Bod-Favl BeIiquavies TIe Slale oJ BeseavcI

AulIov|s) BavIava BvaIe BoeIn

Bevieved vovI|s)
Souvce Oesla, VoI. 36, No. 1 |1997), pp. 8-19
FuIIisIed I International Center of Medieval Art
SlaIIe UBL http://www.jstor.org/stable/767275 .
Accessed 26/03/2012 0717
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
International Center of Medieval Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Gesta.
http://www.jstor.org
Body-Part Reliquaries:
The State of Research
BARBARA DRAKE BOEHM
The
Metropolitan
Museum
of
Art
Abstract
For the first time since the nineteenth
century, pub-
lished
articles, monographs, conferences,
and lectures
dedicated to the medieval cult of relics have
proliferated
during
the
past
decade.' Studies
specifically
of
reliquar-
ies that assume the form of
parts
of the human
body
have
begun
to
occupy
a small corner of this field of
research. The newness of this
pursuit
in literature
pub-
lished in
English
is evidenced in the rather awkward
and
inelegant
term
"body-part reliquaries"
that has been
adopted
in the context of this
publication
of
papers
that
were first offered at the
College
Art Association in San
Antonio in
February
1995. This
essay surveys
the state
of research on
"body-part reliquaries." By way
of
specific
example, particular emphasis
is
placed
on French
works,
a number of which survive and about which there is con-
siderable documentation. Given the
perspective
of the au-
thor,
a museum curator and
specialist
on the
subject
of
head
reliquaries,
consideration is also
placed
on the in-
stallation of such
reliquaries
in American museums and
what that
suggests, historically,
about their
perception
as
works of art.
Throughout
the nineteenth
century
and until well after
the Second World War the
study
of
reliquaries,
and within
that context the classification and
study
of those whose con-
tainers assume the form of
parts
of the human
body,
was
largely
the
province
of historians drawn to their
subject
either
by
virtue of their vocation in the Roman Catholic
Church,
or
by
their interest in national
patrimony.
One of the earliest
scholarly investigations
of the medieval veneration of
saints,
including,
somewhat
incidentally,
the enshrinement of their
relics,
was written
by Stephan
Beissel in 1890.2 Beissel was a
member of the
Bollandists,
a Jesuit
group
devoted to the
study
of
hagiography
and
responsible
for the
publication
of the Acta
sanctorum and the Analecta Bollandiana.3 The first
encyclo-
pedic attempt
to discuss and
analyze
the medieval
production
of
reliquaries
of all
types
was written
by
Beissel's student and
fellow
Jesuit, Joseph
Braun. While
teaching archaeology
and
art
history
for his order at
Valkenburg, Frankfurt,
and Pullach
near
Munich,
he
published probing
studies on focused themes
of the
liturgical arts, including
Der christliche Altar in seiner
geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Munich, 1924), Die liturgische
Gewandung im Occident und Orient nach Ursprung und Ent-
wicklung, Verwendung und Symbolik (Freiburg
im
Breisgau,
1907), Sakramente und Sakramentalian
(Regensburg, 1922),
and Das christliche
Altargeriit
in seinem Sein und seiner Ent-
wicklung (Munich, 1932). Within this context, Die Reliquiare
des christlichen Kultes und ihre Entwicklung
was
published
in
Freiburg
im
Breisgau
in
1940,
with an introduction
by
the
author
signed
on the Feast of Pentecost and
bearing
the nihil
obstat of the
Society
of Jesus.
Braun listed both
surviving
and recorded
reliquaries,
exhaustively tallying
their number over the course of Middle
Ages,
as well as the Renaissance and
Baroque periods.
He
classified
reliquaries by
their form. Under the rubric of "Re-
dende
Reliquiire"
("Talking Reliquaries"),
which included all
manner of
reliquaries
whose form
apparently
related to the
relics
they contained,4
he first listed
examples
in the form of
a
foot,
then others
shaped
like a
hand, finger, rib, arm, leg,
followed
by figural reliquaries
in the form of a head or bust.
For
reliquaries
in the form of a head or a bust
alone,
over 150
examples
were cited. Braun's work established an
approach
to
the
subject
that has been
imitated,
but not
surpassed, by
iso-
lated
publications
since 1964
by Kovaics, Bessard,
and Falk.5
Churchmen likewise
played
a role in the
numbering
and
study
of medieval
reliquaries preserved
in France. Abb6 Tex-
ier noted the
presence
of
forty-seven reliquaries
in the form
of an arm in churches of the Limousin alone.6 The
publica-
tion
by
Bouillet and Servibres of the
Majesty
of Saint
Foy
at
Conques,
the
golden image
that enshrines the head of the vir-
gin saint,
and their translation of the
legend
of Saint
Foy
into
French,
were done in the
years immediately following
the bish-
op's investigation
of the relics in the nineteenth
century.7
An
introductory
letter from the
bishop
of Rodez and Vabres de-
clared the book to be "une oeuvre
d'apostolat capable
d'6difier
les
ames," noting
that
"l'aimable
sainte vous a
d6j'a marqu6
sa
gratitude par
les satisfactions
qu'elle
vous a
prodigu6es."8
Overall, however,
the
study
of
reliquaries
in France has
largely
been advanced
by
historians concerned with docu-
menting
national
patrimony.
The first
example
of a
body-part
reliquary preserved
in France-the head of Saint
Maurice,
commissioned
by Boson, king
of Provence from 879-887 and
brother-in-law of Charles the Bald-was described in 1625
by
Nicolas Fabri de
Peiresc,
an
indefatigable
historian and
naturalist.9
Its appearance
was recorded in two
pencil
sketches
as
part
of his wider
investigation
of
important
monuments of
the
history
of
France, including
the vessels
preserved
at Saint-
Denis, notably
the chalice of Abbot
Suger.10
The
pivotal
article
discussing
the
reliquary
recorded
by
Peiresc in the seventeenth
century
was
published by
Eva Kov~cs
only
in 1964.11 The bust
reliquaries
that formed
part
of the
treasury
of Saint-Denis are
recorded
among
and
alongside
a wide variety of
liturgical
ob-
jects
in the
engravings
of the cabinets published by Dom M.
F61ibien,
Histoire de l'abbaye royale de Saint-Denys en France
8 GESTA XXXVI/1
?
The International Center of Medieval Art 1997
1~~~~1)-
g> ..
P; .
-~~
~
,..T:i
.
......:
FIGURE 1. Saint-Nectaire, Bust
Reliquary of
St. Baudime, as recorded
by
Anatole
d'Auvergne,
Revue des societ~s savantes, ser. 2, 1
(1859) (photo:
Bibliotheque nationale, Paris).
(Paris, 1706).
The
appearance
of the head
reliquary
of Saint
Louis from the
Sainte-Chapelle
was recorded as the frontis-
piece engraving
for the 1688 Paris edition of Joinville's His-
toire de s. Louis IX. In the nineteenth
century,
the
journals
of
French
archaeological societies,
on both the national and local
levels,
were of
great importance
in
making
known
reliquaries
like the bust of Saint Baudime at
Saint-Nectaire,
recorded
by
Anatole
d'Auvergne
in 1859
(Figs. 1-2).12
Ernest
Rupin
discussed a number of
reliquaries
in the
form of busts in a
separate chapter
of his
book,
L'Oeuvre de
Limoges, published
in Paris and Brive in 1890. As a native of
the
region,
and sometime
president
of the Soci6t6 arch6o-
logique
et
historique
du
Limousin,
he dedicated himself to
publishing
the metalwork that he attributed to the Limousin.
In so
doing,
he classified
reliquaries by
their
form, noting that,
while the
majority
of
reliquaries
contained bodies or
body
parts,
it was often the case in the Middle
Ages
that the "enve-
lope"
reflected the contents.13
Rupin
also
published
an article
li iiiiii ii
.................................................................
:: : : : : :: : : : :: : : : : : : I: : : : : :: : : : :':::::
i
iiiiii iii iii i iiii iiiii iiii iiii ii i
~i::i - ::: :: :: :::_::::i::::i ::::?::::_:-::_-:-: -:-:: --:: :-: :-: :-:_ :: ::-: . -::- :_: _:- -: ::_- :::: ::::::: :::: -::: ::: ::: : :: :::::- --:- : ::- :: -:: ::
:::: ::::::: :::: : : : : :: ::: ::::::::::: ::: :::: :::: ::: ::: : ::: ::: :
iii~i!7 7 ii~iiii~!!i~i!!!!!!!:i i: !! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! !!! i!
iiiiii~i~ iii~iT~iii i :: :: :: : :: : : ::::: :: :: :: :: : iiiii :i
:::: : :: :: : : : :: : :: : :: : : : : ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: : :: :: ::: :: :: : :: ::: :
: : :: : : : :: : :: : : : :: : :: :: ::: ::: : : : : : : : :: :: :: : :: : :
:::: :: _i i: i-
i:ii
i
iii i i iii
FIGURE 2. Saint-Nectaire, Bust
Reliquary of
St. Baudime, 12th
century
(photo:
Caisse nationale des monuments
historiques
et des sites, Paris).
on one head
reliquary
in the
region,
the head of Saint Martin
from Soudeilles.14
His work did not
pass
without
notice,
for it was in the
context of
Rupin's publication
that two
examples
were
pre-
sented to J.
Pierpont Morgan,
the American banker whose
vast collection of medieval art forms the nucleus of the Me-
dieval
Department's holdings
at the
Metropolitan
Museum.15
Both
the bust of Saint Yrieix
(Fig. 6)
and the one of Saint
Martin-then in
parish
churches of the Limousin and now in
the
Metropolitan
Museum and the Louvre
respectively-were
acquired
for his collection in the first decade of this
century.
Morgan's acquisitions
of these
objects along
with other
liturgical
arts seems to have been a function of his own keen
antiquarian
taste and the
development
of his
"princely"
col-
lection,
rather than of his own faith
(Morgan
was an
Episco-
palian)
or of his national
heritage. Henry
Walters of
Baltimore,
a Roman Catholic and
Morgan's only
real rival as an Ameri-
can collector of medieval
liturgical art, apparently
did not have
9

ii-i-i i-i iii-i-i:iii i-iii
i::-i2
i-i
ii
ii-i
:
iii-ii i~i~i~i ::i--::'
W -
.0 .1::
FIGURE 3. Bust
Reliquary of
Saint Juliana, After 1376, New York, Metro-
politan
Museum
of
Art
(photo: Metropolitan
Museum
of Art, New
York).
a taste for
"body-part" reliquaries. Morgan's
interest does not
seem to have been
shaped by
mainstream art
history,
but
by
the
example
of French amateur
collectors;
there was no
Berenson-like
figure influencing
his choice of these
singular
works of art. In
fact, beyond
the confines of Roman Catholic
literature and discussions of
patrimony,
art historical
study
continued to
ignore
such
works,
and when
discussing them,
to be dismissive of them.
As national
treasures, reliquaries
in the form of
parts
of
the
body
were
important
items in the
great Exposition
Uni-
verselle held in Paris in 1900. The culmination of the inves-
tigation
of such
reliquaries
as national
patrimony
was the
1965 exhibition
Trhsors
des
eglises
de
France,
which included
nineteen head/bust
reliquaries
and
twenty-one arms,
as well
as foot and
thigh reliquaries.16 By contrast,
two
years
later,
the
international loan exhibition held at
Cleveland, Treasures from
Medieval
France,
focused on
sculpture
and
manuscripts.17
Al-
though
it featured thirteen works of art that likewise had
figured
in the Paris
show,
it included but a
single example
of
a bust
reliquary
and none of other
body parts.
By
this
time, body-part reliquaries
had
begun
to enter
into art historical literature
following
Harald Keller's
theory,
---
II :I
:
:-:-:
ii
-:::
:::'
i ii ::'
- i:ii
-:::::
i
-i:
: 1
i
:- --_
: i :iii~
:: :: 1 -:
;-----------
- ::-- : ::- i:- i:::i- _:_-:;iiiii~iiiwi.~~i:iliiii:_ii:-- ii::: -,-,~.~?iiisiiaiiii''i:iiisiiii : :: -i-i--:i- -:: :
FIGURE 4. Bust
Reliquary of
Saint Juliana
(as
in
Fig. 3), x-ray photo-
graph of
wooden core with
gesso build-up (photo: Metropolitan
Museum
of Art, New
York).
published
in
1951,
that
they
were
key
elements in the rebirth
of monumental
sculpture.
Keller asserted that the individual
limbs and truncated torsos
represented
the first
attempts
on
the road to
representing
the entire human
figure.18
It was this
line of research that informed a number of
subsequent
con-
siderations of this material. In the 1950s Rainer Riickert be-
gan
a
study
for a doctoral dissertation on the
subject
of head
reliquaries. Again,
the
principal
motivation was the exami-
nation of the "evolution" of medieval
sculpture.
The result
was an
important
article on
sculptural
metalwork of the
Limoges region,
without further
investigation
of the bust
reliquary
as a form in Western medieval art.19
The
only publication
on
reliquaries
to follow the
Tresors
des
eglises
exhibition was entitled "Les Bustes
Reliquaires
et
la
sculpture."20
The
single entry
on a bust
reliquary
in the
Cleveland
catalogue
of Treasures
from
Medieval France dis-
cussed the work as the
equivalent
of a Renaissance
portrait
bust-emphasizing
the
degree
of naturalism it
achieves, sug-
gesting again
an
"evolution,"
towards the canon of Renais-
sance art.21 For American scholars of the Renaissance,
such
as
Irving
Lavin22 and Anita
Moskowitz,
the
importance
of
bust
reliquaries
has been their
relationship
to Renaissance
10
portrait
busts,
Moskowitz
maintaining
that
"reliquary
heads
and busts
tend, throughout
the Middle
Ages,
toward
portray-
als that
suggest
individual likenesses."23
In an American museum context the treatment of
body-
part reliquaries
has likewise focused on them as
portraiture.
Of the four busts of
companions
of Ursula in the Metro-
politan,
three were
purchased
between 1959 and 1970. The
papers
for their
acquisition
stressed their
importance
as
por-
traiture,
and
indeed,
their installation until the late 1980s
atop
a credenza at The Cloisters was a
setting
more
appropriate
to
Renaissance busts than to devotional
objects.24
In
addition,
museums have
pursued
what
might
be called
the
archaeology
of
reliquaries, meticulously examining
their
construction and their contents,
rather than
considering
them
for their aesthetic
importance
or historical context. A notable
example
was Paul
Pieper's study
of the Head of Saint Paul at
Miinster, published
in
1967,25
and Rudolf
Schnyder's
of the
head of Saint Candidus.26 In
1963,
Thomas
Hoving
examined
the bust of Saint Juliana at The Cloisters
using x-ray
technol-
ogy (Figs. 3, 4), just
as the French had done for the
image
of
Saint
Foy
at
Conques. Perhaps
unable to shake the
parallels,
he theorized the existence of an earlier male bust
underlying
the
princess-like
Juliana, just
as
Taralon, similarly,
had iden-
tified an
imperial
Roman mask as the face of the
virgin
martyr Foy
at
Conques.27
It was not until the
publication
of
the
Thyssen
collection in 1987 that what
Hoving
saw as the
peculiarities
of the Juliana bust were
explained
in the context
of Sienese
polychromed sculpture.28
As a
result,
its relation-
ship
to lost
reliquary
busts such as those of Peter and Paul
made for the Vatican29 or the Bust of Saint
Agatha
in the trea-
sury
of Catania30
(Fig. 5)
was overlooked.
The
disassembling
of the
reliquary
of Saint Yrieix
(Figs.
6, 7)
at the
Metropolitan
Museum in the 1960s
provides
a
particularly telling example
of this
approach
to
body-part
reliquaries. During preparation
for the
Tre'sors
des
dglises
ex-
hibition,
it came to the attention of French and American art
historians that there were two versions of the
reliquary.
That
this fact had not been
explored
since the
acquisition
of the
reliquary
in 1917 is in itself testament to the inattention these
works of art have received. The
response
was to
strip
the Saint
Yrieix in New York of his silver
sheathing.
In
fact,
careful
comparative
examination of the
examples
in Paris and New
York based on
existing
Monuments
Historiques photographs
would have shown conclusively
that the New York example
was the original,
even though
the relic itself had been trans-
ferred to the
copy
in France in 1907. Since the 1960s the wood
core and silver revetment of the reliquary
head of Saint Yrieix
have been exhibited side by side, the prevailing opinion being
that the core, a masterly piece
of Gothic wood carving,
is too
beautiful to cover.
Such thinking springs
from a
prejudice
in art historical
literature that undervalues "minor arts" like goldsmithswork,
and especially sculpture
in
precious
metal. The 1975 edition
of Gardner's History of
Art includes no body-part reliquaries
S- - :'- ----- ----- - ----- -------------- ::- : : -:: -: : : -::
mft? ;x..
FIGURE 5. Bust
Reliquary of
Saint
Agatha,
14th
century
and later, Church
of Sant'Agata,
Catania
(photo: after Rossi, 1956).
of
any
kind. In
fact,
Gardner illustrates no
Romanesque
or
Gothic
goldsmithswork,
at all. The one inclusion is a Caro-
lingian
bookcover-the Codex Aureus of Saint Emmeram.
In
periodical
literature
reliquaries
have been considered
par-
enthetically
in relation to other
questions.
For
example,
the
head
reliquary
of Saint Alexander
preserved
in Brussels has
been examined
chiefly
for its
importance
in the
beginnings
of
champlev6
enameling.
Other forms, especially
arms,
but also,
exceptionally, fingers
and
thighs,
have
barely
been considered
at all.31
This
disregard may
be attributed,
in
part,
to the fact that
so much
goldsmithswork
has been
destroyed,
and
that,
in
American museums,
it is
particularly
rare.32 But I would ar-
gue
that
reliquary sculpture
has been not
merely
undervalued,
but,
in some circles,
considered
suspect,
as well.
Although
body-part reliquaries
were embraced as a
subject by
Roman
Catholic historians in
Europe, they
were
generally rejected
as
a
subject
of serious research in America. An
important
ex-
ception-and virtually
the
only
discussion in
English
of bust
11
. .... . ....
.-_. ........ .
. ... .
: -_i:--Al-
.... .. ... ... . .
.i
...........~
4M.Aia-:
... . ........
ii~i ...... .......~
......... ....... .
..... . . . . . .- i : ii
..........ii l ii -i . i iii
....
......- -i
All ol.!R?!?2
.. ........'ii
:-i': ii..............
A. . .... .... ........
i-i~ii-_i:iiiiiiii :.. . iii -ij~-........ .........~-:li
-- W ..........
. . . . .........
..... ..... . ..... ... ...
.......
... . ... . m
-: -: i:-:-: . i-ii
-i-.
.. .........i~i
. . . .... ..
.. .. ...
: : iEii'i~i~fliiiiiir:r'lr";ass p ~ l~,.. . . ........._ir-
. . .......
FIGURE 6. Bust
Reliquary of
Saint Yrieix, the silver
casing,
12th
century,
New York, Metropolitan
Museum
of
Art
(photo: Metropolitan
Museum
of Art, New
York).
12
- " I .... I'll .-,-. .
. .".
...
1. -111 - . -., 1? ?::, ? -- I ? -'?..'?Iz .1 M. ,x, . ? . . k??: .. .. MIM , ,MM.M?...,... . - , - . , . . ..- - ,
??, ,:?? ,::? ?::K:::?o.
?
... . . .. I " , .. .. .. ,?:?m
. m -,gmm
; . ?
Mr., WWR?'.i
?
"I.", ,
.
Mom ?g ... . NN ' ,, ,... * . 1.11, . X.? .1 ,
I...,-"-.,.
1-.11.11.1. ., . ?
?.,??..xi??.??:?
x g
........... .. ? W ......
::.*.
0 - - -
g - . a
, I.. ,....-- -,%..? -
.
?.,-. ... , .. . I W "', .. -
ll- -
..., 1% I
?'-'-' M
Z
?a ....
lt.v MH ?', .. .
.M l.- ...?.,... .. I
,? ,
,- ......... ", ......... ... 11 - . ... I ..
I
, I - - l ...- --l- ...
ft'.
M . ....
- ?::: "%.-
..... .::
ii ??, ,,?.?,??n.:.?
,:: M
... ?, P ......,
, I sm :,:::: ...
,
.... .. - m
.. ....
.
. ..... .. ?o , ?? ... .
?? ':
.
M. " ? - --:--:-:? ?0 3.
m! ?
. . .. - ,...........- ... -.. ..,
MA"
I ,.,x
.. . ...
. . . . . . . . , , , ", I ? ? . . . ,??.R':
. .
.?. V,
. . . . x , . : 4 ::., :.- .
x .
.-
....;,.?..
--,...'.............
" . .. p
-:..??: E I .I.: I.. .1R.IX .
'..;-;-..;.:..l,? ... p
. .
.. M.. --Xm...
-:..
...-
1.1-1-1. - -.?.?...-
ll.,?--
..... - . -
??.,, -..
-11.
? .....1
", ... I .... .
,w 7
? , ?
??::::!?.:::??,,.??:?,???:,.::?:?
.
,.::: ... I .m ...... .. . ...? ...
,., .
' ... ..
- - ",-:-.............
.....- . ..
I
.'. ?'., ", - ? ,-- ,,....,. .I .
. I . ? .:::?::
::?:::%:?:,:.:.,
. .. . ? 1, ?. x- -, - . .l. -
.... . ?. ,.t , ??; ??.: . . .1 . . . .1.
...
.
",
hL.
.-
-,,?:,.:
k -, IV , -. ..
.
. . , . .. 11
W-??:::,M ?.,
.
.
. .
. . ,:: :::?, - .:?,??,'?
::- - - ... ,..-,...I..
... ...
............... .....
... .
. ," ::. .-...-....-.......... . ... . ... . I
....'..........
....
.. ":" ??..,...V?..?.?-1.?..?..?..%.,?lI
.
. .
.. I -:-::-: - .
....
. . .,-..-....-: 5:?- -- - ..:?..:: ..... . . .
.....
1. - ? ................. .... ...... .
-.-
?.
..:?::...,:
.::?
.
..
.
. ? ::?
.:.- .- .:.::.....?.:..V.:.:
.., .. . . . . ..
:.. ? 1.? ?,-- .... l-.-%.-.., .. . ... ,--., :, I - :? . . . .. . . ...... ....... ..... -.A '. ..... - . . . . . . . . . ... ... . .. . . . : . . .1 .. ?: .
I......
I ,
. ...
?
....,
.
..... I....
. .
. . . - I . I . . I . .
. . ? . . , .. . . .
? ., -... - .. . . . ., : . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. ,., , . : .,.,.::: : I . .... . .. ,?
j........Xm.
11,
::?...?:??: :,? x . . . . I . ': , - . . ... , , . , ... ..
, : ? .: ,,: ?x.:??,?::?. .. I . .. ,:--, I -? ..... %,. ....
.
..
- .,-...-..-........... . ?? .. ? ? v- ... F ..... v ...... % ... ... I..''... . ... zll?'- . .,:.? M::??::. ... - . , . :,::: . :::-.-:::?.::-:-
. :,.-?
. ? .? I.I.- ? ? ? ? ........... - . I ?. , .. I... .. .. ... ... ... . I ., ?
I... - .. .- : -:- ? ?;:. - ..-.::, .. Mll? -
- ?::-,-:- ?__- .... ? .. - . -, ... 11-1 - .
...-.. .. ,. ,., ? ?. ..-..........??.....?......,...........?...- ,. .. 0- - : I X:: ? ,....,... ,. I : -... 11 , ., ,
,?.
t2 ---..." ... ji .? - .. .. .. , .
:. - -..: ...... ? . ..................... ....
I'.,.
- .
-:-,.::..--
,:.
...
- ...
I
;. ...-
.- := ,- ..:,-- . .... .: P ?? - Z: .. --... . - , . -.- . . .. . " . -.1.
- .. - ... ... .. . .
-
. ?
.. ::: ::: ::: ::" .:,: :- .:..:- ... .. :::: .
I ?
11 ... -:-- -. .. .1 ?
"... - . - . . . . ................... I ... ? ....... ... - %V-M-%. ,... ? .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ..
. v,?::?- ............ I ... I.. :? - :-- - .............. . .. '
'.. .. .. .' '. . ...... .. .. ....- ,
-- -,,,.:,::.-
..
- ,-:- ... %.- .-..-. ,?.?
. ? ... 1. ??VT, MEAL
-
4 ... . --, .-
-,?..%
-....- . ...... .. ".-I. , . , . - .
:::'l.,:l
.l..",l ? ?.,.:.-- .. : . .::, K- - ?- ?- . 1
I... ,
m - - .. ...
.
... I.:.,:: I.....- -...,....,-. ::.z".? 1. .! ,
?? .. ...... .... ?:,i: .....
..? .
I
-
-
?
... %.- ...
V- -
...
?-
?
-- .....
,
:-.1???,.?l.,-".,??:,:.,.?.:.:..''.:-
,. I -
.?.: m'
??. ,
- - . . , ? ?Kll.? , ill
'I"
.. . ... -, ?:, - - :,?:.:,?: . .... . :.: .. ?W lk?r:% : ,. .g,,.:.: ..l. I... . I ? . .% " ".:. .,: ..
??
- ? .... . x
.: .
:
,
" I ... ... .:.:-- - ,. - , ..... I.. : ., . , & ..;, . , .. . -- ,- . ...... -,.- .-...-..l .............. 11 ........ 11 .... ' ... I ??::??:??:?:??: .. ' .... :::?::- :::,.- ?: . .1
.??:,??:??:?
... : :??:??:::?.??:?:?M
1: ll? - :
- :.?::?.: ?:::,:. ::, -
"I .11 ?.....
kxlm'2111.--... ...,.,r
.
:::,?.? ?.M . ',::?:::?:- . . - . - :1 I . ....... - .:.' ' . I ?. ..
'.1
. -j . ::. ,
- .. ."
:
;?,??ff, .
-
-...m .-.:: .
I . . I .11 .... ? ?.. ? ....... ?....., ... . %,,-,- ..,.l...- ... ... ... ?. " ,.,..% ... ..... ?.._ - .. -
Y '..."....:.. , ,- ..,...... ,- . - m.. ... X ?
::i.4 .....:xx
ii?. .....'......... I.. I - 11 . . . . . . . . ... . - f.. ? ,
::::.,?.::....:.::??:..:?:?,i:::?:?:::::
" . ... I.. I .
. ... . 1
.1 ...
,:. ? . .... - .. :::F. -? ..'? .I.... :
.11 - - .. ... ? ............. 9 :
%?:
. .m. . . I ... -:-,-??::-:? .. .... . , - ., - ?'... I .......... . .. M ... . : ; , -
,.? .
. : ,
:
, :,:, ..?'. X:...??:.?.:::
. ....
... ,
?
-11-1- I - - - * e
- . .
, .1 . - .:::,.
?: .
&??.'Xmm.-----
- ., - . - . .
-
- . - . ..... .
M
. ??.,.
.......
..:
. . . - .. .1 .. ,... :- , 'k.:.
....... 1.11-1
. ... ,
??
.
: .11.- - , ...... ;; . .......... . .. : . I .... - .. . ... .. ...
??::???:::
.
".. ? ,* ,." ? x? .... . ?? : -
. .... . . ... ..
... . ..? ....I., ?
.....'...
: % ::- . I . :X, .
-.-.., ?...::: : 7?1.11
, ,-
-....--d
. - ..:.:? . 0 1 ?
R. ,. I
.11'..,.,..-",.- ,. ....-........-
I.- I M
- .. . ...... - ::????i
.i;
.
... - .... I ... .... ... ?i? . .. ... ... .. .. , ?
.
- ? . .?,:,?W . , ???:.. . - , ?::.----% ... .. . ? ;, ... ........... ? ....-........'?..,......,......-. a
a m .:.:., .
......,...?. ..,......,..,...,...?.."..., ...... ... .. :.:: : I.- I -,. ... -..::..:...
::]:?:?:i :.." . -., ..
..*I.:
-
::x::?n" '.
... :?. ff . ..... - .,.l..ll I......,....".........
.....
? ,
.
.??::?.-::i:: W M ?,.zM .111-1.1 1 .. ?: , ?? ... ..: ,?: ?i9
oWw'.o:a
.
. - .. .. ... 1:
..
. :?:??:?:-??M m ? ::?: . ,; . I
.P
:-:::, .1 ..... .-.... '... M .1 - ?; ... .. .. , F,
X...:....X?.?
?,:- : ... .... . .. - - . . : .I........ .: . ?.. ?M " I .
..
. .
11-1 I'l- ,.- -? ? ? ..... . , :....
.- ............ . .
. I ..
.....
? ?
?::.?
x
.N...;
x . 00".M :.:: - ... , ...
. ,
.
.3
.
m
R'n'. N R ...... , -- I ... .:. ..::??-: ?. o I .,
W. ..?.a . . . - .... ...........
..
.
.....
W .
. :
:?.,...'?. 90 .0 - - - . I . . vxlox.,.:?,? ? ....m??
:.- ?-, I ... . " '. M
.. ?."..". ::
i?:w
. -
:
-
,:,:. - ., . .. - .. - . . . . . . - w .. :::
.%
::.?? . . . ?. ft: 1 .. - , ... .
... - ? . .: ?.. - ... . .- ....-,-,...,.._.. -m m
..
. .? . . -... . . . . . .
- - 1. %n? . ...... .. - .. ...?:::: I. ,:?, ,........................... , , . ....-... . It
. .
.
... . .. ..
.. ... .. N. a I ?? ,.??:?-.:--,- ?
, r ,. :..
4xi
..!...-.i?i
.. . %::- 1- 1:? -::
?x M ?
? .. .... ... .. ? .. - - .. , I ..F...X. I n
..... . :? -
...
I
w w om m
....... ..
. : ?.?mj??,*M.q .. , .. :!::
................ ?,? ?,
.. . ?e ,:.:? .. 1
... .. '. " - . .... ? .. .... : Z:: %,: ,_.. - I., .
-. ...7%,Xl -.:::?.
. ......
a ?? im
. . I ... -
"
.........
. . :
W . ?04.- ...... V. .. A, Q V i::: ej.,? - .:..:::m: .
.....?.:. zk 9 '. I .
M NIM?? .- : - ,:.... m - ... \ .-.. ?--... .-... . ... I .: . ..
'.
. . ..
.11
.? ,
.1.
xw
. .. . ....
.
.....
. . ...... . '. ..... :::::..:x , . ?. :. . - ....... ... I I.- I... "I
-
::::,:A l l .... o ... .. i, ?? . ,? ............
..
-- - ..... ? .. .! - M .. 0 .1-1-"?WM ........,. ,. .. .?
??
:
W .W ., . . :M
.. . '? 1. 'l l ...... .N;*. .- .... ff
p
.?
...... : ? ? ? :: -X I . "
?1,1.3..W?- .-..... ...............?..
e? .. .1 ... ?? .1 ? W, .
I
M
.:.: A .: -.-, -11-.. . .... I I - ? ,
1. ? .
N l,:?i?a "
I
.. -,... ,-.-
...
M
.: .
. ....
..
. ... .... . -
:lz-.:..'?:.:,:,??. .:??....:!:..:: :?V::
F lx. 1: ... I.... ? .,?*% .'- .,..-
.
....
'
.
.?. . . ..". ,4V ..?'. - 1 ... ?%e .. ........ . .. . ll?:?:?M ?:?? . ... -
?.
,? .........
... , . - .
11.1 ..... ?.
I .?: .:: ?I?i
W : ..l. -1 ?
:....... %:
.
. A- W - , - ... "..'', ,.-:.:,, % :::?i- .?i?? .....-... U .. 11- -. ., .
.. ...... I
-
I .
.....
... ..... . I . . .. .
-:.= I .1. .. - ? X.X
? 6% : ::: R .. .w . . . . . . , - . : XX.. x , .. ......... ..... , .. . .-- .- R :. : I : a .....I.,
..: .... ........... %, 1.
:::.:v7:.
:. - ? . .. I
...... . . . . . ??m
.. .:?? ? . I .w n
-
4 1 ? %%?,.??:?:... . ? , ? . .. ...... . x, .11. ? . 11
'.. .
..
.....
w -
-
I
.ii:
.W
. '.
....
?,gp. ..?
NO ll',?
.. ..- - '. .
xllmmm:..
... -.. - ,,.? .
W.M .,M
....
::,?,
-, W - - ...
....
?::?:Xy-:: ..,-. .11 - ..
T
, ... . ... .
.P. 1?:.? :::v ::-m:::m .l W ... ? ... ?
.. I .. ..
.
.- - ... ... ? I
.1 ... - ,:.... .. ? ... ? . .. ?. . 1. .. - . M ?
.. ..... I --...::: I M
I M E I .?- I
. .
u ?a.,.? - :, ? . ... 1.
I., ...
.
..
I
- ? -,-- --:
- ,??a,, ?' : .. :r,::. . -..:-:,. I ...... I ... 1. - ,
v:??: .: M
?
I
I R ...'....... ..... ..
7%...Q
.
?, ,:.:?.: ?
........
.
. . I. ... ...... ..- ... .
....
. ..... .1.1'... - . ::::k :? . .... . ......... .. . ?I?v
..
- . ? :
::::: I
.-
..... I.....
I
-
.3
..... ..... -
? ......... .:::?:.:.:.
..
?:?
.- . ", ?
? III - ... ??...- -- W. .W U ;?:.
... ,.
?...,
. . .
x: .? ...
4a :..:??* . . :::: . *: .?.. .P :,]i? ",:*: . . % 3 ?: ??:.::: lll- .Io. . I ..
.
?v :: . .
1- ?. .. % . I
...
.. g . , .j
-1 '... '. ,?",.x.`,:*: ? . . .
.
....... ..
. . . ?
- .........l. I., .... &. , 4.. ?::?, ?? ?::?: . :?.::??- :, ??-
.-.....
.1 ... -..- ez ? ... - ?:.?:.:.:.:.:,x:?.
,
- - ?. 1
?.- ..
A
.
FIGURE 7. Bust
Reliquary of
Saint Yrieix
(as
in
Fig. 6),
the wooden core, New York, Metropolitan
Museum
of
Art
(photo: Metropolitan
Museum
of Art, New
York).
13
reliquaries
before the 1990s-is Ilene
Forsyth's
Throne
of
Wisdom, published
in 1972.33
Long recognized
as a classic
study
of
Romanesque
carved
wood
images
of the
Virgin
and
Child, Forsyth's
book is ex-
tremely important
to the
study
of
body-part reliquaries
for
two reasons.
First,
it refutes Harald Keller's assertion that these
reliquaries
were created as the first
halting
and
incomplete
efforts of
sculptors
of limited
ability. Second,
it treats such
reliquaries
as a
genre
of
sculpture
with its own distinctive
aesthetic-manifest in the hieratic
quality
of the
figures,
their
otherworldly mien,
the use of
precious
metal and stones. For-
syth
notes the
disregard
in which
objects
like the bust of Saint
Baudime had been held
by
earlier scholars:
Considered the Christian 'idols' of the
Early
Middle
Ages,
they
have been
thought
more
pertinent
to a
study
of reli-
gion
than to a serious
history
of
sculpture.
It has been
difficult for art historians to realize that
sculptures
en-
dowed
by
the boundless medieval
imagination
with the
power
to
speak,
to
weep,
to
fly
out of
windows,
to
bring
rain in time of
drought,
to deter invaders in time of
war,
or
simply
to box the ears of the
naughty, might
also have
aesthetic merit.24
Body-part reliquary images, by
virtue of their
style
and/or
their
materials,
often fall outside the canons we have con-
structed for the art of Greece and Rome or of the Renaissance.
Even for medievalists,
their revetment with
precious
materials
distances them from the now colorless and
consequently
dis-
passionate
limestone of the
portal figures
of Gothic cathedrals.
The insistent
presence
of these
reliquary objects
is
frankly
unsettling.
This
distinctive,
affective aesthetic,
articulated
by
For-
syth,
was the focus of Ellert Dahl's
study
of the
Majesty
of
Saint
Foy.35
But while
Forsyth's apologia
for
Romanesque
images
was
accepted
for the
polychromed
wood
sculptures
of
the
Auvergne,
her discussion of the
larger
context of cult im-
ages
did not win
many
converts. Catholicism's insistence on
the
importance
of the
image
has
long
been
perceived by
some
(including
some
Catholics)
as
pagan, "primitive," "popular,"
and therefore anti-intellectual. This was the
argument
that
Bernard of
Angers
set out in his discussion of
image reliquar-
ies.36 This was the belief of Protestant Reformers on the
Continent and in
England-elitists
of the Word, as Margaret
Miles37 has described them-who mocked and decried the
importance
of relics, even in
rhyme:
The blessed arm of sweet Saint Sunday:
And whosoever
is blessed with this right hand, Cannot speed
amiss by
sea
nor by
land. And if he offereth eke with good devotion,
He shall not fail to come to high promotion.
And another
holy
relic here may ye
see: The great toe of the Holy
Trinity...
.38
This was the
argument
of
Platonists,
and of the French Rev-
olution,
when churches were rechristened
Temples
of
Reason,
and of French intellectuals to the
present day,
as elucidated
by
Martin
Jay.39
While other kinds of medieval
sculpture
can
be
(and
often
are)
dissociated from their
original religious
context,
and thus can be
analyzed formally-for
their rela-
tion to its
supporting column,
for
contrapposto,
for "natural-
ism" or
"realism"--medieval
reliquary sculpture
is
insistently
cultic. At their
very core, body-part reliquaries
have a direct
connection with a relic-with
something that,
but for the
"odeur de
sanctit6,"
would be associated with
decay
and
putrescence.
While Caroline
Bynum's pioneering
work in
examining
medieval attitudes about the
body
has shown the
rewarding
depth
of work for historians in this
area, body-part reliquaries
are
only
now
being
considered
seriously by
historians of art.
My
own interest in
pursuing
research on head
reliquaries,
considered
arguably
eccentric in
1986,
was awakened
by
the
experience
of
working
in a museum context and
by
the
sup-
port
of a French
advisor,
Danielle
Gaborit-Chopin.
Since that
time the involvement of art historians with
European training
in issues that relate to the cult of relics has
paved
the
way
for
more widespread investigation
of
reliquary sculpture.
David
Freedberg's
Power
oflmages
has lent
legitimacy
to works that
provoke
an intense
response.40
Hans
Belting's
work has been
critical in
opening up
lines of research into works
produced
in the so-called "era before art."4'
And
yet, body-part reliquaries
are still too often deemed
chiefly,
as Emile Male
declared,
"to offer the
perfume
of the
past."
This "scent" can too
easily
infect scholars
today.
Mi-
chael
Camille,
in his review of Hans
Belting's
Bild
und
Kult,
confesses to a fascination with
images,
born of what he con-
sidered an
extraordinary experience
of
witnessing
a devout
woman's efforts to
expel
demons from her
daughter by bang-
ing
the child's head
against
an
image.42
And in The Gothic
Idol he marvels at the
qualities
of head
reliquaries by musing:
"Head
reliquaries
are in fact rather
disturbing, decapitated
objects."43
Has the recent
study
of
body-part reliquaries
in the Mid-
dle
Ages emerged
almost as a
parallel
to the interest in
study-
ing
third-world or
"primitive"
cultures and their
religious
practices?
In recent
years
these have
given
birth to an exhi-
bition entitled Le Crane:
objet
de culte, objet d'art,
held in
Marseille in 1972, and Heads and Skulls in Human Culture
and History,
in 1991, which, while held at the Malaysian
Na-
tional Museum was nevertheless reviewed in the Wall Street
Journal, under the headline "An Exhibition that will really
turn heads."44 The National Museum of Anthropology
in Mex-
ico City
mounted an exhibition, Human Body,
Human Spirit,
exploring
"human figures made in ritual circumstances for
ritual purposes."45
There is, at
present,
a keen, almost voyeuristic
interest in
"dismemberment" during
the Middle Ages.
But the creation
14
of
body-part reliquaries
should not be
perceived
as a deli-
ciously gruesome
and
gory aspect
of the medieval cult of
saints. The
placement
of a skull or other relic in its container
was
part
of a solemn
ceremony:
the account of the
discovery
of the relics of Saint Privatus of Mende, their veneration, and
their
placement
in
reliquaries
is
typical
in
emphasizing
the
reverence of the
bishop
and the
congregation,
the
importance
of the
bishop's
sermon
concerning
the saint's life and the
healing power
of the
relics.46
A decision to isolate the skull
as a relic was not
dependent
on the saint's death
by decapi-
tation. Nor was the division of relics into other
body-shaped
reliquaries
a function of a saint's tortured dismemberment.
The
subsequent
veneration of the relic was
equally
reveren-
tial in nature: the
fourteenth-century
account of the venera-
tion of the head of Saint Martial at
Limoges specifies
that
pilgrims
went to the "altar of the head" as the monks
sang
the
Te Deum and
rang
bells. There
they wept
and
proclaimed
their thanks to the saint before a crowd of witnesses before
proceeding
to the
sepulcher
in the
crypt.47
We should be concerned about a method that
may
reduce
works of art to mere
sociological
curiosities. It is
not,
or
should not
be,
our final
goal
as art historians to tell
amusing
stories about the church of the Middle
Ages,
its beliefs or
practices.
It is
only
the
beginning
of our homework to know
the catechism of faith
through
the course of the Middle
Ages.
We must
applaud
the
publication
of the
legends
of the saints
in
English.48
It
is
instructive to document modern
processions
of
relics,
like those of Saint Yrieix
during
the Ostensions that
are held
every
seven
years
in the
Limousin,
to
suggest
the
continuing
tradition of the rites of the Middle
Ages.49
Fo-
cused
analysis
of the
context,
where it informs us about the
object,
is essential. In her
study
of the
treasury
of Trier Hil-
trud
Westermann-Angerhausen
was able to show
convincingly
that the so-called
Reliquary
Foot of Saint Andrew was in fact
a
portable altar; similarly,
in a
forthcoming publication
Joan
Holladay
has used
contemporary
church
history
to
explain
the choice of
polychromed
wood busts of Saint Ursula and
her
companions
and the manner of their decoration at Co-
logne.50
As
they
are in these
studies,
the links between con-
text and works of art must be
manifest;
historical research
that does
not, finally,
inform our
understanding
of the
object
is a
discipline
other than art
history: finding
out that Paul
Revere rode
through
the towns around Boston the 18th of
April
in '75
may
or
may
not tell us
anything about him as a
silversmith, and we are
obliged
as art historians to ask our-
selves if it does.
It is
important that we consider
body-part reliquaries as
part of the
history
of
images;
since
Forsyth
and
Belting,
such
an
argument
now seems self-evident. Still, a
large dosage
of
"old" art history must remain in the mix. The historian
Patrick
Geary, echoing
the words of Marc Bloch more than a
generation ago, has just recommended that historians use ar-
chaeology as part of their
body
of
evidence;51
art historians
themselves need to reaffirm their focus on visual evidence
and aesthetic issues. A linear evaluation of
stylistic develop-
ment
following
the tradition of the
analysis
of
Romanesque
or Gothic
sculpture
is not
possible, given
the now-limited
body
of
material,
nor what I would advocate. We must con-
tinue to
pay
attention to
questions
of
style
and
quality,
and of
attribution,
as
Pierluigi
Leone de Castris and Danielle Gaborit-
Chopin
have done in the case of the
silver-gilt, crystal
and
enamel arm
reliquaries
of Saint Louis of Toulouse and Saint
Luke in the Louvre
(Figs. 8, 9).52
Art historians need to examine how and where such rel-
iquaries
were conceived and executed.
Though
I have
ques-
tioned some
aspects
of their
conclusions,
the efforts of Jean
Hubert and Marie-Clotilde Hubert in
defining
the
geographic
distribution of
image reliquaries exemplify
the kind of seri-
ous historical research that needs to be done for
body-part
reliquaries.53
Studies of
patronage
will reveal a
great
deal about the
importance
of
body-part reliquaries
in the Middle
Ages.
The
reliquary
made for
Boson, king
of
Provence,
was not an iso-
lated
example.
The
fourteenth-century
head
reliquary
of Saint
Martial was made at
Avignon
as a
gift
of
Pope Gregory
XI to
his native diocese of
Limoges.54
The Duke of
Berry,
known
for his
manuscripts,
was also the
patron
of
richly jeweled
bust
and arm
reliquaries bearing
his coat of arms.55
We need to consider how the
appearance
of these reli-
quaries
related to their function. How did
reliquaries
in the
form of
bodily parts
differ in function and/or material from
sarcophagus-shaped
chasses? In the Massif
Central,
for ex-
ample, image reliquaries
of
precious
materials that could be
carried about were created to contain the skull of the
saint,
while other
bodily
relics were
placed
in a chasse for venera-
tion at the tomb. How often can one see a
hierarchy
of rel-
ics
suggested by
the materials used to contain different
parts
of the
body,
as at Saint-Nectaire in the
Auvergne
in the fif-
teenth
century? There,
in
1488, Antoine, "seigneur
de Saint-
Nectaire,"
ordered the fabrication of a silver bust for the head
of Saint
Nectaire,
a silver
arm,
a
crystal ampulla
enclosed in
silver for the
heart,
a
copper
chasse for the rest of the
body
and a wood box for
"Aliqua parva
ossa beati Necterii et terra
quae
fuit
reperta
infra tumulum."56 At
Bourges,
the existence
of a series of
silver-gilt
arm
reliquaries
of the cathedral's
sainted bishops appears
to
present thematic
analogies
to the
images
of the
bishops
in stained
glass.57
It is essential to consider how these works were viewed in
aesthetic terms in the Middle
Ages.
It matters that the eleventh-
century description
of the head
reliquary
of Saint Valerien
at Tournus called it "a comely image
of
gold
and most
pre-
cious
gems
in the likeness to a certain
point,
of the
martyr,"'5
and that Bernard of
Angers referred to the "animated, lively
expression"
of the
image
of Saint Geraud at Aurillac.59 Texts
like these remind us that a head like the one of Saint Yrieix
is not meant to be seen as a wooden core, but as a luminous,
15
:: ::: ::: :: :
_ii
m
. . ... . .. . .. .......
...: . .. :
iiiiiiiiii ii
ii iiiii iiiii iiiii
iiiiiiiiil
iiiiiiiiiiiii~~iii!iiii~i~iiiiiiiiiiiill iii~~i~iixiim.
FIGURE 8. Arm
Reliquary of
Saint Louis
of Toulouse, 1337-38, musee du
Louvre, Paris
(photo: Courtesy of
the musee du Louvre).
luxurious
presence
that was a likeness "to a certain
point,
of
the
martyr,"
and that it was considered beautiful. At the end
of the thirteenth
century,
it mattered that the head
reliquary
of France's
royal
Saint Louis resemble the head
reliquary
of
Saint Denis in
appearance
and construction-that the visual
metaphor
served to link the saints.60
The
images
on seal
matrices,
and on
pilgrim badges,
such as those of Thomas
Becket,
Saint
Quentin,61
Saint Julien
of Le
Mans,62 or those, perhaps
of Saint
Denis, recently
ex-
cavated at Saint-Denis should be looked at more
thoroughly
in relation to
descriptions
of lost
reliquaries. Images
in other
media
may
further inform us
concerning
the form and
usage
of
body-part reliquaries.
For
example,
an
image
of the relic of
AMON&~
......
ICA*:
FIGURE 9. Arm
Reliquary of
Saint Luke, ca. 1337-38, musee du Louvre,
Paris
(photo: Courtesy of
the musee du
Louvre).
Saint
Philip resembling
a head
reliquary appears
in the ca-
thedral
glazing
of the choir of the cathedral of
Troyes,
which
acquired
the head after the sack of
Constantinople.63
Additional texts should be scoured for references to
body-
part reliquaries.64
Such texts can be related to what we know
from
surviving objects
and
provide
a broader
picture
of the
kinds of
reliquaries produced
in
particular
centers of
gold-
smithwork at
particular periods.
For
example,
the
silver-gilt
head of Saint
Stephen
of Muret from the Grandmont
Treasury
has been considered since the time of
Rupin
as
part
of the
Oeuvre de
Limoges.65 Yet,
with its
heavily
individualized fea-
tures,
it seems anomalous in the context of Limousin metal-
work.
Early descriptions
indicate that it once had enameled
16
... ..... .....
. ........ . .
.......
ol
FIGURE 10. Bust
Reliquary of
San Gennaro, 1304-6, Treasury of
the Ca-
thedral
of
San Gennaro, Naples (photo: after
Leone de Castris, 1986).
scenes of the life of the saint around the base. This de-
scription, plus
the fact that it once bore the arms of
Cardinal
Brissonet, suggests
that it should rather be considered in the
context of Italian
examples,
such as the one of Saint John
Gualbert at
Passignano.66
Successive inventories of a
single treasury
can offer in-
sights
into the
varying
uses and
changing
forms of
reliquaries
in a
particular
location.
Eight surviving inventories, ranging
in date from 1396 to
1791, plus
a number of documents
sug-
gest changing patterns
of veneration at Mont-Saint-Michel.
The
body
of Saint
Aubert,
a saint whose
origins
are obscure
but whose
body
was
preserved
at the
abbey,
was enshrined in
a
chasse;
a
separate reliquary
for his skull was made in 1131.
As with other recorded
examples
from the north of France be-
fore the second
quarter
of the thirteenth
century,
this twelfth-
century reliquary
for the head was not in bust
form,67
but
rather
dome-shaped.
A
separate
arm
reliquary
of Saint Aubert
was first fabricated in
1477;68
the
inventory specifies
that it
was used for the
swearing
of oaths. The
patron
of the arm rel-
iquary, prior
Oudin
Bou~tte,
also had a new chasse made for
the
body.
While the
reliquary
for the skull of Saint Aubert
was
apparently
not
replaced,
a new
bust-shaped silver-gilt
reliquary
was fabricated at the same time for the head of
Saint Innocent.69 There were also
arm-shaped reliquaries
for
relics
brought
to Mont-Saint-Michel from abroad: the "osse-
ment du bras" of Saint
Lawrence, brought
to the
monastery
from Rome in 1165. There were also
reliquaries
for the arms
of female saints-an arm of
Mary
"la bienheureuse
Egypti-
enne" recorded in
1396,
and a
single arm-shaped reliquary
containing
an arm of the
virgin martyr
saint
Agnes
and one of
Agatha.70
Each of these three was
necessarily
an
exception
to
the standardized
image
of an arm with its
right
hand
gestur-
ing
in
priestly blessing.
While we consider the evidence of lost
treasures,
we
must likewise turn our attentions to
great
works of art that
have not been
adequately studied,
of which the bust of San
Gennaro in the
treasury
of his titular church at
Naples,
made
by
French
goldsmiths,71
and the head of Saint
Agatha
in the
treasury
of Catania are but two
examples (Figs. 10,
5).72
It
is
only through
such
probing study
of individual
problems
that
a more
complete
sense of the whole will
emerge.
If we con-
sider Braun as our Arthur
Kingsley Porter, laying
out the cor-
pus
of
reliquary sculpture,
it is time to
get
on with focused
studies of individual works and of the
production
of
particu-
lar
periods
and
regions. Only
then can we
approach any
kind
of
encyclopedic understanding
of medieval
body-part
reli-
quary sculpture,
over the
long
course of the Middle
Ages
and
throughout
Western
Europe.
NOTES
1. The CD-Rom for the BHA
(Bibliographie
de
l'histoire
de
l'art)
in-
cludes over 200 entries under the
subject
of
reliquaries
for the
years
1990-1995.
2. S. Beissel,
Die
Verehrung
der
Heilige
und ihrer
Reliquien
in Deutsch-
land bis zum Beginne
des 13. Jahrhunderts, Ergainzungshefte
zu den
Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,
47
(Freiburg
im
Breisgau, 1890, reprinted
Darmstadt, 1983).
3. See H.
Delehaye,
L'Oeuvre des Bollandistes a travers trois siecles,
Subsidia
hagiographica 13a.2,
2nd ed.
(Brussels, 1958).
4. The container sometimes belies the contents.
During
a
trip
to Rome,
Abbot Gauzlin of
Fleury (1004-1030) purchased
a
golden
arm in which
he
placed,
not an arm bone,
but a relic of the shroud of Christ. See
Andre de
Fleury,
Vita Gauzlini abbatisfloiracensis
monasterii.
(Vie
de
Gauzlin,
Abbe de
Fleury),
ed. and trans. R.-H. Bautier and G.
Labory
(Paris, 1969),
61-63.
5. See E. Kovics, Kopfreliquiare
des Mittelalters
(Budapest, 1964),
sur-
veying
and
illustrating forty-two examples;
B. Bessard,
II
Tesoro. Pel-
legrinaggio
ai
corpi
santi e
preziosi
della
cristianith (Milan, 1981),
and B. Falk, "Bildnisreliquiare.
Zur
Entstehung
und
Entwicklung
der
metallenen
Kopf-, Bdisten- und
Halbfigurenreliquiare
im Mittelalter,"
Aachener
Kunstblidtter,
LIX
(1991/93).
6. Abbe Texier, "Bras," Dictionnaire
d'orfrvrerie,
de
gravure
et de cise-
lure chretiennes... (Paris, 1857),
cols. 279-80.
7. See A. Bouillet and L.
Servibres,
Sainte
Foy, vierge
et
martyre (Rodez,
1990).
The authentication of the relics was
published
two
years
before:
Mgr. Bourret,
Procks-verbaux
authentiques
et autres
pieces
concernant
la reconnaissance des
reliques
de sainte
Foy, vierge
et
martyre (Rodez,
1888).
8. A. Bouillet and L.
Servieres,
Sainte
Foy, vierge
et
martyre, unpag-
inated prefatory
letter.
9. On Peiresc see La Grande
encyclopddie:
Inventaire
raisonnd
des sci-
ences, des lettres et des arts
(Paris, 1885-1900), XXVI, 256; J. B. Re-
quier,
Vie de Nicolas-Claude-Peiresc (Paris, 1770).
17
10. Six volumes of Peiresc's letters were included in M.
Tamizey
de Lar-
roque,
Collection des documents inidits sur
l'histoire
de France.
11. E. Kovics, "Le chef de Saint Maurice a la cathedrale de Vienne
(France),"
Cahiers de civilisation
mdie'vale, VII
(1964),
19-26.
12. A.
d'Auvergne,
"Notice sur le Buste de saint Baudime conserve dans
l'6glise
de Saint-Nectaire
(Puy-de-Dome),"
Revue des societis
savantes,
ser. 2, 1
(1859),
1-4.
13. "Dans tous les
reliquaires qui
viennent de
passer
sous nos
yeux,
on
placait
des
corps
entiers ou des
parcelles
de
corps,
ou bien des
objets,
comme des
v&tements, qui
avaient
appartenu
aux bienheureux en l'hon-
neur
desquels
ces
reliquaires
6taient
executes. Mais il arrivait
souvent,
quand
on
possedait
une
partie
determinre
du
corpus
d'un
saint, qu'on
faisait un
reliquaire
de form
speciale pouvant representer
aux
yeux, par
l'enveloppe
exterieure, la form de
l'objet
contenu dans cette
enveloppe
meme." E. Rupin,
L'Oeuvre de
Limoges (Paris
and Brieve, 1890),
447.
14. E. Rupin,
"Chef de Saint Martin en
argent
dora et
6maill6
XIe siecle,
Eglise
de Soudeilles
(Correze),"
Bulletin de la socite' scientifique,
his-
torique
et
archdologique
de la Correze, IV
(1882),
435-56.
15. On
Morgan
as a collector of medieval
art,
see W. D. Wixom, "J. Pier-
pont Morgan:
The Man and The
Collector,"
in
Migration
Period Art in
The
Metropolitan
Museum
of Art, 3rd-8th
Century: Highlights from
the J.
Pierpont Morgan
Collection and Related Material Reconsid-
ered, papers
of the
symposium
held
May 22-23, 1995, forthcoming.
16. Les tresors des
iglises
de France, exhibition at the Musee des arts
decoratifs, Paris, 1965.
17. W. D.
Wixom, Treasures from
Medieval France, exhibition at the Cleve-
land Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, 1967. See no. VII, 13, Bust rel-
iquary
of Saint Felicule from
Saint-Jean-d'Aulps (Haute-Savoie),
late
fifteenth
century.
18. H. Keller, "Zur
Entstehung
der sakralen
Vollskullptur
in der ottoni-
schen Zeit," in
Festschriftfiir
Hans Jantzen (Berlin, 1951), 71-90.
19. R. RUckert, "Beitrdige
zur limousiner Plastik des 13. Jahrhunderts,"
ZfK,
XXII
(1959),
1-16.
Rtickert
also
published
an article on the
Byz-
antine
reliquaries
for the skulls of
saints, which
traditionally
do not as-
sume the form of a human head or bust. See R.
Riickert,
"Zur Form der
byzantinischen Reliquie,"
Miinchener Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst,
VIII
(1957),
7-36.
20. E Souchal, "Les Bustes
reliquaires
et la
sculpture," Gb-a,
LXVII
(1966),
205-15.
21. W. D. Wixom, Treasures of
Medieval France, 318.
22. I. Lavin, "On the Sources and
Meaning
of the Renaissance Portrait
Bust," The Art
Quarterly,
XXXIII
(Autumn 1970),
207-26.
23. A. Moskowitz, "Donatello's
Reliquary
Bust of Saint Rossore," AB,
LXIII
(1981),
41-48.
24. The four
reliquaries
are accession numbers 17.190.728, 59.70, 67.155.23
and 1976.89. They are now exhibited in a chapel-like setting at The
Cloisters. They are discussed in terms of their original context in W. D.
Wixom, "Medieval Sculpture at The Cloisters," The Metropolitan Mu-
seum of Art Bulletin, XLVI/3 (Winter 1988/89), 40-41.
25. P. Pieper, "Der goldene Pauluskopf des Domes zu MUnster," in Studien
zur Buchmalerei und Goldschmiedekunst des Mittelalters. Festschriftfiir
Karl Hermann Usener zum 60. Geburtstag am 19. August 1965 (Mar-
burg an der Lahn, 1967), 33-40.
26. "Das Kopfreliquiar des heiligen Candidus in St-Maurice," Zeitschrift
fiir
schweizerische Archiologie und Kunstgeschichte, XXIV/2 (1965/
66), 65-127.
27.
TP. E Hoving, "The Face of St. Juliana," The Bulletin of The Metro-
politan Museum ofArt, NS XXI (1963), 173-81.
28. P
Williamson, The
Thyssen-Bornemisza
Collection: Medieval
Sculp-
ture and Works
of
Art
(London
and New
York, 1987), 98-103, no. 18.
29. The
images
of these
destroyed
bust
reliquaries
are illustrated in D.
Gaborit-Chopin, Regalia:
Les Instruments du sacre des rois de France
(Paris, 1987), 57, figs.
7-8.
30. See E Rossi, Capolavori
di
orefeceria
italiana dall'XI al XVIII secolo
(Milan, 1956), 9, fig.
3.
31. For the
finger-shaped reliquary
of John the
Baptist
held
by
the saint,
see
Tresors des
iglises,
cat. 168, pl. 149; for the
thigh
at Saint-Gilad-
de-Rhuys,
see cat. 331, pl.
167.
32. The Cloisters, for
example,
as
originally conceived, had no
treasury
for
precious objects.
33. I. H.
Forsyth,
The Throne
of
Wisdom: Wood
Sculptures of
the Ma-
donna in
Romanesque
France
(Princeton, 1972).
34. Ibid., 3.
35. See E. Dahl, "Heavenly Images:
The Statue of St.
Foy
of
Conques
and
the
signification
of the Medieval
'Cult-Image'
in the West," Acta ad
Archaeologia
etArtium Historiam
Pertinenta, VIII
(1987),
175-91. The
emphasis
on this
aspect
of
images
was
repeated by
A. G.
Remensnyder,
"Un
probleme
de cultures ou de culture?: La
statue-reliquaire
et les
joca
de sainte
Foy
de
Conques
dans le Liber miraculorum de Bernard
d'Angers,"
Cahiers de civilisation
midievale, XXXIII
(1990),
351-79.
36. Bernard of
Angers,
"Liber miraculorum S. Fidis," J.-P
Migne, ed., PL,
CLXI, 127-64.
37. See M.
Miles, Image
as
Insight (Boston, 1985).
38. See J.
Phillips,
The
Reformation of Images:
Destruction
of
Art in En-
gland,
1535-1660
(Berkeley,
Los
Angeles
and London, 1973),
19.
39. M.
Jay,
Downcast
Eyes:
The
Denigration of
Vision in
Twentieth-Century
French
Thought (Berkeley, 1993).
40. D.
Freedberg,
The Power
of Images:
Studies in the
History
and
Theory
of Response (Chicago, 1989).
41. His discussion of the bust
reliquary
of Saint Martial
(actually
four suc-
cessive heads and
busts)
at
Limoges is, however,
an
inadequate
re-
hearsal of the literature. The first recorded
image
was fabricated after
952; the second was made
by 1206; the third was new in 1307; the
fourth was created between 1370-1380 for
Pope Gregory
XI. See B. D.
Boehm, "Medieval Head
Reliquaries
of the Massif Central"
(Univer-
sity Microfilms,
Ann Arbor, Mich., 1990),
322-28.
42. M. Camille, review of H.
Belting,
Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte des
Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst
(Munich, 1990), AB,
LXXIV
(1992),
514.
43. M. Camille, The Gothic Idol.
Ideology
and
Image-Making
in Medieval
Art
(Cambridge, 1989),
279.
44. The article
by
John D.
Wagner
was
published
on
August 20, 1991,
p. A12.
45. From the flyer from the University of Pennsylvania Press for C. E.
Tate, ed., Human Body, Human Spirit, A Portrait of Ancient Mexico,
first published in 1993.
46. See C. Brunel, Les Miracles de Saint Privat, suivis des opuscules d'Al-
debert III, eveque de Mende (Paris 1912), 59-74.
47. See E Arbellot, "Miracula S. Martialis Anno 1388," Analecta Bollan-
diana,
I
(1882), 411-45.
48. A model in this regard is Pamela Sheingorn, ed., The Book of Sainte
Foy (Philadelphia, 1995).
49. See E Lautman, "Ostensions et identitis limousines," in L~gende dorde
du Limousin: les saints de la Haute-Vienne (Limoges, 1993), 78-89.
18
The
exhibition,
held at the Musee de
Luxembourg
in Paris in
1993-94,
included a number of medieval
reliquaries
of
exceptionally
fine
quality
and
importance.
Because the exhibition's focus was on the broader
topic
of devotion to the cult of saints in the Limousin
throughout
his-
tory,
the visual
impact
of the medieval
masterpieces
in the exhibition
was
significantly
lessened.
50. H.
Westermann-Angerhausen,
"Die Goldschmiedearbeiten der Trierer
Egbertwerkstatt,"
Trierer
Zeitschrift
fiir
Geschichte und Kunst des
Trierer Landes und seine
Nachbargebiete,
XXXVI
(1973).
J. Holla-
day, "Relics, Reliquaries,
and
Religious Women; Visualizing
the
Holy
Virgin
of
Cologne," forthcoming
in Studies in
Iconography,
XVIII
(1996).
51. P
Geary,
"The Uses of
Archaeology.
Sources for
Religious
and Cul-
tural
History,"
in
Living
with the Dead in the Middle
Ages (Ithaca,
N.Y., 1994),
30-45.
52. See P Leone de Castris, "Une attribution 'a Lando di Pietro: Le bras-
reliquaire
de saint Louis de Toulouse," Revue du Louvre,
XXX
(1980),
71-76; D.
Gaborit-Chopin,
"Le
Bras-reliquaire
de Saint Luc au
Mus~e
du Louvre," Melanges
Verlet. Studi sulle arti decorative in
Europa
(Antologia
di Belle
Arti),
XXVII-XXVIII
(1985),
5-18.
53. J. Hubert and M.-C. Hubert, "Piet6 chretienne ou
paganisme:
Les
Statues-reliquaires
de
l'europe carolingienne,"
Cristianizzazione ed
organizzazione
ecclisiastica delle
campagne
nell'alto medioevo: espan-
sione e resistenze, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi
sull'alto medioevo, XXCIII
(Spoleto, 1982),
235-75.
My
discussion of
their work
appears
in Boehm, "Medieval Head
Reliquaries."
54. See Boehm, "Medieval Head
Reliquaries,"
322-28.
55. The
inventory
of
May 10, 1405, of the
palace chapel
at
Bourges
notes
the
presence
of
silver-gilt
and enameled heads of Saint James and of
Saint Ursin, first
bishop
of
Bourges.
See "Tresor de la
Sainte-Chapelle
de
Bourges,"
Annales
archdologiques,
X
(1850),
143-44. For the arm
of Saint Andrew at the cathedral of
Bourges,
see below, note 57. For
the
reliquary
head of Saint
Philip given
to Notre-Dame, Paris, see H.-E
Delaborde,
"Le
procks
du chef de Saint Denis en 1410," Mimoires de
la socie'te' historique
de Paris, XI, 1884
(1885),
300.
56. L'Abb6 Forestier, L'Eglise
et la
paroisse
de Saint-Nectaire. Notice his-
torique,
archdologique
et
religieuse (Clermont-Ferrand, 1878), 66, cit-
ing
from the
inventory
of 1622
preserved
in the
departmental
archives
of the Haute-Loire. The silver arm
reliquary
is
preserved
in the church.
The bust was
destroyed
in the French Revolution and the bones burned
in a fire of 1854.
57. For the arm
reliquaries
of Saints Williams, Austreille and
Sulpice
Se-
vere, described in an
inventory
of 1537, see M. le baron de Girardot,
"Histoire et inventaire du tresor de la cathedrale de
Bourges,"
Me-
moires de la socie'te' imperiale
des
antiquaires
de France,
XXIV
(1859),
212. The cathedral also
possessed
the left hand of Saint Andrew with
the arms of the Duke of
Berry.
For the stained
glass,
see
Corpus
Vit-
rearum, Les vitraux du centre et des
pays
de la Loire, France, Recen-
sement des vitraux anciens de la
France, II (Paris, 1981),
175-76.
58. The text is
given
in R.
Poupardin, ed., Monuments de
l'histoire
des
abbayes
de
Saint-Philibert, 1905.
59. Bouillet and
Servibres, 472.
60. The resemblance was noted
by
C. Enlart, "L'Emaillerie cloisonnee a
Paris sous
Philippe
le Bel et le maitre Guillaume Julien," Monuments
et memoires
publie's par lAcademie des
inscriptions
et belles-lettres
(Fondation Eugene Piot),
XXIX
(1927-28),
36.
61. For
pilgrims' badges
of a bust of Saint
Quentin,
see A.
Forgeais,
Col-
lection de
plombs historie's trouves dans la Seine, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1863),
II: 194-96. For a reference to the
sixteenth-century
seal of the
chapter
with the bust and a coat of arms of the
city,
see P
Guerin, ed., Les Petits
Bollandistes. Vies des saints de
lancien
et du nouveau testament, 7th
ed., 17 vols. (Paris, 1878), XIII: 60.
62. The bust,
known from an
inventory
of the fifteenth
century brought
to
my
attention
by
Denis Bruna, may
be illustrated on a
pilgrim's badge
in the Musee national du
moyen age.
63. See
Corpus Vitrearum, Inventaire
ge'ne'rale
des monuments et richesses
artistiques
de la France, vol. 4: Les Vitraux de
Champagne-Ardenne
(Paris, 1992), 229, briefly
discussed in P.
Geary,
"Saint Helen of
Athyra
and the Cathedral of
Troyes
in the Thirteenth
Century," reprinted
in
Living
with the Dead, 238-40. I am
grateful
to
Mary
B.
Shepard
for
this reference.
64. William Diebold's
scrutiny
of
Carolingian
texts for his
forthcoming
publication provides
a model. Texts
pertinent
to the Massif Central
ap-
pear
in Boehm, 1990.
Descriptions may
be
imprecise
or
deceiving,
however. A
reliquary
at Clermont-Ferrand was referred to in a tenth-
century inventory
as a
caput,
but then described as
having
a
palm
and
scepter, indicating
that it
may
have been at least
bust-length
with arms.
See
Dou&t-d'Arcq,
"Inventaire du tresor de la cathedrale de Clermont-
Ferrand. Document de la fin du Xe siecle," Revue
archiologique,
X
(1853).
65.
Rupin,
L'Oeuvre de
Limoges,
448-49.
66. This was first
suggested
to me
by
Jean-Rene Gaborit. See Boehm,
1990,
182-83. For the
reliquary
see E Rossi, Capolavori
di
oreficeria
italiana dall'XI al XVIII secolo
(Milan, 1956), pl.
XII.
67. Discussed in a
paper
I
gave
on "Le chef
reliquaire
de Saint Denis au
tr6sor
de Saint-Denis," at the
colloquium
in Paris, Trdsors du
Moyen
Age,
March 15, 1991.
68. See J. Dubois, Aspects
de la vie
monastique
en France au
Moyen Age,
550-53, nos. 16, 16a; 554-58, nos. 16c-17.
69. Ibid., 583.
70. Ibid., 547.
71. See P Leone de Castris, Arte di Corte nella
Napoli angioina (Florence,
1986), 194; 163, fig. 37.
72. See S. J. A.
Churchill, "Giovanni Bartolo, of Siena, Goldsmith and
Enameller, 1364-1385," BM, X (October 1906-March 1907), 120-25.
19