Meyer Schapiro in Silos: Pursuing an Iconography of Style Author(s): John Williams Source: The Art Bulletin, Vol.

85, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 442-468 Published by: College Art Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177382 . Accessed: 19/06/2011 13:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

Meyer Schapiro in Silos: Pursuing an Iconography of Style

John Williams
The great interest of the Marxist approach lies not only in the attempt to interpret historically changing relations of art and economic life in the light of a general theory of society but also in the weight given to the differences and conflicts within the social group as motors of development, and to the effects of these on outlook, religion, morality, and philosophical ideas.-Meyer Schapiro, "Style"(1953)1 In 1939, some fourteen years before Meyer Schapiro thus characterized the Marxist approach to the history of art in his famous essay on style, he had himself provided a showpiece of a Marxist approach in an article in this journal.2 "From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos" was devoted to the cloister sculpture and manuscript illumination of the Castilian monastery of Santo Domingo de Silos. Schapiro arrayed a vast number of wide-ranging references to buttress an argument linking the art of the Castilian monastery of Silos to the social and political complexion of the place. Schapiro's article was impressive not only for the radical nature of the argument but also for its energy and erudition, its style. It was long: sixty-two pages distributed about equally between main text and footnotes. Some of the 223 footnotes provided what amounted to encyclopedic articles on such topics as demonology and Spanish economic history. Schapiro began by remarking on the need to consider stylistic influence not as something inevitable, but as possible only if social conditions are right for reception. Silos provided a test case, for "In the great monastery of Santo Domingo de Silos, especially, we can follow the emergence of the new style, because both Mozarabic and Romanesque styles were practiced in the aband in the light of documents of bey at the same moment.... the time, it is possible to see how new conditions in the church and the secular world led to new conceptions of the traditional themes or suggested entirely new subjects."3 Four decades later one eminent scholar of the field hailed it as "the most profound piece of writing on Romanesque art by anyone to this day,"4 and another concluded, "There are few texts on medieval sculpture and painting which could stand up to the [article's] complexity of ideas and insights."5 Another article published by Schapiro in 1939, on the sculpture of Souillac,6 where a comparable approach was employed, has been recently eulogized as a guide for today's art historians.7 While many sites might have provided the chance "to interpret historically changing relations of art and economic life in the light of a general theory of society," Schapiro found Silos unusual in that "at the end of the eleventh century we find two distinct and in many ways, opposed styles in Silos.... The practice of these two styles in the same monastery was not simply a matter of two stages of development carried by overlapping generations."8 One style belonged to the copy of the Commentary on the Apocalypse by Beatus of Li6bana written and decorated at Silos (Figs. 1, 12, 15, 20).9 The other informed the extraordinary collection of cloister sculpture, but more particularly the large plaques with New Testament subjects on its corner piers (Figs. 2, 21). The text of the richly illustrated manuscript was completed by monks at Silos in 1091, as we know from prolix colophons presented below. Its illustrations were provided by another local monk in 1109 in a style called Mozarabic, that is, the style associated with the Islamicized culture of Mozarab Christians, those living under or culturally influenced by Muslims. The tenth century witnessed the heyday of this style. In contrast, the sculpture exhibited an up-to-date Romanesque style, which Schapiro dated to the end of the eleventh century, thus contemporaneous with the illustration of the Beatus Commentary. For most art historians of his day the presence of atypical styles would have prompted a search for analogues elsewhere in order to chart sources of influence. In Schapiro's article it inspired a search for a social explanation. The more abstract, hieratic, frozen, and outdated Mozarabic style of the manuscript was held by him to be expressive of a parochial monastic class dominated by fixed ecclesiastical rules.10 It had been deliberately chosen to render homage to tradition and express opposition to change. The more realistic Romanesque style of the sculpture, in contrast, was the product of "lay artisanship of a high technical order."" Schapirojudged the style to be local, not imported, and linked to a new Castile of growing trade, urbanization, and a nascent popular culture that promoted secular values and challenged ecclesiastical
domination.12

Schapiro offered his examination with the acknowledgment, "A more comprehensive study might lead us to change the conclusions; but it would have to follow the method employed here, the critical correlation of the forms and meanings in the images with historical conditions of the same period and region."13 This article is a reply to that challenge. Schapiro's socially grounded solution to the conundrum of different contemporaneous styles at Silos is written with such clarity and energy that it obscures the fact that it depends on propositions that are untenable. It is inevitable that subsequent revisions in the scholarship dealing with historical conditions around 1100 C.E. permit a more comprehensive understanding. These conditions involve not only the state of Castilian society, especially at Silos, but also the historical conditions of artistic patronage and production, features that Schapiro scanted in his focus on style. It is possible, with distance, to evaluate Schapiro's handling of the evidence. What follows is an attempt to apprehend the origin of his reorientation as a formalist, as well as an understanding of the limited nature of Schapiro's success, through a "critical correlation of the forms and meanings in the images with historical conditions of the same period and region." The process will entail a look at his formation and evolution as an

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

443

1 ChristAppearingin the Clouds, from Beatusof Liebana,In Apocalipsin, Silos, 1109. London, BritishLibrary MS Add. 11695, fol. 21r (photo: by permissionof The BritishLibrary) art historian and a critique of his approach to the extraordinary sculpture and painting produced at Silos about 1100.14 Schapiro the Formalist Schapiro stepped onto the art historical stage as a formalist, an orientation consistent not only with the state of the discipline but also with his own training and considerable talents as an artist with an abiding interest in the art of his time.l5 For some reason, Schapiro himself did not in later life acknowledge the exclusively formalist nature of his dissertationl6 and its publication in a two-part article in the Art Bulletin,l7 his earliest scholarship. In an interviewwith David Craven in the l990s he recalled that already in the 1920s, when he was finishing his dissertationat Columbia University on the sculpture of Moissac,he practiced a social art history: D[avid] C[raven]: What of your famous article on Santo Domingo de Silos?Did it mark a fundamental shift in your approach to analyzing art? Was it influenced by Soviet thought, specificallyby Mikhail Lifshitz's 1938 interpretation of Marxismand art? M[eyer] S[chapiro]: I have never read the book by Lifshitz, nor am I interested in doing so. The conceptual frameworkfor my 1939 Silos article was first used in my 1929 dissertationon Moissac.The third part of this disser-

444

AR-T Br'I.I.E[IN

SEPITEMBER

2 003

VOI.LUME I.XXXV

NUIBER

2 Santo Domingo de Silos, cloister, Doubting Thomas (Photo: Institut Amatller)

tation, which has never been published, uses a Marxist concept of history. Originally, after the first part of the dissertation appeared in the 1931 Art Bulletin, I planned to revise the second part on iconography and then to publish the third part on the historical context for Moissac. For various reasons I never found the time to complete the revision of the second part, so the last two parts have never appeared in print.... In 1927 I was a guest of the monks at Santo Domingo de Silos. Much of my article was conceived then and it was written long before it was published
in 1939.18

Schapiro's recollection of the dissertation is difficult to square with the copy deposited in the Columbia University library. Indeed, Schapiro's characterizations of the articles and the dissertation sowed the seeds of a continuing confusion. According to the first footnote in "The Romanesque Sculpture of Moissac," the two-part article published in the Art Bulletin in 1931, the dissertation on which it was based had been accepted by the faculty of Columbia in May 1929, whereas the bibliographic record at the Avery Library at Columbia assigns it a date of 1935 for deposit. This is of little practical consequence, for footnote and figure numbers are

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

445

penned in, as are editorial corrections, and indicate that this is the original text, and the citations indeed point to a date of 1929.19 However, Schapiro's assertion that it was divided into three parts is contradicted by the actual format. It is divided into two parts. In the first, 172 pages long, the capitals and tympanum are described in minute detail. It also includes some thirty pages (27-58) of a survey of iconographic parallels for the subjects. Part 2, 175-401, searches for the origins of forms and iconographic, stylistic, and ornamental parallels. The pier reliefs are included here. It is traditional art history. Nothing in it can be construed as taking a "Marxist" direction. The confusion over a third part seems to stem from the original conception of the article on Moissac. It opens with the statement, "The study here undertaken consists of three parts. In the first is described the style of the sculptures; in the second the iconography is analyzed and its details compared with other examples of the same themes; in the third I have investigated the history of the style and tried to throw further light on its origins and development." However, the anticipated third part was never published. The two-part article in the Art Bulletin is based on part 1 of the dissertation, but with his discussion of the pier reliefs from part 2 of the dissertation also included. Thirty pages of part 1 on the iconography of the capitals were omitted. With the exception of the introductory pages, the texts of the article and dissertation are essentially identical, although tightened in the journal. Presumably, the anticipated third part of the article was to present part 2 of the dissertation. In later citations of the dissertation it is common to find references to an unpublished third part.20 Although the unpublished part 2 of the dissertation was subtitled "Historical Study of the Cloister and the Tympanum," it dealt solely, and in a traditional way, with the stylistic sources of the sculpture of Moissac. Schapiro had alerted the reader on the first page of the dissertation, "The presence in Moissac of so many works carved within one generation, and manifesting such variety of style, permits inquiry into the nature of historical change in the light of observable material documents." This might imply, at least with the benefit of hindsight, that his interest in the sculpture of Moissac included an explanation of why different styles coexisted and an intention to answer it through a review of historical conditions. In fact, the "material documents" intended to cast light on changes of style consist exclusively of examples of particular styles. His formalist orientation is evident in the way he approached the differences in essentially contemporaneous styles at Moissac. Having observed that the "earliest sculptures are flatter and more uniform in their surfaces," he proceeded to deal with them as examples of "primitive" art in the way that Emmanuel L6wy conceived the term in his Rendering of Nature in GreekArt.21 Schapiro went on to note, "In the later works the figures are more plastic and include varied planes.... The whole is more intricate and involved and more intensely expressive."22 Thus, part 2 presents the results of a traditional use of style in a search for the formulas found at Moissac. There is no hint that social or ideological causes lay behind the stylistic changes. Indeed, in the dissertation Schapiro criticized Wilhelm V6ge for invoking broad cultural movements to explain the emergence of Ro-

manesque sculpture in Languedoc.23 This is precisely what Schapiro would attempt in "From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos." Schapiro's statement on the first page (175) of part 2 of the dissertation is an accurate one: "In the following chapters we will inquire into the pre-Romanesque arts of the region and seek to determine the parts played by the various traditions which contributed to the formation of the Moissac styles." The inquiry is chiefly focused on demonstrating that Aquitaine provided the artistic context that allowed Moissac to be carried out. His formalist orientation was revealed in his introduction to the dissertation: No one has seriously studied the technique, materials, proportions, gestures, costumes, and expression of French Romanesque art; and that more interesting subject of pure design:-the processes of abstraction of natural and conventional forms in primitive arts, the drapery rhythms, and linear schemata, the representation of space, movement, and the volume of objects, in this region of southern lacks its first treatise. Past discussion has France,-still been of the iconography, chronology, and genealogy of monuments. ... But even with the meager documents and this ignorance of so many important factors, much can be learned from the sculptures, if only they be submitted to a scrupulous study. If we multiply observations, we increase our means of controlling theories. Much that may seem minute or too finely drawn will appear general and indispensable, once we have seen its bearing.24 "Scrupulous study" involved minutely nuanced reading of formal character. This constitutes the substance and, in the degree of its refinement, novelty of Schapiro's work on Moissac. Indeed, formal qualities were subjected by Schapiro to such unprecedented scrutiny that some communicative function of style was implied. In his 1953 essay on the topic of style, Schapiro represented it as "a vehicle within the group, communicating and fixing certain values of religious, social and moral life through the emotional suggestiveness of forms."25 Verbalization of a content communicated by "emotional suggestiveness" must necessarily remain vague. But if the statement in the dissertation quoted above seems to validate highly detailed description as a means to a larger end, vaguely expressed as "controlling theories," that end is not taken up. In concluding with the statement, "Much that may seem minute or too finely drawn will appear general and indispensable, once we have seen its bearing," Schapiro seems to acknowledge a potential perception of disparity between effort and result. Beyond Formalist Art History If it is impossible to reconcile Schapiro's recollection of his dissertation of 1929 as already informed by a "Marxist concept of history" with its actual text, it may be because his conversion to a different kind of art history was occurring even as he completed his dissertation and readied it for publication in 1931 in the Art Bulletin. In a review published the next year ofJurgis Baltrusaitis's study of artistic schemata in Romanesque art, Schapiro reprimanded the author for

446

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

analyzing formal schemata without engaging "meaning":

the issue of

A crucial weakness of Baltrusaitis's dialectic lies in the inactive, neutral role of content in the formation of the work of art; it allows for no interaction between the meanings and shapes; the schemas remain primary and permanent. It is therefore an artificial or schematic dialectic which ignores the meanings of the works, the purpose of the art in Romanesque society and religion, expressive aspects of the forms and meanings.... 26 The rejection of an exclusively formalist orientation implied in the criticism of Baltrusaitis's book coincided in time with Schapiro's immersion in the political ferment of New York in the years of the Great Depression. Karl Werckmeister was surely right to conclude that the study of Silos was informed by the kind of concern for the relationship between social status and art promoted by Schapiro's engagement with the political and social issues of the 1930s.27 This engagement was heavy. In the same year in which his review of Baltrusaitis appeared, Schapiro published four articles in the New Masses, a literary magazine affiliated with the Communist Party. Its editor, Whittaker Chambers, was Schapiro's close friend. The two had traveled in Europe together in 1923, the point at which Chambers had become radicalized.28 Schapiro was also recruited to write essays on art for a "Marxist Study of American Culture" that Harcourt Brace had agreed to publish, a project involving among others Lionel Trilling, Sidney Hook, Granville Hicks, and John Dos Passos (the project did not materialize).29 Schapiro's aversion to traditional art history and his resolve to abandon it for one that was Marxist in its ideals was forthrightly articulated in a letter to a friend in 1936: Bourgeois art-study, as a profession, is usually servile, precious, pessimistic, and in its larger views of history, human nature and contemporary life, thoroughly reactionary. We do not overcome these things by abandoning the study of I must add art, but by giving it a Marxist direction.... of which that a Marxist art, history yet remains to finally, be built, does not give up the techniques of research into details and fact developed during the last 100 years-on the contrary, it insists upon scientific method throughout; but it rejects as unscientific the typical theories of W6lfflin and Dvorak (the best of the modern historians) for scientific reasons which must be obvious to you.30 The nature of the reorientation was reflected in three short essays, "The Social Bases of Art,"31 "Race, Nationality and Art,"32 and "The Public Use of Art."33 Its Marxist inspiration is reflected in the journals he selected: between 1932 and 1939 he wrote sixteen articles for the New Masses, the Nation, the Marxist Quarterly,Art Front, the Partisan Review, and the In most of these Papers of the First American Artists' Congress.34 of what kind of art adthe issue addressed essays Schapiro vanced the revolution. Style as such was not often introduced except as implied by statements such as "The good revolutionary picture ... should have the legibility and pointedness of a cartoon."35 But in his address to the American Artists' Congress in 1936 Schapiro took the relationship between

style and culture as his theme.36 An article he published in the Marxist Quarterlythe following year, "The Nature of Abstract Art," tied modern styles, Impressionist and others, to the peculiar character of late-nineteenth-century society. Impressionism, for example, was seen to mirror the style of life of those members of society who appreciated it and were its patrons: The very existence of Impressionism which transformed nature into a private, unformalized field for sensitive vision, shifting with the spectator, made painting an ideal domain of freedom.... These urban idylls ... presuppose the cultivation of these pleasures as the highest field of freedom for an enlightened bourgeois detached from the official beliefs of his class . . . the cultivated rentier.37 Actually, it was another New Yorker who, in that same year, made the most explicit claim that a Marxist approach explained style as a result of social context. Milton Brown, Schapiro's junior by seven years, was a student at New York University's Institute of Fine Arts in the 1930s when Schapiro taught classes and was available for consultation.38 His master's thesis dealt with French patronage of modern art from a distinct Marxist perspective.39 In an article entitled "The Marxist Approach to Art," Brown argued: While most critics will go so far as to concede the fact that content in art is the formal equivalent of a social and cultural milieu, or even that it is a class expression ... they will not agree with the Marxist that form or style is also explainable by virtue of these same social conditions. This, of course, is the crucial point in all Marxist discussions of
culture.40

While Brown's exposure to Marxist ideology in his own family complicates any assumption that his Marxist approach merely reflected Schapiro's, Brown later recalled, "All of us built on his [Schapiro's] lectures; everybody who's around now got his or her ideas from Meyer.... The things he said in class in the early '30s have become common parlance."41 Brown's context was French society of the early modern era. In "The Nature of Abstract Art" Schapiro not only linked modern styles to a particular, bourgeois, class but also pushed back the artistic revolution that rooted art in everyday experience to the Renaissance: As this same burgher class, emerging from a Christian feudal order, began to assert the priority of sensual and natural to ascetic and supernatural gods, and idealized the human body as the real locus of values... so the artists derived from this valuation of the human being artistic ideals of energy and massiveness of form which they embodied in robust, active or potentially active, human figures.4

This picture of the cultural change we associate with the advent of the Renaissance was not, of course, original. Schapiro's radical innovation in "From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos" was to relocate the revolutionary change to the period that competed with modern art for his attention, namely, the beginnings of Romanesque art about 1100. His

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

447

claim in "From Mozarabic to Romanesque at Silos" that the figures in the cloister of Silos are conceived in a "far more naturalistic way" and employ an "accented energy of movement"43 echoes the description, just quoted, of the new direction claimed for Renaissance art. The same dynamic was at work, that is, the secularization and liberalization of a culture once dominated by the Church. Schapiro identified secularization with an independent, burgher class. The relocation of this watershed to the Romanesque period was problematic, especially so, as we shall see, for Silos. Schapiro and Silos Schapiro's visit to Silos in 1927 was made possible by a Carnegie Corporation grant for dissertation research on Moissac.44 This excursion to the Spanish site, still remembered at Silos when I visited in 1964, was indirectly owed to Arthur Kingsley Porter (1883-1933), America's senior medievalist, whose primary interest was Romanesque art. Through his position at Harvard University and his publications, Porter helped make the art of the Middle Ages a topic as worthy of study as that of the Renaissance. That the social views of Schapiro and Porter were as radically divergent as their backgrounds is apparent, as Thomas Crow has recently underscored with a telling contrast of the two scholars' use of the Theophilus legend.45 Porter's desire to rid the world of abstract art and his antiurban recipe for immunizing the artist against commercialism, materialism, and cosmopolitanism could scarcely be more opposed to Schapiro's implicit belief in the cosmopolitan city as the wellspring of significant, that is, abstract, modern art.46 This did not affect their personal relations, however. In a letter to Schapiro in 1928, Porter expressed regret that Schapiro was not coming to Harvard to study with him. Two years later Porter invited Schapiro to collaborate on a handbook of Romanesque sculpture.47 Schapiro declined. As we have seen, collaboration with Porter at the dissertation stage of Schapiro's career would not have involved reconciling incompatible methods, for the text completed in 1929 might well have been written by a student of Porter's. Porter had put Silos on the art historical map when he converted its cloister sculpture into a weapon with which to assault French archaeological theory, that is, the tendency of French scholars to identify the birthplace of Romanesque with France. He declared in his Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads that "the earliest extant monument of pilgrimage art is really the cloister of Santo Domingo de Silos."48 In his contribution in 1924 to a collection of articles published in Germany on the state of the discipline, Porter had made his dark opinion of French scholarship unmistakably clear.49 Schapiro's dismissive reviews of French scholarship suggests that he shared Porter's antipathy, but he did not use Silos as a weapon in the "Spain-versus-France war" ignited by Porter. Indeed, although he accepted in his dissertation Porter's precocious date of about 1075 for the sculpture of the cloister at Silos, he rejected Porter's claim that Silos had influenced Moissac and claimed the reverse, arguing ingeniously if unconvincingly that Silos and other Spanish works putatively from the middle of the eleventh century displayed signs of influence from French buildings now lost. These hypothetical monuments would have provided the founda-

tion for the style of Moissac.50 By the time he wrote "From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos" Schapiro had moved to a date of about 1100 for Silos, as had Porter himself.5 Not only was this position more reasonable, it was also necessary for a thesis that required a chronological pairing of the sculpture of the Silos cloister with the painting of the Beatus Commentary there early in the twelfth century. Of greater importance to Schapiro than the direction influences traveled was the fact that their reception depended on comparable stages of economic development. Instead of indicating inferior status, influences demonstrated a parity in social evolution: "If a great mass of evidence confirms the connections between Spanish centers and the foreign centers and the foreign sources of the new style, little has been said of the local conditions which made this new art appropriate and even
necessary.
...52

Schapiro made an increasingly prosperous and secularized Spain crucial to a Marxist explanation for the different styles at Silos; the space devoted to economic history reflected that fact and contributed greatly to the novelty of his article. As he stated at the outset, "in the light of documents of the time, it is possible to see how new conditions in the church and the secular world led to new conceptions of the traditional themes or suggested entirely new subjects."53 Further on he asserted, "The beginnings of an aggressive middle class date from this moment. Modern municipal institutions, vernacular literature, and a high secular culture arise at the same time."54 The site of Silos itself experienced this change. Spain around 1100, he declared, was not the "primitive, medieval, and conquered" Spain that had produced the Mozarabic style. Schapiro linked the up-to-date Romanesque style displayed by the cloister sculpture to this social evolution whereby the Church began to yield control to secular classes and institutions. It fostered a style more reflective of human experience. In his dissertation, Schapiro had seen the evolution from a "primitive" style of the Apostle reliefs of the cloister at Moissac to a more naturalistic one in the reliefs of the porch as a function of technical perfection operating over the three decades the campaign had consumed.55 Although in "From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos" he retained a belief that the order of execution was a determinant of naturalism-he judged the Doubting Thomas relief to be later than those of the Ascension and the Pentecost-the more significant correlation for naturalism was the status of the carvers as representatives of an emerging urbanized and freer world: The expansion of the upper classes, . . . the formation of a stronger, centralized monarchical and ecclesiastical authority, in fact intensified the development of merchant and artisan groups.... Thus the new practical and cultural needs of the upper classes indirectly advanced the growth of the towns and those interests in everyday experience and the norms of empirical knowledge which underlie the broad naturalistic tendencies of later medieval art.... The large Romanesque reliefs are conceived in a far more naturalistic way than any Mozarabic representations. The very idea of monumental narrative sculpture the advance in techniques of implies already-beside working stone-a degree of concreteness and verity op-

448

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

3 Santo Domingo de Silos, cloister capital (photo: Institut Amatller)

posed to the emblematic illumination and the inert, minuscule ivory carving which were the chief fields of imagery in the preceding period. The sculptures of Silos abound in marvelously precise and refined details of human form and costume.56 A corollary to this conclusion was Schapiro's perception that the growing secularization first revealed itself stylistically at the farthest remove from the main, religiously focused, subjects. The capitals with animals and foliage, for example (Fig. 3), "offer an even freer secular field of artisanship independent of the doctrine of the church."57 But even within religious imagery, the margins offered room for entirely secular excurses. In this attention to the margin, Schapiro was founding father of a special topos within modern art history.58 The identification of marginal and secular would remain for some time a component in his analysis of art. In 1944, for example, he assigned a nonbiblical, secular identity to the figure of an archer on the Ruthwell Cross and deemed it marginal despite its prominent position at the top of the shaft.59 The marginal location of the secular response to an evolving feudal world was central to his 1947 essay on the medieval aesthetic: By the eleventh and twelfth centuries there had emerged in western Europe within church art a new sphere of artistic creation without religious content and imbued with values of spontaneity, individual fantasy, delight in color and movement, and the expression of feeling that anticipate modern art. This new art, on the margins of the religious work, was accompanied by a conscious taste of the spectators for the beauty of workmanship, material and artistic devices, apart from the religious meanings.60 Perhaps the outstanding instance in which Schapiro attached primary importance to a marginal figure can be found in his study of the Merode Altarpiece, where Joseph, in the wing of a triptych whose central panel is occupied by the Virgin Mary, is made to dominate the message.61 Far from contributing to

a secularization of meaning, however, Joseph and the panel are exploited as means of enhancing religious meaning. In "From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos" the marginal imagery of the Beatus Commentary, especially the jongleurs (Fig. 4), the Hell page (Fig. 20), and the cityscape and musicians atop the Doubting Thomas relief (Fig. 2) received his most searching examinations, not only of style but also of content. In his analysis of the Doubting Thomas, Schapiro provided the first indication of the kind of deeply grounded iconographic analyses that would mark his future art historical essays. They went beyond the standard recapitulation of the history of a given subject in order to focus on choice of subject and manner of rendering as signifiers of a particular cultural environment.62 At this stage Schapiro saw that environment as large and sought to find in it reflections of social strata. The relief of the Doubting Thomas exposed most openly for him the incipient secularist culture of Silos. Its subject, he said, "embodies the antitheses of faith and experience."63 It was paradigmatic, in that he saw there the "richest evidence of the interaction of Romanesque and Mozarabic design" so that "the interplay [of faith and experience] appears in the subject of the work as well as in the
forms."64

Moreover, the subject combined, for him, telling paradoxes: the Church had called into being a tangible image whose "chief meaning is that the eyes and the hands are not to be trusted" and prominently features Saint Paul, who was not an actual witness to the events of the Passion and its aftermath.65 Schapiro, whose identification of religion as an anti-individualist counterforce was a constant, saw Thomas as the embodiment of skepticism.66 In fact, as Karl Werckmeister has demonstrated, Schapiro's claim of antithetical roles for Paul and Thomas was invalid in the Church's view.67 The particular attention paid by Schapiro to the walls atop the Thomas relief is consonant with the central role the urban setting played in Schapiro's reconstruction of the creative forces of the medieval period: "The urban development, the social relationships arising from the new strength of the merchants and artisans as a class, suggested new themes and outlooks to religious thought and thereby helped to transform religious art."68 Michael Camille provided a beautiful evocation of Schapiro's merging of the medieval and the city in which he lived.69 Schapiro's identification with the city may be seen in the scorn he heaped on Frank Lloyd Wright's utopian vision precisely because it was essentially agrarian.70 We can also sense the special links to the artistic world of New York that we know he had. In reading the sensitive and lengthy passages on compositions in the Silos Beatus, one is struck by their resemblance to the kind of intensive formal scrutiny needed to access the avant-garde easel paintings of his time. In those abstract, nonanecdotal paintings, meaning had to be decoded-more form alone. likely, encoded-from in his himself invoked modern Schapiro painting interpretation of the musicians at the city wall of the Doubting Thomas relief: "[they are] jongleurs, who improvise a sensual music, in contrast to the set liturgical music of the church-the sculptor expresses also the self-consciousness of an independent artistic virtuosity. He inserts figures of lay artists ... just as in modern art, which is wholly secular, painters so often represent figures from the studio or from an analogous world

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

449

of entertainment... .71 Actually, the cityscape and musicians enhance religious content by incorporating exegetical tradition. As Werckmeister pointed out, the Doubting Thomas episode normally was placed in Jerusalem, more precisely, in Solomon's court atop the Temple Mount, andJerusalem was sometimes represented with inhabited walls.72 Serafin Moralejo pointed to an exegetical tradition whereby the episode was associated with Exodus. The cymbal-playing woman atop the wall may be an allusion to Miriam.73 Schapiro identified the jongleurs in the Beatus Commentary (Fig. 4) as another major eruption of secular imagery within an otherwise religious setting.74 In a configuration recalling the use of figures to form initials in Romanesque manuscripts, one extravagantly dressed man plays a rebec as another dances in front of him, wielding a knife and holding a peacock. Yet as he claimed for them a secular identity, Schapiro cited and reproduced comparable musical figures in musical manuscripts of liturgical function. Moreover, he assumed, logically, that the Silos pair was inspired by the Apocalyptic passage whose illustration appears on the verso of this page, where the Lamb is celebrated by the musical Elders. Even so, his faith in the new urban and lay culture he had reconstructed for Silos led him to declare that this religious meaning has been eclipsed: the jongleurs of the Beatus Commentary "dance and play, not for God, but for the people or an earthly court; they belong to the fairs and the world of secular pleasure. .. ."75It is a conclusion called into question by Schapiro's own citation and reproduction of comparable illustrations in liturgical manuscripts, as well as by performers in a celebration for the Veneranda Dies, a sermon purportedly composed by Pope Calixtus II around the time the Silos Beatus was illustrated, held in the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. In it the important feast of the translation of the body of SaintJames to Spain includes this scene of worshipers: "Whatjoy and admiration to look on the pilgrims standing at the foot of the venerable altar of St. James in perpetual Each one with his compatriots individually fulvigilance.... fill with mastery the watches. Some play zithers, others lyres, others drums, others flutes, others flageolets, trumpets, harps, violins, . . .others singing with zithers, others singing accompanied by various instruments, pass the night in vigil."76 By any measure, Santiago de Compostela far outranked Silos as an urban center fostering commercial and artisanal life. It is difficult to imagine that a scenario designed by some cleric to glorify the cult of SaintJames employed a theme that would undermine its integrity. The same is true for the jongleurs of the Silos Beatus, which was designed by a monk for an audience of monks. With the necessity of attributing the style of the cloister sculpture at Silos to the socially progressive character of the immediate environs of Silos, Schapiro abandoned without argument his original conviction, noted in his dissertation, that the workshop responsible was foreign.77 It is true that a consensus on the sources and dates of the sculpture remains elusive, but no study has proposed a local origin. Although they are tentative, the only parallels that have been advanced for the sculpture of Silos are Languedocian, specifically, the cloister of Moissac and the cloister capitals of St-Sernin de Toulouse.78 Schapiro did not specifically address the issue of local versus foreign, but when he stated that "we shall find in

4 Jongleurs,from Beatus, In Apocalipsin,Silos, 1109, MS Add. 11695, fol. 86r (photo: by permission of The British Library)

the Romanesque sculptures qualities and details that recall the local Mozarabic art," he ruled out an exotic origin.79 Schapiro's conclusion was based on certain compositional similarities shared with Mozarabic miniatures such as the painting ChristAppearing in the Cloudsof the Silos Beatus (Fig. 1). In the "groups of uniform Apostles like the Ascension, the Pentecost and the Doubting Thomas [Fig. 2]," he detected a "regular repetition of the unit figure and the impersonality of the human elements, [which] suggest Mozarabic as much as Romanesque art."80 It is difficult to credit any claim for details of a Mozarabic sort in the sculpture.81 The claim calls for conditions and procedures that Schapiro did not discuss. There was, for example, no tradition of Mozarabic figure sculpture to survive or be revived, so the stiffness and repetition he perceives have no obvious links to a specifically local, Mozarabic sculptural style.82 If any survival of Mozarabic sculptural style is to be expected, it would logically involve the cloister capitals, since capitals are the major component by far in the corpus of Mozarabic sculpture (Fig. 5). Residues of the strong Mozarabic tradition in capital and ornamental sculpture might be anticipated if they were executed by local carvers, but the Silos cloister capitals exhibit none (Fig. 3). However, without argument, Schapiro posits such a local Mozarabic sculptural tradition: "If Mozarabic design is still a formative element in the Romanesque sculptures, it is further evidence that these are native works and depend on the recent historical change."83 But stiffness and repetition are not properties exclusive to Mozarabic art. Moreover, the large reliefs really have no counterpart at this date, a fact that does not enter into Schapiro's discussion. In his statement that "in Romanesque such groups [as the Ascension, Pentecost, Last Judgment, and so on] are generally disposed in a single row in one plane,"84 he must have had tympana in mind, for the narratives within pier plaques, with their exaggerated vertical format, had no parallels. In the pier reliefs at Moissac the same setting encloses single standing Apostles.

450

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

Silos as an Urbanized Pilgrimage Center For the sake of his argument that the modern sculptural style depended on the kind of economic evolution associated with the beginnings of urbanization, Schapiro sought to persuade the reader that Silos was a prosperous, urbanized site. He presented it as one of the leading monasteries in Castile . . . constantly involved in the schemes of the energetic Castilian rulers to extend their power.... Silos enjoyed several large donations of the victorious kings.... In the documents of the time Domingo appears frequently as the councilor of the kings of Castile and as an agent in their political and ecclesiastical affairs.86 Moreover, Silos "was one of the wealthiest abbeys in Spain and received great donations in the eleventh century."87 The superior economic and political status he assumed for Silos and its region was based not so much on his independent evaluation of the evidence but, rather, on the portrait of the site recently provided by highly respected medievalists in Spain, Castilians for the most part. For his history of Castile he drew on the three-volume account written by Luciano Serrano, abbot of Silos at the time of his visit.88 The heroization of Castile was especially orchestrated by Ram6n Menendez Pidal, whose erudite study of the poem of the Cid had appeared in two volumes a decade before "From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos." With its richly contextual nature, it might have served as a model for Schapiro's study of Silos.89 The Silos monk Justo Perez de Urbel, whose two-volume study of Spanish monasticism appeared just after Schapiro's visit to Silos, was also an important partisan of this promotion.90 In a book of the same year, Perez de Urbel followed his argument that the cloister must have been a product of the abbacy of Domingo (d. 1073) with these words: The appearance of the cloister of Silos coincided with the heroic age of Castile. The drive of the pilgrimage to Santiago brought endless waves of foreigners to the roads of northern Spain. The Reconquest would cover the arms of Castile with glory and the Castilian chests with gold. The Cid conquered Valencia and the dream of a Spain free of the Moors began to be realized.91 In fact, the assumption of prosperity is not borne out by the charters of Silos. It is true that in the eleventh century and into the twelfth, Silos, with San Pedro de Cardena, San Pedro de Arlanza, and San Salvador de Ofia, was one of the quartet of important Castilian monasteries. Their abbots sometimes accompanied the monarchs, attended important events, such as Fernando I's dedication of his palatine church of San Isidoro, and witnessed important charters. However, the charters affecting Silos during the eleventh-century period suggest that it ranked fourth of these Castilian monasteries: the signature of Abbot Domingo of Silos appears less frequently and almost always after those of the abbots of Cardefia, Arlanza, and Ona.92 Nor is the evidence for wealth before the end of the eleventh century convincing. Records of the first half of the century yield only seven modest gifts of property from individuals.93 In the Life of Domingo written by the Silensian monk Grimaldus about 1100, much is made

5 San Miguel de Escalada, porch capital (photo: Institut Amatller)

The challenge such a format posed when all of the Apostles must be represented within the same vertical field must have contributed to the regimented composition employed. No section of his article reveals the radical extent to which Schapiro was willing to offer style as a prism for reading social context as that involving the perception of Mozarabic traces in the relief sculpture of the cloister at Silos. He found the amalgam there of Romanesque and Mozarabic a perfect reflection of a transitional culture: The strengthening of the church as a secular power during the Reconquest required also a rigorously supervised renewal of cult and the restoration of old monastic rules. And since the church was the main support of the monumental arts, the newer values emerging in society could be expressed in these arts only in a form qualified by the special interests of the church. The Romanesque forms of church art embody naturalistic modes of seeing (and values of the new aristocracy) within the framework of the church's traditional spiritualistic views and symbolic presentation. The persistence of Mozarabic qualities in the early Romanesque art of Silos may be seen then not only as incidental to a recent cultural transition, but as a positive aspect of the expansive development of the church.85 This explanation for why the reliefs, in his view, do not appear fully Romanesque asks art to reflect in such an extraordinarily sensitive way the complexions of a transitional society that it strains his general argument. Finding Mozarabic qualities underscores his unremitting, all or nothing commitment to an equation of status and style. The negative pressure it puts on the thesis is evident. While it is impossible to ignore the presence of some figures in a Romanesque style in the Beatus Commentary (Figs. 4, 12, 20), the recognition of Mozarabic qualities in the sculpture is highly problematic.

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

451

of the role of Ferando I of Le6n in recognizing and promoting Abbot Domingo of Silos, but outside of Domingo's presence in the capital in 1063 at the dedication of the palatine basilica of San Isidoro,94 no further evidence of contact between the king and Domingo or signs of friendship and esteem have been noted. Cardefia, instrumental in moving the Castilian see of Oca to Burgos; Ona, the Castilian pantheon; and San Pedro de Arlanza, where Fernando originally intended his tomb, were obviously important. Arlanza received from Fernando and Queen Sancha in 1041 the monastery of Tabladillo with all its possessions.95 The first royal gift to Silos came from Fernando's son, Sancho II, in 1067, when he gave it the monastery of Mamblas.96 However, as Mamblas was deserted at the time, no source of income came with it. A modern study of the dominion of Silos reached the conclusion that the general claim of prosperity under Abbot Domingo was not justified.97 Only under Alfonso VII (r. 1127-57) did the site come into its own as a target of royal largesse. It received more donations (thirtyseven) from that ruler alone than from all his predecessors combined (twenty-seven). Not before 1135 can it be said with certainty that a Leonese ruler visited the site, when Alfonso VII confirmed there a prior gift of his mother, Urraca.98 According to Schapiro, the preconditions for the reception of Romanesque were an economic evolution from an essentially agrarian stage to an urbanizing one and the kind of money economy associated with trade. On the strength of the history of the abbey written by Silos's eminent archivist Marius Ferotin, he proposed that a town could be found at Silos by the middle of the eleventh century, with by 1085 a municipal charter (fuero)and a quarter inhabited by a colony of Gascons. This was highly speculative. Lacking a document to support his claim that Silos had a town charter in 1085, Ferotin assumed an analogy with Sahaguin, the royally favored monastery some forty miles southeast of the capital of Le6n. The comparison to Sahagiun is an informative one, for Sahagin documents the kind of evolution Schapiro claimed for Silos, but it only underscores the latter's relative lack of development.99 In 1085 the monastery sat amid aristocratic residences, the huts of those who worked for the monastery, and a burgus (town) formed by recent arrivals, among them Castilians. Also present was a mixed mass of Gascons, that is, French from just beyond the Pyrenees, and Burgundians, whose presence may have been linked to the fact that Alfonso VI was married to a Burgundian, Costanza. She had built a palace and baths in Sahagiun. The Bretons, Provencales, English, and Germans mentioned in the chronicle may have arrived as pilgrims who decided to stay and try their fortune in the peninsula. As for the Lombards noted there, in other sites along the pilgrimage road they served as money changers. In 1093 the local market, which had been in Grajal, was moved to Sahagun. A chronicle enumerates ironworkers, carpenters, tailors, leather workers, shoemakers, furniture makers, and arms makers, as well as merchants who dealt in gold, silver, and textiles from all over. For Silos we have nothing like this rich record of settlement and royal presence in the eleventh century. Despite the claims of Serrano and other Castilianists, it is hard to confirm the presence of a town around the abbey in the eleventh century. Beyond hypothesizing parity in 1085 with Sahagun,

Ferotin could appeal to a charter apparently authorizing a settlement around the monastery of Silos in 1075. However, Ferotin acknowledged that this date did not match the list of witnesses and speculatively relocated it to 1096-98 or even later.100 Bernard Reilly has judged this document a forgery.101Going by undisputed documents instead, it was only in 1126, not 1085, that the king, Alfonso VII, allowed the establishment of settlers around the monastery,102 and 1135 rather than 1085 the year that Alfonso VII conceded a fuero.103 The neighborhood of French settlers, a sign for Schapiro, as it should have been, of economic development, probably was formed of people arriving in the second half of the twelfth century. The earliest undisputed date linked to a town wall is 1179.104 Franks begin to be notable in documents only after the beginning of the thirteenth century.105 Reilly's estimation of the situation of Silos at the time its church was consecrated in 1088 seems a just one: "When we look at the existing record of all the donations we find that Silos disposed of relatively modest resources in 1088 by any comparative measurement available to us. ... The final picture remains that of a relatively recent monastic foundation, fairly but hardly richly endowed with the world's goods in 1088."106 Pilgrimage was an important economic stimulus. Without the arrival of new wealth, the town of Silos could not develop, no matter the holdings of the abbey itself through gifts from nobles and kings. When Schapiro visited Silos in 1927, Luciano Serrano, its abbot, had just published a sketch of the monastery, focusing on Domingo, its sainted abbot. A fallingout with the Navarrese ruler Garcia had led to Domingo's departure from the monastery of San Millan de Cogolla, where he served as prior. When his talents were recognized by Fernando I of Le6n-Castilla, Domingo took over the decrepit monastery at Silos. After three decades he left it, at his death in 1073, "one of the most visited sanctuaries, in Christian Spain, virtually rivaling Santiago de Compostela."107 A major cult was not necessary, only a location on the road to one. Sahagun, described above, and Burgos, the major Castilian city north of Silos, lacked major cults but thrived, for they were on the major road conducting pilgrims from sites beyond the Pyrenees to the Apostle's tomb at Santiago. Serrano did not, however, mention any but Spanish pilgrims. Indeed, for a Santiago-bound pilgrim to detour to Silos would have cost three days each way, without benefit of hospices along the route. Schapiro repeated Serrano's claim that the possession of Domingo's body brought numerous visitors and, he added, traders as well.108 Provision was made for pilgrims in two charters. In 1067 the charter of the donation to Silos of the monastery of Mamblas by Sancho II cited above stipulated that income should be spent on candles, the hospital, and aid to pilgrims.109 In identical language, a charter of Rodrigo Diaz, the Castilian hero immortalized in the epic poem as El Cid, made the same stipulation in 1076.110 It is notable that the first of these provisions, in 1067, occurred before the heyday of Compostelan pilgrimage and before the death, translation, and beatification of Domingo, the assumed magnet for pilgrimage to Silos. Serrano depended essentially on the Life of Domingo written by Grimaldus about 1100.111 But a Life is bound to extol just this recognition of the vitality of the cult of its subject, for it is a genre of literature designed to promote a cult, not to record it with

452

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

^~^I_..-.-....-l^
'i1

.-

_ ,f ?~ 4

-.7... - , '

i I. .g Z

overstepped its traditional early medieval functions as a secluded monastic abode towards that of a semi-public burial ground centered around the mausoleum of a noble lay benefactor and his kin, and shortly afterward was focused on the tomb of the new patron saint in the north gallery, a public figure in the church history of Castile whose veneration was hardly reserved to the monks of the community alone.17
A

B
I -I E

..i. 71,

o, ',ar,p,
""?'

-.

'"'
.. !.i ,.

'i

i
I
t,. -/, . t
~,,.

-'. * i* .* <^ ^ ^ fg ^

6 Santo Domingo de Silos, plan of the Romanesque church, by Machuca y Vargas. Archivo de la Abadia de Santo Domingo de Silos

the accuracy of the chronicler's account. It is hard to confirm the actual strength of the cult at Silos as early as 1100. The pilgrimage assumed by Schapiro had a less important role in his economic argument than in his thesis for the genesis of a Romanesque style at Silos. In a highly problematic attempt to forge a link to the outside world beyond the participation of lay sculptors, he proposed, "The Romanesque work... is an exterior architectural sculpture, monumental, expansive, public, designed for ambulant rather than sedentary contemplation."112 Although Schapiro never explicitly identified the public audience he claimed for the cloister sculpture, the visitors to Domingo's shrine, the site of some fifty miracles in the Life, must be assumed.1l3 However, by 1082, if not before, the tomb was removed from the cloister and installed with an altar within the church beside the northern, public entrance (Fig. 6, B).14 By the time the sculpture program was conceived and carried out, about 1100 according to Schapiro, pilgrims would have been deprived of the only plausible excuse, if not a strong one, for an invasion of claustral space.1l5 Karl Werckmeister has also proposed a public audience for the sculpture and, unlike Schapiro, argued the case.116 He introduced as evidence of lay penetration of claustral space a mausoleum installed in the center of the cloister (its remains had been discovered by excavations carried out after Schapiro wrote his study). Its presence prompted Werckmeister to conclude that the cloister

Werckmeister also based his claim on the specific evidence of Silensian manuscripts and on the implications of the pairing, on the reliefs of the northwest pier, of Christ and His Disciples Journey to Emmaus, couched in contemporary, pilgrimage terms by the scallop shell fastened to Christ's wallet (Fig. 21), with the Doubting Thomas (Fig. 2), which for Werckmeister displayed "an image of the cloistered life." He found the two in combination to present evidence for a "public cult." He remarked, as Schapiro had, on the open door of the Jerusalem cityscape above the Doubting Thomas, and tied it to an invitation to the cloister. Schapiro, who found it a secular city without religious meaning, had used the open door to slip into a Freudian excursus on sexuality.18 The idea of the monk as spiritual pilgrim even within the confines of the cloister was an acknowledged one, and it might well have inspired the choice of the Emmaus scene.l19 Indeed, the very themes singled out by Werckmeister in his argument for a public program, the EmmausJourney and the Doubting Thomas, were taken by Ilene Forsyth, along with several others, to be quintessential monastic subjects linked to the ideal of the vita apostolica in the Romanesque period.120 Forsyth also described the cloister as a "place where peregrinations in the modern sense were adamantly resisted but where the monk might, indeed should, make a spiritual pilgrimage."121 All of the subjects selected for the cloister reliefs seem eminently suitable for a monastic audience. The six original reliefs make up a post-Easter cycle: the Deposition, the Entombment and the Visit of the Women to the Tomb, the Journey to Emmaus, the Doubting of Thomas, the Ascension, and the Pentecost. Of these episodes, two, the Visit to the Tomb and Emmaus, are recounted in the Easter octave lections in the Roman rite. Thomas's questioning is not, but it was part of an Easter lection in the recently retired Mozarabic rite.122 If a visitor walks in a counterclockwise direction from the northwest corner of the cloister to the southeast, he encounters the narrative plaques in biblical order, with the exception of the "second-place" location of the Deposition. The choice of this subject and that of the Entombment next to it was dictated by the nearby location of the abbatial cemetery, initiated by Domingo's burial at the northwest corner of the cloister next to the portal of San Miguel, which connected the cloister and the choir of the church (Fig. 6, A).123 The remaining original reliefs-Emmaus, Doubting Thomas, Ascension, and Pentecost-involve the community of Apostles, as if to address the monks in a way consistent with the ideal of the vita apostolica.'24 The burden of proof for the assumption of a lay audience for a cloister program lies with its champions. Schapiro made no effort to argue his doubtful claim that the cloister, the abode of the allegedly conservative monks who sponsored the Beatus Commentary, had been converted into a quasisecularized

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

453

space. His proposal gave a sign of just how crucial secular involvement was for his explanation of the modern style of the sculpture.

Schapiro and the Beatus Commentary In Schapiro's claim that class conflict explained the different styles at Silos, a crucial role was assigned to the Beatus Comprecisely, its style-constituted mentary, for it alone-more the only document in the case for a reactionary mentality on the part of the monks. Schapiro's argument depended on problematic assumptions, some inherited, others offered on his own. Although his recognition of the manuscript as stylistically Mozarabic has some basis in fact, other of his characterizations intended to make it seem antiquated are unconvincing. "Is it not remarkable," Schapiro asked, "that in Silos, where the new religious order. . . was probably adopted in 1081, the displaced and no longer canonical [Visigothic] writing should be employed up to 1109 in the Beatus manuscript, and that this work should be painted so sumptuously in the style of the Mozarabic church?"'25 With a less omniscient scholar, one would have assumed that he accepted the alleged proscription of Visigothic script by the Council of Le6n in 1091, but Schapiro had revealed on the previous page that he was among the majority who rejected the historicity of this council. It is puzzling, then, that he should find the retention of so-called Visigothic script employed in the manuscript remarkable, for it was the form of writing routinely used by native Le6nese and Castilian scribes until a Caroline script gradually evolved in the course of the twelfth century.126 The presence of another script would have signaled a foreign origin. When he stressed, "The content of the [Beatus] book belongs to the old national church,"127 he neglected to note that the Silos copy falls precisely in the middle, chronologically, of the list of twenty-six known illustrated copies of the Beatus Commentary.l28 Examples were still being commissioned in the thirteenth century, when it is difficult to imagine any urge to appeal to the ancient "national" church. The choice of the book was not exceptional for an ambitious monastery. Schapiro also appealed to the fact that "It includes lengthy colophons in the spirit of the Mozarabic scriptoria."l29 It does. They are word-for-word copies of tenth-century colophons. As we shall see, they provide important clues for the neglected topic of the model for the Silos Beatus. Further, he found it significant of an unwarranted archaism that "It is to St. Sebastian, the older patron of the abbey, rather than to Domingo, that the book is dedicated."'30 However, such a dedication was entirely consistent with contemporary usage. The first charter to use Domingo instead of Sebastian as a vocable is dated 1119.'13 Schapiro also glossed over the history of the production of the Beatus Commentary. "The Beatus was a great enterprise," he proclaimed. "The creation of the manuscript was a long activity spread over a period of at least twenty years.... Several colophons attest the deliberate character of the project. The names of no less than six individuals-monks and abbots-are cited in connection with the work." The collection of six colophons is indeed extraordinarily rich in information:

7 Munnius, Acrostic, from Beatus, In Apocalipsin,Silos, 1091, MSAdd. 11695, fol. 276r (photo: by permission of The British Library)

1) This book of Revelation begins, edited by the authors Jerome, et al., to the honor of Saint Sebastian, Mary, Saint Martin and Santo Domingo Abbot (fol. 6v). 2) Explicit explanatio Danielis, 19 April 1091, 6th hour, Thursday (fols. 265v-266).
3) [Acrostic page] M[EMO]R[I]A O[B] [H]ONOREMSANCTI
SEBASTIANI LIBRUM ABBA FORTUNIO LIBRUM MUNNIO PRESBITER

TITULABIT HOC (fol. 276r, Fig. 7).

4) Dominico, and Munnio, his relative, began the work at Silos, in Abbacy of Fortunius. The Commentary on the Apocalypse is finished [perfectusest] on 18 April 1091 (fol. 277v). 5) This Book of Revelation is finished (fol. 278r). 6) The Book was begun under Abbot Fortunius. At his death only the smallest part [ minima pars] was done. It was continued under Abbot Nunnus. Finally, under Abbot John, Prior Petrus, relative of Abbot Nunnus, completed and entirely illuminated it [ab integro illuminabit]. It is finished this day [1 July], when Alfonso VI died. 1109 (fol. 275v, by Petrus). Schapiro essentially ignored these colophons and side-

454

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

8 Munnius,Cross,from Beatus,In Apocalipsin,Silos, 1091, MS Add. 1169S,fol. 277r (photo: by permissionof The British Library)

stepped critical issues they and the material aspects of the manuscript raise. What kind of copy of the Commentary on the Apocalypse served as the model? Why did it take so long to complete? If the two stages enumerated in the colophons, completion of the text in 1091 by Munnius and Dominicus and its illumination in 1109 by Petrus, are taken as a single campaign, they indicate an interval of time more commensurate with erecting a building than with the production of a manuscript of whateverdegree of luxury. In characterizingthe campaign as "deliberate,"Schapiro implied that it was more or less continuous and lengthy because of the seriousness of the undertaking. But a fully illustrated Beatus Commentary of the same family could be completed in three months by one scribe.l32In fact, the collation of the colophonic information and the actual manuscript confirms that the Silos Beatus was produced in two different campaigns separated by eighteen years. Schapiro also took for granted, with others, that the scriptorium of Silos at the time it produced the Beatus Commentary had a long history. This assumption stemmed from the acceptance of all of the tenth- and eleventh-century

manuscripts once at Silos now chiefly in the collections of the Bibliotheque Nationale de France in Parisand the British Libraryin London as products of Silos. As we shall see, this was not necessarily so. That assumption was important to his argument, however, for Schapiro's perception that the Mozarabic style of the Commentary on the Apocalypse was between the older anomalous depended on its being a choice style and the newer, and that is made doubtful by the history of the scriptorium. That history was only recently established in a dissertation written by Ann Boylan.l33She concluded that of the surviving thirty-ninemanuscriptsfrom the Silos library,only ten could have been produced there, and of this ten none was older than the latter part of the eleventh century. Through a comparison with the products of known scriptoria,she established the likelihood that the rest had been imported from well-established scriptoria at Valeranica, Cardena, and Cogolla, as well as unidentified sites. Some of the Silos manuscripts are copies of the new Roman rite. The abandonment of the traditional Mozarabic liturgy, by conciliar decree in 1080 and then royal fiat, would have required new liturgical manuscripts and must have been a significant factor in the decision to install a scriptorium.l34However, the ornament employed in even these late-eleventh-centurycopies is in a tenth-century style. The only illustrated manuscript was the Beatus, completed by Petrus in 1109. This is the context of the undertaking of the Beatus:it was among the first projects of a new scriptorium heavily dependent on earlier manuscripts produced elsewhere. If the writing was accomplished in 1091, it would have been initiated only a few years after the dedication of the church of 1088 and, together with the church, constituted a sign that the monastery had achieved a level of importance that could not have been claimed under Domingo. Although, as Rose Walker discovered,l35the Silos copy of the Beatus Commentary contributed some readings to liturgical manuscriptsin the abbey, Beatus Commentaries were not designed to serve the liturgy,so its commission went beyond necessity and may have involved a wish to have the kind of luxury manuscript found in prestigious Castilian monasteries. Several Beatus Commentaries are linked to San Millan de la Cogolla, the nearby monastery that was the original home of Abbot Domingo.l36 It could be argued that the lack of a talented hand explains the gap between the finished text in 1091 and the final illustrated manuscript in 1109. In copying the text, Dominicus and Munnius left spaces indicated surely by their model for the traditional illustrations. In the acrostic-coloand phon of folio 276r (Fig. 7), Munnius calls himself titulor, to him we owe that page, several small initials, and several displaypages, including a cross on folio 277 (Fig. 8). This was Petrus's the extent of the pre-Petrusillumination to 1091.137 claim that he did all the illumination is, then, only very slightly exaggerated. We do not know why Munnius did not undertake the illustrations. Death intervened, perhaps. We can see, however, by the inferior quality of what illumination he did carry out, especially through a comparison of the acrostic colophon (Fig. 7) and the cross (Fig. 8) by Munnius and the cross (Fig. 9) and acrostic (Fig. 10) by Petrus, that the delay left us with a more splendidly illuminated manuscript than Munnius would have provided. Perhaps Munnius rec-

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

455

9 Petrus,Cross,from Beatus,In Apocalipsin,Silos, 1091, MS Add. 11695, fol. 5v (photo: by permissionof The British Library)

10 Petrus,Acrostic,from Beatus,In Apocalipsin, Silos, 1091, MS Add. 11695, fol. 6r (photo: by permissionof The British Library)

ognized the task was beyond him. Writing is one thing, painting some one hundred illustratedand illuminated pages another. Still, Schapiro's question, "How shall we explain then the belated survivalof the older Mozarabicart in Silos toward 1100, twenty years after the fundamental religious change, at a time when the Romanesque style was already practiced in the abbey?"rightly highlights an unexpectedly strong imprint of a style born a century and a half earlier and abandoned at the time Petrus completed the Commentary.l38

Two features contribute most to the apparent Mozarabic personality of the Silos Commentary: the brilliant polychromy assembled in a kind of intarsia of small panels of intense hues, and the format of enframed illustrations with banded backgrounds that render the scenes spaceless in the illusionistic sense (Fig. 1). These elements, the hallmark of the tenth-centurystyle, allow it to be identified as Mozarabic. Schapiro saw the style as a case of revival, not survival,and deemed it the result of the fundamental changes affecting northern Spain as the rulers of Leon-Castile pursued a program of modernization:"Thefact is, that the great changes in Spanish society during the eleventh century, which till recently provoked historical controversyover their value, their promotion or destruction of a Spanish national spirit, were

not accepted in their time by all classes of society in a uniform way, but led to real conflicts of interest.''139 He considered the change of liturgy a particularlysensitive point for monks. Although he admitted that Silos probably helped promote the change of rite,140 he went on to stress that the content of the book "belongs to the old national church,"and that"The production of this copy affirms an independent, though weakened, monastic tradition.''14lFinally, "The Mozarabic work is a book, a product of the monastic scriptorium, an intimate work destined for the libraryand the readings at the services. It is traditional and native, referring to a model of the eighth century created in a primitive, medieval, conquered Spain and rarely copied beyond its borders. Its content is Apocalyptic, fantastic, and exegetical, and the paintings are conceived as colorful but static emblems.''142 With no evidence beyond his reading of the style itself, Schapiro attributed the preponderant Mozarabic personality of the Silos Beatus to a desire to invoke a disappearing Hispanic culture. An alternative explanation must be explored, namely, the influence of the model on the Beatus Commentary'sstyle. It is certain that its iconography depended on the model, for with the exception of additions to the orthodox complement of miniatures, usually marginal figures, it is undeviating from

456

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

11 Florentius, Cross, from Smaragdushomiliarum, Valerancia, 10th century. Cathedral of C6rdoba, MS1, fol. 2v (photo: author)

the standard set of illustrations in the other four members of its family tree. His reference to "a model of the eighth century" invoked the original Commentary on the Apocalypse assembled by Beatus at Liebana about 775, but the issue of the direct model employed in the Silos scriptorium went unexamined. In fact, there are substantial clues to the model's origin and, therefore, its appearance. The texts of the colophons point directly to the Castilian scriptorium of Valeranica and the manuscripts of Florentius, its presiding genius in the tenth century.143 Florentius introduced the kind of acrostic we see on folio 276 recto (Fig. 7) in 945 in his Moralia in Iob.144Munnius's long, poetic lament on folio 278 recto over the physical torture imposed by scribal labor coupled with a plea for a gentle handling of the manuscript is found, word for word, in two of the manuscripts written in the middle of the tenth century at Valeranica by Florentius, his Moralia in lob of 945145 and his Smaragdus homiliarium (now in C6rdoba).146 The cross of this Smaragdus (Fig. 11) resembles that inserted by Munnius in the Silos Beatus on folio 277 recto (Fig. 8). The likeness extends to the same acclamation-PAX LUX LEX REx-and the unusual split palmette filler in the openings of the omega, a motif magnified in the omega of Florentius and Sanctius's Bible of 960 (now in San Isidoro de Le6n).147 Petrus's ornament of the final campaign of 1109 drew on more recent, Gallic, prototypes, but Valeranica's influence was still present. The words of his

colophon on folio 6 verso also duplicate, with the exception of its description of the text it accompanies, those of a colophon in the Smaragdus by Florentius.l48 But the most significant evidence that Valeranican illustration was known by Petrus is given by one of his full-page pictures, the Christ in Majesty with the symbols of the Evangelists on folio 7 verso (Fig. 12). This familiar subject is foreign to the Beatus tradition, for in the Beatus text the appropriate Apocalyptic passage separated the vision of the beasts from that of the enthroned Christ. Although his figure of Christ has been enthroned and robed in a manner that conforms better with Romanesque interpretations of the theme, Petrus's Majesty page reveals similarities with that serving as a frontispiece for the Bible carried out by Florentius and Sanctius at Valeranica in 960 (Fig. 13).149 The figures are organized by the same quincunx pattern of medallions. The numerous links between the products of the Valeranican scriptorium and the library and scriptorial style of Silos offer clear indications that the model for the Silos Beatus originated in that Castilian monastery.150 Valeranica's history has heretofore been associated with the production of Bibles, but the clues provided by the Silos Beatus almost certainly mean that Florentius also carried out a Beatus Commentary. On the other hand, we know the Valeranican style from the dozens of illustrations in the Bible of 960 now in San Isidoro de Le6n: their settings do not give the illusion of pictorial space and are inhabited by flat and linearly designed polychromatic figures (Fig. 14).151 Any Commentary on the Apocalypse carried out at Valeranica in the tenth century would have incorporated these properties within the Beatus format of framed miniatures and banded backgrounds. The Mozarabic role Schapiro assigned the Silos Beatus seems to have dimmed his normally acute reading of style. He noted figures that displayed a Romanesque style, notably in the Hell page (Fig. 20) and the jongleurs (Fig. 4), but the fact is that the vast majority of the figures of the Commentary are informed by proto-Romanesque conventions alien to true Mozarabic manuscripts, even as they inhabit Mozarabic settings. When comparable angels are viewed, one from Silos (Fig. 15) and one from the mid-tenth-century Morgan Beatus (Fig. 16), the post-Mozarabic character even of the traditional pictures is evident.152 In the drapery of the angel of the tenth-century manuscript any illusion of mass is suppressed, whereas the figure style of the Silos Beatus reveals a concern with plasticity, if in an inchoate way. The attempt to suggest a modeled surface involves a kind of shadow pocket created by hatching behind a curved line. The formula is already present in the design of the robe of the standing Christ of the alpha (fol. 6r) and the Angels with the Gospels of the Beatus Commentary carried out for Fernando and Sancha, rulers of Le6n, in 1047.153 Even though the figures of the Silos Beatus remain virtually as flat on the page as actual Mozarabic figures, the Commentary's appearance is progressive. As we have seen, the Silos scriptorium was able to take on illustrated manuscripts only with the presence, some eighteen years after the writing had been completed, of Petrus, the abbot's kinsman, a local product, and not, presumably, a graduate of a professional scriptorium. He was the best they had. The kind of sensitivity to style and the possibility of choice called for by Schapiro's theory are unrealistic.

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

457

12 Christ in Majesty, from Beatus, In Add. 11695, Apocalipsin,Silos, 1091, MS fol. 7v (photo: by permission of The British Library)

The gap between the tentative Romanesque advances of the Silos scriptorium and the progressive strides made at other monastic sites better endowed and supported may be measured by a comparison with a Beatus Commentary completed at the same time in the monastery of San Millan de la Cogolla, only some fifty miles north of Silos.154 Here there is no doubting the presence of two attributes often claimed, if unrealistically, for Silos in the eleventh century: a thriving local cult, centered in this case on Saint Emilian, and royal favor.155 The contexts are similar. The San Millan Commentary was begun and partly illustrated at the end of the tenth century. At about the time Petrus undertook his comparable task at Silos, it was completed by someone capable of employing an up-to-date Byzantinizing Frankish style (Fig. 17).156 Ironically, in view of Schapiro's thesis, there is a documented

record at San Millan of a protest against the adoption of the Roman rite, the kind of reactionary attitude that Schapiro's thesis assumed for Silos.157 A comparison with the monastery of Sahagin, whose precocious development is described above, is also instructive. The copy of the Beatus Commentary carried out there in 1086 (now in Burgo de Osma), more than two decades before Petrus accepted the task of illuminating the Silos Beatus, displays a much more advanced Romanesque style (Fig. 18).158 The writing, of course, like that of the Silos Beatus, is in so-called Visigothic script. The contrast between the styles of these centers and that of Silos suggests that at least part of the explanation for the Mozarabism of the Silos Beatus may be attributed to the provincial nature of Silos at the turn of the century. Only the

458

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

13 Florentius and Sanctius, Christ in Majesty, from Bible, Valeranica, 960. Le6n, R. C. de San Isidoro, MS2, fol. 2r (photo: Institut Amatller)

fortuitous presence of a talented native son made it possible finally for the abbey to add illustrations to its ambitious but unfinished copy of Beatus's Commentary on the Apocalypse, albeit in a compromised way when measured against the imported artistic language at better-established sites. Such an explanation was unthinkable so long as Castile and Silos were imagined to be at the very forefront of the progressive trends of a new Spain, favored by the Le6nese rulers and exposed to ultra-Pyrenean currents fostered by the pilgrimage to Santiago-that is, the profile of Silos advanced by the Castilianists and accepted by Schapiro. The evidence counts against such an exalted position for Silos. The level of Munnius's illumination indicates that not only the illustration of books but mere ornament as well had never reached a distinguished level in the eleventh century. Within this context, Petrus's more than adequate rise to the challenge of completing the Beatus Commentary deserves still more honor. There is, in fact, a feature of the Silos Beatus that makes a better case for nostalgia than Schapiro's revival of an archaic style. Opening the Commentary, one discovers a first gathering of four leaves that originally belonged to a different, older, manuscript. Schapiro was silent about these, but as Dom Louis Brou pointed out, they are leaves from an Antiphonary of the Hispanic rite carried out a century earlier.159

It had been made obsolete by the rejection, about 1080, of the Visigothic liturgy. We do not know precisely when these leaves joined the Commentary, but as we shall see, the assumption that they were appended early in the twelfth century is reasonable. This antiphonary had been a major book, and its commemoration was guaranteed with the attachment of its illuminated pages, including two cross frontispieces (fols. 2v, 3v) and a Vespertinum monogram (Fig. 19), to the Beatus Commentary, considered a precious artifact. This was a far more certain way of paying homage to the past than the employment of a style that had to be recognized as archaic. Schapiro's display of learning was at its most brilliant in the pages he devoted to the illumination of Hell that was added to the formerly blank folio 2 recto of this initial gathering. The Hell frontispiece (Fig. 20) is the most Romanesque of the Beatus's images and unique to this copy.160 Its theme is the punishment of Lust (a couple in bed) and Greed (Dives with his moneybags). Why this popular Romanesque iconography was chosen for this setting is not clear.161 It was assumed by Schapiro and virtually all other commentators, myself included, that the Hell page was executed by Petrus. However, none of the formulas employed by that painter for the eye, nose, feet, hands, or drapery shows up elsewhere in the Commentary. On the other hand, it made no use of shadow pockets, that most widespread convention of the interior of the Commentary. Nor is the cross-legged posture of Michael, a motif popular in Languedocian art, found anywhere within the Commentary. It appears, however, more than once in the cloister, and it seems likely that the designer of the relief Christ and His DisciplesJourney to Emmaus (Fig. 21) was asked by AbbotJohannes to design a frontispiece for the Commentary.162 This suggests that the older Antiphonary pages were already bound in, thus providing a convenient site for this addition on one of the blank versos. That gathering combined, then, homage to the past and a claim for modernity, as if in vindication of Schapiro's conclusion, if not of his argument. Schapiro's attempt to make the apparent Mozarabism of the style of the Commentary's illustrations a deliberate revival of an earlier style in order to evoke an eclipsed and lamented national culture is vulnerable on several counts. The actual style departs from the Mozarabic style of the tenth century in essential respects. His thesis presupposes a scriptorium with experienced illustrators who offered a choice between a truly contemporary style and the one actually employed. As we have seen, this was not the case. The Beatus was the first and only illustrated manuscript made at Silos, and it had to wait eighteen years before anyone could undertake the illustrations. That person was a relative of the abbot. Given the relatively unsophisticated manner of the figures' design-a judgment corroborated by comparisons with earlier examples of a truly Romanesque style in such undeniably important monasteries as San Millan de la Cogolla and Saharetention of Mozarabic features must have owed gun-the much to the model used. That model, almost certainly, was a tenth-century manuscript from Valeranica with a representative Mozarabic style. Finally, the proposition that style could serve as an ideological banner is debatable and would require an argument that Schapiro does not provide. The sensitivity

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

459

14 Florentiusand Sanctius,Israelites DepartingEgypt,from Bible, 960. Leon, R. C. de San Valeranica, Isidoro,MS 2, fol. 38r (photo: Institut Amatller)

to stylisticcategories his argument presumes seems essentially modern. Inventing a MarxistArt History When Schapiro first commented on the distinctive styles associatedwith Silos he had seen no need to add to the brief observation, "The Silos reliefs are intrusive in Castille [sic]. The manuscript paintings executed in the monastery at the very same time the sculptures were carved, are thoroughly Ten Mozarabin style, and in no way resemble the latter.''l63 years later, in "FromMozarabicto Romanesque in Silos,"the notion that one of the stylesis there because it is local and the other because it is imported was expressly rejected: "Nor is the coincidence [of an older and a newer] style [at Silos] due to a chance survivalof random works from a time when one

of these styles was predominant.''l64In contrast to the encyclopedic disquisition on the vices of the Hell page (Fig. 20) in "FromMozarabicto Romanesque in Silos" six pages of text and thirteen pages of notes the dissertation presented merely this observation on the image: There is one interesting evidence that in the Beatus a model has been mis-copied. St. Michael stands at the entrance to Hell in which are represented two figures, of man and woman, in bed and a figure of a miser with a great purse, who is being tormented by toads and serpents. The latter is the punishment of Unchastity, and is misapplied to the miser.l65

and the article, The verycontrastbetweenthe dissertation

460

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

15 The Angel Hurls a Millstone into the Sea, from Beatus, In Apocalipsin, Silos, 1109, MsAdd. 11695, fol. 193r (photo: by permission of The British Library)

and the very small, indeed minuscule, degree to which it provides a foundation for the 1939 article, make even more remarkable the conceptual revolution the latter displays, the more so with the recognition that its composition took place at a time that offered, as he said, significant distractions. These distractions, provided by the debate in the 1930s over art's role in the cause of revolution, were, of course, the inspiration for the new interpretation of diverse styles at Silos. Differences that Schapiro reasonably explained the first time around as the consequence of local talents working in the scriptorium while visiting carvers applied their expertise in a different medium in the construction of a new cloister were converted, in his determination to fashion a new, Marxist, art history, into a signal of social conflict between an otherwise undocumented conservative clique among the monks and new emancipating, secularizing currents. As we have seen, this class-based explanation involves distortions that undermine the history that he proposed. No doubt, the imposition of his theoretical model on the site had the virtue of forcing us to consider in a new way the role of the social infrastructure. At the same time, however, his reconstruction showed remarkably little interest in history at the microlevel. For example, Schapiro never addressed the issue of patronage posed by the fact that the Beatus Commentary and the cloister were designed for the same monastic community at the order of the same abbot. Nor that of the inherent conflict between his theory and the fact that Silos, as he admitted, seemed to favor the change of rite. Indeed, the scriptorium that produced what he argued was an ultraconservative copy of the Beatus seems to have come into being to provide the texts required by the new rite. Schapiro applied his theory of Romanesque style as a reflection of secularization to a second article published in

1939, "The Sculptures of Souillac."166 Here again it is claimed that the art reflects society, but the formal qualities of the art so monopolize the writer's attention that the society that produced it is inadequately appreciated, if not overlooked. Schapiro again advanced the idea that Romanesque style reflected the values of a secularizing culture. In the great reliefs of Silos, these had been expressed in the "naturalism and monumentality made possible by the material advances of the time."'67 At Souillac "more naturalistic forms" are also employed. But an aggressive secularization of the art of Souillac was chiefly registered compositionally in the large relief devoted to the story of the fall and redemption of Theophilus. In this work, Schapiro concluded that the central placement in the composition of the secular functionary / apostate cleric Theophilus, with a smaller Virgin Mary occupying a location above him, marked a "devaluation of absolute transcendence."168 However, the subversion implied by such a displacement really depends on the original function of the relief. Although today it is situated on the interior side of the doorway opening on the aisle of the church in the manner of a tympanum, it was designed for some other, debated, location. Schapiro identified it vaguely as "a fragment of a larger whole," sharing doubts with others that it originated as a tympanum. Still, his argument depended on assumptions about composition valid only for tympana, and he elected the hierarchically ordered tympana of Moissac and Chartres for comparison. More persuasive as counterparts for the Theophilus relief are the biblical narratives installed on the lateral walls of the porches of Moissac and Beaulieu.169 In a relief of this type there was a logic in centering the Theophilus story on Theophilus, the protagonist of the hagiographic

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

461

16 The Angel with the Scorching Sun, from Beatus, In Apocalipsin,Tabara, mid-lOth century. New York, Pierpont Morgan Library M644, fol. 189r (photo: by Permission of the Pierpont Morgan Library)

narrative, even though it was, of course, the Virgin who performed the redemptive miracle. In the end, Schapiro's obsessive focus on composition masked what was truly audacious, namely, the dedication of a major example of the recently revived medium of sculpture biblical-narrative in order to foster to a hagiographic-not a Marian cult at a site that had little otherwise with which to promote one. Presumptions about an increasingly secularist culture deflected attention from the advancement of a religious agenda. Even the exceptional presence of ajamb statue of Saint Joseph failed to elicit a comment. Schapiro later devoted a masterful study to Joseph,170 but as with the Theophilus relief, recognition of iconographic innovation was sacrificed at Souillac to his formalist preoccupations. Although the new kind of art history had as its goal a better understanding of the relationship between art and society, the practical issues of patronage and function were ignored, as they had been at Silos. The relief is analyzed so exclusively from the standpoint of composition that the reader receives

the impression that its designer enjoyed the freedom of an avant-garde artist of Schapiro's own time. "The specialized autonomy of the sculptor as an artisan" is taken for granted.'17 For Schapiro this was key to the subversive content he perceived in Romanesque art around 1100. The necessity imposed by a Marxist framework to align progress with the secular led to seriously flawed reconstructions at both sites. The perception that Schapiro's focus on form marginalized meaning and content may err in assuming a traditional understanding of content as something allied to subject. Schapiro's essays on the nature of what constituted revolutionary art involved formally generated content divorced from representation. In his review of Portrait of Mexico by Diego de Rivera and Bertram D. Wolf in the Marxist Quarterly in 1937 Schapiro argued that style itself may communicate revolutionary substance even if the subject does not: "works without political intention have by their honesty and vigor excited men to serious questioning of themselves and their

462

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

17 Angels and the Fall of Babylon,from Beatus,In San Millan de la Cogolla,late Apocalipsin, Academia de la Historia,Cod. 10th century.Madrid,Real 33, fol. 179r (photo: Amatller) Institut

18 The Hurls a Angel Millstoneinto the Sea, Apocalipsin, from Beatus,In Sahagun,1086. Cathedral of Burgo de Osma, Cod. 1, fol. 149r (photo: InstitutAmatller)

loyalties; they have destroyed faith in feudal or values and helped to create the bourgeois moral courage revolutionary necessaryfor action and will.''172 As was noted discussion of the expressive above in the possibilitiesof style in with his connection dissertation, Schapiro assigned to cative style a communifaculty by means of "emotional except incases suggestiveness.''173 those Still, where the style of another culture imitated for expressive is ing form or purposes, style as a medium for linkto social historical challenge for an era, the early context presents a formidable twelfth in documentation. As a medium for century, relativelypoor addressing such basic art historical questions as to what subjects are to be why, and where, depicted, style is relatively mute. These decisions volve specific incommunities and individuals available and hinge on resources, including artistic traditions.At Silos and Souillac, Schapiro almost ignored evidence when other than style addressing these topics. A stylistically approach bound Marxist poseda formidable challenge. The challenge was made yet more daunting by Schapiro's election of conflict between social groups as ist key to the Marxcontribution to art historical drum methodology. at The conunthe heart of his major attempt to provide a model of

Marxist art history involves the fact that with no help from documentary evidence, it is difficult to within the singularlycohesive group. assume social conflicts by Monks were committed to vow share the same life under a single head that authoritative commissioned both works of art at Silos, and constituted the exclusive they audience. At Silos what may be termed for Schapiro faced sake of argument a styles. It in was "conflict" of rooted different modes of production ing on hand the one involvprovincial scribes and on invited the other professionalartisans. This potential platform for a Marxist situation might offer a social approach. However, the conflict demanded by his ist revolutionary mode of Marxmethodology had to be invented. Postscript A quarter of a century after Romanesque in Silos"and still writing "From Mozarabic to further from his literary ities on behalf of a Marxist/ activsocialist agenda, Schapiro again took upthe issue of the contemporaneity of two styles 1l00 ata C.E. about single monastic site, this time at the Burgundian abbey of Cluny. great Although this study was lishedin pubmonographic form as TheParma approximately Ildefonsus, it was the same length as "From manesque in As in Mozarabic to RoSilos.''l74 the article, one of these appeared a manuscript, in styles although each of its two illumina-

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

463

19 Vespertinummonogram,from Beatus,In Apocalipsin, Silos, early 11th century,MS Add. 11695, fol. 4r (photo: by permissionof The BritishLibrary)

tors worked in a distinctiveRomanesque substyle,one Ottonian in origin, the other Italo-Byzantine.The other, fully Romanesque style appeared, as at Silos, in sculpture. Schapiro had not abandoned his efforts to tie style to class, for he professed that, in the case of the manuscript, We may interpret this style as an expression of the sensibility shaped by the Cluniac way of life in the monastic institution admitting the vagueness of such analogies. The greatest intensities of the figures are gestural and ritualistic;their postures are determined by their religious role; they are figures who listen, pray, argue and affirm, who stand for Christian,Jew or heretic. There is no great spontaneity or drama here, no deep inner life, only a

prescribed dialogue, ceremony or prayer.Cluny is a world absorbed by the performance of rites.175 On the other hand, he continued, "The capitalsof Cluny. . . owe their greater freedom and naturalness to the fact that they were made by lay artists,working together with builders in marble and stone. This vigorous art of sculpture is nearer to folk life.... In rendering the subjects in stone [the religious content] is more deeply personal, often ecstatic and exalted." These deductions linking style to social class are, effectively, a reprise of the interpretation advanced for the art of Silos. The difference is that Schapiro does not invoke for the

464

ART BULLETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

20 Hell, from Beatus, In Apocalipsin, Add. 11695, fol. 2r Silos, 1109, MS (photo: by permission of The British Library)

greater conservatism of the Cluny manuscript a revival of an older style. Actually, he seems to have lost faith in his earlier interpretation of the situation at Silos, for although he directs the reader to "From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos," he overturns its thesis in a footnote: "the coexistence of the Mozarabic and Romanesque in Spain ... is a matter of an old native style surviving for one or two generations beside a newly introduced foreign style."176 Implicitly, at least, he further distanced himself from the article on Silos in his reprinting of his essay on style in 1994, where he ignores it but cites his Parma Ildefonsus when providing an example of differing contemporaneous styles.177 In his 1953 essay on style quoted at the start of this article, Schapiro continued to locate the value of Marxist art history in "the weight given to the differences and conflicts within the social group as motors of development, and to the effects of these on outlook, religion, morality, and philosophical ideas," as he put it. Perhaps it is significant that style itself is not explicitly included with outlook, religion, and philosophical ideas as a mirror of social conflict. Implicitly, then, it

would be in iconography that art would reflect social content. In the 1940s and 1950s Schapiro's medieval scholarship had become to a greater degree iconologically oriented, producing masterful examples of the genre, such as "Muscipula Diaboli; the Symbolism of the M6rode Altarpiece"178 and "The Joseph Scenes on the Maximianus Throne in Ravenna."179 In his 1953 article on style Schapiro admitted that a Marxist approach "has rarely been applied systematically in a true spirit of investigation." He might have cited "From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos" as arguably anyone's most ambitious effort to do just that.

John Williams is Distinguished Service ProfessorEmeritus at the University of Pittsburgh. He has focused almost exclusively in his research and publications on topics in the medieval art in Spain an intersectionof this between900 and 1150. This articlerepresents with a more recent one in interest historiography[749 South Linden Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15208].

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

465

21 Santo Domingo de Silos, cloister, Christ and His Disciples Journey to Emmaus (photo: Institut Amatller)

Frequently Cited Sources

Illumination at Santo Domingo de Silos (Xth to Boylan, Ann, "Manuscript XIIth Centuries),"2 vols., Ph.D. diss., Universityof Pittsburgh, 1990. deschartes de l'abbaye de Silos(Paris:Imprimerie NatioFerotin, Marius,Recueil
nale, 1897). El romdnico en Silos: IX centenario de la consegraci6nde la iglesia y claustro, Studia

Silensia Series Maior, 1 (Burgos:Abadia de Silos, 1990). Ph.D. diss., Schapiro,Meyer, 1935, "TheRomanesque Sculpturesof Moissac," Columbia University. , 1939, "FromMozarabicto Romanesque in Silos,"in Schapiro, 1977, 28-101. vol. 1, Romanesque Art (New York: George Bra, 1977, Selected Papers, ziller).

Vivancos G6mez, Miguel C., Documentaci6n del monasterio de Santo Domingo de Silos (954-1254) (Burgos: J. M. Garrido Garrido, 1988). Williams, John, 1977, Early Spanish Manuscript Illumination (New York: Braziller). , 1998, Illustrated Beatus: A Corpus of the Illustrations of the Commentaryon the Apocalypse,vol. 3 (London: Harvey Miller).

Notes
1. Meyer Schapiro, "Style," in Anthropology An Encyclopedic Inventory, Today: ed. A. L. Krober (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 287-312,

and Philosophy of Art (New reprinted with additions in Selected Papers:Theory York: George Braziller, 1994), 51-101, at 100, emphasis added. On 82ff. Schapiro addresses the issue of content as a source of style, but in terms that differ from those employed in the article analyzed here. 2. Art Bulletin21 (1939): 312-74; here, Schapiro, 1939, 28-101. 3. Ibid., 28-29. 4. 0. K. Werckmeister,review of Romanesque Art, by Meyer Schapiro, Art n.s. 2 (1979): 211-18, at 214. Werckmeister provides the best Quarterly, evaluationof "FromMozarabicto Silos"and Schapiro'sother studies devoted to Romanesque art. Also valuable is Serge Guilbaut and Carol Knicely, "La in Sobre la cruzada de los medievalistas:Meyer Schapiro y Pierre Francastel," deciertas obras dearte(Cuernavaca: Curare/Fondo Nacional Parala desaparici6n Culturay las Artes, 1995), 147-233. 5. Willibald Sauerlander, review of Romanesque Art, by Meyer Schapiro, Magazine122 (1980): 129-30, at 129. Burlington 6. Meyer Schapiro, "The Sculptures of Souillac," in MedievalStudies in Memory of A. KingsleyPorter,ed. W. Koehler (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1939), vol. 2, 359-87, reprinted in Schapiro, 1977, 102-30. 7. Thomas Crow, The Intelligence of Art (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1999). 8. Schapiro, 1939, 29. Add. MS 11695. SeeJohn Williams, TheIllustrated 9. London, BritishLibrary vol. 4 on the Apocalypse, Beatus:A Corpus of the Illustrations of the Commentary (London: HarveyMiller, 2002), no. 16. 10. Schapiro, 1939, 65-66. 11. Ibid., 66. 12. Ibid., 49. 13. Ibid., 29. 14. KarlWerckmeisterhas analyzed the place of "FromMozarabicto RoOxford manesque in Silos"in Schapiro'sMarxismin 'Jugglersin a Monastery," 17 (1994): 60-64. See also his Citadel Culture (Chicago:University ArtJournal of Chicago Press, 1991), 23ff. His 15. Lillian MilgramSchapiro and Daniel Esterman,eds., Meyer Schapiro: (New York:HarryN. Abrams,2000). Painting,Drawing,and Sculpture 16. Schapiro, 1935. 17. MeyerSchapiro, "The Romanesque Sculpture of Moissac,"pts. 1 and 2, Art Bulletin13 (1931): 248-51, 464-531, reprinted in Schapiro, 1977, 131264, and republished, with photographs by David Finn, as The Romanesque Sculpture of Moissac(New York:George Braziller, 1985). 18. Meyer Schapiro and Lillian Milgram Schapiro, "A Series of Interviews (15 July 1992-22 January 1995)," interview by David Craven, Res 31 (1997): 159-68, at 164. See also DavidCraven,"Meyer Schapiro,KarlKorsch,and the ArtJournal17 (1994): 42-54. Emergence of CriticalTheory," Oxford 19. There is no date on the dissertation.The latest articles cited are two by Arthur KingsleyPorter that appeared in 1928. Ernst DeWald's 1929 publication of the Stuttgart Psalter is said to be "in print." In Lillian Milgram TheBibliography (New York:George Braziller, Schapiro: Schapiro, comp., Meyer 1995), 7, the dissertation is dated to May 1929. I am very grateful to Ted Goodman of the AveryLibrary,ColumbiaUniversity,for enabling me to read the dissertation. 20. See the statement by Linda Seidel in "ShalomYehudin! Meyer SchapiStudies and EarlyModern ro's EarlyYearsin Art History," 27 Journalof Medieval (1997): 559-94, at 564: "Schapiro'ssubsequent scholarly writing developed sections of the unpublished portion of his dissertation into penetrating, historical studies of Romanesque art at Silos and Souillac."In the bibliography published by Schapiro's wife (L. M. Schapiro [as in n. 19], 7), the dissertationis said to have three parts. She also states, apparentlyon Schapiro's authority,that in it the sculpturesof Moissacare "relatedto the social and political life of the age." Seidel cites a copy of the dissertationgiven to her by Schapiro, conceivably longer, but Schapiro, in an interview with Helen Epstein, stated that the dissertationwas"about400 pages long" (Epstein, "Meyer pt. 1, ArtNews82 [May1983]: Schapiro:A Passion to Knowand MakeKnown," 60-85, at 81). The dissertationavailablein AveryLibraryis 401 pages long. 21. Emmanuel L6wy, Rendering Art, trans. John of Nature in Early Greek Fothergill (London: Duckworth,1907). Schapiro'sfirst publication, when he was twenty-one,was an admiring appreciation of this book: "Rendering of Nature in EarlyGreek Art,"Arts8 (uly-Dec. 1925): 170-72. For Schapiro's at approach to the sculpture of Moissac, see now Ilene Forsyth, "Narrative Moissac:Schapiro's Legacy,"Gesta 41, no. 2 (2002): 71-93. 22. Schapiro, 1935, 251. 23. Ibid., 202-3, 217 n. 32. He cites V6ge, in Die Anfangedesmonumentalen Stilesim Mittelalter J. H. E. Heitz, 1894), 101-16. (Strassburg: 24. Schapiro, 1935, 2, 4. 25. Schapiro (as in n. 1), 51. 26. MeyerSchapiro, "On GeometricalSchematismin RomanesqueArt,"in Schapiro, 1977, 265-84, at 268, emphasis added. It wasoriginallypublished as zur Berichte "Uber den Schematismus in der romanischen Kunst,"Kritische 1 (1932-33): 1-21. The book reviewedwasJurgis Literatur Kunstgeschichtlichen romane Baltrusaitis'sLa stylistique dans la sculpture ornementale (Paris:Librairie ErnestLeroux, 1931). Since this waswritten,WalterB. Cahn has published an account of Schapiro'scritique of Baltrusaitis. See Cahn, "Schapiroand Focillon," Gesta 41, no. 2 (2002): 129-36, at 129-30. 27. Werckmeister(as in n. 4), 211-18. 28. Helen Epstein, "MeyerSchapiro:A Passion to Know,"pt. 2, Art News,

466

ART BUI.I ETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

V OLU0ME LXXXV

NUMBER

summer 1983, 84; and Sam Tanenhaus, WhittakerChambers:A Biography (New York: Random House, 1997), 32-38. 29. Daniel Aaron, Writerson the Left: Episodes in American Literary Communism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 243-45. 30. Meyer Schapiro to Aline Bernstein Louchheim, Aug. 18, 1936, quoted in Patricia Hills, "Meyer Schapiro, Art Front, and the Popular Front," OxfordArt Journal 17 (1994): 30-41, at 35. 31. Meyer Schapiro, "The Social Bases of Art," Proceedings of the American Artists' Congress, Newi York,no. 1 (1936): 31-37; also reprinted in David Schapiro, ed., Social Realism: Art as a Weapon (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1973), 118-27. 32. Meyer Schapiro, "Race, Nationality and Art," Art Front 2 (Mar. 1936): 10-12. 33. Meyer Schapiro, "The Use of Public Art," Art Front 2 (Nov. 1936): 4-6. 34. For a detailed look at Schapiro's activities, see Andrew Hemingway, "Schapiro and Marxism in the 1930s," Oxford ArtJournal 17 (1994): 13-29. 35. Meyer Schapiro John Kwait, pseud.], review of theJohn Reed Club Art Exhibition, New Masses, Feb. 1933, 23, reprinted in D. Schapiro (as in n. 31), 66-68. 36. Schapiro (as in n. 31). 37. Meyer Schapiro, "The Nature of Abstract Art," MlarxistQuarterly1 (Jan.Mar. 1937): 77-98, at 83. 38. I am very grateful to Blanche Brown, Milton Brown's widow, for details of her husband's life when they were both students at the institute. 39. It was published as Milton Brown, Painting of the French Revolution (New York: Critics Group, 1938). See the review by Alfred Neumeyer, Art Bulletin 21 (1939): 207-8. 40. Milton Brown, "The Marxist Approach to Art," Dialectics, no. 2 (1937): 23-31, at 29. 41. Milton Brown, quoted in Epstein (as in n. 28), 87. 42. Schapiro, 1937 (as in n. 37), 88. 43. Schapiro, 1939, 51, 43. 44. Epstein (as in n. 20), 79. 45. Crow (as in n. 7), 11. 46. I am drawing on the portrait of Porter provided by Nora Nercessian, "In Desperate Defiance: A Modern Predicament for Medieval Art," Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 7-8 (spring-autumn 1984): 137-46, esp. 139. 47. Linda Seidel, "Arthur Kingsley Porter: Life, Legend and Legacy," in The Early Yearsof Art History in the United States, ed. Craig Hugh Smyth and Peter M. Lukehart (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 97-110, esp. 108-9. 48. Arthur Kingsley Porter, Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads (Boston: MarshallJones, 1923), 198. 49. Arthur Kingsley Porter, "Kunst und Wissenschaft," in Die Kunstwissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, ed. Johannes Jahn (Leipzig: F. Meiner, 1924), 77-93, esp. 92-93. 50. Schapiro, 1935, 247. 51. Porter (as in n. 48), 45, dated the Silos reliefs to the last fifteen years of the 11th century. Earlier he had even suggested they were from about 1100. Porter, "Pilgrimage Sculpture," American Journal of Archaeology 26 (1922): 10-11. 52. Schapiro, 1939, 28. 53. Ibid., 28-29. 54. Ibid., 48. 55. Schapiro, 1935, 14, 388-89. 56. Schapiro, 1939, 51. 57. Ibid., 65. 58. As recognized by Kathryn A. Smith in a review of Image on the Edge, by Michael Camille, in Oxford Art Journal 17 (1994): 92-96. 59. Meyer Schapiro, "The Religious Meaning of the Ruthwell Cross," Art Bulletin 26 (1944): 232-45. In 1963 he still defended this interpretation, in "The Bowman and the Bird on the Ruthwell Cross and Other Works: The Interpretation of Secular Themes in Early Medieval Religion," Art Bulletin 45 (1963): 351-55. For a religious interpretation of the archer, see Paul Meyvaert, "A New Perspective on the Ruthwell Cross: Ecclesia and Vita Monastica," in The Ruthwell Cross: Papers from the Colloquium Sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 8 December1989, ed. Brendan Cassidy, Index of Christian Art Occasional Papers, 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 95-166, esp. 140-45. 60. Meyer Schapiro, "On the Aesthetic Attitude in Romanesque Art," in Art and Thought: Issued in Honor of Dr. Ananda K. Coomaraswamyon the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. K. B. Iyer (London: Luzak, 1947), 130-50, reprinted in Schapiro, 1977, 1-27, at 1. 61. Meyer Schapiro, "Muscipula Diaboli: The Symbolism of the Merode Altarpiece," Art Bulletin 27 (1945): 182-87. 62. See, for example, the following articles by Meyer Schapiro: "Courbet and Popular Imagery: An Essay on Realism and Naivete," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 4 (1941): 164-91; "Cain'sJaw-Bone That Did the First Murder," Art Bulletin 24 (1942): 205-12; "The Image of the Disappearing Christ," Gazette des Beaux-Arts 23 (1943): 135-52; Schapiro (as in n. 61); and "The Joseph Scenes on the Maximianus Throne in Ravenna," Gazette des Beaux-Arts 40 (1952): 27-38. 63. Schapiro, 1939, 46. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid., 47.

66. Schapiro addressed the issue most explicitly in "Religion and the Intellectuals," Partisan Review 19 (Apr. 1950): 331-39. See also Wayne Andersen, "Schapiro, Marx, and the Reacting Sensibility of Artists," Social Research 45 (1978): 67-92, esp. 76-78. On the Marxist contribution to Schapiro's thesis, see Werckmeister (as in n. 4), 214: "The early Marx contrasted art and religion .... His excerpts from the writings of idealist art historians elaborate the theory that art in the service of religion is alienated from its ideal quality, which is human realism." On the anti-Church animus provoked by neoCatholicism andJacques Maritain, see Guilbaut and Knicely (as in n. 4), 169ff. 67. Otto K. Werckmeister, "The Emmaus and Thomas Pillar of the Cloister of Silos," in El romanico en Silos, 149-71, esp. 156-59. 68. Schapiro (as in n. 60), 132. 69. Michael Camille, "How New York Stole the Idea of Romanesque Art," OxfordArt Journal 17 (1994): 65-75. 70. Meyer Schapiro, review of Architectureand Modern Life, by B. Brownell and F. L. Wright, in Partisan Review 4, no. 4 (Mar. 1938): 42-47. 71. Schapiro, 1939, 46. On this topic of marginality, see Werckmeister, 1994 (as in n. 14), 60. 72. Werckmeister (as in n. 67), 152ff. 73. Serafin Moralejo, "Da Marie Tympanum:De Pedro Abelardo, al claustro de Silos," in Actas del I Congresode la Asociacion Hispdnica de Literatura Medieval: Santiago de Compostela, 2 al 6 diciembrede 1985 (Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias, 1988), 453-56. 74. Schapiro, 1939, 42-44. On the jongleurs, see now 0. K. Werckmeister, "The Image of the 'Jugglers' in the Beatus of Silos," in Reading Medieval Images: The Art Historian and the Object,ed. Elizabeth Sears and Thelma K. Thomas (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002), 129-39. 75. Schapiro, 1939, 43. 76. Liber Sancti Jacobi Codex Calixtinus, trans. A. Moralejo, C. Torres, and J. Feo (Madrid: C. Bermejo, 1951), 199-200. 77. Schapiro, 1935, 245, where the sculpture is termed "intrusive." 78. See Raymond Rey, La sculpture romane languedocienne (Toulouse: Privat, 1936), 294;Jane Hayward, Walter Cahn et al., Radiance and Reflection:Medieval Art from the Raymond Pitcairn Collection (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1982), 69-71, cat. no. 13. Joaquin Yarza, while accepting resemblances between Languedocian sculpture and that of Silos, dates the Silos reliefs before those from Languedoc. Yarza, "Elementos formales del primer taller de Silos," in El romanico en Silos, 105-47, esp. 111-12. 79. Schapiro, 1939, 30. 80. Ibid., 52. 81. Schapiro's claim of a Mozarabic trace in the sculpture sowed the seeds of confusion. David Craven, 1994 (as in n. 18), 49, located the center of the article in Schapiro's attention to the compounding of styles: "The dynamic and contrapuntal nature of this method [of analyzing these varying relations of Mozarabic and Romanesque] ... allowed [Schapiro] to analyze class tensions and factual conflicts without having to assume a one-to-one correspondence between any group or class (none of which were defined in monolithic terms, contrary to orthodox Marxism from the 1930s until the present) and a given style." See also idem, Abstract Expressionism as Cultural Critique (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 68. Craven is right to find a refusal to attach particular styles to particular classes a defining feature in Schapiro's theoretical writings of the 1930s. 82. There is a rare example of Mozarabic relief sculpture that features a "repetitive" lineup of figures. It was part of the decoration of the church of San Cebrian de Mazote, further west in Le6n. See The Art of Medieval Spain A.D. 500-1200 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1994), cat. no. 66; and Achim Arbeiter and Sabine Noack-Haley, ChristlicheDenkmaler des frihen Mittelalters vom 8. bis ins 11. Jahrhundert (Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 1999), 283-84, pl. 86f. It was not known to Schapiro, and he does not reveal the basis for his assumption of a tradition of Mozarabic sculpture. 83. Schapiro, 1939, 64. 84. Ibid., 52. 85. Ibid., 64. 86. Ibid., 61-62. 87. Ibid., 100 n. 215. 88. Luciano Serrano, El Obispado de Burgos y Castilla primitiva, 3 vols. (Madrid: E. Maestre, 1935-36). 89. Ramon Menendez Pidal, La Espana del Cid, 2 vols. (Madrid: Editorial Plutarco, 1929). 90.Justo Perez de Urbel, Los monjes espanoles en la edad media, 2 vols. (Madrid: E. Maestre, 1930). 91.J. Perez de Urbel, El claustro de Silos (Burgos: Aldecoa, 1930; reprint, Burgos: Ediciones de la Instituci6n Fernan Gonzalez, 1975), 24. 92. Pilar Blanco Lozano, Coleccion diplomatica de Fernando I (1037-1065) (Le6n: Centro de Estudios e Investigacion "San Isidoro," 1987), nos. 22, 66, 71. 93. Vivancos, 7-8. 94. Blanco Lozano (as in n. 92), no. 22. 95. Vivancos, 10-12. 96. Ibid., 18, no. 15. 97.Juan Jose Garcia Gonzalez, "El dominio del monasterio de Santo Domingo de Silos (954-1214)," in El romanico en Silos, 31-67, esp. 45. 98. Vivancos, 63-65, doc. 49. 99. For the town at Sahagun, see Antonio Ubieto Arteta, Cronicas anonimas

MEYER SCHAPIRO

IN SILOS

467

de Sahagisn(Zaragoza:Universidad de Zaragoza, 1987), 19ff.; see also Jean urbanadeLe6ny Castilla en la edadmedia(siglos GautierDalche, Historia IX-XIII) (Madrid:Siglo Veintiuno, 1979), 74ff. 100.Jan. 20, 1096-97, Ferotin, 30-31; and Vivancos, no. 27. 101. BernardReilly, TheKingdom VI, 1065-1109 ofLe6n-Castilla underAlfonso (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1988), 289. See Amando Represa, "El 'Burgo' de Santo Domingo de Silos: De las 'vilas' a la 'Villa' de Silos," in Homenajea FrayJusto Perezde Urbel,OSB, 2 vols. (Silos: Abadia de Silos, 1976-77), vol. 2, 309-22, esp. 312-13, where this charter is accepted in the way Ferotin presented it. 102. Vivancos, no. 42. 103. Ibid., no. 47. 104. Reported by Ger6nimo de Nebreda, abbot of Silos from 1572 to 1578. See Ferotin, 88. 105. Represa (as in n. 101), 314-15. A charter of 1209, when Alfonso VIII conceded charters to the town of Silos, mentions a French quarter. See Vivancos, 122, doc. 84. 106. Bernard Reilly, "The Crown of Le6n-Castilla, Its Nobility, and the Patronage of Religion," lecture given at the International Congress of Medieval Studies, Western Michigan University, May 1988. I am grateful to the author for a copy of his text. de Silos(Burgos), su 107. Luciano Serrano,El realmonasterio deSantoDomingo historia artistico y tesoro (Burgos: Santiago Rodriguez, n.d.), 29. 108. Schapiro, 1939, 48. 109. Vivancos, 17. 110. Ibid., 22. 111. Vitalino Valcarcel, La "VitaDominici Siliensis"de Grimaldo: Estudio, edicioncritica y traduccion (Logrono: Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, 1982). 112. Schapiro, 1939, 65-66. 113. Derek W. Lomax, "Aspectos de la vida castellana en la 6poca de Alfonso VI reflejados en la 'Vita Dominici Siliensis,'" in Estudios sobre Alfonso de Toledo: ActasdelII Congreso internacional de estudios mozdraVIy la reconquista bes,1985 (Toledo: Instituto de EstudiosVisig6tico-Mozarabes, 1988), 291-304, esp. 293, 300. There were fifty miraculouscures in Grimaldus'sLife. In bk. 3, a later continuation, there are fifty-four.See Valcarcel (as in n. 111), 462ff. 114. Valcarcel (as in n. 111), 308-11. The presiding bishop of Burgos, de Scimeno, died in that year. MariusFerotin's argument (Histoirede l'abbaye Silos [Paris:Ernest Leroux, 1897], 63) for the date 1076 is based on questionable evidence. The charter, dated August 20, 1076, is known first from a copy of 1255. See Vivancos, 23-26 n. 19. The possibility of a scribe at that date substitutingDominicus for Sebastianusseems great. According to Reilly (as in n. 101), 118 n. 5, it is problematic in other ways. 115. Schapiro does not cite it, but there was, apparently,a public well for et les cloitres de lepers in the cloister of Moissac. See Ernest Rupin, L'abbaye Moissac(Paris:A. Picard, 1897), 66-67, 70. 116. Werckmeister(as in n. 67), 159-61. 117. Ibid., 160. In this reconstructionof events the cloisterwould have been in place by 1073, the date of Domingo's death. The mausoleum alluded to was that of Mufio Sanchez de Finojosa and his family. The tomb was centered in the primitive cloister, its date no earlier than that of the cloister. The excavators opted for a time between 1088 and 1100 for the cloister. See Rafael Torres Carot and J. YarzaLuaces, "Hallazgosromanicos en el claustro del monasterio de Santo Domingo de Silos,"BoletindelSeminario deEstudios deArte 37 (1971): 187-97. See Miguel C. Vivancos,"Elclaustro de Silos y Arqueologia en Silos,77-84, esp. 81-84, for an y las fuentes documentales,"in El romdnico argument that the Mufio Sanchez de Finojosa died around the same time as Domingo, that is, about 1073, and for the claim that the mausoleum was erected between 1060-80. The successorsof Finojosawere prominent in the history of Silos for decades after this, however. Provisions for burial in a cloister could be made by important lay patrons (Jos6 Orlandis, "Sobre la elecci6n de sepultura en la Espafia medieval,"Anuariode HistoriadelDerecho Espanol20 [1950]: 5-49, esp. 12-14). For this tomb as a monument of the early 12th century intimatelyconnected with the construction of the cloister, see Gerardo Boto Varela, Ornamento del claustro sin delito: Los seresimaginarios de Silosy sus ecosen la escultura romdnica peninsular(Burgos:Abadia de Silos, 2000), 128-29. 118. Schapiro, 1939, 87-88 n. 123. Werckmeisteralso drew on a gloss added to a manuscript of sermons by Gregorythe Great (Paris,Bibliotheque Nationale de France MSn.a. lat. 2176) that had been copied about 1100 at Silos: "that strangers should be attracted rather than just] invited to hospitality." This, of course, does not stipulate that they were invited into the cloister. The hospice and church were a far more likely site of hospitality for pilgrims. Werckmeisteralso cited a statute of Peter the Venerable of Cluny as evidence that cloisterswere frequented by layvisitors,to the point that the abbot speaks of the cloister becoming a veritable "public street."In providing the text of the statute, Werckmeister allowed the reader to see that it is not really a testament to the kind of devotional visits anticipated by Schapiro. Abbot Peter's concern is with the presence of priests and lay persons with their servants for reasons other than legitimate visits to bona fide guests of the monasteryand to the infirmary.There is no suggestion that these priests and lay persons accompanied by servantsare engaged in devotions as they "come and go." Since the cloister was, among other things, the site of monastic reading and meditation, the reason for the statutaare clear, and one would

have to assume that even purposeful visits by outsiders to the cloister were unwanted distractions. 119. See Giles Constable,"Monachismeet pelerinage au Moyen Age,"Revue 256 (1977): 3-27; Jean Leclercq, "Monachismeet peregrination du Historique IXe au XIIe si&cle,"Studia Monastica3 (1961): 33-52; and James Blaetter, en Silos,451-59. "The Foot: A Monastic Metaphor at Silos,"in El romdnico and Romanesque Sculpture: 120. Ilene H. Forsyth, "The Vita Apostolica Some PreliminaryObservations,"Gesta25, no. 2 (1986): 75-82, esp. 77-79. She cites the example at Silos, among others. See also her article "Permutations of Cluny-Paradigms at Savigny:Problems of Historiation in Rh6ne im 12.-13. dr europiischen Skulptur Valley Sculpture,"in Studienzur Geschichte ed. Herbert Beck and Kerstin Hengevoss-Diirkop (Frankfurt: Jahrhundert, Henrich, 1994), vol. 1, 342. For the idea of spiritual pilgrimage and the Emmausrelief at Silos, see also Serafin Moralejo,"Elclaustrode Silos y el arte en Silos,203-15, esp. 203-4. de los caminos de peregrinaci6n,"in El romanico 121. Ilene H. Forsyth,"The Monumental Arts of the Romanesque Period: ed. Studies in Honorof theFiftieth Recent Research,"in TheCloisters: Anniversary, Elizabeth C. Parker (New York:MetropolitanMuseum of Art, 1992), 3-25, at 4. 122. There is a convenient register of Roman and Mozarabicreadings in Rose Walker, Viewsof Transition: Liturgyand Illuminationin MedievalSpain (London: British Library,1998), 249-52. 123. The original location of Domingo's tomb is often assumed, on the basis of the epitaph carved there on the abacus of a pair of capitals, to have been near the midpoint of the north gallery. However, the Life located the original tomb next to "thedoor of the church,"and the Puertade San Miguel, near the corner of the cloister, is the only one recorded. 124. The pier at the southeast corner has the Annunciation and the Tree of Jesse in a style belonging to a later date in the 12th century. Neither of these subjectsfits the cycle logically, and it may be that they replace an earlier pair. If the original pair continued with that theme, the various appearances of Christ after the Resurrection might have been planned. For these, see Gerderchristliche Kunst(Gfitersloh:GfitersloherVerlagstrud Schiller, Ikonographie haus G. Mohn, 1966), vol. 3, 88ff. However, the Noli me tangere was the most popular of the post-Resurrectionsubjects. It appeared in Spain coupled with the Emmausjourney on an ivorydiptych of about 1100 that also included the Spain (as in n. Deposition and the Women at the Tomb. See Art of Medieval 82), 250-52, cat. no. 115. 125. Schapiro, 1939, 61. 126. For the only historyof the topic that I know, see Boylan,vol. 2, 355-66, app. K. For brief sketches, see M. C. Diaz y Diaz, "Elescriptorio de Silos,"in Revistade Musicologia 15, nos. 2-3 (1992): 389-401; and Miguel C. Vivancos de de los manuscritos del monasterio G6mez, Glosas y notas marginales visigoticos SantoDomingode Silos (Burgos:Abadia de Silos, 1996), 59ff. 127. Schapiro, 1939, 63-64. 128. With the discovery of another fragment in Le6n, the number should be twenty-seven. See Taurino Bur6n Castro,"Fragmentode un Beato,"in Leon y su historia:Miscelaneahistorica,vol. 6, Colecci6n Fuentes y Estudios de Historia Leonesa, no. 84 (Le6n: Centro de Estudios e Investigaci6n "San Isidoro,"2000), 125-39. 129. Schapiro, 1939, 63-64. 130. Ibid. 131. Vivancos, no. 33. In the previous document, also of 1119, Sebastian and Domingo are combined. In the previous chartersSebastianalone is used. The charters had been published at the end of the 19th century by Marius Ferotin. 132. Valladolid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Ms 433. See John Williams, Illustrated Beatus,vol. 1 (London: HarveyMiller, 1994), no. 4. 133. See n. 42 above. 134. Boylan, vol. 1, 181-82. 135. Walker (as in n. 122), 88-89. 136. Williams, 1998, no. 9. 137. Ibid., no. 16; Boylan, vol. 1, 66ff. 138. Schapiro, 1939, 62. 139. Ibid. 140. Ibid., 61. For the issue of the change from Hispanic to Roman rite, see Boylan, vol. 1, 179ff.; and, most recently, Walker (as in n. 122), which is devoted to the change in Le6n-Castile.As Boylan (vol. 1, 180-81) and Walker (31-32) pointed out, there is specific evidence for unhappiness with the new rite at San Millan de la Cogolla. 141. Schapiro, 1939, 63. 142. Ibid., 65. 143. Williams, 1998, no. 16; and idem (as in n. 132), 292. For this and further connections between Valeranican and Silos manuscripts,see Boylan, vol. 2, 341-54, app. J. 144. Madrid,Biblioteca Nacional Cod. 80; Williams, 1977, pl. 6. 145. Ibid., fol. 500v, text in Martin de la Torre and Pedro Longas, Catalogo Nacionalde Madrid,vol. 1, Biblicos(Madrid: de los codices latinosde la Biblioteca Patronato de la Biblioteca Nacional, 1935), 192-93; and M. Diaz y Diaz, gaci6n San Isidoro, 1983), 516.
Codices visigoticos en la monarquia leonesa (Le6n: Centro de Estudios e Investi146. C6rdoba Cathedral MS1, fol. 4, text in C. U. Clark, CollectaneaHispanica

(Paris:E. Champion, 1920), 234-35, pl. 67; and Diaz y Diaz (as in n. 145), 515.

468

ART BU I LETIN

SEPTEMBER

2003

VOLUME

LXXXV

NUMBER

The Smaragdus also has a significant portion of what Munnius copied in his colophon on fol. 277v (Clark, 231-33, pl. 65). 147. Williams, 1977, pl. 11. 148. Clark (as in n. 146), 233, pl. 66; and Diaz y Diaz (as in n. 145), 515. 149. Williams, 1977, pl. 8b. 150. Boylan, vol. 2, 352-53. 151. Williams, 1977, pls. 8b-11; for this Bible, see nowJohn Williams,"The Bible in Spain," in Imaging the Early MedievalBible (University Park, Pa.: biblicus Veinte PennsylvaniaState UniversityPress, 1999); and Codex legionensis: estudios(Leon: Lancia, 1999). 152. Serafin Moralejo, "Modelo, copia y originalidad, en el marco de las relaciones artisticashispano-francesces," in Orginalidad,modelo y copiaen el arte medieval Actasdel V Congreso 1984 (Barcehispanico: espanoldelArte,Barcelona, lona: Manuel, 1988), vol. 1, 92 n. 12. 153. Williams, 1998, fig. 225. 154. Ibid., no. 9. For illumination at the scriptorium at San Millan, see Soledad de Silvay Verastegui, La miniatura en el monasterio de San Millan de la Cogolla(Logrono: Ediciones Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, 1999). 155.Julie Harris, "Culto y narrativaen los marfiles de San Millan de la Nacional(Madrid) 9 (1991): 69-85. Cogolla," Boletindel MuseoArqueologico 156. Madrid,Real Academia de la Historia Cod. 33. See Williams,1998, no. 9, esp. 24-25, figs. 134ff. 157. Walker (as in n. 122), app. I. 158. Williams, 1998, no. 14. See also Apocalipsis BeatiLiebanensis BurgiOxomensis(Valencia:Vicent Garcia, 1992), a facsimile of the Beatus of Burgo de Osma with a volume of Estudios. 159. Louis Brou, "Un antiphonaire mozarabede Silos d'apres les fragments du British Museum (Ms. Add. 11695, fol. lr-4v)," Hispania Sacra5 (1952): 341-66. In his dissertation (Schapiro, 1935, 311 n. 38) Schapiro claims only to have seen a facsimile of the Silos Beatus. It may not have included the introductoryleaves, and events maynot have allowed Schapiroto visitLondon in the intervening time. 160. Schapiro, 1939, 331ff.; and Williams, 1977, pl. 40. 161. Taking a lead from the inscription, based on Job, "Theyshall passfrom great heat to snow watersand from snow watersto great heat,"Boylan (vol. 1, 111ff.) has argued that the subject makes it probable that it was originally composed by Petrus for an antiphonarysetting sometime after 1109.Joaquin Yarzaalso assigned the Hell to Petrus in a later campaign, in "SanMiguel y la

balanza:Notas iconograficasacerca de la psicostasisy el pesaje de las acciones delMuseoe Instituto"Camon Aznar" 6-7 (1981): 5-36, esp. 21. morales,"Boletin 162. Schapiro, 1939, 52, called attention to resemblances between the Christ in the Emmaus relief and the Saint Michael of the Hell page. 163. Schapiro, 1935, 245. 164. Schapiro, 1939, 29. 165. Schapiro, 1935, 246. 166. Schapiro (as in n. 6). For a critique, see Werckmeister,1979 (as in n. 4), 213-14. The method employed by Schapiro in this article was recently eulogized by Crow (as in n. 7), 11ff. 167. Schapiro, 1939, 46. 168. Schapiro, 1977, 117. 169.Jacques Thirion, "Observations sur les fragmentssculptes du portail de Souillac," Gesta15 (1976): 161-72, esp. 166. Exceptionally, contemporary tympana with narrativesubjects can be found in Spain on the transept of Santiago de Compostela and over the principal doorwayof San Isidoro de Le6n. 170. Schapiro (as in n. 61), reprinted in Selected vol. 3, LateAntique, Papers, and Medieval Art (New York:George Braziller,1979), 1-11. EarlyChristian, 171. Schapiro, 1977, 122-23. 172. Meyer Schapiro, "The Patronsof Revolutionary Art,"Marxist Quarterly 1 (Oct.-Dec. 1937): 462-66. 173. See his essay "Style," Schapiro (as in n. 1), 51. 174. Meyer Schapiro, TheParmaIldefonsus: A Romanesque Illuminated Manufrom Cluny and RelatedWorks (New York: College Art Association of script America, 1964). The monograph has a hundred more footnotes than the article on Silos. 175. Ibid., 19. 176. Ibid., 3 n. 5. Schapiro also offers a reprise of the interpretation of an open door as a sexual reference that had appeared in Schapiro, 1939, 11 n. 123, which he cites. However, Walter Cahn, in his review of The Parma (Art Bulletin50 [1967]: 72-75, esp. 75) offers a more convincing Ildefonsus interpretationof the scene, with the open door as an illustrationinspired by the text. 177. Schapiro (as in n. 1), 101. 178. Shapiro (as in n. 61). 179. Schapiro, 1952 (as in n. 62), reprintedin Schapiro,1979 (as in n. 170), 35-47.