A Legacy of Resistance: The Case of the Freckenhorst Baptismal Font1 Harriet M. Sonne de Torrens Abstract Since 1823 the consecration date of 1129 for the Church of St. Boniface, inscribed on the Freckenhorst baptismal font from the imperial convent of St. Boniface (Westphalia, Germany), has continued to be considered, by some, the date for when the font was carved. For over two hundred years this precocious date has divided academic communities, despite the numerous and compre- hensive counter arguments asserting that the font is a later twelfth century if not early thirteenth century vessel. This raises the question, “Why has there been such resistance to recognize this ves- sel as a later product of the prolific Westphalian stone industry?” This article reviews the historio- graphy to uncover the roots of the ‘sanctified status’ that the Freckenhorst font acquired over the centuries from the post-Imperial period of Germany through the two World Wars. The literature reveals not only why the Freckenhorst font came to symbolize ‘Germanic ingenuity’ for German art historians but also the challenges and changes within the evolving discipline of art history and the scholarly networks that connected art historians in the first half of the twentieth century. Keywords Freckenhorst, Baptismal Font, St. Boniface, Medieval, Romanesque, Sculpture, Quedlin- burg, Hegwald, Johnny Roosval, Inscriptions, Historiography Author Ph.D., L.M.S., Dept. of Visual Studies and UTM Library, Univ. of Toronto Mississauga, Canada Email [email protected] Iconographisk Post Nordisk tidskrift för bildtolkning • Nordic Review of Iconography Nr 3 /4, 2019, pp. 6–47. issn 2323-5586 Introduction2 Dating Romanesque baptismal fonts is a baptismal fonts in the late nineteenth and process fraught with challenges.3 Baptis- first-half of the twentieth century, like oth- mal fonts are frequently the oldest, me- er medieval works, have been reviewed, re- dieval object preserved in European com- vised or reconsidered according to chang- 4 Fig. 1. Freckenhorst baptismal font, late 12th century at the earliest to early 13th century, munities. Since World War II many of ing methodologies, new research about Collegiate Church of St. Boniface, Warendorf, Münster, Germany. Photo BSI. the precocious dates assigned to medieval the sites, comparative works, the region nordic review of iconography 7 harriet m. sonne de torrens A Legacy of Resistance: The Case of the Freckenhorst Baptismal Font or in relation to the general understand- can be a daunting task. And, the legacy of dorf-Freckenhorst (Westphalia, Germa- ly communities.12 The Freckenhorst bap- ing of medieval art.5 Given the literally non-integrated scholarship on fonts from ny) with the inscribed date of 1129 com- tismal font is such a case, but uniquely ‘thousands’ of medieval baptismal fonts other areas of inquiry, poses continual im- memorating the consecration of St. Bon- so. In the nineteenth-and-early-twenti- produced in the Golden Age, that is the pediments. Nevertheless, it is important iface by Bishop Egbert is one such exam- eth-century scholarship German schol- twelfth and thirteen centuries, there is an to point out that the renowned and, often, ple that warrants a closer look at the his- ars situated and entrenched the Frecken- extensive corpus of scholarship, especial- monumental surveys undertaken in the toriography (fig. 1).9 For nearly two hun- horst font at the very origins of monumen- ly, on the more renowned works, which in first half of the twentieth century are still dred years, since 1823, the Freckenhorst tal sculpture in Westphalian Romanesque some cases go back to the eighteenth cen- the foundational work of any investiga- font has been at the centre of an on-going art – much like Roosval did with respect tury or earlier. tion in the field, despite the inherently dat- date debate. It is not unusual to encoun- to the Hegwald workshop on Gotland When reviewing dates for medieval ed assumptions and circumscribed metho- ter incongruences concerning the origins and the commencement of the first phase baptismal fonts, scholars are faced with dologies. and the dates assigned to baptismal fonts of carving stone fonts on Gotland.13 In an especially daunting task, often compli- Adding to the challenge is the accumu- in the early scholarship. Many, however, fact, in 1925 Roosval suggested that the cated by the fact that many of the Roman- lated literature on the comparative works, have subsequently been reconsidered.10 In Hegwald baptismal fonts were even earlier esque fonts, produced in active ateliers, many of which have been re-dated and dis- the case of the Freckenhorst font, there re- than the Freckenhorst font, dating the He- were part of a larger stone industry.6 This cussed in a wide range of dispersed pub- mains a reluctance to rigorously affirm a gwald fonts from c. 1095 to 1130.14 As a re- meant that a single workshop with sever- lications over the decades. Consequent- later date for the vessel, despite the numer- sult, a broader, cohesive European frame- al artisans was producing numerous works. ly, the intimidating and time-consuming ous counter arguments. The inscribed date work began to emerge for the develop- The nineteenth-and-twentieth-century art process of pursuing a comprehensive re- of 1129 is frequently cited, but often with ment of northern Romanesque sculpture. historical divisions of medieval art into view of the scholarship is often by-passed. no firm attribution to a later period, leav- The Hegwald fonts have since have been genres, such as the minor arts or types of The datings in earlier scholarship may sim- ing the actual date of the font ambiguous. attributed a later date.15 The Freckenhorst objects, like baptismal fonts, enabled com- ply be repeated, especially, if attributed to Due to this equivocation, the earlier asser- font was at the forefront of the divisive prehensive but often segregated overviews renowned historians. Unfortunately, this tions of renowned scholars such as Erwin and wide-spread discussions about what of these hundreds of works. This, may or reinforces outmoded or relevant counter Panofsky (1892–1968) or those who stud- constituted ‘Germanic’ art, regionally, as may not, be an advantage given that many arguments that have long been forgotten ied baptismal fonts such as Johnny Roos- well as, within Romanesque art, national- medieval fonts were carved by the same or submerged in the extensive literature. val (1879–1965), Georg Pudelko (1905– ly and internationally, acquiring a political workshops producing tomb slabs, capitals, There are numerous reasons why a histori- 1972), and Folke Nordström (1920–1997), dimension in World War II. These wider portal sculpture and other stone works.7 an is prompted to return to the earlier lit- and who advocated for the 1129 date, are discussions, framed by imminent scholars Earlier divisions can impose constraints erature, either to counter-argue or to re- often repeated, despite current scholarship within the changing discipline of art histo- whether it be segregating the scholarship vive an earlier, significant idea that was and the numerous counter arguments over ry, have been of considerable interest since or simply by the sheer number of works overlooked, rejected or not fully investi- the decades.11 World War II.16 A prolonged legacy teth- which have been assigned to a single group gated. And, most certainly, when a legacy In the historiography of baptismal fonts, ered the font to the idealized post-imperial or category that might need to be re-exam- obstructs or continues to cast doubts on renowned vessels often acquired a sancti- discussions on what constituted German- ined. For fonters, that is, those dedicated contemporary investigations and current fied status. A status that was deeply rooted ic culture, nationalism and artistic identi- to the study of this single vessel, to adhere scholarship, a closer scrutiny of the earlier in the scholarship and the collective, cul- ty in a period when historians sought to to earlier dates and frameworks is a con- arguments is warranted, no matter how ex- tural memory and identity of communi- define Germanic art.17 And yet, numer- stant temptation.8 For when you begin to tensive such a scholarly corpus may be. ties. So much so, that when new research ous historians recognized that the Freck- analyse one work in a group of many, ulti- The exquisite baptismal font in the Col- questioned a vessel’s prestigious position, enhorst font was an anomaly from several mately, the others must be reviewed. This legiate Church of St. Boniface in Waren- it was rejected by both local and scholar- perspectives: the inscription, the style, the 8 iconographisk post nr 3/4, 2019 nordic review of iconography 9 harriet m. sonne de torrens A Legacy of Resistance: The Case of the Freckenhorst Baptismal Font Fig. 2. Annunciation to date was accepted and examines the con- …NEI. E. GEBERTO ORDINAT. ANNO Mary, Freckenhorst baptis- current, as well as, the recent counter ar- II. CONSECRATU. E. HOC TEMPLUM mal font, late 12th century guments for why the Freckenhorst font + ANNO AB INCARNAT. DOMINI. MCXXVIIII.E.PACT. XXVIII.20 at the earliest to early 13th should be considered a later work. Due century, Collegiate Church [The complete Latin inscription for this sec- of St. Boniface, Warendorf, to the extensive scholarship, the historio- tion is: NON(AS) IVN(II) A VENERAB(ILI) Münster, Germany. graphy on this single font offers addition- EP(ISCOP)O MIMIGARDEVORDENSI Photo BSI (Baptisteria al insights into the changing art histori- EGBERTO ORDINAT(IONIS) SVE ANNO Sacra Index). cal methodologies and how political and II CONSECRATV(M) E(ST) HOC TEM- ideological factors shaped and defined the PLUM. – This last section was not visible in 1823, see below p. 10 for the full inscription and views of some art historians.