find in _Aquitaine_ and in the
South-West the influence of Byzantine art very conspicuous,
especially in the _domed_ churches 29
In _Provence_ Romanesque was largely inspired by memories
of Imperial Rome--Here we find few examples of domed
churches 30
In _Toulouse_--and generally in _Languedoc_--exist fewer
remains of Romanesque churches, owing to the Albigensian
wars, so disastrous to the cities and their buildings 30
In _Auvergne_. A peculiar feature here in the Romanesque
remains is the polychrome masonry of the ornamentation--The
beautiful cloisters of Puy 31
_Burgundy._ The home “par excellence” of Monasticism so
important in the eleventh century--especially in Cluny and
Citeaux--The busy workshop of Cluny--The remarkable porches
of certain of the churches--Progress of the new feature
of vaulting--The vast Church of Cluny--Simplicity of
Citeaux--its example is followed by the countless daughter
Cistercian churches 31
_The Royal Domain_ (l’Ile de France). Its narrow limits
at first--Few Romanesque remains are found here owing to
special ravages of the North-folk--The “Royal Domain” is
greatly enlarged under Philip Augustus--It became the
“cradle” of French Gothic--List of mighty Gothic cathedrals
mostly completed in the thirteenth century 32
(In a Note.) Romanesque continued to hold its own in other
provinces longer than in the Royal Domain--In the Royal
Domain Gothic architecture superseded at an earlier date
the older Romanesque type 33
NORMAN-ROMANESQUE
_Norman-Romanesque_--Its origin and rise--William of
Volpiano the Lombard, a monk of Cluny--At the end of the
tenth century he became Abbot and re-builder of S. Benignus
of Dijon--His fame and story--Invited by Duke Richard II
of Normandy, who appointed him Abbot of Fécamp--William
of Volpiano and his pupils’ work in Normandy--Lombardic
style generally followed with certain differences--List
of some of the work of his school in Normandy. Lanfranc
further develops it--His Church of S. Etienne at Caen--Some
features of Norman work--It passed over into England with
the Conqueror--Great development of Norman-Romanesque work
in England--The enormous number and great size of churches
and abbeys built under the influence of the Norman kings
of England--Reasons for this building passion here--The
famous English abbeys of expiation--all built under Norman
inspiration 33
A brief recapitulation of the story of Romanesque from
the beginning of the fourth century--Ravenna--Coming
of the Lombards--Charlemagne, and the dark age which
followed--Cluny and William of Volpiano--His school of
architecture 40
Norman-Romanesque--A few words on the work of the
Comacine Guild is repeated--Norman-Romanesque passes into
England--Its glory--Variations in its style--One novel and
important feature alluded to 41
On the Comacine symbol of Solomon’s knot--The interlaced
line--Its meaning--Copied but not understood by Byzantine
artists 45
Comacine symbol of the Lion of Judah 47
ROMANESQUE--THE CAMPANILE OR BELL TOWER
The Lombardic Romanesque Campanile Towers--the ancestors
of the countless Bell Towers and Steeples of the Middle
Ages--The Tower of San Satiro Milan, ninth century,
probably the oldest example--The Campaniles of the ancient
Ravenna churches, all of later date than the churches to
which they are adjuncts 47
The Liturgical use of Bells--Goes back to the fifth
century--Their use became gradually more marked--Their use
at a later date in the East 48
Normandy especially famous for its Bells and
Towers--Durandus of Mende on the symbolism of Bells--his
fanciful derivations 50
After the eleventh century the Bell became of greater
importance--A short sketch of its history in the fifteenth
century--The Bell now attained its great dimensions 51
List of the more famous Bells in the present day 53
A few dates generally illustrative of Romanesque
architecture 53
THE PASSING OF ROMANESQUE
A few memoranda on the transition of Romanesque into
Gothic--The term “Gothic” a misnomer--Adopted in the
Renaissance period as a term of reproach--Curious fallacy
of Evelyn and others here--The term “Gothic” remained,
though the old opprobrium was gradually removed--Gothic is
really perfected Romanesque 54
Some of the new principles in Gothic architecture lightly
sketched--The walls are slighter--The buttress now
introduced--It does the work of the massive walls--The
pointed arch--a principal outward and visible sign--This,
however, really no new feature, for in the East it had been
long used. The yet greater outward and visible feature of
Gothic windows--More light needed for interiors--Glass,
too, became less costly in twelfth and thirteenth
centuries--Progress of art in stained glass demanded larger
windows--The walls might now, owing to the support of
buttresses, be safely pierced with large openings 56
Elaborate tracery in transoms and mullions of windows 58
On the deeper inner meaning of Gothic architecture--France,
as the original home of Gothic, selected as example here 59
The exterior of great French cathedrals somewhat sacrificed
to interior--where exceeding height was aimed at--Contrast
with English great churches--The French cathedrals
represent one continuous design, different to English
cathedrals--Gloucester a good example here--where no _one_
design exists, but original plan was constantly changed and
added to 60
The French builders of the great cathedrals believed
that in their wonderful height lay in part the secret of
inspiring the worshippers with awe and reverence 62
As they built, their cathedrals were made higher and
higher. The “splendid folly” of Beauvais was the climax of
their striving here 62
The Beauvais Cathedral work briefly described 62
THE TRIFORIUM
The question is often asked--What is the meaning and use of
the great Triforium gallery? 67
Suggested derivation of the word “Triforium”--Was a
Triforium ever found in the great ancient churches of the
West (in Latin Christianity)? 67
The real story of the reason of its appearance in the
planning of an important church 68
Note on Rivoira’s theory of a Pagan origin for this
Byzantine feature of a great church 68
The inquirer must go back to the age of Justinian, when the
Basilicas of Constantinople and Salonica, etc., were built.
In these great churches we ever find a gallery _exclusively
intended for women_ 68
In the Eastern Church the sexes were as a rule kept
separate at Divine worship--Not so in the West--This
separation was _never_ a “Latin use.” Thus we never find
a women’s gallery in the churches of Gaul and Italy,
except these buildings were erected under direct Byzantine
influences 69
But, strangely enough, the Triforium reappears in the West,
especially in Anglo-Norman Romanesque, where it is a marked
feature, although the original purpose for which it was
designed no longer existed 70
Suggestions as to its possible use in these great later
Romanesque piles: (1) Was it an ornamental architectural
device? (2) Was it connected with pilgrimage--as
affording a longer and more interesting procession for
pilgrims? Neither of these suggestions, however, is fully
satisfactory 71
General summary of the story of a Triforium 71
The reason for the Anglo-Norman reappearance of the
Triforium must remain a mystery 72
The strange but remarkable theory of Mr. Hutton in his
_Ravenna_ is quoted 73
THE LADY CHAPEL
Position of the Blessed Virgin Mary--In the New Testament,
and in the oldest Liturgies--Estimate in the Eastern Church
in the first half of sixth century 77
In the Western Church, in the days of Gregory the Great,
the honour paid to her became more accentuated 78
Men thought much on the state of the blessed dead--Gradual
multiplication of Saints, almost deified in prayer--These
were regarded as more accessible to prayer than the Persons
of the ever blessed Trinity--Among these Saints, the Virgin
Mary occupied naturally the chief position--Devotion to her
gradually became a special cult 78
This cult was introduced into the life of the people,
mainly through the Crusades--Chivalry in its religious
aspect, especially in its regard for women, was one result
of these strange wars, and the Virgin Mary became the
object of passionate devotion to the great Crusading hosts 79
Detailed explanation of this--To her every Crusader looked
for success in war--From the soldiers of the Crusading
armies this passionate devotion passed to the people 80
Soon every important church after the period of the
Crusades had its “Mary Chapel”--Hymns were written;
Liturgies in her name were introduced--Thus a new adoration
was added to Christian teaching--Ever higher and higher was
the estimate conceived of her--The Lady Chapel soon became
an important feature in a great church 81
The magnificent Gloucester Lady Chapel is a conspicuous and
late example of this development in church planning 81
A marked impulse was given to this novel cult in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries through the teaching
of the Mendicant Orders, Franciscans and Dominicans; the
Dominicans especially professed an intense devotion to the
Virgin Mary--The famous “Rosary” prayer, which still holds
its own, was “revealed” to S. Dominic--Yet some of the
greatest mediæval masters, notably S. Bernard of Clairvaux,
shrank from the extreme development of this strange novel
cult 82
Art--its powerful testimony to the growth of this teaching 83
The rare Catacomb pictures give it little or no support--In
the very ancient Christian sarcophagi no prominent place
is given to the Virgin Mary--Even in the ninth and tenth
centuries, when the Crucifixion was often depicted
in sculpture, the Virgin Mary and S. John are simply
represented on either side of the Redeemer’s Cross 84
But in the middle of the twelfth century a marked change is
noticeable--In sculpture or in painted glass, the Virgin
Mary appears enthroned and crowned, with the Infant Christ
in her arms 84
In the thirteenth century the Virgin Mary becomes a central
figure--sometimes, though not always, with the Divine Child
in her arms. But clearly it is to _her_ that adoration
was specially offered. And in the thirteenth, fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries, she appears in stained glass, in
sculpture, in hymns and liturgies, portrayed as Queen of
Heaven 85
_A Short Appendix on certain remarkable Features in the
Lady Chapel at Gloucester_
The east end of this great annexe to the cathedral,
different to the original east end, is square-ended, not
apsidal. It possesses also two little transepts. These are
peculiarly English features 85
The square-ended form for churches was the ancient British
“use,” and represents an independent tradition different
to the Italian Basilican tradition of an apsidal or
semi-circular end 86
The square end was general in the Irish oratories or little
churches of remote antiquity, a few of which still remain.
These were, of course, small and rough copies of the
British churches which were all destroyed by the North-folk
invaders in the fifth century. The only exception to this
plan of the square end seems to have been in churches
frequented by the Roman colonists and officials--Silchester
is an example of these 86
After the coming of Augustine, A.D. 597, naturally the
Italian apsidal end was introduced--But the old vogue of
the traditional square end was rooted in the hearts of the
dwellers in this Island, and largely reappeared in Saxon
times 88
After the coming of the Normans, again, the apsidal end
was adopted. But gradually the square end superseded the
Italian apsidal end re-introduced by the Normans--A list
is given of great English churches which now possess the
square end--The exceptions are, comparatively speaking,
rare 88
On the Continent of Europe the square end is hardly ever
found. The few generally unimportant exceptions are quoted,
and special causes are adduced for most of these exceptions
89
In England, the Abbey (Cathedral) of Gloucester is one of
the notable exceptions--It has ever possessed an apsidal
end 90
But in 1457 when the present vast Lady Chapel was built,
the architect determined to give it the _square end_--thus
giving to the ancient abbey the original British form,
which hitherto it had lacked 90
Another peculiar English use was the double transept.
This, too, was added in the Lady Chapel, in the two
little so-called Chantry Chapels of the Lady Chapel--Thus
Gloucester in its latest additions became possessed of
both the English special features--the square end, and the
double eastern transepts 91
The recent discovery of two little churches on the
north-west coast of Cornwall, hitherto buried in the sand,
both dating from about A.D. 450. These lost churches
are apparently the only survivors of the old British
churches which were destroyed in the invasions of the
North-folk--hence their importance. Some account of these
long-lost Cornish churches or oratories is given. Both of
these are built with the square end 91
THE CRYPT
Meaning of the principal terms used in this chapter, viz.
Crypt, Confessio, Memoria, Cubiculum, Catacomb--the last of
these terms a curious misnomer 97
All the early and mediæval crypts are a “_Memory_” of the
Crypt or Tomb of S. Peter 97
The “Memoria” of Anacletus built over the Tomb of S. Peter
97
Of the origin of the most celebrated of the Basilicas of
Rome--They were all built over some famous martyr’s or
confessor’s tomb 99
Of the “vogue” of the Crypt in the early Middle Ages--A few
examples are given--This popular “vogue” came to an end
about A.D. 1144--Reason for this giving up of the Crypt as
part of the plan of important churches 101
The Crypt was entirely an ancient Latin and Western
use--It never entered into the plan of the churches in the
East--Reasons for this--It belonged exclusively to the
Western School of Romanesque--In the later Middle Ages
there were no Gothic crypts--In the early Mediæval age,
a crypt was often planned in accordance with the vogue
or fashion, even if no saint’s or martyr’s remains were
interred in it--Gloucester Crypt is an example of this
practice 103
_The Crypt of S. Peter, Rome. The Story of the famous
“Mother” Crypt_
The Crypt or Tomb of S. Peter with the “Memoria” of
Anacletus above it, was the great object of all Western
pilgrimage--it set the vogue in the planning of crypts in
important churches in the West from the fourth century
onwards 105
Position of Rome after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as
the centre of Christendom, and chief object of pilgrimage
from all lands 105
Position held by S. Peter (1) at Rome, (2) in all foreign
Christian lands--The witness here of early Christian
writers--Traditional memories of the Apostle at Rome 106
The respective estimation of the two Roman Basilicas of SS.
Peter and Paul 107
Early pilgrimages to the Tomb of S. Peter--What was the
“Memoria” of Bishop Anacletus of Rome?--The sacred graves
prepared by Anacletus round the Tomb of S. Peter for the
dead who were laid there 108
How the little “Memoria” of Anacletus grew into the lordly
Basilica of S. Peter 108
The work of the Emperor Constantine in the Crypt of S.
Peter 109
Description of the Crypt _after_ the work of
Constantine--How access to the sarcophagus of the Apostle
was preserved for several centuries 111
S. Gregory of Tours’ account of a visit of a pilgrim to the
Tomb of S. Peter--Detailed examination of S. Gregory of
Tours’ account 113
Of the costly offerings to the Tomb from A.D. 579 and
onwards 114
Visits of Charlemagne and of the Emperor Louis II (A.D.
845) to the Tomb 115
How the sarcophagus was concealed before the expected
plundering raid of the Saracens 115
The magnificent sanctuary above the Tomb was partly
restored by S. Leo IV and his successors, but _never_
again was there any access to the Tomb itself--During the
works connected with the Basilica of the new S. Peter, the
sarcophagus was seen by Pope Clement VIII and three of his
Cardinals 116
The little cemetery or group of graves prepared by
Anacletus, discovered in the course of the works carried
on under Urban VIII in the seventeenth century when the
foundations of the great bronze Baldachino, or canopy over
the High Altar, of Bernini were being strengthened 118
Description of the Baldachino of S. Peter’s--The care
taken of the sacred graves after the discovery--A detailed
description of the little cemetery of Anacletus 119
Official memoranda of Ubaldi, Canon of S. Peter’s, made
during the excavation works 119
Of the present state of the cemetery of Anacletus round the
Tomb of S. Peter 120
What was found there is carefully detailed in Ubaldi’s
memoranda 121
THE CLOISTER
After the Peace of the Church, in the fourth and fifth
centuries, a court or open space, in the case of the
principal churches, was arranged in front of the chief
entrance--This was sometimes known as “Paradisus”--In time
this “outer court,” for various reasons, was removed to a
more secluded place at the side of the church or abbey,
and then the court in question reappeared as the Claustrun
(cloister, close)--Round this court were erected various
buildings--such as a school--and dwellings and offices for
the ministers of the church, etc., were erected 127
In the late years of the tenth century, after the great
revival of monastic life at Cluny, the cloister of the
Middle Ages attained its supreme importance--It was the
place where the dwellers in the religious House spent
much of their time in literary work, and in teaching--One
general plan seems to have been usually adopted in the
cloisters on the Continent as in England 129
A description of a cloister and its surroundings 130
The adornment of these cloisters was not unfrequently very
elaborate--Examples are cited of such ornamentation 131
Early criticism of such elaborate adornment 131
Apologia for this beautiful monastic work 132
The great debt that men owe to the monk-scribes and
scholars, who through a disturbed and war-harassed age
preserved and transcribed all that we possess now of
ancient classical and of early Christian literature 133
A sketch of the austere conditions under which these
monk-scribes worked in these cloisters 134
Cassiodorus’ comment on the importance of monastic
transcribing labours 135
Durandus, Bishop of Mende--On the symbolism of a cloister 136
Note, with sketch of the vast influence of this once
widely-read author 136
APPENDIX
On the curious traces of mediæval popular games played by
novices and pupils of the monastery, recently noticed in
certain cloisters--of which the Gloucester Cloister is a
notable example 137
Appendix on S. Petronilla’s Altar (the earliest historical
detail existing in connection with the Abbey of Gloucester) 138
How we first hear of S. Petronilla in the monastic records
of Gloucester of the year 710--and 735--Leland refers to
this curious “entry” in the story of the abbey 138
Who now was S. Petronilla?--Bishop Lightfoot’s
theory--Baronius and later De Rossi and other Italian
scholars differ here from Lightfoot, though they, too,
shrink from acknowledging her undoubted parentage 139
A probably true version of S. Petronilla’s story--Testimony
of Siricius, Bishop of Rome A.D. 391, to the lofty position
evidently held by this saint in the estimation of the early
Church 139
The wanderings of the remains of S. Petronilla--At first
they were laid in the Basilica of Siricius on the Via
Ardeatina--Then on the request of Pepin the Frankish king
they were removed for safety to the little Rotunda Chapel
close to the side of the Basilica of S. Peter--This little
chapel was an Imperial Mausoleum 141
The special veneration in which this saint was held by the
Frankish people, no doubt was owing to her being considered
the veritable daughter of S. Peter 142
The Rotunda Chapel, where her remains were deposited,
was pulled down when new S. Peter’s was being built, and
then for many years the sarcophagus of S. Petronilla lay
neglected in the sacristy of the new Church of S. Peter 142
The sarcophagus now rests in the great Basilica of S. Peter
at the end of the right transept--in a small chapel called
S. Petronilla’s 142
The only other English reference to this saint, once so
greatly honoured, is in the dedication of the Church
of Whepstead, near Bury S. Edmunds, where the name is
strangely abbreviated to S. Parnel 143
Index 144
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
COLOURED PLATES
Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, Ravenna _Frontispiece_
S. Giovanni Evangelista, Ravenna 8
S. Vitale, Ravenna 50
S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna 74
BLACK AND WHITE
The Triforium of Gloucester Cathedral, looking into the
Choir 70
Annexe to Gloucester Cathedral--The Lady Chapel 86
Church of S. Gwithian, Cornwall, as it appeared in 1894 92
The Central Part of the Crypt of Gloucester Cathedral 104
The Cloister of Gloucester Cathedral 136
LINE DRAWINGS IN THE TEXT
Sarcophagus of the Emperor Honorius in the Mausoleum
of Galla Placidia 8
Interior of S. Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna 11
Capital from S. Vitale, Ravenna 12
_Chartres._--“Nôtre Dame de la belle verrière.” 35
(_See pages 84 and 85_)
Solomon’s Knot 46
S. Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna 49
ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE
The word “Romanesque” (_Architecture Romane_) is quite a modern term;
it was first generally used by the French savant M. de Caumont about
the year 1825. De Caumont learned it from a contemporary Norman
antiquarian of distinction, M. de Gerville, who adopted it as a fitting
appellation for the “Round-Arch” style which prevailed in the countries
which made up the Roman Empire roughly from the fifth century to the
latter end of the twelfth century.
This style had received various names, such as Lombardic, Saxon,
Norman, Byzantine. The French archæologists were of opinion that
one general term could fairly be given to the various schools of
“round-arch” architecture, and considering the original Roman parentage
of the style, fixed upon “Romanesque” (_Romane_) as a fairly accurate
title for this widely disseminated architectural school of building,
which, with its various differences in detail, held its own as _the_
architecture _par excellence_ of the West, and with certain important
variations and additions, of the near East, for so many centuries.
The appellation “Romanesque” (_Architecture Romane_) has been generally
if not universally adopted in the West for “round-arch” architecture
during the last eighty years. In the near East the term “Byzantine” has
been usually applied to the “round-arch” style of the vast majority
of buildings erected from the age of Justinian and afterwards, until
the period of the conquest and supremacy of the Ottoman Turks in the
fifteenth century. Constantinople fell A.D. 1453.
* * * * *
Professor Freeman, with great truth, tells us that Romanesque
architecture is not, as many affirm, a corruption of the architecture
of classical Rome, but that it is a falling back on the earliest--the
ante-classical form of Roman architecture, which was the true Roman
form, before the original Roman architecture had given way to a foreign
(a Greek) influence.
The great scholar and archæologist cites as an example of
ante-classical Roman architecture the ruins of the Emporium by the
Tiber, a magazine for merchandise which had been built before the days
of the Emperors. There we see a simple round-arch construction on which
no Greek element has intruded--a perfect foreshadowing of any later
unadorned Romanesque building of the eleventh century. Of this earlier
style, the so-called classical Roman, with its marked Greek features,
is in fact a corruption.
A consistent round-arched style begins again when the Greek feature
of the entablature is cast away, when the architect designed an
arcade where the arches rest not on the entablature or cornice, but
immediately on the capitals of the columns.
Such a beginning of consistent round-arched architecture is to be found
in the famous palace of Diocletian at Spalatro at the beginning of
the fourth century. There in the arcades of the great peristyle, the
gorgeous capitals of the Corinthian order have found for themselves
a new work; they bear up no longer the dead entablature or heavy
cornices, but the living arch. When this great step had once been
taken, the full development of Romanesque architecture was only a
work of time. The splendid basilicas of Ravenna of the fifth and sixth
centuries exhibit essentially the same type--Greek conceptions have
disappeared. The elaborate Greek entablature[3] has vanished, and the
arches now rest simply on the capitals of the columns.[4]
Freeman mentions the famous Palace of Diocletian at Spalatro, _circa_
A.D. 305, as the beginning of consistent round-arched architecture,
a building which in various portions has gone back to the old
pre-classical forms, suppressing the Greek entablature, and leaving
to the delicate Corinthian capitals their new work of bearing up the
arches and the weight above the arches.
* * * * *
The century which followed the abdication of Diocletian was the first
Christian century; in it Rome gradually faded away from its old
position of mistress of the world.
Honorius, the son and successor of the great Theodosius in the Western
Empire, dismayed at the rapid advance of the barbarian hordes, finally
transferred the imperial seat of government from Rome to Ravenna,
_circa_ A.D. 404.
Almost at once in Ravenna flamed up a new architectural impulse,
and Romanesque architecture in the famous Ravennese churches
appears. Several of these great piles, with much of their beautiful
ornamentation, are with us still.
* * * * *
For about 160 years Ravenna, under its different rulers, the Emperor
Honorius and his sister Galla Placidia, Theodoric the Ostro-Goth and
the Emperor Justinian, with his famous lieutenants Belisarius and
Narses, remained a great Art capital, the virtual centre of the new
school of consistent round-arched construction, the Greek feature of
the entablature being laid aside. Ravennese art preceded the great
development of art in Constantinople, for the splendid tomb of Galla
Placidia, completed before A.D. 450, was already gleaming with the
gold and colour of its beautiful mosaics long before the erection of
the great basilica of S. Sophia at Constantinople by Justinian (A.D.
532-537). But the glory of Ravenna as an Art capital faded away after
a duration of about 160 years, when Alboin the Lombard overran and
conquered Northern and most of Central Italy.
In the early years of the fifth century the best craftsmen of Rome
and Milan naturally flocked to Ravenna, whither the imperial court
of Honorius had migrated; these skilled artisans being attracted to
Ravenna by the numerous works of importance which Honorius and Galla
Placidia had set on foot.
We will give a few details of the age which produced these wonderful
works undertaken and completed in Ravenna during the 160 years, some
few of which, although sadly shorn of their ancient splendour, are to
this day the objects of our wonder and admiration.
We can fairly divide those 160 years roughly into three periods.
The first, the age of Honorius and his sister Galla Placidia. The
romantic story of this famous princess, the inspirer of the marvellous
Ravennese art, is well known. She was the daughter of the great Emperor
Theodosius, and was the sister of Honorius, and of Arcadius the Emperor
of the East. In A.D. 414 she married Ataulphus, the brother and
successor of Alaric, the Visigothic conqueror. After the assassination
of Ataulphus at Barcelona and a short period of captivity among his
murderers, she returned to Ravenna and her brother Honorius in A.D.
416, and married Constantius, a distinguished general of Honorius,
who after his marriage was eventually associated with Honorius in the
Empire of the West, and received the title of Augustus, but Constantius
only survived his elevation a few months.
The influence of Placidia in Ravenna over her brother Honorius was
very marked, but a deadly feud sprang up between the brother and
sister soon after Constantius’s death in 421, and Galla Placidia fled
to Constantinople to her nephew, the reigning Emperor of the East.
Honorius died in A.D. 423. Then, aided by the armed legions of her
nephew the Emperor Theodosius II, Placidia returned to Ravenna, and
bearing the title of Augusta, became paramount in Ravenna and Italy for
some twenty-five years, first as Regent and then as the all-powerful
adviser of her son Valentinian II.
[Illustration: Sarcophagus of the Emperor Honorius in the Mausoleum of
Galla Placidia, Ravenna (fifth century).]
It was no doubt during this long period of Placidia’s reign that
several of the great Ravennese churches, some of which are still
among the glories of this strange city, were built--viz. S. Giovanni
Evangelista, S. Francesco, S. Agata and the Church of the Holy Cross;
the last-named has disappeared, but its beautiful annexe, known as
the mausoleum of Placidia, where Placidia was buried, still remains,
glittering with its splendid mosaics. In this magnificent royal tomb
house are also the great sarcophagi which contain the ashes of Honorius
her brother, and of Constantius her husband, and of her son Valentinian
II.
[Illustration: S. GIOVANNI EVANGELISTA, RAVENNA.
Circa A.D. 425.]
The _second period_ of building belongs to the reign of Theodoric the
Ostrogoth. After the death of Placidia and her son Valentinian II,
who only survived his mother for a little while (he was murdered in
A.D. 455), apparently the building of great churches in Ravenna ceased
for a time. Ravenna and Italy in this interregnum were ruled over by
a group of shadowy Emperors; the last who bore the great title in the
West, Romulus Augustulus, who closed the group, was deposed in A.D.
476. Then followed the reign of Odoaces, the barbarian chief who, under
the title of Patrician, ruled in Italy until A.D. 493, when Theodoric
the Ostrogoth became the dominant power in Italy. Ravenna was his
capital city.
The famous Arian king Theodoric, Procopius tells us, was “an
extraordinary lover of justice, and adhered rigorously to the laws;
he guarded the country from barbarian invasions, and displayed the
greatest intelligence and prudence. He reigned for some thirty years
or more, leaving a deep regret for his loss in the hearts of his
subjects.” Among his good deeds was his care for the great monuments of
the Empire. His zeal for the adornment of Ravenna was remarkable.
Theodoric was a great builder. We possess still his magnificent Arian
Church of S. Apollinare Nuovo, which was originally called S. Martin;
it was known as “de Coelo Aureo” because of its beautiful gilded
roof. It is, after all these years, the noblest church in Ravenna.
This church received its present name in the ninth century, when the
remains of S. Apollinare were translated from the neighbouring suburb
of Classis. The glorious mosaics which now adorn it probably replaced
the original work of Theodoric; these mosaics we now admire were placed
there as early as the sixth century, when the Arian basilica was
transformed into a Christian church.
We have with us another great Arian church which he built, now called
the Spirito Sancto. It was originally named S. Theodore. Very little of
the original portion of this church remains.
Theodoric died in A.D. 536. Then followed a short time of confusion.
Amalasuntha, Theodoric’s daughter, succeeded to her father’s power
in Italy as guardian of her son Athalaric, but Athalaric died in his
eighteenth year, and Amalasuntha was eventually murdered.
The great Justinian was now reigning in Constantinople, and resolved
to reconquer Italy and to unite it with the Eastern Empire. This
he accomplished through the instrumentality of his famous generals
Belisarius, and later Narses. The Goths after two long wars were
completely defeated, and Ravenna became a city of the Eastern Empire
A.D. 540.
[Illustration: Interior of S. Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna.
_Circa_ A.D. 533-549.]
Then may be said to have commenced the _third period_ of building
and adorning Ravenna. In this period, under the inspiration of
Justinian, the mighty churches, still standing, of _S. Vitale_ and _S.
Apollinare_ in Classe,[5] were erected, and magnificently adorned with
the mosaics which we now wonderingly admire in their scarred but
unspoiled loveliness.
What we term the third period of the erection of Ravennese works of art
roughly lasted from A.D. 540 to A.D. 568, when Alboin the Lombard with
his strange and savage hordes descended upon Italy.
[Illustration: Capital from S. Vitale, Ravenna, showing Romanesque
Pulvino.]
Although Ravenna and a certain territory more or less adjacent to
it, known as the Exarchate, for a long time remained attached to
the Eastern or Byzantine Empire, we have no record of any important
building or art work in the Ravenna of the Exarchs of the Eastern
Empire.
The stranger pilgrim visiting Ravenna, the city of so many memories
and of world-famed churches, now, alas, will not see these marvellous
Basilicas of Galla Placidia, of Theodoric and Justinian, in their
ancient glory. Their great age, some fourteen to fifteen centuries,
desolating wars and sieges, long periods of neglect, the unskilful
hand of various restorers, have sadly changed them. For the most part
they have been largely rebuilt. But the exquisite Romanesque plan, the
long unbroken rows of pillars, mostly of precious marbles, with the
Ravennese pulvins, the great invention of Romanesque architecture,
supporting the overhanging arches, thus supplanting the Greek
entablature, and the beautiful Romanesque capitals are still there. In
several of the churches the wonderful mosaics of the great builders and
artists to this day look down on us, gleaming well-nigh as fresh and
lovely as they were some fourteen hundred years back.
One singular feature must be touched upon. The _outside_ of these noble
Romanesque piles is ever unadorned and strangely unattractive. This
is noticeable in all Byzantine as well as in Ravennese (and Italian)
Romanesque churches. The outside of S. Sophia in Constantinople, for
example, is singularly disappointing, but, on the other hand, alike in
Ravenna and in Constantinople, a Romanesque Basilica emphatically is
“all glorious within.”
* * * * *
After the Lombard conquest followed a short period of almost total
darkness in the Art world of Italy and the West.
A slow renaissance of architectural art, however, soon showed itself
under the influence of Queen Theodolinda, a Bavarian Christian
princess who was married in succession to two Lombard kings, Autharis
and Agilulf.
Then, all through the Lombard domination, a period lasting roughly 200
years, a gradual revival of church building went on. Not a few churches
were built in these 200 years under the influence of the Lombard kings.
We have only scanty remains of their work, but still enough to show us
that the old spirit of the Ravenna school inspired the builders, and
the round-arch style was generally adopted.
Of course these Lombard churches were sadly inferior to the glorious
Ravennese piles of Galla Placidia, Theodoric and Justinian, but the
spirit of the same school of thought evidently inspired the architects
employed by the Lombard rulers, which had dwelt among the builders of
the churches of Ravenna in the days of her glory.
Now who were the builders and architects of the Lombard churches which
arose in these 200 years? The Lombard buildings were evidently _not_
the work of the Lombards themselves. They had no stone buildings before
Alboin and his hordes crossed the Alps.
I think we can answer the question.
* * * * *
In the Code of the Lombard King Rotharis, A.D. 636-652, for the first
time appears the expression “Magistri Comacini.” In this Code of Laws
the Magistri Comacini appear as _Master-Masons_ with unlimited powers
to make contracts for building, and to enrol members in their Guild,
and these Comacini are mentioned again in an official document of King
Liutbrand, A.D. 712-744, which treats of architecture and carving
carried out by the Comacine Guild in question.
Now this Guild cannot have sprung into existence full-grown, and as it
were by magic, in the days of King Rotharis, A.D. 636. It must have
been already in existence, and have been too of some importance, before
Alboin’s descent on Italy, A.D. 568, which was followed by the reign of
the Lombard kings. _Who_ now were these Comacini? There is little doubt
that they were the successors of the Master-Masons who in the days of
the vanished Empire had directed the operations of the Roman Collegia,
especially devoted to building, and who had survived the barbarian
invasions which were so disastrous to Italy in the years which preceded
the accession of Rotharis to the Lombard throne. When Honorius migrated
from Rome to Ravenna, this Guild of Masons apparently had made its
head-quarters at Ravenna; had designed and carried out the magnificent
Ravenna buildings; then eventually, in the general upheaval which
followed the invasion of Alboin, the Guild removed to the comparatively
safe asylum of Como--a district singularly fitted for the home of a
building fraternity, owing to the stone and marble quarries and yards
for which it was celebrated.
* * * * *
Como had been long an important and a flourishing city when the Lombard
hordes descended into Italy. In the days of the Empire it had held the
rank of a colony, and was governed by a Prefect. Pliny the Younger had
held this office, and for a time lived in the beautiful city in his
Villa “Comoedia.” Catullus also made his home in Como. Indeed, Como and
the Comacine islands might be considered a privileged territory.
After Alboin the Lombard--A.D. 568--had invaded and conquered Northern
and much of Central Italy, the city of Como for a long time preserved
its independence, and was resorted to by many of the fugitives from
the Lombard raiders, as a haven of security; among these fugitives
from Ravenna and other centres were included many members of the
famous Guild of Roman Architects and Builders whose head-quarters
had been Ravenna in the days of her prosperity and glory under the
Emperor Honorius, his sister Placidia, Theodoric the Ostrogoth and the
lieutenants of Justinian.
For many years Como held out against the barbarian invaders. In the
end, however, it fell before the forces of the Lombard sovereign
Autharis.
The Lombard conquerors, as we have seen, favoured the Guild or
brotherhood of architects which they found in Como; they gave this
building fraternity, the successors of the ancient Roman Guild of
Architects, great privileges, as we see from the Edict of the Lombard
King Rotharis, _circa_ A.D. 636, and employed them in their many and
important building works.
Como continued to be the head-quarters of this trained architectural
Guild, and from this city, their permanent traditional home, they
derived their name, by which for long centuries they were known--the
Comacine builders--_Magistri Comacini_. This expression appears first
in the above quoted Edict of the Lombard King Rotharis, _circa_ A.D.
636.
It is clear that under the Lombard domination these Comacine builders
possessed a legal monopoly in the Lombard sphere of influence, from the
early years of the occupation of their conquerors.
This famous Comacine Guild or brotherhood continued to exist and
to flourish for many centuries, indeed until the disappearance of
the Lombard style of round-arch architecture, which style they had
perfected, somewhere about the close of the twelfth century.[6]
* * * * *
Very soon after their settlement in conquered Italy, the victorious
Lombards passed under the magic spell of Italy, and became themselves
lovers of art, and under the influence of the Christianity which
they adopted as their religion, proceeded to build churches and
even cathedrals. They made use of this Comacine Guild, and by their
patronage and favour revived the fading tradition of this most ancient
building and architectural fraternity and Guild. This was the beginning
of the famous _Lombardic_ style we usually term Romanesque.
At first, under the Lombard kings, the Comacine artists worked with,
comparatively speaking, poor art, little skill and imagination; they
retained, it is true, their old traditions, but they had fallen out of
practice during the period of unrest and disorder which followed the
Lombard invasion, but with the new impulse given by the Lombard rulers
to Art, they progressed in architectural design and ornament, and
gradually transformed the old Roman and later Romanesque development
into a new style still possessing many of the old round-arch features,
a new style generally termed Lombardic--which is now generally known as
Romanesque.
Although time (some 1300 years back), the devastation of endless wars,
many restorations, and even rebuilding, have obliterated so much of the
very ancient Lombardic work, there is no doubt that as early as in the
days of Queen Theodolinda, the wife of King Autharis, A.D. 571-91,
and later of King Agilulf, a number of churches were erected in the
Lombardic dominions. Theodolinda, as we have stated, was a Bavarian
princess.
This queen may fairly be reckoned as the one who rekindled in Northern
and Central Italy the dying embers of fine Arts, and especially of
architecture.
After the time of this Lombard queen, who among other works built
the first cathedral of Monza, no sovereign, during the 200 years of
Lombard rule, can be quoted who did not help to keep alive the spirit
of fine art, especially the art of architecture, which seems to have
been especially cultivated among the Lombard peoples from an early date
after their settlement in Italy.
The learned Muratori with great force bears his testimony here, when he
tells us that if more of the ancient Lombard buildings had survived,
they would have presented a striking, and by no means a rough and
barbaric appearance. The great scholar supports his conclusions here by
a striking reference to the contemporary Lombard writer, the well-known
Paulus Diaconus, whose admiration for the churches of his country
was evoked by a personal knowledge of them and their distinguishing
features.
Paulus Diaconus was well able to form an accurate opinion of these
buildings, for he must have been very familiar with the magnificent
churches of Rome and Ravenna, which in his day and time still preserved
much of their original magnificence.[7]
Rivoira cites and describes the present condition of a very few of the
undoubted remains of these ancient Lombard churches. Other Italian
scholars, however, instance more which they think belong to this first
age of Lombardic art.
We possess few remains of the earlier Comacine work; they become,
however, more numerous as time went on.
The following very early churches are now generally dated as erected
in the eighth century and earlier, and still remain intact, in part
at least, and they fairly represent the gradual development of the
Lombardic style during the period of the rule of the Lombardic kings:
San Salvatore, Brescia, _circa_ A.D. 753, is the best known instance;
the parish church of Arliano, near Lucca, somewhat earlier; San Pietro,
Toscanella; San Giorgio in Valpolicella; S. Teuteria, Verona, are also
cited by Rivoira.
After the fall of the Lombard rule, in the time of Charlemagne,
A.D. 774, the Comacine Guild had the opportunity of working in a
wider field, and were no doubt employed in most of the few important
buildings erected by that monarch; we can trace their handiwork and
the peculiar signs of their craft all through the ninth and tenth
centuries, and we notice the gradual advance they made in Art, even in
that dark and troubled age.
But in spite of this advance in the beauty and ornamentation of their
buildings, it was not until the close of the first quarter of the
eleventh century that these famous architects really recovered the lost
Roman secret of _vaulting_ large churches; hitherto they had, save in
rare instances, confined themselves to covering small spaces, such as
the apses and crypts of churches, with vaults.
* * * * *
Through those darkest of the early Middle Ages, the seventh, eighth,
ninth and tenth centuries, the Romanesque or round-arch style again
slowly developed in Lombardy. It penetrated into Gaul, into Germany,
and even to distant England.[8]
* * * * *
In England, the presence of Italian (Lombardic) influences, from a very
early period, is undoubted; but the remains we possess of churches
erected before the Conquest are, after all, but scanty.
Some writers maintain with great probability that the few churches
built shortly after the arrival of Augustine’s mission (A.D. 597) in
England were the work of Italian craftsmen. The first clearly dated
churches erected in England under Italian (Lombardic) influence,
however, belong to a somewhat later period. They are: _S. Peter,
Monkwearmouth_, built in A.D. 675 by Benedict Biscop, first Abbot of
Wearmouth and Jarrow, as Bede tells us, “in the Roman style.”
_S. Paul’s, Jarrow_, by Benedict Biscop, A.D. 684.
Bishop Wilfred, the energetic Roman champion, erected the _Basilica of
S. Andrew_, Hexham, between A.D. 672-678; a building which in his day
was famous for its size and splendour, though no doubt the contemporary
eulogies here were owing to the great poverty of ecclesiastical
structures in England at this time.
_S. Peter’s, Ripon_, A.D. 671-678, was also the work of Wilfred; the
Crypt of his church is still with us. _S. Andrew, Corbridge_, is also
reputed to have been erected by Wilfred.
Direct Italian (Lombardic) influence, however, ceased when the
Archbishop’s chair at Canterbury was no longer filled by foreign
ecclesiastics; and at the close of the seventh century, and from the
early years of the beginning of the eighth century, for a somewhat
lengthened period architecture in England pursued its own course
without external aid. But the round-arch Lombardic style still remained
general, though the buildings were rough and somewhat uncouth.
Brixworth Church--A.D. 654--is a fair example of the churches of this
disturbed period.
We have little to guide us here until the days of Alfred, A.D. 871-891,
when foreign influences again were dominant in the realm of the great
Anglo-Saxon king. In the days of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury,
_circa_ A.D. 943-988, a strong current of foreign (Italian) influence
passed over England. A similar current is notable in the reign of
Ethelred II (the Unready), A.D. 978-1016. This current became stronger
and stronger. Under Edward the Confessor, A.D. 1041-1066, the new style
of architecture--the Lombardo-Norman--made its appearance in England.
We shall dwell at considerable length on this important school which
produced so many world-famous works.
No doubt before the coming of the Lombardo-Norman (Romanesque) style,
many of the English churches were constructed of wood. This material
was plentiful, as much of the country consisted of forest land. These
have disappeared. We possess, however, one remarkable example of these
Anglo-Saxon timber-constructed buildings in the interesting little
chapel near Aungre (Chipping Ongar), built on the occasion of the
translation of the relics of S. Edmund from London, _circa_ A.D. 1013.
The first great monument of the coming of Lombardo-Norman architecture
into England is undoubtedly the Abbey Church of S. Peter, known as
Westminster Abbey. This famous church was built, in part at least, by
Edward the Confessor, _circa_ A.D. 1051-1065. Its completion was the
work of William the Conqueror.
* * * * *
In Germany, until the period of Charlemagne, we have no proof that
any considerable churches were built. This great conqueror and
organiser erected, A.D. 796-804, at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) the
famous Palace-chapel subsequently known as the cathedral, generally
after the model of San Vitale at Ravenna; but it stands alone. It was
not imitated, and his feeble successors, the Carolingian princes, did
little to advance or to foster architecture in their broad dominions.
This important building at Aachen remained, it must be confessed, as
far as its influence was concerned, a solitary appearance in Germany.
It is said that its great founder Charlemagne hoped this Palace-chapel
at Aachen might have served as a model for other German churches, but
it is clear that his influence in architecture was as ephemeral as the
mighty Empire which he was unable to endow with permanent vitality.
The Sepulchral Chapel at Lorsch, A.D. 876; perhaps the Crypt and some
of the remains at Quedlinburg, A.D. 936; the old Cathedral at Cologne,
A.D. 781; the Church of S. Michael at Fulda, A.D. 818; the Church of
Steinbach, A.D. 815; parts of the more important Church of Gernrode, S.
Cyriacus, A.D. 968, are among the very few examples which can be cited
of Romanesque work in Germany, until the rise of the Lombardo-Rhenish
style in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Rivoira well characterises the Lombardo-Rhenish basilicas of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries as the highest expression of German
architecture. It was, he says, an outward and visible sign of the
Imperial idea brought back to life among the Teutonic people by Otto
the Great in the last half of the tenth century.
The erection of these great churches is synchronous with the mighty
wave of church building which passed over Northern and Central Europe
in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. One great peculiarity in this
style was the general adoption of flat ceilings (trabeated) over the
wide spaces. It was not until the latter part of the twelfth century
that cross vaulting over the naves and wide spaces began to be adopted
in the great German churches.
In their general features, however, these imposing Rhenish churches
of the eleventh and immediately following centuries, largely followed
Lombardic models.
Among other notable piles, the undermentioned Lombardo-Rhenish churches
rose in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In Cologne: _S. Maria im
Capitol_, A.D. 1094. _S. Martin_ and the _Church of the Apostles_ and
_S. Gereon_, eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Cathedral of _Spires_,
eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Cathedral of _Mainz_, eleventh
and twelfth centuries. _S. Castor_ of Coblenz, eleventh and twelfth
centuries. The Cathedral of _Worms_, eleventh and twelfth centuries.
The Minster Church of _Bonn_, twelfth century.
* * * * *
But what of _Gaul_--the France of mediæval and modern days, the
fairest, the richest, the most important of the provinces of the Roman
rule--greater and more influential in wealth as in culture by far
than any part of the dominions of the western world of Rome--equalled
by none of the countries of the far or nearer East of the great
Empire--second only to Italy, the mother-land of the Roman Empire?
What does this Gaul tell us of the rise and progress of Romanesque
architecture? Strangely little, we reply, for many centuries. It is not
by any means that this famous division of the mighty Empire was ever
wanting in noble and sumptuous buildings, civil and ecclesiastical. To
give a few notable historical examples as far back as the fifth and
sixth centuries. Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of Clermont, gives us a
vivid picture of a stately country house in the Auvergne of his day,
one of many such lordly villa residences. Gregory of Tours describes at
some length the Church of Clermont Ferrand, as it existed in the sixth
century, and dwells on its forty-two windows, its seventy columns, on
its walls decorated with mosaics and many coloured marbles. A still
vaster and more famous ancient church was the venerable and far-famed
Basilica of S. Martin at Tours, so eloquently pictured by the same
historian, S. Gregory of Tours. Another stately church we know adorned
the great city of Lyons. The Lyons church was erected before the
period of the church building activities of Justinian which culminated
in the superb S. Sophia at Constantinople--one of the wonders of the
Roman world of the East. This Lyons church was a building contemporary
with the noble Ravennese Basilicas of Honorius and Galla Placidia.
But every vestige of all these, and of many others of later date, has
disappeared. Quicherat strikingly asks, “Where are all the churches of
France which were erected before the year of grace 1000?”
The most careful investigation of modern archæologists can only
discover some four or five at most, poor reliquiæ of Merovingian and
Carlovingian times, and these few scanty remains consist of a solitary
crypt or two, or of a small and unimportant chapel, once evidently a
part of some more considerable building now utterly vanished.
Something more than time, though measured by centuries, must have been
at work here. Evidently a ruthless destroyer’s hand has passed over
France and swept away all these monuments of religious zeal and devoted
piety. Quicherat, Viollet le Duc, Guizot and Villemain, Sir James
Stephen, Palgrave and other modern historians, in their picture of the
story of France in the sixth and following centuries, tell us how all
this havoc and destruction came about.
No country like France has suffered so deeply from hostile raids and
disastrous invasions--from the seventh century onwards. As early as in
the first years of the eighth century have the Saracens harried the
southern districts of the fair Gallic province--the great Mediterranean
Sea for a long season appeared destined to become a Moslem Lake, whose
masters were Saracenic pirates. On land these Eastern depredators were
even more destructive. Nothing daunted by the crushing defeat they
suffered at the hands of Charles Martel near Tours, they persisted
in treating Aquitaine and Provence as a country to which they had a
positive claim, and they long continued to burn and plunder churches,
monasteries and cities at their will.
As time went on, a yet more systematic course of destruction in
middle and northern France, and even in the southern districts, must
be chronicled in the _Gesta Romanorum_--the dread recital of the
harryings of the North-folk, the Jutes, the Angles, the Saxons, the
Danes, the Frisians. These invasions began before the close of the
eighth century--even in the days of Charlemagne--and when the strong
hand of the mighty Emperor was removed, we come indeed upon a terrible
catalogue of the woes and ruin wrought in Gaul by the Northern robbers
all through the ninth and tenth centuries.
The sad catalogue of cities ruined, raided, devastated and partly burnt
by these dread hordes of Northern pirates, includes well-known places
such as Aix-la-Chapelle, Treves, Cologne, Metz, Toul, Verdun, Tournai,
Rouen, Orleans, Auxerre, Troyes, Tours, Chartres, Poitiers, Angoulême,
Bordeaux, Toulouse; besides many solitary monasteries.
Quicherat graphically speaks of the work of these savage raiders as a
veritable _feu-de-joie_, and with great force points out how thoroughly
they were able to carry out their fell work of destruction, especially
in ecclesiastical buildings, owing to the abbeys and churches being
universally covered with wooden roofs; the destructive work of these
Northern pirates, bitter foes of Christianity, was thus rendered
comparatively easy. The interior fittings of the church were first
fired; quickly the flames reached the timber of the roofs, and very
soon the entire building became a very furnace, and the whole pile was
soon completely destroyed.
All this continuous burning and raiding, which went on for nigh two
miserable centuries, accounts for the strange absence of any remains
of the once sumptuous and in many cases stately Merovingian and
Carlovingian churches and abbeys of the sixth and following centuries.
The great wealth, the many and opulent cities of Gaul, marked out this
province of the Empire as presenting a specially attractive country
for the invasions and raids of these hordes of sea-pirates. Gaul too
was in the neighbourhood of the home of these Northern adventurers,
and the navigable Gallic rivers which emptied themselves into the
Northern Sea, the Channel which divided Gaul from Britain, and into
the Atlantic Ocean which washed the long western sea-board, the Rivers
Scheldt, Seine, Loire and Garonne; the Rhone, too, which flowed into
the Mediterranean, where the ships of the Northmen were no uncommon
sight--gave ample facilities for these formidable fleets with their
dark sails to penetrate into the very heart of the great Gallic
province.
Modern archæologists and historians, such as Quicherat, Rivoira, and
Sir Thomas Jackson, comment sadly on this almost total absence of
even a remnant of the ancient Gallic churches. Viollet le Duc, in his
monumental _Dictionary_, well sums up the story of this sad gap in the
architectural history of the past of France, by telling us that “we
possess only very vague ideas of the primitive churches on the soil of
France, and that it is only from the tenth century downwards that we
can form a passably exact conception of what they were like.”
So terrible, so widespread, so constantly recurring were the
depredations of these dreaded sea-pirates, that a new supplication was
introduced into the Gallican liturgies--“A furore Normannorum libera
nos.” The bitter hostility of these Northmen raiders to Christianity
is well known; something more than a mere love of plunder influenced
their method of treatment of churches and monasteries, and moved them
especially to select churches as the first objects of their passion for
burning and destroying.
The last years of the tenth century and the first half of the eleventh,
however, witnessed a new state of things. The raids of the Northern
pirates grew fewer and gradually came to an end.
The more formidable bands of these sea-robbers settled finally in
the northern part of Gaul, and there founded a new realm, called,
after them, Normandy. These invaders quickly adapted themselves to
the civilisation of the conquered provincials, and thus materially
contributed to the general quietness which settled over the
long-harassed Gallic province. Raoul Glanber, the Monk Chronicler of
the Cluny Monks, in a famous and often-quoted passage, relates how “the
world--_his_ world, started from its death-sleep and from the year 1000
put on its white robe of churches.”
There is no doubt but that an extraordinary reaction in Church life
must be dated from this period. Various causes contributed to this
remarkable renaissance of religion, the outward and visible sign of
which was in the vast number of churches and abbeys which were built
in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The comparative “stillness” of
Western Christendom was perhaps the dominant factor. But the enormous
and ever-growing influence of Cluny and the vast number of its daughter
Monastic Houses must not be overlooked.
In France, _all_ the existing Romanesque churches date from this
period. We style them accurately as _Romanesque_--but it must be borne
in mind that while they all possess the leading features of this great
school of architecture--notably the “round arch”--in each of the
provinces of France in details they differed very considerably.[9]
* * * * *
We will give a brief summary of these differences in the details.
_Aquitaine._--This great division of France included the south-western
and west central districts--Poitou Limousin--Guienne--and later
Gascony. Here the influence of Byzantine Art on the Romanesque School
was very noticeable--the famous Church of S. Front at Périgueux is a
well-known example, and had many imitators on a smaller scale. S. Front
was evidently designed on the plan of the Byzantine Church of S. Mark’s
at Venice.
_Aquitaine_ and the south and south-west of France during the early
Middle Ages carried on extensive commercial dealings with the Levant,
and especially with Venice, which largely traded with the near East.
The leading special feature in Aquitanian Romanesque was the _Dome_. It
has been reckoned that in the province of Perigord some eighty domed
churches once existed; of these about fifteen are still with us.
_Provence_ has a history of its own here. Its Romanesque of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries was often inspired by memories of
imperial Rome, not unnatural in a district so closely connected with
the great Empire, and which is even still rich in mighty Roman remains.
In this province we do not find the _Dome_ as in Aquitaine--the old
Basilican plan is generally followed. The majority of all these French
Romanesque churches are vaulted, at least in part, with solid masonry.
_Toulouse and Languedoc._ Here our examples of the ancient churches
of the eleventh and twelfth centuries are sadly fewer. The terrible
Albigensian wars of religion waged against presumed heretics, desolated
the country, and many of the churches and ecclesiastical buildings
were ruthlessly destroyed. The stately Church of S. Sernin at Toulouse
is the most important of the Romanesque churches remaining in this
division of France which we still possess. The domical feature, though
not unknown here, is uncommon. The French feature of the “Chevet,” the
garland of chapels round the ambulatory at the east end, is developed
in these Romanesque Languedoc churches.
_Auvergne._ There are various local characteristics in the Auvergne
Romanesque churches--perhaps one of the most conspicuous peculiar
features is the polychrome masonry which ornaments them. There
is abundance of black basaltic rock in the district, and this is
frequently mixed with yellowish-white freestone laid in mosaic pattern
on the exterior walls, on the aisle, the frieze, etc. The effect is
curious and decidedly pleasing. Sir Thomas Jackson probably suggests
that this various coloured ornamentation, which specially distinguishes
the Auvergne Romanesque piles, suggests a partly oriental origin;
for Mosaic was a favourite Byzantine art. This striking feature is
absolutely peculiar to the Auvergne churches--only one other example of
polychrome masonry can be quoted among the churches in France built in
this period. The lovely cloisters at le Puy are an admirable instance
of this varied coloured “Mosaic” masonry.
_Burgundy._ This important province in the north-east of France was the
home of the remarkable revival of monasticism which played so great
a part in the wonderful religious movement of the eleventh century;
the world-renowned House of Cluny, and its famous daughter monastery
Citeaux, whence sprung the vast Cistercian Order, being situated in the
neighbourhood of Macon in Burgundy.[10]
It was in the workshops of Cluny that Romanesque architecture made
a fresh start in France. The craft of masonry possessed a marked
advantage here in the admirable stone which was quarried in Burgundy.
Among the characteristic features of Burgundian art, the splendid and
remarkable porches of certain of its more provincial churches deserve
mention.
A marked advance in the comparatively new feature of stone vaulting
belongs to the churches of this province. At Vézelay the great nave
was vaulted; hitherto this vaulting of great spaces had been generally
confined to the lesser vaults of the aisles and the crypts.
The mighty church of Cluny was the vastest church in the west of
Europe. Its nave was successfully vaulted with stone. At Citeaux,
the Mother Church of the Cistercian Order, the example, followed
certainly by the earlier churches of the famous order, was set of that
extreme simplicity and restriction in the matter of decoration which
characterises the numberless Cistercian churches which rapidly arose in
so many of the countries of western Europe.
_The Royal Domain_--l’Ile de France. During the eleventh and first
half of the twelfth centuries the “Royal Domain” was very confined,
and virtually was comprised in the district at present included in the
departments grouped round Paris. It was only enlarged at the expense
of the territories of the great Feudatories in the second half of the
twelfth century. It had long been terribly ravaged by the Northmen
raiders, and the Romanesque remains in these parts round Paris are
comparatively few and wanting in importance. But in the latter years
of the twelfth century, under King Philip Augustus, the Royal Domain
became greatly enlarged and included outlying provinces. It thus
became the more fitting appanage of the Over-lord of France.
But in the later years of the twelfth century the vogue of Romanesque
architecture was passing away and rapidly giving place to the new and
striking architectural school known as Gothic.
These years and the earlier part of the thirteenth century--a great
building age--saw the foundation of the mighty Gothic cathedrals of
Paris, Chartres, Bourges, Laon, Soissons, Meaux, Noyon, Amiens, Rouen,
and others, mostly situated in the now enlarged Royal Domain:[11] these
magnificent Gothic piles were for the most part completed before the
end of the thirteenth century.
Indeed this “Domaine Royale,” in its enlarged form, has been with
justice termed the cradle of French Gothic architecture.
NORMAN-ROMANESQUE
In the early years of the eleventh century, a new style of Romanesque
arose in northern and north-western Gaul, which was soon known as
“Norman-Romanesque”--a distinct and remarkable variety of the common
Romanesque family.
It began thus. In the latter years of the tenth century, the great
monastic community of the Benedictines of Cluny, in Burgundy, was
at the height of its power and influence; it occupied a unique
position among the religious houses of the west, owing its great
position largely to the long series of distinguished men who for more
than a century controlled its destinies, and directed its vast and
far-reaching activities.
Among its monks, when Maieul, one of the most distinguished of the
rulers of Cluny, reigned as Abbot, A.D. 948-999, was a young Italian
known as William of Volpiano,[12] A.D. 961-1031. He attracted attention
owing to his great learning, his devoted piety, and his rare skill as
an architect. Under the Cluny influence, at a comparatively early age,
he was appointed Abbot of the ancient foundation of S. Benignus of
Dijon. That once famous church had fallen into decay, and was virtually
a ruin.
As Abbot of S. Benignus of Dijon, William of Volpiano became known
far and wide, as an earnest and successful reformer of monasteries,
and, above all, as a great architect. Among other works he rebuilt S.
Benignus at Dijon, and the new Abbey Church became famous as one of the
most magnificent in France, and was dedicated afresh in A.D. 1018. It
contained many of the characteristic features of the Lombardic school
of the Comacine builders; but it also borrowed some of the features
known as Byzantine; these probably he had become acquainted with from
his knowledge of the churches of Aquitaine and southern France, into
whose churches certain Byzantine features had been introduced. A
portion of S. Benignus, for instance, was roofed with a dome. Beautiful
and striking as the Dijon Abbey was, its great architect did not repeat
it. It was too complicated a structure and too costly.
[Illustration: _Chartres._--“Nôtre Dame de la belle verrière.” Early
Thirteenth Century. Showing the Virgin Mary crowned and enthroned, with
the Infant Jesus in her arms.]
In the early years of the eleventh century Richard II (le Bon),
surnamed “l’ami des moines,” was Duke of Normandy. Normandy, under this
eminent ruler, occupied a prominent position of power and influence
in Northern and Central France. Duke Richard II invited to his Court
the famous Benedictine Abbot, the architect of the restored Abbey of
S. Benignus, and with some difficulty induced William of Volpiano to
make his home in the great Duchy, as Abbot of Fécamp. A number of
Norman abbeys were built under the direction of Abbot William and his
pupils, and these churches were the beginning of what is known as the
Norman-Romanesque style.
We have a few of these churches with us still--some with later
_additions_--others simply _ruins_; some, alas, desecrated by being
applied to other uses. We would instance Jumiéges, Fécamp, S. Ouen
(Rouen), Bernay, Mont S. Michel, Cerisy le Fôret, these originally
being the work of William of Volpiano and the pupils of his school.
We have cited only a few prominent examples, but in the first half
of the eleventh century, some forty new churches, including abbatial
churches, are recorded to have been built by this school of architects.
As the eleventh century advanced Lanfranc (subsequently Archbishop of
Canterbury) and his pupils further developed the Norman-Romanesque of
William of Volpiano in such churches as S. Etienne and, somewhat later,
the church of the Trinité at Caen, erected under the auspices of Duke
William of Normandy the Conqueror of England, and his queen, Matilda.
All these Romanesque round-arched churches contain many characteristics
of the Lombardic architecture, but they have, too, certain
_distinctive_ features; they present generally the aspect of a rugged
severe majesty; the proportions are noble, but most of them are poor in
mouldings and carving;[13] they are remarkable, not for the elegance of
their decorations or the grace of their forms, but the severe lines,
the noble proportions and the grandeur of the whole effect especially
distinguish the early Norman churches and abbeys of the Benedictine
architect of Cluny, William of Volpiano, and his school.
The internal arrangement of these Norman churches is interesting; the
form of the perfect Latin cross (crux immissa) was generally adopted,
and then finally the type was fixed which, amid all the varieties of
style, prevailed through the whole mediæval period.
* * * * *
But the glory of Norman-Romanesque only really appeared in England
shortly after the conquest by Duke William of Normandy in A.D. 1066.
The style in England became rapidly a distinctive and even an
independent development of the Lombardic round-arch architecture.
The impetus which church building received, when once more stillness
prevailed in conquered England, is marvellous; there was nothing
comparable to it in any of the countries of northern Europe. It is
computed that in the days of the Conqueror after A.D. 1070, some 45 new
monastic or abbatial churches were erected in England; in the reign of
William Rufus, his son and successor, 25; in the days of Stephen as
many as 122; under Henry II, the first Plantagenet, 124; when his son,
Cœur de Lion, was King, 44; under King John, 62.
And not only was England, in the days of the Conqueror and his
immediate successors and kinsmen, covered with this enormous number
of sacred buildings, but many of these piles were of vast size, far
greater than any of those lately erected in Normandy and the adjacent
countries, by the Lombardic school of William of Volpiano.
The question has often been put, Whence came the resources out of which
these, in many cases, magnificent churches of vast size, were built in
our island? The answer is--this mighty and strange impulse in church
building in England arose from a feeling among the Norman conquerors
that a terrible wrong had been inflicted by the Conquest upon the
Anglo-Saxon peoples, and to atone for the awful sin, the Norman nobles
and chiefs, their sons and heirs, who had forcibly entered into
possession of the conquered people’s lands and property, in many cases
erected these churches, abbeys, and monastic houses as _expiatory
offerings_ to Almighty God; they were intended as an atonement for the
grievous sin and wrong perpetrated in the Norman conquest of England.
This is no fanciful dream of an historian. The enormous confiscations
of King William have been computed as amounting to an almost incredible
number; 60,000 knights, it is said, received their fees, or rather
their livings, from the Conqueror. These numbers are no doubt
exaggerated, but it is certain that the race of Anglo-Danish and
English (Saxon) nobility, the Earls and the greater Thegns disappeared.
It is indisputable that there was an untold amount of bitter oppression
and cruel wrong inflicted by the Norman kings on the great masses of
Anglo-Saxon society, especially on its higher grades.
This was soon fully recognised. As early as A.D. 1072, a general
penance was decreed by the Norman prelates and confirmed by the
See of Rome, on all who had shared in the deeds which followed the
establishment of Duke William on the English throne. The chroniclers
Orderic,[14] Wace and Matthew Paris, with more or less detail, dwell
on King William’s penitence when dying, for the cruel wrong he and his
men-at-arms had done to conquered England.
The expression above used of these splendid piles in England is
therefore strictly accurate. They were in good truth in most part
“_Abbeys of Expiation_.”
To resume the story of Norman-Romanesque architecture: The following
is a list of some few of the principal English cathedrals and abbatial
churches erected in the very early years after the Norman occupation--
_Approximate date._ _By whom built._
A.D.
(Cathedral) Canterbury 1070-1077. Lanfranc, Prior of S. Etienne,
Caen.
(Abbey) St. Albans 1077-1088. Paul, Monk of S. Etienne,
Caen.
(Cathedral) Rochester 1077-1108. Gundulph, pupil of Lanfranc.
” Winchester 1079-1093. Walkelin, Monk of S.
Etienne, Caen.
” Ely 1083-1106. Simeon, Monk of S. Ouen,
Rouen.
(Abbey) Gloucester 1089-1100. Serlo, Monk of Mont S.
Michel, Normandy.
(Cathedral) Durham 1093-1183. William of S. Carileph,
formerly priest of Bayeux.
” Norwich 1096 Herbert of Losinga, Prior of
Fécamp.
(Abbey) Tewkesbury 1102-1123. (Probably copied from
Gloucester.)
” Southwell 1108. Guimond, Chaplain of Henry
I (Beauclerc).
” Oxford
(Christ Ch.) 1111.
” Peterborough } John, Abbot of Séez.
1114-1133-5-75. } Martin, Abbot of Bec.
The inspirer and leader of these Norman monk-architects of so many
of the great English churches was Lanfranc of Pavia, a monk of Bec
in Normandy, then Prior of S. Stephen, Caen, then Archbishop of
Canterbury. He rebuilt Canterbury Cathedral, 1070-1077, subsequently
much altered and in part rebuilt, but some of Lanfranc’s work still
remains.
To recapitulate. We have very briefly and somewhat roughly traced the
evolution of Romanesque from its beginnings in the first years of the
fourth century, when we date the “Renaissance” of the pre-classical
style which did away with the Entablature and the Greek features which
obscured the old pre-classical round-arch architecture.
The glory of the Ravenna school, which best represented this
“Renaissance” of the pre-classical style, came to an end when the
Lombards descended upon Italy--and became masters of Northern and part
of Central Italy.
But a remnant of the skill of the Ravenna and old Roman School of
architects was preserved by the so-called Comacine Guild,[15] who,
under the protection of the Lombard kings, again worked and built
during the two hundred years, or rather less, of the Lombard sway in
Italy.
Under Charlemagne, A.D. 774, a temporary and partial building impulse
in Dalmatia, Germany, and in Italy must be chronicled. Then darkness,
during about two hundred years, settled over Northern and Central
Europe.
During these two disturbed centuries (ninth and tenth), however, the
Comacine Guild, which had been employed by the Lombard sovereigns,
continued to work and to develop their “round-arch” style of Lombardic
architecture, at Milan and in other centres, of course more or less
fitfully, whenever a ruler arose who had breathing time to devote
himself to the fine arts, especially to architecture.
The Comacine Guild in this period addressed itself to the study of
vaulting construction, and to the art of counterbalancing the thrust of
the roof. The external buttress began to be more and more extensively
used. But the progress of vaulting large spaces, such as the naves of
important churches, was but slow.
In this dark and disturbed period one very notable feature, we might
almost term it “invention,” appeared in the Comacine school of
architecture. This was the addition of the Campanile or lofty Bell
Tower, attached or closely adjacent to the main building of the church.
The earliest dated appearance of this novel and notable feature seems
to have been at Milan about the middle of the ninth century, in the
Churches of San Satiro, and in the so-called Monks’ Tower of Sant
Ambrogio in Milan.
The Bell Tower, or Campanile, of San Satiro at Milan can fairly claim
to have been the prototype of the Lombard Campanile, the virtual
ancestor of the countless towers and steeples of the Middle Ages.
In the great Church revival of the third quarter of the tenth century,
the famous Monastery of Cluny sent out one of its brotherhood, the
Lombard Monk William of Volpiano, trained in the Lombard traditions of
the Comacine school, who rebuilt, on a magnificent scale, the Abbey
of S. Benignus at Dijon. Richard II, Duke of Normandy, sent for and
employed this William of Volpiano, who, with his pupils, during the
first half of the eleventh century, built a goodly number of churches
in Normandy and developed the Romanesque round-arch style of Lombardy
into Norman-Lombardic.
With the coming of Duke William the Conqueror, this Norman school of
Romanesque passed into England, where, as we have seen, under peculiar
circumstances of advantage, the Norman-Romanesque became a national and
distinct style, a perfectly independent development; and a vast number
of churches and abbeys, some of them of great size, arose in England
during the last quarter of the eleventh century and all through most of
the years of the twelfth.
The Norman-Romanesque in England, aided by almost inexhaustible
resources, and in the hands of brilliant and skilful architects, in
these years rose to the perfection of the Norman-Romanesque style,
and when no further progress seemed possible, the Romanesque passed
gradually into what is termed now--Gothic. Of this last evolution we
shall presently speak.
* * * * *
In England, during the years of the rule of William the Conqueror and
his sons and kinsmen, an almost innumerable number of Norman-Romanesque
churches, abbeys and cathedrals were built, as we have stated, all in
the round-arch Lombard style, many of them quite small village and
town churches; others of vast size and of great importance. It was
the old Lombard style, but it had grown imperceptibly into something
new and independent. The more important buildings were, indeed, on a
great scale, such as had not been dreamed of in the pioneer churches of
Normandy, the work of William of Volpiano and his school, the size of
which, with perhaps the solitary exception of the Abbey of Jumiéges,
was not excessive.
The Lombardic round-arch style in England still held its own, but the
variations were many: for example, the simple austere grandeur of St.
Albans was quite different from the more elaborate work of Norwich and
Lincoln. Winchester and Ely were purely Romanesque conceptions, but
they were utterly different from those we have just quoted. The small
and massive cylindrical piers of Malvern Abbey were again another
departure, and were more or less copied in many other churches,
some quite small, others greater, like Hereford Cathedral, and were
reproduced in Gloucester and Tewkesbury Abbeys by cylindrical piers
of enormous, almost of an exaggerated, height. The effect in these
varieties of English or Norman Romanesque is remarkable and different.
Durham, perhaps, is the most striking example of English Romanesque;
the result of William of S. Carileph’s design, this has been well
described as “a Church all glorious within, Presbytery, Lantern and
Nave unequalled in their stately and solemn majesty, the mighty
channelled piers avoiding a mere massiveness which seems to grovel upon
the earth, and avoiding, too, the attempt at an exaggerated soaring
height, such as we see in Gloucester and in Tewkesbury. No Romanesque
building in England, or beyond the sea, can compare with the matchless
pile of Durham.” It was never surpassed, and the perfected Romanesque
was not superseded by, but imperceptibly passed into “Gothic.”
That all the splendid network of Romanesque churches which rapidly
covered England directly after the Norman Conquest came from Norman
inspiration, a glance at the little list of notable English churches we
have given above will show.
For most of the original buildings, with scarcely an exception,
were designed and completed under the Norman kings by Norman
ecclesiastics--by men who came from Caen, Bayeux, Rouen, Fécamp, Séez,
Mont S. Michel, Bec-Herlouin, etc., pupils of, and belonging to,
the school founded by the Lombard-trained Monk of Cluny--William of
Volpiano.
One important special feature of the great Norman-Romanesque churches
of England must be referred to. In the planning of these buildings, at
the east end generally, a spacious ambulatory, or circumambient aisle,
was arranged.
This peculiar feature was not derived from Normandy, or from
the Romanesque school of Lombardy--the direct ancestor of the
Norman-Romanesque builders; but was derived from the original plan of
the great Pilgrim Church of S. Martin of Tours, originally built in
A.D. 472 by Bishop Perpetuus, and which was destroyed by fire in the
last year of the tenth century, and then rebuilt generally on the old
lines with great magnificence early in the eleventh century.
This comparatively novel feature of the Lombardo-Romanesque churches
was designed for the accommodation of pilgrims, who were thus enabled
to pass round the shrine of the saint, usually placed at the east
end of the church, without retracing their steps, thus obviating the
dangers attendant upon the excessive number of pilgrim visitors to the
shrine of the popular saint.
THE COMACINE SYMBOL OF THE INTERLACED LINE POPULARLY KNOWN AS
“SOLOMON’S KNOT”
“It would be difficult,” writes Leader Scott, in that curious and
interesting work _The Cathedral Builders_,[16] “to find any church or
sacred edifice, or even altar, of the Comacine work under the Lombards,
which is not signed, as it were, by some curious interlaced knot formed
of a singular tortuous line” (intreccio).
Now was this “endless knot,” which seems to have been the favourite
symbol of the Comacine builders, the heritage of a far-back tradition
dating from the days of the building the Temple of Jerusalem by King
Solomon? This question cannot be exhaustively or satisfactorily
answered; but the tradition is there, and is at least worthy of
consideration.
The “knot” in question, popularly termed “Solomon’s knot,” is an
unbroken line with neither end nor beginning, and which the Comacines,
as the centuries passed, developed into wonderful intrecci (interlaced
work). It was evidently a sign of the inscrutable and infinite ways
of God, whose nature is unity. The mysterious “Solomon’s Knot” was
an emblem of the manifold ways of the power of the one God, who has
neither beginning nor end.
It was copied, was this famous Comacine symbol, by the Byzantine
artists, but with this striking difference. In Byzantine work it was
reproduced rather for effect--viz. to get a plain surface well and
picturesquely covered. The Byzantine knots and scrolls are often
beautifully finished and clearly cut, but the _line_ is not continuous.
It is merely a pretty feature repeated over and over again, but it
has no suggestion of meaning such as was evidently in the mind of the
Comacine builders.
We can trace this strange knot of the Comacine builders back to the
early Christian Collegia of Rome, as we see by the “plutei” in S.
Clementi and S. Agnes, and on the door of a chapel in S. Prassede
(Rome), and through these early Christian Collegia of builders it was
transmitted to their successors, the Lombardic Comacine schools.
Leader Scott remarks that after the eleventh century the interlaced
work, or Solomon’s Knot, generally ceased to be the sign of Comacine
work, and the ancient sign or seal of the great Guild after this date
was commonly replaced by the “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” There was
scarcely a church after this date built by the Comacine Guild of
Masons, in which this “Lion of Judah” was not prominent.
[Illustration: “Solomon’s Knot,” composed of one strand. S. Ambrogio,
Milan.]
THE CAMPANILE OR BELL TOWER
It is to the Comacine builders of Lombardy that the Bell Towers,
afterwards so great a church feature in the Middle Ages, are owing.
Italy is rightly styled the birthplace of the Campaniles forming part
of the structure of a church, or rising close beside it. So these
Lombardic Campanile Towers were the ancestors, so to speak, of the
innumerable Bell Towers and steeples of the West, erected in the Middle
Ages.
The majestic Bell Tower, or Campanile of San Satiro at Milan, Rivoira
considers to have been the oldest example of such a structure. The
date of its erection was A.D. 876. The Campanile Towers of the ancient
churches of Ravenna, such as the Towers of Sant Apollinare Nuovo,
of Sant Apollinare in Classe, of San Giovanni Evangelista, must be
ascribed to a date much later than the original churches themselves.
The great Ravennese churches were built in the fifth and sixth
centuries; their Campanile Towers were only erected in the ninth and
tenth centuries.
The liturgical use of Bells can be traced as far back as the fifth
century. For the first three hundred years of the Christian era the
naturally secret and private exercise of the religion of Jesus of
course forbade any outward and visible sign of Christian gatherings,
such as the noise of bells. In Italy and the West the size and tone of
church bells became gradually more and more marked. Hence the Lombardic
invention, it may fairly be termed, of the important Bell Tower or
Campanile as a distinct feature in church building. The ninth century,
as we have stated, is probably the date of the first appearance of
these remarkable Campaniles.
In the near East, the use of church bells at all seems to have been
unknown before the ninth century; the first time we hear of them in
the East was late in that century, when a present of bells was sent to
the Emperor Basil in Constantinople by the Venetian Republic--and
even then, for some time, they were but little used, for as late as
A.D. 1200 the great Basilica of S. Sophia at Constantinople was without
them. In Syria they were not introduced before the end of the eleventh
century; they were no doubt brought into Eastern lands by the Crusaders
after the fall of Jerusalem.
[Illustration: S. Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna. Sixth Century. Showing
Campanile added in Tenth Century.]
In the few examples of early churches which can be quoted as possessing
one or two smaller towers, as was probably the case in certain of the
important early Ravennese Basilicas, notably in San Vitale, such small
towers were not intended for bells, but simply contained staircases.
Viollet le Duc in his long and exhaustive article on “Cloches”
especially calls attention to the fact that in the eleventh century
Normandy was remarkable for the number and dimensions of its church
bells and bell towers; but the famous French writer and scholar does
not seem aware of the reason for this marked feature in their churches.
They were evidently part of the Lombardic tradition brought into
Normandy by the great church builder William of Volpiano, the pupil
of the Lombard Comacine architects, the story of whose coming into
Normandy at the invitation of Duke Richard le Bon has been related in
detail above.
[Illustration: S. VITALE, RAVENNA.
Circa A.D. 526-547.]
ON BELLS
The Bell, however, was not unknown to the Greeks and Romans, but in
those far-back times it seems to have been, comparatively speaking, of
small dimensions.
Durandus, Bishop of Mende (Mimatensis), Languedoc, thirteenth
century--the great liturgical writer of the Middle Ages--in his
_Rationale Divinorum Officiorum_, has several pages devoted to the
symbolism of bells, much of which is most curious and interesting,
though, as usual with this learned writer, often not a little
fanciful. For instance, he tells us how he looks on bells as symbols
of preachers, who, after the manner of bells, are appointed to remind
the faithful of the “Faith.” The clapper, he says, represents the
preacher’s tongue, the wooden beam to which the bell is hung typifies
the Cross of our Lord.
Durandus considers that the bell was first invented at Nola, a city of
Campania, whence came the terms “Campanæ” for the larger bells, and
“Nolæ” for the smaller. Various other writers have adopted this curious
derivation, amongst others S. Anselm. But this must be considered
fanciful.
During the first three centuries, naturally bells would be unused in
Christian churches; as we have stated, quiet and privacy of worship
being in the ages of persecution, for all assemblies for Christian
worship, an indispensable condition.
They were, however, certainly used before the seventh century; there is
a tradition that Pope Sabinianus, A.D. 604, directed that a bell shall
be rung to give notice of the hours of the “offices.” Bells are alluded
to in the Rule of S. Benedict. Bede mentions them in England in the
eighth century.
But it was not until the period of the great revival of religion in
the eleventh century that the bell began to assume the position of
importance in the furniture of a church which we find it occupying in
the Middle Ages. The size of the bell gradually increased, and the care
bestowed on its casting became greater as the twelfth century advanced.
In the eleventh century we read, for instance, of a bell then
remarkable for its size, being presented to the Church of S. Agnan at
Orleans by King Robert of France. This bell, probably the largest then
known, weighed as much as 2,600 pounds.
As the Middle Ages advanced, the vogue of bells in churches became more
pronounced. There were few parish churches but possessed one or two
bells, or even more, while the abbeys and cathedrals continued to erect
towers to hang bells of various sizes and powers.
In the thirteenth century we find notices of bells of very considerable
size and importance. It was not, however, until the fifteenth century
that the bell attained to the vast dimensions we are accustomed to
associate with the more considerable of these popular and well-loved
instruments of music.
Gloucester Cathedral is singularly fortunate in the possession of some
very ancient bells of rare sweetness and power; one of these, “Great
Peter,” being of considerable size and importance.
This great mediæval bell has now bidden the citizens to prayer for
several hundred years.
Various ornaments, usually of a sacred character, were engraved on the
mediæval bells. More interesting, though, are the inscriptions, which
not unfrequently run round the bell.
The size, however, of the famous Great Peter in Gloucester Cathedral is
not comparable with other of the more celebrated bells now in use in
various parts of the world--as will be seen from the following table
setting forth the enormous weight of many of these great bells.
The largest of these--the Tsar Kolokol of Moscow--said to weigh
440,000 pounds, was never rung. It was broken apparently in the
casting--and is now used as a chapel.
Moscow, however, still boasts what probably is the greatest bell in the
world; its weight is 128 tons.
Of the other huge bells, we would enumerate--
_Weight._
The bell in the Kioto monastery in Japan 76 tons.
The Kaiser bell in the Cathedral of Cologne 25 ”
The chief bell in Notre Dame, Paris 17 ”
Big Ben in the Parliament Houses, London 13 ”
Amiens Cathedral--Its principal bell 11 ”
Great Tom, Oxford 7 ”
DATES
A few important approximate dates are given to illustrate this sketch
of Romanesque Architecture: The round-arch style. At Ravenna--then
among the Lombards--the Rise of the Lombardic-Norman school of
Romanesque builders, and the evolution of Gothic architecture.
_circa_ A.D.
The {_Diocletian_--Palace at Spalatro 300-305
glory {_Honorius_--Emperor of the West 393-423
of {_Galla Placidia_--(half-sister of Honorius) 408-451
Ravenna {_Theodoric_--the Ostrogothic king of Italy 493-526
{_Justinian_--Emperor of the East 527-565
{_Alboin_--The Lombard Conqueror 568
Lombardy {_Rotharis_--The Lombard King. His code
{ referring to privileges of Comacine
{ builders. 636-652
_Charlemagne_--Emperor. His conquest of
Lombardy. His Palace-chapel of Aachen 796-804
Pupil of
Comacine {_William of Volpiano_--Monk of Cluny.
builders { Invited by Duke Richard to Normandy 961-1031
_Lanfranc of Bec_--First Norman archbishop
of Canterbury. His works in Normandy
and England 1086
Rise and Progress in England of the
_Norman-Lombardic_ style
Eleventh century (last part),
twelfth century.
The “Coming” and “Rise” of the _Gothic_
style
Roughly in the second part of
the twelfth century. Its rapid
and general adoption in the
thirteenth century.
PASSING OF ROMANESQUE
We only propose to give a very short summary here; all we shall do is
to just sketch in a few memoranda which will throw light on the reasons
for the extraordinarily rapid transition from Romanesque to Gothic.
The early years of the twelfth century witnessed what we have termed
the perfected Romanesque style; the closing years of the same twelfth
century witnessed “the passing” of Romanesque (the round-arch mode) and
the almost universal substitution of a new style, generally known as
Gothic.
* * * * *
And first:--the term “Gothic,” now everywhere adopted as the expression
for that school of architecture which prevailed throughout the
countries of Northern Europe for some four centuries is a curious
misnomer.
The term “Gothic,” which was used certainly before the seventeenth
century, belongs to the Renaissance period, and was in the first
instance, strangely enough, regarded as a term of opprobrium.
Those who invented it were quite clear as to what they intended
by the expression. They meant it was something barbarous, because
non-classical; some believed it was actually invented by the Goths
who overthrew the Roman Empire. Evelyn, for instance, writes, that
“the ancient Greek and Roman architecture answered all the perfections
required in a faultless and accomplished building, and that the Goths
and Vandals demolished these, and introduced in their stead a certain
fantastical manner of building, congestions of heavy, dark, melancholy
monkish piles, without any just proportion, use or beauty.”[17]
But in time, men came to recognise the glory of what the Renaissance
devotees at first scoffed at; but the old term of opprobrium, “Gothic,”
remained; and now is universally used to express that splendid school
of mediæval architecture which arose out of Romanesque and prevailed
for so long a period; the beauty and fitness of which, perhaps somewhat
tardily, all the Northern nations have come to recognise with an
ungrudging, at times possibly even with an exaggerated admiration.
After all, the leading writers on architecture have come to the
conclusion that, different though the Gothic schools are to the
Romanesque, they are but one style--_Gothic is simply perfected
Romanesque_. “L’architecture Gothique n’est que la perfectionnement
de celle qu’on appelle Romane,” wrote Enlart. Gothic, as Mr. Bond
expresses it, “has not supplanted Romanesque, but is its supreme
result, the last stage in its development, its apogee, consummation and
accomplishment.” So, too, De Lasterie defines “Gothic.”
To sum up certain of the new principles of Gothic architecture. The
walls of the Gothic buildings became much slighter--thinner; these
walls no longer acted as the thrusts which counteracted the weight of
the stone vaults which had become gradually more generally used even
in Romanesque buildings, but the weight or thrusts of these stone
vaults were stopped by buttresses. In other words, Gothic architecture
has been with some justice defined as the art of erecting buttressed
buildings.
The principal outward and visible sign of Gothic architecture,
however, was the _pointed arch_. This novel feature, and much of the
ornamentation which was rapidly introduced, no doubt came from the
East, and must be referred largely to the influence of the _Crusades_;
it was, no doubt, borrowed through acquaintance with Saracenic work in
Egypt and Syria. These strange Crusading wars had opened a new world of
Art to the Western nations.
The pointed arch was no new feature in the East. As early as A.D. 879
the great Mosque of Tulun had pointed arcades. The principal gateway
of the palace of Ctesiphon (fifth century) is pointed. The pointed
arch appears in the great aqueduct near Constantinople of the time of
Justinian. In many districts in the East it had been for centuries as
much the normal form as the round-arch in Europe.
But other outward and visible signs characterised Gothic architecture,
which supplanted Romanesque.
Gothic windows became much larger; there was a desire to obtain
more light in the churches than had been possible to obtain through
the smaller Romanesque windows. These were necessarily small and
comparatively inconspicuous for two reasons: the one was, the
Romanesque builders trusted, as we have seen, to the vast thickness of
their walls to counteract the weight or thrust of the roofs and the
upper portions of the buildings, and dreaded any unnecessary weakening
of these massive walls by the introduction of large windows.
The other main reason for the smallness of the Romanesque windows was
the preciousness and cost of glass in the tenth, the eleventh, and
preceding centuries. Glass in the second half of the twelfth century
became a much cheaper and less costly material. Then, too, the rapid
progress in the art of stained and painted glass in that same century
demanded for the display of this new and beautiful art, larger and ever
larger windows. The artists in glass painting were no longer content
with the small and cramped Romanesque windows, and the general passion
for painted glass at once compelled the builders to devise without
delay larger spaces in the walls for the display and exercise of the
art.
The new large Gothic windows became at once a conspicuous and
distinctive feature in the new school. The general introduction of the
buttress feature superseded the necessity of depending on the thickness
and massiveness of the walls, thus permitting the larger openings that
are required for the larger Gothic windows.
* * * * *
The pointed arch brought in its train many novel decorations as well
as new constructive features. A new system of mouldings and other
ornaments was gradually worked out in the last quarter of the twelfth
and even in the earlier years of the thirteenth century.
The massive piers of Romanesque architecture were exchanged for
clustered pillars, detached or banded, and crowned with elaborate
capitals.
But perhaps one of the most conspicuous changes in the new style was,
after all, the beautiful and elaborate tracery which supported and
adorned the new windows, ever increasing in size and importance. The
old Romanesque windows, small and inconspicuous, were supplanted by the
great windows which soon distinguished the new Gothic school, and these
windows soon became what is termed traceried windows. The necessary
supports of these, known as transoms and mullions, were worked into new
and beautiful forms, usually called “Decorated Tracery”; these were
divided into geometrical, curvilinear, or flowing tracery, but we avoid
in this very short sketch of “Gothic” such technical terms, and simply
call attention to certain of the new important features here, which
mark the substitution of Gothic for Romanesque form--and term them
generally _traceried windows_.
Later, in England, the more elaborate earlier window tracery was
abandoned, and the simpler rectilinear tracery was generally adopted,
and a new style of Gothic, known as the “Perpendicular,” became the
vogue in our Island.
* * * * *
On reading over the above brief notes on Gothic Architecture, the
writer, while conscious that the few details above given were, as
far as they went, strictly accurate--felt that something more was
wanting--if only a few words--which might suggest that there was a
deep inner meaning in Gothic architecture. To express this, some
reference must be made to France and the great French church builders;
for France--especially the “Domaine Royale”--l’Ile de France--was the
native country, the original home of the Gothic school.
The early French Gothic masters in the craft looked upon the building
of churches as the most serious of arts, and, as it has been well
expressed, the churches they planned were to be “the centre of the
life of men, and compared with them, man himself and all his worldly
affairs was counted as nothing; their purpose was to provide a place of
worship, when worship was held to be the highest function of men, and
the problem they set themselves to solve was to make a place worthy of
the God to be worshipped.”
The same lofty purpose without doubt inspired the Gothic masters in
England and other western countries, though their designs somewhat
differed from the great French architects on whose methods and planning
we are just now dwelling, as presenting in some respects a marked
contrast with the methods and planning of the English Gothic architects.
Now, a most prominent characteristic feature of the grand Gothic
cathedrals of France was their exceeding height; to attain this no
sacrifice was too great. It has been accurately remarked that the
matchless sublimity of the interior of a noble French Cathedral was
purchased at the sacrifice of the exterior. And the architects, as
time went on, made their churches higher and ever higher.
Again, to quote another’s words:[18] “The interior sublimity of a
French cathedral seems to be a triumphant defiance of the attraction
of gravity. We know that the slender shafts that soar so straight
and high, could not support the vault; but _outside_ there is no
concealment of the manner in which it is upheld. Indeed the outside,
for all its beauty, is _the wrong side_ of a French cathedral, and is,
as it were, a mass of permanent scaffolding to keep all the stones of
the interior in their places ... and it is, and it looks a complex mass
of straining effort, as the interior looks an effortless miracle.” The
innumerable flying buttresses carrying the thrust of the lofty vault
to the huge buttresses of the aisles, and so to the ground, have been
somewhat quaintly termed “walls standing in slices at right angles to
the building which they support but do not enclose, seeming to push and
thrust with all their power to keep up the enormous height; all this is
very wonderful and beautiful, but it leaves a sense of constant effort
to overcome difficulties.”
“What a difference is there in the peace of the long low English
cathedral with its insignificant buttresses and unambitious lines ...
and, except for the upward pointing of its central tower or spire,
seemingly content to remain on earth.”[19]
One of the chief beauties of the Choir of Gloucester is its
exceptional “soaring” height, which in common with Westminster Abbey
and York, follows the example of the great French cathedrals, though
at a great distance, it must be confessed, from the lofty height aimed
at and attained in such churches as the Cathedrals of Bourges and
Chartres, Amiens, Notre Dame of Paris and Beauvais.
Again, each of the sublime interiors of the Gothic cathedrals of France
were, as a rule, the design of one mind--and that of a master-mind.
They have been roughly but not inaccurately described as “all of a
piece,” as the result of one great effort. “These glorious interiors,
each possessing a wonderful unity or harmony, the result of a great and
original idea conceived and carried out throughout by one individual
genius. For most of the mighty cathedrals in France show a closely
reasoned design, and the result presents a marvellous temple for
worship.
“Very different indeed are the English Gothic cathedrals; we see
here no continuous design, no single idea; we are sensible of no one
mighty impulse which in France, sweeping ruthlessly away all that had
gone before, planned to raise a building complete and harmonious all
through.”
For the English builders, on the other hand, preserved all that had
gone before, however imperfect in their eyes, and added here, and
changed there, content to suffice for the needs and ideas of the
present, “with no sign of anxious ambition for the future; incapable
of perfection, because began and ended incessantly, and always
without continuous design, yet breathing out an indescribable charm
of sympathy almost human in its loving reverence for the results of
all past human effort.” Gloucester Cathedral is an admirable example
of this loving conservative spirit; with its massive _Romanesque_
Nave, its “_decorated_” South Aisle, its superb aery _Perpendicular_
Choir, partly veiling, it is true, but not destroying the work of
bygone Norman builders; its graceful and exquisite Perpendicular Lady
Chapel--the last addition to this great pile--being perfectly different
to any other part of the cathedral.
* * * * *
The Gothic builders of France believed, that in raising the interior
of their cathedrals to that wonderful height on which successive
generations have gazed with awe and admiration, they had found
something of the secret of inspiring the worshippers with the feeling
that they were indeed worshipping in a Holy House almost worthy of
the God they sought; nor were they content with their earlier noble
efforts, but kept making their soaring churches, as they built them,
higher and ever higher.
The climax of this strain and restless striving was reached in the
middle of the thirteenth century, when Eudes de Montreuil, the
architect of S. Louis, designed the “splendid folly,” as men love to
style it, of Beauvais; there a choir was built higher than any in the
world, and with the slenderest support that had ever yet been seen.
It was finished in about thirty years, and twelve years later the vault
fell, making a ruin of the whole church, _circa_ A.D. 1284. This superb
choir--for the nave was never built--can still be seen and wondered at;
the ruin has been skilfully and cleverly repaired, and new supports
have been devised, and though the original design is sadly marred and
altered, it tells us of that master-mind “who, greatly daring, had
planned the mighty structure complete and harmonious, the absolute
expression of an ideal of future perfection, but forced to remain
incomplete at the last, for the architect longed for the impossible.”
True artist, in spite of his failure, for he aimed at expressing a
something higher than himself, which should draw up in sympathy with
him all that was best and noblest in those around him. “But Beauvais
was a structural impossibility, and the ideal of Beauvais was beyond
his reach, and the mighty remains of its solitary choir tells a story
of mistaken enterprise and wasted heroism.” It is truly a dream of
heaven--but alas! it is only a dream.
THE TRIFORIUM
The question is often asked by a stranger, as he wanders through an
English cathedral, wondering at the size and striking appearance of the
great Triforium or Gallery--for instance, the immense Triforium in the
Choir of Gloucester. What is the meaning and use of this vast gallery?
Has it any story or tradition attached to it?
The derivation of the word Triforium is uncertain. The date of the word
is unknown, it is not of great antiquity, but probably belongs to the
mediæval period. That the Triforium of the great Anglo-Norman piles was
used in pre-Reformation times in the ritual of the Church apparently
for processions and the like, is clear from the several chapels
which lead out of it, and from the easy access to it by fairly broad
staircases on either side.
But such an occasional use is not by any means sufficient to account
for the presence of so important an adjunct in the planning of the
church.
Now what is the true story of its existence in so many of our great
churches?
And first, as to the derivation and meaning of the word “Triforium.”
Some scholars think it can be traced to the post-classical term
“transforare,” to pierce through. Here, for instance, it is said to
have pierced through the wall. “Opus triforiatum” was applied to
perforated work of various kinds, such as in lock plates, etc.
It is, however, something more than a passage in the thickness of the
wall which the above derivation, if it be adopted, would seem to
suggest. But it has a history which is very generally unknown.
The true secret of the Triforium is as follows: Far back in the annals
of Christianity we know that generally in the churches built by
Justinian in the sixth century in Constantinople, Thessalonica, and
in other populous centres, a large and separate place was arranged
for the women worshippers. In important churches such as the Church
of the Holy Apostles and the Basilica of S. Sophia at Constantinople,
a great gallery was constructed, exclusively for women; this gallery
was reached by stairs leading from the narthex (the narthex was a long
porch or ante-church, extending all across the west front). Where
there was no narthex, or gallery, the women were still separated; they
then sat on one side of the nave and the men on the other. The women’s
gallery was usually known as the gynæconitis or matronium. It can be
seen still, a very prominent object in the desecrated Mosque of S.
Sophia. This women’s gallery, so universal and so important a feature
in the greater churches of the East, became in time the Triforium, so
marked an arrangement in the Norman-Romanesque churches of England.[20]
The women’s gallery in its original purpose belonged exclusively to the
East, where the sexes were separated.
In the West, no such custom prevailed. In the West, as a rule, there
was no separation of the sexes. The custom of the Latin Church adopted
no such separation.
This fact is curiously confirmed in the planning of the churches of
the West; no women’s gallery, or Triforium (to use the later coined
word), save perhaps occasionally in a very diminutive form, appears in
the abbeys and churches of Aquitaine, Provence, or Auvergne. The same
may be said generally of the churches in all the southern and central
provinces of Gaul (France).
Of these Western churches, where as a rule we rarely find an important
“Triforium,” a notable exception may be quoted in the celebrated
Palace-chapel of Aix-la-Chapelle, now the cathedral. But this was
erected by Charlemagne and largely designed after S. Vitale at Ravenna,
a church in great part modelled under Byzantine influences.
A still more notable exception is the vast Cathedral of Tournai
with its Romanesque Nave. It has the very large Triforium of the
Norman-Romanesque churches; and above it, again, there is a little
gallery.
The same absence of the Triforium feature is observable in Italy,
save where the building was erected under Byzantine or Eastern
influences--as S. Mark’s, Venice, which is to some extent a copy of S.
Vitale at Ravenna. S. Vitale largely followed the plan of SS. Sergius
and Bacchus built at Constantinople by Justinian before the erection of
S. Sophia. There is another striking tradition connected with S. Mark’s
at Venice, which relates how this magnificent church was a copy of the
Emperor Justinian’s vanished Church of the Holy Apostles, which was
designed to act as the Mausoleum of the Byzantine Emperors.
This Constantinopolitan Basilica of “the Apostles” certainly contained
great galleries for women worshippers, probably similar to those still
existing in S. Sophia.
* * * * *
[Illustration: The Triforium of Gloucester Cathedral, looking into the
Choir. XI, XII, XIV Centuries.]
But among the important Western churches, strangely enough, when we
come to the Anglo-Norman Romanesque abbeys and cathedrals of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Triforium gallery, so exclusively
an Eastern feature, reappears; indeed a great Triforium is positively
a characteristic feature in Norman-Romanesque work in England--the
Cathedrals of Ely, Peterborough, Norwich, Southwell, Winchester,
Durham, and the Triforium of the famous Choir of Gloucester, may be
cited as conspicuous examples.
It is hard to explain this striking reappearance of a great Triforium
gallery. It is absolutely, as far as we can see, of no possible use,
for, different to the East, as we have observed, in the West the
sexes are not separated in divine worship; and a gallery for women,
therefore, was never required.
What was in the mind here of the great Anglo-Norman builders of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries when they arranged a Triforium gallery
in their churches is really unknown to us. Was is simply a graceful
and striking ornamental architectural device, to enhance the beauty of
the interior of these great churches? This it undoubtedly does. Was it
any way connected with the visits of pilgrims, so notable a practice
in these centuries? Was it in some way intended to multiply the
interest of their visit, by providing them with a larger and far more
extended procession round and about the church? Something of this kind
possibly may account for the strange reappearance of a great Triforium
gallery in buildings, for the most part resorted to by great crowds of
pilgrims, when the original purpose of a Triforium no longer existed.
That the growing passion for pilgrimage was considered in the planning
of these vast Anglo-Norman abbeys and minsters is indisputable, for
we find in the design of important abbeys such as Gloucester a large
ambulatory or processional aisle, introduced as a prominent feature
in these great churches. Such an aisle was doubtless designed for
the convenience of pilgrims who frequently thronged these piles.
The Triforium gallery possibly, then, was introduced in view of
these crowds of pilgrims. We cannot, however, at all pronounce for
a certainty that this was the main reason for its introduction in
the North and West--quite an unaccustomed feature, but which at once
strikes the eye in the Anglo-Norman minsters.
It is an unexplained difficulty, and must be left with these
interesting but scarcely satisfactory suggestions.
* * * * *
To sum up: When the great Triforium of an Anglo-Norman cathedral
is wondered at, and the question is asked, When was this striking
portion of the church first designed, and what was the original purpose
which it was intended to serve; and to what uses was it ever put? the
inquirer must be told at once to carry his thoughts back to the age
of the Emperor Justinian, perhaps somewhat earlier, when the great
churches of Constantinople and Salonica were planned and built, when
in the planning of these churches a great gallery was designed for the
_exclusive use_ of the women worshippers. It was in such a gallery, at
S. Sophia, where the Empress Theodora sat and listened when Chrysostom
preached, and denounced with his fiery eloquence the vices of the court
and society of his age.
This was undoubtedly the origin of the Triforium in Eastern churches
which now excites the wonder of the inquirer as to what purpose it
was designed and used for. Then the inquirer must be reminded that in
the West and North--in Gaul and Italy, indeed throughout the Latin
Church--where, different to the Eastern Church, no separation of the
sexes was contemplated--no Triforium gallery was, as a rule, planned.
It is true that in the important Anglo-Norman cathedrals and abbeys
this ancient oriental feature again made its appearance.
But for what special purpose that great school of Norman-Romanesque
builders again brought back this striking feature when they planned
their mighty piles, will probably for ever remain an undiscovered
secret.
* * * * *
On the unexplained secret of the reappearance of the Triforium gallery
in certain of the great mediæval churches of the West, notably in the
Anglo-Norman Romanesque piles of the eleventh and twelfth centuries--a
very remarkable suggestion appears in Mr. Edward Hutton’s eloquent work
on Ravenna.
He is describing the great Romanesque Basilica of S. Apollinare Nuovo,
the work of Theodoric, the Ostro-Gothic king.
The Mosaics, probably in large part the work of the artists of
Justinian, are of an extraordinary and exceptional beauty. They
represent upon both sides, through the whole length of the nave, as
it were, two long processions of saints--on the one side a procession
of Martyrs--some twenty-five figures (men), SS. Clement, Sixtus,
Laurence, Cyprian, etc.; on the other side a procession of Virgin
Martyrs--Pelagia, Agatha, Eulalia, Cecilia, etc., some twenty-one
figures. Mr. Edward Hutton writes here “that there is nothing in
Christendom to compare with these Mosaics; they are unique, and, as I
like to think, in their wonderful significance are the key to a mystery
which has for long remained unsolved.
“For these long processions of saints, representing that great crowd of
witnesses, of which S. Paul speaks, stand there above the arcade and
under the clerestory where in a Gothic church the triforium is set. But
the triforium is the one inexplicable and seemingly useless feature of
a Gothic building. It seems to us, in our ignorance of the mind of the
Middle Age, of what it took for granted, to be there simply for the
sake of beauty, to have no use at all.
“But what if this church in Ravenna, the work indeed of a very
different school and time, but springing out of the same spiritual
tradition, should hold the key?
“What if the triforium of a Gothic church should have been built as it
were for a great crowd of witnesses--the invisible witnesses of the
Everlasting Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Calvary, the Sacrifice of the
Mass?
“It is not only in the presence of the living, devout or half
indifferent, that that great Sacrifice is offered through the
world, yesterday, to-day and for ever, but be sure in the midst of
the chivalry of heaven, a multitude that no man can number, none the
less real because invisible, among whom one day we too are to be
numbered--not for the living only, but for the whole Church men offer
that Sacrifice, _pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et
incolumitatis suæ--Memento etiam Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum
qui nos præcesserunt cum signo fidei et dormiunt in somno pacis_....
Here in S. Apollinare, at any rate, for ever they await the renewal of
that moment.
“Those marvellous figures that appear in ghostly procession upon the
walls of S. Apollinare in Ravenna are really indescribable; they
must be seen, if the lovely significance of their beauty is to be
understood. What can one say of them?”
* * * * *
Mr. Hutton alludes to the Triforium of a _Gothic_ church, but this
unexplained and strange feature of the Triforium in the West reappeared
in the great early Anglo-Norman Romanesque piles--in the Choir of
Gloucester and in many others.
The _Gothic_ churches, where such a Triforium exists, have simply
copied their Anglo-Norman predecessors.
The author of this work by no means must be thought to endorse the
above singular explanation of the “secret” of the Triforium which so
strangely reappeared in certain of the churches of the West. But he
judged it fitting to quote here the striking and remarkable words of
the author of _Ravenna_. He cannot, however, recall any quotation from
a mediæval writer in support of the theory in question. It is to him a
perfectly novel thought--a thought at once strange and haunting--and
here as an interesting and novel suggestion he must leave it.
[Illustration: S. APOLLINARE NUOVO, RAVENNA.
Circa A.D. 519.]
THE LADY CHAPEL
The date of the first appearance in the Eastern Church of the mediæval
estimate of the Virgin Mother is uncertain. In the Latin or Western
Church the development of Mariolatry, as it has been termed, was
somewhat slower than in Eastern Christianity, but, as we shall see, it
became eventually even more accentuated in the West than in the East.
All signs of this exalted estimate of the Virgin Mary are notoriously
absent in the New Testament books, and when a new feeling as to the
position of the blessed Virgin appeared in the oldest liturgies of the
Church, it was of a nature widely different from the mediæval estimate
of Mary. To take a well-known example. In the very ancient liturgy of
S. John Chrysostom, still in use in the Eastern Church, the Virgin Mary
is prayed for. In this venerable liturgy we read: “We offer unto Thee
(God the Father) this reasonable service for the faithful dead, our
forefathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles ... martyrs and confessors,
but especially for our most holy, immaculate and blessed Lady the
Mother of God and ever Virgin, Mary.”
This most ancient liturgy, in the form we now find it, has without
doubt been altered and added to since the days of Chrysostom in the
latter years of the fourth century, but certainly not in the direction
of lowering the position of the Virgin, a position which in the
teaching of the Eastern Church grew more and more definitely exalted
as the ages passed, till such a place of eminence was ascribed to her,
that no loftier one, _outside the blessed Trinity_, is conceivable.
Similar testimony is given in the ancient liturgies of SS. Basil,
Gregory Nazianzus, and Cyril.
Very exalted indeed was the estimation in which the Virgin Mary was
held in the Eastern Church as early as in the first half of the sixth
century, when in the great building age of the Emperor Justinian many
noble churches arose, dedicated to the “Mother of God.” In the seventh
century the Emperor Heraclius blazoned the Virgin Mary on his banner
of war. To the tutelar protection of the Virgin, Constantinople looked
against the Saracens.
In the Western or Latin Church, as we have said, the development of
Mariolatry was somewhat slower, still as early as the time of Gregory
the Great, early in the seventh century, the honour paid to the Virgin
Mother in Christian worship became more and more accentuated.
The state and influence of the blessed dead, at a comparatively early
period, occupied the minds of Christian teachers. Such glorified human
beings after a time began to be looked upon as powerful intercessors
at the Throne of Grace for those still on earth. As S. Bernard of
Clairvaux expresses it, “They who have come out of great tribulation,
shall they not recognise those who still continue in it?”
Gradually the numbers of these glorified Saints became multiplied and
even well-nigh deified. These blessed ones having been human, were
conceived as still endowed with human sympathies, and were looked upon
as more accessible to human prayer and supplication than the three
co-eternal Persons of the Trinity in their unapproachable solitude
and awful majesty. In a way, these glorified Saints intercepted the
worship of the ever blessed Trinity, and to them, rather than _through_
them, in time prayer was addressed.
High above this host of Saints was seated the Queen of Heaven, for to
this strange position, dating certainly from the days of Gregory the
Great in the West, the Virgin was gradually raised.
Still it was not until the eve of the wonderful awakening of Church
life in the West, toward the close of the eleventh century, that the
cult of the Virgin attained the strange prominence which it maintained
all through the later Middle Ages. Very lofty indeed was the place
ascribed to the Virgin Mother, but something yet was needed, however,
in the form of a great popular movement to introduce into the every-day
life of the people this strange cult which so powerfully influenced the
Christianity of the Middle Ages.
This great impulse was given by the Crusades, those marvellous
religious wars which took so mighty a hold of the popular imagination
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It came about in this fashion.
Chivalry, at least the religious aspect which chivalry assumed in all
its acts, language and ceremonies, may be said to have been the result
of the Crusades, for before the Crusades, chivalry, if it existed at
all, appears to have had no special reference to religion. But war was
now sanctified by religion, and men were taught that the noblest end to
which they could dedicate their lives was the rescue of the Redeemer’s
sepulchre at Jerusalem from the hands of the infidel conquerors, the
disciples of the false prophet Mahommed.
The inescapable duty of a Christian knight was self-devotion for
others, especially for the defenceless and weak; thus courtesy to and
protection of the weaker sex became the imperative duty, as well as the
privilege of knighthood. “The love of God and the ladies was enjoined
as the paramount duties in the teaching of chivalry. Thus was formed
that strange amalgam of religious and military feeling which was formed
around women in the age of chivalry which was, in fact, the age of the
Crusades, and which no succeeding change of habit or belief has wholly
destroyed.”[21]
“There was one Lady of whom, high above and beyond all, every knight
was the vowed servant, the Virgin Mother of that blessed Saviour,” the
rescue of whose sacred sepulchre was the primary object of the Crusades.
Thus the adoration of the Virgin, long inculcated by theologians,
became popularised among the Crusaders of varied ranks and orders, and
through them, among all Western peoples who, during the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, supplied the vast armies of the Cross; and this
popular devotion to the Virgin continued to grow through the Middle
Ages, till it influenced and coloured Christian worship in all the
countries of Western Christendom.
“And so it came to pass that religious chivalry, that strange outcome
of the Crusades, seemed to array the Christian world as the Church
militant of the Virgin, and it was to her that the knight looked
especially for success in battle. From the soldier to the people was
but a little step, and very soon this sentiment of adoration became
universal. The Redeemer passed gradually into a more remote and
awful Godhead; the Virgin Mary seemed a nearer, a more familiar and
sympathetic object of adoration.”
Soon every cathedral and abbey, every important church had its “Mary”
Chapel. Hymns were written and everywhere sang in her honour. Liturgies
in which her name was the principal feature were introduced. Manuals of
private and of public devotion, in which the name of Mary the Mother of
the Lord was conspicuous above every name, were copied and recopied in
every monastic Scriptorium or Cloister. A new and startling theological
adoration was thus generally added to all popular Christian teaching.
“The incommunicable attributes of the Godhead were even assigned to
Mary. She was positively represented as sitting between the Cherubim
and Seraphim, as commanding by her maternal influence, if not by her
authority, her Eternal Son. The idea of the ‘Queen of Heaven’ became
a familiar one in popular theology.” This new devotion was largely
called into being, as we have shown, by the influence of the Crusades,
and showed the mighty hold it had obtained over the popular mind in
the erection and lavish adornment of those often splendid and costly
shrines known as the Lady Chapels, of which the splendid annexe at
the east end of Gloucester Cathedral is a conspicuous and well-known
example. This Lady Chapel may even be cited as the crowning instance
of this outward and visible sign of the strange novel cult, as we
might venture to term it. The Lady Chapel of Gloucester was one of the
_last_ great examples of these new additions to the great churches of
the mediæval period, for the years which witnessed its completion were
the years which historians consider closed the long and many-coloured
story of the Middle Ages.
* * * * *
We resume our sketch of the progress of the Cult of the Virgin.
In the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries Mariolatry
received another vast impulse through the teaching of the great and
popular mendicant orders of S. Francis and S. Dominic. One of the most
interesting chapters in mediæval Church history is filled with the
story of the “coming” of the new orders of mendicant Friars, among
whom the Franciscan and Dominican were by far the most numerous and
influential. Widespread was the influence exercised by these Friars
over the masses of the people.
And in the teaching of both these great communities the Virgin Mary
occupied a peculiar and lofty position. Exalted as was the position
claimed by the Franciscans for Mary; if possible the Dominicans
professed a yet greater devotion to the blessed Virgin, whom the
disciples of Dominic even were pleased to regard as the special
protectress of their famous Order. According to a well-loved tradition
of their schools, it was Mary herself who revealed to S. Dominic that
form of prayer known as the “Rosary” which from the years 1212-1215
became alike among rich and poor the popular badge of Catholic
devotion--“The ‘Rosary,’ that curious and novel form of prayer, with
the refrain ‘Ave Maria’ (Hail, Mary) repeated again and again. A
prayer which has maintained in Roman Catholic countries its wonderful
popularity down to our own days and times, and which perhaps has
done more to perpetuate the popular cult of her whom Roman Catholic
teachers, with an insistence pathetic as it is historically baseless,
love to term the ‘Queen of Heaven’ than all the rhapsodies of mystics,
or learned treatises of doctors or authoritative pronouncements of the
See of Rome.”
But this novel form of Christian dogma, with its ever-multiplying
developments, it must be confessed, excited even in the hearts of some
of the most ardent devotees of the New Cult, now and again qualms
and hesitations--for instance, Bernard of Clairvaux in the middle of
the twelfth century--the glory of the Cistercian Order, one of the
most influential and loved monks that ever lived, whilst professing
the deepest tenderness towards, and affection and admiration for
the Mother of his Lord, wrote in a spirit of indignant remonstrance
against the doctrine of the “Immaculate conception of the Virgin” which
in the twelfth century had already been suggested for acceptation.
“Are we more instructed,” wrote S. Bernard, “or more devout than the
fathers?... It is perilous presumption in us, when their prudence in
such things is exceeded. The Royal Virgin needs no fictitious honours.”
Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Bonaventura, denied this
doctrine, or at least hesitated before adopting it.[22]
* * * * *
The testimony of _Art_ to this strange development in Christian
doctrine is striking and instructive. Art, it must be remembered, is
ever the expression of popular opinion. Outside the Catacomb pictures
which here are indeed few in number and very simple, and give no
support whatever to the lofty mediæval conceptions of Mary;[23] the
earliest representations of the Virgin are found in ancient Christian
sarcophaguses; there the Virgin, when she is represented at all,
occupies a place less prominent than that given to the Apostles. A
conspicuous position is only accorded to her in the Western Church,
towards the eighth and ninth centuries, when the Crucifixion began to
be a popular subject in the design of ornamentation. The Virgin is
depicted in these scenes at the foot of the Cross on the right side, S.
John occupying a similar place on the left.
But in the twelfth century, a marked change in Art appears in the
presentment of the Virgin. Dating from about the year 1140, Mary
becomes a prominent figure in sculpture and in painted glass; she now
appears commonly seated on a throne and wearing a crown, but ever
holding on her knees the infant Saviour. In her right hand she often
holds a sceptre. An aureole of glory surrounds her head and the head of
the Child Christ. No doubt this new fashion of representing Mary was
borrowed from the Greek and Byzantine pictures and sculptures, of which
a large number were brought from the East by returning Crusaders. Still
in these early representations, the Child Christ remains the principal
figure, and He is depicted on His mother’s knees in the attitude of
blessing with an outstretched little hand.
But a change even here is soon observable. In the thirteenth century,
save in a scene picturing the adoration of the Magi, the Virgin is
rarely depicted in a sitting posture with the Child Christ in her
arms. She now generally appears standing, crowned and triumphant; if
she holds the Child in her arms, it is simply to mark the source and
origin of the power and authority which she is evidently portrayed as
exercising. But emphatically in these thirteenth century and later
statues and glass pictures, she is the central figure, and to her,
not to the Divine Child, is adoration unmistakably offered and prayer
addressed. Very different indeed from the humble and grief-stricken
Mary of the seventh and eighth centuries kneeling with S. John at the
foot of the Cross, is the crowned and sceptred Queen of the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries; her head encircled with an aureole of glory,
accepting the devout homage of Christian worshippers, and listening to
their supplications addressed to her.
It is thus during the thirteenth and two following centuries, she
appears in unnumbered instances, alike in jewelled window as on the
carved porch of the house of God, unmistakably, as the popular hymns
and liturgies were everywhere teaching, “the Queen of Heaven.”
[Illustration: Annexe to Gloucester Cathedral--The Lady Chapel, XV
Century--showing the little South Transept and the square east end.]
_An Appendix on two remarkable Architectural Features in the Lady
Chapel of Gloucester._
In the Lady Chapel of Gloucester there are two remarkable features
which have, I believe, generally escaped attention. The stranger
standing on the grass lawn which forms the outside pavement of the
cathedral, perhaps notices that the east end of the great Lady Chapel
is _square_--rectangular; and looking down the pile perceives two small
transepts; then as the eye travels down the great building beyond the
Lady Chapel, it is again arrested by two more transepts of far greater
size.
There is a special interest in these peculiar features, especially
in the _square_ east end; they have a story of their own. The great
majority of the great English churches, it is well known, are not
apsidal, or circular at the east end, but _square_, and it would seem
that some very ancient tradition must be at the root of that striking
English feature. Now we have good reason to believe that the majority
of ancient British churches were so constructed. In Ireland a few
very ancient little churches or oratories are still with us; some of
these without doubt date from the fifth century, that is, from the
days when Ireland was first Christianised from Britain; they therefore
undoubtedly represent the type of church architecture common in Britain
before the coming and subsequent havoc of the North-folk invaders, in
the fifth and sixth centuries--the Saxon, the Engle and the Jute.
Without exception these very early little Irish churches, or oratories,
are _square-ended_, not apsidal or semi-circular ended. They evidently
represent an independent Christian tradition, something quite
different to the Basilican, especially Italian tradition of an apsidal
or semi-circular end. The conclusion then forced upon us is that
Christianity came originally to this Island from another centre than
Rome or Italy.
This square-ended form for churches, impressed upon Britain by
unknown missionaries, is of immemorial antiquity. The teaching has
never been forgotten, but has, through all the changing fortunes of
the Church in our Island, remained the English favourite form. We will
briefly trace its remarkable story.
The first period of the existence of the Church in Britain may be dated
roughly from some time in the second century, and may be said to have
lasted until the coming of the North-folk in the middle of the fifth
century. (The exact date of the first preaching of Christianity in
Britain is unknown.) Ireland received the faith from Britain somewhere
about A.D. 397, and judging from the invariable square east end form of
the early Irish churches, and oratories, we may assume that the British
churches (these have all[24] disappeared owing to the sweeping havoc of
the Northmen invaders), like their daughter Irish churches, must have
been, as a rule, square-ended.
There were, however, it is certain, some rare exceptions to this rule,
for when Christianity after A.D. 313 became the recognised religion
of the Empire, in some centres in Britain the churches of the Roman
colonists and officials were built on the Basilican mode of the great
capital of the Roman world, with apsidal or semi-circular sanctuaries.
An example of such an exception has been lately discovered in the
purely Roman city of Silchester (near Reading), built in the fourth
century especially for Roman provincials and officials. The little
Silchester church, as might have been expected, has an apsidal or
semi-circular end.
The second period of the Church in Britain may be dated from the
arrival of Augustine from Italy, A.D. 597, and may be roughly reckoned
as lasting until the coming of the Normans in A.D. 1066. Augustine and
his companion missionaries, as may have been expected, introduced the
Italian or Basilican type, but gradually we find the square end, as the
Saxon period wore on, again forcing its way into general use, the old
traditional type of church building somehow being deeply rooted in the
hearts of the dwellers in our Island.
The Norman conquest once more, after A.D. 1066, gave an artificial and
temporary victory to the Italian (Basilican) or apsidal-ended churches.
Westminster Abbey, which was a purely Norman church, built under Edward
the Confessor’s auspices--Gloucester, and other well-known famous
abbeys, were constructed with apsidal and semi-circular east ends.
But strangely enough, in spite of the all-powerful Norman influence,
nothing could eradicate the old taste for the primitive British type
of church, and when once the conquerors and the conquered began to be
welded into one people, the square end once more gradually superseded
its Roman apsidal rival. By the thirteenth century the victory of the
old square-ended type was pretty well complete, and it became par
excellence the special English form.
The well-known example of the “restored” Westminster Abbey, which with
its apse and striking chevet of chapels at the east end, and which
might justly be cited as an important contrary instance, is really
exceptional, that glorious abbey owing its Roman and Continental
form to the special circumstances under which it was restored and
rebuilt. The foreign influences to which Henry III, who mainly carried
out the new Westminster work was subjected, are purely responsible
here. Durham, on the other hand, where English influences were at
work, actually saw its Norman apse destroyed, A.D. 1236-1241, and the
beautiful creation known as the Nine Altars commenced. This Chapel of
the Nine Altars at the east end of Durham may be cited as the noblest
instance existing of a square-ended termination of a great English
abbey. A somewhat similar transformation was also effected in the
famous Priory Church of Lindisfarne, with its undying memories, hard by
Durham.
Among the great churches of England, either through original
construction, or through partial transformation or subsequent
additions, the following will be found to possess the square, or
rectangular east end, that peculiar form derived from the ancient
British type, adopted in the Island _before_ the coming of the
North-folk: York, Exeter, Worcester, Salisbury, Christ Church (Oxford),
Winchester, Hereford, Rochester, Lincoln, Ely, Chichester, Chester,
Carlisle, Bangor; and Old Sarum may be added to the list.
But, on the other hand, very few traces of this peculiarly English
(British) form, with its striking and interesting tradition handed down
from an immemorial antiquity, and bearing its voiceless testimony to
some original centre of Christianity, other than Rome or Italy, are
found in the great continental churches.
In the vast and populous province of the old Empire known as Gaul,
which includes modern France, the Low Countries, etc., among its
numerous splendid cathedrals and abbatial churches, only one can be
cited with a square-ended east end--the cathedral of Laon. To Laon
may be added the important church of Dol. Square-ended churches,
comparatively small and unimportant, are, however, not unfrequent in
the little country towns of the north of France and in the Burgundian
country. Are not these latter exceptions probably referable to an
undying memory of the influence of Columba, the great Irish (Celtic)
missionary, and his school?
The magnificent and stately mediæval cathedrals on the Continent of
Europe, different from their sister churches in England, are, as a
rule, characterised by the feature of a great apse, semi-circular or
polygonal, with a chevet of chapels.
In England, Gloucester Cathedral is one of the notable exceptions, in
this striking particular, to the general English type of square-ended
churches, with its eastern apse almost semi-circular, and its chevet of
chapels, of which there are three distinct storeys, one over the other,
containing in all nine chapels.
But in the year 1457, when Abbot Hanley was ruling in the important
Benedictine House of Gloucester, it was determined that a new and
superb Lady Chapel should be built as an “annexe” to the stately
abbey of Serlo and Aldred. But in the beautiful design for this new
and exquisite eastern annexe, the Benedictine architect determined to
give to his historic abbey that peculiar English feature which it had
hitherto lacked, viz. a square or rectangular termination.
Hence it came about, that in its last architectural transformation,
Gloucester has become square-ended, thus preserving in the mighty abbey
of the Severn Lands, the immemorial tradition of the square end, handed
down from the third century, and brought originally to this Island by
early Christian teachers from the East, _not_ from Italy and Rome.
Nor was the master-architect who designed the present Lady Chapel of
Gloucester content with only expressing this peculiar and most ancient
British type of church architecture upon his loved abbey. Hitherto S.
Peter’s Abbey had possessed but _one_ pair of transepts. The secondary
or eastern transepts were another feature peculiarly English. They are
found in the great piles of Canterbury, Lincoln, Salisbury, Beverley
and York, but _not_ in the great Houses of Prayer in France (Gaul).
One solitary Gallic instance can be cited in the vast abbey of Cluny
in Burgundy, now, alas, razed to the ground; Cluny, strangely enough,
possessed the English feature of the double transepts.
The architect of the new chapel of “our Lady” at Gloucester determined
that his abbey should henceforth boast too of this peculiar English
feature, and so wove into his beautiful design those two singular and
striking projections, usually described simply as Chauntry Chapels,
surmounted by minstrel galleries, but which are really _two little
transepts_.
A glance at the ground-plan of Gloucester Cathedral, as it now stands,
will show the accuracy of this apparently novel, and perhaps to some
students, startling deduction. So Gloucester, in its last and final
transformation in the fifteenth century, became possessed of _both_ the
special English architectural features--the square end, and the double
eastern transepts.
_The Churches or Oratories of “S. Gwithian” and “Perranzabuloe” on the
north coast of Cornwall._
Since writing the above little historical sketch of the utter
destruction of the ancient churches of Britain in the sixth century
by the North-folk--the Jute, the Saxon and the Engle--worshippers of
Odin and Thor--Mr. Lach Szyrma, the well-known Cornish scholar, has
called my attention to the curious but little-known remains of two most
ancient churches, or oratories, on the north coast of Cornwall, S.
Gwithian and Perranzabuloe; both dating from _circa_ A.D. 450. One of
them, “S. Gwithian,” perhaps slightly earlier.
In each of these, the _Sanctuary has a square ending_. These little
churches without doubt were the work of the old British community--and
apparently are the _only_ survivors of the British churches swept away
by the North-folk invaders.
Of these two churches or oratories, S. Gwithian was erected in a very
exposed situation, and the sand from the sea-shore is blown upon the
site in clouds; as much as a depth of five feet of sand will come up in
one night. It was covered up in this way at a very remote date.
This “lost” church was dug out of the sand, _circa_ A.D. 1830-1835.
Since then it has several times been partially uncovered, but it
has gradually been completely filled up again with sand. It is now
completely buried in the sand, and only a few stones of the west wall
are visible above ground.
The length of the Church of S. Gwithian is _circa_ fifty feet, and the
breadth _circa_ twenty feet. The walls are dry-built.
The building is _rectangular_ (square-ended), with a door on the south
side away from the sea.
* * * * *
[Illustration: Church of S. Gwythian, Cornwall--VI Century--as it
appeared in A.D. 1894, before it was again covered with sand.]
The church or oratory of Perranzabuloe (S. Peran in Sabulo; S. Peran
in the Sand) was only discovered _circa_ A.D. 1880. Its previous
existence was suspected owing to a very faint local tradition, when it
suddenly partly reappeared in consequence of a storm uncovering a small
portion of it, the sand mound which completely covered it being partly
swept away.
It had been buried in the sand at an unknown, but very early date,
yet the tradition of its existence lingered on through the centuries.
This church or oratory of Perranzabuloe is smaller than the church
of S. Gwithian above described. It is only about twenty-five feet
long by twelve and a half feet broad. The chancel at the east is
_square-ended_. The little building forms a perfect double square.
It is now accessible--and quite recent care has entirely covered the
ancient edifice with an enclosing building, leaving a passage all
round, between the old walls and the new wall which encircles it. The
present Vicar says: “It is a rather ugly arrangement, but it is the
best that could be done with the funds collected for the conservation
of the precious relic. At any rate,” its guardian says, “the old church
is now protected from wind and weather.”
This most ancient church is built of unhewn stones without mortar.
Attached to the east wall is a stone altar five feet three inches long
by two feet three inches wide. About eight inches above the altar is
a niche some twelve inches high by eight inches wide, in which most
probably was once placed the shrine of S. Peran.
The church or oratory of Perranzabuloe is in the midst of a stretch of
sand-dunes reaching from Perranporth to Newquay, on the north coast
of Cornwall, eight miles from Newquay, one and a half miles from
Perranporth.
The strange reappearance of these two most ancient British churches,
dating certainly from before the sixth century, apparently the solitary
survivors of the destroyed churches of the old inhabitants of Britain
_before_ the coming of the North-folk, bear out the theory above
advanced, that the British churches or oratories erected before the
disastrous conquest of the North-folk, like the Irish churches or
oratories which faithfully reproduced their peculiar architectural
features, were all square-ended churches.
THE CRYPT
_Of the principal terms used in this study on the Crypt._
_Crypt_ is derived from the Greek κρύπτειν to hide, to conceal.
_Confessio_--The Confession. The burial chamber or vault where lay the
remains of one who had “confessed” and borne witness to his Faith by
his blood. The “Confessio” is sometimes termed “Martyrium.” Sometimes
the word is used for the chamber immediately contiguous to the actual
vault of the tomb beneath it, as is the case in the Crypt of S. Peter
at Rome.
_Memoria._--The chamber or chapel erected over the “Confessio” or
burial place of the Martyrs--originally used for the gathering place
of the Faithful, pilgrims or others who came to visit and pray over
the grave of the Saint buried beneath. The first “Memoria” that we
are acquainted with was erected over the vault which held the body of
St. Peter. This “Memoria” was built by Anacletus,[25] the successor
of Linus; Anacletus is generally reckoned as third Bishop of Rome. It
served as a church for the faithful, in which the Eucharist could be
celebrated, and a small congregation gathered together. This Memoria
of Anacletus was erected shortly after A.D. 70. It is mentioned in
the _Liber Pontificalis_ under the record of Pope Anacletus in the
following words: “Memoriam beati Petri construit et composuit.”
The “Memoria” of Anacletus was no doubt referred to by the Presbyter
Caius in A.D. 210, who calls it the “Tropæum”--the visible monument
of the Apostle S. Peter. Tertullian also, as early as the end of the
second century, refers to it as an object of pilgrimage from all parts
of the world.
_Cubiculum._--This was a little burial chamber leading out of the
galleries of the Roman Catacombs. These “Cubicula” were hewn out of the
rock, generally at right angles to the gallery in which were cut the
countless niches each holding one or more corpses.
The “Cubiculum” was intended for the more conspicuous persons in the
Church, and especially for those who had through martyrdom, or through
any very distinguished work for the Church, merited this special
distinction after death; not a few of these “Cubicula” were occupied by
the bodies of the men and women who had witnessed a good confession by
shedding their blood for Christ’s sake. Many of these little chapels
which held the remains of such illustrious dead, became, as time went
on, places highly venerated by the congregation.
_Catacombs._--The modern name of “Catacombs,” now universally applied
to ancient underground Crypts where the dead were interred in the early
days of Christianity, and especially used for that vast network of
subterranean corridors filled by the Christian dead beneath the suburbs
of old Rome, was totally unknown to the original Christian communities
who hewed out of the solid rock this mighty cemetery of the Roman dead.
The term “Catacomb” is derived from the Greek words κατά κύμβη, the
latter word signifying “hollow” or valley.
The district on the Appian Way where the little basilica of S.
Sebastian now stands, was especially known as “ad catacumbas” or “the
Hollows.”
In the earlier part of the ninth century, the bodies of the more
prominent Saints and Martyrs were removed for security’s sake from
their original resting-places outside the walls of the city, to the
safer custody of the Roman churches within the city, and the once
famous subterranean cemeteries in the suburbs gradually ceased to be
objects of pilgrimage.
But the _one_ suburban cemetery of S. Sebastian, owing to the tradition
that the bodies of SS. Peter and Paul had reposed in the Crypt beneath
S. Sebastian for some years when persecution had rendered their
original resting-places insecure, ever remained an object of devout
pilgrimage.
This Crypt was known as “Cemeterium ad Catacumbas,” and on the
re-discovery of the great underground City of the Dead at Rome, late
in the sixteenth century, the popular name “ad Catacumbas” came to be
applied to all subterranean cemeteries, and especially to the great
cemeteries beneath the Roman suburbs.
But it must be borne in mind that, after all, this _universally_ used
appellation, when given to the subterranean cemeteries in general,
is a curious misnomer, and was unknown, in its present universal
signification, in ancient times.
* * * * *
Now it may be positively assumed that all Crypts are generally a memory
of, are reminiscent of the sacred and venerated burying-places of the
Martyrs and Saints of the age of persecution, notably of the Crypt of
S. Peter.
Thanks to the industry of a few modern scholars, the details of S.
Peter’s tomb on the Vatican Hill are fairly well known. The sacred
remains of the great Apostle and Martyr, ever venerated as the founder
of the Roman congregation, were originally laid in a little vault or
crypt on the Vatican Hill hard by the place of his martyrdom.
From the first, this spot was visited by pilgrims from many lands, an
ever-increasing number, but the place of interment was very small and
difficult of access. So Anacletus, traditionally the third Bishop of
the Church of Rome, in order to accommodate these numerous visitors
to the tomb, built directly over the vault where the Apostle’s body
rested, the little chapel known in history as the “Memoria” of
Anacletus.
Over this humble Chapel or “Memoria,” the first Christian Emperor
Constantine erected the lordly basilica generally known in history as
“Old S. Peter’s.” In the same age, or a very little later, various
other basilicas or churches were built directly over the “Cubicula”
or burial chambers leading out of the Catacomb galleries, where lay
the remains of the more prominent Saints and Martyrs interred in the
Catacombs of Rome.
In those far-back days, the grave of a Martyr was ever regarded with
the deepest reverence, and was constantly visited by pilgrim visitors.
No more appropriate spot, it was considered, could be chosen for
the celebration of divine service than the chamber which held the
Martyr’s grave; but these graves were sunk deep in the ground, and
the “Cubicula” of the Catacombs were utterly incapable of containing
the officiating clergy and the crowd of the faithful who would wish
to worship in these hallowed spots. It was generally considered in
the early Church that the remains of the Martyrs and Saints ought not
to be removed, for such a removal would be deemed an impious act;
never--so taught the teachers of the first age--must the sainted relics
of the dead Confessors be translated or disturbed.
To overcome this difficulty, the rock over and round the grave must
be cut away, and room must thus be gained as was sufficient for the
erection of a basilica or church, large or small, directly over the
Crypt or Cubiculum, which contained the Martyr’s tomb. The damage done
to such catacombs, thus cut away by the builders of these basilicas,
was incalculable; thousands of early Christian graves must have been
sacrificed for the preservation of the one grave specially selected for
peculiar honour.
This, Lanciani tells us, is the origin of the greatest Sanctuaries of
Christian Rome; such as the Churches of S. Paul on the Via Ostiensis,
S. Sebastian on the Via Appia, S. Petronilla on the Via Ardeatina, S.
Agnes on the Via Nomentana, S. Lorenzo on the Via Tiburtina; these and
other sacred historical structures owe their existence to the martyr’s
grave over which these churches were built, a grave which no human hand
was allowed to touch or to transfer to another and more convenient
place.
* * * * *
This was the genesis, the origin of the idea of the Crypt beneath the
church. The desire to possess a Crypt in early mediæval times was
widely spread. As a rule, though, as we shall presently explain, not
always was the Crypt the resting-place of some noted martyr. In Gaul
and on the banks of the Rhine these crypts were fairly general in the
early Middle Ages: their retention, enlargement, and reconstruction was
largely due to the sentiment and tradition of the very early age of
Christianity.
In Gaul, in the Merovingian period, in the more important churches
they seem to have been very usual; for instance, we still possess the
Crypts of S. Avitus of Orleans (sixth century), the Crypt of Jouarre
and parts of the Crypt of Vézelay, supposed to contain the remains of
S. Mary Magdalene, S. Medard of Soissons; large portions of the vast
Crypt of Chartres, the Crypt of the Cathedral of Auxerre, and certain
parts of the Crypt of the famous Church of S. Benignus of Dijon, one of
the largest existing. The underground Church of S. Seurin of Bordeaux
dates, however, from the eleventh century, as does also the famous and
vast Crypt of S. Eutropius of Saintes.
On the banks of the Rhine and in the Eastern districts of Gaul, dating
from the eleventh century, and even somewhat earlier, we may cite as
prominent examples the Crypts of Besançon and Strasburg, and the great
underground Church of Spires.
In Anglo-Saxon England, we have the Crypts of Ripon and Hexham, both
the work of Wilfred in the seventh century, a little later that of Wing
in Buckinghamshire, and somewhat later still, Repton.
In the early Norman period we have in England the important Crypts of
Winchester, Worcester, Rochester, Gloucester and Canterbury (in parts).
The Oxford and York Minster Crypts were built as late as in the last
part of the twelfth century.
But then they came to an end. The vogue of building Crypts ceased soon
after the famous action of Suger, Abbot of S. Denys near Paris, who,
in A.D. 1144, probably owing to the impossibility of providing for
the vast crowds of pilgrims to the Shrines of S. Denys and his two
companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherus in the Crypt of the abbey,
brought up from the underground Church of S. Denys the remains of the
three saints, and placed them near the high altar of the church above,
where they could be more easily seen and visited by the pilgrim crowds.
The example of Abbot Suger seems to have been largely followed, notably
at Canterbury, where the body of S. Thomas à Becket, a most popular
object of pilgrimage, was removed from the under to the upper church in
A.D. 1248.
This general removal of the remains of the saints and confessors from
their original place beneath the church, to a position hard by the high
altar of the main building above, seems to have taken away completely
the traditional interest of the Crypt. It now was never constructed. In
the planning of an abbey or of any considerable church the Crypt found
no place; and thus the vogue which had prevailed for so many centuries
passed away completely.
Singularly enough the great Cluniac Brotherhood of Benedictines, with
its two thousand churches, scattered over the countries of the West,
never seems to have adopted the Crypt as a part of any of their many
homes of prayer. There is little doubt that the example of so mighty
and influential a section of the Church of the twelfth century also
contributed largely to the disuse of this most ancient and interesting
feature, which for some ten centuries or more had occupied a place
in the planning of so many of the more important abbeys and homes of
prayer in the West.
To sum up, the Crypt was entirely a Latin and Western use; it was
virtually unknown, and practically non-existent outside the broad
area of Latin Christianity. The custom of the Eastern Church received
it not. It belonged exclusively to the Western school of Romanesque
architecture. It is interesting to remember that as the school of
Romanesque building gave place to another and different school of
architecture, the Crypt virtually disappeared. No purely Gothic Crypt
can be quoted or referred to.
In the first place it was undoubtedly understood to be the
resting-place of the remains of the famous saint or confessor after
whom, in so many cases, the church built over the Crypt in question
was named, and to whose honoured memory the church was dedicated. But
it came to pass, when the vogue or fashion of constructing a Crypt or
under-church became very general, that not unfrequently we find this
under-church, sometimes of considerable size and importance, designed
and planned _without_ the presence of any of these hallowed remains
dating from far-back days. Such, for instance, was the vast Gloucester
Crypt. No tradition exists in Gloucester of the remains of any saint
or confessor ever having been laid to rest in the wide ambulatory or
in the central division of that most venerable and solemn under-church
which lies beneath the stately Cathedral of Gloucester.
[Illustration: The central part of the Crypt of Gloucester Cathedral.
XI Century.]
THE CRYPT OF S. PETER ON THE VATICAN HILL
THE STORY OF A TOMB
There was one Crypt of remarkable sanctity--that of S. Peter at Rome.
It was the favourite object of all Western pilgrimage from the last
years of the first century--and it retained its far-reaching popularity
for many centuries.
This Crypt which contains the remains of the great Apostle, with the
“Memoria” of Anacletus immediately above it, may justly be considered
to have set the vogue which prevailed in the planning of a Crypt in so
many important churches of Western Christianity, from the fourth until
the end of the twelfth century.
The immense and enduring estimation in which this Crypt of S. Peter at
Rome was held for so many centuries, has determined the writer of these
studies to describe it with some detail--and to tell its eventful and
striking story at some length.
In the year of grace 70, Jerusalem and her glorious temple were burnt
and destroyed by Titus and his Legions, who saw in Jerusalem, the
sacred city and citadel not only of the rebel Jews, but also of the
hated Christian sect. There is no doubt but that from the year of the
great catastrophe Rome gradually became the acknowledged centre and
metropolis of Christendom--it had no longer any recognised centre when
Jerusalem was destroyed.
This position has been altered and the influence of Rome has been
dimmed, and to a certain extent materially diminished by certain
other centres of Christianity which have arisen. But she holds it to
a certain extent still. _Constantinople_ the home of the widespread
Eastern or Greek Christianity, and later _Moscow_ after the fall of
Constantinople, were important religious centres. _London_ among the
far-reaching Anglo-Saxon peoples may claim, with some reason, the lofty
title of the Metropolis of the Christian world.
Yet after all these great religious centres have been reckoned with,
Rome, though her old fame and influence has been sadly tarnished and
dimmed, still ranks first. The Eastern or Greek Church, changeless
in the midst of change, silently watches _her_ loved metropolis of
Constantinople all spoiled and desecrated, in the hands of unbelievers.
The Protestant Churches dear to the Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic peoples,
reluctantly perhaps, sadly without doubt, in their hearts still think
of Rome as the centre or metropolis of that living faith in the
Crucified which has been adopted as the religion of the fairest and
most powerful portion of the world.
* * * * *
S. Peter is regarded by Roman Catholic writers (as might have been
expected) as the founder of the Roman congregation--many too among
Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic scholars now accept this view. This conclusion
undoubtedly is supported: (1) by the general testimony of early
Christian writers mostly of the second century; (2) by the important
traditional “Memories” of the presence and preaching of S. Peter in
Rome. Some of these “Memories,” it is true, are purely traditional,
others have clearly an historical foundation; but taken all together,
they constitute an argument of no little weight. In the written
testimonies, as well as in the “Memories” which hang round the figures
of SS. Peter and Paul in Rome, who are generally joined together as
founders of the great Church of the Metropolis of the Empire, it is
notable that Peter, not Paul, ever is the principal figure; (3) the
place which the two mighty Basilicas of S. Peter and S. Paul have ever
occupied in the minds and hearts not only of the dwellers in Rome, but
also of all the innumerable pilgrims in all ages to the sacred shrines
of Rome, seems accurately to measure the respective positions which
the two great Apostles have ever held in the estimate of the Roman
congregation.
The comparative neglect of S. Paul’s Basilica in Rome when measured
with the undying reverence bestowed on the sister Basilica of S. Peter,
is due, not to any want of reverence and regard for the great Apostle
of the Gentiles, but solely because Rome itself and the innumerable
pilgrims to the Queen City were conscious of the special debt of Rome
to S. Peter, who was evidently in all ages regarded as the first and
real founder of the mighty Church of the Capital.
This great and revered teacher S. Peter suffered martyrdom about
the year 66-67. Somewhere about A.D. 69, when the violence of the
terrible persecution of Nero, who perished A.D. 68, was dying away, the
Christian worshippers in Rome prepared a tomb in the nearest available
spot to the place of his martyrdom on the Vatican Hill. This tomb was a
vaulted chamber almost entirely subterranean.
This sacred sepulchre was visited from very early days by ever large
and increasing numbers of the faithful, not only belonging to the Roman
congregations, but including pilgrims from all parts of the Roman world
who wished to pray at the sacred tomb; these visitors were undeterred
by any danger of arrest and death. Pilgrimage to the holy places of
Jerusalem was impossible since a heathen temple had arisen on the site
of the Holy Sepulchre. It was therefore to Rome, and especially to
the tomb of S. Peter, that the early pilgrim devotees of Christendom
chiefly turned.
But the original sepulchre or vault where the remains of S. Peter
rested[26] provided but little space for pilgrims, and was not indeed
very easy of access. So Anacletus, who followed Linus as Bishop of
the Roman Church, A.D. 79-87, built a “Memoria” or upper chamber
immediately above the tomb to serve as a little church or meeting-place
for the ever-increasing numbers of pilgrim visitors. This “Memoria” of
Anacletus was constructed by simply raising the walls of the tomb or
crypt to a higher level, and was of the same shape as the vault itself;
thus, as it were, providing a chamber for the pilgrim visitors on the
floor immediately above the actual tomb.
This little upper chamber of the tomb, which was above ground, is the
“Tropæum” spoken of by Caius the presbyter, when, in A.D. _circa_ 210,
he writes as follows: “I can show you the trophies of the Apostles, for
whether you go to the Vatican or on the Ostian Way you will meet with
their ‘trophies’” (_i. e._ of SS. Peter and Paul who founded the Church
in Rome).
But in addition to building the little upper chamber or “Memoria” of
the tomb itself, Bishop Anacletus prepared places, or graves, in which
he himself and a certain number of his successors might be buried round
S. Peter.
In this sacred burying-place, in these graves prepared by Anacletus
round the Apostle’s tomb, were the early second-century Bishops of Rome
laid, close to the resting-place of S. Peter, and it is these graves
which were laid open in the excavations of which we shall presently
speak, in the year 1626.
* * * * *
There is no record of the exact date of the building of the Basilica of
S. Peter, but there can be no doubt that it was really, as immemorial
tradition has asserted, the work of Constantine the Great after he
became absolute master of the Roman world.
We should put the date probably shortly _after_ A.D. 324, in which
year the yet earlier Basilica of the Lateran was consecrated. The
inscription which still runs along the west front of the Lateran
Church--
“Sacrosancta Lateranensis ecclesia, omnium urbis
et orbis ecclesiarum Mater et Caput”--
voices the ancient tradition that the consecration of the great Lateran
Church preceded the building of S. Peter.
The venerable dedicatory inscription originally on the principal arch
which spanned the nave of S. Peter recorded the name of its imperial
builder:
“Quod duce Te Mundus Surrexit Ad Astra Triumphans
Hanc Constantinus Victor Tibi Condidit Aulam.”
The entry in the _Liber Pontificalis_, presently quoted, tells of the
first Christian Emperor’s special work in the vault or crypt of the
Apostle’s tomb.
It was over this sacred tomb and the little “Memoria” above it that
Constantine erected the magnificent church known as Old S. Peter’s.
Before the days of Constantine, the humble “Memoria” of Anacletus
represented the church above the tomb. Under the first Christian
Emperor, the little “Memoria of Anacletus” grew into the magnificent
Basilica[27] renowned for centuries through the Western world.
But here we have only to do with the tomb and the immediate work above
it in the “Memoria” of Anacletus. The entry in the _Liber Pontificalis_
gives us a precise account of what the Emperor Constantine did in the
vault of the tomb.
“He hid away the stone coffin which contained the body after this
manner: He enclosed the coffin altogether in bronze, and then built up
(_i. e._ filled the vault) with masonry. After this manner he enclosed
the body of the blessed Peter and hid it away.”
There is no doubt, however, that the Emperor, in enclosing the
sarcophagus of the Apostle with solid masonry, left clear a little
space actually above the coffin in the ceiling of the vault, for the
same entry goes on to tell us that Constantine made a gold cross and
placed it above the bronze covering of the coffin. This gold cross was
seen gleaming through an opening as late as A.D. 1594. We know too that
in the early Middle Ages, objects of devotion were occasionally lowered
from the church above, through the ceiling, and these objects were
revered as bonâ fide precious relics of the Apostle whose coffin they
had touched.
* * * * *
Here the entry in the _Liber Pontificalis_ ends, and the particulars of
any work which Constantine carried out in the “Memoria” of Anacletus,
which had been built above the tomb, we can only learn from its present
appearance and from detached notices which occur in later entries of
the _Liber Pontificalis_ which tell us of the splendid gifts made to
this “Memoria” by the Popes and others in the following centuries.
Directly above the “Memoria” it is clear that Constantine, when he
built the great church, placed a heavy stone altar. This had to be
supported by strengthening the comparatively slender walls of the
“Memoria.” The vault of the tomb filled up, save directly above the
sarcophagus, with solid masonry, provided a firm foundation, and the
“Memoria,” which was now divided into two chambers, was made strong
with additional masonry. The lower of the two chambers was completely
filled up save for a small opening or passage which led directly down
to the vault of the tomb.
The walls of the upper chamber of the “Memoria” were also strengthened
with masonry sufficient to support the great altar placed immediately
above it, but enough space was left to form the Confessionary, part of
which still exists beneath the great altar.
Thus direct communication with the sacred vault of the tomb itself
existed by means of the narrow opening or passage through the lower
chamber above mentioned, by means of which handkerchiefs or similar
objects could be let down so as to touch the sarcophagus in which lay
the remains of the Apostle. This opening or passage was closed with two
small gratings carefully locked. These gratings are generally known by
the term “cataracts”--the one at the lower end, which was in fact the
ceiling of the vault, which ceiling consisted of one or more marble
slabs; the other on the top of the opening or passage, on the floor
of the upper chamber of the “Memoria”--which became the well-known
Confessionary.[28]
We possess in the writings of S. Gregory of Tours a vivid description
of the manner in which pilgrims to Rome revered the sacred shrine in
early times. The description in question was given to S. Gregory by his
deacon Agiulphus who had made the pilgrimage. The account is given us
by S. Gregory in his book called _In gloriâ Martyrum_, written about
the year of grace 595. We append a translation of the words here of S.
Gregory--
“S. Peter is buried in a church called from ancient times the
Vatican.... His sepulchre, which is placed under the Altar, is
exceedingly rarely entered. However, if any one desires to pray, the
gates by which the place is fenced are opened, and he goes in above
the sepulchre, and then, having opened a little window, puts his head
within and makes request concerning his needs.
“Nor is the result delayed, if only the petition be a just one. For
if he desires to carry away with him some blessed memorial, he throws
within a little handkerchief that has been carefully weighed, and then
watching and fasting, he prays most fervently that the Apostle may give
an effectual answer to his devotion. Wonderful to say, if the faith of
the man prevails, the handkerchief when it is raised from the tomb,
is so filled with divine virtue that it weighs much more than it did
before, and then he who has raised it knows that he has obtained the
favour which he sought.
“Many also make golden keys to unlock the gates of the blessed
sepulchre, and then they take away those which were used before, as a
sacred treasure, and by these keys the infirmities of the afflicted are
cured. For true faith can do all things.”
Mgr. Barnes in his work on S. Peter’s tomb gives a detailed explanation
of the above report of Agiulphus to S. Gregory of Tours.
“The actual sepulchre, the subterranean chamber in which the
sarcophagus (of S. Peter) was placed, was scarcely ever opened,
and was not, even at that early date (late in the sixth century),
accessible to ordinary worshippers. The most that they could hope for,
was to visit the Confession under the Altar ... the pilgrim passes on,
throws himself with his body prostrate within the recess, raises the
little window or grating which closed the aperture in the floor, and
so puts himself in communication, not indeed with the tomb itself, but
with the space which intervened between the Confession and the vault,
which space had once formed the lowest part of the old upper chamber or
‘Memoria’ of Anacletus.”
From the vault and the actual sepulchre he was still shut off by a
second grating or cataract--which was unlocked for him.
Through these two gratings, when opened, the handkerchief or other
object was lowered so as to touch the tomb, and this could be carried
away as a precious relic.
* * * * *
By the early Popes and Bishops of Rome, and other illustrious
persons, notably by Pelagius II, A.D. 579-590; S. Gregory, A.D.
590-604; Sergius, A.D. 687-701; S. Gregory III, A.D. 731-741; Paul
I, A.D. 757-768; Hadrian I, A.D. 772-795; and S. Leo III--Hadrian’s
successor--were magnificent and costly offerings bestowed upon the
sacred shrine. These decorated with unexampled magnificence the
Confession, the Altar and the canopy above.
In the reign of Paul I, King Pepin of France was also a munificent
donor to this famous shrine.
These gifts consisted in gold and silver coverings for the canopy of
the altar--in costly mosaics--in precious marble columns--in pavements
of silver--in railings and gates of gold--in superb candelabra. Many of
these costly gifts are chronicled with much care and detail in entries
in the _Liber Pontificalis_.
A specially interesting entry in the _Liber Pontificalis_ tells us
how Charlemagne, accompanied by Pope Hadrian, was permitted to enter
the vault of the tomb--the only visit to the sepulchre itself that is
recorded. The few words which tell of this, perhaps solitary, visit of
the great Frankish sovereign and the Pope are memorable--
“Descendentes pariter ad Corpus beati Petri.”
* * * * *
In the time of Pope Sergius II, we read of another imperial visit
to Rome. The Emperor Louis II, A.D. 845, was received with the same
ceremonial respect as his great predecessor Charlemagne. He, too,
prayed before the Confession, but there is no allusion to any visit to
the body of S. Peter. The sacred vault indeed seems to have been, even
in these far-back centuries, very rarely if ever entered. Charlemagne’s
visit was probably never repeated.
Only two years after Louis II’s visit occurred the destructive raid
of the Saracens. For several years these Mahommedan invaders, who
had taken possession of Sicily, had ravaged the Italian coasts. They
had plundered the great Monastery of Monte Cassino, and in A.D. 847
appeared before Rome. This raid was not unexpected, for some of the
treasures seem hastily to have been removed to a more secure home
within the walls of the city.
No attempt to move the great bronze-covered sarcophagus was evidently
thought of, but the entrance to the vault was concealed by pouring
down stones and rubble through the upper opening below the Confession,
completely filling up the space between the two cataracts or gratings,
which thus escaped the notice of the plundering invaders, who, however,
carried off many of the treasures, the gifts of the Popes and other
distinguished persons to which we have alluded above, which adorned the
shrine.
The Saracens only stayed in the vicinity of S. Peter’s for some eight
days, and then retreated. There is little doubt but that the “earthing
up” the narrow passage which led to the sacred vault where the
sarcophagus lay, the filling it up with the stones and rubbish which
_still_ effectually blocks up all access to the tomb itself, must be
dated from the period of this raid of the Saracens in A.D. 847.
Much was done by S. Leo IV, A.D. 847-855, and his successors in the
Papacy, to restore the damage done and the havoc wrought by the
Saracenic raiders; but the passage to the tomb itself was never again
opened. Many beautiful and costly gifts were often made to the shrine,
and especially to the Confession, by various Popes and illustrious
visitors and pilgrims, among whom the Anglo-Saxon Ethelwolf, the father
of Alfred, must be included. But in spite of these efforts and gifts
the shrine never again reached anything like the glory and magnificence
which it possessed before the terrible incursion of the Saracen
invaders in A.D. 847.
For more than a thousand years there has been no access to the vault of
the tomb; and no serious attempt, for various reasons, has ever been
made to restore the original communication which once evidently existed
between the floor of the Confession and the sacred chamber which held,
and no doubt holds still, the bronze-covered sarcophagus of S. Peter.
We possess no accurate contemporary details of this disastrous
Saracenic raid, as the manuscripts of the _Liber Pontificalis_ are
deficient here.
* * * * *
A story of surpassing interest is told by Bonanni (_Templi Vaticani
historia_), the authenticity of which is accepted by Marucchi,
Lanciani, Barnes and other scholars and experts.
In the spring of A.D. 1594, when the works connected with the new S.
Peter’s were going on, Giacomo della Porta, the architect in charge,
reported to Pope Clement VIII that a portion of the ground in the
vicinity of the tomb had given way, and through an aperture thus
uncovered the interior of the chamber of the tomb could be seen.
The Pope, accompanied with three Cardinals, at once visited the spot,
and with the aid of a lighted torch the sarcophagus was visible, with
the great golden cross of Constantine lying upon it. Clement VIII,
after viewing the strange sight, immediately ordered the aperture to
be closed with cement in his presence. The names of the Cardinals, who
were well known, were Bellarmine, Antoniano and Sfondriato.
* * * * *
The building of the new S. Peter’s was slowly drawing to its
completion, when in A.D. 1607 Pope Paul V planned to bring the ancient
Confession of S. Peter into sight. In the new planning of the church,
this Confession was concealed in the Crypt, and any access to it was
almost impossible.
Maderno, the artist and architect, designed and carried out the present
arrangement of the great church, which provided for the worshippers an
approach to the old Confession--the recess under the high altar. In
these works of Maderno, the workmen employed came upon the forgotten
cemetery of the Vatican, arranged in the first century by Bishop
Anacletus. The “find” was one of extraordinary interest. Torrigio, a
“beneficiato” of the basilica, was present when the discovery of this
most ancient cemetery was made, and has left us an account of what he
saw. Accompanying his description was a plan drawn by Benedetto Drei,
the clerk of Maderno’s works.
Of the rare plan in question, a rough drawing has been preserved, and
has been of the greatest use in elucidating the more detailed and
accurate description of the sacred spot, which description was made a
few years later, _circa_ A.D. 1626, when under Urban VIII (Cardinal
Barberini), Pope from A.D. 1623-1644, it became necessary to strengthen
the foundations of the new mighty bronze Baldachino of Bernini, and
elaborate and careful work was undertaken in this sacred spot.
What was then discovered in the ancient cemetery of Anacletus has been
told us by Ubaldi, a Canon of S. Peter’s. Ubaldi saw with his own
eyes the wonderful things then discovered, and his account is of the
greatest value to the historian of the very early days of Christianity
in Rome. These precious memoranda of Ubaldi were deposited in the
Vatican archives and were only found in quite late days by Palmieri,
one of the keepers of these archives; the well-known scholar Armellini
has since published them.
We will give a few specially interesting particulars from Ubaldi’s
memoranda. The story of these excavations is as follows--
Pope Urban VIII was dissatisfied with the adornment of the high altar,
which he deemed quite unworthy of the conspicuous position it occupied
in the glorious new Church of S. Peter’s; and he entrusted the
decoration to the architect Bernini of Florence. Bernini designed the
great Baldachino or canopy of the altar which we see now.
It was an enormous and striking work. Its great size is imperfectly
grasped by the ordinary visitor. The vastness of S. Peter’s, it
has been well said, dwarfs everything that is in it. This massive
Baldachino or canopy of the high altar is composed of bronze largely
taken from the portico of the Pantheon originally built by Agrippa, the
son-in-law of the Emperor Augustus. It is ninety-five feet in height,
and is computed, with its pillars, to weigh nearly one hundred tons.
To carry this tremendous weight of metal, it was considered necessary
to place the pedestals of the supporting columns upon a solid and firm
foundation, but how to excavate such foundations in the immediate
neighbourhood of the tomb of S. Peter, in the midst of the holy
graves quite recently discovered surrounding the tomb in the ancient
cemetery of Anacletus, for some time seriously perplexed the Pope and
his counsellors, and they long hesitated before commencing the work.
At last it was decided upon, but the excavations were ordered to be
carried out with the utmost care and reverence considering the holy
ground where they were to be made; a guard of priests and ministers of
the Church was deputed to watch every grave as it was disturbed, and
reverently to replace every body and all the dust and ashes which had
to be removed. It was from the memoranda made on the spot by one of
these watching priests, the Canon Ubaldi, that the striking story, some
extracts of which we are about to give, is taken.
* * * * *
A few words descriptive of the spot where the excavations were made
will be useful before we speak of the strange and wonderful “find”
itself.
It must be remembered that the _actual_ vault of the tomb or crypt in
which was the sarcophagus of S. Peter, embedded in the solid masonry
of Constantine, lies deep in the ground beneath the locality of the
excavations.
The “Memoria” of Anacletus was built originally above, on the walls of
the vault of the tomb. Part of the “Memoria” must once have been _above
ground_. Round this “Memoria” Anacletus arranged the little cemetery of
the Vatican Hill. In this cemetery, as close as possible to the walls
of the “Memoria” above the tomb, were the graves dug for the nine or
ten first Bishops of Rome. In other graves in that sacred little God’s
acre were coffins containing the remains of certain of the martyrs and
confessors of the first and second centuries. It is these graves, in
the ancient cemetery round the “Memoria” walls, which were disturbed in
the course of the excavations, and whose sacred contents are described
in the Memoranda of Ubaldi.
The vault itself or crypt of the Tomb of S. Peter which lay deep below
the “Memoria,” was never interfered with.
* * * * *
In this work of excavation necessary for the foundations of the great
Baldachino of Bernini, the workmen employed found themselves at once in
the ancient cemetery of Anacletus.
Among the graves necessary to be touched, they found close to the wall
of the “Memoria,” still _in situ_, coffins of marble made of single
slabs of different sizes. Only one of these slabs seems to have borne
an inscription, and that was the solitary word “LINUS.” This was most
probably a portion of the coffin of the first Bishop who followed S.
Peter--the “Linus” saluted by S. Paul in 2 Tim. iv, 21. These coffins
placed close to the “Memoria” walls were no doubt belonging to the
first Bishops of Rome.
Other coffins were found near, of terra-cotta, containing ashes and
bones charred with fire. “It was evident,” writes Ubaldi, “that all
the earth on these coffins was mixed with ashes and tinged with blood”
(probably the blood of the first martyrs).
These are some among the sacred historical reliquiæ discovered in
digging the first foundation.
* * * * *
In digging for the second foundation, a singularly interesting “find”
is recorded. Ubaldi relates how a very large coffin, made of great
slabs of marble, was uncovered. “Within the coffin were ashes, with
many bones, all adhering together and half burned. These brought to
mind the famous fire in the time of Nero, three years before S. Peter’s
martyrdom, when the Christians, being falsely accused of causing
the fire, ... afforded in the circus of the gardens of Nero, which
were situated just here on the Vatican Hill, the first spectacle of
martyrdom. Some were put to death in various cruel ways, while others
were set on fire, and used as torches in the night.... These were
buried close to the spot where they suffered martyrdom and gave the
first occasion for the religious veneration of this holy spot.... We
therefore revered these holy bones as being the first founders of the
great Basilica, and having put back the coffin, allowed it to remain in
the same place.”
The memorandum on the third foundation contains no detail of any very
special interest.
On the fourth foundation, Ubaldi made the following note: “Almost
at the level of the pavement, there was found a coffin made of fine
and large slabs of marble.... This coffin was placed just as were
the others which were found on the other side ... in such a manner
that they were all directed towards the altar (of the ‘Memoria’ of
Anacletus) like spokes towards the centre of a wheel. Hence it was
evident, with much reason, that the place merited the name of ‘the
Council of Martyrs.’” These bodies surrounded S. Peter.
Apparently we have here the remains of the first Bishops of Rome for
whom Anacletus made special provision when he arranged this earliest
of Christian cemeteries. Their names are _Linus_, the lid of whose
coffin lies apart but still close to the Apostle’s vault or crypt,
_Anacletus_, _Evarestus_, _Sixtus I_, _Telesphorus_, _Hyginus_, _Pius
I_, _Eleutherius_ and _Victor_. Victor was laid here in A.D. 203. After
him no Bishop of Rome was interred in the Cemetery of Anacletus--for by
that date it was quite filled up, and the successors of Bishop Victor
were, with rare exceptions, buried in a chamber appropriated to them
in the Cemetery of S. Callistus in the great Catacomb so named on the
Appian Way.
The other interments in the sacred Vatican Cemetery in the immediate
neighbourhood of the Apostle’s tomb, noticed in the Ubaldi memoranda,
were apparently the remains of martyrs of the first and second
centuries of the Christian era; or, in a few cases, of distinguished
Confessors of the Faith whose names and story are forgotten, but of
whom Prudentius, the well-known Christian poet of the end of the
fourth century, writes in his _Peristephanon_, i. 73--
“O vetustatis silentis obsoleta oblivio
Invidentur ista nobis, fama et ipsa extinguitur.”
On the whole we may sum up as our estimate of the Ubaldi memoranda,
that it is without doubt an invaluable record of what lies beneath the
High Altar and the Western or more sacred part of the great Mother
Church of Christendom.
It is very remarkable that the practice of planning crypts only
prevailed in important churches of _Western_ Christendom. An imitation
of the Crypt of S. Peter at Rome was in these churches of the West
constantly aimed at.
In the East, in the near as in the far-East, this “vogue” of planning
crypts beneath the churches, _never_ was introduced; for the veneration
of S. Peter in the Eastern divisions of Christianity never attained
to the popularity we notice in the West. In the East, other Saints,
especially S. Mary, the Virgin Mother of the Lord, were revered with a
special reverence. This is very marked in Constantinople and in other
important centres of Eastern Christianity.
THE CLOISTER
In a great monastic establishment such as Gloucester, the most
important and interesting portion of the buildings surrounding the
church, belonging to the religious community, was undoubtedly _the
Cloister_.
The history of the origin and development of the Cloister is full of
interest. In the years (fourth and fifth centuries) which immediately
followed the ratification of the peace of the Church under Constantine
the Great, in the more important churches, built often after the
Basilican model, it was usual to arrange for a court or open space in
front of the principal entrance.
This open court, which corresponded to the Roman atrium, was for the
most part surrounded by a portico, or covered walk termed “triporticus”
or “quadriporticus,” according as the portico consisted of three or
four sides. This court was in the earlier days put to various uses.
In it were often gathered the Catechumens, those not yet formally
received into the congregation who worshipped within the church itself.
Here also were wont to assemble penitents who for some grave offence
had been excluded from the society of believers, but who sought
readmission. Now and again it was used for the interment of the more
distinguished Christians associated with the congregation worshipping
in the adjoining Basilica. Hence came the name by which this outer
court was sometimes known--“Paradisus”--whence was derived the
mediæval term of “Parvis,” which in later times was often attached to
the “square or place” lying under the shadow of the chief entrance to
the church, as for instance in Paris, “The Parvis Nôtre Dame.”
In the centre or side of this court or atrium, usually was found a
well. The Holy Water stoup always found near the entrance of Roman
Catholic churches is a “memory” of this atrium well.
In the Cloister Garth, which with the Cloister itself was the immediate
successor of this atrium, with rare exceptions, such a well is almost
always to be found. To give an example, in the Gloucester Cloister
Garth, which is carefully preserved, the old well is still in existence.
As time went on, the original purposes for which this fore-court or
atrium was intended existed no longer. The conditions of the Christian
society became largely modified, the Catechumen class in many cases
almost entirely disappeared, Church discipline became relaxed, the
number of penitents shut out from worship in the church became very
small--only notorious sinners were excluded.
As a place, too, for public interments, save in rare instances, the
portico was disused. In many cases, especially in cities, the large
space in front of the church was urgently needed for houses, while on
the other hand, new arrangements became necessary for the monastic life
which grew up round the ancient churches and abbeys. The Canons and
other persons connected with the service of cathedrals and the more
important churches, required accommodation.
To meet these new requirements, the outer court--the Atrium or
Portico--was removed from its original position in front of the church
to a quieter and more secluded place at the side of the cathedral
or abbey; and under the well-known mediæval name of Cloister, the
“Claustrum,” or enclosed space, this old portico or atrium reappeared,
and at once assumed an important, even an indispensable place, among
the mediæval abbatial or cathedral buildings.
At first the “Cloister” was little more than a cluster or block of
buildings, erected round an enclosed spot immediately under the great
house of prayer--mostly buildings designed as the dwelling-place of the
Canons and of the minor officials engaged in the services of the church.
The modern term “close” is derived directly from this usage. In very
early times a school, where various kinds of learning, profane as well
as sacred, existed in connection with the abbey or cathedral, found a
home in this cluster of dwellings.
This in England was the case of York in the seventh and eighth
centuries; in Canterbury in the days of Theodore and Hadrian; in
Winchester in the time of Ethelwolf, in the latter part of the tenth
century.
It was, however, in the Western Monasteries after the great revival
inaugurated by the important religious House of the Benedictines of
Cluny in the tenth century, that the “Cloister” of the Middle Ages
attained to its supreme importance. It served many purposes. It was
the heart of the community. It was the place where the dwellers in the
religious House spent many hours of their quiet life in meditation,
in literary work, in teaching. It was there that the novices were
often instructed. In the Cloister, too, the copyists of manuscripts
plied their various crafts, many simply copying the more ancient and
often perishable MSS. in their beautiful and careful handwriting, and
thus preserving accurate copies of what the world already possessed
of books. How few of the old treasures of literature would have been
handed down to the printing presses of the sixteenth century had not
this useful work gone on in these quiet cloisters? Certain of the
monks, too, were occupied in original research, and in composing and
arranging monastic and historical records.
One general plan, with occasional modifications, seems usually to
have been adopted in the great Cloisters of the Western Church on the
Continent as in England. In the Cloisters were doors leading to the
principal chambers and offices connected with the every-day life of a
monastic community, such as the Refectory where the monks dined, the
dormitory where they slept, during those few hours allotted to them for
rest, the Chapter House where they met daily, and consulted together
on the business public and private of their House, and on their varied
Mission work outside. Other doors in the Cloister led to the Infirmary,
where the sick and the aged monks received the tenderest care and
attention; to the Abbot or Prior’s special lodgings, to smaller
cloisters, sometimes termed a slype (the derivation of this word is
unknown), leading into outer courts and separate buildings; such as
the guest-chambers, kitchens and store rooms, into the Cemetery of the
religious House, into the garden. Two large doors besides, as a rule,
opened from the Cloister alleys directly into the church.
In the centre of the Cloister invariably was a small garden--the garth;
sometimes simply turfed, sometimes bright with flowers and shaded
with trees. In it as a rule the well above referred to was found. The
windows of the Cloister walls were, in some cases, especially in the
later Middle Ages, wholly or in part, glazed, sometimes with rich
stained glass.
Very frequently, in the more wealthy monastic foundations, and also
in the case of some cathedrals, the Cloister was richly adorned with
sculpture, and in some instances ornamented with colour.
Occasionally costly marbles were used for the pillars and their
capitals; indeed, no portion of the sacred building itself received
greater attention than did many of these mediæval Cloisters.
As examples of specially beautiful and costly Cloister work, we
would cite the well-known Cloisters of S. Paul, outside the walls of
Rome, and S. John Lateran. In Sicily the vast and splendid Cloisters
of Monreale are noteworthy. In France, the Cloister alleys of the
Cathedral of Rouen, S. Trophimus of Arles, the Abbey of Moissac
(Tarn-et-Garonne), the Abbey of Montmajeure (near Arles), Mont S.
Michel (Normandy), the Cathedrals of Toul, Soissons, and many others,
might be instanced. In England the beautiful cloisters of Westminster
Abbey are well known. Norwich, too, possesses a notable example.
But the most famous by far in England are the Cloisters of Gloucester.
In some respects they are the most beautiful in Northern Europe,
none possessing a roof comparable in richness and in general effect;
the glory of the fan-tracery of the Gloucester roof gives a special
character to the whole of this admirably preserved and perfect Cloister.
So costly and elaborate indeed were the decorations often lavished on
this most important part of the monastic buildings of the Middle Ages,
that the wonderful display of art in the adornment of the Cloister now
and again seems to have excited hostile criticism. As early as in the
thirteenth century, we read in the curious poem of Rutebeuf, a writer
who was welcome at the Court of S. Louis of France, a bitter note of
disapprobation of the splendour and magnificence of these costly works
of art which so frequently adorned the Cloisters of the monks in his
day and time.
“These monks”--he writes--“who possessed nothing”--these men who “fors
l’aumosne n’avoient rien”--yet adorned their austere home with--
“ymages li monstrent bien fètes
bien entaillies et portrêtes
mult orent cousté, ce li semble.”
Then after an elaborate description, the poet adds, that these things--
“ne font pas la religion
mes la bone composition.”
And yet in spite of the stern criticism of the austere poet of the
Court of S. Louis, that precursor of our English Wyclif and of the
Puritans of a yet later time, few will be found now, even among the
sternest critics of mediæval religion, who would dare to find fault
with the tender and graceful fancies with which the monastic orders
adorned the scenes of their solitary life-work, a work which, according
to their light, was wholly dedicated to God.
The Art world and its mighty teaching power would indeed be poorer if
some of the men who built and adorned these fair homes of prayer and
study, had not, among the many crafts which they cultivated with such
untiring zeal and conspicuous success, devoted themselves especially
to architecture and its many exquisite developments, outside as well
as inside the walls of their church--architecture which in their
skilful hands became in their day and time one of the most effective
instruments of popular education.
* * * * *
In our days, too, we must never forget that few indeed would have been
the remains of the great writers and teachers of Greece and Rome, had
it not been for the patient industry of the monks working in their
silent Cloister alleys.
It must be remembered that there was no printing press, no scribes
save these monks, to hand down the priceless literary treasures of a
bygone age. It was their patient industry alone which preserved for us
the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, and the precious words of
men who had talked with the Apostles and the pupils of the Apostles,
of teachers such as Clement and Irenæus, Origen and Tertullian,
Cyprian, Augustine and Jerome. Most of the writings of that long line
of illustrious fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church of the
first Christian centuries would have been lost irretrievably, had
not generation after generation of monkish scholar-scribes toiled
unweariedly in their still and often deadly cold Monastic Cloisters.
We who live in the restless evening (is it the evening?) of the world,
enjoy the fruits of their labours, and gaze with pathetic interest on
the comparatively few undisturbed remains of these once famous homes
of learning where so much good and useful work was done. In the quiet
beautiful Gloucester Cloister we possess one of these precious relics
of that almost forgotten past, to which we owe so much--one of the most
perfect that exists in England, perhaps in the whole of Northern Europe.
* * * * *
In such a Cloister as that of Gloucester, some idea can be gathered
of the conditions under which the monk-scribes carried on their work
of transcribing and editing--a work which, as we have shown, has been
of such inestimable value to us. The Cloister architecture might have
been, not unfrequently was, a marvel of grace and beauty, but it was
utterly devoid of what in modern phraseology is termed “comfort.” There
they ever toiled amidst the circumstances of an austere self-denying
life. The cold in England and in other countries of Northern Europe,
so rich in Monasteries of the first rank, was very severely felt in
these cloister-carrels or recesses such as we see in Gloucester. They
often wrote with straw heaped round their legs to protect them from
the effects of the searching damp and cold, although in the later
mediæval period glazing seems to have been somewhat largely introduced
with the view of rendering more tolerable the condition of these
toilers for God. In the books they transcribed and preserved for us,
and adorned with such rare art and skill, we occasionally light upon
silent pathetic testimonies to the hardships endured by these tireless
scholar-scribes. Montalembert in his _Monks of the West_, (Vol. VI,
Book XVIII, chap. iv), gives us some of these curious and interesting
reflections of long-forgotten monk-scribes. We will quote two or three
specimens of these Cloister notes.
“Nauta rudis pelagi ut saevis ereptus ab undis
In portum veniens, pectora laeta tenet;
Sic scriptor fessus, calamum sub calce laboris
Deponens, habeat pectora laeta quidem.”
This was found at the end of a Gospel Book of the eleventh century.
The Monk Louis of Wissobrun wrote at the end of the copy he had made of
S. Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel--
“Sedibus externis hic librum quem mode cernis
_Dum scripsit, friguit_, et quod cum lumine solis
Scribere non potuit, perfecit lumine noctis:
Sis Deus istorum merces condigna laborum.”
In a Latin MS. of the Carlovingian epoch, a scribe named Garimbert
wrote at the end of his book--
“Sicut navigantibus dulcis est portus, ita scriptori novissimus
versus.”
Cassiodorus thus quaintly but touchingly writes of the true aim of the
vast work of transcription carried on by the dwellers in these still
and silent cloisters--
“What a glorious labour is that which enables us to preach to men by
the hands as well as by the voice, to use our fingers in place of our
tongues, to place ourselves in relation with the rest of the world,
_without breaking silence_, and to combat with pen and ink the lawless
suggestions of the devil! for each word of Holy Scripture written by
the scholar-monk is a wound given to Satan ... a reed shaped into a
pen, as it glides over the page and traces the divine word there,
repairs, as it were, the wrong done by that other reed with which, on
the day of the Passion, the devil caused the head of the Lord to be
struck.”
* * * * *
Durandus, Bishop of Mende, in his great work _Rationale Divinorum
officiorum_, written in the latter years of the twelfth century, gives
us in his customary picturesque language, the symbolical significance
of the “Cloister”: “The diversity and variety of the dwellings and
occupations connected with the Cloister, and the buildings and offices
leading from it, are symbolical of the many mansions and various
rewards provided for the Faithful, in the kingdom of the hereafter.
‘For in my Father’s house are many mansions.’”
In a deeper sense the same Durandus[29] adds--“The Cloister represents
the state of contemplation of the soul, when it withdraws itself
from the world, after it has done away with earthly thoughts and
aspirations, and only meditates upon heavenly things.”
[Illustration: The Cloister of Gloucester Cathedral, showing Romanesque
and Gothic work. (The doorway leads into the Chapter House.) XI, XII,
XIV Centuries.]
APPENDIX
TRACES OF GAMES PLAYED BY NOVICES AND BOYS IN THE CLOISTERS
It is only in the last thirty years that the curious reliques of games
played in the Middle Ages by Novices and boys placed under the tuition
and care of the Monks were observed by J. T. Micklethwaite, the late
erudite architect of Westminster Abbey.
Several good examples of these game-boards occur in the Gloucester
Cloister, especially in the Cloister Alley appropriated to the Novices.
The games in question generally were “Nine Men’s Morris” and varieties
of the game of “Fox and Geese.”
Similar game-boards have been also found in the Benedictine Cloisters
of Westminster Abbey, Canterbury, Norwich and Durham, and in the
secular Cloisters of Chichester and of Salisbury.
These are generally found in what must have been the Novices’ quarters.
In some instances, however, they exist in places where they were
probably made by the _builders_ of the walls or stairs, to play
on during their leisure time. Examples of these latter have been
discovered in Scarborough Castle and in Norwich Castle. An admirable
example has been quite recently found by the writer of these Notes, on
the stair of the South-Eastern turret of the S. Transept, Gloucester
Cathedral.
There is little doubt but that in these game-boards we have reliques
of the mediæval games of the fourteenth century and even of a yet
earlier date. If careful search is made in Cloisters which have not
been destroyed or restored, it is probable that other interesting
examples will come to light.
A careful and exhaustive paper by Mr. Micklethwaite on these mediæval
games will be found in the _Archæological Journal_, xlix.
S. PETRONILLA’S ALTAR
THE EARLIEST HISTORICAL DETAIL EXISTING IN CONNECTION WITH THE
GLOUCESTER ABBEY
The earliest detail connected with the Abbey of Gloucester that we
possess is connected with this once famous but now well-nigh forgotten
Saint. In the _Historia Monasterii S. Petri Gloucestriæ_, a very
ancient collection of documents belonging to the great Benedictine
House put together by Abbot Froucester, _circa_ A.D. 1381, we find an
entry which relates how Kyneburg, the sister of King Osric, who built
the first Gloucester Church, after ruling the Religious House founded
by her brother for twenty-nine years, was buried BEFORE THE ALTAR OF S.
PETRONILLA in the year of grace 710.
Another entry in the same _Historia_ tells us that Queen Eadburg, the
widow of Wulphere, King of the Mercians, the second Abbess, A.D. 710 to
A.D. 735, was buried by the side of Kyneburg _before S. Petronilla’s
Altar_. King Osric himself, who built the first church and founded the
religious House, and who died in A.D. 729, was also buried according
to the same record “in ecclesia Sancti Petri coram altari sanctae
Petronillae in aquilonari parte ejusdem Monasterii.”
Leland, the secretary of King Henry VIII, writing of his official
visit to Gloucester after the suppression of the religious House,
_circa_ A.D. 1540--sums up the immemorial tradition in the following
words--“King Osric (the founder) first laye in S. Petronell’s Chapel of
the Gloucester Abbey.”
Professor Freeman, the historian, comments on these various notes and
entries as follows: “It is certain that there was a church of some
kind, a predecessor, however humble, of the great Cathedral Church of
Gloucester that now is, at least from the days of Osric (_circa_ A.D.
729). But more than that we cannot say, except that it contained an
altar of S. Petronilla.”
Now who was this S. Petronilla who was thus intimately connected with
our church in the earliest years of its existence?
We believe without any hesitation that she was the daughter of S.
Peter, the Lord’s Apostle and follower. Modern scholarship, however,
represented by Bishop Lightfoot of Durham, denies this, and asserts
that the immemorial derivation of Petronilla from Petro (Petrus), is
etymologically wrong, and that the name Petronilla is connected, not
with Petro but with Petronius--the founder of the imperial Flavian
family. Lightfoot then proceeds to suggest that Petronilla was a member
of the Flavian House, and became an early convert to Christianity, and
was subsequently buried with other members of the Flavian family in the
Domitilla Cemetery, where her tomb was recently discovered by De Rossi,
the Roman archæologist, to whose life-long labours we owe so much of
the Catacomb lore which has excited so much interest in recent days.
Curiously enough, late Roman Catholic scholars and writers join hands
here with Bishop Lightfoot in denying the paternity of the great
Apostle, but on different grounds. Modern Roman Catholic theology
shrinks from acknowledging that S. Peter had a daughter at all,
preferring to believe that S. Peter was free from all family and home
ties.
De Rossi, however, with other Italian scholars, sweeps away the
etymological difficulty[30] pressed by Lightfoot, and while declining
to give up the ancient “Petrine” tradition, maintains that Petronilla
was a daughter, but simply a _spiritual_ daughter of the Apostle,
in other words merely an ordinary convert of S. Peter. This curious
explanation of what later theology felt was a difficulty seems to have
been first suggested by Baronius.
The etymological difficulty pressed by Bishop Lightfoot and other
scholars, and the more important doctrinal question which has perplexed
the later Roman Catholic theologians, in no way seems to have weighed
with scholars and divines in earlier times; this will be seen from a
brief examination of the estimation in which S. Petronilla has been
ever held.
As early as the closing years of the fourth century, Siricius, Bishop
of Rome, A.D. 391-395, built the important Basilica lately discovered
in the Domitilla cemetery or catacomb on the Via Ardeatina, but
although the Basilica in question contained the historic tombs of
the famous martyrs SS. Nereus and Achilles, as well as the remains
of S. Petronilla, Siricius dedicated the Basilica in question to S.
Petronilla. Surely the Bishop of Rome (Siricius) would never have
dedicated this important and very early church to a comparatively
unknown member of the Flavian House, still less would he have called it
by the name of a simple convert of the great Apostle. Petronilla in his
days must have possessed some very especial title to honour.
In Siricius’ eyes there was evidently no shadow of doubt that the
Petronilla for whom he had so deep a veneration was the veritable
daughter of S. Peter, and as time went on the devotion which for many
centuries was paid to her remains, is a clear indication of the view
which was universally taken of her illustrious lineage. We will give
some striking examples of this.
THE WANDERINGS OF THE REMAINS OF S. PETRONILLA
The sarcophagus which contained the body of S. Petronilla rested in
its original position in the Basilica of Siricius until A.D. 787,
when it was removed to one of the little Rotunda Chapels which once
stood adjacent to the south side of the great Church of S. Peter on
the Vatican Hill. The reason for this first translation is singularly
interesting, and shows in a remarkable way the deep veneration in
which the remains of the daughter of S. Peter were held. S. Peter
was specially honoured by the Frankish nation, and S. Petronilla his
daughter, sharing in this special devotion, was styled by Pope Paul I,
_circa_ A.D. 757, the “auxiliatrix” of Pepin, the king of the Franks,
and when Pope Stephen II, _circa_ A.D. 752, was on a visit to Pepin’s
court, he promised as a pledge of the alliance between the Papacy and
the Franks against the Lombards, to remove the body of S. Petronilla,
who was evidently specially venerated by the Frankish people, of
course owing to her illustrious parentage, from the Basilica of
Siricius on the Via Ardeatina, where it was exposed to the profanities
of Barbarian raiders, to the more secure shelter of the walls which
protected the Church of S. Peter.
This promise was carried out by Paul I, the brother and successor of
Stephen II, _circa_ A.D. 757, and the sarcophagus of S. Petronilla
was placed in the Rotunda Chapel above mentioned. This Rotunda Chapel
contained the ashes of the wife of Honorius, Maria the daughter of
Stilicho, and other Imperial remains, but after the translation of
the remains of S. Peter’s daughter it was known as the Chapel of S.
Petronilla, and it was especially placed under the care of the kings of
France.
There the body of Petronilla rested until A.D. 1471, when in
consequence of a restoration undertaken at the cost of Louis XI
of France, the sacred sarcophagus was seen and the ancient simple
inscription on it, “Aureliæ Petronillae fil dulcissimae” was copied.
Early in the fourteenth century, when Old S. Peter’s was demolished,
the Rotunda Chapel was pulled down, and the sarcophagus of S.
Petronilla lay for many years neglected in the Sacristy of New S.
Peter’s. It was subsequently ruthlessly broken up when so many ancient
monuments perished in the building work of the New S. Peter’s, and the
pieces of the sarcophagus were used as a pavement.
The remains, however, of the Saint were transferred to a new coffin and
were eventually, _circa_ A.D. 1606, placed under the altar where they
now rest. The spot in question is known as the Chapel of S. Petronilla.
It is in the extreme end of the right transept of S. Peter’s. Above the
resting-place of the Saint is a large mosaic copied from Guercino’s
picture of Petronilla raised from the tomb.
There is a curious custom belonging to this Chapel, bearing upon the
ancient tradition connecting France and S. Petronilla. The French
Ambassador, after presenting his credentials to the Pope, used at once
to visit this Chapel of S. Petronilla in S. Peter’s.
* * * * *
Again reverting to the eighth century testimony above referred to in
the case of the action of Popes Stephen II and Paul I, when the remains
of S. Petronilla were translated from the Basilica of Siricius to the
Rotunda Chapel by the great church--there was a striking witness to
what was the general belief of that age in the parentage of the then
famous Saint, in an inscription on an altar at Bourges dedicated to
the Blessed Virgin Mary and other saints, an inscription attributed to
Alcuin, the Minister of Charlemagne, _circa_ A.D. 790. The inscription
consists of eight hexameter lines. One line runs thus: “Et Petronilla
patris praeclari filia Petri.”
* * * * *
In England, besides the famous reference to the Altar and Chapel of S.
Petronilla in the ancient church of Osric at Gloucester, there is only
one church known to be dedicated to S. Petronilla; it is at Whepstead,
near Bury S. Edmunds, where her name is curiously abbreviated as S.
Parnel.
The close connection between the Royal Mercian and Northumbrian family
of Osric, the founder of the Abbey (Cathedral) of Gloucester, and S.
Petronilla, the daughter of S. Peter, the Saint so strangely venerated
by the Frankish peoples, is unknown.
INDEX
Aachen, Palace-chapel of, 22, 23, 53
“Abbeys of Expiation,” 39
Agatha, 73
Agilulf, King of the Lombards, 14, 18
Aix-la-Chapelle, 27
Aix-la-Chapelle, Palace-chapel of, 22, 23, 69
Alaric, 7
Albertus Magnus, 83
Albigensian Wars, 30
Alboin the Lombard, 6, 12, 14, 15, 53
Alcuin (the Minister of Charlemagne), 143
Alfred, King, 22
Amalasuntha, 10
Amiens, Cathedral of, 33, 53, 61
Anacletus, 97, 97 note 25, 98, 100, 105, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 118,
119, 120, 122
Angles, 26
Anglo-Saxons, 38, 39
Angoulême, 27
Anselm, S., 51
Antoniano, Cardinal, 117
Apollinaris, Sidonius, Bishop of Clermont, 25
Apostles, Church of the (Cologne), 24
Appian Way, 99, 122
Aquinas, 83
Aquitaine, 26, 29, 30, 33 note 11, 36, 69
Arcadius, 7
Arliano, Church of (near Lucca), 19
Armellini, 118
Ataulphus, 7
Athalaric, 10
Augustine, 21, 88, 133
Augustus, Emperor, 10 note 5, 68 note 20
Aungre (Chipping Ongar), Chapel near, 22
Autharis, King of the Lombards, 14, 16, 18
Auvergne, 25, 69
Auxerre, 27
Auxerre, Crypt of Cathedral of, 102
“Ave Maria,” the, 82
Bangor, 89
Barberini, Cardinal. _See_ Urban VIII
Barcelona, 7
Barnes, Mgr., 112 note 28, 113, 117
Baronius, 140
Basil, Emperor, 48
Bayeux, 44
Beauvais Cathedral, 61, 62
Bec-Herlouin, 44
Becket, S. Thomas à, 103
Bede, 21, 51
Belisarius, 6, 10
Bellarmine, Cardinal, 117
Benedict, S., 51
Benedictines, the, 19 note 7, 138
Benedictines of Cluny, 34, 103, 129
Bernay, Church at, 36
Bernini, 118, 119, 120
Besançon, Crypt of, 102
Beverley, 92
Big Ben (Houses of Parliament, London), 53
Biscop, Benedict, 21
Bonanni, 117
Bonaventura, 83
Bond, Mr., 56
Bonn, Minster Church of, 24
Bordeaux, 27, 102
Bourges, Cathedral of, 33, 61
Brescia, 19
Brixworth Church, 21
_Builder, The_, quoted, 60 note 19
Burgundy, 31, 32, 90
Byzantine Empire, Artists, etc., 12, 13, 20, 47
Caen, 37, 44
Caius, Presbyter, 98, 109
Cambridge, 21
Canterbury, Canterbury Cathedral, and Crypt, 21, 40, 91, 102, 103,
129, 137
Carlisle, 89
Carolingian princes, 23
Cassiodorus, 135
Catacombs, the, 84 note 23, 101
Catechumens, 127
Caumont, M. de, 3
Cecilia, 73
Cerisy le Fôret, Church at, 36
Charlemagne, 19, 22, 23, 26, 41, 53, 69, 115
Chartres, and Cathedral, and Crypt of, 27, 33, 61, 102, 136 note 29
Cherubim, 81
Chester, 89
Chichester, and Cloisters of, 89, 137
Chipping Ongar, 22
Christ Church, Oxford, 40, 89
Christianity in Britain, 86, 87, 88, 90
Chrysostom, S. John, 77
Cistercians, 31, 32, 83
Citeaux, 31, 32
Classis, 9, 10 note 5
Clement, 133
Clement VIII, 117
Clermont Ferrand, Church of, 25
Cluny, and Abbey and Monks of, 29, 31, 31 note 10, 32, 34, 34 note
12, 37, 42, 44, 91, 103, 129
Coblenz, 24
Cologne, 24, 27
Cologne Cathedral, 23, 53
Columba, 90
Comacine Builders and Guild, the, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 34, 41, 42, 45,
47, 50, 53, 54
Comacine Islands, 15
Como, 15, 16
Constantine, 100, 109, 110, 111, 117, 120, 127
Constantinople, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 20, 20 note 8, 25, 50, 57, 68, 68
note 20, 70, 72, 78, 106, 123
Constantius (Augustus), 7, 8
Creighton, Bishop, 110 note 27
Crusades, 50, 56, 79, 80, 81, 84
Ctesiphon, Palace of, 56
Cyprian, 133
Dalmatia, 41
Danes, 26
De Lasterie, 56
De Rossi, 139, 140
Diaconus, Paulus, 18, 18 note 7, 19 note 7
Dijon, Abbey of S. Benignus at, 34, 36, 42, 102
Diocletian, 4, 5, 53
Dol, Church of, 89
Dominicans, 82
Domitilla Cemetery, 139, 140
Drei, Benedetto, 118
Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, 22
Durandus, Bishop of Mende (Mimatensis), 50, 51, 135, 136, 136 note 29
Durham Cathedral, 40, 44, 70, 89, 137
Eadburg, Queen, 138
Edward the Confessor, 22, 88
Egypt, 56
Eleutherius, 122
Eleutherus, S., 102
Ely Cathedral, 40, 43, 70, 89
Emporium by the Tiber, 4
England, 20, 21, 22, 33 note 11, 38, 42, 54, 58, 61
Engles, 86, 92
Enlart, 56
Ethelred II (the Unready), 22
Ethelwolf, 116, 129
Eudes de Montreuil, 62
Eulalia, 73
Evarestus, 122
Evelyn, 5 note 3, 55
Exarchate, the, 12
Exeter, 89
Fécamp, 36, 44
Flavian family, 139, 141
France, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33 note 11, 59, 61, 62, 69, 90, 91, 131, 142,
143
Franciscans, 83
Franks, the, 141, 142, 143
Freeman, Professor, 4, 5, 5 note 4, 20, 139
Frisians, 26
Froucester, Abbot, 138
Fulda, 23
Garimbert, 135
Garonne, River, 27
Gascony, 29
Gaul, 20, 20 note 8, 24, 26, 27, 28, 33, 69, 72, 89, 91, 101, 102
Germany, 20, 22, 23, 24, 41
Gernrode, 23
Gerville, M. de, 3
Giacomo della Porta, 117
Glanber, Raoul, 29
Gloucester Abbey, 40, 43, 44, 71, 88, 138, 139
Gloucester Cathedral, 52, 60, 61, 62, 67, 70, 74, 81, 85, 86, 90, 91,
102 (Crypt), 104 (Crypt), 104, 127, 128, 131, 133, 134, 137, 143
Goths, 10, 55
“Great Peter” (Bell in Gloucester Cathedral), 52
Great Tom (Oxford), 53
Greece, 50, 84, 133
Greek architecture, 55
Greek or Eastern Church, 106
Gregory of Tours, 25
Gregory the Great, 79
Guéranger of Solesmes, Dom, 136 note 29
Guercino, 142
Guienne, 29
Guimond, Chaplain of Henry I, 40
Guizot, 26
Gundulph, 40
Hadrian I, Pope, 114, 115, 129
Hanley, Abbot, 90
Henry II of England, 38
Henry III of England, 88
Heraclius, Emperor, 78
Heralds’ College, the, 55
Herbert of Losinga, Prior of Fécamp, 40
Hereford Cathedral, 43, 89
Hexham, Basilica of S. Andrew, 21
Hexham, Crypt of, 102
Holy Apostles, Church of the (Constantinople), 68, 70
Holy Cross, Church of (Ravenna), 8
Honorius, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 25, 53, 142
Hood, Thomas, 55 note 17
Hook, Theodore, 55 note 17
Hutton, Edward, 73, 74
Hyginus, 122
Ile de France, 32, 59
Ireland, 86
Irenæus, 133
Italy, 6, 7, 9, 15, 17, 41, 48, 72, 86, 90
Jackson, Sir Thomas, 28, 29 note 9, 31, 33 note 11
Jarrow, 21
Jerome, 133
Jerusalem, and the Temple of, 45, 50, 79, 105, 106, 108
Jesus Christ, 108 note 26
John, Abbot of Séez, 40
John, King of England, 38
Jouarre, Crypt of, 102
Julia, Basilica (Roman Forum), 68 note 20
Julius II, Pope, 110 note 27
Jumiéges, Abbey of, 43
Jumiéges, Church at, 36
Justinian, 3, 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, 20, 25, 53, 57, 68, 68 note 20, 70,
72, 73, 78
Jutes, 26, 86, 92
Kaiser Bell in Cathedral of Cologne, 53
Kioto Monastery, Japan, 53
Kyneburg, 138
Lanciani, 101, 117
Lanfranc, 36, 37, 40, 54
Languedoc, 30
Laon, Cathedral of, 33, 89
Leland (Secretary to King Henry VIII), 138
Leo IV, Pope, 116
Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, 139, 140, 140 note 30
Lincoln, 43, 89, 91
Lindisfarne, Priory Church of, 89
Linus, Bishop, 97, 108, 121, 122
“Lion of the tribe of Judah,” 47
Liutbrand, King, 14
Loire, River, 27
Lombard, Peter, 83
Lombards, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 141
Lombardy, 20, 53
London, 22, 106
Lorsch, Sepulchral Chapel at, 23
Louis of Wissobrun, 135
Louis II, Emperor, 115
Louis XI of France, 142
Lucca, 5 note 4, 19
Lyons, 25
Macedonia, 20 note 8
Macon, 31
Maderno, 117
Magi, or Wise Men, 84 note 23, 85
Mahommed, 79
Maieul, 34
Mainz, Cathedral of, 24
Malvern Abbey, 43
Maria (daughter of Stilicho), 142
Martel, Charles, 26
Martin, Abbot of Bec, 40
Marucchi, 117
Mary, the Virgin, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 123, 143
Matilda (queen of William I), 37
Meaux, Cathedral of, 33
Mediterranean Sea, 26
Metz, 27
Micklethwaite, J. T., 137, 138
Milan, 6, 41, 42, 48
Milman, Dean, 80 note 21
Moissac, Abbey of (Tarn-et-Garonne), 131
Monkwearmouth, 21
Monreale, Cloisters of (Sicily), 131
Mont S. Michel, 44
Mont S. Michel, Church at, 36
Montalembert, 134
Monte Cassino, 19, 115
Montmajeure, Abbey of, 131
Moscow, 52, 53, 106
Muratori, 18
Narses, 6, 10
Nero, 107, 121
_New Monthly Magazine_ (Colburn), quoted, 55 note 17
Newquay, 93
Nicodemus, 108 note 26
Nola, 51
Norman Conquest of England, 38, 39
Normandy, 28, 33 note 11, 36, 43, 50, 54
Normans, the, 88
Northmen, 27, 32, 87, 89, 94
Norwich Castle, 137
Norwich Cathedral, 40, 43, 70, 131, 137
Notre Dame of Paris, 61
Notre Dame, Paris, Bell in, 53
Noyon, Cathedral of, 33
Odin, 92
Odoaces, 9
Old Sarum, 89
Old S. Peter’s Church (Rome), 103, 110, 142
Origen, 133
Orleans, 27, 52, 102
Osric, King, 138, 139
Osric, Church of (Gloucester), 143
Ostian Way, 109
Otto the Great, 23
Oxford, Crypt of, 102
Palgrave, 26
Palmieri, 118
Pantheon, the, 119
Paris, 32, 128
Paris, Cathedral of, 33
Paris, Matthew, 39, 39 note 14
Parvis Notre Dame of Paris, 128
Paul I, Pope, 114, 141, 142, 143
Paul V, Pope, 117
Paul, Monk of S. Etienne, Caen, 40
Pavia, 18
Pelagia, 73
Pelagius II, 114
Pepin, King of France, 114, 141
Périgueux, 30
Perigord, 30
Perpetuus, Bishop, 45
Perranporth, 93
Perranzabuloe, Church of, 92, 93
Peterborough, Abbey of, 40
Peterborough Cathedral, 70
Petronius, 139
Philip Augustus, King, 32
Piedmont, 34 note 12
Pisa, 5 note 4
Pius I, 122
Pius IX, Pope, 83 note 22
Placidia, Galla, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 25, 53
Pliny the Younger, 15
Poitiers, 27
Poitou Limousin, 29
Procopius, 9
Provence, 26, 30, 33 note 11, 69
Prudentius, 122
Puritans, the, 132
Pusey, Dr., 83 note 22
Quedlinburg, Church at, 23
Quicherat, 25, 26, 27, 28
Ravenna, 5, 5 note 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 10 note 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18,
41, 48, 50, 53, 69, 70, 72, 74, 136 note 29
Repton, Crypt of, 102
Rhine, River, 101, 102
Rhone, River, 27
Richard I of England, 38
Richard II (le Bon), Duke of Normandy, 36, 42, 50, 54
Ripon, S. Peter’s, and Crypt of, 21, 102
Rivoira, 19, 20 note 8, 23, 28, 48, 68, 69 note 20
Robert, King of France, 52
Roberto, Lord of Volpiano, 34
Rochester Cathedral and Crypt of, 40, 90, 102
Rodelinda, Queen, 18
Roman Architecture, 55
Roman Architects and Builders, Guild of, 16
Romans, 50
Rome, 4, 6, 15, 18, 24, 47, 69 note 20, 86, 90, 97-101, 105-109, 115,
133
Romulus Augustulus, 9
“Rosary” (form of prayer), 82
Rotharis, King of the Lombards, 14, 15, 16, 53
Rouen, 27, 44
Rouen, Cathedral of, 33, 131
Rutebeuf, 132
Sabinianus, Pope, 51
S. Achilles, 140
S. Agata, Church of (Ravenna), 8
S. Agnan, Church of (Orleans), 52
S. Agnes, Church of (Rome), 47, 101
S. Agnese, Church of (Rome), 69 note 20
S. Albans, Abbey at, 40, 43
S. Ambrogio, Church of (Milan), 42
S. Andrew, Basilica of (Hexham), 21
S. Andrew’s Church, Cambridge, 21
S. Apollinare, 9
S. Apollinare in Classe, Church of (Ravenna), 10, 10 note 5, 48
S. Apollinare Nuovo, Church of (Ravenna), 9, 48, 73, 74
S. Avitus, Crypt of (Orleans), 102
S. Basil, 79
S. Benigno de Fruttuaria, Monastery of (Piedmont), 34 note 12
S. Benignus, Abbey of (Dijon), 34, 36, 42
S. Benignus, Crypt of Church of (Dijon), 102
S. Bernard of Clairvaux, 79, 84
S. Callistus, Cemetery of, 122
S. Castor, Church of (Coblenz), 24
S. Clement, 73
S. Clementi, Church of (Rome), 47
S. Cyprian, 73
S. Cyriacus, Church of (Gernrode), 23
S. Cyril, 78
S. Denys, Church of (near Paris), 102, 103
S. Dominic, 82
S. Edmund, 22
S. Etienne, Church at, 37
S. Eutropius, Crypt of (Saintes), 102
S. Francesco, Church of (Ravenna), 8
S. Francis, 82
S. Front, Church of (Périgueux), 30
S. Gereon, Church of (Cologne), 24
S. Giorgio, Church of (Valpolicella), 19
S. Giovanni Evangelista, Church of (Ravenna), 8, 48
S. Giulia, Island of, 34 note 12
S. Gregory I, Pope (the Great), 79
S. Gregory III, Pope, 114
S. Gregory of Tours, 112, 113
S. Gwithian, Church of, 91, 92, 93
S. John, 84, 85
S. John Lateran, Cloisters of, 131
S. Laurence, 73
S. Leo III, 114
S. Lorenzo, Church of (Rome), 69 note 20, 101
S. Louis, 62, 63, 132
S. Maria im Capitol, Church of (Cologne), 24
S. Mark’s, Church of (Venice), 30, 70
S. Martin, Church of (Cologne), 24
S. Martin (S. Apollinare Nuovo), Church of (Ravenna), 9
S. Martin, Church of (Tours), 25, 45
S. Mary Magdalene, 102
S. Medard of Soissons, Crypt of, 102
S. Michael, Church of (Fulda), 23
S. Michel, Mont, Abbey (Normandy), 131
S. Nazianzus, 78
S. Nereus, 140
S. Ouen (Rouen), Church at, 36
S. Parnel, Church of (Whepstead), 143
S. Paul, 73, 99, 107, 109, 121
S. Paul’s Church, Jarrow, 21
S. Paul, Church of (Rome), 101, 131
S. Peran in Sabulo, 92, 93
S. Peter, 99, 105-113, 115, 121, 122, 123, 139-141, 143
S. Peter’s Abbey (Gloucester), 91
S. Peter, Abbey Church of (Westminster Abbey), 22
S. Peter’s Church, Monkwearmouth, 21
S. Peter’s Church, Ripon, 21
S. Peter’s Church (Rome), 97, 97 note 25, 99, 109, 110, 110 note 27,
117, 118, 119, 141, 142, 143
S. Peter at Rome, Crypt of, 105-123
S. Peter’s tomb, 100
S. Petronilla, Church of (Rome), 101
S. Petronilla and S. Petronilla’s Altar, 138-143
S. Pietro, Church of (Toscanella), 19
S. Prassede, Church of (Rome), 47
S. Quatuor Coronati, Church of (Rome), 69 note 20
S. Rusticus, 102
S. Salvatore, Church of (Brescia), 19
S. Salvatore, Church of (Spoleto), 69 note 20
S. Satiro, Church of (Milan), 42, 48
S. Sebastian, Basilica (Rome), 99
S. Sebastian, Church of (Rome), 101
S. Sernin, Church of (Toulouse), 30
S. Seurin, Church of (Bordeaux), 102
S. Sixtus, 73
S. Sophia, Basilica of (Constantinople), 6
S. Sophia, Church of (Constantinople), 13, 20 note 8, 25, 50, 68,
70, 72
S. Sophia, Church of (Salonica), 20 note 8
S. Teuteria, Church of (Verona), 19
S. Theodore (Spirito Sancto), Church of, 10
S. Trophimus of Arles, Abbey of, 131
S. Vitale, Church of (Ravenna), 10, 23, 50, 69, 70
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, Church of (Constantinople), 70
Saintes, 102
Salisbury Cathedral, 89, 91, 137
Salonica, 20 note 8, 68 note 20, 72
Saracens, 26, 56, 78, 115, 116, 117
Saxons, 26, 86, 92
Scarborough Castle, 137
Scheldt, River, 27
Scott, Leader, 45, 47
Séez, 44
Seine, River, 27
Seraphim, 81
Sergius I, Pope, 114
Sergius II, Pope, 115
Serlo, Monk of Mont S. Michel, Normandy, 40
Serlo and Aldred, Abbey of, 90
Sfondriato, Cardinal, 117
Sicily, 115, 131
Silchester, 87
Simeon, Monk of S. Ouen, Rouen, 40
Siricius, Bishop of Rome, 140, 141, 142, 143
Sixtus I, 122
Soissons Cathedral, 131
Soissons, Cathedral of, 33
Solomon, King, 45
Solomon’s Knot, 47
Southwell Abbey, 40
Southwell Cathedral, 70
Spalatro, 4, 5, 53
Spires, Church of, 102
Spires, Cathedral of, 24
Spirito Sancto, Church of, 10
Spoleto, 69 note 20
Steinbach, Church at, 23
Stephen, King of England, 38
Stephen II, Pope, 141, 142, 143
Stephen, Sir James, 26
Strasburg, Crypt of, 102
Suger, Abbot of S. Denys near Paris, 102
Syria, 50, 56
Szyrma, Mr. Lach, 92
Telesphorus, 122
Tertullian, 98, 133
Teutons, 106
Tewkesbury Abbey, 40, 43, 44
Theodolinda, Queen, 13, 14, 18
Theodora, Empress, 72
Theodoric the Ostrogoth, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 53, 73
Theodosius I, the Great, 6, 7
Theodosius II, 7
Thessalonica, 68
Thor, 92
_Times, The_, quoted, 60 note 18
Titus, 105
Torrigio, 118
Toscanella, 19
Toul, 27
Toul Cathedral, 131
Toulouse, 27, 30
Tournai, 27
Tournai, Cathedral of, 69
Tours, 26, 27, 45
Treves, 27
Trinité, Church of the (Caen), 37
Troyes, 27
Tsar Kolokol of Moscow Bell, 52, 53
Tulun, Mosque of, 56
Turks, 4
Ubaldi, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123
Urban VIII (Cardinal Barberini), 118
Valentinian II, 7, 8, 9
Valpolicella, 19
Vandals, 55
Vatican Hill, the, 100, 107, 109, 113, 118, 121
Venice, 30, 70
Verdun, 27
Verona, 19
Vézelay, 32, 33 note 11
Vézelay, Crypt of, 102
Via Cæsarea, the, 10 note 5
Victor, Bishop of Rome, 122
Villemain, 26
Viollet le Duc, 26, 28, 50, 136 note 29
Vitruvius, 5 note 3
Volpiano, William of, 34, 34 note 12, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 50, 54
Wace, 39
Walkelin, Monk of S. Etienne, Caen, 40
West, Dr., 60 note 19
Westminster Abbey, 22, 61, 88, 141
Whepstead, 143
Wilfred, Bishop, 21, 102
William I of England, 22, 37, 39, 42, 43
William II of England, 38
William of S. Carileph, 40, 44
Winchester, 129
Winchester Cathedral, 40, 43, 70, 89
Winchester, Crypt of, 102
Wing, Crypt of, 102
Worcester (Church of), Crypt of, 90, 102
Worms, Cathedral of, 24
Wulphere, King of the Mercians, 138
Wyclif, 132
York, 129
York Cathedral, 61, 89, 91
York Minster, Crypt of, 102
_Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, London and Bungay._
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Notably Quicherat, Viollet le Duc, de Caumont, Corroyer, in France;
in our England, Freeman, Jackson, and Bond; Rivoira in Italy, only to
mention a few notable names.
[2] Signor Rivoira, _Le Origini dell Architectura Lombarda_, 2 vols.
4to: Roma. Sir Thomas Graham Jackson, R.A., _Byzantine and Romanesque
Architecture_, 2 vols. 4to: Cambridge.
[3] A word or two explanatory of the term “entablature” will be useful
for those who are not familiar with architectural terminology. The term
belongs to the Renaissance period; it seems to have been first used by
Evelyn (A.D. 1664). Vitruvius has no single term to express the group
of members of which the “entablature” is composed. He writes of “Membra
quae supra columnas imponuntur.” These include the _architrave_,
_frieze_ and _cornice_.
[4] Freeman remarks here that in the buildings of Ravenna (fifth, sixth
and seventh centuries) and in other Romanesque piles, a solid member
is thrust in between the abacus and the capital, in order to guard
the often delicate capital from the pressure of the arch it supports.
The Italian name for this member is _pulvino_, which is sometimes
translated now as _pulvin_. This _pulvino_, especially in Byzantine
work, often grows into a double capital. The English scholar deems this
an unsightly feature in Romanesque architecture, and suggests that the
true remedy is found in the noble buildings of Lucca and Pisa, where
the abaci are heavier--heavy enough to protect the capital from being
crushed. The usual English equivalent for _Pulvino_ is Dosseret, or
Impost.
[5] _Classis_--_Classe_--was the port, perhaps the chief harbour of
the Roman fleet, and was built by the Emperor Augustus. It was in the
great days of Ravenna a vast port and arsenal, and possessed various
important churches, of which the magnificent Basilica of S. Apollinare
in Classe alone remains. Classis was joined to Ravenna by a long
suburb, the Via Cæsarea, nearly three miles long; but Classis and
Cæsarea have all disappeared, and the lonely Basilica of S. Apollinare
stands now by itself in the marshes.
The sea, which once bathed the walls of Classis, has retreated some two
miles, leaving what was once Classis empty and desolate. In the days
of Ravenna’s glory and prosperity the three towns, Ravenna, the long
suburb of Cæsarea, and the vast port of Classis, must have appeared as
one great city.
[6] Certain writers place the vanishing of the Comacine builders at a
somewhat later date.
[7] Writing of the importance of certain of the works of this far-back
age of Lombardic art, Paulus Diaconus dwells on the “Basilica of
the Mother of God,” outside the walls of Pavia, erected by Queen
Rodelinda, _circa_ A.D. 686, and describes it in the following words:
“Opere mirabili condidit, ornamentisque miraficis decoravit” (_Hist.
Langobardorum_). Paulus Diaconus was a monk, and most probably wrote
his history in the great Monastery of the Benedictines at Monte
Cassino. He was born _circa_ A.D. 723 and died about A.D. 800.
[8] We are not dealing here with Byzantine architecture. Constantinople
and the Eastern empire, while maintaining generally the round-arch
style, had her own great architectural invention, the Cupola, which
under Justinian in the sixth century was brought to perfection in the
great Church of S. Sophia; this was copied in many a famous church in
the Eastern empire. It influenced later some of the architecture in the
Southern Provinces of Gaul (France).
Freeman, however, is scarcely accurate in styling the Cupola as the
great architectural invention of the Byzantine masters.
The Byzantine-domed Basilica, as it appeared in the time of Justinian,
as Rivoira accurately tells us, was the result of a gradual but
tolerably rapid evolution. It was really a creation of the Latin mind,
and is based upon the old Roman-domed buildings. The Byzantine-domed
church appears first in Macedonia, where we find it notably in Salonica
in the Church of S. Sophia in that city; it received its present
development at Constantinople, in the mighty Basilica of S. Sophia,
and may justly be termed the principal characteristic feature of the
round-arch style of Byzantine architecture.
The dome or Cupola was, however, by no means unknown or unused in
the Lombardic School of the Comacine builders. But it never really
took root in Italy and in the West, save, perhaps, later in certain
districts in the south of France. It is in Constantinople and in the
near East that it was developed and adopted as the main prominent
feature of the Byzantine style.
[9] In this little summary of French Romanesque churches of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, the careful classification of Sir
Thomas Jackson, R.A., has been generally followed. A considerable
portion of his work on Romanesque and Byzantine architecture is devoted
to this Romanesque work in France.
[10] For the rise and development of Norman-Romanesque, its passing
into England and its connection with the great Burgundian Monastery of
Cluny, see below, p. 36.
[11] In these great Gothic cathedrals traces of the old Romanesque
style remain, but the round-arch and other Romanesque features were
evidently rapidly giving place to the new and generally favoured Gothic
school. In other parts of France, Sir Thomas Jackson well summarises as
follows; when this movement towards a new style in the “Royal Domain”
took place in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, we find Romanesque
art still running its course. In Vézelay (Burgundy), for instance,
although the pointed arch had been admitted, the general design still
clung to the ancient tradition, and the round-arch still ruled the
design. In Auvergne it still reigned supreme.... In Aquitaine the domed
style continued to prevail. In Normandy and England the round-arched
style followed a line of its own. In Provence, too, Romanesque held its
own for a longer period than in the “Royal Domain.”
[12] William of Volpiano was born _circa_ A.D. 961, on the Island of
Santa Giulia in the Lago di Orta--part of the Lago Maggiore. He was the
son of Roberto, Lord of Volpiano. He also founded the Monastery of S.
Benigno de Fruttuaria in Piedmont. He became one of the brotherhood of
Cluny towards the end of the tenth century.
[13] Of the capitals of the columns, the most usual were what is
commonly termed cushion capitals; these were not invented by the Norman
architects, but under their hands put on a character of their own.
[14] Orderic’s words which he puts into the mouth of the dying
conqueror are remarkable--
“Sic multa millia pulcherrimæ gentis, proh dolor! funestus trucidavi.”
Matthew Paris repeats, in other words, the same statement.
[15] An account of this “Comacine” Guild will be found on p. 14-17.
[16] Leader Scott, _The Cathedral Builders_, the story of a great
Masonic Guild, 1899.
[17] How hardly this popular misconception of “Gothic” died away
amongst us, is curiously exemplified in a statement which appeared in
the once widely-read _New Monthly Magazine_ (Colburn), 1841, edited
by Theodore Hook and then by Thomas Hood. We read here, “The Heralds’
College knocked up a shield containing the armorial bearings of both
the families.... The College tacked the tail of the sea woman to the
head of a griffin--_as everything ugly and unnatural is valued in
Heraldry and Gothic architecture_. This incongruous monster told well.”
[18] They will be found, with many like words, in a most interesting
and suggestive series of papers on “French Cathedrals,” which appeared
in the _Times_ of August and September 1912.
[19] Compare a remarkable lecture of Dr. West, before the
“Architectural Association,” reported in the _Builder_ of Feb. 17, 1906.
[20] Rivoira will not allow that the women’s galleries of the Eastern
Church, so notable a feature in the churches of Constantinople and
Salonica of Justinian, and other great Byzantine church builders,
was a pure invention of these architects. But he believes that these
galleries, so universal in the planning of Eastern Basilicas, were in
the first instance imitated from an older model, viz. from certain of
the Pagan civil galleried Basilicas, such as the Basilica Julia in the
Roman Forum, which even _before_ its rebuilding by Augustus in A.D. 12
possessed a gallery occupied on the occasion of important trials.
He also dates a _very few_ ancient examples of the existence of such a
gallery in churches of the Latin type, notably in the Churches of S.
Salvatore (Spoleto), fifth century; S. Lorenzo (Rome), sixth century;
SS. Quatuor Coronati (Rome), seventh century; S. Agnese (Rome), seventh
century.
Still, granting the strict accuracy of Rivoira’s interesting account of
the genesis of the Byzantine introduction of the women’s galleries, the
general deductions given above will not be affected.
The adoption of the women’s galleries in Byzantine churches was,
without doubt, referable to the Eastern use of the separation of the
sexes in divine worship; still, in spite of the existence of certain
rare exceptions, it was never really a Latin practice.
The planning of great churches in the West, until the “coming” of
the Anglo-Norman school of architects, was emphatically without this
gallery. But the Byzantine great women’s galleries were indisputably
the origin of the Triforium, which really only reappeared in parts of
the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
[21] Dean Milman of S. Paul’s, _Latin Christianity_. Book VII, chap.
vi; Book XIV, chap. ii.
[22] This startling doctrine, it will be remembered, was defined and
clothed with authority by a Papal Bull in A.D. 1854 by Pope Pius IX.
The words of Dr. Pusey (Liddon’s _Life of Pusey_, II, xxxiv), are very
remarkable, and coming from such a source, specially interesting:
“There are very serious things in the Roman Communion which ought to
keep us where we are. I would instance chiefly the system as to the
blessed Virgin as the Mediatrix and dispenser of all present blessings
to mankind; I think nothing short of a fresh revelation would justify
this.”
[23] The Virgin and Child are in the Catacombs delineated in a certain
number of instances, but generally with the accompanying figures of
the Magi or Wise Men with their offerings; but in these instances the
Holy Child is the central figure of the group. But even these pictures
are after all but few in number. The truth is that in the first three
centuries the hearts and minds of the Christians were so aflame
with love for the Lord Jesus, that there was little place for any
delineation of the Apostles or even for the blessed Virgin.
[24] Two remarkable exceptions in Cornwall are quoted later, see pp.
92-95.
[25] A detailed description of the “Memoria” of Anacletus and the tomb
or crypt of S. Peter, the “mother” of all the crypts since constructed,
will be found in the following chapter, pp. 106-124.
[26] There was no difficulty raised in the early days of Christianity
in getting possession of the bodies of martyrs. The custom of the Roman
Government was in every case to give over the bodies of those who had
been put to death, to those who had loved them in life. This we see
in the case of our Lord when the sacred body was at once given to
Nicodemus and the friends of Jesus.
It was only at a later date, when Christianity became a real terror to
the Roman Government, that this favour was taken away, and when every
effort was made by the authorities to prevent the Christians from
obtaining possession of the relics of their martyrs.
[27] It was of this ancient church of Constantine that Bishop Creighton
in his eloquent _History of the Papacy_, thus writes of its demolition
under Pope Julius II, _circa_ A.D. 1506--
“The basilica of S. Peter’s had been for ages the object of pilgrimage
from every land; outside it gleamed with mosaics; inside its pavement
was a marvel of mosaic art; its monuments told the history of the
Roman Church for centuries. Men may praise at the present day the
magnificence of the (New) S. Peter’s; they forget what was destroyed to
make room for it. No more wanton or barbarous act of destruction was
ever deliberately committed.”
[28] These details have been worked out by Mgr. Barnes in his elaborate
and exhaustive work on the _Tomb of S. Peter_, who gives in his
scholarly and able book many more particulars of the sacred spot.
No words of praise are sufficient to express the thanks of the
historian and archæologist, who is interested in this most famous of
Christian sanctuaries, to Mgr. Barnes for his labours here.
[29] Durandus, Bishop of Mende (Mimatensis) in Languedoc--born A.D.
1230 and died A.D. 1296--was a most distinguished Canonist. He filled
various ecclesiastical dignities, amongst them the Deanery of Chartres,
and was largely consulted by the popes of his time. In later life he
declined the archbishopric of Ravenna. He was the author of various
works which had an enduring success. Amongst these the _Rationale_
above quoted, a vast and exhaustive compilation, is the best. During
the early years of printing, this, the greatest of mediæval liturgical
treatises, was printed and reprinted more often than any book
(excepting, of course, the Holy Scriptures). It is computed that more
than ninety printed editions in different languages of the _Rationale_
appeared between the second half of the fifteenth century and the close
of the seventeenth.
Viollet le Duc, in his _Dict. de l’Architecture_ (“Architecture”), thus
sums up his estimate of the _Rationale_: “Que l’on ne saurait trop lire
et méditer, lorseque qu’on veut connaitre le moyen age catholique.”
Dom Guéranger of Solesmes calls it “le dernier mot du age sur le
mystique du culte divin.”
[30] The etymological difficulty suggested by Lightfoot can hardly be
pressed, considering the very free and rough way in which the Latin
tongue was treated at a comparatively early date in the story of the
Roman Empire, when grammar, spelling and prosody were frequently
more or less disregarded, save in highly cultured circles. This
striking disregard of all rules is very conspicuous in the numberless
inscriptions and epitaphs found in the Roman Catacombs.
The early entries in the so-called _Liber Pontificalis_ show the same
utter disregard of grammar and spelling.
Transcriber’s Notes.
Italic text is indicated with _underscores_, bold text with
=equals=. Small/mixed capitals have been replaced with ALL
CAPITALS.
Evident typographical and punctuation errors have been
corrected silently. Inconsistent spelling/hyphenation has
been normalised.
The usage of Jumiéges (Jumièges) and Sant (Sant’) is the
author’s.
A new sub-heading “Norman-Romanesque” has been introduced
at page 33 to reflect the table of contents.
Half-titles and reiterations of chapter titles have been
discarded.
End of page footnotes have been sequentially numbered and relocated
to the end of the book.
Index references to “note” have been modified to include the relevant
note number.
At the index entry for Diaconus, a duplicate footnote reference
(19 note) has been discarded.
Illustration captions have been relocated between paragraphs.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SECRETS OF A GREAT CATHEDRAL ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
