CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 3
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture
on Gothic cathedrals1
The human face as an aspect of the marginal in the cathedrals of
Reims and Trondheim
INGRId LuNNaN NødseTh
Architectural sculpture on Gothic cathedrals has been labelled “marginal” by scholarship
in the tradition of Michael Camille and nurith Kenaan-Kedar. A Scandinavian parallel
to such sculptures is found in the octagon of Trondheim cathedral. This article offers
a critique of the terminology of marginal imagery and its scholarship and examines how
the rhetoric of marginality has changed the discourse at the expense of other art historical approaches such as the concept of beauty. human faces of the Reims masks and
sculptures in the Trondheim octagon are examples of how the marginal has overshadowed current scholarship and overloaded its subject with contemporary academic meaning. Michael Camille proposed to bring the margins to the centre. This article aims to
reframe the margins and open up to other modes of debate and scholarly interest.
Corbel series, capital carvings, head stops, gargoyles and chimeras are part of a group
of sculptures that has been allocated at the sidelines of canonical art history. As a consequence, a great deal of the surviving medieval sculpture of closely studied buildings,
including the cathedrals of Chartres, Rouen and Reims, has received little or no attention from scholars. The label “marginal sculpture” that was introduced in the 1990s
has today become an established denomination for the works in question.2 The aim
1
This text was originally written for a module on the Gothic cathedral at the University
of York, spring term 2012. I would like to thank my tutor Emily Guerry for encouraging me
to explore this topic, and my co-students at York for inspiring discussions. The article has
been read and commented upon by Margrethe C. Stang associate professor at nTnU, Trondheim, and Margrete Syrstad Andås, Post Doctoral research fellow at nTnU, for which I am
very grateful. I would also like to thank Kjartan hauglid, Ph.d. candidate at the University of
Oslo, for generously sharing images and thoughts on the Chartres corbels, and professor Paul
Binski at the University of Cambridge for interesting ideas and inspiration.
2
Introduced by Kenaan-Kedar 1995, this term is still in use today; see for example Bilder
i marginalen. Ed. Kersti Markus 2006.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 4
4
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
of this article is to evaluate to what extent this marginal position and the rhetoric of
marginality have prevented art historical interest beyond questions of social and cultural edges, popular culture, or issues with gender and identity. This excursus will
involve a review of the usage of the term “marginal sculpture” and its historiography.
The text will focus on the Gothic cathedral as the locus of so-called marginal sculpture,
arguing that features of this kind should be examined as integrated and important
parts of medieval sculptural programs, utilising the human face at Reims as a case study.
3
Scandinavian parallels are considered through the sculptures in the octagon of
Trondheim Cathedral. The aim is to explore a new avenue of research in order to
promote a reappraisal of this entire sculptural group. By challenging the limitations
of the current terminology, the margins might be reframed and their subjects restored
as works of art.
Conceptions and misconceptions: a historiography
Monstrous carvings have fascinated scholars since the Middle Ages. In his famous
Apologia composed in 1125, Bernard of Clairvaux challenged William de SaintThierry: “What are the filthy apes doing there? The fierce lions? The monstrous centaurs? The creatures part man, part beast?”.4 This quote has been interpreted as an
iconoclastic attack on Cluniac art, but as Conrad Rudolph has shown in The ‘Things
of Greater Importance’ (1990), Bernard was specifically arguing against monstrous imagery distracting brothers trying to meditate in the monastery.5 The revivalists of the
nineteenth century asked themselves similar questions when facing such perplexing
images as the quatrefoils of Rouen or the weathered gargoyles of the french cathedrals. John Ruskin spent days drawing the details of the Rouen portal, focusing on
the finely cut dragons and fantastical creatures in the corners of each quatrefoil framing.6 In The Stones of Venice, he identified “Grotesqueness” as one of six characteristic
or moral elements of Gothic:
The fourth essential element of Gothic mind was above stated to be the sense of
the Grotesque; but I shall defer the endeavour to define this most curious and
3
Although this article focuses on the Gothic cathedral, marginal sculpture appeared
throughout the Middle Ages, on parish churches, monasteries and cathedrals as well as secular
buildings such as city halls and private houses.
4
Bernard of Clairvaux 1990: 283.
5
Ibid., esp. chapter 4: 159–180. See also Dale 2010: 253–273.
6
Ruskin’s drawings are available through the website of the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford. http://ruskin.ashmolean.org/
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 5
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
5
subtle character until we have occasion to examine one of the divisions of the
Renaissance schools, which was morbidly influenced by it (Vol. III. Chap. III).
It is less necessary to insist upon it here, because every reader familiar with Gothic
architecture must understand what I mean, and will, I believe, have no hesitation
in admitting that the tendency to delight in fantastic and ludicrous, as well as in
sublime, images, is a universal instinct of the Gothic imagination.7
Ruskin made a distinction between “ludicrous” and “sublime” imagery, but without
putting one in the margins and the other at the centre. Rather, he saw them both as
necessary and innate elements of the Gothic spirit. Another example of how
“grotesqueness” was connected to Romantic tendencies in nineteenth century Gothic
revival is the french novelist Victor hugo’s widely popular novel Notre-Dame de
Paris (1831) where the main character himself is deformed and mysterious, much like
the grotesque gargoyles hugo describes in the novel. for Eugène Viollet-le-Duc there
was, however, nothing fantastical about grotesques, which he largely ignored as parts
of the cathedral, ascribing them to the “less developed” Romanesque style.8 he focused his attention on the gargoyle, emphasizing its functional quality as an integrated
part of the drainage system. Camille discusses Viollet-le-Duc’s fascination for these
sculptures in his book on the nineteenth century gargoyles of notre-Dame de Paris:
“nothing for him was more modern, more functional, than the gargoyle”.9
Scholarship on marginal sculpture in the twentieth century was influenced by
Émile Mâle’s writings. Willibald Sauerländer argued that they could be seen as a
“combative apologia” directed against Viollet-le-Duc and hugo, which sought to democratise and secularise the Gothic cathedral.10 Mâle sustained hugo’s notion of the
builders of the cathedral as “writers in stone” and constructed a didactic interpretation
of the entire edifice, including its sculpture and paintings, as an illustration of the
main doctrinal, spiritual and scientific creeds and beliefs of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, a moral message conveyed to the illiterate laity.11 This way of seeing the
cathedral is often referred to as the “Picture book theory” and is since long dismissed
as a plausible explanation for the entire body of imagery within the cathedral.12 In
L’Art religieux du XIIIe siècle en France, étude sur l’iconographie du Moyen Âge et sur ses
sources d’inspiration (1898), Mâle characterised the quatrefoil carvings at Rouen as
Ruskin 1896: 203.
Dale 2010: 257.
9
Camille 2009: 16.
10
Sauerländer 1986: 594.
11
Ibid.: 594.
12
Discussed by Woodcock amongst others: Woodcock 2005.
7
8
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 6
6
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
amusing but innocent monsters, made with “gaiety and childlike serenity”.13 Gothic
art and architecture was “amazingly pure” and marginal sculptures were devoid of
any meaning beyond the decorative. Jurgis Baltrušaitis, a pupil of henri focillon
(Mâle’s successor at Sorbonne), was also interested in the marginal aspects of Gothic
art and architecture. he described this tendency as le fantastique: the fantastic and
bizarre, fabulous and deformed in architectural sculpture and illuminated manuscripts
alike.14 Unlike Mâle, however, Baltrušaitis was concerned with questions of form
and style rather than meaning and intent.15
Meyer Schapiro returned to the search for meaning in his work on Romanesque
sculpture, but insisted it should not be limited to either the symbolic, “in the coded
manner of medieval religious symbolism”, or the decorative, but open to other kinds
of meaning: metaphorical, humorous, or parodic.16 Ernst Gombrich explored other
possible intentions behind monstrous sculptures, arguing that the gargoyle possesses
an apotropaic function, warding off evil spirits, a tradition he explores across different
cultures.17 Apotropaic theories are echoed in much recent scholarship.18 An alternative
interpretation of meaning for the architectural sculpture described by Bernard of
Clairvaux is presented by Mary Carruthers in The Craft of Thought (1998). She suggests that certain types of imagery functioned as mnemonic devices in the art of memory, in other words the meditative though in medieval monasticism. This approach,
however, might prove more relevant within a monastic context rather than in the
Gothic cathedrals that constitute the main objects of interest for this study.
Marginal discourse
Schapiro has been described as “the first art historian of the edge” introducing questions of non-religious meaning, humour and sculptures in the periphery.19 Especially
influential was his essay entitled Aesthetic attitude in Romanesque Art (1947). In the
1960s, scholars showed interest in marginal art, partly as a counter-reaction to the
modernist focus on canonical masterpieces of Gothic art. This approach to liminality
was characteristic for the general post-modern discourse.20 Pierre Bourdieu for exhere cited after the English translation: Mâle 2000: 62.
Baltrusaitis 1955. See also the review by Richard Bernheimer in Art Bulletin, 1958.
15
This formalistic turn is discussed by Kendrick as “The Return of the Repressed” in
Kendrick 2010: 280–283.
16
Schapiro 1979: 198.
17
Gombrich 1979: 261. he also discusses the gargoyle’s apotropaic function on page 277.
18
Mellinkoff 1994.
19
Smith 1994: 93.
20
See for example Skeggs 1991.
13
14
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 7
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
7
ample, criticised the essentialist view and the modernist canon of art, discussing centre/periphery relations and emphasizing an alternative, but not subordinate, canon
of works of art.21
Despite this renewed interest in so-called marginal art, sculpture was largely overlooked in favour of marginalia in illuminated manuscripts. After Lillian Randall’s
publication of Images in the Margins of Gothic Manuscripts (1966) most scholarship focused on manuscript marginalia.22 Camille was one of the first scholars since Schapiro
to address sculpted images with Image on the Edge (1992). Linda Seidel suggests that
the secular subjects and the lack of coherent and imposing compositions might have
been instrumental to the lack of scholarship on the sculptures.23 Whilst illuminated
manuscripts are readily available in libraries and digital databases, architectural sculpture should be analysed in situ, often in spaces that are difficult to access, or have lost
parts of its original sculpture, making it far more difficult to establish an original,
medieval context.24 Establishing corresponding textual sources for secular motifs propose difficulties and, although there has been some scholarship on medieval bestiaries,
only a few cases has proved a direct link between a bestiary and a sculptural programme. At the church of Saint Mary, Alne, in England, voussoirs with figurative
carvings have inscriptions identifying them with the Oxford Bodleian Bestiary MS
Laud Misc. 247.25 Such a direct linkage is, however, very unusual.
It is beyond the scope of this article to give a thorough account of the development
of new methodologies such as a Social history of Art, Radical Art history and feminist Art history, but all these approaches have influenced the scholarship on medieval
architectural sculpture, and raised issues of gender, sex and identity pertaining to the
kind of sculptures discussed in this article. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s Of Giants: Sex,
Monsters, And The Middle Ages (1999), Madeleine h. Caviness’ Visualizing Women
in the Middle Ages: Sight, Spectacle, and Scopic Economy (2001) and Robert Mills’ Suspended Animation: Pain, Pleasure and Punishment in Medieval Culture (2005) can all
be seen in relation to this tendency within scholarship.26 Anthony Weir and James
Jerman have looked at images of sexuality in medieval sculpture in Images of Lust:
Sexual Carvings on Medieval Churches (1993).27 Sociological and anthropological apfowler 1997: 150.
Randall 1966. for a historiographical survey see Sandler 1997.
23
Seidel 2010: 112.
24
for an interesting account of the segregation of Gothic sculpture, see Brush 2005.
25
Magrill 2009: 52.
26
Examples of such discussions are Cohen 1999, Caviness 2001 and Mills 2005. See also
hamburger 2007.
27
Jerman and Weir 1993.
21
22
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 8
8
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
proaches have provided new and useful insight to our understanding of marginal
sculpture. however, no matter how widely accepted the concept of “marginal sculpture” has become as a denomination for various kinds of imagery sharing features
such as so-called marginal location and/ or motifs, the phenomenon it covers is too
diverse to allow for its application as a category of standard art historical nomenclature. Rather, it should be seen as a specific tendency within the postmodern discourse.
Marginal sculpture: a problematic term
In her book Marginal Sculpture in Medieval France (1995), nurith Kenaan-Kedar applied the socio-political concept of marginality and division between “low” and “high”
culture on architectural sculpture, preferably french Romanesque and Gothic corbel
series.28 Kenaan-Kedar’s usage of the term “marginal sculpture” must be seen in the
context of Michael Camille’s multimedia approach in Image on the Edge (1992), where
he puts forward a vast spectrum of works, ranging from illuminated manuscripts to
misericords, architectural sculpture, textiles and mappae mundi, as examples of marginal art. her work also coincides with a general scholarly interest for the marginal,
otherness and outcasts especially in movements such as Radical Art history and Social
Art history, all part of the postmodern discourse. This rhetorical device offered an
alternative to notions in previous scholarship of these kinds of sculptures as being decorative, ornamental or simply grotesques. At the same time, the concept of marginality
has been criticized for limiting and stigmatising a complex and important group of
medieval artworks.29 Despite this critique, the notion of ‘marginal’ as a category for
description and analysis has prevailed; its popularity continues amongst scholars working with questions of sex, gender and identity.30 Scandinavian scholarship has been
particularly concerned with the marginal aspect of architectural sculpture.31
The ambiguity of the term “marginal sculpture” is problematic; it may refer to
location, motifs and/ or the content and interpretation. In the first of these senses,
it locates the sculpture at what Kenaan-Kedar describes as “the inner or outer fringes
of churches and civic buildings”.32 This idea of the marginal location is borrowed from
the discussion of manuscript pages, where a diverse fauna of figures often occupy
Kenaan-Kedar 1995: 3.
Smith 1994: 92–96. See also the review by hamburger 1993.
30
Examples of such discussions are Cohen 1999, Caviness 2001 and Mills 2005. See also
hamburger 2007.
31
Discussed by Andås 2006: 141.
32
Kenaan-Kedar 1995:3. Reviewed by Dabb 1998.
28
29
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 9
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
9
the margin of the pages: marginalia.33 however, the margins of a cathedral are much
more elusive; one could argue that the whole edifice is in fact a margin, enveloping
the sacred space of nave and choir. This would include the roofs, vaults, towers and
spires, cornices, buttresses, gables, balustrades and portals, all of which are considered
“edges” in some way or another. The interior sees a similar situation, where choir
screens, portal sculpture, capitals, head stops and corbels all can constitute an edge
or a margin. Kenaan-Kedar defines the spaces furthest away from humans as “marginal”, in accordance with a modern world-view centred on the individual as
spectator.34 however, invisible, peripheral, and inaccessible spaces were often highly
decorated with fine architectural carvings, as in the choir of Trondheim Cathedral.
Guillaume Durand (d. 1296), bishop of Mende, compared the form of a church with
that of a human body: “The chancel, that is the place where the altar is, represents
the head; the cross, from either side, represents the arms or the hands, while the remaining part extending to the west is seen as the rest of the body. The sacrifice of
the altar signifies the offerings of the heart (…).”35 The altar was thus the centre of
the church, since God was present here through the Eucharist, and the choir was consequently perceived as the most sacred space. In the Gothic cathedral, this hierarchical
sense of sacred order can be reflected in intensification of decoration, both in the exterior and interior of the choir.36 During the restoration of the octagon choir of
Trondheim Cathedral (see Plate 2), finely carved sculptures, some thirty meters above
ground were exposed, among them a bearded man (fig. 7) an old woman (fig. 9) and
a monkey-like animal (fig. 8).37 Despite their “obscured” position, there is no evidence
that sculptures were intended to be marginal in their location. Surrounding the choir
and facing the altar, they are central to and integrated with the architecture of the
most sacred part of the cathedral.
In addition to implying a marginal location, the word also implies marginal content – something borderline, related to an edge or a margin. A whole array of liminal
themes, categories and motifs are embodied by this category of sculpture; humans,
animals, hybrids or forms from nature. Common to them are the apparent lack of
33
Veronica Sekules employs this ananlogy in an article published in Art History (1995) describing sculptures of dancing bears, naked monkeys and mouthpullers at the church of St.
Andrew at heckington, Lincolcnshire as “architectural marginalia”. Sekules 1995: 37.
34
for the difference between the pre-modern and modern world-view see: naugl 2002:
173. for a more thorough introduction to the medieval worldview see also Cook and herzman
2004.
35
Guillame Durand is also known as William Durandus. Durandus 2007: 16.
36
Scott 2011: 156–57.
37
Ekroll 2011: 16–20.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 10
10
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
conventional religious meaning and visual narrative.38 Rather, they are expressive if
not transgressive, and famously include images such as exhibitionists (the sheela-nagigs) and self-fallators, monstrous gargoyles and explorations of hybridity, as seen in
the quatrefoils of the north transept portal at Rouen. further, corbel series and capitals in Gothic cathedrals often display heads of kings and royalty, popes, monks and
nuns among other, prominent persons. Their locus has been associated with “marginal” motifs, although these men and women are without any monstrous or immediately marginal appearance.39 The study of nature and exploration of naturalistic
forms is yet another reoccurring theme. Within the foliage carvings in the York Minster chapter house, ten plants from nature can be accurately identified.40 Marginal
sculpture is de facto a complex group of sculpture characterised by a variety of motifs
and themes rather than a general affiliation to liminal content.
The contemporary academic criticism of “marginal content” has focused on two
issues. firstly, the concept of marginality presupposes a dichotomy between an “official/religious/high culture” and a “marginal/secular/popular culture”, inspired by
Mikhail Bakhtin’s theories of popular images as a carnivalesque phenomenon, a
grotesque realism, totally separated from “high culture”.41 Kenaan-Kedar is influenced
by Bakhtinian theories, as she perceives “official” and “marginal” sculptural programmes as completely different from each other, the marginal being the antithesis
of “official” art.42 As Aron Gurevich has shown, the two categories were intertwined
in a much more complex relationship where e.g. monstrous images could serve didactic purposes in the liturgy.43 More recently, Paul Binski has been critical of the
concept of a “popular” or “low” style within Gothic art.44
Secondly, our notion of marginality in the twenty-first century is probably very
different from contemporary conceptions of the marginal in the time of the Gothic
cathedrals. As Camille, among others, has pointed out, we can only view the Middle
Ages through our own time – and consequently we can never obtain a truly objective
38
There are, however, examples of marginal imagery with religious motifs, as discussed
by Sandler 1997.
39
This issue is discussed by Andås 2006: 145. Andås points out that the head of a king, a
popular motif on e.g. Gothic corbels, cannot be said to be marginal in location nor content
(motif nor meaning).
40
Brown 2003: 74.
41
Bakhtin 1968.
42
Kenaan-Kedar 1995: 15.
43
Gurevich 1988, esp. chapter 6: “high and Low: The Medieval Grotesque”. See also the
review by Colish 1989.
44
Binski 2004: 252.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 11
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
11
point of view. 45 A dragon hidden in the ceiling of the Trondheim octagon is perhaps
marginal to the public today, but might have been perceived as central, in both motif
and location, eight hundred years ago. Thus it can be difficult to recognize what the
viewer of a specific cultural and social context of e.g. the thirteenth century identified
as marginal.
The transference of our evaluation of the marginalia in illuminated manuscripts
to marginal sculpture of monumental architecture is not straightforward. Sculptures
and manuscripts imply different context of viewers, donors and workmen. Whilst
the manuscripts were primarily made for an educated élite (aristocracy or clergy), the
sculptures were available for a much wider and more complex audience, and might
therefore differ in meaning and usage. All this implies the need to look for a concept
other than ”marginality” as the common denominator for this vast and heterogeneous
phenomenon.
Looking forward – a marginal future?
As this brief survey illustrates, the group of sculpture in question is not exclusively
marginal in either location or content, and the notion of marginality is often subjective
and related to our modern and human-oriented worldview and the postmodern discourse of gender and identity. The closest parallel in medieval sources is the word
“babewyn”, referring not only to the monkey, but also to architectural carvings and
other art works depicting secular motifs in general.46 In book three of the eponymous
poem (1189), Geoffrey Chaucer describes the house of fame as a castle of great
beauty, adorned with “babewynnes”, pinnacles and statues; “Many subtyll compassynges, Rabewynnes [read Babewynnes] and Pynnaclys, Imageryes and Tabernaclys.”47 This terminology did not only apply to sculpture, but also illuminated
manuscripts. Camille quotes an Italian lawyer who in the fourteenth century complained that his son spent all his money in Paris “having his books “bemonkeyed”
(fecit libros suos babuinare) and written in gold letters”.48 An alternative in current scholarship is the term “architectural sculpture”.49 however, this rhetoric fails to make any
Camille 2009: xi (Preface). See also Camille: 1993.
Kurath 1998: 598. The monkey, however, had a prominent position in manuscript marginalia and this motif has been explores by e.g. Janson 1952.
47
Chaucer 1871–1879: 213.
48
Camille 1992: 152. h. W. Janson has explored the ape as a feature in Gothic marginal
art: Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, (1952) see esp. chapter VI: 1163–
1199.
49
Woodcock 2005: 18.
45
46
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 12
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
12
distinction between monumental and religious sculpture such as the jamb queen of
Chartres, and smaller sculptures with non-devotional themes such as the corbel heads
of Reims (See Plate 1). Looking towards new terminologies, it would be useful to
examine some defining aesthetic features of the group associated with the latter sculpture beyond the confines of the term “marginal”.
first and foremost, the sculpted works are integrated parts of the architecture.
Some have functional or quasi-functional qualities, supporting or signifying architectural structures, like corbels, capitals and roof bosses. Viollet-le-Duc emphasized
this functional aspect within Gothic “marginal” sculpture, but it is hardly a defining
feature. Many gargoyles were clogged and did not lead water; some were not even
intended to do work as waterspouts. They are not framed in niches or by archivolts,
as the monumental portal sculptures or the tympana of Gothic cathedrals, but rather
they support pilasters, roofs, windows or larger sculptures. These forms are generally
smaller in size than other architectural sculpture of the cathedral such as jamb sculptures or tympanum carvings, but there are several exceptions to this rule. The Laon
oxen are of monumental size, but would fall into the marginal group of sculpture, as
would some of the chimeras and gargoyles of french Gothic cathedrals. Voussoir
carvings of portal sculptural programmes are small in scale but nevertheless central
to monumental portal programmes. Unlike these, the composition of “marginal”
sculptural programmes is not necessarily symmetrical or hierarchical. This is evident
in the Chartres West front corbel string. The group at the north end of the corbel
string consists of alternating figural and roll corbels, whilst the rest of the corbel
string has only figurative corbels. In the top quatrefoils of the Rouen quatrefoils,
there is an odd mixture of angels between hybrids and animals, without any apparent
hierarchy of value.
Secondly, this group of sculpture exhibits expressionistic qualities, and explores
a wide range of strong emotional expressions and realistic forms. Juxtaposed with
the linear and restrained figuration in the Old Testament queen of the Royal Portal
of Chartres, the corbel sculptures some meters above display a very different stylistic
expression. Above the north portal, there is a monstrous animal head with horns, a
frowned forehead and a gaping jaw. Adolf Katzenellenbogen argued that there was a
definite hierarchical value system within the Chartres sculptural programme: The
lintels are subordinate to the tympana; the impost figures subordinate to the jamb
sculptures and so on.50 however, he does not even mention the corbels as parts of
this hierarchy, which is another testimony to their low status within art-historical
scholarship. Carved from the same stone at the same time, these corbels were likely
50
Katzenellenbogen 1968: 39.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 13
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
13
to have been integrated parts of the design of the sculptural programme from the
start, and it would therefore be constructive to include them in the analysis of the
overall scheme. They have not yet been discussed in art historical scholarship.51
Thirdly, although religious subjects may occur, motifs are generally without analogue in other sculptures of the cathedral. These sculptures do not portray biblical
narratives, themes or metaphors, nor do they illustrate the Christian dogma. Thus,
non-dogmatic imagery has been suggested by Margrethe Stang and Margrete Syrstad
Andås as a descriptive term for this diverse material.52 As Andås points out, the term
does not suggest that such imagery is not essentially religious and Christian.53 One
should take care not to construct a polarized dialectic between the two categories
non-dogmatic/dogmatic. The enduring postmodern fascination with sex, gender and
identity correspond with “marginal” motifs like the sheela-na-gigs.54 These motifs are
not, however, representative for the entire body of non-dogmatic imagery. The Reims
masks, discussed as an aspect of the “marginal” in this article, also include sculpture
of the four evangelists and the virtues, motifs that are commonly found in the sculptural programmes of west fronts and portals of Gothic cathedrals. hence, the relationship between dogmatic and non-dogmatic imagery is both complex and
interactive.
Identifying the defining features shared by this perplexing group of sculptures is
a step on the way towards a new definition and a more neutral terminology. Both
the medieval “babewynne” and the current “marginal” rhetoric have the advantage of
addressing not only sculpture, but a range of medieval imagery across media; sculpture in wood and stone as well as paintings and illuminated manuscripts. A new terminology would ideally share this characteristic and with that being applicable on a
more comprehensive group of artworks than merely architectural sculpture. The features discussed here are primarily relevant for sculptures of Gothic cathedrals, although some elements exhibit evidence of continuity from Romanesque sculpture.
The last decades have seen a revision of the usage of periodising categories like “Romanesque” and “Gothic”, now considered to be anachronistic and not taking into ac51
Kjartan hauglid, Ph.d. candidate at the University of Oslo, addresses the Chartres corbels
in his thesis (forthcoming). hauglid is particularly concerned with the Romanesque corbels
on the towers of the west front.
52
The term was suggested by Margrethe C. Stang and emplyed by Margrete Syrstad Andås
in Imagery and Ritual in the Liminal Zone. A Study of Texts and Architectural Sculpture from
the nidaros Province c. 1100–1300 (2012); cf. especially Chapter II, “Images of Sin and Struggle”: 200–214.
53
Andås 2012: 203.
54
See Jerman and Weir 1993 and freitag 2004.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 14
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
14
count the continuity of ideas throughout the period.55 Such criticism of nomenclature
does not necessarily call for substituting terminologies, as they would struggle with
the same problems as the former.56 Although the same may be said of “marginal sculpture”, alternative strategies could open up for a more flexible notion of this group of
art. Within that frame of reference, non-dogmatic imagery might prove a useful term.
The human face as an aspect of the marginal
The corbel head programme of the exterior of the choir and transepts at Reims
Cathedral is generally dated to 1230–1233.57 The sculptures are often referred to as
the Reims masks, but they are life-sized heads and busts rather than masks. Unlike
earlier corbel series such as the Chartres west front, they are all human.58 The Reims
masks are characterised by an innovative realism, displaying an interest in forms and
appearances of the human face. The sculptures exhibit a wide variety of facial expressions: some heads have grins exposing their teeth (fig. 2), an old man is frowning
as if he is worried, others are smiling and laughing. A man with his tongue stuck out
can be seen as an adaptation from the tradition of mouth-puller imagery in corbel
sculpture (fig. 4). Others have more thoughtful and introvert expressions (fig. 1).
The high artistic quality, and sensitive attention to details, such as the finely carved
facial features in fig. 5 and fig 6, is also a common feature of the Reims masks. Their
sheer quantity is another unusual property; it has been suggested that the masks originally counted 162 in total. 59
The Reims masks are undoubtedly innovative works of art on the cathedral, displaying high artistic quality and an unprecedented naturalism. In his discussion of
the Reims masks in both Image on the Edge (1992) and Gothic Art: Glorious Visions
(1996) Camille does not address them as such. Rather, the rhetoric of marginality has
embedded the sculptures with meaning, leading to their current association with “low
art”. Consequently, they have not been analysed on the basis of medieval concepts of
See for example Schapiro, Janson, Gombrich 1970.
Veronica Sekules (2001) applies the term “medieval art” instead of both “Romanesque”
and “Gothic”. Marvin Trachtenberg (1991) promotes the term “medieval modernism” as a substitute for “Gothic”.
57
Williamson proposes the years right before the riots (1233), when we know the choir
was finished up to roof level. Williamson, 1998: 63.
58
The sculptures I have focused on in this article are those depicting humans, but the Reims
masks include several images of animals (lions, dogs, and fabulous creatures) as well. A comprehensive catalogue of the sculptures is presented by hamann-MacLean and Schlüssler 2008,
esp. pp. 236–239.
59
Wadley 1984: 2 suggests this number.
55
56
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 15
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
15
beauty, scholasticism or light-metaphysics, as has been the norm with more “mainstream” Gothic art. When Camille describes the Reims masks as a “side-show of abnormality and ugliness” it reflects an aesthetic judgement of the twenty-first century
rather than a probable reception by medieval viewers or creators.60 The finely carved
details on the faces of Reims exhibit an interest in forms of nature and of humans
that has never been seen before in the preserved medieval sculpture. Such careful
studies and renderings testify to an interest in the beauty of man and nature rather
than a fascination for abnormalities and ugliness.
The human faces of Reims, as an aspect of marginal sculpture, are thus confined
by this rhetoric. One could ask to what extent these sculptures can be said to be marginal in any sense of the word. Are they associated with a marginal location? The
Reims masks are inaccessible, often hidden from the human eye, and can only be
seen on photos or through a lens.61 Unlike art today, medieval works of art, like these
sculptures, did not necessarily address the human spectator. The Reims masks were
enveloping the most sacred part of the cathedral; accordingly, their location should
be recognized as being manifestly central, rather than peripheral. The octagon-sculptures of Trondheim Cathedral are also concealed in lofty heights and by darkness.
Destroyed by fire several times in the Middle Ages, the sculptural programme of the
upper levels was vigorously restored each time: a testimony to their importance.62
Rather than being marginal in location, are the Reims masks characterised by marginal motifs and themes? The body of sculpture today consists of 125 masks (or busts)
that can either be observed in situ or reconstructed from earlier photos, casts or accounts. Three demons can be said to be monstrous, and some masks show continuity
to earlier Romanesque corbel motifs, such as the mouth-puller. Most common, however, are depictions of human faces, of men (110), women and kings, in addition to
some animals, several virtues, and the evangelists.63 They are characterised by an interest in nature and beauty, rather than ugliness and “edges” as proposed by Camille.
This aesthetic aspect has been largely overlooked.
It can be argued, that a medieval aesthetic is a somewhat anachronistic concept,
since aesthetic as a discipline is built on Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgement (pubCamille 1992: 84.
Some of the best photographs of the Reims masks were taken before World War I, and
published in catalogues like the Photo Monuments Historiques. Plates of all the Reims masks
are today available in a comprehensive publication by hamann-MacLean and Schüssler 1996:
esp. figs. 3446–3744.
62
Ekroll 2011: 18.
63
This account of the Reims masks is based on Moeller 2007: 6.
60
61
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 16
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
16
lished in German in 1790) and the subsequent development of modern art.64 nevertheless, scholars such as Umberto Eco and Paul Binski have discussed a pre-Kantian,
medieval concept of aesthetics, built on thinkers like Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas.65 Looking at the medieval sources, it becomes apparent that aesthetics and
the aspect of beauty is highly relevant for the understanding of architectural sculpture
representing liminal motifs and categories. As Umberto Eco has pointed out, Augustine argued that ugliness and evil did not exist in the divine plan, and that nothing
earthly could therefore be truly ugly or evil.66 Monsters were not abstract fantasies,
but were believed to inhabit the fringes of the known world, as described in Pliny
the Elder’s Historia naturalis (finished 77 A.D.), like the cynocephali (men with dogheads) and the sciapods (men with only one large leg and foot) in India.67 Augustine
maintained that if such creatures existed, and were human, they must descend from
Adam, as diversities contributing to the beauty of the whole.68 Eco directs attention
to a similar argument in the writings of William of Auvergne: “[he] said that the variety increases the Beauty of the universe, and thus even things that strike us as unpleasant are necessary to the universal order, including monsters.”.69 In the case of
architectural sculpture, Chaucer describes the “babewynnes” as clever devices (“subtyll
compassynges”) testifying to the great art and beauty of the house of fame.70 furthermore, Bernard of Clairvaux describes the hybrid forms as “beautiful deformities”.71 It is not the monstrous ugliness of the capital sculptures that might distract
the monks, but rather the beauty of the deformed figures. Marginality as a rhetorical
device of non-dogmatic or liminal imagery has effectively downplayed the dimension
of aesthetic and beauty.
As we have seen in the discussion of “marginal sculpture”, the term can also connote marginal meaning, associated with the popular/high-culture paradigm. This
rhetoric has ranked the Reims masks as subordinate to the “official” sculptural programmes. Mâle describes such sculpture as made with “gaiety and childlike serenity”
This problem is discussed in Margolis 2001: 27. See also Eco 1968.
Eco 1968. Binski’s discussion of the medieval sublime is a more recent contribution on
medieval aesthetics. Binski 2010. for a thorough investigation of the topic see also de Bruyne
1946 (3 vols.).
66
Eco 2007: 44.
67
Wittkower 1942: 167–168. See also Eco: “The Beauty of Monsters” in 2005: 138–142.
68
Wittkower 1942: 168.
69
Eco 2005: 148.
70
Chaucer 1871–1879: 213.
71
Lat. “formosa deformitas” translated by Rudolph to “beautiful deformities”, Rudolph
1990: 282–283.
64
65
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 17
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
17
by unsupervised and illiterate workmen.72 Camille also emphasizes artistic freedom,
describing the Reims masks as “undictated, unseen and unauthorized sculpture”.73
however, it is unlikely that such extensive sculptural programmes of high artistic
quality came into being as unauthorized experimentations commenced by the sculptors themselves without the clergy’s knowing or approval. Rather, they were planned
as part of the exterior sculptural programme of Reims, overseen and authorised by
both a master mason and the clergy. As Barry Magrill has pointed out, carved corbel
series meant a substantial additional expense, and therefore can be viewed as symbols
of patron’s status and ambition.74 This would be the case in Trondheim as well, where
the hagiography of St. Olav, Passio et Miracula Beati Olavi, describes how archbishop
Eystein fell from the scaffolding while inspecting the construction work.75 There are
several other examples of medieval architects or master masons suffering similar injuries from climbing the heights of the cathedrals, such as William of Sens.76
Examining the Reims masks in the perspective of “marginal art” Camille suggests
that the wall of the cathedral can bee seen as a “liminal” zone, a barrier between the
sacred and the secular, and further that this liminality opens up for an artistic creativity and play with forms equal to that of the margins of manuscript pages.77 The
Reims masks are seen as symbols of the “common-people”, a mockery of “high” culture, a form of social critique.78 The notion of liminal zones has been discussed by
Margrete Syrstad Andås in a recent article on Trondheim Cathedral. She examines
the medieval nidaros liturgy, and interprets the so-called bishop’s portal at Trondheim in relation to the liturgical and legal practices at the time. 79 Moving from a
broad, multimedia approach in favour of closer studies of specific local practices of
law and liturgy might provide new insight.
Preceding the famous Visitation and Annunciation on the west façade, one could
ask why the finely carved faces of the Reims masks have not been equally celebrated
for their Gothic naturalism and beauty. The historiography of marginal sculpture in
general, and the Reims masks in particular, reveals a perception of such sculpture as
Mâle 2000: 62.
Camille 1992: 84.
74
Magrill 2009: 5.
75
Passio et miracula Beati Olavi 1881: 114–115.
76
Binski 2010: 15.
77
Camille 1992: 90–91. See also Dale, 2010: 278 for his discussion of Camille’s arguments.
78
Camille 1996: 164.
79
Andås 2007. See also Andås 2008 and Andås 2012.
72
73
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 18
18
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
secondary and devoid of meaning already at the time of Mâle.80 To “blame” its position in the margins of scholarly interest solely on the rhetoric of marginality, would,
however, be a premature and imperfect evaluation. Michael Camille was a brilliant
and imaginative scholar, raising questions of cultural and sexual identities, the subjectivity of the art historian, the notion of “Image” over “Art” and the repressed and
excluded “edges”.81 Applying these sociological and anthropological approaches as a
strategy for bringing the margins to the centre was perhaps an impossible task.82
Rather, we could aim to reframe the margins, so that this perplexing group of sculpture, as in the case of the Reims masks, could be reappraised beyond the confines of
marginal rhetoric.
Conclusion
Architectural sculpture labelled “marginal sculpture” has consistently been situated
in the “margins” of scholarly interest and research in the last centuries. hence, it
would be premature to ascribe its marginalised position solely to the rhetoric of marginality, which has influenced research since the 1990s. Michael Camille sought to
bring the margins back into the centre, raising questions of social and cultural identities, otherness and edges, and centre–periphery relations. Concomitantly, the imagery became associated with questions of sex, gender and the high–low culture
paradigm. This article has argued that as a result, the subjects became further marginalised, contrary to Camille’s intentions. Exploring the human faces of Reims as
an aspect of the marginal, it has become apparent that the masks have not been celebrated for their beauty and naturalism on the same level as for example the famous
Annunciation and Visitation of the west façade. further, there is no evidence to suggest that marginal location, motifs or content were fundamental to the Reims masks
in particular or the group of architectural sculpture on Gothic cathedrals labelled
“marginal” as a whole. This group of sculpture is associated with a terminology which
is overloaded with contemporary academic meaning, and which may obstruct scholars
from approaching the sculptures as aesthetic objects.
80
The Reims masks were subject to a stylistic analysis in Sauerländers work on french
Sculpture, but he was primarily concerned with questions of dating, origin and different masters in order to establish whether the masks were a planned part of the exterior sculptural programme. (Sauerländer 1972). In other volumes, they are barely mentioned (Williamson 1998).
81
for a summary of his scholarship, see his memorial by nelson and Seidel 2002. for a
bibliography of Camille’s writings, see Boeye 2002.
82
As discussed by several of his reviewers, most notably hamburger and Smith.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 19
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
19
This discussion of shared and defining features has aimed to delineate this group
of sculpture, as a step towards new definitions. The term non-dogmatic imagery has
the advantage of addressing imagery across different media and chronological divisions of art historical epochs. Based on the non-dogmatic and not non-religious as a
common feature, this terminology can be helpful in discounting the marginal rhetoric
in our analysis of architectural sculpture discussed in this article. It has been the purpose of this article to show that the different groups of architectural sculpture are
not characterised by dichotomy, but interplay. Some one hundred and sixty years ago,
Ruskin defined both the ludicrous and the sublime as essential to the “gothic spirit”.
Likewise, the monstrous and the beautiful need not be perceived as problematic polarities – architectural sculpture might have evoked a mixture of fear and delight. In
the human faces of Reims and Trondheim there is also the aspect of beauty. Sociological and anthropological approaches have by and large neglected the concept of a
medieval aesthetic and its influence on this part of Gothic architectural sculpture. Reframing these human faces as works of art may promote new scholarship and research
on these multifaceted sculptures.
Bibliography
AnDåS, Margrete Syrstad. 2006. “hvor marginal er marginen: om blottere i sentrum
og konger i periferien.” In Kersti Markus (ed.), Bilder i marginalen. Nordiska
studier i medeltidens konst, 139–57. Tallin.
—. 2007. “Art and ritual in the liminal zone.” In Margrete Syrstad Andås, Øystein
Ekroll, Annette haug & nils holger Petersen (eds.), The Medieval Cathedral of
Trondheim: Architectural and Ritual Constructions in their European Context, 47–
126. Ritus et artes 3. Turnhout: Brepols.
—. 2008. “The Octagon Doorway: A Question of Purity and Danger?”. In Kristin
B. Aavitsland & Margrethe C. Stang (eds.), Ornament and Order: Essays on Viking
and Northern Medieval Art for Signe Horn Fuglesang, 97–134. Trondheim.
—. 2012. Imagery and Ritual in the Liminal Zone. A Study of Texts and Architectural
Sculpture from the Nidaros Province, c. 1100–1300. faculty of Theology, University
of Copenhagen (PhD Diss.).
BAKhTIn, Mikhail. 1968. Rabelais and His World. Transl. helene Iswolsky. Cambridge.
BALTRUšAITIS, Jurgis. 1955. Le moyen âge fantastique: Antiquités et exotismes dans l’art
gothique. Paris.
—. 1960. Réveils et prodiges: Le gothique fantastique. Paris
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 20
20
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
BERnARD Of CLAIRVAUx. “Apologia.” In Conrad Rudolph (ed.), The “Things of
Greater Importance”: Bernard of Clairvaux’s Apologia and the Medieval Attitude Toward Art, 227–337. Philadelphia 1990.
BERnhEIMER, Richard. 1958. “Review of Le moyen âge fantastique by Jurgis Baltrušaitis”. Art Bulletin 40, 160–162.
BInSKI, Paul. 2004. Becket’s Crown: Art and Imagination in Gothic England, 1170–
1300. Yale.
—. 2010. “‘Working by Words Alone’. The Architect, Scholasticism and Rhetoric in
Thirteenth-century france”. In Mary Carruthers (ed.) Rhetoric Beyond Words:
Delight and Persuasion in the Arts of the Middle Ages, 14–51. Cambridge.
—. 2010. “Reflections on the ‘Wonderful height and Size’ of Gothic Great Churches
and the Medieval Sublime”. In C. S. Jaeger (ed.) Magnificence and the Sublime in
Medieval Aesthetics, 129–156. new York.
BOEYE, Kerry. 2002. “A Bibliography of the Writings of Michael Camille”. Gesta 41,
141–144.
BROWn, Sarah. 2003. “Our Magnificent fabrick”. York Minster: An Architectural
History c. 1220–1500. Swindon.
BRUSh, Kathryn. 1995. “Integration or Segregation among Disciplines? The historiography of Gothic Sculpture as Case-Study”. In Kathryn Brush, Peter Draper
& Virginia Chieffo Raguin (eds.) Artistic Integration in Gothic Buildings, 19–40.
Toronto.
de BRUYnE, Edgar. 1946. Études d´esthétique mediévale 1–3. Bruges
BYnUM, Caroline Walker. 2001. Metamorphosis and Identity. new York.
CAMILLE, Michael. 1992. Image on the Edge: The Margins of Medieval Art. London.
—. 1993. “Mouths and Meanings: Towards an Anti-Iconography of Medieval Art”.
In Brendan Cassidy (ed.) Iconography at the Crossroads: Papers from the Colloquium
Sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, 43–54. Princeton.
—. 1996. Gothic Art, Glorious Visions. London.
—. 2009. The Gargoyles of Notre-Dame: Medievalism and the Monsters of Modernity.
Chicago.
ChAUCER, Geoffrey. “house of fame.” In frederick J. furnivall (ed.), A Parallel Text
Edition of Chaucher’s Minor Poems. London 1871–1879.
CARRUThERS, Mary. 1998. The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making
of Images, 400–1200. Cambridge.
CAVInESS, Madeline h. 2001. Visualizing Women in the Middle Ages: Sight, Spectacle,
and Scopic Economy. Pennsylvania.
COhEn, Jeffrey Jerome. 1999. Of Giants: Sex, Monsters, and The Middle Ages. Minnesota.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 21
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
21
COLISh, Marcia L. 1989. “Review: Medieval Popular Culture: Problems of Belief
and Perception by Aron Gurevich; Janos M. Bak; Paul A. hollingsworth”. The
Journal of Interdisciplinary History 20, 129–132.
COOK, William R. and Ronald B. herzman. 2004. The Medieval World View: An
Introduction. Oxford.
DABB, Jean Ann. 1998. “Review: Marginal Sculpture in Medieval france: Towards
the Deciphering of an Enigmatic Pictorial Language by nurith Kenaan-Kedar”.
Speculum 73, 209–211.
DALE, Thomas. 2010. “The Monstrous”. In Conrad Rudolph (ed.), A Companion to
Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, 253–273. Oxford.
ECO, Umberto. 1968. Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages. new haven.
—. 2005. History of Beauty. Transl. Alastair Mc Even. new York.
—. 2007. On Ugliness. Transl. Alastair McEven. new York.
EKROLL, Øystein. 2011. “nye oppdagingar i nidarosdomen: Det store puslespelet”.
Spor 1, 16–20.
fOWLER, Bridget. 1997. Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations.
London.
fREITAG, Barbara. 2004. Sheela-na-gigs: Unravelling an Enigma. new York.
GOMBRICh, Ernst h. 1979. The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative
Art. Oxford.
GRAnT, Lindy. 1993. “Rouen Cathedral, 1200–1237”. In Jenny Stratford (ed.) XII
Medieval Art, Architecture and Archeology at Rouen. The British Archeological Association, 60–68. Leeds.
GUREVICh, Aron. 1988. Medieval Popular Culture, Problems of Belief and Perception.
Transl. János M. Bak & Paul A. hollingsworth. Cambridge.
hAMAnn-MACLEAn, R. & Ise Schüssler. 1996. Die Kathedrale von Reims II: 8. Die
Skulpturen. Abbildungen: Obergadenzone. Stuttgart.
—. 2008. Die Kathedrale von Reims II: 4. Die Skulpturen. Textband. Stuttgart.
hAMBURGER, Jeffrey f. 1993. “Review: Image on the Edge: The Margins of Medieval Art by Michael Camille”. The Art Bulletin 75, 319–327.
—. 2007. “Overkill – Or history that hurts”. Common Knowledge 13, 404–428.
hUGO, Victor. 1831. Notre-Dame de Paris. Paris.
JAnSOn, horst W. 1952. Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
London.
KATZEnELLEnBOGEn, Adolf. 1968. The Sculptural Programs of Chartres Cathedral:
Christ, Mary, Ecclesia. Maryland.
KEnAAn-KEDAR, nurith. 1995. Marginal Sculpture in Medieval France : Towards
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 22
22
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
the Deciphering of an Enigmatic Pictorial Language. Aldershot.
KEnDRICK, Laura. 2010. “Making Sense of Marginalized Images in Manuscripts
and Religious Architecture”. In Conrad Rudolph (ed.), A Companion to Medieval
Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, 274–294. Oxford.
KURATh, hans. 1998. Middle English Dictionary 1, vol. 11. (6th ed.). Michigan.
MAGRILL, Barry. 2009. “figurated Corbels in Romanesque Churches: The Interface
of Diverse Social Patterns Represented on Marginal Spaces”. RACAR 34, 28–
42.
MâLE, Emilé. 2000. Religious Art in France of the Thirteenth Century. London. (L’Art
religieux du XIIIe siècle en France. Étude sur l’iconographie du Moyen Âge et sur ses
sources d’inspiration, Paris 1898).
MARKUS, Kersti (ed.) 2006. Bilder i marginalen: Nordiska studier i medeltidens konst.
Tallinn.
MARGOLIS, Joseph. 2001. “Medieval Aesthetics”. In Berys Gaut & Dominic McIver
Lopes (eds.), A Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, 27–36. London.
MELLInKOff, Ruth. 1994. Averting Demons: The Protecting Power of Medieval Visual
Motifs and Themes 1–2. Los Angeles.
METCALfE, frederick (ed.). 1881. Passio et miracula Beati Olavi: Edited from a Twelfthcentury Manuscript in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Oxford.
MILLS, Robert. 2005. Suspended Animation: Pain, Pleasure and Punishment in Medieval Culture. London.
MOELLER, Sarah. 2007. The Faces of Reims: An Investigation into the Meaning of the
Corbel Head of the Cathedral of Notre Dame at Reims. University of Cincinnati.
(MA Diss.).
nAUGL, David. K. 2002. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Cambridge,
nELSOn, Robert S. and Linda Seidel. 2002. “Michael Camille: A Memorial”. Gesta
41, 137–139.
RAnDALL, Lillian M. C. 1966. Images in the Margins of Gothic Manuscripts. Berkeley.
RUDOLPh, Conrad. 1990. The “Things of Greater Importance”: Bernard of Clairvaux’s
Apologia and the Medieval Attitude Toward Art. Philadelphia.
RUSKIn, John. The Stones of Venice 1–2. London 1896.
SAnDLER, Lucy freeman. 1997. “The Study of Marginal Imagery: Past, Present and
future”. Studies in Iconography 18, 1–49.
SAUERLänDER, William. 1986. “Review: Religious Art of the Thirteenth Century
in france by Émilé Mâle”. Times Literary Supplement, 594.
—. 1972. Gothic Sculpture in France 1140–1270. London.
SChAPIRO, Meyer. 1979. “Marginal Images and Drôlerie”. In Late Antique, Early
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 23
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
23
Christian and Medieval Art: Selected Papers, 196–198. new York.
SChAPIRO, Meyer, horst W. Janson, Ernst h. Gombrich. 1970. “Criteria of Periodization in the history of European Art”. New Literary History. A Symposium
on Periods 1, 113–125.
SCOTT, Robert A. 2011. The Gothic Enterprise: A Guide to Understanding the Medieval
Cathedral. London.
SEIDEL, Linda. 2010. “formalism”. In Conrad Rudolph (eds.), A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, 106–127. Oxford.
SEKULES, Veronica. 1995. “Beauty and the Beast: Ridicule and Orthodoxy in Architectural Marginalia in Early fourtheenth-century Lincolnshire”. Art history 18,
37–62.
—. 2001. Medieval Art. Oxford.
SKEGGS, B. 1991. “Postmodernism, What is all the fuss About? A Review Essay”.
British Journal of Sociology of Education 12, 255–267.
SMITh, Kathryn A. 1994. “Liminal Limining: Review of Image on the Edge: The
Margins of Medieval Art by Michael Camille”. Oxford Art Journal 17, 92–96.
ThIBODEAU, T. M. (ed.). 2007. William DURAnD, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum.
new York.
TRAChTEnBERG, Marvin 1991. “Gothic/Italian ‘Gothic’: Towards a Redefinition”.
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 50, 22–37.
VIOLLET-LE-DUC, Eugène. 1854–1868. Dictionnaire raisonnée de l’architecture française
du XIe au XVIe siècle 1–10. Paris.
WADLEY, William B. 1984. The Reims Masks: A Reconstruction, Stylistic Analysis, and
Chronology of the Corbel Sculptures on the Upper Stories of Reims Cathedral. The
University of Texas at Austin (PhD Diss.).
WEIR, Anthony & James Jerman. 1986. Images of Lust: Sexual Carvings on Medieval
Churches. London.
WILLIAMSOn, Paul. 1998. Gothic Sculpture, 1140–1300. Pelican history of Art. Yale.
WITTKOWER, Rudolf. 1942. “Marvels of the East. A Study in the history of Monsters”. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5, 159–197.
WOODCOCK, Alex. 2005. Liminal Images: Aspects of Medieval Architectural Sculpture
in the South of England from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Centuries. BAR British Series 386. Oxford.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 24
24
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
Plate !
Human faces at the exterior walls of the chancel and transept at Reims cathedral
Fig. !. Old man with wrinkled
face and curly hair, Reims
cathedral.
Fig. ". Man with curly hair
grinning, exposing his teeth,
Reims cathedral.
Fig. #. Man with large nose,
appears upset or angry, Reims
cathedral.
Fig. $. Grimacing man with his
tongue sticking out, Reims
cathedral.
Fig. %. Frowning man with curly
hair, Reims cathedral.
Fig. &. Old, bold man with a
worried expression, Reims
cathedral.
After Hamann-MacLean and Ise Schlüssler !''&, part ", vol (, fig. #%#), #%&#, #%*!, #%)$, #$'! og #%$#.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 25
Reframing the margins: marginalised sculpture on Gothic cathedrals
25
Plate !
Human faces at the interior walls of the octagon choir, Trondheim cathedral
Fig. ". Old man with curly hair and a worried
expression, Trondheim cathedral.
Fig. #. Monkey-like creature, Trondheim cathedral
Fig. $. Old woman exposing her teeth, Trondheim
cathedral
Fig. %& . Young woman with draped headdress,
Trondheim cathedral
Fig. %%. Bearded man with arms, seems to be
bewildered, Trondheim cathedral.
Fig. %! . Gaping creature with large ears,
Trondheim cathedral.
Photo: Kjartan Hauglid, © Nidaros Domkirkes Restaureringsarbeider.
Collegium Medievale 2013
CM 2013 ombrukket3_CM 25.03.14 12:39 Side 26
26
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth
Ingrid Lunnan Nødseth has for several years been involved in the project “Reframing the margin” (lending its name from this article) at the Departement of Art history, nTnU Trondheim. her master thesis in art history from 2012 was titled:
“Bildentekstilet – et tapt antependium fra norsk middelalder?”. The main arguments
and findings from this thesis has later been published as the article “Bildentekstilet”
in fortidsminneforeningens årbok 2013 (pp. 225 - 236). Mail: Ingrid.lunnan@
gmail.com
Collegium Medievale 2013