Masarykova univerzita Filozofická fakulta Seminář dějin umění

Filip Kyrc Local Saints, Global Roads, and Images Magisterská diplomová práce

Vedoucí práce: doc. Ivan Foletti, MA

2017

Čestne prehlasujem, že som magisterskú diplomovú prácu vypracoval samostatne s využitím uvedených prameňov a literatúry.

……………………………… Podpis autora práce

I am using this opportunity to express how much indebted I am to my colleagues, friends, and beloved family for their help. Foremost, I am very grateful to Ivan Foletti, my advisor, for his continuous support, knowledge, infinite patience, and inspiring enthusiasm. I am indebted to Ondrěj Jakubec, head of the Departmend of Art History, for his goodwill and gift of time. My sincere thanks also go to staffs of libraries in Rome and Poitiers, who kindly opened doors for me. I am thankful to my friends Agnese, Alžběta, Jana, Martin, Pavla, Sabina, Sandrina, and Zuzana from Via Giorgio Vasari 6, you were a pleasure to live with; to Amália for keeping my sanity; and to Katarína for her readiness and photographies. Particular I owe the great debt of gratitude to my parents for their generous and endless support. Last but not the least, my greatest debt is to Janka Gazdagová for everything and more. Thank you.

Contents

Introduction ...... 9 1. State of Research ...... 11 From the Nineteenth Century to Constitution of Field ...... 11 New Ways: Reviving Figural Reliquaries, Braun’s Followers, and X-rays ...... 14 Changing Status ...... 16 Recent Studies ...... 19 2. Figural Reliquaries ...... 23 First Examples ...... 25 Question of Terms ...... 29 3. Case Studies: Six Heralds of the Past ...... 32 Bust Reliquary of St. Caesarius ...... 34 Bust Reliquary of St. Baudime ...... 38 Reliquary of St. Peter ...... 43 Bust Reliquary of St. Theofrid ...... 46 Bust Reliquary from Saint-Flour ...... 50 Majesty of St. Foy ...... 53 4. Close Encounter of the Saint I: Placement and Use ...... 61 Placement ...... 61 Accessibility of the Reliquaries ...... 65 Processions ...... 68 Oaths ...... 73 Humiliation of Relics ...... 74 Conclusion ...... 75 5. Close Encounter of the Saint II: Perception ...... 77 Appearance of the Saint ...... 78 Gesturing Saint ...... 81 Changing Saint ...... 84 Conclusion ...... 85 Conclusion ...... 87 Bibliography ...... 90 Exhibitions ...... 109 List of Illustrations ...... 110

Introduction

Mediaeval pilgrims in order to find salvation travelled incredible distances to be in the presence of holy remains of saints. Relics, materializing their lives or martyrdom and filled with virtus, became one of the key aspects of the society in the Middle Ages. Such extraordinary residual material evidence deserved special treatment and protection. The reliquary was invented. No expense was spared on these objects, which were supposed to reflect power and rarity of their content.

From the many types and shapes of these containers of sacredness, figural reliquaries stood out as probably most striking mediaeval images and objects. Their visual appearance, emphasized by precious metals and gems, was exceptional not only for the period faithful but for the contemporary visitor of museum expositions. In France, in two regions of Auvergne and Rouergue, six such effigies of saints are almost miraculously preserved. Saved from menaces of ravages of time, religious wars and other calamities, they show the incredible splendour of the mediaeval Church.

Thesis stars with an attempt to summarise the bibliography related to figural reliquaries. State of research is not trying to cover every written work; it is rather presenting the changing perspectives and approaches in the field from the nineteenth century onwards. The chapter is taking into account several exhibitions as well, which were reflecting period opinions and research. Following part aims reliquaries as containers mediating saints’ powers, especially regarding figural ones. The text is using Heideggerian terminology to explain reciprocal relationship between relic and reliquary. The following section tries to map numerous examples from the first recorded cases, the last section deals with the terminology used to in the field. The third chapter represents a necessary interruption of the narrative chapters, following chapters are based on material evidence – six preserved reliquaries in the form of bust and sitting figure in French regions of Rouergue and Auvergne. Every short case study is accompanied by bibliography related to each one. Placement and various uses of figural reliquaries were crucial for veneration and their perception, the third chapter deals with these questions. Accessibility of reliquaries and shrines is closely connected with the issue of placement and deserves a separate section. Processions, as one of the key aspects and performances of the mediaeval Church, are presented in the following section. Together with other uses of reliquaries, the chapter tries to connect these practices with mediaeval society putting

9 emphasis on local communities, both ecclesiastic and profane. With the notion from this chapter, the last fifth is devoted to the perception of the figural reliquaries, which is seen through a prism of their materiality and body features. The last section of this chapter deals with their changing appearance and offers paradigmatically different understanding compared to other mediaeval objects or works of art.

For the sake of more fluent readability of the main text, quotations are using English translations, accompanied by the original text either in Latin, French, or German for further reading. For the names of the saints and other persons, English variations are utilized, with one exception – generally accepted appellation of St. Foy is too nice to not use.

10

1. State of Research

The uniqueness of the bust reliquaries has been always an attractive theme for many scholars tempted by their obscurity and emanating visual power. They represent a subject for a number of scientific articles, monographs, and lectures written over the last two centuries. The following chapter aims to survey the state of research on bust reliquaries, taking account of changing point of view and different motivation of scholars, as well as gradational shaping the autonomous status of works of art rather than initial auxiliary position in the history of art. The chapter is also considering several important exhibitions characterising perspective of research or perception of that time, and indicating the subsequent development of the field as well.

From the Nineteenth Century to Constitution of Field

During the entire nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, the whole study of reliquaries was almost reserved for historians incited by two factors. A significant part of works proceeded from their vocation in the Catholic Church, other proportion was arising from national patrimony and patriotic pride.1 Documentation of several bust reliquaries by the French archaeological societies in their journals represents a crucial work of the nineteenth century.2

The reliquary of Saint Foy was rediscovered by Prosper Merimée, universal polymath even better known outside the art history.3 As general inspector of historical monuments, during his journey to the southern France, he also visited the mediaeval village of Conques. In his work Notes d’un voyage en Auvergne, Merimée captured by valuable description the Saint-Foy Abbey Church and on several lines described the majesty of Saint Foy. Attracted by its beauty he dated the “statuette” back to the eleventh century and pointed out the size and qualitative disproportion between the head and the rest, what explained by presumable restoration.4

1 Boehm 1997, p. 8. 2 E. g. Mérimée 1838b; d’Auvergne 1859; F. C. 1886; Fayolle 1897. 3 Prosper Merimée is best known for his short novel Carmen, source for Bizet’s opera. Merimée with novelist George Sand also rediscovered famous tapestries The Lady with the Unicorn in 1841. 4 “Une statuette de sainte Foy en vermeil, haute d'environ dix-huit pouces et d'un travail qui me paraît remonter au XIe siècle. La tête de la sainte, fort discproportionnée avec le corps, est peut-être une restauration relativement moderne, en tout cas fort inférieure au reste, quant à l'exécution. On voit

11

Anatole Duvergne brought the exceptional reliquary of St. Baudime from Saint- Nectaire into the light on pages of Revue des sociétés savantes.5 He also added his colour aquarelle, thanks to which we are aware of already missing precious stones and gems. The reliquary of St. Caesaire from Maurs in Cantal was first time published by unknown author signed with initials F. C. in 1886.6 He already compared the bust with two other he was familiar with: the head reliquary of Saint Candide from Saint-Maurice d’Agaune and the reliquary bust of St. Theofrid from Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille.

Ernest Rupin started a long list of books focused on the works of goldsmiths attributed to the Limousin with his L’Oeuvre de Limoges from 1890.7 He divided reliquaries according to their form and number of bust reliquaries discussed in a separate chapter of the book. Moreover, in part concerning St. Foy, Rupin was considering before overlooked unique source, Liber Miraculorum wrote in eleventh-century by Bernard of Angers. After a study of several reliquaries containing saints’ body parts, he proposed a theory of enveloping reliquaries, which are reflecting the form of enveloped content.8

The world’s fair Exposition Universelle of 1900 held in Paris was an emblematic event of that time.9 Glorifying the achievement of the past centuries and hopefully looking at the following, the fair displayed inventions, architecture, and devices as well as works of art. In the Petit Palais, constructed to hold the exposition of French art, the mediaeval reliquaries were exhibited as important items of national treasures.10 The reliquaries of St. Baudime and St. Foy scored exceptional success, which can be explained by general perception of the art of that time. The strongest movement of that period was Arts & Crafts, which had a great impact on the acceptance of craftsmanship. Mentioned reliquaries met the requirements of the contemporary international audience, their highest possible level of craftsmanship corresponded with the current artistic efforts.

répandues à profucion, sur toute cette statuette, des prierres précieuses, des intailles et des camées antiques, quelques-uns assez grands et d'un fort beau caractère. (…) N’étant nullement préparé à trouver tant de richesses dans un pareil désert, …” Merimée 1838, p. 190. 5 Dauvergne 1859. 6 F. C. 1886. 7 Rupin 1890. 8 “Mais il arrivait souvent, quand on possédait une partie déterminée du corpus d'un saint, qu'on faisait un reliquaire de form spéciale pouvant représenter aux yeux, par l'enveloppe extérieure, la form de l'objet contenu dans cette enveloppe méme.” Rupin 1890, p. 447. 9 Exh. Paris 1900. 10 Walton, Champier, and Saglio 1900.

12

The research of reliquaries was constituted considerably by ground-breaking work of German Jesuit Joseph Braun, a student of the Bollandist Stephan Beissel.11 The monumental study Die Reliquiare des christlichen Kultes und ihre Entwicklung largely established the whole field in a similar way to the research of Arthur Kinglesy Porter.12 The publication included more than seven hundred reliquaries ranging from Middle Ages through Renaissance to Baroque period. Braun separated both surviving and recorded objects as well into categories according to their type and examined by their style. His method of classification of reliquaries, dividing them into groups by formal criterion, was determinative for entire research.

The seventh chapter of the study deals with “Talking Reliquaries” (“Redende Reliquiäre”), whose form is closely connected with the included relic. Braun proposes rather questionable and broad definition, resembling “enveloping” one of Ernest Rupin:

A very great number of reliquaries which have survived from the past, especially from the late Middle Ages, are talking reliquaries, so called because, like the canting arms of coat-of-arms indicate the name of coat-of-arms bearer’s name, they should indicate the nature of the relic, or the saint from whom they were made, by their special form, to which they were created.13

He divided talking reliquaries into three groups: reliquaries in the shape of the body parts (in the shape of a foot, hand, fingers, rib, arm, and leg), figural reliquaries (in the shape of a head, bust, and full figure), and other talking reliquaries. Mentioning more than 150 objects in the categories of head and bust, Braun set a massive documentary base shaping subsequent research.

11 Bollandist Society is a Jesuit group of scholars dedicated to the study of the cult of the saints in Christianity and hagiography, Bollandists were publishing the Analecta Bollandiana and the Acta sanctorum. Boehm 1997, p. 8; Cordez 2007a, p. 103; Cordez 2007b, p. 272. 12 Braun 1940. 13 “Sehr groß ist unter den Reliquiaren, welche sich aus der Vergangenheit, zumal dem späten Mittelalter, erhalten haben, die Zahl der redenden Reliquiare, so genannt, weil sie, wie die Wappenbilder der sog. redenden Wappen den Namen des Wappeninhabers andeuten, durch ihre Sonderform auf die Art der Reliquien, zu deren Aufnahme sie geschaffen wurden, oder auf den Heiligen, von dem dieselben herrührten, hinweisen sollten.” Braun 1940, p. 380.

13

New Ways: Reviving Figural Reliquaries, Braun’s Followers, and X-rays

In the middle of the twentieth-century, there was a significant turn in the viewing of the bust reliquaries and other body-part reliquaries as well. From the strange antiques of the past, honoured as important evidences of national patrimony, scholarly public accepted them as an essential bridge in the rebirth of monumental mediaeval sculpture in the west as well. For scholars, it was an obvious filling of the “evolution” of the western sculpture. The common view was indicated in 1925 by Paul Deschamps, who identified works of “orfèvrerie” with an important role in “la renaissance de la sculpture à l’époque romane”.14 He suggested that sculpture had developed from minor arts, especially metalwork and goldsmith.

However, this theory was for the first time explicitly proposed by Harald Keller shortly after half of the twentieth-century.15 He regarded body segments as an effort towards representations of the entire body, but on the other hand, this statement degraded mediaeval creators and their skills to a very limited capability. In his analysis of sculpture around the year 1000, he saw two areas – and Lower Saxony, and South of France, especially Auvergne – as very important in the development of the sculpture in the Middle Ages.16

In the further research of two following decades, accepted the dominant role of bust reliquaries as transition stage of monumental statuary overshadowed any other perception of this specific reliquary form. Some scholars, particularly those concerned with Renaissance art, simplified the head reliquaries to a single attribute. Perceiving them as the evidence of increasing level of individual likeness, they were following Burckhardt’s example.17

Five years after Keller, Raymond Rey further continued with the reconstruction of the rebirth monumental sculpture in his article primarily concerning the reliquary of St. Foy.18 Based on several examples, he searched for the origin of the mediaeval

14 Deschamps 1925, especially pp. 84–94. 15 Keller 1951. 16 “Die abendländische Plastik des hohen Mittelalters verdanken wir also den ottonischen Bildhauern aus dem Rheinland und der Auvergne.” Keller 1951, p. 91. 17 See Burckhardt 1898. 18 Rey 1956.

14 monumental sculpture, taking notice of the mediaeval cult of saints. Rey explicitly connected the cult of relics with the “renaissance” of the western sculpture and emphasised the role of the pilgrimage:

This was the innovation: The Majesty of Saint Mary of Clermont, seated on a golden cathedral, dressed in gold and precious stones, became the reliquary statue. Venerated as a miraculous image, it soon became the object of pilgrimages, what explains the multiplicity of its replicas in Auvergne, in Languedoc, and on the roads of Saint James.

Therefore, it was the cult of relics that introduced sculpture into the Western Church. A relic legitimates a statue because it reminds the faithful of the presence of a saint. In other words, a statue acquires the right of existence in a sanctuary as a reliquary.19

Several authors in the second half of the twentieth century were following path determined by Braun.20 Éva Kovács in her rather thin volume Kopfreliquiare des Mittelalters focused on the head and bust reliquaries.21 The publication contains photographic material illustrating forty-two best-known examples, accompanied by summarising text covering the development of the type and other questions. Kovács expressed her notion that the stylistic models should be sought in late-antique Roman imperial statues and bust made of precious metals.22 She mentioned this proposition in another paper in the same year once again, however without further discussion.23

Various translations of Braun’s term are proving its general acceptance, Bella Bessard’s book Il tesoro focused on “reliquiari ‘parlanti’.”24 The costly appearance of the volume was prevailed by its average content; introductory chapter is followed by a list of almost fifty reliquaries in the shape of head, bust, foot, and arm.

19 “Telle était l'innovation: la «Majesté-Sainte-Marie» de Clermont, assise sur une cathèdre d'or, revêtue elle-même d'or et de pierres précieuses, devenait une statue-reliquaire. Vénérée comme une image miraculeuse, elle ne tarda pas à être l'objet de pèlerinages, ce qui explique la multiplicité de ses répliques, en Auvergne, en Languedoc et sur les chemins de Saint-Jacques. C'est donc le culte des reliques qui introduisit la sculpture dans l'Eglise d'Occident. La relique légitime la statue parce qu'elle rappelle aux yeux des fidèles la présence du personnage sacré. En d'autres termes, la statue acquiert le droit d'existence dans le sanctuaire en tant que reliquaire.” Rey 1956, p. 108. 20 Kovács 1964a; Bessard 1981; or Falk 1991-1993. 21 Kovács 1964a. 22 See Kovács 1964a, pp. 48–49. 23 See Kovács 1965b, p. 26. 24 Bessard 1981.

15

The exhibition Trésors des églises de France curated by Jean Taralon represented the peak point for research largely motivated by patriotism on the national or local level.25 Its eponymic catalogue contained almost nine hundred objects sorted into regions per their provenance.26 Concerning figural reliquaries, event displayed nineteen reliquaries in the form of bust or head. This unparalleled exposition will probably remain unsurpassed and its catalogue is still a great corpus of French goldsmith production.

With the accessibility of new technologies, museums and other cultural institutions executed several restorations and analyses of the reliquaries in the second half of the twentieth-century. This specific sort of scientific approach was termed by the Barbara Drake Boehm as “the archaeology of reliquaries, meticulously examining their construction and their contents, rather than considering them for their aesthetic importance or historical context.”27 The head reliquaries of St. Paul at Münster and St. Candidus from Saint-Maurice d’Agaune went through this special treatment, the bust reliquary of Saint Juliana, at that time recently acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art for the Cloisters, underwent x-ray examination.28

The treasury of Conques was also restored and closely examined; soon-to-be- superstar maiestas of St. Foy was disassembled and underwent several examinations including x-ray imaging. During restoration works executed by Lucien Toulouse and his son Jean-Claude was also present Jean Taralon, a man who was soon to become the most important expert and an almost synonym for the reliquary of St. Foy.29 The examination confirmed some dating suggestions; above all Taralon confirmed his diphasic hypothesis related to the transformation of the original statue into seating form.

Changing Status

Up to this point, the figural reliquaries were reflected in the overwhelming majority of studies in relationship to diverse questions, such as repoussé, champlevé enamelling,

25 Exh. Paris 1965. 26 Taralon 1966. 27 Boehm 1997, p. 11. 28 Outcomes of these thorough examinations were published in several studies. For the head of St. Candidus, see Schnyder 1966 and Schnyder 1967; for the head of St. Paul, see Pieper 1967; for the bust reliquary of St. Juliana, see Hoving 1963. 29 Taralon 1955.

16 and other goldsmith techniques. Their linking to other topics, for example, the individual appearance of mediaeval sculpture, was also based on the undervaluation of minor arts. From the seventies, scientific research started to address two main issues: the question of so-called minor arts and the study of body-parts reliquaries on its own. Inevitably, scholars from overseas played a significant part in both.

William Wixom was one of the first to address these issues. He questioned the terms decorative or minor arts in his aptly named essay The Greatness of the So-Called Minor Arts and with several arguments argued for equalisation of “the art of church treasures” to the major or fine arts.30 These prestigious objects are closely linked to elite institutions or individuals of mediaeval society and several cases can be connected with named craftsmen. As a scholar, active in the United States, he also highlighted the financial costs spent by ordering party as a great manifestation of wealth.

This was even more important for the figural reliquaries; their specific aesthetics and materials did not fit inside categories of the canon based on the art of ancient Greece and the Renaissance. Their strangeness was unclassifiable even by the colourless fake canon of mediaeval sculpture.

Challenging the traditional hierarchy of major and minor or fine and decorative went hand in hand with broader institutional critique. The partial shift from the art hierarchies was slowly emerging in the late eighties and was induced by the acceptance of non-Western art and the postcolonial art theory.31 With the rejection of old categorization new consequential notions on displaying and photographic recording of mediaeval works of art arose, with regard to their former function and nature.

Book Throne of Wisdom by Ilene Forsyth, published in 1972, primarily focused on the wooden images of Virgin; however, it is very important for the study of figural reliquaries as well.32 For the first time, this kind of sculpture was regarded as a separate phenomenon with its individual affective aesthetics.33 Forsyth declined Keller’s theory in

30 Wixom 1970. William Wixom was curator of the exhibition Treasures of Medieval France in the Cleveland Museum of Art. Yet, regarding the bust reliquaries only one object was exhibited, see Wixom 1967. 31 Walker 2012, pp. 178–179. 32 Forsyth 1972. 33 “Considered the Christian ‘idols’ of the Early Middle Ages, they have been thought more pertinent to a study of religion than to a serious history of sculpture. It has been difficult for art historians to realize that sculptures endowed by the boundless medieval imagination with the power to speak, to weep, to fly out

17 two significant aspects: apprehending body-parts reliquaries as incomplete attempts to full-body statues and their task as an absolute answer for the “renaissance” of mediaeval monumental sculpture.34 Pointed out, that “medieval texts give all too little attention to the figures which, like many other facts of contemporary life, were simply taken for granted so that documentation is apt to be vague or lacking,” Forsyth noted crucial problem in the research of wood images of the Virgin and reliquary busts as well.

Mentioned affective aesthetic of wood images of the Virgin and Child was further applied to figural reliquaries in Ellert Dahl’s study of the Majesty in Conques.35 Her discussion concerning the context of the cult images was exemplified with the power of relics in the reliquary of St. Foy and the effect of the sitting statue on the mediaeval believer.36

As one idiom has it, “a picture is worth a thousand words,” two books published at the turn of the eighties and nineties were symptomatic for paradigm shift later called the “iconic” or “pictorial turn.”37 Those works played a decisive role in the incorporation of figural reliquaries into the canon.

As David Freedberg stated in the introduction of the first of these two books entitled The Power of Images: “This book is not about the history of art. It is about the relations between images and people in history. It consciously takes within its purview all images, not just those regarded as artistic ones,” their objective was to incorporate elements of visual production into the history of art.38 Freedberg’s understanding of the history of images closely bound to people’s response and interaction was broadening horizons and canon of the field.

of windows, to bring rain in time of drought, to deter invaders in time of was, or simply to box the ears of the naughty, might also have aesthetic merit.” Forsyth 1972, p. 3. 34 Forsyth 1972, pp. 76–80. 35 Dahl 1978. 36 This question of perception of the St. Foy was further examined by Amy G. Remensnyder. With analysis of Liber Miraculorum, she described two attitudes toward her cult – popular and clerical. Remensnyder 1990. 37 Terms were introduced by Gottfried Boehm and William John Thomas Mitchell respectively, both in 1994. They both noticed this turn of human sciences at roughly the same time. Gottfried Boehm noticed the significance of the image, picture, imagination, and pictorialness. According to William J. T. Mitchell images that surround us are transforming and forming our identity and world, playing increasing important role in construction of social reality. Boehm 1994; Mitchell 1994. For comparing contrast between English-language and German-language studies in Keith Moxey’s landmark article, see Moxey 2008. 38 Freedberg 1989, p. xix.

18

Hans Belting energised in 1990 whole mediaeval art history with turning volume concerning “the image in the era of art.”39 His book presented almost too sharp storyline of the origins and transformations of the cult images, and covering impressive historical and geographical span is largely quoted ever since. He argued for more interdisciplinary approach and for integration of evidences of mediaeval visual culture into the tailor-made canon created much later.40 The whole field was tempted to dip their toes into the waters of the function of mediaeval images and think outside the box of sole questions of iconography, dating, provenience and attribution.

These two works encouraged subsequent research of the reliquary sculpture and other questions related to the cult of relics.

Recent Studies

A number of the studies concerned with reliquaries have grown in almost exponential rate over the last three decades and the vastness of bibliography requires a general survey. Philippe Cordez met the challenge of this Sisyphean task in 2007, accompanied by an outline of new perspectives.41

Falk’s study Bildnisreliquiare based on her dissertation and published in Aachener Kunstblätter in 1993 represents one of the finest contributions to the research of the bust reliquaries.42 In the chapter concerning the development of the reliquaries, comparing preserved statues she emphasised the role of the late-antique Roman statuary. A major part of the paper takes an exhaustive corpus of fifty-seven examples from western and central Europe ranging from ninth to the fourteenth century; moreover, Falk is also studying unpreserved objects, using pilgrimage tokens and other materials.

In 1997 the ICMA journal Gesta gathered fine collection of papers focused one issue on the body-parts reliquaries, and showed their general acceptation into the field.

39 Belting 1990. The impact of Belting’s book especially on English-language scholarship was even more increased after its translation into English in 1994, Belting 1994. 40 The role of Belting’s volume in the history of art was profoundly analysed in two Jeffrey Hamburger’s articles and Roland Betancourt’s paper marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of its publishing. Hamburger 2011; Hamburger 2013; and Betancourt 2016. 41 In French see Cordez 2007a, for German version see Cordez 2007b. Nicolas Bock’s article with reviews is in some way an addition or actualisation of mentioned survey, Bock 2010. 42 Falk 1991–1993.

19

The contribution of Barbara Drake Boehm presented the thorough state of research.43 In the end, she pointed to felicitous directions of research and warned of the hazards of methods simplifying works of art.

Cynthia Hahn pointed out the misleading appellation “talking reliquaries” of German origin and reflected on a different way of understanding this well-established and widely approved term.44 She questioned the Braun’s explanation directly binding of an actual relic with a “speaking” form of reliquary and thanks to the existing examples she searched for different formulation “shaped reliquaries.” As is noticeable in a case study by Thomas Head, both terms are lacking the full complexness of reliquaries.45 The journal contained one case study focused on bust reliquaries, Scoot Montgomery this time concentrated on the specific fifteenth-century reliquary of St. Just.46

To present a complex history of reliquaries, in its broad variedness of their types, interactions, and practices in which they were involved, is almost impossible, however, the international exhibition Treasures of heaven tried to prove otherwise.47 Using more than hundred and thirty exhibited objects, it presented the “story” of reliquaries spanning from the second century to the twentieth. The accompanying catalogue was edited in an admirably way, its ten interdisciplinary essays, wrote by an international team of scholars, covered the most fundamental topics concerning the worship of relics in the Middle Ages.48 As for body-part reliquaries, the paper wrote by Cynthia Hanh is focusing on their aesthetic qualities encouraging spiritual inspiration.49 She noted that “(…) reliquaries served many other purposes. At their most basic, they protected and glorified the relics they contained. They also inspired devotion with their beauty, and as portable objects, allowed that devotion to flourish in dramatic liturgical spectacles.”50 The exhibition’s catalogue is now a standard and approachable publication for the study of relics, reliquaries, and the cult of saints.

43 Boehm 1997. 44 Hahn 1997. 45 Head 1997. 46 Montgomery 1997. 47 The visitors of the exhibition were welcomed by the bust reliquary of St. Baudime. His strict and dominant gaze was mentioned several times in reviews, proving reliquary’s impressiveness on even contemporary audience. Exh. Cleveland–Baltimore–London 2010. 48 Bagnoli et al. 2010. 49 Hahn 2010a. 50 Hahn 2010a, p. 171.

20

Compilation of studies Matter of faith is closely connected with an above- mentioned exhibition and unjustly overshadowed by its catalogue. It originated as an outcome of an eponymous conference held by the British Museum to accompany Treasures of Heaven.51 Its twenty-five contributions are divided into three parts indicating the main circles of issues: Pilgrimage and Cult Centres; Relics, Reliquaries and their Materials; and Debate, Doubt and Later Developments. The paper wrote by Barbara Drake Boehm presented lately discovered and at that time unpublished bust reliquary of an unknown saint.52

The most recent publications include Cynthia Hahn’s Strange Beauty: Issues in the Making and Meaning of Reliquaries, 400–circa 1204.53 Aiming high, this significant monograph is successfully trying to present complex synthesis dealing with mediaeval reliquaries. As Hahn acknowledged, the timing of the publishing did not allow her to work with and include knowledge from the above-mentioned exhibition Treasures of Heaven and its catalogue. The book is joining and combining Hahn’s new texts with her older papers and articles.54 Concentrating on two key types, portable reliquaries and body- part reliquaries, the volume is one of the most stimulating introductions to the subject of figural reliquaries.

Beate Fricke work is one of the finest contributions to the study of figural reliquaries from this millennium.55 The book is based on her unpublished doctoral thesis and translated to English in an exceptional manner.56 Fricke’s detailed analysis of the reliquary of St. Foy represents the only basic foundation for consequent study concentrated on the revival of the large three-dimensional figurative sculpture in the West. Still, despite all its assets and strengths, the book is not definitive or final work on “renaissance” of monumental sculpture in the West.

51 Robinson et al. 2014. 52 Boehm 2014. 53 Hahn 2012. 54 See e.g. Hahn 2005; Hahn 2006; and Hahn 2010b. 55 Fricke 2007. 56 Fricke’s book lost some of its essayistic nature, characteristic of German manner of writing. However, the translation gained readability and comprehensibility, uncharacteristic of German manner of writing. Fricke 2015.

21

Vastness of books, papers, and articles concerning the bust and other body-parts reliquaries is reflective of two centuries of scientific interest. Its alterations were aroused by changing motivation of scholars and numerous issues they took interest in.

Last two above mentioned publications and the 1997 issue of Gesta, with their extended context and broad spectrum of questions, represent probably the best introduction to the study of figural reliquaries.

22

2. Figural Reliquaries

Following chapter try to demonstrate the role of the reliquaries in the veneration of the saints’ relics, especially interdependent relationship between each other. Then chapter will bring figural reliquaries into our focus, using and quoting mediaeval written sources as well. This section is putting emphasis on the two regions in present-day France – Auvergne and Rouergue, as the centre of this phenomenon, but also as the site of the rather exceptional number of preserved object.57 After the short stop by the denomination of the body-part reliquaries, a brief analysis of the shape of figural reliquaries will follow.

The power of the holy soul which is already reigning with God, spreads miraculously to all that belongs to it. (…) As the soul itself cannot be seen in the body and yet operates miraculously in it, so too does the treasure of valuable dust do this, even if it is not seen and cannot be touched. It transfers the abundance of its holiness (…) to everything in which it is hidden inside and enclosed from the outside.58

With these words, Thiofrid of Echternach (1081–1110) was advocating the cult of relics, veneration at the places of their worship, and reliquaries as well as.59 Both the grave and the reliquary with saint’s corporeal remains convey the virtus, however, the

57 The regions of Auvergne and Rouergue are understood as very important not only due to preserved objects, but written testimonies about other reliquaries as well. “Most of the evidence for the revival of sculpture, especially the statues of Mary and of various saints, can be traced to a single region: Auvergne.” Fricke 2015, p. 7. 58 Flores epytaphii sanctorum, 2.3. English translation from Angenendt 2016, pp. 18–19. “Sicut enim sermo Dei vivus et efficax, et penetrabilior omni gladio ancipiti, usque ad divisionem animæ ac spiritus, compagum quoque et medullarum, mystice pertingit; sic sanctæ vis animæ, cum Deo jam regnantis, ab intimis ad extima ad se, cum in carnis carcere clausam, tum in cælestis Hierusalem municipatum translatam, pertinentia, se mirifice diffundit: et quidquid sanctis prævenientibus, ac intercædentibus meritis, per carnem et ossa, mirabile gerit; idem mirabilius de dissoluto puluere, in omnia tam exteriora, quam interiora, cujuscumque materiæ, vel pretii, tantæ favillæ ornamenta, et operimenta transfundit. Atque ut ipsa anima in corpore non videtur, et tamen mira per corpus operatur, sic pretiosi pulveris thesaurus, licet non videatur, licet non tangatur; sanctitatis tamen affluentiam (qua de fonte qui manat de domo Domini, et irrigat torrentem spinarum, per præclara sanctificati sui spiritus merita, irrigatur) transmittit in omnia, in quibus intra et extra occultatur.” PL, 157, 2.3, col. 345. See also Ferrari 1996, 2.3, p. 37. 59 Thiofrid, Benedictine abbot of Echternach, was one of the mediaeval theorist of the cult of relics. His Flores epytaphii sanctorum (Flowers Strewn over the Tombs of the Saints), written between 1078 and 1104, was one of the most exhaustive treatises discussing the meaning of relics and specifically reliquaries. Ferrari 1996, p. xxxv–xxxvi.

23 latter provide significant advantages.60 Thanks to the this more movable container, the saint became accessible and transportable, his bodily presence became mundanely visible.

What is a reliquary? For better understanding, we can employ Heidegger’s conceptual model, and analyse, inspired by Heideggerian terminology, its “reliquariness.”61 Its essence resides in holding relic and offering it as a gift, similarly to Heidegger’s jug. By further adopting his text, the reliquary shapes the relic and is in turn shaped by it.62 The reliquary and the relic ale closely tied together, in their two-way relation they need each other. However, reliquary, without its context and relic, can still be visually complete, and despite the loss of its “reliquariness,” it will bear some significance. On the other hand, a relic free from its enclosing space created within reliquary, a niche in the altar, or another rightful volume might de facto lose its status, identity, and meaning. Simply and almost cynically articulated “It is their [relics] framing in text and image within the reliquary that determines the fact that a piece of wood or soil or a body part is not, in fact, any old junk just dug up in the garden, but a sacred fragment for veneration.”63 As mediators between audience and relics, “it is not unusual for reliquaries themselves to become objects of veneration as a sort of slippage of the meaning between the container and contained.”64

Reliquaries were created in different forms, from simple caskets, through portable personal pendants, to the model of the city. They were made of gold, silver, bronze, tin, lead, or various alloys, polychromed wood, rock, crystal, glass, or marble, and further embellished with enamels, precious stones, or pearls. No artistic technique was too difficult or too expensive on the occasion of creating new housing for sacred remains.65 Through the use of mundane matter, they should represent the divine and spiritual.66 As Thiofrid explained, opposing material criticism of relic’s veneration, the sensorial perception of reliquaries was essential for uncovering purity and power of saints’ remains. This costly casing was showing the ethereal presence in easily accessible and effortlessly comprehensible way:

60 Reudenbach 2008, pp. 99–100. 61 Heidegger 2001. 62 Heidegger 2001, p. 167. 63 Elsner 2017, p. 485. 64 Hahn 2010b, p. 291. 65 Bagnoli 2010, pp. 137–138. 66 Hahn 2012, p. 31.

24

Knowing that man cannot see and touch rotten flesh without being nauseated, he hid his body and his blood in the bread and wine, to which men are accustomed. Similarly, he has persuaded the sons of the Church to conceal and shelter the relics of the saint’s happy flesh in gold and in the most precious of natural materials so that they will not be horrified by looking at a cruel and bloody thing.67

In this point of view, figural reliquaries are exceptionally fruitful, what is proved by silent contemplation of the most ignorant and unconcerned public ever, of contemporary beholders during gallery exhibitions displaying mediaeval art. Clearly, from the utilitarian perspective, they satisfied the basic requirements for storing, preserving, and presenting of relics like any other, they enabled proper veneration and reception, authenticated its content, and expressed the meaning and significance.68 However, distinctive and striking power of their form in the shape of head, bust, half- or full-figure, makes them some of the most remarkable mediaeval objects.

First Examples

The oldest reliquaries in the shape of body-part were, according to sources, in the shape of fingers and arms.69 Probably the first anthropomorphic one was finger reliquary of St. Denis in St-Denis from the beginning of the ninth century.70

The oldest documented anthropomorphic reliquary in the shape of the bust is reliquary of St. Mauritius placed in the cathedral of St. Maurice in Vienne (Isère).71 It was

67 Flores epytaphii sanctorum, 2.3. English translation from Bagnoli 2010, p. 137. “Ideoque prævidens, viventem in carne hominem, non posse sine nausea, et acri bile, videre ac attrectare putrescentis humani corporis saniem; sicut sacrosanctum corpus suum, et sanguinem, ne percipientes cruda et cruenta exhorrerent, velavit consueto et usitato hominibus, panis et vini velamine; sic persuasit mentibus filiorum Ecclesiæ, ut auro, et quibusque rerum utensilium pretiosissimis, ebvolverent in includerent pignera carnis beatæ, quia in Domino mortuæ: ne dum humanis aspectibus, sub naturæ suæ specie ingererentur, et offenderent, non tam honorarentur quam villescerent: cum nemo in eis supereminentes multiformis gratiæ Dei divitias, sed humanæ conditionis vilitatem attenderet.” PL, 157, 2.3, col. 347. See also Ferrari 1996, 2.3, p. 39. 68 Hahn 2015, p. 9. 69 Hubert and Hubert 1982, p. 252; Fricke 2015, p. 28. 70 The finger reliquary of St. Denis (Dionysius) was commissioned by Abbot Fardulf (792/793–806). Hubert and Hubert 1982, p. 252; Taralon and Taralon-Carlini 1997, p. 50. Miracula sancti Dionysii provides a short description of reliquary, “(…) partem digiti S. Dionysii auro instar manus a fabro composito, inclusam.” Miracula sancti Dionysii, 1.23, AASSOSB, III, 2, p. 351. For complete Miracula, see AASSOSB, III, 2, pp. 343–64. 71 Kovács 1964b; Hubert and Hubert 1982, pp. 233–234.

25 described, and more interestingly, also sketched out in the beginning of the seventeenth century by Nicholas Claude Fabri de Peiresc.72 [Fig. 1a, 1b] The head reliquary of St. Mauritius with a crown, both made of gold and precious stones, was given to monastery by Boso of Provence, King of Lower Burgundy (879–887). Later, the reliquary was equipped with a new crown by Hugh of Arles, King of Italy (924–947).73 According to Peiresc’s account, the head was supported by a body, what indicates different former appearance compared to his drawing, probably in the form of the bust or half-figure.74 Already the first example shows remarkable factor: strong association between bust reliquaries and rulers’ votive gifts. Not only the reliquary became the object of donation to the monastery, but the crown itself represents important votive offering for the saint.75

In the tenth century, the head reliquaries progressively gained popularity. We have a record of golden head reliquary from Clermont-Ferrand, and different one from Nevers.76 It is more than possible, that the former was in the form of half-figure with hands, because of inventory mentions, apart from the crown, sceptre and palm branch as well.77 Another head was situated in the monastery of St. Chef, once again not far from Vienne.78

In Limoges a golden sitting image of St. Martial was made, holding in his left-hand book and giving blessing with his right one, by Gauzbert after the fire around 952 during Abbot Hugh.79 This “iconam auream” was transformed into reliquary by Hugh’s successor, Abbot Josfredus, by placing St. Martial’s relics in 973.80 Other records indicate

72 St. Mauritius‘ imago was captured by Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, friend of Rubens, after his visit to the Cathedral. In his drawings, he recorded the head reliquary with both crowns. 73 Kovács 1964b. 74 As Peiresc noted in accordance with locals, “corps qu soustenoit ladite teste.” Body or bust was lost due to Huguenots during French Wars of Religion. Kovács 1964b, p. 21 n. 13. 75 Hahn 2012, p. 117. 76 “Ein Caput aureum wird schon in zwei Inventaren aus dem 10. Jahrhundert unter den Reliquienbehältern aufgeführt, in einem Inventar der Kathedrale zu Nevers und in einem Inventar der Kathedrale zu Clermont, in dem ersten mit dem Zusatz cum corona, im zweiten mit der das in ihm vermerkte caput deutlich als Büstenreliquiar kennzeichnenden Beifügung cum corona et sceptro et palma.” Braun 1940, p. 65. For inventories, see Braun 1940, p. 65 n. 496 and n. 497. 77 “In primis caput aureum unum cum corona et sceptrum et palma.” Cited in Falk 1991–1993, p. 145. 78 Falk 1991–1993, pp. 145–146. 79 “Isdem Gauzbertus iconam auream Marcialis apostoli fecit sedentem super altare et manu dextera populum benedicentem, sinistra librum tenentem Evangelii.” Duplès-Agier 1874, p. 5. Forsyth 1972, p. 79. 80 “Hic de icona aurea loculum fecit eureum cum gemmis, in quo vectum est corpus Marcialis.” Duplès- Agier 1874, p. 6.

26 more head and bust reliquaries: Sens (927–932), Saint-Pourçain (around 960), Avallon (965–1002), and Tournus (around 979).81 The abbey of Cluny had in its possession three images made of precious metals mentioned in an index compiled in 1078, which was present already in 100082: the famous statue of St. Peter and two golden images of Mary and St. Lazarus.83 Another “majesté de saint Pierre” was indicated in the chartulary of Sauxillanges in Auvergne, which was destroyed in 1095.84

Simultaneously, another parallel phenomenon emerged in the southern France in the tenth century – Marian images.85 The Madonna from Clermont-Ferrand was commissioned by Stephen II, Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand (937–984), at the same time Abbot of Conques (942–984), before 946.86 [Fig. 9] We have preserved not only names of goldsmiths, but also bishop’s incentive to create something completely different, with statue’s figural form distinguishable from more simple reliquaries or châsses.87 This statue of the Virgin and Child is generally considered as an enviable model and strong paragon for frequent subsequent examples and generally compared with the statue of St. Foy, remade or transformed approximately at the end of the abbacy of Stephen II.88

However, it is very hard to determine, if Marian images were closely related to the figural reliquaries, or they were just parallel phenomena, maybe even competing with each other. It is possible, that exponential growth of Majesties of Virgin was a reaction to the strengthening of the cult of saints, and especially their images.89 In the struggle for pilgrims and their favour, these Marian commissions of bishops were important investments attracting faithful, and luring them away from images located in monasteries along pilgrimage routes.

81 Fricke 2015, p. 28. 82 Forsyth 1972, p. 79; Hubert and Hubert 1982, pp. 253–254; Fricke 2015, pp. 28–30. 83 “Venit prefatus pontifex in ecclesiam ejusdem ville, ante preciosa pignora sanctorum que in imagine Sancti Petri continentur (…)” Bernard and Bruel 1876ff., III, Nr. 1866, p. 101. For relics enclosed in reliquary of St. Peter, see Albers 1900ff., I, p. 184. “(…) imago sanctȩ Mariȩ cum aurea corona et armillis aureis; imago sancti Lazari aurea (…)” Bernard and Bruel 1876ff., IV, Nr. 3518, p. 640. 84 Bréhier 1912, p. 890. For entry in chartulary, see Doniol 1864, No. 485, p. 371. 85 Fundamental study of the Marian images was done by Ilene Forsyth. Forsyth 1972. 86 Gauthier 1963, p. 107. 87 Louis Bréhier found information on artistic commissions of Stephen II in early manuscript of Gregory of Tours. Statue was created by cleric Aleaume, architect and goldsmith, and his brother Adam. See Bréhier 1924. 88 Gauthier 1963, Forsyth 1972, pp. 78–79, 95–99, Wirth 1999, pp. 176–182. 89 Fricke 2015, p. 31.

27

In the beginning of the eleventh century, Bernard of Angers in the first book of Liber miraculorum sancte Fidis mentioned several figural reliquaries besides St. Foy.90 He noticed local practice, according to his opinion at least curious, and sceptically recorded it in a well-known and often cited the section of his writing:

For in fact there is an established usage, an ancient custom, in the whole country of Auvergne, the Rouergue, and the Toulousain, as well as in the surrounding areas, that people erect a statue of their own saint, of gold or silver or some other metal, in which the head of the saint or a rather important part of the body is reverently preserved.91

On his first voyage to Conques, assiduous scribe of Angers recorded reliquary of St. Gerald of Aurillac, which was “fashioned out of the purest gold and the most precious stones. It was an image made with such precision to the face of the human form (…)”92 In the section dealing with miracles made by St. Foy at councils, Bernard of Angers lists several other figural reliquaries. During the synod in Rodez, several saints’ bodies were transported to this especially important great gathering.93

The ranks of saints were arranged in tents and pavilions in the meadow of Saint Felix, which is about a mile from Rodez. The golden majesties of Saint Marius,

90 Bernard of Angers composed the first two books of the Liber miraculorum sancte Fidis between 1012 and 1025, during his three trips to Conques: the first in 1012 or 1013, the second between 1013 and 1020, and the third in 1020. Two other books were written by monks from Conques, following Bernard’s example, before 1050. Individual narratives were added by other monastic authors until around 1075. See Sheingorn 1997; Fung 2011, pp. 119–121; Fricke 2015, p. 25; and the most exhaustively about dating Bonnassie and de Gournay 1995. 91 Liber miraculorum, 1.13; Sheingorn 1995, p. 77. “Est namque vetus mos et antiqua consuetudo, ut in tota Arve[r]nica patria sive Rotenica vel Tolosana, necnon et reliquis nostris his circumquaque contignis, de auro sove argento sen quilibe alio metallo, sancto suo quisque pro posse statnam erigat, in qua caput sancti, vel potior para corporis venerabilius condatur.” Bouillet 1897, pp. 46–47. 92 Liber miraculorum, 1.13; Sheingorn 1995, p. 77. “(…) auro purissimo ac lapidibus preciosissimis insignem et ita ad humane figure vultum expresse effigiatam, (…)” Bouillet 1897, p. 47. Bernard saw the statue of St. Gerald (d. 909), which was probably donated by Abbot Adraldus, in Aurilliac around 1010. See Deschamps 1925, p. 57. 93 Synod in Rodez in the presence of cult images was convened by Arnald, the bishop of Rodez somewhere between years 997 and 1031. The synod, part of the Peace of God, was held somewhere between 1004 and 1012. Bonnassie and de Gournay 1995, p. 462. This part of the text was written by Bernard in 1012 or 1013. Sheingorn 1997, p. 293 n. 84; cf. Fung 2011, pp. 120–121. Another reference to the synod in Rodez in Bernard’s text is in Liber miraculorum, 2.11; Sheingorn 1997, pp. 136–137.

28

confessor and bishop, and Saint Amans, also a confessor and bishop, and the golden reliquary box of Saint Saturninus, and the golden image of holy Mary, mother of God, and the golden majesty of Sainte Foy especially adorned that place. In addition to these, there were relics of many saints, but I can't give the exact number here.94

All above-mentioned objects, except the statue of St. Foy, did not preserve, nevertheless, they at least survive in chartularies, hagiographies, and other written testimonies. However, Auvergne region luckily saved several reliquaries in their completeness, mostly from the eleventh century. St. Theofrid from Le-Monastier-sur- Gazeille, St. Baudimus from Saint-Nectaire, and St. Caesarius from Maurs are three bust reliquaries, in the form of a half-statues covered with precious metals.95 Another preserved object, sedes sapientiae reliquary of St. Peter from Bredons, exemplify a different form, probably representing the wider group of St. Peter’s seating statues.96

Preserved objects from the French regions of Rouergue and Auvergne represent stunning sample illustrating a wider picture of saints’ images mentioned above and known only from writings. This small group of reliquaries, mostly connected with local saints, exemplify a very complexly layered type. However, before analysis of their mutual pattern appearance and characteristics, we should pay a short visit to the determinative territory of terminology as well.

Question of Terms

Despite the terminology, objects remain the same, and researchers’ perspectives should be unaffected by typecasting labels. However, misleading terms can lead to limitation of the breadth of scientific interest and omission of key points of research.

94 Liber miraculorum, 1.28; Sheingorn 1995, p. 98. “Erat autem distributa sanctorum acies in tentoriis et papilionibus, in prato Sancti Felicis, quod disparatur ab urbe quasi uno tamtum miliario. Hunc locum precipue sancti Marii, confessoris et episcopi, aurea majestas, et sancti Amantii, eque confessoris et episcopi, aurea majestas, et sancti Saturnini martiris aurea capsa, et sancte Dei genitricis Marie aurea imago, et sancte Fidis aurea majestas decorabant. Erant preter hec multa sanctorum pignera, quorum numerus non commendabitur in presenti pagina.” Bouillet 1897, p. 72. For more about these reliquaries mentioned by Bernard of Angers, see Lasko 1972, pp. 104–105; Fricke 2015, p. 117 n. 27. 95 All these reliquaries will be further discussed in sections of the following chapter, pp. 32–60. 96 St. Peter’s majestes in Cluny and Sauxillanges were probably seating figures as well.

29

Therefore, we should take a close look at the question of denomination, important for realising various aspects of reliquaries, especially figural ones.

In the first half of the twentieth century, Germans came up with a determinative term – “redende Reliquiare.”97 It was introduced by Jesuit Joseph Braun to classify and describe a specific group of reliquaries in the shape of various body parts.98 In his understanding, there was a strong connection between their external form of the casing and the relic within. Speaking Reliquaries were simply and plainly expressing or communicating their content, with body part is enclosed inside.99 This term was determinative for the whole field, slightly misleadingly guided researches’ approach to the objects in several ways, and widely used especially by Germans.100

In Anglo-American sphere was in use less poetic and more rigorous term – body- part reliquaries. Stating the obvious, nature of this designation is linking the saints’ body parts with the type of its containers. With growing share of the anthropology in the reliquary studies, a new designation started to emerge – “anthropomorphic reliquaries.” Caused by wider discussion, involving also post-colonial concerns, this term is actually joining all cult images in the form of body-parts from different cultures together.101 Still, the anthropomorphic label is just a little loftier and fancy sounding designation with the same meaning as the body-part.

However, evidences are manifestly disturbing literal connection between a body part of the saint and its encasement.102 Proving much more complicated relationships between the relic itself and reliquary, Cynthia Hahn encouraged to abandon Braun’s speaking term, and proposed a different one – “shaped reliquary.”103 Leaving “literal” connection, Hahn’s term is more appropriate for complex understanding of multi-layered objects, which reliquaries undoubtedly are.

I emphasise again that I choose the word “shaped” for a number of reasons. By avoiding the overly determined label “speaking reliquaries” and the too limiting “body-part reliquaries,” the category “shaped reliquaries” opens up a range of

97 Talking or speaking reliquaries. 98 Braun 1940, p. 380. 99 For English translation of Braun’s understanding of “Speaking reliquaries,” see chapter above, p. 13. 100 E. g. Belting 1994, p. 300. 101 Boehm 1997, p. 14. 102 Bynum and Gerson 1997, p. 4. 103 Hahn 1997.

30

possibilities beyond those that are usually considered. Making use of a verb, “to shape,” also gives a much more vital sense to the process we may imagine.104

When the form was dismissed from the post of expressing the nature of its content and speaking denomination, “misguidedly derived in several ways,” was put aside, new formal meanings were possible.105 One of the possibilities is awareness of the intentional approach of the patron, conceptor, or artist, as Bernard of Angers noted: “Or, the statue is to be understood most intelligently in this way: it is a repository of holy relics, fashioned into a specific form only because the artist wished it.”106 Clearly, especially figural reliquaries had, or almost had, the power of “speaking,” but in a different meaning than Joseph Braun intended.107 With the notion of the importance of the shaping of the reliquaries, we can take a look at “shape” of previously mentioned preserved ones.

104 Hahn 2012, p. 69. 105 Fricke 2015, p. 28 106 Liber miraculorum, 1.13; Sheingorn 1997, p. 79. “Vel quod prudentissimum est intelligi, sanctorum pignerum potius hec capsa est ad votum artificis cujusvis figure modo fabricata, longe preciosiore thesauro insignis, quam olim archa testament.” Bouillet 1897, p. 49. 107 Hahn 1997; Hahn 2010b, p. 312.

31

3. Case Studies: Six Heralds of the Past

Following chapter is focused on a group of reliquaries, preserved in today’s south- west France, in the regions of Rouergue and Auvergne. They were placed in the churches situated within a small area, and, with one exception, created in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. These six objects, which almost miraculously survived different struggles, including religious wars and other radical changes in French society, represent exceptionally preserved remarkable small corpus, matchless both geographically and historically.108

The churches in the Massif Central were almost completely cleared of its original furniture and liturgical equipment, as well as their mediaeval painted wall decoration.109 Mentioned objects, together with seating images of the Virgin, represent one of the small preserved exceptions of former church splendour from the eleventh and twelfth centuries.110 Despite the exceptional condition of preservation of this unparalleled corpus, it is easy to be overwhelmed by a false impression of certainty and unambiguity. It is always dangerous to take a single preserved object, or a small group of them, and consider it or them as a normative or abnormal, characteristic or exceptional.111

Six ensuing sections essay to present preserved reliquaries in brief. Each section is opened with short notes, giving basic notions about objects; their dimensions, dating, materiality, the number of Monument historique designation, and present-day placement. Regional character of the majority of saints’ cults closely linked to the local regions, villages, and monasteries, required condensed hagiography, with further references to publications with more profound research. Formal descriptions of the objects are

108 During French Wars of Religion, protestant groups opposed the Catholic Church. The Huguenots vent their anger not only on ecclesiastic institutions, but also on the relics of saints, their remains were exhumed and burned. Isolation of regions in Massif Central was insufficient for complete protection against the Wars of Religion. For Huguenot raiding, see Réau 1959, pp. 63–106, for regions of Auvergne and Rouergue, see pp. 88–90. Reliquaries, as guardians of saints’ remains, were strongly involved as well. E. g. the reliquary of St. Mauritius from cathedral of Vienne lost his bust, most probably during Huguenot requisition of the treasury of the cathedral in 1562. Kovács 1964b, pp. 20–21. 109 Reconstruction of the former interior splendour, of which the bust reliquaries were inseparable components, is unspeakably demanding. Incredible example, in terms of preservation and richness, is wall decoration of the church Saint-Julien in Brioude. See Craplet 1955, pp. 264–280. 110 Forsyth 1972. 111 Probably the best exclamation against this simplifying approach, supported by quantitative analysis, was concerned with byzantine enamel production. See Hetherington 2006, especially pp. 211–215, reprinted Hetherington 2008.

32 accompanied by significant points related to mentioned reliquaries. The chapter is also quoting important and interesting texts, generally mentioned only briefly, or completely omitted. In the case of the recently found reliquary in Saint-Flour, partially preserved in its actual condition, its section attempt to reconstruct its former appearance and incorporate it in this group of objects.

Each section is closed by an exhaustive related bibliography, and by a list of rare exhibitions, which displayed these reliquaries.

33

Bust Reliquary of St. Caesarius

• 91 × 43 cm

• the third quarter of the twelfth century

later additions in the thirteenth century, and later

• walnut wooden core, copper and silver gilt, partial polychromy, glass cabochons, enamels, gems (sapphires, amethysts)

• Abbey Church of Saint-Césaire, Saint-Césaire, Maurs

• MH 1898/06/14

• Inscriptions:

On the outside of the thirteenth-century door, in inverted letters

FIG (probably for Figeac)

on the inside of the door

HIC EST CAPVT: S(AN)C(T)I CESARII ARELATENCIS: EPI(SCOPUS)

St. Caesarius of Arles was born around 470 in Chalons-sur-Saône in Burgundy.112 As a son of Gallo-Roman noble family, he entered the local clergy, what was the especially attractive career for aristocrats from Gaul during the fifth century because the imperial opportunities were rapidly reduced. His abbot Porcarius send him to Arles, because of his broken health, caused by extensive studying, excessive vigils, and fasting. After the dead of Aeonius in 502, bishop of Arles and his relative, Caesarius succeeded him. He held this post, despite several attempts to depose him by his clergy, until his death in 542. St. Caesarius was renowned as a bishop, preacher, and author of numerous

112 St. Caesarius of Arles (French: Césaire d'Arles, Latin: Caesarius Arelatensis, Italian: Cesario di Arles), sometimes called after his birth place of Chalon (latin: Cabillonensis or Cabellinensis), feast day: August 27. AASS, Augusti, VI, pp. 50–83; LCI, V, col. 474–475; BiblSS, III, pp. 1148–1150; Réau, III, I, pp. 289–290. For Vita Cæsarii, see also Klingshirn 1994, pp. 9–65.

34 texts, including monastic rules for life.113 Thanks to his aristocratic background, he was also a skilful politician. Very soon after his death, two books of Vita Cæsarii were written by five familiar clerics.114

It is not known how and when relics of St. Caesarius of Arles came to the abbey church of Saint-Césaire in Maurs. Accepted theory, in general, suggests a connection with pirate attacks on Arles in the ninth century, Saracens sacked the Tomb of St. Caesarius prior to 883.115

The bust reliquary of St. Caesarius was core carved of wood, which is almost completely covered with metal sheets, secured by apparent nails. [Fig. 2a] Saint’s vestment is made of two metals, copper and silver, distinguishing brighter bell chasuble from lower wear of grey alb. Orphrey, bordering, and collar of chasuble are inlaid with gemstones and cabochons, as well as wristbands and partially visible stole. Small groups of precious stones and repoussé floral ornaments are alternating on hems of the vestment and imitating embroidery. The bell chasuble is waived by fine folds around saint’s chest. Its surface, which is not overlaid by Goldsmith “embroidery”, is covered in distinctive floral pattern, reminiscent of precious textile and especially well visible on saint’s back. [Fig. 2b] The copper plate is hammered into overlapping foils, emanating from central rosettes, and arranged into circles.116

The elongated head of saint has distinctive features; noticeable long chin, straight nose, plainly almond shaped and bulging eyes highlighted with a black line, and oval simply shaped ears. St. Caesarius is “crowned” with specific coiffure, regularly cut into two-step locks of hair. His hands with strangely long fingers are raised in the gesture of benediction or greeting, similarly to St. Baudime.

Later added and stylistically different door on the chest of St. Ceasarius with filigree bordure is inlaid with ten gems. It bears two inscriptions: from outside short FIG and from inside HIC EST CAPVT: S(AN)C(T)I CESARII ARELATENCIS: EPI(SCOPUS) validating relics placed inside.117 An analogy can be found in the quatrefoil casket

113 The corpus of St. Caesarius contains almost 250 preserved sermons. He founded a woman’s monastery in Arles, for which he composed Regula Virginum in 512, the first exclusively women rule in the West. For Caesarius’ Rule with its English translation, see McCarthy 1960. 114 For English translation of Vita Cæsarii with critical introduction, see Klingshirn 1994, pp. 1–65. 115 Benoit 1935. p. 138. 116 For back of saint’s bell chasuble, see Rochemonteix 1902, p. 249, fig. 204. 117 F. C. 1886, p. 678.

35 opening in the belly of the Majesty of St. Foy, added in the second half of the thirteenth century, also due to relic’s better visibility and more certain validation.118

The reliquary was examined and restored in 1951, on this occasion; its case for relics behind the filigreed door was opened and examined. Apart from several bone relics, the validating document was found as well, which dated this casket addition around 1272.119

Stylistic similarities, especially the facial features, assimilates the bust reliquary of St. Caesarius with the statue of St. Peter from Saint-Pierre-de-Bredons. Despite St. Peter’s lost metal sheeting, mentioned similitudes together with other details, like folding of upper vestment, imply mutual craftsman workshop.120

The important interaction between the local community and their local saint is illustrated also by the seal used by consuls of Maurs. A half-length figure of St. Caesarius appeared in impression on a document from 1284.121 This remarkable use of the image of local holy patron open a possibility of link the between saint’s relic enclosed in figural reliquary and taking an oath.

The bust reliquaries of St. Caesarius and St. Baudime at Saint-Nectaiure are one of the oldest surviving images-reliquaries shaped as bust-length figures.

Bibliography:

F. C. 1886, fig. p. 674;122 Rupin 1890, pp. 455–458, figs. 508–514; Rochemonteix 1902, pp. 246–252, fig. 203–204; Beaufrère 1954b; Énaud 1959, pp. 190–191, fig. p. 191; Muzac 1959, p. 13, no. 18; Kovács 1964a, p. 65, fig. 10; Taralon et al. 1965, p. 229 – 230, fig. 80; Souchal 1966, p. 206; Lasko 1972, p. 105–106; Boehm, 1990; Falk 1991– 1993, p. 148, fig. 53–54; Bessard 1981, p. 78, fig. p. 79; Boehm 1998, fig. 9; Gaborit-

118 Gaborit-Chopin and Taburet-Delahaye 2001, p. 28. 119 The reliquary was repaired, its polychromy was cleaned of later added layers, and base of statue was exchanged for new one during the restoration works. In the casket, several teeth and pieces of cranial bones were found. Document from 1272 confirming the authenticity of the relics was signed by Peter III, the abbot of Maurs. Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 382. 120 Bagnoli et al. 2010., p. 193. 121 Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 382. 122 F. C. probably stands for Firmin Suc.

36

Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 382, fig. 293, no. 293; Bagnoli et al. 2010, p. 193, fig. 106, no. 106.

Exhibitions:

Aurillac 1959, no. 18; Paris 1965, no. 417; Paris 1992, no. 31; Paris 2005, no. 293; Cleveland–Baltimore–London 2010–2011, no. 106; Paris 2011.

37

Bust Reliquary of St. Baudime

• 73 × 43 × 46 cm

• mid-twelfth century

• gilded copper over the walnut core, cabochons, corn, ivory

• Church of Saint-Nectaire d'Auvergne, Saint-Nectaire, Puy-de-Dôme

• MH 1897/01/27

St. Baudime is closely connected to Massif Central region as one of the evangelists of Auvergne.123 According to a tradition linked to St. Gregory of Tour, he was sent to Gaul with St. Nectaire and St. Auditeur.124 After their arrival from Rome, they were ordered by St. Austremonius, the first bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, to evangelise Auvergne.125 All three settled down on hill Cornadore, where they have built a church. The hill is also the position of their graves, memorialised by present church of St. Nectaire.

The bust reliquary of St. Baudime is preserved in nearly original condition, authentic visual appearance is short of almost all precious stones and gems. [Fig. 3] The core made of walnut, same wood like other Majestés from Auvergne region, is covered with sheeting secured by small nails. Saint’s head and arms are mould cast in copper. Facial features are evidence of masterful goldsmith skills; the beard is stippled and the hair is ending in somewhat geometric and regular curls. The most distinguishable and

123 St. Baudime (french: Baudime d’Auvergne), feast day: January 2. LCI, V, col. 344; BiblSS, II, pp. 977–978; Réau, III, I, p. 188. 124 BiblSS, II, p. 977–978. 125 According to St. Gregory of Tour, Austremonius was one of the seven bishops send to Gaul and the first bishop of Clermont-Ferrand. “At this time seven men were ordained as bishops and sent into the Gauls to preach, as the history of the martyrdom of the holy martyr Saturninus relates. For it says: “In the consulship of Decius and Gratus, as faithful memory recalls, the city of Toulouse received the holy Saturninus as its first and greatest bishop.” These bishops were sent: bishop Catianus to Tours; bishop Trophimus to Arles; bishop Paul to Narbonne; bishop Saturninus to Toulouse; bishop Dionisius to Paris; bishop Stremonius to Clermont, bishop Martial to Limoges.” Historia francorum, I, 30.

38 almost disturbing feature of the reliquary is stirring gaze of the saint’s eyes made of dark and white horn segment, loosely held inside head with wax.126 Subtle pattern and folding of the vestment are shaped using the technique of the repoussé. The orphrey, collar and hemming of bell chasuble were inlaid with gems and cabochons, and bordered by twisted filigree wire, which is only half preserved. St. Baudime is a blessing with his right hand, between index finger and thumb of his left hand he is holding a conical object, to which was probably attached saint’s attribute or phial of his blood.127

The first record of the reliquary in the inventory of the church of Saint-Nectaire is from 1462. Record also advert to a phial of the saint’s blood enclosed in the bust.128 During the restoration of the reliquary bust in 1957, reliquary case was uncovered inside the hollow core. It was created in the back of the bust, closed by a plank of wood, secured by several wooden pins, and completely covered with metal sheeting. However, the case was empty and we have no recording of relic inside since 1871. Also, there is no record of saint’s skull relic inside the bust reliquary of St. Baudime, what makes it an exceptional among documented and surviving examples of image reliquaries from Massif Central region.129

The Bust of St. Baudime is generally dated to the second or third quarter of a twelfth century, however, some similarities with reliquary of the St. Foy in Conques, such as dichromatic striking eyes or proportionally smaller head, led some authors to the earlier origin. Peter Lasko proposed considerably earlier and questionable dating with dividing the head, the hands, and the rest of reliquary into three separate phases.130 His complicated

126 Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 380. For detailed photo of detached wax holding eyes, see Taralon 1978, p. 22, fig. 38. “Imagine the excitement when the packing case was opened and the eyes of this exceptional figure were exposed again to the light. The eyes were designed to hold the gaze of the onlooker and still command attention today. Made of ivory, horn and wax, they are slightly mobile and move in their sockets – a miracle of medieval technology.” James Robinson. 2011 May 27. St Baudime reliquary arrives at the Museum [blog]. The British Museum Blog. [accessed 2017 June 1]. https://blog.britishmuseum.org/2011/05/27/st-baudime-reliquary-arrives-at-the-museum/. This mediaeval and more elegant version of “googly eyes” is not only miracle of mediaeval craftsmanship, but also miraculously alive and animated. 127 Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 380. 128 The inventory was ordered by the bishop of Clermont especially of the relics in possession of the church. Fayolle 1897, p. 292. 129 Bagnoli et al. 2010, pp. 192–193. 130 “The corpus of the reliquary of St Baudime at Saint-Nectaire, however, is undoubtedly of the tenth century. (…) The head, probably originally in wood, was replaced by a somewhat ill-fitting bronze-gilt

39 hypothesis is disproved by visual and even by the historical references.131 The bust’s wide open eyes and geometrically curled hair are closely related to the production around the middle of the twelfth-century.132 Lasko’s early dating of the reliquary is also refuted by Bell chasuble with gem-embroidered Y-shaped orphrey, which started to appear only from the eleventh century.133 St. Baudime’s locks of hair are often compared to the capitals of the nave of the church of Saint-Nectaire, depicting legends of an eponymous saint. Based on the establishment of the priory at Saint-Nectaire, those capitals are datable between 1146 and 1178.134

The precious stones were already missing on an aquarelle made by Anatole Dauvergne for Revue des sociétés savantes in 1859.135 As Boehm suggests, the absence

head made in second half of the twelfth century. The hands are almost certainly of even more recent date.” Lasko 1972, p. 105. 131 Bagnoli et al. 2010, p. 193. 132 The best example is statuette of an angel with a reliquary made in the second quarter of the twelfth- century (additions of base and mounting of reliquary made of rock crystal are from thirteenth-century). For more, see Taralon et al. 1965, pp. 203–204, no. 374; Boehm 1996, pp. 205–207; or Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 377. 133 Johnstone 2002, p. 13. 134 Territory of Saint-Nectaire was a gift from William VII the Young of Auvergne (Guillaume VII), count of Auvergne, to the abbey of La Chaise-Dieu in the twelfth century. The exact date of this donation is not known, but it was bound to happen between 1146 and 1178. We have two papal listings of Auvergne monasteries from those year, in the first bull of pope Eugene III (1145–1153), priory of Saint- Nectaire is not mentioned, in the second of pope Alexander III (1159–1181), it is. Craplet 1955, p. 157. However, Jean Wirth situated erection of the church of Saint-Nectaire before 1100, in accordance with the church Notre-Dame-du-Port in Clermont-Ferrand, Puy-de-Dôme. Wirth 2004, p. 191. 135 Dauvergne 1859, reprinted in Dauvergne 1862. Anatole Dauvergne was painter, art restorer, archaeologist, and close associate of Prosper Mérimée and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. He restored frescoes and redecorated polychromy of several churches between 1850 and 1860, e. g. church Saint-Austremoine in Issoire, Auvergne. However, we have older, usually overlooked, description of the reliquary wrote by writer and inspecteur général des Monuments historiques Prosper Mérimée in 1837. In his short description of treasury in the church of Saint-Nectaire, made during his journey in Auvergne, he depicted “remarkable” reliquary in one of the church’s apses, with gems still present. Mérimée mentioned, that saint’s vestment is “all sown with the colourful stones.” In such a case the precious stones would be stolen around the middle of the nineteenth century, but writing exaggeration cannot be ruled out. “Il y a encore dans l’une des apsides, un autre reliquaire, plus ancien peut-être que le crucifix. C’est un buste de grandeur naturelle, en cuivre repoussé, couvert d’une épaisse dorure, avec des yeux en émail. Cette sculpture est véritablement très remarquable par son modelé, rempli de vérité et de naturel. Pour le travail, elle est infiniment supérieure à la plupart des ouvrages bysantins, exécutés sur pierre ou sur marbre, mais on y reconnaît le même style. Les cheveux, coupés fort court et arrangés à la manière antique, la forme singulière de la robe, toute semée de pierres de couleurs, me font supposer que ce buste vient de Constantinople, et c’est peut-être une conquête des croisés. Quelle que soit son origine, ce beau reliquaire mériterait de figurer dans un musée.” Mérimée 1838, pp. 342–343.

40 of precious stones can be explained by events during the French Revolution.136 Declaration of March of 1791 stated, that all precious stones and engraved gems should be removed and send to Paris for further examination, however, works of art created before 1300 should be preserved and unimpaired. These circumstances can be also responsible for the bust’s survival.

The reliquary became a victim of modern furtum sacrum in the beginning of the nineteenth century. Growing interest in the mediaeval goldsmith production resulted in the great number of thefts of religious objects. The infamous art robbers known as Thomas brothers have already had several thefts on their account. In the night from 24 to 25 May 1907, they stole the bust reliquary of St. Baudime and the arm reliquary of St. Nectarius from the church of Saint-Nectaire and escaped on bicycles.137 In a several days after, the arm reliquary was sold to antique dealer Leerman in Paris for 300 franks. Fortunately, the bust reliquary was found in a sack of potatoes in a cellar belonging to the Thomas brothers in October of the same year and returned to Saint-Nectaire.

Bibliography:

Mérimée 1838, pp. 342–343; Dauvergne 1859, reprint Dauvergne 1862; Rupin 1890, pp. 85–86, fig. 155; Fayolle 1897, pp. 296–301; Bréhier 1924; Craplet 1955, p. 161, fig. p. 140–141; Énaud 1959, p. 191; Kovács 1964a, p. 65, fig. 11; Taralon et al. 1965, pp. 246– 247, fig. 79; Souchal 1966, p. 206; Lasko 1972, p. 105, pl. 99; Świechowski 1973, pp. 108–109, fig. 91; Taralon 1978, pp. 20–22, fig. 35–38; Bessard 1981, p. 76, fig. p. 77; Chabosy 1987; Boehm 1990, pp. 285–294; Falk 1991–1993, p. 149, fig. 55; Boehm 1998; Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 380, fig. 292a, 292b, no. 292; Bagnoli et al. 2010, pp. 191–193, fig. 105, no. 105.

Exhibitions:

136 Bagnoli et al. 2010, p. 193. 137 Boehm 2010, p. 66.

41

Paris 1900, no. 1614; Paris 1965, no. 447; Paris 2005, no. 292; Cleveland–Baltimore– London 2010–2011, no. 105.

42

Reliquary of St. Peter

• 92 × 43 × 42 cm

• the first half of the twelfth century

• walnut wood, polychromy, small fragments of metal sheeting

• Musée de la Haute-Auvergne, Saint-Flour, Cantal

• MH 1956/03/15

St. Peter is seated on a throne, straightened in frontality, with both feet parallelly on the ground, in the manner characteristic of the Madonnas in Majesty from the Massif Central. His right hand, without missing thumb, is lifted in a gesture of blessing. Left hand opened upwards, without missing last phalanges, was probably holding Keys of Heaven, St. Peter’s attribute. [Fig. 4]

Almost startling vivid polychromy of the statue is well preserved, its details are still perfectly distinguishable. His facial hair, consisting of divided moustache and beard connected with sideboards, is painted in black with white dots semi-circularly arranged. Other facial features are closely connected with the reliquary bust of St. Caesarius; wide open eyes, accentuated by black lines and high eyebrows, with the nearly exophthalmic look, less shaped oval ears, and straight nose. Also, the geometrically regular hair, with “two-stage” coiffure, is comparable.

St. Peter’s bell chasuble has flat folding resting between his knees and revealing his stole and alb. Painted orphrey of chasuble is imitating goldsmith work; multicoloured inlaid gems are enclosed with strips with white dots, probably mimicking repoussé decoration or filigree wire.

Small remaining metal fragments are visible around the wrists and under some nails, formerly used to secure the metal sheeting. Lost metal plating would assimilate the statue of St. Peter to bust reliquaries, especially with St. Caesarius.

The presence of erstwhile metallic cover is also confirmed by textual evidence from 1710, discovered together with the reliquary. Statue of St. Peter was hidden in a niche

43 behind retabulum of the high altar in the central bay of the church Saint-Pierre in Bredons, and found in October 1953, during the restorations works.138 Inside the statue was found writing signed by Segret, vicar of Bredons, testimony and recording of his dishonourable crime.139 In 1707 he decided to destroy “the old statue of St. Peter” standing in the niche in the nave of the church. According to him, statue’s blackened appearance was not pleasant to the faithful anymore. Firstly, Segret stripped reliquary of metal sheeting, then he was determined to hack it with an axe. However, after the third strike, the casket with relics at back of the saint was opened. Vicar of Bredons was frightened by his sacrilege and later put the statue of St. Peter with his enclosed confession back to its niche behind altarpiece, which was probably already under construction. “The victim of fluctuations of fashion, sentenced to be chopped by axe” was hidden behind the high altar for more than two centuries.140

Several lines of vicar Segret’s exceptional and valuable account give us an idea of the former appearance of the reliquary of St. Peter. The metal sheeting covered the clothed

138 The altarpiece was commissioned by the priests of the parish in July 17, 1706 at the sculptor from Murat, Antoine Boyer. This gilded and polychromed high altar was replacement for predecessor from seventeenth century. Bouyssou 1991, p. 49. 139 “Ad futuram rei memoriam. J’atteste et Dieu mest termoing quenviron le mois de novembre mil sept cens et sept voulant brusler ou enterrer la vieille statue de St Pierre telle qui se voit derrière le maistre autel de Bredon en une niche de pierre ou les plus vieux de la paroisse m’ont asseuré lavoir vueu depuis leur bas aage avec la meme robe, et laquelle depuis trente huit ans environ avoit esté placée tantôt en une chapelle tantôt a l’autre embarrassant partout, ie commença par luy enlever des plaques de plomb, de les presseur de papier gueres plus, travaillées an fleurons et feuillages attachées avec de petits clous lesquelles plaques luy servent de robbe et dornement comme se peut encore voir, au troisiesme coup de hasche que ie donna sur le derriere de sa chese la porte de ce vuide qui esrt au derriere de lad. figure tomba par terre et au dedans ie trouva les six ossemens grands et petits pliés dans les memes trois linges et toiles (?) iaunes lis avec le même fil qui se voyent auiourdhuy dans lamoire des reliques dud. bredom sans quel y eust aucun escriteau et est a notter que lesd. plaques couvroient si bien lad. porte estant plus longues quicelle quon ne la pouvoit ouvrir sans arracher le plomb, les petits clous se marquent encore : et ce qui fait voir l’ancienneté de lad figure et le temps immemorial que ces ossemens y furent cachés c’est que ceux qui condamnerent lad porte avec led plomb ne sapperceurent pas de cette concavité non plus que moy parceque les fantes estoient imperceptibles acause de la peinture qui paroit sur lad statue, et pour la veneration que procura l’invention de ces ossemens à St pierre ie nay pas voulu lenterrer ny brusler ains layremise en sa premiere place en foy de tout ce dessus ay signé ce presant memoire ce troisieme septembre l’an mil sept cens dix. Segret vicaire de bredom.” E. g. Beaufrère 1954a, pp. 246–247. 140 The “leaden” covering plates immediately led Abel Beaufrère to connect the reliquary with those, mentioned by Bernard of Angers: “(…) there is an established usage, (…) that people erect a staute for their own saint, of gold or silver or some other metal, in which the head of the saint or a rather important part of the body is reverently preserved.” Liber miraculorum, 1.13. Beaufrère also assumed date of creation of the statue. He set it at the time between the start of construction of the church Saint-Pierre in Bredons in 1074 and its consecration in 1095. Beaufrère 1954a, pp. 253–254.

44 parts of the figure’s wooden core and, according to the description, it was ornamented with foliate flower design. The covering was most likely made by repoussé technique, similarly to that of the bust reliquary of St. Caesarius from Maurs.141 The material of mentioned blackened plates is dubitable, application of lead seems implausible and faded silver can get notably darker.142

Statue of St. Peter actually has two niches for relics; the one in the back and violently opened by Segret, the logging vicar of Bredons, and second in the head with a tonsure working like a lid.143

Bibliography:

Beaufrère 1954a; Muzac 1959, p. 21, no. 44; Énaud 1959, p. 191, fig. p. 192;144 Muzac 1966, pl. 14; Mèzard and Saunier 1992, p. 80, no. 32; Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 382, fig. 294, no. 294.

Exhibitions:

Aurillac 1959, no. 44; Saint-Flour 1966, no. 219; Paris 1992, no. 32; Paris 2005, no. 294.

141 Floral pattern on St. Caesarius’ bell chasuble is imitating precious textiles and is very close and relevant visual illustration for reconstruction potential former appearance of St. Peter’s imago. Pattern is especially well visible on saint’s back, for photo of the St. Caesarius’ back, see Rochemonteix 1902, p. 249, fig. 204. 142 We cannot exclude Segret’s more basest and mundane motivations, and his subsequent mitigation of his guilt and “blasphemy.” Also, Segret’s education in chemistry is dubitable. 143 Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 382. 144 Caption under the image incorrectly labels the reliquary of St. Peter as “Reliquaire de saint Baudime a Saint-Nectaire.”

45

Bust Reliquary of St. Theofrid

• 59 × 45 × 48 cm

• end of the eleventh century (?) – wooden core

covering from end of the twelfth century

hands from the nineteenth century

• wooden core (oak), gilded silver, silver, copper, rock crystals

• Abbey Church of Saint-Chaffre du Monastier, Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille, Haute- Loire

• MH 1901/09/25

St. Theofrid is known as the second abbot of the monastery of Calmeliac (today Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille) and, according to his Vita, he was lucky enough to die a martyred death. 145 When Saracens invaded southern France in 732, St. Theofrid ordered monks to hide in the nearby forest, however, he declared that he would stay in the monastery. When invaders found himself laying prostate in a prayer for protection in front of St. Peter’s altar, St. Theofrid told them, that he is willing to “save the sheep by laying his own life.”146 They dragged him away and beat him, but after one of the Saracens hit him on the head with a stone, an earthquake with a strong thunderstorm arose, and the attackers were scattered by the wind. After that, fellow monks found their abbot, interiora cerebri viderunt, but still alive. They moved him to his cell and took care of him for seven days, after which he passed away of his fatal injury.

St. Theofrid is represented as a young clerk with characteristic Benedictine tonsure on his head and dressed in a tunic with orphrey. [Fig. 5a] The metal sheeting of the imago is made of superposed metal plates, attached to the wooden core by small nails. The

145 St. Theofrid (French: Chaffre, Théofrède, Cheffroy du Velay or du Monastier, Latin: Theofredus Vellavensis, Italian: Teofredo, Chiaffredo), feast day: October 19 (Roman use) or November 18 (Gallis use). AASS, Octobris, VIII, pp. 515–533; LCI, VIII, col. 458; BiblSS, XII, pp. 348–350; Réau, III, I, p. 290. 146 “Vir Dei respondit, deum loci defensorem esse, seque velle vitam pro ovibus ponere.” AASS, Octobris, VIII, p. 515.

46 glossily polished covering is highly reflecting surrounding light, the head even more. Craftsman’s endeavour was more aimed for material dichromatic richness than to masterfully perform technique of repoussé.147 Saint’s silver tunic is smoothly fluted into regular vertical folds, around elbows into sets of radial grooves. Wider bands of gilt silver encircling the neck of statue and continuing in the front of the vestment are resembling precious embroidery. They are accentuated by alternating rock crystal cabochons and repoussé floral ornaments of four leafed stems growing from the flower. The hemming of tunic’s sleeves is made in a similar way but without the rock crystals. The reliquary’s base is bordered by another gilded silver repoussé band with alternating rosettes and lozenges.

Strikingly small wooden hands of the statue are the result of the renovation, or rather addition from nineteenth-century.148 It is impossible to ascertain if the original ones were initially covered by silver sheeting as well.

During the restoration works on the reliquary in 1964, before the exhibition Les Trésors des églises de France, it was possible to dismantle the metal sheeting and wooden core was revealed.149 [Fig. 5b] It was carved in an exceptional manner, depicted young cleric has full-faced head and softly waved vestment with oval hollows, prepared for spacious cabochons. Drawing a comparison between the carved wooden core and the silver sheeting, different fabrications are distinguishable. [Fig. 5c] The metal mask of saint’s head is more independent of the wooden face, has unequal volumes, and was carried out separately. On the other hand, wooden and metal torsos have a much closer connection. With its bulging embroidery and vertical waves of the tunic, the carved core was prepared for the silver revetment in advance. Metallic plates were embossed by hammering directly on the trunk and subsequently fixed with silver nails.

The silver covering vestment of the St. Theofrid is dated back to second half of the twelfieth century.150 Vertical waving folds of the tunic are comparable to those on the

147 Frontal view on the bust reliquary reveals axially asymmetrical saint’s face. His right eye is somewhat larger, and right eyebrow highly placed. 148 Original hands were detached in 1793. Taralon et al. 1965, p. 236; Falk 1991–1993, p. 147. Present- day small trumpesque hands were attached at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Taralon et al. 1965, p. 236; Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 385. 149 Taralon et al. 1965, p. 236. 150 Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 385.

47

Virgin from Orcival, made in the second half of the twelfth century.151 The concept and technique of application metal covering on well carved wooden core of the reliquary are nothing unusual. An exemplary illustration of this method is the reliquary head of St. Yrieix.152 It has a walnut wooden core, with amazingly carved detailed facial features, like ears, hair, or even wrinkled forehead. Its metal sheeting, made by repoussé technique separately and attached afterwards, is also accentuated by two-coloured differentiation; saint’s silver “skin” contrasts with beard, eyebrows, and hair are made of gilded silver.153

The cartulary of Monastier noted that some reliquary of St. Theofrid was in the possession of the abbey already in the eleventh century.154 In part concerning inventory of abbatial treasury, there is an entry about “four of five caskets” with relics of saints, which were “surrounded by gold and silver,” and Theofrid’s one did not only contain saint’s skull, but also a piece of the True Cross. However, precious metals of the reliquaries were given to “those, who rushed to Jerusalem.”155 There is a high possibility

151 Forsyth 1972, pp. 168–170, figs. 90–94, no. 31. 152 Little 2006, pp. 177–180. Another remarkable example is the head reliquary of St. Eustace, originally from Basil Cathedral, made in the end of twelfth century, now in the British Museum. It is assumed, that its repoussé cover, made of gilded silver plates, was produced a little later than the elaborately carved core serving as the earlier wooden reliquary. Robinson 2008, pp. 74–75. 153 The head reliquary of St. Yrieix, made around turn of the twelfth century or in second quarter of the thirteenth century, originally from Saint-Yrieix-la-Perche (Haute-Vienne), was acquired by the Metropolitan Museum in 1917. The existence of two “versions” of saints’ head was ascertained during preparations for exhibition Trésors des églises de France. The silver covering was detached from the remarkably carved wood core, which was not intended to be seen. Since the 1960s two “heads” are exhibited separately. Boehm 1997, pp. 11–13. 154 The cartulary of Monastier was written at the very end of the eleventh century, during time of the abbot Guillaume IV (1086–1136). The original manuscript of cartulary is lost, however Chevalier used for reconstruction four transcripts from Biliothèque nationale. Chevalier 1891. 155 In part “XLVII. De vasibus ecclesiasticis” is following section: “Capsulas argenteas, ubi reliquiæ sanctorum servantur, IIII vel quinque, cum majori capsa sanctorum Innocentium et arca illa ubi reliquiæ sancti Theofredi sanctique Eudonis et quorumdam aliorum repositæ sunt, quæ circumdata auro et argento fulgere solebat, donec illis qui Jherosolimam properabant datum est pro commutatione possessionum : tali tamen tenore ut ex eisdem possessionibus ibidem restitueretur argentum ; in illa quoque imagine sancti martyris multæ sanctorum habentur reliquiæ, cum quadam dominicæ crucis ligni portione, cujus corona capitis ex auro mundo gemmisque pretiosis mire refulget specie venustatis, palmæ quoque similitudo totius complet figmentum ipsius operis.” Chevalier 1891, p. 42. Mentioned those, who hurried to Jerusalem, were most likely members of First Crusade (1095–1099), which was called on by Pope Urban II (1088–1099) on 27 November 1095 in Clermont. Urban undertook a long tour of France concentrated on recruitment for the War of the Cross, and he was surprised by strength of reaction. Significant part of recruits came from regions along, or near the route of his campaign. The crusade was a subcategory of pilgrimage, therefore it was understood as a penitential act attracting large numbers of people. Asbridge 2004, pp. 47–49.

48 that the actual preserved reliquary in the abbey church, specifically its oak-core, was the mentioned one in the cartulary. Stylistic facial features of the saint’s wooden carved image, like thin mouth and accentuated nose, resemble sculpture around the year 1100 or from the beginning of the twelfth century.156 A Wooden image of St. Theofrid was probably still used as a reliquary by the abbey in Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille and later it was “re-dressed” in new silver vestment. [Fig. 5b, 5c] It is easy to imagine, that old covering made of precious metals and gems sponsored the First Crusade or an ordinary voyage of pilgrims.

Bibliography:

Didron 1859, p. 27; Lesne 1936, pp. 205, 211; Taralon et al. 1965, p. 236, fig. 81; Souchal 1966, pp. 205–206, fig. 1; Forsyth 1972, pp. 14, 67f., ill. 16, 17; Bessard 1981, p. 72, fig. pp. 72, 73;157 Boehm 1990, p. 231–239; Falk 1991–1993, pp. 146–147, fig. 51–53; Boehm 1998, fig. 8; Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 385, fig. 295a, 295b, no. 295; Pentcheva 2016, pp. 226–229, fig. 11, 12a, 12b.

Exhibitions:

Paris 1965, no. 428; Paris 2005, no. 295.

In the case of Monastier, the church probably exchanged properties and also belongings of soon-to-be crusaders for more practical and portable precious metals. 156 Sculpted capitals from Mozac are mentioned most frequently, see Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 385. The capitals in the abbey of Saint-Pierre of Mozac are dated with accordance to the reconstruction of the church. The date of the annexation to Cluny, 1095, is generally accepted beginning of building and decoration. Craplet 1955, pp. 127–128. Jean Wirth is opposed to this accepted dating, suggesting second half of the eleventh century, c. 1080, according to overly profane and sensual decoration of capitals, otherwise rejected by Cluniac supervision. Wirth 1999, pp. 154–172; Wirth 2004, pp. 251–254. 157 The picture on page 73 is actually a mirror image, St. Theofrid would give blessing with his left hand.

49

Bust Reliquary from Saint-Flour

• 68 × 50 × 45 cm

• twelfth century, with later additions of paint and iron bands

• copper and silver gilt over a wooden core, paint

• Musée de la Haute-Auvergne, Saint-Flour, Cantal

The bust reliquary of the unknown male saint from Saint-Flour is the newest enrichments of the corpus of image reliquaries from the Massif Central and one of the findings of the twenty-first century validating the possibility of upcoming discoveries.

The head and the left hand of the bust reliquary are completely lost; the right hand is partially preserved in a trace of gesture. [Fig. 6] Its core, made of extremely dense wood, probably of the burl of the local trees like black poplar or maple, is almost fully revealed, with an exception of remnants of liturgical vestment. Forearms are apparently carved out of distinct pieces of wood, and attached to the main core. On the basis of preserved fingers, we can read gesture of the right hand as a blessing, the left hand was probably turned upwards and holding saint’s attribute.

Preserved part of the right hand is made of copper. On the basis of similarities with hands of St. Baudime’s imago, unknown saint’s hands were probably also moulded cast and attached to the core.158 The sections around neck and wrists are covered in metal, especially the collar is quite distinguishable with its preserved large parts. Later added bordering of vestment is also made of iron, the stripes are very rough in their form.

On the reliquary, finely carved folding of the vestment is noticeable at first sight. The sticky wetness of folds around shoulders and elbows can be seen on other majestés created in the Auvergne region.159 As the conservators’ report noticed, under the partially

158 Hands of the bust reliquaries of the unknown saint and of St. Baudime have noticeable lines on palms and between phalanges. Their somehow feminine impression, caused by fine and thin fingers, is even more highlighted by long nails. 159 E. g. La Vierge en majesté from Louvre, see Forsyth 1972, p. 172, figs. 98–100, no. 34; Gaborit- Chopin and Avril 2005, pp. 379–380, fig. p. 380; or Notre-Dame de Montvianeix, see Forsyth 1972, pp. 158–159, figs. 60–63, no. 3. Both are dated to the second quarter or around middle of the twelfth century.

50 preserved red paint, there is a larger number of nails, with traces of gilt silver under them.160 This fact points out that former appearance of the bust reliquary was more similar to the others, e.g. the bust reliquary of St. Caesarius. The wooden core was completely covered with silver and copper gilt, significance and worth of reliquary were emphasised by the colour variance of precious metals: silver for most of the vestment, copper for exposed skin of hands, probably also head, and rest of the vestment. Reasons for subsequent change of its appearance are unknown, however, it is most likely linked to the value of silver plating, former sheets were forcibly removed and later replaced by a layer of red paint. Mentioned rustic iron bands bordering remains of copper sheeting were probably added at this stage as well.

It is possible, that original appearance of the bust was very close especially to the image reliquary of St. Baudime. The head is missing most probably because of its monetary value and it is likely that it was mount cast as well. The head and hands were attached to small cylindrical part of in advance prepared wooden core, which is still visible.

The reliquary bust of the unknown saint was found in the attic of one house in the city of Saint-Flour in June 2010 and donated to the diocesan museum by the house owners soon after. The first analysis was carried out by local art historian Pascale Moulier, who later brought the reliquary to the attention of Barbara Drake Boehm.161 Boehm tried to determine saint’s identity and circumstances responsible for the current fragmentary state of the bust.162 Among several suggested hypothesises, she proposed as the most probable considerable and multiple destructions of the bust reliquary during the events of the French Revolution. Partially preserved statue in her paper became the embodiment of ecclesiastical possessions and turbulences brought about by ordinances, laws, and instructions emanated from revolutionary Paris.163 After the revolutionary tide strongly

160 Boehm 2014, pp. 75–76. 161 Boehm 2011. 162 Boehm 2014. 163 The reliquary was probably confiscated from the cathedral Saint-Pierre in Saint-Flour after 1790, most likely in 1791, to be melted down in mint. It parried this and also other potential opportunities for its destruction. Boehm 2014, pp. 78–80. For more about revolutionary melting of the goldsmith religious objects, see Réau 1959, I, pp. 361–366. In a similar way, the reliquary head of the St. Yreiex was already weighed a prepared to be melted down in 1791. However, it was saved under unknown circumstances. In the case of the treasury of Conques, it was preserved by local inhabitants during the Revolution. Aubert 1937, p. 467.

51 damaged carved sculpture was probably given to local woodworker, hired to repair it. But we can only speculate, why it was walled in the attic of one house in Saint-Flour. According the analysis of historic writings and documents, Boehm believes that the bust reliquary represented St. Peter, a very popular saint among image reliquaries in France.164

Bibliography:

Boehm 2011; Boehm 2014.

Replacement of old saints by new profane ones was flawless during the revolutionary times. In Saint- Flour there was held in 1793 a ceremony celebrating the “martyrs of the Revolution,” whose images in form of busts were raised on “altar,” placed in a square in front of the cathedral. Boehm 2014, pp. 79. Radical movement of the French Revolution produced their own pantheon of saints and martyrs, borrowing Christian imagery. See Soboul 1983. 164 Boehm 2014, p. 81.

52

Majesty of St. Foy

• 85 × 36 × 24 cm

• end of the ninth century, end of the tenth century, with later additions and alterations

casket with a door from the thirteenth century

translucent enamels on vestment from the fourteenth century

rock crystals from fifteenth (?) and nineteenth century

forearms and hands from the sixteenth century

shoes (except for filigree stripes) modern

• wooden core (yew), gold, silver gilt, enamels, cameos, gemstones (agates, amethysts, cornelians, emeralds, garnets, haematites, jades, niccolites, opals, rock crystals, sapphires), cabochons, pearls, rock crystals, glass

• Abbey Church of Sainte-Foy, Conques, Aveyron

• MH 1895/05/15

Majesty of St. Foy of Conques is one of the most well-known mediaeval objects, and the vastness of its bibliography is also notoriously known. It incited works of countless scholars in nearly as many issues and different ways. In the last two centuries, it was involved in numerous questions, from the revival of monumental sculpture in the West, through the power of cult images, to deep analyses of its cameos and jewellery.165 Produce a complete list of all texts concerned with the Majesty of St. Foy would be the ultimate Sisyphean toil of art history.

165 For the revival of western monumental sculpture, e.g. Rey 1956, most recent Fricke 2015. For powers of cult image of St. Foy, e.g. Dahl 1978, Fricke 2015. For analyses of rock crystals, gems, intaglios, e.g. Wentzel 1970, Ponsot 1986, Kornbluth 1995.

53

St. Foy is said to have been a young girl from Agen in south-west France born in the third century.166 Her legend describes her arrest during the Roman prosecutions of Christians and subsequent interrogation in 286-288. She refused to make the pagan sacrifice even under threat of torture as an expression of her strong faith. Dacian, Maximian’s follower, condemned Foy to be burnt to death on a red-hot brazier. A miraculous thunderstorm interrupted execution and the young thirteen-year-old girl had to be beheaded. Her head was then carried by two doves towards Conques.167

The Majesty’s present visual appearance is striking for contemporary viewers as well as it was its former for mediaeval faithful. [Fig. 7a] This perspective of the then beholder, that took its manufacture and materiality into consideration, is recorded in Bernard of Angers’s Liber miraculorum sancte Fidis:

(…) I will tell you at once about the fashioning of the famous image that the inhabitants of the monastery call the Majesty of Sainte Foy.

It is made of the finest gold and becomingly adorned with gems delicately and carefully inserted on portions of the garments, as the judgment of the craftsmen thought best. The band about the statue’s head also displays gems and gold. She wears golden bracelets on golden arms and a low golden stool supports her golden feet. Her throne is made in such a way that only precious stones and the best gold are to be seen there. Also, above the tops of the supports that project upward at the front, two doves made of gems and gold adorn the beauty of the whole throne.168

The surface of the statue is ablaze with gold and inlaid with a great number of gems, cameos, and enamels, giving the impression of some kind kenophobia. Her head, the largest surface without precious stones, is adorned with a crown and dangling earrings, both filigree and inlaid with gems. St. Foy’s piercing gaze is accentuated by her raised eyebrows and dichromatic eyes made of two types of glass; opaque white for sclera, and translucent blue one with facet cut for iris with a pupil. [Fig.7c] The crown is slightly revealing saint’s hair accentuated by filigree wire, that looks as if it was weaved into

166 Saint Faith (French: Foy d’Agen or de Conques, Latin: Fides Concathensis, Conchensis, Italian: Santa Fede), feast day: October 6. AASS, Octobris, III, pp. 263–329, VIII, pp. 823–25; LCI, VI, col. 238–240; BiblSS, V, pp. 511–516; Réau, III, I, 513–516. 167 We have two accounts of passion of St. Foy preserved; The Acts of the Martyr and the Passio metrica SS. Fidis et Caprasii. See AASS, Octobris, VIII, pp. 826–828. 168 Liber miraculorum, 1.16. There are differences in the visual appearance of the statue in this short quotation, demonstrating the changing look of St. Foy, e.g. two doves on her throne were replaced with rock crystal orbs.

54 strands of hair. The captivating surface of the garment, inlaid with numerous additions, and accentuated by embroidered filigree hems around the neck, arms, and legs, is disturbed by quatrefoil opening in front of the torso. This opening, in shape of miniature architecture with small columns, gable with crockets, and two pinnacles, was simplifying access to relic casket, which was accessible only from behind of the statue.169 St. Foy’s arms, replaced by new ones in the sixteenth century, are holding small scabbards between her fingers.

The throne itself is embellished with gems and intaglios, and “crowned” with four crystal rock orbs. Unlike the statue, it has iron structure, which is plated with sheets of gilt silver, on the sides cut with patterns. Re-used cameos on St. Foy’s garment and throne are frequently labelled as spolia, but in this case, it is clearly misinterpreted and misleading term.170

Liber miraculorum sancte Fidis drew scholars’ attention to the reliquary’s different former shape, which was transformed at the turn of the millennium, the most likely around 985.171 Jean Taralon, already addressed the issue of the non-fitting head, suggested a less radical theory of just re-seating of the statue’s sitting torso.172 Fricke, probably due to her deeper knowledge concerning the power of image, proposed a more considerable change from the half-figure statue, like those of St. Baudimus or St. Caesarius, into an enthroned full-figure statue.

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the exhaustive reworking of the sculpture might have been justified not only by its frequent use in processions, etc., but

169 It was added later, in the second half of the thirteenth century. Gaborit-Chopin and Taburet-Delahaye 2001, p. 28. This change was caused by general demand for better access to the relics, which was slowly growing already in the twelfth century. 170 As Dale Kinney noticed, there is a significant difference between spoils of e.g. Roman gods, and offerings. “Spoliation creates winners and losers. St. Foy’s seizure of jewelry was not spoliation because the donors were persuaded that they had gained spiritually in proportion to their material losses; the transactions between them and St. Foy, albeit coerced, were gifts. In the ideological economy of Christian salvation, both parties were enriched by the exchange.” Kinney 2011, p. 104. 171 Bernard of Angers used in his Liber miraculorum sancte Fidis two terms: ab antiquo fabricata and de integro reformata. 172 St. Foy’s unfitting head was closely examined by Taralon during its restoration in 1954, see Taralon 1955. He later explained the head as a re-application of probably roman spolia from fourth or fifth century. This only part of the statue “ab antiquo” was attached to new torso. “(…) la tete n'a pas été faite pour la statue. C'est la statue qui a été faite pour la tete.” Taralon and Taralon-Carlini 1997, p. 18.

55 also perhaps by the simple extension of the sculpture from half- to full-figure and its positioning on a throne in order to effect a new, fuller vision of the saint.173

The Majesty of St. Foy is probably the best example of the changing appearance of bust reliquaries.174

Aspects of the visual qualities of St. Foy, especially reflective golden surfaces, are striking at first sight.175 This “material” approach registered rather intense study in past two decades. Also, her piercing gaze, accentuated by her dichromatic eyes made of glass and raised eyebrows, inspecting and judging the faithful, was important for further interaction.

Her relics became involved in well-known furta sacra, which is example par excellence of rivalry between monasteries or abbeys in mediaeval times. Conques was in competition with nearby and more convenient located monastery of Figeac. The latter attracted more funds from the pocket of the laity, and threatened the former with subordination. Brothers in Conques decided to steal relics of St. Foy, sometime in the second half of the ninth century. Monk Arinisdus was sent on a secret mission to Agen. After he had won the trust of brothers in the monastery, he sneaked into the Foy’s sarcophagus and thieved her remains.176 However, this dishonourable “furtive

173 “Fricke, p. 37. For her full hypothesis, see pp. 32–37. Fricke drew attention to questioned full-figure statue of St. Foy in the ninth century as well Fricke 2015, p. 26. 174 “Since its (St. Foy) formation as a half figure in the ninth century, its appearance was, as already discussed, updated with new elements in each century: at the turn of the first millennium, the lower body, the throne, the crown, and the border were elaborately inlaid and numerous gems were added. In the following century, the crystal balls, the earrings, individual precious stones, hems, and enamels were affixed.” Fricke 2015, p. 213. For analysis of “gothic enrichments”, see Gaborit-Chopin and Taburet-Delahaye 2001, p. 28. 175 Sensorial perception of golden repoussé surfaces combined with other materials and reflecting rays of light was further explored by Bissera Pentcheva in her breath-holding book The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium. The light of candles and oil lamps, trembled even by the breath of faithful, is creating “icon’s polymorphous presence.” Pentcheva re-created and recorded this process of change with illustrative example of Icon of the archangel Michael in Treasury of the basilica of San Marco, Venice. Pentcheva 2010, especially pp. 123–137. This former environment, nowadays neutralised by the museum electric lighting, is fundamental element of the perception. In the case of St. Foy, this sensual archaeology was executed by the project Migrating Art Historians. For more, see the upcoming publication. 176 Bernard of Angers is surprisingly taciturn, his guardedness is hard to explicate, “Long ago the holy martyr's body was secretly carried away from the city of Agen and brought to Conques by two monks.” Liber miraculorum, 1.17. For St. Foy’s verse translatio, see AASS, Octobris, VIII, pp. 289–292. For St. Foy’s prose translatio, see AASS, Octobris, VIII, pp. 294–299. For critical investigation of “Translatio Sanctae Fidei,” see Geary

56 translation” was justified as legitimate and needful for salvage of Abbey in Conques, and the village as well.177

St. Foy is very closely related to the village of Conques, during the French Revolution local inhabitants protected the treasure of the church.178 Even after her re- discovery by Prosper Mérimée during his visit at the end of June 1837, apart from journeys to Paris, London, and Agen because of restorations and exhibitions, the statue never left the village for a longer time.179

Annually on October 6, the feast day of St. Foy, great procession with celebration is held in the village of Conques, keeping continuing tradition and mirroring the mediaeval devotion into the present day.180

Bibliography:

Mérimée 1838a, p. 190; Mérimée 1838b, p. 241; Darcel, 1861, pp. 45–56; Rupin, 1890, pp. 59–65, fig. 113–116; Bouillet 1892, pp. 50–54; Havard 1896, pp. 89–92, pl. 7; Bouillet and Servières 1900, p. 167–182, pl. face p. 167, fig. p. 179; Bréhier 1924; Aubert 1928; Hubert 1938, pp. 136 – 139; Aubert 1939, pp. 101–105, fig. p. 101, 103; Hubert 1943–1944; Deschamps 1948; Keller 1951; Taralon 1954, pp. 47–48; Taralon 1955; Rey 1956; Gaillard 1963, pp. 135–137, pl. 38–43; Taralon et al. 1965, pp. 289–294, fig. 34– 35; Wentzel 1970, fig. 11, 13; Forsyth 1972, pp. 12, 40–42, 65–81; Lasko 1972, p. 104, fig. 143; Fau 1973, pp. 12–15, pl. 46–62; Taralon 1978; Dahl 1978; Ponsot 1986; Wirth 1989, pp. 171–194, fig. 18; Remensnyder 1990; Kornbluth 1995, pp. 87–89, 96–97, no. 16, fig. 16-1–16-8; Remensnyder 1996; Taralon and Taralon-Carlini 1997; Boehm 1998;

1978, pp. 138–141. It is possible, that accounts connected to St. Foy’s translation were wrote, or alternatively re-wrote later, to make plot of the history more interesting, and to gain competitive advantage compared to arch-rival from Figeac as well. Geary 1978, pp. 63–64. 177 AASS, Octobris VII, p. 296; Geary 1978, p. 21. 178 Aubert 1937, p. 467; Bernoulli 1956, p. 23. 179 Aubert 1937, p. 468; Fricke 2015, p. 25. 180 Processions like this were the goal of shorter pilgrimages, captivating great number of people. Present- day modern versions are attracting visitors with more mundane sightseeing motivations. For analysis of the eleventh century procession, based on Liber miraculorum sancte Fidis, see Ashley and Sheingorn 2001. For video recording of the present-day procession in Conques, see e.g. CP Aveyron (2015, October 12). Conques : la procession de sainte Foy [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu9S4GJf7hc.

57

Barral I Altet 2000, p. 151–153; Delmas and Fau 2000, p. 86–90; Gaborit-Chopin 2000, p. 141–149; Garland 2000; Paris 2002, pp. 18–29, no. 1, fig. 9 – 26; Gaborit-Chopin 2003; Fricke 2007; Garland 2010; Kornbluth 2014, fig. 1a, 1b, 23, 24; Fricke 2015.

Exhibitions:

Paris 1900, no. 1582; London 1932, no. 583; Paris 1965, no. 534; Agen 2000; Paris 2001, no. 1.

58

Origin of these six preserved reliquaries is concentrated in a small area of today’s south-west France, namely in the Massif Central, from neighbouring regions of Auvergne and Rouergue. They were placed within churches situated in localities closely linked to “their” saints, their lives, missions, and martyrdom. These places became homes of their cults, and reliquaries represented probably the most important images of the local ecclesiastical, and as well as the secular community. Despite local character of saints’ cults, they were also attractive for arriving pilgrims, travelling in the search of redemption or salvation.

All mentioned examples were created in the eleventh or twelfth century, with one partial exception. The statue of St. Foy, ab antiquo fabricata in the ninth century, was completely transformer just before or around the year 1000. The strength of her cult was supported not only by the striking visual appearance but also by the powerful hagiography, numerous miracles and furta sacra. Her attractivity for pilgrims associated with financial benefits and strengthening the position of the monastery was enviable. The role of St. Foy in surrounding regions represented a trend-setting example, which was more than probably followed and copied.

Mentioned preserved reliquaries have common features, noticeable at first sight, which are pointing to important visual aspects of saints’ images. They are all sharing the same effort to monumentalize their appearance, balancing under life-sized dimensions. The most obvious facial and bodily features were crucial in the communication with the faithful. Each imago dominates surrounding setting especially with its gaze, accentuated with diverse techniques and strategies, from simple enlargement of eyes, to use of various materials, or movable eyeballs. Simpler accentuations were applied also to mouths of saints, renting them the capability of speech.181 Exaggerated hands and their gestures were another and especially potent way of communication in mediaeval society. Their unearthly appearances were even more highlighted by shiny surfaces, covered with precious stones, rock crystals, and intaglios probably resembled faithful resurrected and

181 “The viewer has the impression that the saint might begin to speak to the petitioner at any moment, as saints so often do in dreams or visions.” Hahn 2012, p. 122.

59 luminous heavenly beings.182 Practical qualities, like their portability, were also important for their use, for instance during the procession.183

Examples of this small group are not sharing aesthetic features only with each other, but also with other artistic production in stone or wood. Theofred reliquary is comparable with sculptures at the church of St. Sernin in Toulouse, and the images of St. Caesarius and St. Peter are similar to sculpture in St. Foy in Conques.184 The head of St. Baudime, with its characteristic hair, reminds the heads of the figures carved in the narrative cycle on capitals of the church of Saint-Nectaire, or stone sculpture in the church of Moissac.185 Despite parallels, all mentioned objects from the Massif Central were studied almost exclusively by researchers from the field of reliquary studies, and remain outside the official sculptural canon.186

182 E. g. Liber miraculorum, 1.13; Dahl 1978, p. 187; Remensnyder 1990; Belting 1994, p. 299. 183 Jean Taralon assumed, that de integro reformata, transformation or modification of statue of St. Foy, was also caused by damages of the former base of statue, caused by its frequent use, mostly during processions. Taralon 1997, p. 14. 184 Falk 1991–1993, p. 110. 185 Boehm 2006, p. 172. 186 The essential book about the Auvergne sculpture, wrote by Zygmunt Świechowski, briefly mentioned only the reliquary of St. Baudime. See Świechowski 1973, pp. 108–109. Contemporary works are not very different. In the book La sculpture romane is the only paragraph, shortly addressing figural reliquaries. See Gaborit 2010, pp. 299–300.

60

4. Close Encounter of the Saint I: Placement and Use

Following chapter is focused on two aspects, placement and various uses of bust reliquaries, both important enough to deserve special attention. These practical points formed to a considerable extent not only the proper ways of the veneration, but the perception of the faithful as well. Surviving figural reliquaries have been replaced from their original placement and removed from their former context, even though some of them remained in the churches, they have been relocated, what makes any attempt to reconstruct their former placement especially demanding. Accessibility and setting of the reliquaries, closely related to their emplacement, were forming possibility and modes of the perception as well.

Chapter is further dealing with diverse uses of figural reliquaries, paying close attention to processions, crucial part of the mediaeval Church life. Together with other utilizations, they represent particularly absorbing opportunities for faithful to encounter and interact with these effigies of saints. Primary sources are required for this study and majority of the chapter is utilizing Liber miraculorum, probably the richest text from the eleventh century, mapping not only approximate placement, but various practices in which figural reliquaries were involved as well. Uses of these cult objects can enlighten the importance for local and monastic communities, and may lead to better comprehension of their standing in mediaeval society.

Placement

The placement of the reliquaries was crucial for their veneration, accessibility, and visibility, all important aspects for the audience. Circumstances of where and when the faithful could see reliquaries with enclosed relics can help to answer questions related to their perception, which varied according to different forms of how this displays looked like. The display of relics was crucial not only for the monastic communities, but also for the lay people searching for miraculous powers of saints in great numbers. Apart from the demonstratively presentation of the glory of the church, or as a part of the treasury, reliquaries were also reminiscence of the donator and his gift.187

187 Hahn 2012, p. 199.

61

Compared to the deposition of saints’ relics in the altars and tombs, reliquaries were more movable and more tangible. Their mobility opens an important question – what was the best place for their display. Period inventories and chartularies are not providing accurate and unequivocal information of their placing, in this search we have to look also into other sources. Hagiographic texts, like Bernard of Anger’s Liber miraculorum, are helping a little, however, for contemporary authors, these facts were self-evident and did not deserve special attention.

Placement of was always connected with the important and focal points in the church, especially close to the main altar. It is more than probable that from the earliest fragmentation of relics enclosed in convenient and costly reliquaries which allowed due to their portability to be placed on the altar.

However, this general attitude to the placement of the relics has been changed in the tenth century, there appeared an imbalance between the devotion of relics and the one of Eucharist. Odo of Cluny’s account of the relics of St. Walburgh, which somehow lost its effectiveness after their placement on the altar, expressed this problematic relationship.188 Saint subsequently miraculously appeared to the sick people, and in this vision, she explained that she could not work miracles and they would not be cured, because of placement her relics on the Lord’s altar. St. Walburgh noted that only the majesty of the divine mystery should be celebrated there.189 Despite this tension between the devotions to relics and Eucharist, the habit of placing relics on the altar did not vanish, but it indicates the doubtful suitability of this placement expressed in the Cluniac tradition.190

In various accounts, we can find figural reliquaries placed above the altar. Golden sitting image of St. Martial, made after the fire around 952 and transformed into a

188 Herrmann-Mascard 1975, p. 173. 189 “Quale vero sacrificium prius offerre debeamus, ut deinceps altaris sacrificium recto ordine celebrare possimus, manifestat dicens: Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus, ac si diceret: Altaris sacrificio non delectaris, nisi prius sacrificio contriti cordis placatus fueris. Est ecclesia beatae Gualburgis in hac vicina nobis regione, in qua miracula fiunt. Contigit autem, sicut domnus abbas Berno refert, ut eiusdem sanctae Gualburgis reliquiae super altare per aliquot dies manerent. Sed mox miracula cessaverunt. Tandem vero ipsa virgo cuidam ex infirmis apparens: Idcirco, inquit, non sanamini, quia reliquiae meae sunt super altare Domini, ubi maiestas divini myterii debet solummodo celebrari. Quod cum ille custodibus referret tulerunt capsam, et protinus miracula fieri coeperunt. Si ergo ob illius mysterii reverentiam, nec ipsa sua pignora sancti volunt proprius vicinari, quid censendum est de immunditiis?” PL, cxxxiii, col. 573. 190 Geary 1978, p. 25.

62 reliquary in 973 by insertion of relics by Abbot Josfredus, was “seated upon an altar, with his right-hand blessing people, left hand holding the Book of Gospel.”191 The image of St. Privatus from Mende was placed in the crypt, most probably on the altar.192 However, great attention is needed at processing of these references to crypta, this Latin term naming vault was used in the central Middle Ages to imply vaulted space, which was not necessarily subterraneous.193 In Cluny, wealthy English pilgrims, William de Warenne and his wife Gunrada, visited famous abbey church during their pilgrimage to Rome in the eleventh century and knelt at three altars: of the Cross, at the main one, and at the altar of St. Mary.194 The majesté of St. Peter, set between golden shrines, was placed in the choir above the main altar.195

Bernard of Angers in Liber miraculorum briefly mentions the placement of the figural reliquary of St. Gerald, which he saw in Aurillac during his first journey to Conques. “And I was no less foolish, for I also thought this practice seemed perverse and quite contrary to Christian law when for the first time I examined the statue of Saint Gerald placed above the altar, gloriously fashioned out of the purest gold and the most precious stones.”196

In the case of the statue of St. Foy, despite all expectations, even Bernard is too unclear in his text. Reconstruction based on several passages mentioning the placement of the reliquary is ambiguous, Liber miraculorom does not set the exact location, and brings, even more, questions instead. Beate Fricke suggests, by analogy to the statue of Virgin in Clermont-Ferrand, that St. Foy was placed in the area very close to the altar of the Holy Saviour.197 However, the first miracle in Liber miraculorum, recording the restoration of the torn out eyes of a young priest named Guibert, indicates the contrary.

191 “Isdem Gauzbertus iconam auream Marcialis apostoli fecit sedentem super altare et manu dextera populum benedicentem, sinistra librum tenentem Evangelii.” Duplès-Agier 1874, p. 5. “icona sancti Marcialis sedens super altare ex auro tunc facta est. (…) caput apostoli de Icona que erat super sepulcri altare” Duplès-Agier 1874, p. 43. 192 Brunel 1912, pp. 9, 14–18, 59–61. 193 Crook 2000, p. 50. 194 PL, CXLIX, col. 764. 195 Graham and Clapham 1930, pp. 143–144. 196 Liber miraculorum, 1.13; Sheingorn 1995, p. 77. “Quod cum sapientibus videatur haud injuria esse supersticiosum, videtur enim quasi prisce culture deorum vel potius demoniorum servari ritus, michi quoque stulto nichilominus res perverso legique christiane contraria visa nimis fuit, cum primitus sancti Geraldi statuam super altare positam perspexerim, auro purissimo ac lapidibus preciosissimis insignem …” Bouillet 1897, p. 47. 197 Fricke 2015, p. 41.

63

In his vision, St. Foy gave him exact directions for curing his blindness, but more remarkably it provides us valuable information about the placement of her remains:

But if tomorrow, the vigil of my martyrdom, you go to Conques, purchase two candles, and place one in front of the altar of the Holy Savior and the other in front of the altar where the clay of my body is enshrined, you will have a proper reason to rejoice because your eyes will be wholly restored.198

Very next day Guibert in search for his recovery “went to Conques, he related the vision to the monastic officials, he bought the candles, he placed them in front of the altars, and he kept the vigil near the holiest martyr's golden image.”199

In the pursuit of the placement of the figural reliquaries, we can try to use an analogy from the parallel phenomenon – wooden sculptures of the Madonna. Ilene Forsyth in her book The Throne of Wisdom tried to answer the question of the placement of the Virgin images in the church setting.200 By the analysis of the damages of the statues and various accounts, she emphasized the importance of the portability of these statues:

[Statue of Madonna] was moved according to need. Either in a crypt or in the upper church, it was sometimes placed on an altar, which at that time would have been open to view from all sides, sometimes set up at the entrance to the sanctuary, (…) and sometimes placed on a pedestal behind the high altar where the figure would be particularly visible from the ambulatory. In any case, it is clear that this type of statue was not confined to a single location.201

Although illustrations in mediaeval manuscripts can be hardly considered as accurate reproduction of actual situation, miniatures of the Cantigas de Santa María are numerously depicting a statue of the Holy Virgin placed directly on the altar mensa [Fig. 8].202

198 Liber miraculorum, 1.1; Sheingorn 1995, pp. 47–48. “Verum si crastina luce, que erit martyrii mei vigilia, Conchas perrexeris, emptasque duas candelas, unam quidem ante aram sancti Salvatoris, alteram vero ante aram ubi gleba corporis mei condita est, apposueris, oculorum de integro reformatorum decore mereberis gaudere.” Bouillet 1897, p. 11. 199 Liber miraculorum, 1.1; Sheingorn 1995, p. 48. “Adit locum, visionem prodit senioribus, emit cereos, apponit altaribus, excubat coram aurea sacratissime martyria imagine.” Bouillet 1897, p. 12. 200 Forsyth 1972, pp. 38–40. 201 Forsyth 1972, p. 40. 202 Cantigas de Santa María (Canticles of the Holy Virgin), originated from the central Spain around 1260, are more than four hundred poems closely linked to Marian miracles. Kroesen 2014b, p. 23.

64

Connections between the Clermont-Ferrand Majesty and the statue of St. Foy suggests another possible placement, supported by several facts.203 Madonna from Clermont-Ferrand was displayed in a particular way, the statue was placed on the specially made marble column with a jasper base.204 This opulent column was located to the east behind the altar, increasing the visibility of the Madonna.205 Similarly, the statue of St. Foy, put on the column just behind the altar in the choir, would be visible from entire church and placed “above” the altar.

Accessibility of the Reliquaries

With the placement of the reliquaries is closely connected other perspective, significant not only for the perception – their accessibility for the faithful. Bernard of Angers in his Liber miraculorum familiarize us with the important aspects of the division of the Abbey Church of St. Foy in the section concerning grilles made of fetters donated by miraculously freed prisoners as ex-votos.

From the outside, the basilica is made up of three forms by the division of the roofs, but on the inside these three forms are united across their width to shape the church into one body. And thus this trinity that fuses into unity seems to be a type of the highest and holy Trinity, at least in my opinion. The right side was dedicated to Saint Peter the apostle, the left to Saint Mary, and the middle to the Holy Savior. But because the middle was in more frequent use due to the constant chanting of the Office, the precious relics of die holy martyr were moved there from the place where they had been kept. There is scarcely any opening in this church full of angular passageways that doesn't have an iron door fashioned from fetters and chains. To tell the truth, they would seem to you more marvelous than the whole edifice of the basilica, with the exception of the beautiful furnishings, whose abundance, whether of gold, of silver, or of rich fabrics, together with precious stones, provides a pleasing variety.206

203 The Madonna from Clermont-Ferrand was commissioned by Stephen II, Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand (937–984), at the same time Abbot of Conques (942–984). De integro reformata of reliquary of St. Foy was executed probably during Stephen’s abbacy. See Gauthier 1963, p. 107; Wirth 1999, pp. 176–182; Fricke 2015, p. 41. 204 Bréhier 1924. 205 Forsyth 1972, p. 39. 206 Liber miraculorum, 1.31; Sheingorn 1995, p. 102–103.

65

Apart from the Bernard fascination with grilles, this section clarifies division of the interior.207 The church was hardly a unified and open space, it was functionally divided by “iron doors,” or let’s say iron bars. Faithful were in their effort to be as close to the relics as possible, ideally at touching or kissing distance, halted by these safety barriers.208

And although they were denied entry to the inside of the church, behold! suddenly, while we were sleeping, the bars of the doors were spontaneously unfastened. No one pushed them back – of their own accord the bars sprang violently apart. Even the inner doors were unbarred, those that were usually kept closed in front of the shrine housing the relics in order to afford them the highest protection. No one had been permitted to enter this place except the guardian of the relics, who could admit people he considered worthy because of their special devotion to the saint.209

These “guardians of the relics,” called custodes tumuli, custodes pignorum, or feretras, were signifying the popularity of saint’s shrine.210 They were guarding shrines and reliquaries day and night, however their supervision of pilgrims was just a tip of the iceberg. Protection of the remains was one of their most important duties and especially in case of fire and other misfortunes they were blamed for any harm of relics no matter what the reason was. Monk guarding at the shrine was also a person assigned “to enforce

“Est deforis tectorum divisione basilica triformis, que interius propter mutuam transeundi amplitudinem in unum corpus coit ecclesie. Hec itaque trinitus in unitatem rediens summe ne deifice Trinitatis tipum, mea quidem sententia, quoquo modo gerere videtur. Dextrum latus Sancti Petri apostoli, levum Sancte Marie, medietas autem Sancti Salvatoris titulo dedicata est. Verum quia eadem medietas psallendi assiduitate frequentatior habentur, illue ex proprio loco sancte martiris preciosa translata sunt pignera. Raro ullus aditus in tam angulose ecclesie concavitate superest, qui de predictis compedibus sive catenis ferreas non habeat januas. Quod libi, at vere loquar, toto basilice edificio mirabilius videatur, excepto ornamentorum decore, quod auri argentique vel palliorum copia unaque preciosorum lapidum grata prestat varietas.” Bouillet 1897, p. 77. 207 Present-day grilles from the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century are connected with later building phase of the Abbey Church of St. Foy. These “new” grilles are studied from 1864, when Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc mentioned them as exceptional example in his Dictionnaire. Viollet-le-Duc 1854–1868, VI, pp. 54–78, especially p. 62. However, research is far more concerned with their materiality than practical and functional questions, see e. g. Deyres 1972, or Sire 2000. 208 On the importance of the touching the reliquary, see Hahn 2012, pp. 24–26. 209 Liber miraculorum, 2.12; Sheingorn 1995, p. 138. “Cumque penitus illis negaretur aditus, ecce repente, nobis dormientibus, portarum repagula sponte resolvuntur, vectes nemine impellente ultro dissiliunt, reseratis etiam internis ianuis, que ante reliquiarum sacrarium pro summa custodia habebantur. Has frequentare nulli licitum fuerat, excepto custode, et quem custos speciali reverentia introducere dignum ducebat.” Bouillet 1897, p. 210 See Taylor 2010, pp. 438–440.

66 a reciprocal relationship.”211 The reward for every executed miracle was gift to the monastery, or rather to the saint, the event itself was recorded by the keeper as well.

As Nicole Herrmann-Mascard and Pierre-André Sigal noted, pilgrims were not offered many opportunities for direct contact with the reliquary of the relic itself during eleventh and twelfth century.212 In particular cases, ill faithful were granted an exception, and were allowed to spend one or more nights in close proximity of the relic keeping vigils, usually on the pavement near the reliquary or tomb, or under it. Incubation, as was this popular custom called, was one of the few ways for desired contact with saints’ remains, and was revived during eleventh and twelfth century.213 Popularity of this practice is illustrated by numerous references in Liber miraculorum.214

From sections quoted above, we can reconstruct former possibilities of accessibility of the reliquary, which are particularly important for its perception. The relics with their container were reachable in immediate proximity under special circumstances dictating and demanding proper reverentia from desirous faithful.215 It was also probably connected with social status of shrine visitors, appropriate veneration was somehow linked their erudition, and “assumed a high degree of social and cultural grooming.”216 Probably great occasion was ex-votos in the form of the rings, custom often mentioned in Liber miraculorum.217 Such donation or exchange could fall within the ways of suitable

211 Ashley and Sheingorn 2001, p. 55. 212 Sigal 1985, pp. 35–40; Herrmann-Mascard 1975, pp. 201–203. 213 For more about incubation, see Sigal 1985, pp. 135–144. 214 Liber miraculorum, e.g. 1.1, 1.9, 1.15, 1.22, 1.29. 215 Reverentia “involved learning an etiquette toward the supernatural,” and was in stark contrast to rusticitas, “the failure, or the positive refusal, to give life structure in terms of ceremonious relationships with specific invisible persons.” Brown 1981, p. 119. 216 As Gregory of Tours noted, rusticitas considerably corresponded with the customs of the countrymen. Brown 1981, p. 119. Bernard of Angers noted connection between the uneducated and improper ways of veneration as well. “(…) clerics and those who are literate chant psalms and the office of the vigil. But those who are illiterate relieve the weariness of the long night with little peasant songs and other frivolities. This seemed to ruin utterly the solemn dignity and decency of the sacred vigil.” Liber miraculorum, 2.12; Sheingorn 1995, p. 137. “(…) clericis quidem literarumque peritis psalmost ac vigilias decantantibus. Horum vero ignari, tam cantilenis rusticis quam aliis nugis longe noctis solantur fastidium. Quod pessime sollempnem sacre vigilie honorem honestatemque horrificare videtur.” Bouillet 1897, p. 120. 217 E. g. Liber miraculorum, 1.18, 1.20, 1.21, 3.3.

67 reverentia mentioned by Bernard of Angers, donators were presumably allowed to the immediate proximity of the reliquary and to put gifted ring directly on the saint’s finger.218

Processions

Relics and reliquaries in movement, their exposing and presentation outside their ordinary domicile represent important aspect of the Church during mediaeval times. Of course, it is hard to think of processions as mediaeval of Christian novelty.219 Relics, carried outside the church, were maintaining their potency and remained alive among the lay faithful.220 Supernatural qualities were convenient for various motives, the relic processions were used as devices to fighting epidemics, wars, or other calamities as well.221 In Liber miraculorum, we can find mention of such occasion, emphasizing the importance for the local society: “Once in a famine (I don't know what caused it), the revered image in which the holy martyr's head is preserved was carried out-of-doors in a huge procession.”222 Also, monastic communities used their patrons for strengthening and securing their status, they “became skilled in the use of relics to create an environment in which there was a heightened chance of achieving their goals, whether that be to settle a dispute, to raise funds, to end an epidemic, or to enforce the Peace of God.”223 Yet, in the texts from eleventh century, parallel miraculous events and healings, or activities like fund-raising were only collateral during those transfers, and were overshadowed by the bigger goals.224

We can find various reasons for the relics relocations and voyages in Liber miraculorum, one of the richest sources for this practice from the eleventh century, but the most often mentioned stimulus was confirmation of possession of the newly acquired

218 Practice is known especially from the arm reliquaries, but fingers wear of the figural reliquaries indicates similar custom. Replacements of the hands of St. Foy and St. Theofrid were probably caused by this damage. 219 Obviously, great inspiration for this Christian practice was Ark of the Covenant with related voyages and miracles described in the Old Testament. For more, see Hahn 2012, pp. 149–150. 220 Hahn 2012, p. 148. 221 Boehm 2007, p. 92. 222 Liber miraculorum, 1.14; Sheingorn 1995, p. 79. “Igitur eum in quodam indicte afflictionis jejunio, venerabilis illa imago, in qua sanctum martyris caput venerabiliter conditum est, loras cum ingenti processione efferretur (…)” Bouillet 1897, p. 49. Mentioned famine most probably happened in 1005, see Bonnassie and de Gournay 1995, p. 461. 223 Head 1990, p. 177. 224 Ashley and Sheingorn 2001, pp. 62–63

68 estates or churches. Bernard of Angers explained this practice as a form of subordination to St. Foy and to the abbey in section related to newly acquired church:

A little later, the holy virgin's glorious image was carried in procession to the church at Tanavelle. It was a custom of our senior monks that when a very welcome gift enriched the monastery with the benefices of churches or the outstanding addition of manors, the shrine of the relics was borne to that place to put it under her protection. In this way the virgin claims these things for herself and the presence of her body subjects them to her forever.225

In response, the monks went in procession, while bearing St. Foy’s relics, to enforce claim to this property. In other cases, the abbey’s monks were confirming or returning possession of the land and, as Thomas Head noted, these “episcopal troops, like those of the knight and prefect, were dispersed by this ritual display of sacred power.”226 A noblewoman named Doda seized a farm belonging to Conques, but just before her death she returned the estate back to the abbey as a cure for her soul.227 As Bernad of Angers recorder, after her death her avaricious grandson Hildegaire had an itch for this land and decided to seize it again.

For this reason the monks decided that the holy virgin’s venerable effigy should go to that farm, as is the custom, carried in a procession of the people, so that through divine intervention they might recover from the hand of that violent marauder what was rightfully theirs.228

Synods or councils were another important opportunity for the processions often requiring long traveling to distant cities, called up figural reliquaries were brought to these

225 Liber miraculorum, L.3; Sheingorn 1995, pp. 247–248. “Transacto igitur non multo temporis spatio, erat quatinus sancte virginis gloriasa imago ad eandem deportetur ecclesiam. Moris enim nostris fuit senioribus, ut si quando peroportuna oblatione quibusque beneficia ecclesiarum vel prediorum prestantibus ditaretur locus, tuitionis gratiam quod illie ferebatur reliquiarum capsa, quatinus et cadem virgo sibi eandem vindicaret, et perpetuo corporis presentia subderet.” Bouillet 1897, pp. 253–254. This chapter is preserved in London manuscript as a part of so-called L group of later produced miracle narratives. Ashley and Sheingorn 1999, pp. x, 101. 226 Head 1990, p. 173. 227 Liber miraculorum, 1.11; Sheingorn 1995, pp. 71–72. Doda, chatelaine of the castle of Castelnau-Bretenoux, is mentioned in one cartulary from 975. Bonnassie and de Gournay 1995, p. 460 228 Liber miraculorum, 1.11; Sheingorn 1995, p. 72. “Quapropter monachi, ut per divinum adjutorium jus snum de manu violentissimi predonis recuperarent, venerabilem, ut mos est, sancte virginis effigiem eo bajulatam ire cum populari processione statuerunt.” Bouillet 1897, p. 40.

69 occasions. To synod in Rodez, mentioned several times in Liber miraculorum, “the bodies of saints were conveyed in reliquary boxes or in golden images by various communities of monks or canons.”229 The presence of saints in great gatherings was strengthening the communion of saints and also emphasizing significance of the proceedings.230 It is understandable that when Arnald, bishop of Rodez, decided to convene a council “he announced that many saints' relics from the various parts of his diocese must be brought there to give more authority to the council.”231 Presence of many saints and especially the bust reliquaries on the gatherings must have impressed not only the lay faithful, but brought great extent of significance as well.232

Moving figural reliquaries were creating sacred space outside the space of the church building, similarly to portable altar, which created sacred locus during liturgy celebrated outdoors.233 Same sanctification of nature is noticeable during the procession and especially on places where the procession rested during night or by other reasons. These sacred loci, filled with saint’s power, remained potent and became sought-after by the faithful even after the reliquaries were carried away.234 Bernard of Angers noted miraculous potency of these powerful places:

If I include those things as miracles that were done in the procession when the relics were present, how many more can I count in their absence! For people from far away who were in need of healing heard of the reputation of the procession, but were prevented by their debilities from accompanying it. Instead, after the procession had already returned home, they made their way eagerly to that tree where the relics

229 Liber miraculorum, 1.28; Sheingorn 1995, p. 98. “Reverentissimus igitur Arnaldus, Rotensium episcopus, suis tantum parrochianis conflaverat sinodum, quo de diversis monachorum aut canonicorum congregationibus, in capsis evl in imaginibus aureis, sanctorum corpora sunt evecta.” Bouillet 1897, pp. 71–72. Synod convened by the bishop of Rodez was one of the councils of Peace of God. See Lauranson-Rosaz 1992; Ashley and Sheingorn 1999, p. 138. For more about Peace of God, see section dealing with oaths, pp. 73–74. 230 Ashley and Sheingorn 2001, p. 59. 231 Liber miraculorum, 4.11; Sheingorn 1995, p. 199. “Quodam tempore beate memorie Arnaldus, Rotenensis ecclesie presul, concilium aggregare decrevit, ad cujus corroborationem multa sanctorum pignora ex diversis sue diocesis partibus convertenda indixit.” Bouillet 1897, p. 196. 232 Hahn 2012, p. 157. 233 Palazzo 2010b, p. 35. 234 Places were remembered for a long time and simetimes even signified by erecting monuments, e.g. crosses. See Sigal 1985, p. 142.

70

had rested, as I have already said, and obtained cures with no further hindrance. Their number is so large that is seems infinite to me; only for God does it have a limit.235

As Kathleen Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn noted, “the monks may have intended a procession to provide an occasion to wield the power of the saint’s relics for a particular purpose (…) at a distant location. Nevertheless, the miracle stories show that the powers of the saint were appropriated by the ailing or needy along the route, often as an unintended by-product of the processional process.”236 Even though St. Foy’s relics processions were not intended to provide her healing powers in the first place, the miracles were written down within the bound of the possibility to glorify and mark her powers.237 Miracles were faithfully and almost obsessively recorded by monks of abbey, whether they happened in the church or in remote places:

But on the next day the reverend brothers of this monastery, who had too little information about the power of the previous miracle, took him aside and inquired diligently about the whole sequence of his vision with shrewd industry. Bernard invoked God as his witness, for Whom no secret lies hidden, and asserted that everything had happened just as it is preserved in the preceding narrative.238

However, the situation was more complicated during processions, the miracles were far more spontaneous, frequent, and sometimes unidentified. For monks occupied with their duties was difficult to question witnesses and record every event, and almost impossible to demand gifts from miraculously healed.239

The reliquaries and relics exposed outside the safety of the church walls during processions have incurred the risks. Even the simple fact of leaving the monastery without

235 Liber miraculorum, 2.4; Sheingorn 1995, p. 124. “Mirabilis fuit ista processio omnique laude predicanda. In qua si ea asscribis miraculo que presentibus pigneribus acta sunt, quanto magis ea que absentibus? Nam morbidi de longinquo accelerantes ad oppinionem processionis, quorum debilitas ad comitandum non suffecit pertingere, ad arborem illam, jam regressa domum processione, subter quam diximus sacra pignera substitisse, certatim properantes, non tardiore obtentu consecuti sunt sanitatem. Quorum numerus nobis quidem pro multiplicitate sui infinitus, Deo autem est finitus.” Bouillet 1897, p. 104. 236 Ashley and Sheingorn 2001, p. 63. 237 Ashley and Sheingorn 2001, p. 59. 238 Liber miraculorum, 4.1; Sheingorn 1995, p. 182. “Crastina vero die venerabiles hujus cenobii fratres prioris miraculi virtute parum edocti seorsum illum faciunt, omnemque visionis seriem sagaci industria perquirunt. At ille Deum, quem nullum latet secretum, testans, ita omnia extitisse asserit, veluti in narratione continetur superiori.” Bouillet 1897, pp. 175–176. 239 Ashley and Sheingorn 2001, p. 55.

71 saint’s protection is remarkable, the stronger church could possess the monastery or relics.240 More mundane jeopardise involved physical harm from the bystanders connected with the material value of reliquaries.241 This concern was expressed in one joca made by St. Foy, warning everybody of despicable behaviour. Man, sitting on the back of his mule, who was suddenly possessed by greediness concerning precious materials of St. Foy’s statue during one procession, threw down and covered by animal and luckily saved only by others.242 All the risks accompanied the processions were great, but still, the benefits were even more considerable. We have to admire the determination of the monks of Conques or elsewhere, they had the guts to take the risks related to the relocation of their greatest and most valuable treasuries outside the secure churches’ walls. Of course, it resulted from the indisputable necessity for action, but from the unquestionable certainty of almost guaranteed miracles as well.

However, we must realize important fact concerning processions during eleventh century, like those mentioned in Liber miraculorum. Compared with late Middle Ages, organization and goals these monastic processions were different.243 Route was not following symbolic course, it was more a pragmatic replacement of the relics from point A to point B. Also, motives related to fund raising motives, frequently used practice popular especially from the twelfth century, was only slowly emerging. The main purpose of these less political and financial motivated processions, functionally described by Kathleen Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn, was “rather to transport a sacred centre out of town to another location (usually a rural one) where the reliquary statue could act on behalf of the monastery.”244

240 Sigal 1985, p. 161. 241 Ashley and Sheingorn 2001, p. 56. 242 Liber miraculorum, 1.14. 243 Ashley and Sheingorn 2001, pp. 62–63. 244 Ashley and Sheingorn 2001, p. 63. Late mediaeval procession, as Anna Heath demonstrated on the example of Palm Sunday procession in Auxerre, was using exactly planned urban route, chants, and prayers as an expression of sacred and secular authority in the local community. Urban processions demonstrated social status in a highly differentiated and politically complex society See Heath 2010.

72

Oaths

The ecclesiastical practice of taking an oath on the relic was already established for a long time, and Charlemagne made this practice a norm at law court as well.245 He ordered, that “every oath should be sworn in the church or on relics” in 803.246 Odo of Cluny, in his life of Gerald of Aurillac from the first half of the tenth century, described this habit as commonly used by the inhabitants of Aquitaine region: “When they make an agreement or solemn oath in law, they have the relics brought by some monk or cleric.”247 Practice is well captured on probably the most famous depiction of the oath of mediaeval times. Bayeux tapestry displays Harold making a soon-to-be broken vow of loyalty, with his hands placed on not one but two reliquary caskets. [Fig. 10]

Making a vow is one the most evident manifestations of faithful’s subordination to saint, expressing saintly patricinium, similarly to ordinary social bonds within secular society, like agricultural or military service. This was also one of the main reasons for replacement of the relics, and their transportation to the sites of the councils. From the last decades of the tenth and during entire eleventh and twelfth centuries numerous regional synod were held as a novel monastic response to the growing violence in society. This movement, known as the Peace of God, undertook the defence of the property of the unarmed, especially of the clergy and the poorest, against the armed power of the knights and nobles, and strived hard to establish an order.248

Saintly patrons, in the shape of reliquaries, were commonly brought to these councils, not only as presiding or witnesses, but they were actively used and became “a standard mark of Peace councils.”249 Lay superiors, and in several cases male population of the region, were required to make a vow of maintaining peace and renunciation of violence against fellow Christians and the church.250 Knights and warriors who failed to take the oath, keep the peace, or, even worse violated their oaths completely, underwent alienation and were excommunicated, what inevitably meant a ban from burial in

245 For more about making a vow on the relics in the eighth and ninth centuries, see Geary 1978, pp. 37– 38. 246 “Omne sacramentum in ecclesia et super reliquias iuretur.” PL, XCVII, col. 774. 247 English translation is from Bisson 1977, p. 292. “Cum autem fœdus, aut aliquod grande juramentum jure decernunt, per quemlibet monachum, aut clericum, qui tamen pedester incedat, deferri sibi faciunt.” PL, CXXXIII, cols. 700–701. 248 For more about Peace of God, see studies in Head and Landes 1992. 249 Head 1990, pp. 292–293. 250 Head 1990, p. 174.

73 consecrated ground and violator would go directly to hell. One can only imagine, how figural reliquaries, with their anthropomorphic features, were fruitfully overseeing any oath taken under their solemn look.

Humiliation of Relics

Another common practice involved relics used for protection of the monastic properties, was humiliation of relics. The saint was the overseeing and protecting the human community in exchange for her or his veneration.251 Regular canons and monks, who did not possess any secular defensive power or possibility to excommunicate or interdict, were using remains of their patrons for their self-protection in “the ritual of the clamor (clamour) and the accompanying humiliation of relics and images.”252 Ritual for this demanded liturgy celebrated with a lower voice, dimmed lights, and without special liturgical vestments. Relics or crosses were transferred before the altar, and placed on the penance mat on pavement, thorns were wound around the saints’ reliquaries or tombs.

In a simplified way, monks “humiliated the relics of their patrons when the expected protection of their property was not forthcoming.”253 However, there is a strong oversimplifying perspective, which is reducing this ritual to a simple punishment of holy patron who failed or was lacking in care.254 As Patrick Geary profoundly explained, this mistreat of cult objects was done to prevent access to them as a vengeance against opponent of the religious.255 This humiliation could last until the situation was corrected and the dispute was settled. This practice was strictly condemned at the Second Council of Lyon in 1274:

Nevertheless we utterly rebuke the detestable abuse and horrible impiety of those who treating with irreverent boldness crucifixes and images or statues of the blessed Virgin and other saints, throw them to the ground in order to emphasise the suspension of divine worship, and leave them under nettles and thorns. We forbid severely any sacrilege of this kind. We decree that those who disobey are to receive

251 Geary 1979, p. 27. 252 Geary 1983, pp. 123–124. 253 Head 1990, p. 290. 254 E. g. Angenendt 2010, p. 24. 255 Geary 1983, p.

74

a hard retributive sentence which will so chastise the offenders as to suppress the like arrogance in others.256

Conclusion

Since the preserved examples were all replaced from their former placement, it is difficult to prove where they were located and how they were placed. From the surviving sources and evidences, it seems to be certain that they were originally closely related to the altar. This opens further possibilities, figural reliquaries could be placed on the altar or behind it as free-standing statues, or in shrines.257 These questions need further discussion taking into consideration other issues, like altar furnishing and image shrines.258 In France, with its waves of iconoclasm, refurbishment, and neglect as well, material evidences are hard to find. As especially important cult objects, figural reliquaries were placed to guarantee their great visibility, however direct accessibility by lay faithful was strictly limited by monastic authorities.

The understanding of figural reliquaries should be encouraged by their portability to dispose view of passive and stationary objects bonded to a single location, they were moved in accordance with the need and use of them. With this portability went hand in hand further possibilities, excellently demonstrated by processions and other various uses.259 Many of those practices resulted from complicated situation escalating in the tenth century:

The later tenth and early eleventh centuries brought changes all through the social system of the West Frankish lands. The old structures of Carolingian order, both material and ideological, were rapidly disintegrating, and the result was disruption but also opportunity. Each individual and group looked to the tools at hand–the horse and sword, the relics of the saints, the traditions of ecclesiastical

256 Concilium Lugdunense II, 17; translation taken from Tanner 1990, I, pp. 303ff. “Ceterum detestabilem abusum horrendae indevotionis illorum, qui Crucis, Beatae Virginis, aliorum ve Sanctorum Imagines, seu statuas irreverenti ausu tractantes, eas in aggravationem cessationis huiusmodi prosternunt in terram, urticis, spinis que supponunt, penitus reprobantes: aliquid tale de cetero fieri districtius prohibemus. Statuentes, ut in eos qui contra fecerint ultrix procedat dura sententia: quae delinquentes sic graviter puniat, quod alios a similium praesumptione compescat.” Mansi, XXIV, col. 92. 257 Kroesen 2014a, p. 156. 258 Kroesen 2014b, esp. pp. 23–33. 259 “Their primary advantage was that they could be moved freely, allowing dramatic use in liturgies, processions, and ad hoc demonstrations and spectacles.” Hahn 2012, p. 202.

75

jurisdiction, the courts of the dukes, counts, viscounts, and castellans – to secure a place in the evolving order.260

In these circumstances, various practices were developed, figural reliquaries were needed and actively involved in the society to maintain peace, or to secure protection to the monastic communities. Participation on councils related to the Peace of God and application in the official ceremony of adjuration are some of the best examples of their uses related to this situation.

Another possible utilization of the figural reliquaries, which naturally rises is their use in the liturgical drama. This topic is still understudied with one exception – Ilene Forsyth opened the study in this way related to statues seating Virgin Mary.261 Any further study in this direction can lead to remarkable outcomes even more clarifying functionality and comprehension of the reliquaries and relics in the mediaeval Church and society.

260 Paxson 1992, pp. 37–38. 261 Forsyth 1968; Forsyth 1972, pp. 49–59.

76

5. Close Encounter of the Saint II: Perception

As Theofrid of Echternach wrote at the beginning of the twelfth century, the power of the relic is radiating to every material, the reliquary is mediating virtus to the faithful.262 Compared to the tomb, relics enclosed in reliquary are more directly accessible and available. This opens the way for a very close encounter with the saint, who is reaching this world through reliquary’s participation in her or his cult, the liturgy, or the processions. Of course, this is the task of every reliquary, however, the figural ones are especially fruitful in this penetration of saint’s presence and power into the mundane realm. Their language and interaction with the faithful are different, compared to some other reliquaries and shrines they lack any narration.263 They were not decorated with image cycles, but with visually comprehensive anthropomorphic features more familiar to every spectator, what is well illustrated by silently gazing visitors to present-day exhibitions.

The perception of figural reliquaries is closely bounded to the questions analysed in the previous chapter. The placement was largely forming the settings for the face-to- face encounter between the saint and her or his devotee. Accessibility of the reliquaries is one of the crucial points, we should take into this consideration. Distance is a key aspect, the perception varies per space dividing the saint’s effigy and the regarding spectator, the meanings emanating from reliquary after its activation varies as well. This activation of the reliquary by the looking faithful depended on mentioned factors, moreover, it was also changing according to the social background, set of knowledge and other factors. Accessibility rises rather hardly an answerable question, who and how close to the saints’ remains were allowed.

Despite these difficulties, the perception of figural reliquaries can still be analysed based on the notion of the distance separating the observed from her or his desired saint. From the close distance, far more details are perceivable, features of the image are more distinct and this aspect is discussed in the first section of this chapter. On the other hand, from the greater distance, the importance of the body language is increasing. The

262 “(…) idem mirabilius de dissoluto puluere, in omnia tam exteriora, quam interiora, cujuscumque materiæ, vel pretii, tantæ favillæ ornamenta, et operimenta transfundit.” PL, 157, 2.3, col. 345. 263 Reudenbach 2008, p. 96.

77 significance of the hand gestures of figural reliquaries is considered in the following subchapter.

Appearance of the Saint

The figural reliquary became a new body of the saints, it materialized their physical presence.264 It was representing intact resurrected body in heavenly New Jerusalem as well.265 However, these effigies are by no means portraits of an individual entity, the paradigm of the mediaeval individuality was completely different from the Renaissance or our contemporary understanding. As Caroline Walker Bynum demonstrated on writings and behaviour of that time, “religion did not emphasize the individual personality at the expense of corporate awareness,” personal selfhood was subordinated to corporate identities in accordance with the social mode.266

Materials were carefully selected, but the precious metals were not chosen only for its expensiveness, they were used to signal the sacred. Gold with gemstones was applied to represent heaven, as a material of which the heavenly city was built.267 Similarly, saints were enjoying the same materiality, saint’s flesh was sacrosanct and incorruptible as a precious metal. The close connection between precious metals and saints’ bodies is recorded in earlier preserve account of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, from the second century:

When he had pronounced this amen, and so finished his prayer, those who were appointed for the purpose kindled the fire. And as the flame blazed to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we might report to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And he appeared within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we perceived such a sweet odour (coming from the pile), as if frankincense or some such precious spices had been smoking there.268

264 Belting 1994, p. 299. 265 Reudenbach 2008, p. 101. 266 Bynum 1984, p. 85. 267 Kessler 2004, p. 21–23. 268 English translation from ANF, Vol. 1, p. 42.

78

This passage declared material associations with the saints’ remain, which were used in hagiographic text onwards.269 In one of the following sections, this relationship was even more emphasized:

The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.270

Faithful was looking at the figural reliquary of the desired saint, he saw his ambassador to the mundane realm. Saint was at the same time present in our world and in heavenly Jerusalem, interpreting devotee’s prayers and requests. But, how the faithful knew that saint is listening? Preserved figural reliquaries are sharing exaggerated facial features to assure the congregation of their active role in listening and the conveyance of their words closer to the God.

Craftsmen’s attention was especially paid to highlighted eyes, wide open and often made of different materials, they were piercing the congregation with their strict gaze and grasping the looks of the faithful. When Bernard of Angers and his fellow encountered the image reliquary for the very first time, eyes were especially striking for them:

(…) the statue of Saint Gerald placed above the altar, gloriously fashioned out of the purest gold and the most precious stones. It was an image made with such

“Et postquam ‘Amen’ emisisset, precationemque complevisset, ministri ignis ignem accenderunt. Cum vero ingens flamma émicasset, grande miraculum vidimus, nos, quibus illud spectare concessum fuit qui et ideo reservati sumus, ut aliis, quæ contigerunt, annuntiaremus. Ignis enim fornicis speciem præbens, tanquam navis velum a vento repletum, in circulo corpus martyris circumdedit; quod, in medio positum, non ut caro assa videbatur, sed velnti panis coctus, vel sicut aurum et argentum in fornace candens. Tantam autem nos percepimus suavitatem odoris, ac si thus aut aliud quoddam pretiosorum aromatum oluisset.” PG, V, cols. 1039–1042. 269 Büttner 2008, p. 43. 270 English translation from ANF, Vol. 1, p. 43. “Videns autem centurio a Judæis ortam contentionem, corpus in medio ignis positum exussit. Atque ita nos postea ossa illius gemmis pretiosisimis exquisitiora et super aurum probatiora tollentes, ubi decebat, deposuimus. Quo etiam loci nobis, ut fieri poterit, in exsultatione et gaudio congregatis, Dominus præbebit, natalem martyrii ejus diem celebrare, tum in memoriam eorum qui certamina pertulerunt, tum ut posteri exercitati sint et parati [ad eadem sustinenda].” PG, V, col. 1043.

79

precision to the face of the human form that it seemed to see with its attentive, observant gaze a great many peasants seeing it and to gently grant with its reflecting eyes the prayers of those praying before it.271

Eyes of the reliquary of St. Gerald at Aurillac were “reverberant” and his congregation was listened by the liveliness of saint’s sight.272 Animation of the eyes was also activated and further intensified by the light sources placed around the reliquary, either in the form of oil lamps or candles. Wax candle, as popular form of votive gifts, was a unique indicator of the popularity of shrine or saints, as is illustrated in Liber miraculorum: “At this time Conques was quite isolated, no throngs of pilgrims came there, and there wasn’t such a great abundance of lights – only one candle served the high altar.”273 With the increasing popularity of relics, stronger and brighter illumination of the shrine went hand in hand. The action performed by reliquary’s eyes activated by living light sources is further examined by Bissera Pentcheva in her short excursion to mediaeval West.274 Their shape and materiality applying reflecting materials enable even movement of pupils.275 This flickering and moving of eyes were stimulating the liveliness of the figural reliquary, its active presence and response were more evident.276

271 Liber miraculorum, 1.13; Sheingorn 1995, p. 77. “(…) sancti Geraldi statuam super altare positam (…), auro purissimo ac lapidibus preciosissimis insignem et ita ad humane figure vultum expresse effigiatam, ut plerisque rusticis videntes se perspicati intuitu videatur videre, oculisque reverberantibus precantum votis aliquando placidius favere.” Bouillet 1897, p. 47. 272 More text mentioning shining and glittering eyes were found by Ellert Dahl, see Dahl 1978, pp. 187 – 188. 273 Liber miraculorum, 1.26; Sheingorn 1995, p. 96. “In ille tempore erat locus ille pene solitarius et a frequentia peregrinorum remotior, nec tanta luminarii copia, una tamtum candela sacrosancto altario deserviebat.” Bouillet 1897, p. 69. 274 Finding similarities between Byzantine bas-relief icons and Romanesque imagines, Pentcheva studied sensorial perception in direction of her earlier research. See Pentcheva 2010. However, the article on its limited space missed notice about the identity of the viewer in the same manner as in The Sensual Icon: “My study explores its subject from the position of the aristocratic patron who commissioned and witnessed the sensual spectacle of the Byzantine metal relief icon. It is this Constantinopolitan aristocracy of the Middle Byzantine period that stands behind my generic terms ‘spectator,’ ‘viewer,’ and ‘faithful’.” Pentcheva 2010, p. 5. 275 Pentcheva 2016, pp. 226–230. 276 This unique perception of figural reliquaries affected by flickering source of light was reconstructed in Conques during the project Migrating Art Historians in 2017. For the video record, see Center for Early Medieval Studies (2017, May 15). BONUS MOVIE St Foy Révélée_FR [St Fides Illuminated] [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvUcROMWF5g.

80

Prominent status of saints’ eyes was also secured by their distinguishing treatment, application of various distinctive materials and even technical features.277 Eyes of St. Caesarius are highlighted with black lines, dichromatic eyes of St. Foy were made of two different types of glass, white opaque and translucent blue, but the most remarkable are pupils of St. Baudime. His eyes, made of dark and white horn segment, are inserted inside the head and loosely fixed with wax, what enables their movement.278

Gesturing Saint

The significance of the hand gestures in the mediaeval society cannot be highlighted enough, Jacque Le Goff emphasized the importance of non-verbal communication and system of gesture:

Finally, the body provided medieval society with one of its principal means of expression. (…) Medieval civilization was one of the gestures. All the essential contracts and oaths in medieval society were accompanied by gestures and were made manifest by them. The vassal put his hands between those of his lord and spread them on the Bible; he broke a straw or threw down a glove as an act of defiance. Gestures had meaning and committed people.279

Non-verbal mode of communication played a significant role in the mediaeval society, described as “gestural culture” or “culture of gestures”. Hand gestures accompanied also verbal transmit of information, close and powerful connection between speech and gestures, especially important in public communication. Hand movements were effective and potent bearers of the meaning during sacramental and political rituals incorporated into social and religious models. Rituals performed by words were

277 Dale 2002, p. 735–746. 278 This dramatic effect of eye flickering is remarkable, but quite useless in stationary condition. St. Baudimes eyes were activated during the movement and during processions this feature could be especially fruitfull. 279 English translation from Le Goff 1988, p. 357. “Le corps fournit à la société médiévale ses principaux moyens d’expression. (...) La civilisation médiévale est une civilisation du geste. Tous les contrats et les serments essentiels dans la société du Moyen Âge s’accompagnent de gestes, se manifestent par eux. Le vassal met ses mains dans celles du seigneur, les tend sur la Bible, brise un fétu ou jette un gant par défi. Le geste signifie et engage.” Le Goff 1972, p. 440.

81 completed by the correct gesture, theologians discussed the use of gesticulation during ecclesiastical sacraments.280

Our contemporary mind, infected with photographically capturing a moment, understands hand gesture of figural reliquaries as a frozen “frame” of gesture. However, the mediaeval craftsman had to think differently, his work “without recourse to moving images must encapsulate it in a single hand position, a telling gesture, often that of blessing.”281

But such representations of gestures depend at least as much on the specific rules of figuration in medieval art as on direct observation of gestures by the artists. To begin with, the fixity of medieval images creates a huge problem. All the gestures that were mere movement (for example blessing while making the sign of the cross) had to be frozen by the artist. But at what point? The artist could choose to emphasize the hand held up rather than down, but he could not suggest the movement itself, its direction, or its speed.282

For better comprehension of gestures of figural reliquaries, their former movement and setting must be reconstructed. Non-verbal mode of communication of figural reliquaries was further strengthened by considerable exaggeration of the size, hands preserved in their former state have noticeably longer fingers and bigger hand compared to the rest of the effigy.283

As Thomas Dale noted, the bust reliquaries were successfully embodying real presence in addition manner apart from the embodiment of the saint in this world.284 The faithful could experience the presence of living person celebrating the Eucharist. Placed closely to the altar, either directly on it or behind it in a higher position, and visible only from to the waist, bust reliquaries were giving this impression of the tangible presence of celebrant. This was further accented by liturgical vestment and hand gestures associated with the Mass.

280 Schmitt 1992, p. 69. 281 Hahn 1997, p. 23. Cynthia Hahn applied this approach to arm reliquaries, but the similar aspects are distinguishable on gestures of the figural reliquaries as well. 282 Schmitt 1992, p. 63. 283 This is sometimes simply explained as a sign of great potency of saints. However, another functional aspect is noticeable: hands of figural reliquaries, created smaller than actual living persons, were also accepting votive gifts in form of rings, therefore their dimensions had to be very close to lifelike. [Fig. 2b] 284 Dale 2008, p. 112.

82

According to Chroniques de Saint-Martial de Limoges, golden sitting image of St. Martial from Limoges was blessing with his right hand, in his left hand, he was holding the Book.285 Preserved original hands or reliquaries of St. Caesarius from Maurs, St. Peter from Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille, and St. Baudime from Saint-Nectaire are representing a sign of the cross. Their hands are shaped in the same gesture and simulating the actual performance of consecrating the Eucharist or blessing of the congregation. However, interpretation of their left hands is more open and provide a few possibilities. Bust reliquary of St. Caesarius has open palm stretched forward and facing the congregation in a gesture understandable as acceptance or listening.286 This meaning would be eagerly welcomed by the faithful searching for patron saint listening to their prayers and requests. Another possible explanation is “a gesture of prayer that can be associated with the reading of the prayers of the canon of the Mass.”287 Both these hand gestures are valid, viewing would depend on occasion and desire of the congregation. Left hands of St. Peter’s and St. Baudime’s reliquaries are giving an impression of possible holding an object, Through these gestures, the saints became present and alive, demonstrating their presence and performative role in the church.

Another remarkable aspect of reliquaries’ hands was recently noted by Bissera Pentcheva, following the direction of her early studies concerning the sensorial perception of the Byzantine bas-relief icons.288 Temporal changing visual qualities of the reflecting surfaces and gems resulted in the non-mimetic and performative liveliness of the reliquaries.289 Through the motion of the light source, hands of image reliquary are moved by their shadows and the perception is struck by enlivening and presence of the saint.290

285 “Isdem Gauzbertus iconam auream Marcialis apostoli fecit sedentem super altare et manu dextera populum benedicentem, sinistra librum tenentem Evangelii.” Duplès-Agier 1874, p. 5. 286 Garnier 1982–1989, Vol. 2, pp. 174–179. 287 Dale 2008, p. 112. 288 Pentcheva 2010. 289 Pentcheva 2016, pp. 212–213. Important notes worth noticing are dealing with perception of the figural reliquaries extracted from their former placement and context. Their museum display and “scientific” photographs disrupted and limited the contemporary comprehension. Pentcheva 2016, pp. 210–211. 290 Bissera Pentcheva recorded this phenomenon on two figural reliquries: St. Peter from Saint-Flour and St. Theofrid from Le Monasier-sur-Gazeille. Pentcheva 2016, pp. 228–299.

83

Changing Saint

Figural reliquaries were transformed, changed, and renewed in a manner usually unfamiliar outside the history of architecture.291 Dating of these object is complicated and thanks to these alternations they should be paradigmatically perceived as “works-in- progress.”292 Similarly to the image of St. Foy, resisting any attempt to precise dating of creation or different phases, other reliquary statues offer similar difficulties.293 Their appearances were rather frequently altered, surfaces are reflecting the piousness of the faithful, who donated gifts in the form gems, rings, or other jewellery. Acts of transformation, renewal, or rebuilding were forms of reverence.294 As Herbert Kessler noted, “restoring tarnished metal, either by burnishing or applying new foil, repeated the original votive act, with the result that polished silver served de facto as evidence of successive devotion.”295

Metal figural reliquaries offered a remarkable opportunity for various additions in form of precious stones or other reused objects. Despite their common marking as spolium in the majority of scientific works, gems were often acquired as a form of votive gifts and offerings.296 Obviously, not every reset or reused object can be labelled as spolia, what makes it a misleading and often overused term.297

Two preserved figural reliquaries mentioned in the third chapter were reworked to considerably change the visibility and accessibility of the relic within. Chest of the bust

291 These “works-in-progress” did not have a final shape in our common understanding. In the search for similar attitude, we can look to the East, to the extraordinary, luxurious and impressive icons, closely connected with donations of the establishment, they were transformed and enriched during the times as well. Khakhuli triptych, icon of the Theotokos preserved in the Art Museum of Georgia in Tbilisi, is outstanding example of the changes which happened during centuries. The central “icon of the Khakhuli Virgin” representing a Theotokos of the Hodegetria type, considered as a miracle-working icon, was created in the tenth century. It was transferred to Gelati in the beginning of the twelfth century from the church at Khakhuli by Georgian King Davit IV the Builder (1089–1125), who donated pearls and precious stones probably for adornment of its repoussé cover. Demetre I, Davit’s son, enclosed icon into a monumental triptych, further enriched by precious stones, gold, and cloisonné enamels dated from the eighth to the twelfth century. What is more, in 1859 the triptych became a victim of the furta sacra, similarly to e. g. the reliquary of St. Baudime. For more about this extraordinary work of art, see Papamastorakis 2002. 292 Hahn 2012, p. 125. 293 Caviness 2006, pp. 71–72. 294 In commentaries of Paulinus of Nola on the reconstruction of the architectural shrine of St. Felix, he described process of renewal as honouring saints’ remains. For more, see Hahn 2010b, pp. 291–292. 295 Kessler 2011, p. 60. 296 For the difference between offerings and spoils, see Kinney 2011, p. 104. 297 Kinney 2006, pp. 237–239.

84 reliquary of St. Caesarius was enriched by small filigree door inlaid with gems in the thirteenth century. It bears an inscription on the inside proving relics placed inside the casket.298 Relics identified by this inscription, known as authentiques, were more accessible and the faithful gain further knowledge of the sacred presence.299 Quatrefoil opening on the belly of the reliquary of St. Foy was likewise added in the second half of the thirteenth or in the fourteenth century.300 Both adjustment, caused by general demand for better access to relics, not only increased its visibility but also certified its validity. Change of the visibility of the relics went hand in hand with the design of reliquaries, which according to Hans Belting “presented no more than a beautiful frame, at the centre of which the relics itself had to be seen–for example, through the ‘window’ of a crystal reliquary.”301 This new way of the presentation of relics “invites and proves at the same time: invites to looking and proves by looking.”302

Probably the most extreme example of the changing appearance of the image reliquary is the case of St. Theofrid from Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille. It was mentioned in the cartulary of Monastier already in the eleventh century, yet it was stripped of its covering sheeting made of silver and gold.303 Precious metals were probably used as a high-return investment in the First Crusade or sponsorship for pilgrims, in any case, it was given to “those, who rushed to Jerusalem.” Oak core of the Reliquary was still used as a reliquary in the Abbey of Saint-Chaffre du Monastier, coated by the present silver covering later in the second half of twelfth century.304

Conclusion

Pilgrims and devotees, searching for mediators of their prayers, turned to saints for their dual presence, they were physically present in the mundane world as well as in ethereal one. Figural reliquaries were especially successful due to their set of features,

298 “HIC EST CAPVT: S(AN)C(T)I CESARII ARELATENCIS: EPI(SCOPUS)” F. C. 1886, p. 678. 299 Bagnoli 2010, p. 142. 300 Gaborit-Chopin and Taburet-Delahaye 2001, p. 28; cf. Bagnoli et al. 2010, p. 193. 301 Belting 1994, p. 303. 302 “Das Vorzeigen wird universell zum Gestus, der einlädt und zugleich beweist: einlädt zum Schauen und beweist durch Schauen.” Belting 1981, pp. 129–130. 303 “(…) arca illa ubi reliquiæ sancti Theofredi sanctique Eudonis et quorumdam aliorum repositæ sunt, quæ circumdata auro et argento fulgere solebat, donec illis qui Jherosolimam properabant datum est pro commutatione possessionum.” Chevalier 1891, p. 42. 304 Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 385.1

85 which make them more comprehensible and accessible for everyone and enable closer interaction. For the communication with the faithful mount and ears were also important besides eyes. Not only the saints were listening, what was emphasized by their gaze and ears, he was also able to interpret prayers and request in New Jerusalem, his other place of operation and not only they were able to watch and listen but also became “speaking reliquaries.”

With the notion of accessibility and space between the faithful and saint, another mode of viewing became evident. The importance of the gestures rises with the increasing distance separating devotee from the desired patron, excessively enlarged hands were more perceptible compared to facial features, including eyes. Mediaeval beholder could saw the figural reliquary differently relative to the contemporary viewer today, the saint was as enliven and animated by flickering candle light.

Figural reliquaries are everything but conventional works in art, they were reshaped, transformed, and renewed. We can perceive them as constantly changing objects – works-in-progress – and this paradigmatic perspective should be always on our mind. Even Bernard of Angers saw and in his Liber miraculorum described different statue than we can see in Conques today.

86

Conclusion

The foregoing thesis was dealing with figural reliquaries, their placement, uses, and perception.

It started with a summarization of the vast bibliography mapping changing perspectives and motivations of the field. In the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, reliquaries were studied by historians as object closely associated with Catholic Church and national patrimony, the world’s fair Exposition Universelle in 1900 was greatly illustrating this attitude. Journals of French scientific societies presented many of them for the first time, but the general research was established by Jesuit Joseph Braun only in 1940. His division of objects according to formal standards was determinative for entire field onwards. In the 1950’s, figural reliquaries became crucial items in “the revival of the monumental sculpture,” paradigmatic opinion dominating at least for two decades and overshadowing any other way of research. New technologies allowed cultural institutions not only restoration but in-depth analyses of many objects as well. Many of these outcomes, generally made after the half of the twentieth century, are still used today as important records for any further research. These studies, together with broader acceptance of the so-called minor arts, partially initiated new more autonomous understanding of figural reliquaries, which were up to this point usually regarded in relationships to other questions. The research was shifted by Hans Belting’s and David Freedberg’s volumes, reliquaries were accepted into the official art canon and questions of the function and perception were suddenly preferred to attribution or dating. The amount of the studies has grown exponentially and new interdisciplinary approaches emerged in last two decades. Motivations and aims of scholars were shaping the attitude of figural reliquaries, period exhibitions well illustrated each viewing at that time.

The second chapter analysed reliquary in general, reciprocal relationship between relic and reliquary is described using Martin Heidegger’s conceptual model of the Thing as well. A form of figural reliquaries is proved as very exceptional and fruitful. Following section of this chapter presented earlier examples of anthropomorphic reliquaries from the oldest documented bust of St. Maurice, using mostly primary sources. The last section is devoted to the terminology labelling figural reliquaries, from the term “speaking reliquaries” introduced by groundbreaking work of Jesuit Joseph Braun to “shaped

87 reliquaries” proposed by Cynthia J. Hahn. Every terminology has its limitations and its misleading or misunderstood use led some scholars astray.

Third part represented intermission of more narrative chapters in the thesis; it presented six preserved figural reliquaries in form of bust or seating figure still located in the place of their origin, in the regions of Auvergne and Rouergue. They constitute the small but remarkable corpus of unmatched examples, which survived various struggles in the exceptionally well-preserved state. Despite the risk of using a small group of objects as normative, they can still illuminate a much wider group of less fortunate lost examples, remained in existence usually only in written sources. Each section in the form of the catalogue is devoted to individual preserved reliquary. After short basic notes, formal descriptions with significant points followed, each section is closed by lists of thorough bibliography and list of expositions, which exhibited these objects.

Reliquaries have been relocated from the original location and lifted from the former context, however, placement and uses are key aspects for their better understanding, and these questions are regarded in the fourth chapter. The first section tried to localize probable location in the church. However, it remained an open question due to ambiguity or silence of preserved source. This difficulty is also connected with great movability of the figural reliquaries, which opens several possibilities: they could be placed on the altar or behind it, as free-standing statues or in shrines. From the placement emerges related issue of the accessibility, written accounts indicate that the direct access by lay faithful was strictly limited by monastic authorities. Portability of reliquaries played an important role and enables a wide spectrum of uses, from which processions are the most significant. Synods and councils called for especially desired figural reliquaries, which highlighted final proceedings. All developed uses provided benefits to monastic and local communities. They were protecting possessions, securing peace, and played an important role when oaths were taken.

Last, fifth, the chapter is dealt with the perception of figural reliquaries. They were the materialization of saints’ dual presence through their materiality, precious metals and gems played a significant role. The faithful turned with requests to saintly patrons, effigies’ facial features were essential in this direct communication. Saints were able to listen, regard, and conveyed prayers closer to God. Accentuated eyes, often made of various materials were especially important for perception, activated by candle lights

88 could flicker or even move. Another mode of perception, related to the significance of gestures, was presented in the following section. From the greater distance, exaggerated hands of image reliquaries were more distinguishable than any other feature. Frozen gestures were full of meanings, comprehensible to the mediaeval viewer. The last section emphasized the importance of paradigmatic perspective unusual for other works of art, as works-in-progress they were altered, enriched, and constantly renewed. Transformations of St. Foy’s and St. Caesarius’s reliquaries demonstrated an effort to ensure changing requirements for relic display.

In conclusion, the present text provides insight into the various aspects of figural reliquaries, on preserved examples from the eleventh and twelfth centuries in France. It puts emphasis on points of placement, uses, and perception, all important for better understanding of their significance and role they placed in mediaeval society. However, several questions remained open to further study. Future attention paid to the use of figural reliquaries in the liturgical drama could bring remarkable results in a more complex understanding of mediaeval theatre and image reliquaries. Sensorial perception of mediaeval processions as spectacles full of senses deserves more profound research as well.

89

Bibliography

Abbreviations

AASS. Acta Sanctorum, Paris: Victor Palmé, 1863ff.

AASSOSB. Luc d'Achery and Jean Mabillon (eds), Acta sanctorum ordinis Sancti Benedicti, 9 vols., Venice: 1733ff.

ANF. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds), The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, 10 vols., Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1885–96.

BiblSS. Bibliotheca sanctorum, Rome: Instituto Giovanni XXIII della Pontificia Universita Lateranense, 1961ff.

LCI. Engelbert Kirschbaum (ed.), Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie: allgemeine Ikonographie, 8 vols., Rome: Herder, 1968–1976.

PG. Jacques Paul Migne (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, 166 vols., Paris: 1857–1883

PL. Jacques Paul Migne (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, 221 vols., Paris: Garnier, 1841–1855.

Réau. Louis Réau, Iconographie de l’art chrétien, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1955ff.

Mansi. Johannes Dominicus Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, 53 vols., Florence-Venice: 1758–1798.

Primary sources

Bouillet 1897. Auguste Bouillet, Liber miraculorum sanctae Fidis, Paris: A. Picard et fils, 1897.

Historia francorum. Gregory of Tours, Historia francorum; Earnest Brehaut (trans), History of the Franks by Gregory, bishop of Tours, Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1916.

90

Doniol 1864. Henry Doniol (ed.), Cartulaire de Sauxillanges, Clermont-Ferrand: F. Thibaud, 1864.

Albers 1900ff. Bruno Albers (ed.), Consuetudines monasticae, 5 vols., Stuttgart and Vienna: J. Roth, 1900ff.

Sheingorn 1995. Pamela Sheingorn (trans. and ed.), The Book of Sainte Foy, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995.

Desjardins 1879. Gustave Desjardins (ed.), Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Conques en Rouergue, Paris: Picard, 1879.

Chevalier 1891. Ulysse Chevalier (ed.), Cartulaire de l’abbaye de St-Chaffre du Monastier et Chronique de St-Pierre du Puy. Paris: Picard, 1891.

Bernard and Bruel 1876ff. Auguste Bernard and Alexandre Bruel (eds), Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Cluny, Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1876ff.

Ferrari 1996. Michele Camillo Ferrari (ed.), Thiofridi Abbatis Epternacensis: Flores epytaphii sanctorum, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 133, Turnhout: Brepols, 1996.

Theophilus Presbyter. The Various Arts: De diversis artibus, Charles Reginald Dodwell (trans. and ed.), London: Nelson, 1961.

Duplès-Agier 1874. Henri Duplès-Agier (ed.), Chroniques de Saint-Martial de Limoges: publiées d’après les manuscrits originaux pour la Société de l’Histoire de France, Paris: Libraire de la Société de l’Histoire de France, 1874.

Brunel 1912. Clovis Brunel (ed.), Les miracles de Saint Privat suivis des opuscules d'Aldebert III, évêque de Mende, Paris: A. Picard et fils, 1912.

Tanner 1990. Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols., London: Sheed and Ward, 1990.

Secondary works

Abou-El-Hai 1991. Barbara Abou-El-Hai, “The Audiences for the Medieval Cult of Saints.” In: Gesta, 30, 1 (1991), pp. 3–15.

91

Angenendt 2010. Arnold Angenendt, “Relics and their Veneration.” In: Martina Bagnoli et al. (eds), Treasures of Heaven. Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe, London: British Museum Press, 2010, pp. 19–28.

Angenendt 2016. Arnold Angenendt, “Holy Corpses and the Cult of Relics.” In: Marika Räsänen, Gritje Hartmann, and Earl Jeffrey Richards (eds), Relics, Identity, and Memory in Medieval Europe, Turnhout: Brepols, 2016, pp. 13–28.

Asbridge 2004. Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Ashley and Sheingorn 1999. Kathleen M. Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn, Writing Faith: Text, Sign, and History in the Miracles of Sainte Foy, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Ashley and Sheingorn 2001. Kathleen M. Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn, “‘Sainte Foy’ on the Loose, Or, The Possibilities of Procession.” In: Kathleen M. Ashley, Wim N. M. Hüsken (eds), Moving Subjects: Processional Performances in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001, pp. 53–67.

Aubert 1928. Marcel Aubert, “La date de la statue de sainte Foy de Conques.” In: Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, 1928, pp. 116–118.

Aubert 1937. Marcel Aubert, “Conques-en-Rouergue.” In: Congrès archéologique de France. Ce session tenue a Figeac, Cahors et Rodez en 1937 par la Société française d’archéologie, 1938, pp. 459–523.

Aubert 1939. Marcel Aubert, L’église de Conques, Paris: Henri Laurens, 1939.

Bagnoli 2010. Martina Bagnoli, “The Staff of Heaven: Materials and Craftsmanship in Medieval Reliquaries.” In: Martina Bagnoli et al. (eds), Treasures of Heaven. Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe, London: British Museum Press, 2010, pp. 137–147.

Bagnoli et al. 2010. Martina Bagnoli, Holger A. Klein, C. Griffith Mann, and James Robinson (eds), Treasures of Heaven. Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe, London: British Museum Press, 2010.

Barral I Altet 2000. Xavier Barral I Altet, La Cathédrale du Puy-en-Velay, Paris: Éd. du Patrimoine, 2000.

92

Beaufrère (n.d.). Abel Beaufrère, Les Trésors d'art de Maurs-la-Jolie (Cantal). Aurillac: Gerbert, (n.d.), pp. 8–21.

Beaufrère 1954a. Abel Beaufrère, “Une découverte archéologique. La statue romane de Saint-Pierre à Bredons près Murat.” In: Revue de la Haute-Auvergne, 34, 4 (1954), pp. 246–254.

Beaufrère 1954b. Abel Beaufrère. “La statue orfévrée de saint Césaire d'Arles à Maurs (Cantal).” In: Auvergne littéraire, artistique et historique, 31, 146/147 (1954), pp. 9–18.

Belting 1981. Hans Belting, Das Bild und sein Publikum im Mittelalter: Form und Funktion früher Bildtafeln der Passion, Berlin: Mann, 1981.

Belting 1990. Hans Belting, Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst, Munich: Beck, 1990.

Belting 1994. Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, Edmund Jephcott (trans.), Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Benoit 1935. Fernand Benoît, “La tombe de saint Césaire d'Arles et sa restauration en 883.” In: Bulletin Monumental, 94, 2 (1935), pp. 137–143.

Bernoulli 1956. Christoph Bernoulli, Die Skulpturen der Abtei Conques-en-Rouergue, Basel: Birkhäuser, 1956.

Bessard 1981. Bella Bessard, Il Tesoro. Pellegrinaggio ai corpi santi e preziosi della cristianità, Milano: Ricci, 1981.

Betancourt 2016. Roland Betancourt, “Medieval Art after Duchamp: Hans Belting’s ‘Likeness and Presence’ at 25.” In: Gesta, 55, 1 (2016), pp. 5–17.

Birch 1998. Debra J. Birch, Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle Ages: Continuity and Change, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1998.

Bisson 1977. Thomas N. Bisson, “The Organized Peace in Southern France and Catalonia, ca. 1140 – ca. 1233.” In: The American Historical Review, 82, 2 (1977), pp. 290–311.

Bock 2010. Nicolas Bock, “Reliques et reliaquaires, entre matérialité et culture visuelle.” In: Perspective, 5, 2 (2010), pp. 361–368.

93

Boehm 1994. Gottfried Boehm, “Die Wiederkehr der Bilder.” In: Gottfried Boehm (ed.), Was ist ein Bild, München: Fink, 1994, pp. 11–38.

Boehm 1996. Barbara Drake Boehm and Elisabeth Taburet-Delahaye (eds), Enamels of Limoges: 1100–1350, New York, NY: Abrams, 1996.

Boehm 1997. Barbara Drake Boehm, “Body-Part Reliquaries: The State of Research.” In: Gesta, 36, 1 (1997), pp. 8–19.

Boehm 1998. Barbara Drake Boehm, “Les bustes reliquaires romans du Limousin.” In: Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa, 29 (1998), pp. 45–51.

Boehm 2006. Barbara Drake Boehm, “Reliquary Busts: “A Certain Aristocratic Eminence”.” In: Charles T. Little (ed.), Set in Stone: The Face in Medieval Sculpture, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006, pp. 168–173.

Boehm 2007. Barbara Drake Boehm, “’To learned people this may seem to be full of superstition’: Reliquary Sculpture in the Medieval Christian Tradition.” In: Alisa LaGamma (ed.), Eternal Ancestors: The Art of the Central African Reliquary, New York, NY: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007, pp. 86–95.

Boehm 2010. Barbara Drake Boehm, “FURTA SACRA? L’histoire récente de quelques reliquaires médiévaux français et la Loi Combes.” In: Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel-de- Cuxa, 41 (2010), pp. 61–69.

Boehm 2011. Barbara Drake Boehm, “Un buste reliquaire du XIIe siècle récemment découvert.” In: Patrimoine en Haute-Auvergne, 23 (2011), pp. 39–50.

Boehm 2014. Barbara Drake Boehm, “Grist for the Mill: A Newly Discovered Bust Reliquary from Saint-Flour.” In: James Robinson, Lloyd de Beer, and Anna Harnden (eds), Matter of Faith: An Interdisciplinary Study of Relics and Relic Veneration in the Medieval Period, London: The British Museum, 2014, pp. 75–83.

Bonnassie and de Gournay 1995. Pierre Bonnassie and Frédéric de Gournay, “Sur la datation du ‘Livre des miracles de sainte Foy de Conques’.” In: Annales du Midi: revue de la France méridionale, 107, 212 (1995), pp. 457–473.

Bouillet 1892. August Bouillet, L’église et le trésor de Conques (Aveyron). Notice descriptive, Macon: Protat, 1892.

94

Bouillet and Servières 1900. Auguste Bouillet and Louis Servières, Sainte Foy, vierge et martyre, Rodez: Carrère, 1900.

Bouyssou 1991. Léonce Bouyssou, Retables de Haute-Auvergne: XVIIe-XIXe siècles, Nonette: Créer, 1991.

Bouyssou and Muzac 1966. Léonce Bouyssou and André Muzac (eds), Documents d’histoire et art religieux, Saint-Flour: Moderne, 1966.

Braun 1940. Joseph Braun, Die Reliquiare des christlichen Kultes und ihre Entwicklung, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder & Co. Gmbh, 1940.

Bréhier 1912. Louis Bréhier, “Les Origines de la sculpture romane.” In: Revue des deux mondes, 82, 4 (1912), pp. 870–901.

Bréhier 1924. Louis Bréhier, “La cathédrale de Clermont au Xe siècle et la statue d’or de la Vierge.” In: La Renaissance de l’art français et des industries du luxe, 7, 1 (1924), pp. 205–210.

Büchsel 2010. Martin Büchsel, “The Status of Sculpture in the Early Middle Ages: Liturgy and Paraliturgy in the ‘Liber miraculorum sancte Fidis’.” In: Robert A. Maxwell, Kirk Amrose (eds), Current Directions in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Sculpture Studies, Turnhout: Brepols, 2010, pp. 47–59.

Burckhardt 1898. Jacob Burckhardt, “Das Porträt in der Malerei.” In: Jacob Burckhardt, Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte von Italien, Hans Trog (ed.), Basel: Lendorff, 1898, pp. 143–294.

Büttner 2005. Brigitte Büttner, “From Bones to Stones – Reflections on Jeweled Reliquiaries.” In: Bruno Reudenbach, Gia Toussaint (eds), Reliquiare im Mittelalter, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005, pp. 43–59.

Bynum 1984. Caroline Walker Bynum, “Did the Twelfth Century Discover the Individual?” In: Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Publications of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, UCLA, 16), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984, pp. 82–109.

Bynum and Gerson 1997. Caroline Walker Bynum and Paula Gerson, “Body-Part Reliquaries and Body Parts in the Middle Ages.” In: Gesta, 36, 1 (1997), pp. 3–7.

95

Caviness 2006. Madeline Harrison Caviness, “Reception of Images by Medieval Viewers.” In: Conrad Rudolph (ed.), A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 65–85.

Chabosy 1987. Marcel Chabosy, Saint-Nectaire: l’église, ses chapiteaux, son trésor, Clermont-Ferrand: Ed. du Lys, 1987.

Cordez 2007a. Philippe Cordez, “Les reliques, un champ de recherches. Problèmes anciens et nouvelles perspectives.” In: Bulletin d’information de la Mission Historique Française en Allemagne, 43 (2007), pp. 102–116.

Cordez 2007b. Philippe Cordez, “Die Reliquien, ein Forschungfeld. Traditionslinien und neue Erkundungen.” In: Kunstchronik, 60, 7 (2007), pp. 271–282.

Craplet 1955. Bernard Craplet, et al., Auvergne romane, Saint-Léger-Vauban: Zodiaque, 1955.

Crook 2000. James Crook, The Architectural Setting of the Cult of Saints in the Early Christian West c. 300–1200, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Dahl 1978. Ellert Dahl, “Heavenly images. The statue of St. Foy of Conques and the signification of the Medieval ‘Cult-Image’ in the West.” In: Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia, 8 (1978), pp. 175–191.

Dale 2002. Thomas E. A. Dale, “The Individual, the Resurrected Body, and Romanesque Portraiture. The Tomb of Rudolf von Schwaben in Merseburg.” In: Speculum, 77, 3 (2002), pp. 707–743.

Dale 2008. Thomas E. A. Dale, “Romanesque Sculpted Portraits: Convention, Vision, and Real Presence.” In: Gesta, 46, 2, Contemporary Approaches to the Medieval Face (2007), pp. 101–119.

Darcel 1861. Alfred Darcel, Trésor de l’église de Conques, Paris: Didron, 1861.

Dauvergne 1859. Anatole Dauvergne, “Notice sur le buste de saint Baudime conservé dans l’église de Saint-Nectaire (Puy-de-Dôme).” In: Revue des sociétés savantes, ser. 2, 1 (1859), pp. 1–4.

96

Dauvergne 1862. Anatole Dauvergne, “Notice sur le buste de saint Baudime conservé dans l’église de Saint-Nectaire (Puy-de-Dôme).” In: Revue des sociétés savantes, ser. 2, 8 (1862), pp. 507–510.

Delmas and Fau 2000. Claire Delmas and Jean-Claude Fau, Conques, Millau: Ed. du Beffroi, 2000.

Deschamps 1925. Paul Deschamps, “Etude sur la renaissance de la sculpture en France à l’époque romane.” In: Bulletin monumental, 84 (1925), pp. 5–98.

Deschamps 1948. Paul Deschamps, “L’orfèvrerie à Conques vers l’an mille.” In: Bulletin monumental, 1948, pp. 75–93.

Desjardins 1872. Gustave Desjardins, Essai sur le Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Conques en Rouergue (IXe–XIIe siècles), Paris: Impr. de A. Daupeley, 1872.

Deyres 1972. Marcel Deyres, “Les grilles de Sainte-Foy de Conques.” In: Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 15, 58 (1972), pp. 143–150.

Didron 1859. Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Manuel des œuvres de bronze et d'orfévrerie du Moyen Âge, Paris: Libraire Archéologique de Victor Didron, 1859.

Elsner 2017. Jaś Elsner, “Visual Ontologies: Style, Archaism and Framing in the Construction of the Sacred in the Western Tradition.” In: Verity Platt and Michael Squire (eds), The Frame in Classical Art. A Cultural History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 457–499.

Énaud 1959. François Énaud, “L’exposition d’art sacré de Haute-Auvergne.” In: Les monuments historiques de la France, N.S. 5 (1959), pp. 190–192.

F. C. 1886. F. C., “Buste de Saint Césaire à Maurs.” In: Bulletin de la société scientifique, historique et archéologique de la Corrèze, 8 (1886), pp. 675–680.

Falk 1991–1993. Birgitta Falk, “Bildnisreliquiare. Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der metallenen Kopf-, Büsten- und Halbfigurenreliquiare im Mittelalter.” In: Aachener Kunstblätter, 69 (1991–1993), pp. 99–238.

Fau 1973. Jean-Claude Fau, Conques, La Pierre-qui-Vire: Zodiaque, 1973.

Fayolle 1897. Marquis de Fayolle, “Le trésor de l’église de Saint-Nectaire.” In: Congrès archéologique de France. LXIIe session. Séances générales tenues a Clermont-Ferrand

97 en 1895 par la Société française d’archéologie pour la conservation et la description des monuments, Paris and Caen: 1897, pp. 292–306.

Forsyth 1968. Ilene Haering Forsyth, “Magi and Majesty: A Study of Romanesque Sculpture and Liturgical Drama.” In: The Art Bulletin, 50, 3 (1968), pp. 215–222.

Forsyth 1972. Ilene Haering Forsyth, The Throne of Wisdom: Wood Sculptures of the Madonna in Romanesque France, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.

Forsyth 1974. Ilene Haering Forsyth. “Throne of Wisdom. Wood Sculpture of the Madonna in Romanesque France.” In: Vladimir Milojčić (ed.), Kolloquium über Spätantike und Frühmittelalterliche Skulptur, Vol. 2 (1972), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1974, pp. 159–186.

Freedberg 1989. Daniel Freedberg, The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Fricke 2007. Beate Fricke, Ecce fides. Die statue von Conques, Götzendienst und Bildkultur im Westen, München: Fink, 2007.

Fricke 2015. Beate Fricke, Fallen idols, risen saints: Sainte Foy of Conques and the revival of the monumental sculpture in medieval art, Turnhout: Brepols, 2015.

Fung 2011. Kathleen Stewart Fung, “Divine Lessons in an Imperfect World: Bernard of Angers and ‘The Book of Sainte Foy’s Miracles’.” In: Jason Glen (ed.), The Middle Ages in Texts and Texture: Reflections on Medieval Sources, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011, pp. 119–128.

Gaborit 2005. Jean-René Gaborit, “Les images de culte.” In: Jean-René Gaborit, Danielle Gaborit-Chopin, and Jannic Durand (eds), L’art roman au Louvre, Paris: Fayard, 2005, pp. 110–117.

Gaborit 2010. Jean-René Gaborit, La sculpture romane, Paris: Hazan, 2010.

Gaborit and Faunières 2009. Jean-René Gaborit and Dominique Faunières (eds), Une Vierge en majesté, Paris: Musée du Louvre Éditions, 2009.

Gaborit-Chopin 2000. Danielle Gaborit-Chopin, “Il Tesoro di Conques e la santa Fede (prima del 1050).” In: Liana Castelfranchi Vegas (ed.), L’arte dell’Anno Mille in Europa, 950-1050, Milano: Jaca Book, 2000, pp. 141–151.

98

Gaborit-Chopin 2003. Danielle Gaborit-Chopin, “Le trésor de Conques, Aveyron. La Majesté de sainte Foy de Conques.” In: Monumental, 2003, pp. 98–107, 244.

Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005. Danielle Gaborit-Chopin and François Avril (eds), La France romane au temps des premiers Capétiens (987 - 1152), Paris: Hazan, 2005.

Gaborit-Chopin and Taburet-Delahaye 2001. Danielle Gaborit-Chopin and Élisabeth Taburet-Delahaye (eds), Le trésor de Conques, Paris: Monum, 2001.

Gaillard 1963. Georges Gaillard, et al., Rouergue roman, Saint-Léger-Vauban: Zodiaque, 1963.

Garland 2000. Emmanuel Garland, “L’art des orfèvres à Conques.” In: Mémoires de la Société Archéologique du Midi de la France, 60 (2000), pp. 83–114.

Garland 2010. Emmanuel Garland, “Le trésor de Conques au Moyen Age: Quelques observations sur son histoire ancienne.” In: Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa, 41 (2010), pp. 81–93, 267.

Garnier 1982–1989. François Garnier, Le langage de l’image au Moyen-Âge, 2 vols., Paris: Léopard d’Or, 1982–1989.

Gauthier 1963. Marie-Madeleine Gauthier, “Le trésor de Conques.” In: Georges Gaillard (ed.), Rouergue roman, La Pierre-qui-Vire: Zodiaque, 1963, pp. 98–187.

Geary 1978. Patrick J. Geary, Furta sacra: thefts of relics in the central Middle Ages, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978.

Geary 1979. Patrick J. Geary, “L’humiliation des saints.” In: Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 34, 1 (1979), pp. 27–42.

Geary 1983. Patrick J. Geary, “Humiliation of saints.” In: Stephen G. Wilson (ed.), Saints and their Cults. Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore and History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 123–140.

Geary 2010. Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010.

Gerson et al. 1998. Paula Gerson, Jeanne Krochalis, Annie Shaver-Crandell, and Alison Stones (eds), The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela: A Critical Edition, 2 vols, London: Harvey Miller, 1998.

99

Graham and Clapham 1930. Rose Graham and A. W. Clapham, “The Monastery of Cluny, 910–1155.” In: Archaeologia or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity, 80 (1930), pp. 143–178.

Hahn 1997. Cynthia J. Hahn, “The Voices of the Saints: Speaking Reliquaries.” In: Gesta, 36, 1 (1997), pp. 20–31.

Hahn 2005. Cynthia J. Hahn, “The Meaning of Early Medieval Treasuries.” In: Bruno Reudenbach, Gia Toussaint (eds), Reliquiare im Mittelalter, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005, pp. 1–20.

Hahn 2006. Cynthia J. Hahn, “Collector and Saint: Queen Radegund and Devotion to the Relic of the True Cross.” In: Word and Image, 22, 3 (2006), pp. 268–274.

Hahn 2010a. Cynthia J. Hahn, “The Spectacle of the Charismatic Body: Patrons, Artists, and Body-Part Reliquaries.” In: Martina Bagnoli et al. (eds), Treasures of Heaven. Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe, London: British Museum Press, 2010, pp. 163–172.

Hahn 2010b. Cynthia J. Hahn, “What Do Reliquaries Do for Relics?” In: Numen, 57 (2010), pp. 284–316.

Hahn 2012. Cynthia J. Hahn, Strange Beauty: Issues in the Making and Meaning of Reliquaries, 400–circa 1204, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012.

Hamburger 2011. Jeffrey Hamburger, “Art History Reviewed XI: Hans Belting’s ‘Bild und Kult; eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst’, 1900.” In: The Burlington Magazine, 153, 1294 (2011), pp. 40–45.

Hamburger 2013. Jeffrey Hamburger, “Hans Belting: Bild und Kult; eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst, 1990.” In: Richard Shone, John-Paul Stonard (eds), The Books that shaped Art History, London: Thames & Hudson, 2013, pp. 202– 215.

Havard 1896. Henry Havard, Histoire de l'orfèvrerie française, Paris: Librairies- imprimeries réunies, 1896.

Head 1990. Thomas Head, Hagiography and the Cult of the Saints, the Diocese of Orleans, 800-1200, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

100

Head 1997. Thomas Head, “Art and Artifice in Ottonian Trier.” In: Gesta, 36, 1 (1997), pp. 65–82.

Head and Landes 1992. Thomas F. Head and Richard Allen Landes (eds), The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Response in France around the Year 1000, Ithaca, Ny: Cornell University Press, 1992.

Heath 2010. Anne Heath, “Secular Power, Sacred Authority, and Urban Topography in the Palm Sunday Procession in Late Medieval Auxerre, France.” In: Viator, 41, 1 (2010), pp. 199–230.

Heidegger 2001. Martin Heidegger, “The Thing.” In: Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2001, pp. 161–184.

Herrmann-Mascard 1975. Nicole Herrmann-Mascard, Les reliques des Saints: Formation coutumière d’un droit, Paris: Klincksieck, 1975.

Hetherington 2006. Paul Hetherington, “Byzantine ‘cloisonné’ enamel: production, survival and loss.” In: Byzantion, 76 (2006), pp. 185–220.

Hetherington 2008. Paul Hetherington, “Byzantine ‘cloisonné’ enamel: production, survival and loss.” In: Paul Hetherington, Enamels, Crowns, Relics and Icons: Studies on Luxury Arts in Byzantium, Farnham: Ashgate, 2008, chapter I.

Hoving 1963. Thomas P. F. Hoving, “The Face of St. Juliana: The Transformation of a Fourteenth Century Reliquary.” In: Metropolitan Museum of Art bulletin, 21, 5 (1963), pp. 173–181.

Hubert 1938. Jean Hubert, L’art pré-roman, Paris: Éd. d’Art et d’Histoire, 1938.

Hubert 1943–1944. Jean Hubert, “La Majesté de sainte Foy de Conques.” In: Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France, 1943–1944, pp. 390–394.

Hubert and Hubert 1982. Jean Hubert and Marie-Clotilde Hubert, “Piété chrétienne ou paganisme? Les statues-reliquaires de l'europe carolingienne.” In: Cristianizzazione ed organizzazione ecclesiastica delle campagne nell’alto medioevo, Settimane di studio del CISAM, Spoleto 1980, Vol. I, 28 (1982), pp. 235–275.

101

Johnstone 2002. Pauline Johnstone, High Fashion in the Church. The Place of Church Vestments in the History of Art from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century¸ Leeds: Maney, 2002.

Keller 1951. Harald Keller, “Zur Entstehung der sakralen Vollskulptur in der ottonischen Zeit.” In: Kurt Bauch (ed.), Festschrift für Hans Jantzen, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1951, pp. 71–91. Reprinted in: Harald Keller, Blick vom Monte Cavo, Frankfurt am Main: Insel-Verlag, 1984, pp. 19–47.

Keller 1956. Harald Keller, “Zur Entstehung der Reliquienbüste aus Holz.” In: Wolfgang Braunfels (ed.), Kunstgeschichtliche Studien für Hans Kauffmann, Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann, 1956, pp. 71–80.

Kessler 2004. Herbert Leon Kessler, Seeing Medieval Art, Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2004.

Kessler 2011. Herbert Leon Kessler, “The Eloquence of Silver: More on the Allegorization of Matter.” In: Christian Heck (ed.), L’allégorie dans l’art du Moyen Âge. Formes et fonctions. Héritages, créations, mutations, Turnhout: Brepols, 2011, pp. 49–64.

Kinney 2006. Dale Kinney, “The Concept of ‘Spolia’.” In: Conrad Rudolph (ed.), A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 233–252.

Kinney 2011. Dale Kinney, “Ancient Gems in the Middle Ages: Riches and Ready- mades.” In: Richard Brilliant, Dale Kinney (eds), Reuse Value: ‘Spolia’ and Appropriation in Art and Architecture from Constantine to Sherrie Levine, Farnham: Ashgate, 2011, pp. 97–120.

Klingshirn 1994. William E. Klingshirn, trans., The Life, Testament, and Letters of Caesarius of Arles, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 1994.

Kornbluth 1995. Genevra Alisoun Kornbluth, Engraved Gems of the Carolingian Empire, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.

Kornbluth 2014. Genevra Alisoun Kornbluth, “Active Optics: Carolingian Rock Crystal on Medieval Reliquaries.” In: Different Visions: A Journal of New Perspectives on

102

Medieval Art, 4 (2014), viewed 25 June 2015, .

Kovács 1964a. Éva Kovács, Kopfreliquiare des Mittelalters, Budapest: Corvina-Verlag, 1964.

Kovács 1964b. Éva Kovács, “Le chef de saint Maurice à la cathédrale de Vienne (France).” In: Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 7, 25 (1964), pp. 19–26.

Kroesen 2014a. Justin Ernest Alexander Kroesen, “The Altar and Its Decorations in Medieval Churches. A Functionalist Approach.” In: Medievalia, 17 (2014), pp. 153– 183.

Kroesen 2014b. Justin Ernest Alexander Kroesen, “The ‘longue durée’ of ‘Romanesque’ altar decorations: frontals, canopies and altar sculptures.” In: Noëlle L. W. Streeton and Kaja Kollandsrud (eds), Paint and Piety: Collected Essays on Medieval Painting and Polychrome Sculpture, London: Archetype Publications, 2014, pp. 15–38.

Lasko 1972. Peter Lasko, Ars Sacra, 800–1200, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1972.

Lauranson-Rosaz 1992. Christian Lauranson-Rosaz, "Peace from the Mountains: The Auvergnat Origins of the Peace of God." In: Thomas F. Head and Richard Allen Landes (eds), The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Response in France around the Year 1000, Ithaca, Ny: Cornell University Press, 1992, pp. 104–134.

Le Goff 1972. Jacques Le Goff, La Civilisation de l’Occident médiéval, Paris: Arthaud, 1972.

Le Goff 1988. Jacques Le Goff, Medieval Civilization, 400-1500, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.: 1988.

Lesne 1936. Émile Lesne, Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en France. Tome III. L'inventaire de la propriété. Églises et trésors des églises du commencement du VIIIe à la fin du XIe siècle, Lille: Facultés catholiques, 1936.

Levillain 1907. Léon Levillain, “Notes sur l'abbaye de Conques.” In: Revue Mabillon, 3 (1907), pp. 99–115.

103

Little 2006. Charles T. Little (ed.), Set in Stone: The Face in Medieval Sculpture, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.

Mâle 1922. Émile Mâle, L'Art religieux du XIIe siècle en France. Étude sur les origines de l'iconographie do moyen age, Paris: Armand Colin, 1922.

Malo 2013. Robyn Malo, Relics and Writing in Late Medieval England, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013.

McCarthy 1960. Maria Caritas McCarthy, trans., The Rule for Nuns of St. Caesarius of Arles: A Translation with a Critical Introduction, by Maria Caritas McCarthy. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1960.

Mérimée 1838a. Prosper Mérimée, Notes d’un voyage en Auvergne. Extrait d’un rapport adressé a M. le Ministre de L’intérieur¸ Paris: Librairie de H. Fournier, 1838.

Mérimée 1838b. Prosper Mérimée, “Extrait d’un rapport adressé au ministre de l’Intérieur sur l’abbaye de Conques.” In: Bulletin monumental, 4 (1838), pp. 225–242.

Mèzard and Saunier 1992. Brigitte Mèzard and Bruno Saunier (eds), Les majestés du Cantal. Images de la Vierge en Haute-Auvergne, Aurillac: Champagnac, 1992.

Mitchell 1994. William John Thomas Mitchell, “The pictorial turn.” In: William John Thomas Mitchell, Picture Theory. Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994, pp. 11–35.

Montgomery 1997. Scott B. Montgomery, “‘Mittite capud meum … ad matrem meam ut osculetur eum’: The Form and Meaning of the Reliquary Bust of Saint Just.” In: Gesta, 36, 1 (1997), pp. 48–64.

Moxey 2008. Keith Moxey, “Visual Studies and the Iconic Turn.” In: Journal of Visual Culture, 7, 2 (2008), pp. 131–146.

Muzac 1959. André Muzac (ed.), Orfèvrerie et statuaire romane de Haute-Auvergne, Aurillac: Moderne, 1959.

Muzac 1966. André Muzac, Sculpture romane de Haute-Auvergne, Aurillac: USHA, 1966.

104

Palazzo 2010a. Éric Palazzo, “Relics, Liturgical Space, and the Theology of the Church.” In: Martina Bagnoli et al. (eds), Treasures of Heaven. Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe, London: British Museum Press, 2010, pp. 99–110.

Palazzo 2010b. Éric Palazzo, “Art, Liturgy, and the Five Senses in the Middle Ages.” In: Viator, 41, 1 (2010), pp. 25–56.

Papamastorakis 2002. Titos Papamastorakis, “Re-deconstructing the Khakhuli Triptych.” In: ΔΧΑΕ, 23 (2002), pp. 225–254.

Paris 1900. Catalogue Officiel illustré de L’Exposition Rétrospective de L’Art Français des Origines à 1800, Paris: Baschet, 1900.

Paxson 1992. Frederick S. Paxson, “History, Historians, and the Peace of God.” In: Thomas F. Head and Richard Allen Landes (eds), The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Response in France around the Year 1000, Ithaca, Ny: Cornell University Press, 1992, pp. 21–40.

Pentcheva 2010. Bissera V. Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010.

Pentcheva 2016. Bissera V. Pentcheva, “Glittering eyes: Animation in the Byzantine ‘Eikōn’ and the Western ‘Imago’.” In: Codex Aquilarensis, 32 (2016), pp. 209–236.

Pieper 1967. Paul Pieper, “Der goldene Pauluskopf des Domes zu Münster.” In: Frieda Dettweiler, Herbert Köllner, and Karl Hermann Usener (eds), Studien zur Buchmalerei und Goldschmiedekunst des Mittelalters, Marburg an der Lahn: Verl. des Kunstgeschichtlichen Seminars der Univ. Marburg an der Lahn, 1967, pp. 33–40.

Ponsot 1986. Catherine Ponsot, Camées et intailles de réemploi dans le mobilier liturgique du trésor de Conques (Unpublished master thesis), Université de Paris I – Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, 1987.

Réau 1959. Louis Réau, Les monuments détruits de l’art français. Tome I: Du haut Moyen Âge au XIXe siècle, Paris: Hachette, 1959.

Remensnyder 1990. Amy G. Remensnyder, “Un problème de cultures ou de culture?: La statue-reliquaire et les joca de sainte Foy de Conques dans le Liber miraculorum de Bernard d’Angers.” In: Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 33, 132 (1990), pp. 351–379.

105

Remensnyder 1996. Amy G. Remensnyder, “Legendary Treasure at Conques: Reliquaries and Imaginative Memory.” In: Speculum, 71 (1996), pp. 884–906.

Reudenbach 2000. Bruno Reudenbach, “Reliquiare als Heiligkeitsbeweis und Echtheitszeugnis Grundzüge einer problematischen Gattung.” In: Vorträge aus dem Warburg-Haus, 4 (2000), pp. 1–36.

Reudenbach 2008. Bruno Reudenbach, “Visualizing Holy Bodies: Observations on Body-Part Reliquaries.” In: Colum Hourihane (ed.), Romanesque Art and Thought in the Twelfth Century: Essays in Honor of Walter Cahn, Princeton, NJ: Index of Christian Art, Department of Art & Archaeology, Princeton University, pp. 95–106.

Rey 1956. Raymond Rey, “La Sainte Foy du Trésor de Conques et la Statuaire sacrée avant l'an mille.” In: Pallas, 4, 1956, pp. 99–115.

Robinson 2008. James M. Robinson, Masterpieces of Medieval Art, London: British Museum Press, 2008.

Robinson et al. 2014. James Robinson, Lloyd de Beer, and Anna Harnden (eds), Matter of Faith: An Interdisciplinary Study of Relics and Relic Veneration in the Medieval Period, London: The British Museum, 2014.

Rochemonteix 1902. Adolphe de Chalvet de Rochemonteix, Les églises romanes de la Haute-Auvergne, Paris: A. Picard & fils, 1902.

Rupin 1890. Ernest Rupin, L'Œuvre de Limoges, Paris: Picard, 1890.

Schmitt 1992. Jean-Claude Schmitt, “The rationale of gestures in the West: Third to Thirteenth Centuries.” In: Jan Bremmer, Herman Roodenburg (eds), A Cultural History of Gesture, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992, pp. 59–70.

Schnyder 1966. Rudolf Schnyder, “Das Kopfreliquiar des heiligen Candidus in St. Maurice.” In: Zeitschrift für schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte, 24 (1965/1966), pp. 65–127.

Schnyder 1967. Rudolf Schnyder, “Das Kopfreliquiar des heiligen Candidus in St- Maurice.” In: Stil und Überlieferund in der Kunst des Abendlandes. Akten des 21. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte in Bonn 1964. Band I: Epochen europäischer Kunst, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1967, pp. 169–171.

106

Shaver-Crandell and Gerson 1995. Annie Shaver-Crandell and Paula Gerson, The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela: A Gazetteer, London: Harvey Miller, 1995.

Sigal 1985. Pierre-André Sigal, L’homme et le miracle dans la France médiévale (XIe - XIIe siècle), Paris: Cerf, 1985.

Sire 2000. Marie-Anne Sire, “Les grilles du sanctuaire de Conques: les secrets d’un écrin.” In: Martine François et al., Utilis est lapis in structura, Paris: CTHS, 2000, pp. 403–412.

Soboul 1983. Albert Soboul, “Religious feeling and popular cults during the French Revolution: ‘patriot saints’ and martyrs for liberty.” In: Stephen G. Wilson (ed.), Saints and their Cults. Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore and History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 217–232.

Souchal 1966. François Souchal, “Les bustes reliquaires et la sculpture.” In: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 67 (1966), pp. 205–215.

Souchal 1993. François Souchal, Le vandalisme de la révolution, Paris: Nouvelles Éditions Latines, 1993.

Świechowski 1973. Zygmunt Świechowski, Sculpture romane d’Auvergne, Clermont- Ferrand: De Bussac, 1973.

Taralon 1954. Jean Taralon, “Le trésor de Conques.” In: Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, 55 (1954), pp. 47–54.

Taralon 1955. Jean Taralon, “La nouvelle présentation du trésor de Conques.” In: Les monuments historiques de la France, 1955, pp. 121–141.

Taralon 1978. Jean Taralon, “La majesté d’or de Sainte-Foy du trésor de Conques.” In: Revue de l’art, 40–41 (1978), pp. 9–22.

Taralon and Taralon-Carlini 1997. Jean Taralon and Dominique Taralon-Carlini, “La Majesté d’or de Sainte Foy de Conques.” In: Bulletin monumental, 155 (1997), pp. 11– 73.

Taralon et al. 1965. Jean Taralon et al., Les trésors des églises de France, Paris: Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques, 1965.

107

Tardieu 1886. Ambroise Tardieu, L'Auvergne (Puy-de-Dôme): guide complet illustré, Puy-de-Dôme: Herment, 1886.

Taylor 2010. Larissa J. Taylor et al., The Encyclopedia of Medieval Pilgrimage, Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Viollet-le-Duc 1854–1868. Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle, 10 vols., Paris: A. Morel, 1854–1868.

Walker 2012. Alicia Walker, “‘The art that does not think.’ Byzantine ‘Decorative Arts’: Limits of a Concept.” In: Colum Hourihane (ed.), From Minor to Major. The Minor Arts in Medieval Art History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton State University Press, 2012, pp. 169–193.

Walton, Champier, and Saglio 1900. William Walton, Victor Champier, and André Saglio, Exposition Universelle, 1900: The chefs-d'œuvre, Philadelphia, PA: G. Barrie & Son, 1900.

Wentzel 1970. Hans Wentzel, “Der Bergkristall mit der Geschichte der Susanna.” In: Pantheon, 28 (1970), pp. 365–372.

Wirth 1989. Jean Wirth, L’image médiévale: Naissance at développements (VIe-XVe siècle), Paris: Méridiens Klincksieck, 1989.

Wirth 1999. Jean Wirth, L’image à l’époque romane, Paris: Cerf, 1999.

Wirth 2004. Jean Wirth, La datation de la sculpture médiévale, Geneva: Droz, 2004.

Wixom 1967. William D. Wixom, Treasures from Medieval France, Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1967.

Wixom 1970. William D. Wixom, “The Greatness of the So-Called Minor Arts.” In: Florens Deuchler (ed.), The Year 1200: A Background Survey¸ New York, NY: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1970, pp. 93–99.

108

Exhibitions

Agen 2000. Le trésor de Sainte Foix de Conques à Agen. Agen, Musée d’Agen, 20 October–29 November 2000.

Aurillac 1959. Orfèvrerie et statuaire romane de Haute-Auvergne. Aurillac, Maison Consulaire, July–Septembre 1959. Exh. cat. Muzac 1959.

Cleveland–Baltimore–London 2010. Treasures of Heaven: Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe. Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art, 17 October 2010– 17 January 2011; Baltimore, The Walters Art Museum, 13 February 2011–15 May 2011; London, The British Museum, 23 June 2011–9 October 2011. Exh. cat. Bagnoli et al. 2010.

London 1932. Exhibition of French Art, 1200–1900. London, Burlington House, 4 January–12 March 1932.

Paris 1900. Exposition Universelle de 1900. Exposition rétrospective de l’art français des origines à 1800. Paris, Petit Palais, 1900. Exh. cat. Paris 1900.

Paris 1965. Les trésors des églises de France. Paris, Musée des Arts Décoratifs, 1965. Exh. cat. Taralon et al. 1965.

Paris 1992. Les Majestés du Cantal. Images de la Vierge en Haute-Auvergne. Paris, Musée du Luxembourg, 25 September–25 November, 1992. Exh. cat. Mèzard and Saunier 1992.

Paris 2001. Le trésor de Conques. Paris, Musée du Louvre, 2 November 2001–11 March 2002. Exh. cat. Gaborit-Chopin and Taburet-Delahaye 2001.

Paris 2005. La France romane au temps des premiers Capétiens. Paris, Musée du Louvre, 10 March–6 June, 2005. Exh. cat. Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005.

Paris 2011. Les reliques de saint Césaire d'Arles. Paris, Musée du Louvre, 16 November 2011–16 February 2012.

Saint-Flour 1966. Ve Centaire de la cathédrale. Documents d’histoire et art religieux. Saint-Flour, July–September 1966. Exh. cat. Bouyssou and Muzac 1966.

109

List of Illustrations

Fig. 1a Drawing by Nicolas Fabri de Peiresc of the head reliquary of St. Maurice with the crown commissioned by Boson, king of Burgundy. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS Lat. 17558, f. 28r, detail.

Source: Mélanges de Peiresc. | Gallica, accessed 4 June 2017, from http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90660084/f31.

Fig. 1b Drawing by Nicolas Fabri de Peiresc of the head reliquary of St. Maurice with the crown commissioned by Hughes of Arles, king of Italy. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 17558, f. 28v, detail.

Source: Mélanges de Peiresc. | Gallica, accessed 4 June 2017, from http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90660084/f32.

Fig. 2a Bust reliquary of St. Caesarius, 12th century. Abbey Church of Saint-Césaire, Saint-Césaire, Maurs.

Source: Maurs - Abbatiale - Buste-reliquaire de saint Césaire, accessed 9 June 2017, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maurs_-_Abbatiale_- _Buste-reliquaire_de_saint_C%C3%A9saire.JPG

Fig. 2b Bust reliquary of St. Caesarius, front and back, 12th century. Abbey Church of Saint-Césaire, Saint-Césaire, Maurs.

Source: Rochemonteix 1902, fig. 203, 204.

Fig. 3 Bust reliquary of St. Baudime, ca. 1146–1178. Church of Saint-Nectaire d'Auvergne, Saint-Nectaire, Puy-de-Dôme.

Source: Gaborit-Chopin and Avril 2005, p. 381.

Fig. 4 Reliquary of St. Peter, 1st half of 12the century. Musée de la Haute-Auvergne, Saint-Flour, Cantal.

Source: Gaborit and Faunières 2009, p. 37.

Fig. 5a Bust Reliquary of St. Theofrid, detail, 11th century. Abbey Church of Saint- Chaffre du Monastier, Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille, Haute-Loire.

110

Source: Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille, un patrimoine d’exception, accessed 15 June 2017, from http://leblogdumesnil.unblog.fr/2012/07/31/2012-43-le-monastier- sur-gazeille-un-patrimoine-dexception.

Fig. 5b Bust Reliquary of St. Theofrid, wooden core, 11th century. Abbey Church of Saint-Chaffre du Monastier, Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille, Haute-Loire.

Source: Buste de saint Chaffre sur âme de bois, accessed 15 June 2017, from www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/memoire_fr?ACTION=RETROUVER&FI ELD_5=LBASE&VALUE_5=PM43000327&NUMBER=10&GRP=0&REQ= ((PM43000327) %3aLBASE ).

Fig. 5c Bust Reliquary of St. Theofrid, 11th century. Abbey Church of Saint-Chaffre du Monastier, Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille, Haute-Loire.

Source: Reliquaire morphologique de saint Théophrède ou de saint Chaffre, de trois quarts droit, accessed 15 June 2017, from http://www.culture.gouv.fr/ public/mistral/memoire_fr?ACTION=RETROUVER&FIELD_5=LBASE&V ALUE_5=PM43000327&NUMBER=5&GRP=0&REQ=((PM43000327)%20 %3aLBASE%20).

Fig. 6 Bust Reliquary from Saint-Flour, 12th century. Musée de la Haute-Auvergne, Saint-Flour, Cantal.

Source: Une découverte archéologique exceptionnelle et un panorama du vitrail dans le Cantal au sommaire du n° 23 de Cantal Patrimoine - Patrimoine en Haute-Auvergne, accessed 1 June 2017, from http://patrimoinedehaute- auvergne.over-blog.com/article-94349392.html.

Fig. 7a Majesty of St. Foy, 9th/10th century. Abbey Church of Sainte-Foy, Conques, Aveyron.

Source: Saint Foy (9th century) | Abbey Church of St. Foy Conques, M… | Flickr, accessed 5 June 2017, from https://www.flickr.com/photos/sacred _destinations/2649841876

Fig. 7b Majesty of St. Foy, 9th/10th century. Abbey Church of Sainte-Foy, Conques, Aveyron.

Source: Katarína Kravčíková

111

Fig. 7c Majesty of St. Foy, detail, 9th/10th century. Abbey Church of Sainte-Foy, Conques, Aveyron.

Source: Katarína Kravčíková

Fig. 8 Cantigas de Santa María, c. 1260. Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, MS B.R. 20.

Source: Arsenio Frugoni and Chiara Frugoni, Storia di un giorno in una città medievale, Roma: Laterza, 1998, p. 27.

Fig. 9 Majesty of Clermont-Ferrand, before 946. Clermont-Ferrand, Bibliothèque communautaire et interuniversitaire, MS 145, f. 130v, after 984.

Source: BVMM - Clermont-Ferrand, Bibl. mun., ms. 0145, f. 130v - vue 1, accessed 3 June 2017, from http://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/consult/consult.php?mode= ecran&reproductionId=12110&VUE_ID=1325344.

Fig. 10 Harold swearing oath on holy relics to William. Bayeux tapestry, detail, c. 1070.

Source: David Marc Wilson, The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete Tapestry in Colour, London: Thames and Hudson, 1985, fig. 26.

112

Illustrations

Fig. 1a Drawing by Nicolas Fabri de Peiresc of the head reliquary of St. Maurice with the crown commissioned by Boson, king of Burgundy. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS Lat. 17558, f. 28r, detail.

Fig. 1b Drawing by Nicolas Fabri de Peiresc of the head reliquary of St. Maurice with the crown commissioned by Hughes of Arles, king of Italy. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 17558, f. 28v, detail.

113

Fig. 2a Bust reliquary of St. Caesarius, 12th century. Abbey Church of Saint-Césaire, Saint-Césaire, Maurs.

114

Fig. 2b Bust reliquary of St. Caesarius, front and back, 12th century. Abbey Church of Saint-Césaire, Saint-Césaire, Maurs.

115

Fig. 3 Bust reliquary of St. Baudime, ca. 1146–1178. Church of Saint-Nectaire d'Auvergne, Saint-Nectaire, Puy-de-Dôme.

116

Fig. 4 Reliquary of St. Peter, 1st half of 12the century. Musée de la Haute-Auvergne, Saint-Flour, Cantal.

117

Fig. 5a Bust Reliquary of St. Theofrid, detail, 11th century. Abbey Church of Saint- Chaffre du Monastier, Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille, Haute-Loire.

118

Fig. 5b Bust Reliquary of St. Theofrid, wooden core, 11th century. Abbey Church of Saint-Chaffre du Monastier, Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille, Haute-Loire.

Fig. 5c Bust Reliquary of St. Theofrid, 11th century. Abbey Church of Saint-Chaffre du Monastier, Le Monastier-sur-Gazeille, Haute-Loire.

119

Fig. 6 Bust Reliquary from Saint-Flour, 12th century. Musée de la Haute-Auvergne, Saint-Flour, Cantal.

120

Fig. 7a Majesty of St. Foy, 9th/10th century. Abbey Church of Sainte-Foy, Conques, Aveyron.

121

Fig. 7b Majesty of St. Foy, 9th/10th century. Abbey Church of Sainte-Foy, Conques, Aveyron.

Fig. 7c Majesty of St. Foy, detail, 9th/10th century. Abbey Church of Sainte-Foy, Conques, Aveyron.

122

Fig. 8 Cantigas de Santa María, c. 1260. Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, MS B.R. 20.

123

Fig. 9 Majesty of Clermont-Ferrand, before 946. Clermont-Ferrand, Bibliothèque communautaire et interuniversitaire, MS 145, f. 130v, after 984.

124

Fig. 10 Harold swearing oath on holy relics to William. Bayeux tapestry, detail, c. 1070.

125