Legendary Treasure at Conques: Reliquaries and Imaginative Memory Author(S): Amy G
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Legendary Treasure at Conques: Reliquaries and Imaginative Memory Author(s): Amy G. Remensnyder Source: Speculum, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 884-906 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2865723 Accessed: 27-04-2017 12:25 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2865723?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Speculum This content downloaded from 132.66.90.180 on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:25:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Legendary Treasure at Conques: Reliquaries and Imaginative Memory By Amy G. Remensnyder Inherent in memory (social or individual) is a paradox. Memory represents an attempt to fix information or an interpretation of it, an effort to freeze time into a crystalline image. But memory itself exists in time; the process of remembering destabilizes the frozen image, changing the contours of what is remembered.1 This paradox is embodied in the creation and subsequent cultural existence of monu- ments or memorials, which I define here as physical objects to which a commem- orative meaning is attached. A monument is constructed in order to fix a memory and its interpretation, to render them present. But this meaning is hardly fixed; it is destabilized by memory itself, which over time reinterprets the monument to fit present needs.2 Think, for example, of how the pyramids' significance has been transformed by New Age devotees. Such metamorphoses of a memorial's meaning hardly need a millennial time frame. As James Young has shown so powerfully, the monument to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising erected in that same city has in- creasingly lost its specifically Jewish referentiality, appropriated not only by the largely non-Jewish population as a reminder of Polish resistance to oppression, I would like to thank Carolyn Dean, Janelle Greenberg, Thomas Head, Harvey Stahl, and Deborah Steiner for their perceptive comments on various versions of this essay. Conversations with Eugene Vance stimulated me to think in new ways about relics and reliquaries. The comments of participants in two symposiums at which this essay was presented as a paper (one at the Center for the Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, and the other at the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, University of California at Los Angeles) were also helpful. Some of the material in this essay has appeared in a differently oriented discussion in Amy G. Remensnyder, Remembering Kings Past: Mo- nastic Foundation Legends in Medieval Southern France (Ithaca, N.Y., 1995). 1 Psychologists have examined how over time individuals transform, reconstruct, or construct whole cloth what they remember. See, for example, the discussion and bibliography in Alan Baddeley, "The Psychology of Remembering and Forgetting," in Memory: History, Culture and the Mind, ed. Thomas Butler (Oxford, 1989), pp. 53-54, 57; and Elizabeth F Loftus, "The Reality of Repressed Memories," American Psychologist 48 (May 1993), 518-37 (esp. pp. 530-32). Social scientists and humanists have turned their attention to how "collective" or "social" memories evolve over time. See, for example, Maurice Halbwachs, Les cadres sociaux de la memoire, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1952), and his La topographie des Evangiles en Terre Sainte, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1971); and Chris Wickham and James Fentress, Social Memory (Oxford, 1992). See also Pierre Nora's remarks on the fluidity of social memory in his "Be- tween Memory and History: Les lieux de memoire," Representations 26 (1989), 7-25. 2 James E. Young emphasizes this point throughout The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning (New Haven, Conn., 1993). Cf. Nora's comments on the changing meaning of lieux de memoire in "Between Memory and History," pp. 19-20. For a very suggestive consideration of how the meaning of objects in general can change, see Igor Kopytoff, "The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as a Process," in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in a Cultural Perspective, ed. Arjun Appadurai (Cambridge, Eng., 1986), pp. 64-91. I thank Verity Wilson for drawing this article to my attention. 884 Speculum 71 (1996) This content downloaded from 132.66.90.180 on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:25:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Legendary Treasure at Conques 885 but even more ironically by the Palestinians in the context of their own uprising, the intifada.3 To be sure, in this process of reinterpretation, the physical object itself is not inert; its design determines the range of possible meanings. The pyramids remain symbols of triumph over death, and the Warsaw memorial with its heroic figures continues to symbolize insurrection and resistance. But these meanings have en- tirely new resonances as they become attached to a new set of memories. A mon- ument or memorial is then inherently unstable and fluid, as is memory itself. An object that was not originally intended as a memorial may even be reinter- preted as one. My mother gave me a paper-thin china bowl, saying "This was your grandmother's." For my grandmother, the bowl was merely an object, but for me it has become a memorial of her.4 Similarly, the monastery of Moissac in southwestern France transformed an object that originally had no commemorative function into a memorial of the community's miraculous foundation. Decorating the floor near the abbey church's main altar was a mosaic (no longer extant), probably dating from the mid-eleventh century, that depicted two gamboling grif- fins.5 These eagle-lion hybrids perhaps served as protective guardians of the altar, or as symbols of Christ, their dual nature recalling his.6 But by the fourteenth century, this mosaic had been reinterpreted in light of the abbey's foundation legend, or what I call the community's imaginative memory of its origins.7 According to this legend, Clovis, the first Christian king of the Franks, decided to found Moissac after he had a vision of two griffins who trans- 3 James E. Young, "The Biography of a Memorial Icon: Nathan Rapoport's Warsaw Ghetto Mon- ument," Representations 26 (1989), 90-98. 4 This process is an example of what Kopytoff calls the singularization of an object, that is, the withdrawal of a commodity from the realm of exchange as the object acquires a unique meaning: Kopytoff, "Cultural Biography." 5 On the mosaic see Marcel Durliat, "L'eglise abbatiale de Moissac des origines a la fin du XIe siecle," Cahiers archeologiques 15 (1965), 164-66, 174-77. On the use of floor mosaics in south- western France in this period, see Francois Avril, Xavier Barral i Altet, and Danielle Gaborit-Chopin, Les royaumes d'Occident (Paris, 1983), pp. 148-50, 410. 6 On the protective qualities of griffins, see Ingeborg Flagge, Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des Greifen (Sankt Augustin, 1975); and Carola Hicks, Animals in Early Medieval Art (Edinburgh, 1993), p. 151. On griffins as symbols of Christ, see Hicks, Animals, p. 151; Paul Michel, Tiere als Symbol und Ornament: Moglichkeiten und Grenzen der ikonographischen Deutung, gezeigt am Beispiel des ziircher Grossmiinsterkreuzgangs (Wiesbaden, 1979), p. 67. The negative allegorical interpretations of griffins as pride (Hrabanus Maurus, De universo, in J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina [Paris, 1844- 64], 111:222) and greed (implied by Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum naturale 16.90, in Speculum quadruplex sive speculum maius, 4 vols. [1624; repr. Graz, 1964], 1:1210) seem less likely to have played a role in the Moissac mosaic. 7 For detailed discussion of Moissac's foundation legend and the legends of other abbeys, see Re- mensnyder, Remembering Kings Past (on the term "imaginative memory," see pp. 1-3). It is possible that the relationship between Moissac's legend and the mosaic was the reverse, that is, that the choice of griffins for the mosaic was influenced by the abbey's foundation legend. But this seems unlikely, as I have found no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Moissac's legend included griffins by the eleventh century. Furthermore, mythic animals such as griffins were a common theme in eleventh-century mo- saics from this region and elsewhere. See Xavier Barral i Altet, Les mosaiques de pavement medievales de Venise, Murano, Torcello (Paris, 1985), pp. 17, 32, 66, 69, 76; and Avril et al., Les royaumes d'Occident, pp. 148-50, 410. This content downloaded from 132.66.90.180 on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:25:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 886 Legendary Treasure at Conques ported stones with their beaks to a certain valley where they constructed a church.8 Perhaps the appearance of griffins as the animals that designated the sacred site for the monastery was influenced by the mosaic as well as by the griffins on the imposts of Moissac's cloister capitals.9 Whether or not the legend was shaped by these physical images the monks would have seen daily,