The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela: A Reassessment 9781407305110, 9781407334974

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Chapter 1: An Architectural Survey
Chapter 2: Santiago according to Aymery Picaud
Chapter 3: Foreign Influences and Related Problems
Chapter 4: The West Crypt
Chapter 5: The West End: from the narthex to the roof
Chapter 6: The Language of Architectural Detailing
Conclusion
Appendix A: Measurements
Appendix B: Gallery columns: further measurements
Glossary
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

BAR S1979 2009 WATSON

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela: A Reassessment Christabel Watson

a

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compostel

B A R

BAR International Series 1979 2009

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela: A Reassessment Christabel Watson

BAR International Series 1979 2009

ISBN 9781407305110 paperback ISBN 9781407334974 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305110 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

To Richard Morris

Contents Introduction

The Legend – The Tomb – The First Two Churches – The Third Building ..................................... ix

Chapter 1

An Architectural Survey..................................................................................................................... 1 Chronology and Inscriptions – Excavations – The Gallery and Chevet – The North Gable, Buttresses and Corbels – Master Mateo’s Contribution

Chapter 2

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud............................................................................................. 19 The Dimensions of the Church – The Windows – The Portals – The Fountain of Saint James – The Parvis of the City – The North Portal – The South Portal – The West Portal – The Towers of the Basilica – The Altars of the Basilica – The Final Sections

Chapter 3

Foreign Influences and Related Problems...................................................................................... 39 The Journeys of Gelmírez – The Historia Compostelana – The West Towers: orientation – The West Towers: size and spacing – The West Façade –The Uprising of 1117 – The later years of Diego Gelmírez, Archbishop of Compostela

Chapter 4

The West Crypt................................................................................................................................. 51 Rival Contentions – The Nave and Transepts of the Catedral Vieja – The Vaulting – The East End of the Catedral Vieja

Chapter 5

The West End: from the narthex to the roof.................................................................................. 65 The Stairway – The Western Entrance – The Narthex – The West End – Problems with the Aisles – The West Gallery – The Roof

Chapter 6

The Language of Architectural Detailing....................................................................................... 83 The Nave Galleries – The Nave and Aisles – The Pier Bases – Masons’ Marks – The Exterior of the Nave – The West Crypt – The West Crypt Transept – The West Crypt Ambulatory – The East Chapel in the West Crypt

Conclusion

. ........................................................................................................................................................... 97

Appendix A:

The Measurements ........................................................................................................................... 101

Appendix B:

Further Measurements: Gallery Columns......................................................................................... 105

Glossary

. ......................................................................................................................................................... 107

Bibliography

. ......................................................................................................................................................... 109

Index

. ......................................................................................................................................................... 115

i

List of Figures Chapter 1: An Architectural Survey Fig. 1.1. Fig. 1.2. Fig. 1.3. Fig. 1.4. Fig. 1.5. Fig. 1.6. Fig. 1.6a. Fig. 1.6b. Fig. 1.7. Fig. 1.7a. Fig. 1.8. Fig. 1.9. Fig. 1.10. Fig. 1.11. Fig. 1.12. Fig. 1.13. Fig. 1.13a. Fig. 1.14. Fig. 1.15. Fig. 1.15a. Fig. 1.16. Fig. 1.17. Fig. 1.18. Fig. 1.19. Fig. 1.20. Fig. 1.21. Fig. 1.22.

The west façade The nave Plan of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), with annotations by author Plan of the cathedral (after Chamoso Lamas, 1973), with correction to the Portal of the Via Sacra by author South portal inscription Chapel of San Salvador: niche on north wall with inscriptions on either side Inscription on the left of the niche Inscription on the right of the niche Chapel of San Salvador: inscription on the soffit of the transverse arch Detail of the inscription Excavation plan (after Louis, 1955), with annotations by author Excavation plan (after Guerra Campos, 1960), with annotations by author Gallery ambulatory Chevet: north exterior South elevation (after Conant, 1926) North gable revealing lower roofline, looking east North gable (after Conant, 1926) North gable revealing lower roofline, looking west North transept: east exterior Detail of masonry South transept: buttress on east exterior North façade: the Azabachería North transept: west exterior showing corbel line Nave: north exterior showing corbels (and balustrade) Master Mateo Matean sculptures at the entrance to the Puerta Santa The south gable

Chapter 2: Santiago according to Aymery Picaud Fig. 2.1. Fig. 2.2. Fig. 2.3. Fig. 2.4. Fig. 2.5. Fig. 2.5a. Fig. 2.6. Fig. 2.7. Fig. 2.8. Fig. 2.9. Fig. 2.9a. Fig. 2.10. Fig. 2.10a. Fig. 2.11. Fig. 2.12. Fig. 2.13. Fig. 2.14. Fig. 2.15. Fig. 2.15a. Fig. 2.16. Fig. 2.17. Fig. 2.18.

Plan of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), with annotations by author Longitudinal section (after Conant, 1926), detail, with annotations by author South façade: the Platerías Portal of the Via Sacra Chapel of St John Detail of north corbel Cloister: fountain of St James North portal columns in the cathedral museum Platerías: frieze above west door Platerías: central columns Detail of marble column Platerías: right tympanum Detail of right tympanum Platerías: left tympanum Platerías: SS John, James, ‘the Lord upright’, Matean sculptures Platerías: Moses Platerías: God the Father (referred to as Abraham) South transept: west exterior, showing curved section of spiral stairway Detail of corbel on spiral stairway North transept: west exterior showing curved section of spiral stairway and shafts North transept: shaft of east spiral stairway in the chapel of St Andrew Remains of tower in the angle of the nave and south transept ii

Fig. 2.19. Fig. 2.20. Fig. 2.21. Fig. 2.22. Fig. 2.23.

East elevation as originally designed (after Conant, 1926) Eastern parts of the cathedral by Vega y Verdugo, c. 1660 (after Conant, 1926) East end of the cathedral from the Quintana Chapel of St Faith: woman astride a lion Chapel of St John: corbels on the exterior of the chapel, now on the interior of the Chapel of our Lady in White Fig. 2.24. San Salvador Chapel: exterior north wall, now the south interior wall of the Chapel of our Lady in White Fig. 2.25. San Salvador Chapel: exterior south wall Chapter 3: Foreign Influences, and subsequent problems Fig. 3.1. Fig. 3.2. Fig. 3.3. Fig. 3.3a. Fig. 3.4. Fig. 3.5. Fig. 3.6. Fig. 3.7. Fig. 3.8.

Apse: exterior West tower: junction with nave south exterior Nave north exterior: junction with west tower Detail of half-bay Nave: showing the ‘bend’ at the west end West end: measurements by author, drawn by John Holland West façade (after Vega y Verdugo c. 1660) South elevation: first state of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), detail West elevation: second state of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), detail

Chapter 4: The West Crypt Fig. 4.1. Fig. 4.2. Fig. 4.3. Fig. 4.4. Fig. 4.5. Fig. 4.6. Fig. 4.7. Fig. 4.8. Fig. 4.9. Fig. 4.10. Fig. 4.11. Fig. 4.12. Fig. 4.13. Fig. 4.14. Fig. 4.15. Fig. 4.16.

West crypt: pier M facing west West crypt: pier M facing east Hypothetical reconstruction of the west façade (after Puente Míguez, 1992) Hypothetical reconstruction of the west façade (after Conant, 1966) West crypt: north aisle Plan of the west crypt (after Puente Míguez, 1992, with capitals numbered by Stratford, 1992), annotations by author, drawn by John Holland Reconstructed plan of the west crypt (after Puente Míguez, 1992), with annotations by author West crypt, longitudinal section (after Pons Sorolla, in Puente Míguez, 1992), with annotations by author Stairway leading to west portal West crypt: central pier M, showing bench and stone coursing from east to west West crypt: three periods of construction West crypt: south transept, east facing wall West crypt: east chapel West crypt: rib mouldings Platerías mouldings Plan of excavations (after Guerra Campos, 1960), detail showing Cresconio’s tower and wall

Chapter 5: The West End: from the narthex to the roof Fig. 5.1. Fig. 5.2. Fig. 5.3. Fig. 5.4. Fig. 5.5. Fig. 5.6. Fig. 5.7. Fig. 5.8. Fig. 5.9. Fig. 5.10. Fig. 5.11. Fig. 5.12. Fig. 5.13. Fig. 5.14. Fig. 5.14a. Fig. 5.15.

Projected west façade (after Vega y Verdugo c. 1660) Azabachería: three flights of steps (behind: the Monastery of San Martín Pinario) Orense: stairway leading to west portal Narthex: Pórtico de la Gloria Nave: south pier (O.C) north side Nave: south pier (O.C) south side Nave: order on the north side of O.B Nave: order on the south of O.C Nave: inner portal North transept: inner portal South transept: inner portal North gable North transept, inner portal: shaft ending at string-course Nave, inner portal: shaft and roundel Detail, base of shaft Nave, south aisle: showing breaks in masonry iii

Fig. 5.16. Fig. 5.17. Fig. 5.18. Fig. 5.19. Fig. 5.20. Fig. 5.21. Fig. 5.22. Fig. 5.23. Fig. 5.24. Fig. 5.25. Fig. 5.26. Fig. 5.26a. Fig. 5.27. Fig. 5.28. Fig. 5.29. Fig. 5.29a. Fig. 5.30. Fig. 5.30a. Fig. 5.30b. Fig. 5.30c. Fig. 5.31. Fig. 5.32. Fig. 5.33. Fig. 5.33a.

Nave, north aisle: showing breaks in masonry Baptistery Treasury Nave, south aisle: roundel at west end Nave, north aisle: roundel at west end and disturbed masonry South gallery: quadrant vaulting West gallery: relieving arch on inner portal facing west West gallery: arch leading to north gallery West gallery: arch leading to south gallery West gallery: north wall party to tower West gallery Detail of central respond North gallery South gallery West gallery: window revealing Casa y Nóvoa’s stonework Detail of Gelmírez impost indicated by arrow in Fig. 5.29. Mateo’s heightening of the west gallery, noting angels and masonry Detail of east angel-corbel Detail of west angel-corbel Detail of impost indicated by arrow on Fig. 5.30. North gallery, bay 1: an inserted Matean capital next to Gelmírez imposts Nave: south exterior illustrating cut-off corbels Battlements along the south side of the nave; the tiled area in the foreground covers chapels and sacristies Detail of stone slabs showing tile marks

Chapter 6: The Language of Architectural Detailing Fig. 6.1. Fig. 6.2. Fig. 6.3. Fig. 6.4. Fig. 6.5. Fig. 6.6. Fig. 6.7. Fig. 6.8. Fig. 6.9. Fig. 6.10. Fig. 6.11. Fig. 6.12. Fig. 6.13. Fig. 6.14. Fig. 6.15. Fig. 6.16. Fig. 6.17. Fig. 6.18. Fig. 6.19. Fig. 6.20. Fig. 6.21. Fig. 6.22. Fig. 6.23. Fig. 6.24. Fig. 6.25. Fig. 6.26. Fig. 6.27. Fig. 6.28. Fig. 6.29. Fig. 6.30. Fig. 6.31.

Diagram of capitals in the gallery (after D’Emilio, 1992), with additions and annotations by author, drawn by John Holland Gallery: capital VI.Be Gallery: capital VI.Bw Gallery: capital V.Be Gallery: capital V.Bw Gallery: capital IV.Be Gallery: capital X.Be Gallery: capital IV.Ce Gallery: capital VIII.Bw Gallery: Gudesteo capital, III.Bw Gallery: capital X.Ce Gallery: capital V.Cw Gallery: capital IV.N Gallery: Daniel capital, VIII.N Gallery: capital I.Ce Gallery: capital V.N Gallery: capital V.S Gallery ambulatory: roman capital West crypt: capital on E.3 Gallery: capital I.Cw North aisle: capital in bay II Nave: base O.C backing Mateo’s Pórtico South transept: pier base V (east) Nave: bay 1, north arcade, masons’ marks North aisle: masons’ mark on cut-off order Nave: north exterior, bay III, detail of west capital Nave: north exterior, bay II West crypt: detail of M.8,7 West crypt: capital S.11 West crypt: capital S.9 West crypt: pier E iv

Fig. 6.32. Fig. 6.33. Fig. 6.34. Fig. 6.35. Fig. 6.36. Fig. 6.37. Fig. 6.38.

Pórtico pier base: grotesque creatures West crypt: base without a column Pórtico de la Gloria: capitals West crypt: capitals N.5, 4 and 3 Gallery ambulatory: abacus following shape of masonry above West crypt: capital S.3,4 West crypt: east chapel, capital S.2

Appendix A: Measurements A.1 Plan of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), with annotations by author, drawn by John Holland

All figures are of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela unless otherwise stated. Figure credits All photographs by author unless otherwise stated Fig. 3.4, Jennifer Alexander Fig. 5.4, Richard K. Morris Figs 5.15 and 6.25, Tino Martínez Figs. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.19, 2.20, 3.7, 3.8, A.1. Reproduced from K. J. Conant, The Early Architectural History of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (Cambridge, Mass. 1926), plates, VIII, VI, II, IV, I, figs, 15, 21, respectively Fig. 1.4. Reproduced from M. Chamoso Lamas and Victoriano González, ‘Saint-Jacques de Compostelle’, in Galice Romane (La Pierre-qui-Vivre, 1973), 103 Fig. 1.8. Reproduced from R. Louis, ‘Fouilles exécutées dans la cathédral de Sainte Jacques de Compostelle’, Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaries de France, June (1955), 152 Figs. 1.9, 4.16 (detail). Reproduced from J. Guerra Campos, ‘Excavaciónes en la Catedral de Santiago’, La Ciencia Tomista, LXXXVII/274 (1960b), 304–305. Figs 3.6, 5.1. Vega y Verdugo’s drawings reproduced from M. Chamoso Lamas, ‘La fachada del Obradoiro de la Catedral de Santiago de Compostela’, Archive Español de Arte y Arqueología, XII (1936), lámina 11a, 11b Figs. 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8. Reproduced from J. A. Puente Míguez, ‘La fachada exterior del Pórtico de la Gloria y el problema de sus accesos’, in Actas Simposio Internacional sobre, O Pórtico da Gloria e a Arte do seu Tempo, Santiago de Compostela, Outubro de 1988 (A Coruña, 1992), figs 9, 7, 8, 4 a-a respectively Fig. 4.4. Reproduced from K. J. Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture 800-1200 (London, 1966), plate IVb Fig. 4.6. Reproduced from N. Stratford, ‘ “Compostela and Burgundy?” Thoughts on the western crypt of the Cathedral of Santiago’, in Actas Simposio Internacional sobre, O Pórtico da Gloria e a Arte do seu Tempo, Santiago de Compostela, Outubro de 1988 (A Coruña, 1992), plate 1 Fig. 6.1. Reproduced from J. D’Emilio, ‘The Pilgrim and the Pilgrims’ Guide’, in The Codex Calixtinus and the Shrine of St. James, eds J. Williams and A. Stones (Tübingen, 1992a), Diagram A Figs. 1.8, 1.9. Reproduced from J. Williams, ‘ “Spain or Toulouse?” A half century later: observations on the chronology of Santiago de Compostela’, in Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Historia del Arte, held in Granada in 1973 (Granada, 1976), Figs 1, 2

v

vi

Acknowledgements My thanks to Richard Morris and Julian Gardner who suggested that I write this book; to Peter Fergusson for his encouragement, sound advice and help with the script; to Hugh McCague for his mathematical expertise with the appendix on Measurements; Francis Davey for translations of impossible Latin texts and inscriptions and John Holland for his computer drawings of plans. My thanks continue to Ramón José Izquierdo Perrín for answering many questions, both in Santiago and via e-mail; to his son, Ramón Yzquierdo Peiró, for obtaining access for me to visit the galleries and roof of the cathedral and supplying photographs of the chapel of San Salvador. In Santiago, I was helped by Fernando Lopez Alsina, Manuel Castiñeiras, Belen Castro and Rocio Sanchez; Don Alejandro Barral, a canon of the cathedral, Don Daniel Cerqueiro in charge of the Bishop’s Palace; José Suarez Otera, Juan Esperante, and Julio, Pepe and Carlos the vergers who said that they were only serving Saint James when they produced huge bunches of keys that opened doors leading to various parts of the cathedral. While carring out research I stayed with Preciosa and José of Hostal Moure, who looked after me beautifully. Jennifer Alexander accompanied me on my last visit to Santiago and taught me how to measure a building; Carol Rutter read my first draft and persuaded me to continue writing, and Linda Monckton rescued the book which disappeared at a crucial stage somewhere in the computer. Advice was also sought from Eric Fernie, John Goodall, Peter Linehan, John McNeill, and thanks are extended to John Williams, Malcolm Thurlby, Andrew Lenox-Conyngham, Patricia Quaife, Duncan Givans, and many other friends and colleagues. Thanks also to Karen Matthews and James D’Emilio for their constructive comments. Of the numerous libraries consulted, the Instituto Cervantes was exceptionally helpful; also the Confraternity of Saint James with its excellent collection of material and, of course, the University of Warwick. Finally, I am extremely grateful to Helen Woods for her proof reading and valuable suggestions; and to my husband, Andrew, for his advice on matters in the text, and his support throughout the long period of research and the writing of this book.

vii

viii

Introduction

The cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in the north-west of Spain is renowned for its Romanesque architecture and as a destination for pilgrims. The most important manuscripts relating to the cathedral are the Historia Compostelana, a contemporaneous account of the life and work of Archbishop Gelmírez (from circa 1100 to his death in 1140), and the Guide (the fifth part of the Codex Calixtinus) purportedly written by Aymery Picaud in the mid-1130s. Both contribute to the understanding of the architecture of the building, but they also invite intense debate over dating and building progression.

and measurements. They illustrate that the building campaign overseen by Gelmírez reached the west end. If Mateo had been able to plan the western parts from an undeveloped site, it is unlikely that he would have designed two such ill-matching arches. After chapters on the architecture of the cathedral, Aymery Picaud and Gelmírez, each part of the building is taken in turn, from the enigmatic west crypt to the roof. Capitals have been used by some scholars as a method of dating the western parts of the cathedral and the merit of this approach will be questioned in Chapter 6.

Another important account is Kenneth Conant’s monograph of 1926.1 Up until the mid-1970s it was accepted as being the authoritative work on Santiago. Conant judged the cathedral to have been built in one campaign: begun in the mid-1070s at the east end by Bishop Peláez and continued to the west end by Bishop (later Archbishop) Gelmírez. During the 1970s an alternative hypothesis was put forward. Scholars proposed that Gelmírez failed in his objective to finish the cathedral before he died in 1140, and asserted that the western parts were designed and planned entirely by Master Mateo employed specifically for the purpose in 1168.2 Such is the conviction for this theory that even the plans in the cathedral museum have been altered, and many recent publications accept the new dating.

I have cited the cathedral as having been designed by Gelmírez or Mateo for ease of discussion and comprehension. Although Gelmírez employed master masons, the Historia Compostelana frequently mentions ‘his admirable talent’ and his being ‘a wise architect’ indicating Gelmírez’s direct involvement in the project.3 Therefore I assign any architectural developments made during his custodianship to Gelmírez. In comparison Mateo was a master mason who no doubt took many decisions on his own initiative. Accordingly, building works during his employment are attributed to Mateo instead of to his patron. The Romans adhered to a principle called stare decisis, namely that a respected opinion held over a long period of time should not be overturned lightly. As a result of close scrutiny of the masonry, fresh evidence emerged to show that Conant’s original theory – that the cathedral was constructed in a single building programme – could be substantially upheld. Perhaps, most significantly, this book shows that architectural analysis can add to the knowledge even of a building such as Santiago de Compostela, whose history seemed already to be well defined.4

The comparison throughout this book is between Gelmírez and Mateo: who contributed which piece of masonry to the construction of the cathedral-church; to be more specific, which of the two designed, built, and completed the west end. Following a detailed study of the architecture, I show that the ambition of Gelmírez was indeed fulfilled. Mateo was confronted with a building which he had to alter, and this can be confirmed at all structural levels at the west end. Masonry of the period of Gelmírez is identified in the west crypt, demonstrating that Mateo only strengthened the west crypt in order to support his much higher and grander design. Traces of the earlier style of Gelmírez can also be observed on the west façade and, by contrasting these with aspects of the interior, it is possible to see how the original elevation of Gelmírez was modified by Mateo.

The Legend The legend of how the body of St James arrived in Spain, its discovery and identification, has been welcomed, accepted and denied. This book is not the place to investigate the truth

The western towers were started at the beginning of the twelfth century, probably before the crossing had been completed. This led to their misalignment and to inevitable problems for Gelmírez, and for Mateo too at a later date. At the western ends of the north and south nave aisles in the gallery, I discovered two arches at variance with each other in both style

3

Historia Compostelana, translated from Latin into Spanish by E. Falque (Madrid, 1994), I, XX, 110, and I, LXXVIII, 189. From now onwards the abbreviation H.C. will be used in notes, followed by the date of the edition, the book (there are three), the chapter and the page number. J. Williams, ‘Framing Santiago’, Romanesque Art and Thought in the Twelfth Century: Essays in honor of Walter Cahn (University Park, Penn. 2008a), 234, says: ‘… one assumes the bishop was party to most decisions even if he depended on a magisterium or an operarius for day to day supervision’.

1

K. J. Conant, The Early Architectural History of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (Cambridge, Mass. 1926).

4

This book has developed from an article written in 2000: C. Watson, ‘A Reassessment of the Western Parts of the Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59/4 (2000), 502-21.

2

Sources and references for these alternative theories are given and discussed in Chapter 4.

ix

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

The Tomb

– or otherwise – of the saga. The tale is captivating, and the result of its popularity has led to the growth of a hamlet into a rapidly expanding city thriving on pilgrimage and tourism.5 As a result of increasing numbers of pilgrims arriving to pay their respects to the patron saint of Spain, the original church was twice rebuilt and enlarged to the size and magnificence that dominates the city today.

Detailed excavations undertaken by Chamoso Lamas in the mid 1950s led to the conclusion that James’s original sepulchre at Compostela was two-tiered following the style of the period.13 He identified fragments of tiles, mosaics and marble belonging to the Roman era, and the method of laying the blocks of stone indicated Roman construction.14 Hauschild does not dispute the two-tiered articulation with the tomb existing ‘in or under a room’, but he does not think that the ashlar walls surrounding the tomb were thick enough to support a two-tiered structure, fitting more appropriately with a Mozarabic construction of the ninth or tenth century.15 There have been many theories on the structure of the tomb.16 It is, however, generally agreed that the sarcophagus was placed in a lower chamber, access to it being from above. A marble slab covered the entrance and an altar was set directly over the position of the tomb.17 In 1105 Bishop Gelmírez enclosed the altar with a grander version described in detail by Aymery Picaud.18 During the first phase of his excavations Chamoso Lamas was able to observe how in the mid-seventeenth century, Vega y Verdugo (a canon of the cathedral) had lowered the chamber area.19 A complete restoration of the crypt was made in 1891 following López Ferreiro’s excavations of 1879.20 It is this arrangement that one sees today.

James was the son of Mary and Zebedee, the brother of John, and one of the fishermen on the shores of Galilee who left his trade to follow Christ.6 With Peter and John he became one of the three favoured disciples; he was present at the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor and in the garden of Gethsemane.7 When the disciples travelled to preach the gospel, James is thought to have visited Spain. Nothing is known about his mission except for one miracle, which is said to have occurred at Zaragoza: the Virgin Mary appeared to James standing on a pillar.8 In AD 44, soon after his return to Jerusalem, James was beheaded outside the city walls on the orders of Herod Agrippa.9 He was the first of the apostles to be martyred. His disciples rescued his body, made their way to Jaffa and sailed to Galicia in the north-west of Spain in a week, a miracle in itself, landing at Iria Flavia (now Padrón).10 The disciples enquired of a noblewoman, by the name of Lupa, as to where they could bury their master. Lupa lent them a wagon and indicated a hill where they would find her oxen. The animals were wild, but as the disciples approached the oxen became docile allowing themselves to be harnessed. They pulled the wagon with the sarcophagus, eventually coming to a halt at a Roman cemetery 20 kilometres to the north-east at a place called Assegonia, the site of present day Santiago de Compostela.11 Suitably astonished, Lupa was converted to Christianity and offered her sepulchre for the burial of James.12

Compostela. 1000 ans de Pélerinage Européan (Gand, 1985), 55. 13

M. Chamoso Lamas, ‘Noticia de las excavaciones arqueologicas que se realizan in la Catedral de Santiago’, Compostellanum, I/2, (1956a), 349-92. He quotes a number of sepulchres similar in style: Fabara (Zaragoza), Corbins (Lérida), Torre del Breny (Barcelona) to mention but a few in Spain; others are to be found on the Vatican necropolis and the Via Latina in Rome, with similar ones in Syria and Palestine, 369. Further references on excavations are taken from the following articles written by Chamoso Lamas with the same title in Compostellanum; ‘Segunda fase’, I/4 (1956b), 803-56; ‘Tercera fase’, II/4 (1957), 575-680.

5

For the expansion of the city, see F. López Alsina, La ciudad de Santiago de Compostela en la alta edad media (Santiago de Compostela, 1988). 6

14

Chamoso Lamas (1956a), 371, 375.

15

T. Hauschild, ‘Archeology [sic] and the Tomb of St James’, in The Codex Calixtinus and the Shrine of St James, eds J. Williams, A. Stones (Tübingen, 1992), 90, 94-6.

Matthew 5: 21-22; Mark 1: 19-20; Luke 5: 10.

7

Transfiguration: Matthew 17: 1-8; Mark 9: 2-8; Luke 9: 28-36. Gethsemane: Matthew 26: 36-7; Mark 14: 32-3.

16

A. López Ferreiro, Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela (Santiago, 1898), I, 40-50. López Ferreiro wrote 11 volumes from 1898-1911. He only reached the year 1823. His final volume, started in 1909, was published in 1911 a year after his death. A chapel in the present cathedral has been dedicated to the Pillar. It was completed in 1723 by Domingo de Andrade and Fernando de Casas, and occupies the site of the original chapels of SS Fructuosus and Andrew.

For instance, Williams surmises that the structure of c. 830 was a basement storey only: J. Williams, ‘The Tomb of St. James: The View from the Other Side’, Cross, Crescent and Conversion: Studies on Medieval Spain and Christendom in Memory of Richard Fletcher, ed. Simon Barton and Peter Linehan (Leiden-Boston, 2008b), 182. I. M. González-Pardo illustrates proposed plans of the mausoleum of St James (made from 1880-1983) in the catalogue of the exhibition, Santiago de Compostela. 1000 ans de Pélerinage Européan (Gand, 1985): ‘Le Lieu et la Ville Sainte’, 205.

9

17

8

Acts 12: 2.

López Alsina (1988), 114 and n. 45. For comment on the marble slab and altar see: W. Tyler, ‘A Spanish Romanesque Column in the Fogg Museum’, Art Bulletin (1941), 23/1, 45-52.

10

There are numerous references to the Legend. Short extracts for the above have been taken from M. Stokstad, Santiago de Compostela. In the Age of the Great Pilgrimages (Oklahoma, 1978), 6.

18

P. Gerson, A. Shaver-Crandell, A. Stones, The Pilgrim’s Guide: a Critical Edition (Harvey Miller, 1998), 79, 81, and 211, n. 109; H.C. (1994), I, XVIII, 107. A magnificent silver frontal was made, but it could be removed to reveal the old altar in its original position.

11

The town is marked on Barrington’s Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. R. J. A. Talbert (Princeton, 1992), 24. The road ran up the west coast of Spain, through Braga (Bracara Augusta), Padrón (Iria Flavia) and Compostela (Assegonia), to La Coruña (Portus Magnus/(Flavium) Brigantium) with branches leading to Astorga (Asturica) and Lugo (Lucus Augusti).

19 20

Chamoso Lamas (1956a), 371.

M. Chamoso Lamas, Las Excavaciones Arqueologicas en la catedral de Santiago. Homenaje a D. Antonio López Ferreiro en el cincuentenario de su muerte (Santiago de Compostela, 1960). The whole area was lowered even further, but the tomb and altar were left intact.

12

Conant (1926), 4, quotes the tradition that ‘a tomb was built for the Apostle on land given for the purpose by a pious woman’. F. López Alsina discounts this part of the legend in, ‘Compostelle, Ville de Saint Jacques’, in Santiago de

x

Introduction

The first two churches

decorated with marble columns and the walls covered with a veneer of marble and coloured stone; such was its splendour that seventeen bishops attended the consecration in 899.32

Around 815 a hermit by the name of Pelayo noticed a bright light hovering over a grove of oak trees.21 He investigated, found a ruined building and reported his discovery to Bishop Theodomir. On the bishop’s arrival and with further examination, a tomb was revealed. The remains were identified as being those of James and his two disciples.22 The king, Alfonso II of the Asturias, was summoned. He confirmed La Revelatio and ordered a church to be built.23

In 997 the vizir of Al-Andulus, Almansur, attacked the city. The basilica was burned and Christians, taken as slaves, were forced to carry the bells to Córdoba.33 The heat of the fire must have been intense for Chamoso Lamas found traces of damage on the ashlar stonework on the façade of the crypt.34 Nevertheless, the basilica was rebuilt within six years, albeit without the spectacular interior embellishments, and consecrated in 1003.35

This first church was a modest affair: a single-aisled structure added to the west of the sepulchre, made of fieldstone set in clay with a wooden roof.24 Its length, 20 metres, was roughly three times its width of 7 metres.25 Alfonso ordered a second church to be built to the east of the sepulchre, where twelve Benedictine monks under Abbot Ildefredo celebrated divine offices.26 A baptistery was set to the north.27

The third building By the eleventh century the second basilica at Santiago was unable to accommodate the growing multitude of pilgrims. Diego Peláez, appointed bishop following the murder of Bishop Gudesteo c. 1069, realised the need to replace the old basilica.36 He arranged for a chest – named the Arca Operis Beati Jacobi – to be positioned before the altar of St James, where donations were offered for the salaries of the master mason and the workmen.37

Alfonso III (866 – 910) and Sisnando, bishop of Iria (c. 880 – 920), were instrumental in promoting the cult of St James and rebuilding the Compostelan church.28 The second basilica kept the sepulchre in its apse-like position with the monk’s church retained to the east. Excavations revealed that the nave with its open portico was not much longer than the first church, measuring 23 metres.29 It was, however, much wider following the style of the Asturian churches.30 The baptistery now adjoined the north wall with the addition of a second portal, while a third portal was introduced to the south. The bases of strip buttresses found in excavations were considered not to have been strong enough to support a stone vault, indicating instead a wooden roof.31 The interior was lavishly

The type of building that developed at Compostela was described as a ‘pilgrimage church’.38 Four of these were to be found in cities through which pilgrims walked on their way to Spain. St Martin (Tours) was on the route from Paris; St Martial (Limoges) on the route from Vezelay; Ste Foi (Conques) on the Le Puy road, and St Sernin (Toulouse) on the way from Arles. The fifth, dedicated to St James, was at the end of the pilgrimage at Compostela. Pilgrimage churches were of necessity spacious in order to receive as many visitors as possible. Each church consisted of a long nave with transepts, aisles and a gallery. A decorative barrier generally surrounded the choir, enabling the clergy to conduct their liturgy in private, and an ambulatory set around the apse allowed for the

21

In the ‘Concordia del Obispo D. Diego Peláez con el Abad de Antealtares, San Fagildo’, the light is called an ‘angelic oracle’. (The Concord is printed in López Ferreiro (1900), III, appendix 1, 3-6.) The oak grove became known as the field of the star, campus stellae, evolving into Compostela. Santiago is the Spanish rendering of the saint’s name (James = Iago = San Iago = Santiago). 22

H.C. (1994), I, I, 66-8; I, II, 69-70.

Guerra Campos (1982), 274, n. 19.

23

32

J. Guerra Campos, Exploraciones arqueologicas en torno al sepulcro del apostol Santiago (Santiago de Compostela año santo, 1982), 373-4; Alsina (1988), 119 and n. 66, 131 and n. 90, n. 91 for references as to the authenticity of the document dated the 4th September 834.

60.

24

A. G. Biggs, ‘Diego Gelmírez. First Archbishop of Compostela’, Catholic University of America, Studies in Medieval History (Washington DC, 1949), 11. Also referred to in the dedication of the second basilica in 899: ‘ex petra et luto opera parvo’: López Ferreiro (1899), II, 50-3.

H.C. (1994), I, I, 72 and n.54; Fletcher (1984), 71; Chamoso Lamas (1977),

33

Fletcher (1984), 24.

34

Chamoso Lamas (1956a), 376.

35

López Ferreiro (1899), II, 427. The basilica remained until 1112, the date recorded in the Historia Compostelana when it was eventually pulled down: H.C. (1994), I, LXXVIII, 189.

25

36

Chamoso Lamas (1956a), 344-5; (1956b), 803; R. Yzquierdo Perrín, Santiago de Compostela en la Edad Media (Spain, 2002), 12-17.

M. Chamoso Lamas, ‘El Prerrománico’, in La Catedral de Santiago de Compostela, ed. anon. (Santiago, 1977), 61 for ground plan.

B. F. Reilly, The Kingdom of León-Castilla under King Alfonso VI, 10651109 (Princeton, 1988), 25, for the murder of Bishop Gudesteo. The date of Pelaez’s appointment is disputed: M. Suarez and J. Campelo, Historia Compostelana, edited and translated from Latin into Castilian in 1765 (Santiago de Compostela, 1950), xxvii, ascribe Peláez’s term of office to 1069-1088; B. F. Reilly, ‘Santiago and St Denis: the French presence in 11th-Century Spain’, Catholic Historical Review (1968), 469, gives Peláez’s dates as 1070-1088; Reilly (1988), 30, implies that Peláez was already a bishop when Alfonso visited Santiago in 1071; Fletcher (1984), 44, suggests that ‘Four Episcopal appointments may belong to the period of joint rule in 1071-2’, Peláez being the choice of King Sancho.

30

37

26

López Ferreiro (1900), III, appendix 1, 3.

27

Alsina (1988). His Plano 2, 141, dated 830-880, records the positions of the early churches and the baptistery. 28

R. A. Fletcher, Saint James’s Catapult: the Life and Times of Diego Gelmírez of Santiago de Compostela (Oxford, 1984), 68-9. 29

For example, San Julián de los Prados at Oviedo and San Salvador de Valdediós further east.

38

López Ferreiro (1900), III, 25.

The term ‘Pilgrimage church’ was coined by Porter to describe the style of architecture to be found in churches along the pilgrim route to Santiago de Compostela: A. K. Porter, Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrim Roads (Boston, 1923, repr. New York 1969), 194. The five most important are named above.

31

Conant (1926), 9. For plan see López Ferreiro (1899), II, 186. Guerra Campos who was present during Chamoso Lamas’ excavations writes in a note that it cannot be decided with certainty whether the basilica was vaulted or not:

xi

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

circulation of pilgrims at all times.

Alfonso’s long reign saw vast changes at Compostela. From a town with an Asturian-styled basilica in a Lugar Sacrado surrounded by a wall with towers, it developed into an open city with a Romanesque cathedral.42 In the following centuries the appearance of the new cathedral also changed. Chapels and sacristies were created in any available space, while prolific use was made of Castilian Gothic, Baroque and Plateresque ornamentation. Yet, despite all these alterations, the simple grandeur of the Romanesque reigns supreme.

Pilgrimage was encouraged by Sancho the Great and his grandson, Alfonso VI (1065-1109).39 Alfonso’s confessor, Bernard of Sédirac, became the abbot of Sahagún in 1080, reestablishing the monastery under Cluniac reform.40 It became the principal house of the Cluniac monks in Spain with fifty dependencies, all providing sanctuary with accommodation and hospital care for pilgrims.41

39

W. Melczer, The Pilgrim’s Guide (New York, 1993), 18, 136, n.13: Sancho the Great reigned from 1004-35, conquering and uniting the north of Spain. 26: his wife, Doña Mayor, sponsored the bridge at Puenta la Reina, still used by pilgrims. 40

R. Fletcher, ‘The Early Middle Ages 700-1250’, Spain. A History, ed. R. Carr (Oxford, 2000, repr. 2001), 76: Bernard was made Archbishop of Toledo in 1086. 41

42

Alsina (1988), 246, 250: plans show the town’s development and the relation between the first basilica of Alfonso II and the new Romanesque cathedral initiated by Bishop Peláez.

E. Mullins, In Search of Cluny (Oxford, 2006), 16.

xii

Chapter 1 An Architectural Survey A towering Baroque creation in granite dominates the Plaza del Obradoiro, the huge square providing a perfect viewing point for the west façade of Santiago de Compostela. In 1738 Fernando de Casas y Nóvoa designed a veneer for the cathedral’s west end, covering the Romanesque architecture and completing the towers to their full height (fig. 1.1). He employed the innovations of the current style: decorated columns, broken entablatures, classical pilasters, multifarious capitals and a wealth of statues. Twin towers rise in tiers either side of a wide central façade dominated by a statue of St James dressed in a pilgrim’s cloak, his broad brimmed hat emblazoned with a scallop shell and his right hand holding a staff.1 A doorway at ground level leads into the west crypt and the double stairway of 1606 rises to a terrace. Two side entrances mark the aisles, and a wide arch embracing a double portal indicates the width of the nave. They open into the narthex where the visitor is confronted by the highly sculptured Pórtico de la Glória; on entering the nave the Romanesque finally makes its appearance. The contrast could not be greater. Rounded arches draw the eye to the east end, while columns attached to their piers rise through arcades and the gallery to be crowned by capitals. These in turn support transverse arches and succeed in breaking up the long stretch of barrel vaulting (fig. 1.2). The same articulation is repeated in the transepts.

Figure 1.1. The west façade

took on a totally different image in 1649 when Vega y Verdugo initiated a change. He created a dramatic backdrop filling the east end of the cathedral. Antonio de Andrade covered the eight piers surrounding the presbytery with gilded wood transforming them into twisted columns decorated with vines; the lower parts were encased with marble and jade panels. The ciborium evolved into a huge canopy supported by flying angels. James appears three times: as Santiago Matamoros at the summit, standing demurely as a pilgrim beneath the coffered canopy, and seated behind the altar assuming the central position of a reredos.3

The cathedral is in the form of a Latin cross with a nave of eleven bays and transepts of five bays each; these are surrounded by groin vaulted aisles half their width (fig. 1.3). The great compound piers of the nave and transepts have alternate round and square cores and rest on bases of matching shape; four shafts continue the theme standing appropriately on semicircular or rectangular plinths, the latter showing remnants of spurs (see fig. 6.23).2 The crossing piers are naturally larger with two extra orders, the central shaft supporting an angel set beneath the squinches of the octagonal dome.

An ambulatory with five radiating chapels surrounds the chancel. The exteriors of two of the chapels can be seen from a passageway leading to the Puerta Santa, but the portal is only open during a Holy Year, which occurs when the saint’s day (St James: July 25th) falls on a Sunday. The restoration of the Portal of the Via Sacra and the removal of a sacristy attached to its exterior allows access to the northern part of the chevet.4

Conant’s plan shows four apsidal chapels projecting from the east sides of the transepts (most of them were altered in the course of the following centuries and will be discussed in Chapter 2). The chancel, in the same manner as the west façade,

Conant’s plan and elevations of Santiago are widely reproduced and provide a detailed survey of the Romanesque state of the building. Over the ensuing centuries the greater

1

According to legend, as the disciples approached Padrón in the north-west of Spain, a man on horseback reared up from the waves covered in scallop shells. His horse had bolted into the sea, but both horse and rider were saved from drowning by the arrival of the boat carrying James’s dead body. The scallop shell was adopted as a symbol of the saint.

3

In 844 (or 859 according to Fletcher (1984), 67), following the battle of Clavijo against the Moors, James took on a new image. It was believed that he had appeared riding a white charger, brandishing a sword in his right hand and the banner of victory in his left. He trampled the infidels to death beneath his horse’s hooves and thence became known as Santiago Matamoros, the slayer of the Moors.

2

Conant’s ground plan of the Romanesque cathedral shows this alternation of bases in the transepts only, but not in the nave as the paving was only lowered in the 1950s to reveal the original form.

4

1

See Chapter 2, The Portals.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 1.2. The nave

part of the exterior has been covered with additional buildings, and tracing the Romanesque is challenging (fig. 1.4). The nave south is hidden by chapels, but six bays of the nave north – with giant orders acting as buttresses – are visible from the Palace of Gelmírez. Romanesque stonework can be detected in other parts of the building, and will be revealed in the following chapters.

mediated over the issues raised, and the Concord was duly signed in December of that year. Aymery Picaud in his Guide says that the church ‘was begun in the year 1116 of the Spanish era’.7 The difference between the Spanish era calendar and the Julian calendar was thirtyeight years, making 1078. Aymery then tries to be more helpful. He says building began fifty-nine years before the death of Alfonso I, King of Aragon; sixty-two years before the death of Henry I of England and sixty-three years before the death of Louis VI, le Gros. This brings their dates of death to 1137, 1140 and 1141, when in fact they died in 1134, 1135 and 1137. Whitehill solved the mystery by studying the original manuscript and finding that the numbers had been altered.8

Chronology and Inscriptions The starting date for the cathedral is contentious, suggestions ranging between 1075 and 1078; 1077, the year the Concord of Antealtares was signed, is one of the dates proposed.5 The Concord was an agreement between Bishop Peláez and the abbot of Antealtares, San Fagildo. Peláez needed more land for the construction of his new church, but this meant the destruction of parts of the Benedictine monastic complex and the consequent loss of revenues for the order.6 Alfonso VI

López Ferreiro tackles the question of dates but observes that using the 1077 Concord of Antealtares as the starting point is a mistake, for by this time building had already begun. Moreover, if the apsidal chapel of St Peter was not finished, at least construction was under way as implied in the Concord’s text.9 López Ferreiro maintains that the capitals belonging to

5

The Concord (also known as the Accord) of Antealtares is published in full in López Ferreiro (1900), III, appendix I, 3-6. 6

Ibid. The Concord relates that the monks from their own ninth-century church had gleaned donations made before the altars of San Salvador and SS Peter and John, but these altars were to be destroyed and incorporated in separate chapels in Peláez’s new church. Alfonso VI ordered that the abbot of Antealtares should be allowed to retain the contributions from the new altar of St Peter, and the bishop could collect offerings from the other two altars (San Salvador and St John) and from the chancel altar of St James. When the chapels of San Salvador and St John were eventually finished, their custodianship would be returned to the monks. Finally, when the church was completed, one third of the donations from the altar of St James would go to the monks and two thirds to the bishop.

7

Gerson (1998), 85.

8

W. M. Whitehill, Spanish Romanesque Architecture of the Eleventh Century (Oxford. 1941, repr. 1961), 273, and notes 3-6: ‘… the three numbers (59, 62 and 63) which throw out the calculations are written over erasures. … Some zealous pedant, who mistakenly thought he knew his chronology better than the original scribe, altered them to their present form, in which they have greatly confused every one’ [The three numbers should have been: 56, 57 and 59]. Whitehill gives the folio reference: 273, n. 6. 9

2

López Ferreiro (1900), III, appendix I, 3. The most relevant sentence de-

An Architectural Survey

Figure 1.3. Plan of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), with annotations by author

Figure 1.4. Plan of the cathedral (after Chamoso Lamas, 1973), with correction to the Portal of the Via Sacra by author

the three chapels at the east end are older in style than those on the Platerías, the south portal, to which he gives 1078 as the starting date.10 He takes this date from an inscription on the jamb of the east doorway of the south portal. Depending on the interpretation of the letter ‘L’, and its juxtaposition in relation to the previous letter ‘X’, it can be read either as 1078 or 1103, the latter date referring to some other aspect of the south portal or perhaps another related event (fig. 1.5).11 Enlart takes the view that 1078 marks the commencement of building in the south transept.12

The Historia Compostelana gives the initial date for Santiago twice. In book I it says that the new church was begun on July 11th 1078.13 Much later (in book III, chapter I) it announces that ‘forty-six years have passed from the beginning of the works in the new church of Santiago’ (1078 + 46 = 1124).14 Flórez argues that the events in book III chapter I – namely the announcement of the need to build a cloister and offices – took place in 1128 not 1124, therefore the cathedral could not have been started before 1082.15 López Ferreiro, commenting on Flórez’s Latin text of 1765, disagrees. He says that it is wrong to accept a date of 1128 for the above events since the Historia Compostelana does not always follow a chronological order in its narrative.16

scribes the altar of St Peter which ‘was being built’: …quod in eadem ecclesia beati Iacobi non in eodem loco ubi prius steterat, set in alio construebatur. Ibid., (1900), III, 41-2, López Ferreiro takes Aymery’s dates but realises that the ‘death’ dates are incorrect. He arrives at a starting date of 1074 or 1075.

A more plausible starting date of 1075 comes from a charter discovered by López Alsina and Bernard Reilly.17 A concilio

10

Ibid. 42-3. For notes on the capitals see note 39. Platerías means silversmiths, and was the name adopted for the south portal since the trades’ workshops were congregated to the south of the cathedral. Today, shops positioned beneath the Treasury wing continue to sell silverware.

sept. The measurements were instigated by Dr Jennifer Alexander.

11

M. Schapiro, ‘A Note on an Inscription of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela’, Speculum, XVII (1942), 261-1. For further discussion see P. Gerson, (1998), 217, n.140.

13

H.C. (1994), I, LXXVIII, 189.

14

H.C. (1994), III, I, 493.

15

12

Historia Compostelana (1950), III, I, 419, n.1. The event in question concerns an agreement between the archbishop and the canons for the construction of the cloister and offices, which Flórez says took place in 1128 (1128 – 46 = 1082).

C. Enlart, ‘L’architecture romane’, in Histoire de l’Art, 8 vols (ed. ������ A. Michel, Paris, 1905), I-ii, 564: ‘…fut commencé en 1078 par le bras sud du transept’. There is architectural evidence of the south portal having been started at this early date. Measurements taken in the south transept show that bay II is narrower than the bays on either side. In the gallery directly above, one of the bifora arches is more stilted than the other. A reason for this and the narrower bay could be that bay II was the constructional meeting point of the south tran-

3

16

López Ferreiro (1900), III, 40, n.3, n.4.

17

López Alsina (1988), 410-12; Reilly (1988), 84.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 1.5. South portal inscription

Figure 1.6. Chapel of San Salvador: niche on north wall with inscriptions on either side

magno was held in Compostela in January of 1075 attended by Alfonso VI. This date appears to be confirmed by A. del Castillo who realised the importance of two inscriptions on opposite walls in the axial chapel of San Salvador.18 Both were damaged as a result of niches having been cut into the ashlar, but from the remaining letters certain words can be identified.19 The right (south wall) refers to Alfonso the Chaste in whose reign the body of St James had been discovered; the left (north wall) gives a date of 1075 for the consecration of the church, and that is all that can be gleaned with certainty – anything else ventured is an optimistic reconstruction (figs 1.6, 1.6a, 1.6b).

Q . Q(V)INGENO CO(N)SECR(ATA) ecclesia? .....NONAS ANNO? Mileno?..........................(SE) PTVAGENO QVI(N)TO ...................................( íun ) DATA . IACOBI YA YAVS . SP .............................( di ) VINE . SAC(R)E . Y . DIB .........................................MEMORQVE . SACRE 21

The only letters actually inscribed on the ashlar are the capital letters, those in brackets are assumed, while the lower case ones are conjecture. To make it clearer, I print the following showing only the inscribed lettering: Q . QINGENO COSECR ......................................NONAS ANNO ..........................................PTVAGENO QVITO .........................................DATA . IACOBI YA YAVS . SP ..............................VINE . SACE Y . DIB .........................................MEMORQVE . SACRE

Castillo recognised that certain characters were typical of the tenth century, while others belonged to the Mozarabic script.20 First he printed a transcription of the exact characters, and on the following page the letters in a more legible form:

22

18 19

Castillo acknowledged that ‘it is not easy to suppose the construction of the destroyed words … [and he] … does not make an attempt to decode them leaving the task to others more competent’.23 All that is certain from the remaining parts

20

21

Ibid., 317.

22

Ibid., 318.

A. del Castillo, ‘Inscripciones inéditas de la catedral de Santiago’, Boletín de la Real Academia Gallega, XV (1926), 314-20. Ibid., 316. Castillo recounts that the statues of San Rosendo and San Pedro Mezonzo, two illustrious Galician prelates, were placed in niches cut into the sides of the chapel. When the walls were cleaned (1908), the inscriptions were revealed. Ibid., 319. Castillo did not think that the ashlar stones containing these strange inscriptions came from any earlier chapel or a previous church. The characters appear unique to the cathedral, and must be accepted as interesting but inexplicable survivals.

23

4

‘Aunque en los grabados, el hueco de las hornacinas, guarda la debida

An Architectural Survey

Figure 1.6a. Inscription on the left of the niche

Figure 1.6b. Inscription on the right of the niche

of the inscription is a date of ‘consecration in the year 1075’ but with the month omitted. ‘James’ is mentioned, something ‘divine and holy’ and ‘mindful of the holy’.24

In 1934 Gómez Moreno took up the challenge and published his version: ‘Consecrata (mense…) nonasque trigeno anno post dominice incarnationis milleno septuageno quinto tempore quo domus est fundata iacobi’.25

proporción, no es fácil suponer las palabras destruídas, por las abreviaturas que hubiese entre ellas. No pretendo por lo tanto el descifrarlas, tarea que dejo para los competentes;’ Castillo (1926), 318.

His reconstruction of the missing words is printed in italics. The lettering, which he says appeared on the ashlar, he transcribed in his book, but it does not conform to Castillo’s rendering. Gómez Moreno gave a translation of his reconstruction:

24

The following notes are provided by Francis Davey. ‘ “Quingeno”: is probably an abbreviation for quinquagesimo which would mean (in the) fiftieth (year?), but it could have other meanings also. “Consecrata ecclesia”: the church was consecrated. But the word ecclesia, church, is itself a guess. The letters co(n)secr could equally be part of a word consecravit which means “he consecrated”, the name of the bishop being lost. “Nonas”: this almost certainly refers to the day of the month when the building was consecrated. At this time the old Roman dating system was in use. The Nones fell on the 7th in the months of March, July, October and May. So if the church was consecrated on, say, the 3rd of March the inscription would read “die quinto ante Nonas Martias”. The word in front of Nonas has to be ante. If the consecration had happened on the Nones the word form would have been Nonis (which makes trigeno anno suspect – see Gómez Moreno below). “Anno”: Anno mileno in full should read Anno Millen[sim]o. This means in the 1000th year. “Septuageno”: means 70th and “Quinto”: means 5th. These are all ordinal numbers and together are translated as: in the 1075th year. I would expect the word after Quinto to be salutis, i.e. of salvation. “Data”: means given, “fundata”: means founded, and probably refers back to ecclesia, i.e. The church consecrated … and founded. “Iacobi”: means of James. (The following two lines on the left consist of the curious characters mentioned by Castillo.) “Divine” and “Sacre”: mean in divine and holy manner. These are two adverbs but the verb is missing – they could be part of a standard formula. “Memorque”: means “and mindful of”. “Sacre”: could be an adverb as in the line above but is more likely to be a feminine genitive singular since memor is usually followed by a genitive meaning “of the holy …” ’.

‘That is to say, it was consecrated that day, thirty years after 1075 when the church of Santiago was founded. [He continues] It is actually documented that the consecration of its altars was carried out by bishop Gelmírez in 1105, which confirms the proposed dating’.26 Gómez Moreno’s analysis of the inscription has been quoted on numerous occasions by scholars from 1934 to the present day. One of the problems with his interpretation is that the Historia Compostelana does not actually give a date for the 25 26

M. Gómez Moreno, El arte romanico español (Madrid, 1934), 113.

Ibid., 113: ‘O sea, que fué consagrada en tal día, a los treinta años después del 1075 en que se fundó la iglesia de Santiago. Costa, efectivamente, que la consagración de sus altares la efectuó en 1105 el obispo Gelmírez, confirmándose así la fecha propuesta’.

5

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

consecration of the altars. Events known to have taken place during the year 1105, however, are mentioned. Chapter XVI describes Gelmírez’s journey to Rome. Chapter XVII ends with a date of October 30th 1104 when Gelmírez attended a service in the Lateran and promised obedience to Pope Paschal II (the date of 1104 is now considered incorrect; it should be 1105).27 Chapter XVIII says that as soon as Gelmírez returned to Compostela, he began a renovation of the main chancel altar. Chapter XIX lists the altars consecrated (without giving any date). Chapter XX names sixty-nine canons, an archbishop, and two bishops, all of whom swore an oath of allegiance to the Bishop of Santiago, the date recorded for this being April 22nd 1102, the second year of his episcopate. The Historia Compostelana’s chapters are out of sequence, but nowhere is a date of 1105 mentioned for the consecration ceremony.28 A variety of theories have been put forward for the date of the consecration of the ambulatory and transept altars. The Historia Compostelana records that Pedro, Bishop of Pamplona formerly of Conques, dedicated the altar belonging to the chapel in the north-west of the ambulatory to St Faith, the abbey of Conques’ adopted saint.29 If the date of his visit to Santiago could be traced, the chronology for the cathedral at the beginning of the twelfth century would be settled. Unfortunately, in his comprehensive biography of the bishops of Pamplona, Sandoval fails to mention Bishop Pedro’s visit to Santiago.30 López Ferreiro writes that Gelmírez consecrated the altars before he went to Portugal in the autumn of 1102, but that he, López Ferreiro, reckons that the said altars must have been consecrated far earlier by Diego Peláez.31 Hugo, a canon and archdeacon (and one of the authors of the Historia Compostelana), writes that the bodies of the saints translated from Portugal were placed in chapels in the cathedral by the 19th of December of that year (1102).32 Conant agrees with the date of 1102 for the consecration; Moralejo retorts that the date given by Conant is incorrect, while Biggs accepts 1102 giving the Historia Compostelana as a reference.33 Aymery

Figure 1.7. Chapel of San Salvador: inscription on the soffit of the transverse arch

Picaud in his Guide states that the main altar, commissioned by Gelmírez for the chancel, was constructed in ‘the fifth year of his episcopacy’, that is to say in 1105.34 The chancel altar should not be confused with the altars in the ambulatory and transepts. To return to the inscription, the real question that has to be asked is to what does the inscription date of 1075 allude? From Castillo’s original transcription the only definite facts gleaned are that it referred to the year of consecration, and the mention of ‘James’ implies that the consecration was for the new church. A spurious addition of 30 years has introduced a date of 1105 which has been linked to an assumed date for the consecration of the altars in the ambulatory.

27

Reilly (1988), 336, n.38. Reilly shows that a revised date of 1105 by Voues is correct, Voues having found a discrepancy in the manuscript edition. Reilly points out that Gelmírez was in Sahagún on September 13th 1104, and the H.C. had him in Auch on September 8th. 28

H.C. (1994), I, XVI/XX, 99-115.

29

Conant (1926), 21-2, n.1; H.C. (1994), I, XIX, 109. Pedro, Bishop of Pamplona (also known as Pedro of Roda and Pierre of d’Andouque), a monk from Cluny, originally served at the church of St Pons of Tomières. Fletcher (1984), 176, n.32, writes of the consecration of the chapel by the Bishop of Pamplona, that it ‘is traditionally dated 1105, though there is no warrant for this date’.

In the chapel of San Salvador there is another inscription on the soffit of the transverse arch dividing the barrel vault from the rounded end of the apse (fig. 1.7). It is painted to highlight the engraving, but much of it is impossible to decipher. Unlike Castillo who was able to take rubbings of the inscription found on the side walls, it was not possible to take a rubbing of the soffit inscription. Fortunately, Francis Davey was able to decipher some of the words from an enlarged photograph

30

Don Prudencio de Sandoval, Bishop of Pamplona, Catalogo de los Obispos que ha tenido La Santa iglesia de Pamplona del siglo ocho (Pamplona, 1614), 72.2-77. This was the most hopeful reference amongst a thorough research by the author. 31

López Ferreiro (1900), III, 228: ‘Dichos Altares debían estar de mucho antes consagrados, desde el tiempo de D. Diego Peláez’. 32

H.C. I, XV, 99, also 94 for the date of 1102.

33

Conant (1926), 21-2, n.1; K. J. Conant, Arquitectura románica da catedral de Santiago de Compostela. Notas para unha revisión da obra de K. J. Conant por Serafín Moralejo Álvarez (Santiago, 1983), 229a, hereafter referred to as Conant/Moraleja (the Notas are written in Galician and translated into Castilian

at the end in very small print); Biggs (1949), 226-7. 34

6

Gerson (1998), 81.

An Architectural Survey

Figure 1.7a. Detail of the inscription

A dramatic event threatened to disrupt the building: in 1088 Peláez resigned.40 Most scholars believe that work then stopped. They state that Peláez had completed the three chapels at the east end of the cathedral, and the ones to the west were continued by Gelmírez after he was elected a bishop in 1100. Their argument lies in the interrupted stonework which can be seen on the exterior of the chevet and the raised ambulatory roof (see below). Excavations, carried out by Chamoso Lamas in the mid-1950s in the ambulatory, confirm a similar interruption in the building works.

(fig.1.7a).35 The inscription is in Latin with some of the letters in Gallegan. The words that can be read are: ‘… the holy chapel of the Holy Saviour, which (when) Theodomir (was) bishop (was) built …’.36 At the end there are two sets of letters: re and do (which themselves could be abbreviations). An interpretation could be: re(gi) do(minoque), ‘for his King and Lord’, or re(gis) do(no) meaning ‘by the king’s gift’. Whatever the correct reading, there is no date in the inscription.37 Flanking the entrance arch to the chapel are two capitals depicting Alfonso VI and Diego Peláez, each protected by two angels. Scrolls bear inscriptions, the king’s reading: ‘REGNANTE PRINCIPE ADEFONSO CONSTRVCTVM OPVS’ and the bishop’s: ‘TEMPORE PRESVLIS DIDACI INCEPTVM OPVS FVIT’.38 They testify that both the monarch and the prelate were instigators of the new cathedral. No date is recorded for the carvings, thereby inviting alternative theories on the subject.39

Excavations Plans of the excavations, however, have not solved matters. The first, published in 1957 by Louis, reveals a curved foundation wall on the north side of the ambulatory (fig. 1.8).41 The second, published in 1960 by Chamoso Lamas’ assistant Guerra Campos, omits this detail showing instead an excavated trench and tombs and a short section of an abandoned foundation wall (fig. 1.9).42 Williams points out the discrepancy. He describes the curved foundation wall as a ‘horseshoe trajectory’, and notes that both the trajectory and the abandoned foundation wall end by the chapel of St Faith.43

35

My thanks to Ramón Yzquierdo Pieró for his detailed photographs of the inscription. 36

Words in brackets are reconstructed. SANCTA, The holy; CAPELA, chapel; S(ANC)TI,  of the Holy; SALVATORIS, Saviour;  QUAE, which; THEODOMIR(O), (when) Theodomir; PRE(SULE), (was) bishop; EXSTRUCTA, (was) built. Theodomir was bishop when the tomb of St. James was discovered between 813 and 818. He died in 847, having chosen to be buried near to the apostle at Santiago, instead of Iria Flavia the customary location for bishops of the see. His sarcophagus was discovered in the third phase of excavations carried out by Chamoso Lamas (1957), 587-8.

Chamoso Lamas gives a detailed report of his excavations in Compostellanum, reproducing a photograph of the section of curved wall.44 He realises that this curved wall terminated

37

For discussion of the date of the San Salvador chapel, see Chapter 2, The Altars of the Basilica. The actual date for the inscription could be a subject for further research.

40

It was suspected that Peláez was supporting a rebellion against Alfonso VI by aiding Garcia (the former king of Galicia) to marry a Norman princess, possibly the daughter of William the Conqueror. Peláez was imprisoned and forced to resign: Biggs (1949), 20. Reilly (1968), 474, n.22, dismisses this statement.

38

‘The work was built in the reign of Prince Alfonso’, and, ‘The work was begun in the time of Bishop Diego’.

41

R. Louis, ‘Fouilles exécutées dans la cathédrale de Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle’, Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France (June, 1955), 152-3. The excavation plan is drawn by Chamoso Lamas.

39

S. Moralejo Álvarez examines the capitals in his article: ‘The Codex Calixtinus as an Art-Historical Source’, in The Codex Calixtinus and the Shrine of St. James, eds J. Williams and A. Stones (Tübingen, 1992), 212-14. He discusses the concilio magno (mentioned above) in relation to the capitals. Also commenting on the capitals: J. Williams, ‘ “Spain or Toulouse?” A half century later: observations on the chronology of Santiago de Compostela’, Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Historia del Arte, held in Granada in 1973 (Granada, 1976), 560.

42

J. Guerra Campos, ‘Excavaciones en la Catedral de Santiago’, La Ciencia Tomista, LXXXVII/273 (1960a), 97-168; LXXXVII/274 (1960b), 269-324.

7

43

Williams (1976), 559.

44

Chamoso Lamas (1956b), 803-56. Foto 18 (also foto 17 showing the south

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 1.8. Excavation plan (after Louis, 1955), with annotations by author

where building work was said to have been suspended at the time of the deposition of Peláez.45 He found a similar curve in the ambulatory south, and comes to the conclusion that in both areas it was due to ‘a change of mind and master mason’.46 This reasoning has been accepted, on the basis that the three chapels to the east were the work of Peláez and those to the west of Gelmírez.

which the shops of the eleventh century gave way to those of the twelfth.48 I would like to suggest a further possibility. Peláez became Bishop of Santiago c.1069 and was determined to build a new church. He laid the foundation, perhaps a short section of foundation wall or an horseshoe-shaped apse in the style of the Asturians, but soon recognised that the church in either of these forms would not be large enough. When Alfonso VI arrived in 1075 he brought thirty thousand dinars he had just collected as tribute money from Granada. It can be assumed that Alfonso offered a proportion towards the new building at Compostela.49 Peláez seized the opportunity: he gave up his former ideas and started again, this time from a point further to the east. Whichever theory is accepted, the only firm conclusion that can be drawn from the excavations is that there was a change of plan at this early stage, and it was made by Peláez.

Commenting on Guerro Campos’ plan, however, Williams points out that: ‘Since it [the abandoned foundation] is of rubble and absorbed by the regular granite ashlar masonry of the actual ambulatory foundation, the rubble was built first’.47 He concludes that this means: ‘the earlier foundation, Peláez’s, would lie to the “west” of the first three ambulatory chapels and have belonged to an abandoned project for a church much shorter than the one actually carried out. Furthermore, there would be nothing standing today which could be attributed to Peláez’s project. While I am not sure one should infer as much from such an enigmatic fragment, it “is” clear that the excavations as they have been reported so far do not provide any firm evidence about the point at

There is no reason why building could not have continued after the deposition of Peláez. At the time ‘the lord canon of the chapter, Segeredo, and the lord abbot Gundesindo were in office, in the reign of Alfonso, King of Spain’.50 The combination of the two churchmen with the backing of the King, and a new and important commission under way, makes

side of the ambulatory), 848-50. The caption reads: Apréciase en los muros de cimentación de la girola del templo actual la rectificación impuesta por el cambio del plan de obra primitivo’: ‘It is possible to appreciate the alteration in the original foundation walls of the ambulatory due to a change of plan’.

48

For Peláez see Introduction, The Third Building.

Ibid., 559-60.

49

46

Chamoso Lamas (1956b), 853.

López Alsina (1988), 410-12; Reilly (1988), 84; Williams (2008a), 220.

50

47

Williams (1976), 559.

45

Gerson (1998), 85, in the section entitled, ‘The master stonemasons of the church, and the beginning and end of its construction’.

8

An Architectural Survey

Figure 1.9. Excavation plan (after Guerra Campos, 1960), with annotations by author

a case for the continuation of some form of construction.51 Gelmírez, soon to be appointed administrator, was no doubt eager to support the project.52 The Historia Compostelana does not state that there was a cessation of works at any time, nor does Aymery hint at any disruption in the building progress. Besides, Aymery records in his Guide that there were two master stonemasons, Bernard the Elder and Robert, plus fifty other masons employed at that time.53

An alteration in the building plan can be detected in the gallery ambulatory. The first bays at right angles to the transepts keep similar proportions, but the second bays (to the east) are lower with quadrant vaulting (fig. 1.10). This change of height can be seen on the north exterior of the chevet where the roofline rises steeply (fig. 1.11). A corbel moulding, left from the first design of the cathedral, reveals the area of modification (fig. 1.11, A). Regularly placed corbels to the east have been cut flush with the wall indicating that they were originally positioned there to support the eaves of the roof (figs 1.11, B; 1.12, B). The old eaves line, running to the west, ingeniously became a string-course and served as an impost for the capitals whose supporting columns frame the larger window. This window lights the first bay of the gallery ambulatory and dictates the height and proportions of the adjacent bays continuing along the north transept (fig. 1.11, D).

The Gallery and Chevet One of the notable features at Santiago is the gallery. It is the same width as the aisles beneath and surrounds the entire church providing ample space for the circulation of pilgrims. A view to the lower parts of the church is allowed through double extended arches, with twin shafts composing the central support. Capitals decorate every type of column and shaft. The gallery aisle bays are delineated by rounded arches with quadrant vaulting acting as buttresses for the nave and transepts (see fig. 5.23). The only groin vaulting in the gallery occurs in the corner bays.

A vertical line in the wall also confirms a change of plan, (fig. 1.11, E).54 The line indicates the termination of the old ambulatory roof. A second corbel, directly above the first, originally supported the gable (fig. 1.11, F; 1.12, F, A). Following the line of stone coursing from the second corbel to the west it is possible to note smaller blocks, the remnants of cut-off corbels which supported a higher eaves line. This one ran above the larger window of the first bay and also determined the roof line of the north transept, where the corbels can be traced as far as the second window (see figs 1.11, G; 1.12, G). It is the larger bay at the west end of the ambulatory that

51

At Durham, on Bishop William of St Calais’ death in 1096 the monks continued with the work of the church: M. Thurlby, ‘The Roles of the Patron and the Master Mason in the First Design of the Romanesque Cathedral of Durham’, Anglo-Norman Durham 1093-1193, eds Rollason, Harvey, Prestwich (Woodbridge, 1994), 161, n.2. In 1128 no bishop was appointed for five years after the death of Flambard yet the monks continued to work and completed the nave and constructed the vault: J. Bilson, ‘The Beginnings of Gothic Architecture’, Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 6 (1899), 296. 52

For Gelmírez, see Chapter 3.

53

54

Gerson (1998), 85. For an alternative theory on the subject of the architects, see Chapter 2, n.57.

Conant mentions this vertical break in the stone work describing it and the corbel above as ‘an inverted J’: Conant (1926), 21.

9

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 1.10. Gallery ambulatory

invites questions, for it was here that the decision was made to heighten the building. When this occurred and under whose direction has prompted speculation. Restoration work helps to resolve the problem.

in order to support the structure above, and this includes the heightened bay. The same reasoning is logical for the excavations. The aforementioned theory, that the patronage of Peláez lay to the east of the dotted line marked on Louis’ plan and that of Gelmírez to the west, is no longer valid (see fig. 1.8). Besides being structurally impossible for the upper parts to have continued this far to the west without the support of a foundation, it establishes that it was Peláez who changed his mind and consequently the plans.

In 1961 Chamoso Lamas and Pons Sorolla undertook restoration of the ambulatory roof. They discovered that the original roofing system, hidden below layers of rubble, was similar to the earliest works carried out in the cathedral.55 During the process of removing the rubble, the two experts revealed the full length of the colonettes of the apse used to support the eaves (see figs 1.12, H; 3.1).56 Seven of the colonettes are spiral in form.57 The bases, capitals and corbels have decorative motifs, ‘corresponding to the first period of construction undertaken by Bishop don Diego Peláez’.58 If the roofs of the ambulatory and the apse were completed in the first building phase, the lower parts must also have been finished

Alfonso VI’s timely gift of money encouraged Peláez to expand his original conception of the building. López Ferreiro might even have been correct when he suggested that Peláez had completed far more of the church than is currently perceived, having reached the crossing, the nave, some of the vaulting and the south portal.59 With the termination of Peláez’s office in 1088, work continued – as mentioned above. It may have progressed at a slower rate, but the process had been activated and was eventually to be accelerated by Gelmírez.

55

M. Chamoso Lamas and Pons Sorolla, ‘Noticia del descubrimiento de primitivas construcciones romanicas en la catedral de Santiago’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, XVII/LII (1962), 304: ‘Pudo así descubrirse, al fin, el primitivo sistema de cubrición de que se dotó a esta zona de los ábsides del templo, que corresponde a la obra más antigua ejecutada (de 1.075 a 1.088)’. 56

Ibid., 303-5, Láminas I-IV.

57

See Chapter 3, The Journeys of Gelmírez for spiral colonettes.

The North Gable, Buttresses and Corbels There is evidence that work had started independently and at an early stage on the north gable. A thick layer of rubble and tiles, placed over the stone roofing slabs in the eighteenth

58

Chamoso Lamas and Pons Sorolla (1962), 305: ‘Sabido es que esta obra corresponde a la primera etapa constructiva de la Catedral, es decir, la debida al Obispo don Diego Peláez y los Maestros Bernardo el Viejo y Roberto comprendida entre los años 1075 y 1088, en que don Diego fue depuesto en su dignidad Episcopal’.

59

10

López Ferreiro (1900), III, 43.

An Architectural Survey

Figure 1.11. Chevet: north exterior

Figure 1.12. South elevation (after Conant, 1926)

11

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 1.13. North gable revealing lower roofline, looking east

century, was cleared in the early 1970s to reveal part of a lower gable.60 Conant’s photograph and Whitehill’s photograph each show the north gable with the area in front tiled; my photograph exposes the restored roofline and a section of the original gable (figs 1.13, 1.13a, 1.14).61 When the chevet was heightened the north gable had to be heightened as well, but part of the existing masonry was left in position providing a clue to its building progression. Two bays on the east exterior of the north transept gallery (the north gallery and bay 1) confirm work carried out at this early period and adjustments having to be made at a later date. A section of uneven masonry, either side of a buttress, shows three stages of construction (figs 1.15, 1.15a). The two sagging and narrower stone courses above the windows mark the first stage (x); the tapering of the buttress between the windows and a straight line of stone coursing show its extension (y), while the upper level belongs to the subsequent remodelling, first for the fortifications and, in the seventeenth century, for the balustrade (z).

Figure 1.13a. North gable (after Conant, 1926)

A passage in the Historia Compostelana also helps to explain the uneven stonework. It lists the consecration of all the chapels in the ambulatory, transepts and gallery, but leaves out the chapel of St Nicholas which lay at the portal end of the north

transept.62 A reason can now be offered for its omission. When raising the height of the church, the complex alterations in the northern area lagged behind and the unfinished St Nicholas chapel had to be excluded from the recorded consecrations. Only the outer walls of the St Nicholas chapel remain, but enough to reveal that this apsidal chapel was rounded matching

60

Repairs to the roof were instigated in the late 1960s under the direction of F. Pons Sorolla, the architect in charge at Santiago de Compostela from 1953-80. 61

62

Conant (1926), Fig 15: Whitehill (1961), Plate, 112.

12

H.C. I, XX, 112-5.

An Architectural Survey

Figure 1.14. North gable revealing lower roofline, looking west

Figure 1.15. North transept: east exterior

13

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 1.15a. Detail of masonry

the earliest chapels of SS John and Peter, which were placed either side of the axial chapel of San Salvador. The capitals that have survived the alterations to the Nicholas chapel are also carved in the earlier style of the ambulatory. A buttress on the east exterior of the south transept gallery has undergone alterations similar to the buttress at the end of the north transept gallery. The south transept buttress has not been heightened, ending at the level of the former eaves line, but it has been extended on its south side at a later date to abut the Torre del Reloj, the clock tower (fig. 1.16).63 The coursing that runs north bears the smaller stone blocks of the cut-off corbels. Only this one bay can be examined: the bay to the south is blocked by the clock tower and the area to the north by the seventeenth-century chapel of the Pillar. A row of corbels that has not been cut off is to be found on the west exterior of the north transept, partly hidden by the Azabachería’s eighteenth-century façade (figs 1.17, 1.18). It was left in position when the roof was finally raised, in a similar manner to those on the north side of the nave (fig. 1.19). Most of the corbels were removed when the building was again heightened at a later date. This operation did not interfere with the internal height, the redesigning having taken place around the exterior in order to protect the cathedral. Conant’s East Elevation and Vega y Verdugo’s drawing show the result (see

63

The clock tower was begun in 1316, fortified at the end of the fifteenth century, and finished towards the end of the seventeenth century in the Baroque style by Domingo de Andrade: M. Chamoso Lamas, ‘Santiago de Compostela (Madrid, 1982), 48.

Figure 1.16. South transept: buttress on east exterior

14

An Architectural Survey

Figure 1.17. North façade: the Azabachería

fig. 2.20).64 The cathedral was turned into a fortress, but modified in the seventeenth century to the Baroque style with elegant balustrades taking the place of battlements. Although there is no specific date for the fortifications, the ‘fortification of the cathedral’ was first mentioned in the Historia Compostelana in 1115 and work continued through the fourteenth and possibly fifteenth centuries.65 The creation of such a bare expanse of wall around the chevet was improved by the addition of arches rising above the windows – they rested on the nook columns which had supported the first set of eaves (see fig. 1.11, C). This embellishment had nothing to do with a change of mason or the difference between Peláez resigning and Gelmírez continuing: it occurred at this later date.66

can be surmised that he made a good impression, for in 1168 King Fernando II presented him with a contract.68 The contract states that it pleased his majesty to provide for those who have given evidence of unceasing devotion to the sanctuaries and sacred places of God. Mateo was made superintendent of the works of St James and given a salary, ‘a gift to be held all through [his] life’.69 The contract has been used to prove that Mateo was employed by Fernando to finish the cathedral and to create an entirely new west end. In actual fact, the contract is mainly concerned with Mateo’s payment. The only reference to any kind of building occurs in the phrase, ‘ita quod haec refectio valeat tibi centum moravitinos’ (so that this restoration may be worth 100 maravedi to you). Refectio means literally the ‘remaking’, the ‘rebuilding’ or ‘refurbishing’.70 There is no mention of ‘finishing’ the cathedral. Conant concluded that Gelmírez and his masons reached the west end, but recent scholars question whether the cathedral was finished at all.71 They specify that as well as there being no west façade or towers, two bays in the nave were missing and six in the gallery, meaning that for

Master Mateo’s contribution Besides Peláez and Gelmírez, the third major contributor to the cathedral’s development in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was the master mason Mateo. Little is known of his life, apart from a bridge he is said to have constructed at Cesures in 1161.67 Mateo was employed at Santiago soon afterwards. It 64

Azcárate Ristori, ‘El Protogótico’, in La Catedral de Santiago de Compostela, ed. anon. (Spain, 1977), 209-23.

For Conant, see (1926), Plates III and V.

65

H.C. (1994), I, CIX, 258-9. I am grateful to Ramón Yzquierdo Perrín for his help in the later dating of the battlements. 66

68

Fletcher (1984), 296. Fernando was a keen supporter of Santiago and referred to himself as ‘the standard-bearer’ of St James.

Whitehill (1961), 277.

69

The charter is preserved in the cathedral archives, and is reproduced in López Ferreiro (1901), IV, appendix 37, 93.

67

J. Filgueira Valverde, ‘Datos y conjeturas para la biografía del Maestro Mateo’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, III/IX (1948), 48-69. It has also been suggested that Mateo worked at the Cámera Santa at Oviedo, gleaning ideas from there and possibly from other parts of northern Spain. See also, J. M. de

15

70

I am grateful to Francis Davey for his translation of this document.

71

This theory, with references to the scholars, will be discussed in Chapter 4.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 1.19. Nave: north exterior showing corbels (and balustrade)

Figure 1.18. North transept: west exterior showing corbel line

Figure 1.20. Master Mateo

16

An Architectural Survey

Figure 1.22. The south gable

thirty to forty years this significant pilgrimage church was left in a derelict state. They maintain that not until Master Mateo appeared was the building finally completed. Both sides of the argument will be presented in the ensuing chapters; but it is my conclusion that Gelmírez accomplished his mission. Mateo’s most celebrated work is the Pórtico de la Gloria, forming an artistic break between the cathedral’s Baroque exterior and the Romanesque interior. The whole of the Pórtico is covered with a plethora of statues (see fig. 5.4). The central archway spans the width of the nave, its wide tympanum portraying the vision of the Apocalypse. The trumeau is carved with a tree of Jesse and supports a statue of St James, while on the east side facing the altar is a kneeling statue of Mateo (fig. 1.20). Narrower, decorated arches mark the entrances to the aisles. Besides redesigning the west end, Mateo was involved with building works at Santiago cathedral into the following century. He carved the stone choir, eventually to be dismantled in 1603 when wooden stalls replaced the cold stone seats (these in turn were demolished between 1940 and 1945, thereby creating an uninterrupted view to the east end). Some of the finest of Mateo’s choir sculptures were arranged to adorn the entrance to the passageway leading to the Puerta Santa, and in 1884 a group of six was used to fill a gap in the south portal façade (fig. 1.21; see fig. 2.12). Other carvings by Mateo were discovered during restoration works carried out around the cathedral in the twentieth century enabling a reconstruction of the original choir.72 Figure 1.21. Matean sculptures at the entrance to the Puerta Santa

72

R. Yzquierdo Perrín, Reconstructión del Coro Pétreo del Maestro Mateo (A Coruña, 1999). The reconstructed choir is displayed in the cathedral museum.

17

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

The broad framed, polychrome sculpture of St James behind the main altar is either by Mateo or his workshop, and was thought to have been in position for the consecration ceremony of 1211. Many carvings in the cathedral appear in the style of Mateo. They include the recumbent tomb effigy of Fernando II, the capitals and archivolts to the entrance to the Corticela chapel and the surrounding archivolt of the Clavijo tympanum. Even the thirteenth-century alterations to the Platerías windows and the two oculi on the north and south gables bear Mateo’s style of carving. The gable windows were enlarged to allow more light into the transepts, their crude insertion invading the space of the blind arches to either side (fig. 1.22).

Outside Santiago at San Vicente de Marantes, Yzquierdo Perrín describes an arch with Matean-styled capitals at the entrance to the shrine of Nuestra Señora de las Angustias de Agualada.73 It was identified as originating from Juan Arias’ mid-thirteenth-century cloister at Santiago. Excavations carried out by Pons Sorolla and Chamoso Lamas in 1963 to 1964 revealed this cloister with bases of piers in situ together with remnants of sculpture in the Matean style.74 Mateo died sometime at the beginning of the thirteenth century, but his influence continued decades after his death.

73

R. Yzquierdo Perrín, ‘Aproximación al estudio del claustro medieval de la catedral de Santiago’, Boletin de Estudios del Seminario Homenaje a Don Ramon Otero Tuñez, 10 (1989), 15-41. 74

M. Chamoso Lamas, ‘Nuevas aportaciones al conocimiento del arte del Maestro Mateo’, Principe de Viana, 25/97 (1964), 227-8. Some pieces of sculpture are displayed in the Cathedral Museum, and a selection of bosses in the Pilgrims’ Museum in Santiago. The extant cloister belongs to the sixteenth century.

18

Chapter 2 Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

Aymery Picaud, a cleric from Parthenay (in the west of France), is purported to have made a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela in the 1130s. He wrote an account of his journey, known as the Pilgrim’s Guide, which is included in the Liber Sancti Jacobi, also entitled the Codex Calixtinus due to its false attribution to Pope Calixtus II (1119-1124).1 The Guide is the fifth book in this anthology and consists of eleven chapters; the ninth is the one that concerns us here for it describes the cathedral as seen by Aymery.2 The building he praises is the one begun by Bishop Peláez in 1075 and continued by Bishop Gelmírez.

Compostela and listing the churches in the city.5 He continues with the longest section in the chapter: an explanation of the building, adopting Vitruvius’ proportion of man to describe the arrangement.6 Using the stature of a man as the form of measurement, Aymery tackles the church’s dimensions, but he is unable to give the exterior length.7 Perhaps the rubble of the masons’ yard to the south and the bishop’s palace to the north made it impossible for him to assess. This inadequacy has been used by some scholars to show that the building had not reached the west end at the time of his visit.8 Aymery becomes confused when trying to record the height of the aisles in relation to that of the nave using the words medie cindrie, and he acknowledges the help of stonemasons in supplying the term columne cindrie when trying to describe double columns. A variety of attempts have been made at translating the phrases.9 Moralejo, however, worked out that cindrie relates to the paired columns in the triforium, and medias did not mean ‘half’ ‘but rather median, placed in the middle’, therefore medie cindrie becomes paired columns placed in the middle of the triforium.10

Aymery recounts details of the architecture, sculpture and the internal fittings, thus providing an excellent basis for assessing the cathedral in its initial state. By following each section of his narrative it is possible to determine which parts of the Romanesque features he describes are extant. Scholars have studied Aymery’s text, targeted certain items and drawn conclusions to prove their own theories. Naturally, controversy has arisen, both in the translation of the Latin text and the interpretation of the contents. Aymery’s intention was to promote pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. It is assumed that he wrote the Guide on his return home, but the actual date is disputed. It would have been before 1140 for he does not remark upon the death of Gelmírez, the most illustrious person concerned with the building of the cathedral, but after 1137 as he refers to the death of Louis le Gros.3 By a similar reckoning, Aymery must have been in Compostela before 1136 as he failed to record the traumatic stoning of Gelmírez in the cathedral which damaged the choir.4 This brings the date of his sojourn in Santiago back to the mid 1130s.

There is disagreement amongst authors with Aymery’s numbering of the piers: he says that there were twenty-nine in the nave and twenty-six in both transepts. Aymery’s numbering of the transept piers adheres to the ground plan, but the nave 5

Gerson (1998), 67. The city of Compostela lies between two rivers, the Sar and the Sarela. Aymery names the seven entrances to the city, all of which have disappeared except for the one that allowed wine to be brought into the city, the Puerta de Mazarelos. Of the nine churches listed by Aymery (besides the cathedral), two have been demolished and five were rebuilt during the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries mostly in the Neo-Classical style, although vestiges of Romanesque can be traced in the porch of Santa Susanna. More recognisable as belonging to the twelfth century are St Felix and Santa María de la Corticela.

The Dimensions of the Church

6

Ibid., 69. The ‘head’ is where the altar of the Holy Saviour is found: in the axial chapel; the ‘laurel wreath’ the ambulatory, the ‘body’ the nave and two ‘limbs’ the transepts. The ‘eight other small heads in each of which are found individual altars’ are the transepts and ambulatory chapels. He calls the aisles ‘naves’.

Chapter IX begins with Aymery charting the location of

1

7

The names of Pope Calixtus and Aymericus the Chancellor follow the title at the beginning of Aymery’s Guide and are repeated intermittently at the heading of sections intending thereby to lend authenticity to the book. There was an Aymericus listed as papal chancellor to Calixtus, but he is not considered to be the author of the Guide.

Ibid., 67. ‘The basilica of St James is in length fifty-three times the stature of a man, namely, from the western door up to the altar of the Holy Saviour; in width, in truth, it is forty-times-less-one, that is, from the Portal of the French to the south portal. The height of it is fourteen times the stature [of a man]. What might be its exterior length and height, no one can comprehend’. From now on, short quotations within the section under discussion will not be referenced. They can be found in Gerson (1998) in the relevant section.

2

I have used Gerson (1998) for translations from the Guide unless otherwise stated. Other translators include: Conant (1926); W. M. Whitehill, Liber Sancti Jacobi, Codex Calixtinus (Santiago de Compostela, 1944); J. Viellard, Le Guide du Pèlerin de Saint-Jacques de Compostelle (Macon, 1963); J. Hogath, The Pilgrim’s Guide (London, 1992).

8

The scholars, with references, will be quoted in later Chapters; to examine here would entail too much of a diversion. For the same reason, a detailed analysis of the measurements will be given in appendix A.

3

For analysis of the date of Louis le Gros’ death, and others mentioned by Aymery, see Chapter 1, Chronology and Inscriptions.

9

4

10

Gerson (1998), 199, n.35 for interpretations of the two Latin phrases from eminent scholars on Santiago.

This event will be related in Chapter 3, The Uprislng of 1117.

19

Moralejo (1992), 216.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 2.1. Plan of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), with annotations by author

20

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

Figure 2.2. Longitudinal section (after Conant, 1926), detail, with annotations by author

piers prove more complicated. Azcárate advocated one fewer bay at the west end of the cathedral at the time of Gelmírez’s death in 1140, therefore his count of the piers is from bay II and consequently ends in the sanctuary (fig. 2.1).11 This meant that the extra pier, the twenty-ninth, specifically stated by Aymery as ‘separating the archways’ of the interior portal in the nave, would have to rest on the barrel vault of the east chapel in the crypt below (figs 2.2, F). This problem worried Pita Andrade, recognising that a pillar cannot rest above a vacuum’.12 Since this ‘fictitious’ pier had to bear the weight of the gallery and the west gable, it would need substantial support from beneath, certainly not a void. The arrangement at the ends of both the north and south transepts shows each central pier bearing the weight of the gallery and the extant gable. By positioning the

pier in bay 1, as described by Aymery and drawn by Conant in his elevation of the cathedral, the weight of the gable is supported by pier E in the west crypt (see fig. 2.2). The existence of an inner portal at the west end is substantiated by the description in the Guide. The Latin text reads, ‘et unus est inter duos portallos deintus, aduersus aquilonem, qui ciborios separat’.13 Vielliard says that ‘aquilonem generally means to the north, but here it can only be to the west’.14 Conant takes the other meaning of aquillo, namely, the north wind, and adversus aquilonem as “designed as protection against the weather”. He places this pier where the trumeau of the Pórtico de la Gloria now stands.15 Whichever translation is correct, the important point to note is that this pier separates the arches (the ciborios) and that there was an ‘interior portal’, in the same way that both transepts had a pier placed between the ‘inner doors’.

11

J. M. de Azcárate Ristori, ‘La portada de las Platerías y el programa iconográfico de la Catedral de Santiago, Archive Español de Arte, XXXVI/141 (1963), 18-19. Azcárate’s numbering of the piers is given along the north aisle, Aymery’s, for comparison, in the south aisle.

13

‘… and one between the two on the interior portals facing the aquilon which separates the archways’, Gerson (1998), 68. Gerson prints aquilon in Latin, tackling the translation in a lengthy note on page 200 (n.37).

12

J. M. Pita Andrade, ‘La arquitectura románica’, in La Catedral de Santiago de Compostela (Santiago, 1977), 93b. ‘… la cabecera de la cripta considerado en un principio, como obra “gilmiriana”. No puedo ocultar que ahora la hipótesis me llena de perplejidad. Constructivamente un pilar no puede apoyar sobre un vacio’.

21

14

Viellard (1969), 89, n.4.

15

Conant (1926), 50, n.8.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 2.3. South façade: the Platerías

If one now starts counting the piers from the ‘inner portal’ (which would make a starting point similar to the count in the transepts), they end at the entrance to the sanctuary, the most sensible interpretation of Aymery’s comments (see fig. 2.1).

Aymery uses four sentences to describe the windows.17 He announces: ‘Indeed, the glazed windows which are found in this basilica are 63 in number. At each altar in the chevet [ambulatory] there are 3. [There are 5 apses with altars therefore 15 windows]. In the vault of the basilica around the altar of the blessed James there are 5 windows by which the altar of the Apostle is well lit. In the gallery above, in truth, the number of windows is 43’.18

The Windows Despite the addition of chapels and alterations throughout the subsequent centuries, all the Romanesque windows can be traced, even if some display only a few voussoirs or a piece of billet moulding. A window was designed for every bay in the nave and transepts, both at ground level and in the gallery. Exceptions occurred when apsidal chapels occupied a bay, or when a tower intervened whereupon blind arcading decorated the interior blank wall. The ends of the nave and transepts accommodated two windows at ground level and four in the gallery. This configuration can be recognised on the south façade where most of the Romanesque articulation is extant (fig. 2.3), apart from the eastern windows which have been obliterated on the exterior by a tower begun in the fourteenth century, and the lower west window by the sixteenth-century Treasury, but they are recognisable from the interior (see figs 5.17, 5.18). The north façade retained the format of four windows in the gallery and two at ground level, despite the transformation to the Neo-Classical style at the end of the eighteenth century (see fig. 1.17). At the west end Mateo kept the four windows in the gallery, but altered those at the end of the aisles (see fig. 3.8).16

The permutations amongst scholars endeavouring to make sense of these numbers are understandably varied. Conant’s window total comes to 153, for he has included every type of window: the oculi in the gables, the ambulatory windows at gallery level and the lantern windows in the tower.19 Gerson corrects Conant’s translation of the Guide’s Latin text, and therefore his reasoning.20 She points out that Aymery’s total of 63 is based on the windows he (Aymery) lists, in which case only the ambulatory (15), vault (5), and gallery (43) windows can be counted, to equal 63. López Ferreiro understood that the figure of 63 related only to 17

I have used Arabic numerals when referring to the numbers of windows because they are easier to pick up in the text for the purpose of addition. 18

Gerson (1998), 71. Conant’s elevations are useful for checking the number of windows (see figs 1.12 and 2.19).

16

The alterations to the aisle windows are explained in Chapter 5, Problems with the Aisles.

22

19

Conant (1926), 29.

20

Gerson (1998), 201-2, n.47.

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

‘glazed’ and that there must have been many for he emphasises the ‘spacious and bright aspects of the temple’.

the windows in the lower part of the church.21 I have reached this conclusion independently. Counting 16 windows in the nave, 14 in the transepts, 6 for the portal windows (2 in each of the 3 portals), and 12 for the chapels in the transepts (3 in each of the 4) yields 48. By adding 15 for the 5 ambulatory chapels, specifically stated by Aymery, the total equals Aymery’s figure of 63.

The Portals A case can be made on the basis of the Guide’s text for the presence of a west façade by the 1130s. Aymery lists the portals, and the first one he mentions is the principal doorway at the west end. It would seem strange to mention the portal if it did not exist. He then names the other two, one to the north and another to the south of the transepts. Of the seven minor portals, noted by Aymery, some have since been altered to make way for extra chapels, while others were blocked and confessional boxes positioned in front of the blank wall.

Aymery mentions 43 windows in the gallery: 16 in the nave, 17 in the transepts (1 has been deducted for the doorway into the palace of Gelmírez), and 4 at each of the 3 portal ends (12), which add up to 45, only 2 short of Aymery’s total.22 I have not included the windows in the gallery ambulatory or the larger ambulatory windows at ground level, but then neither has Aymery. Nor have I included the vault windows because they are not at ground or gallery level.

The Portal of Santa María no longer allows an exit to the open space before the Corticela Chapel (see fig. 1.3, a). Instead the area has been covered and transformed into the Chapel of the Holy Spirit and its sacristy, founded at the end of the thirteenth century and enlarged in the fourteenth century (see fig. 1.4). The new entrance indicates change, with its shallow cusped arch, flattened pilasters topped with stone balls, decorated spandrel and pediment.26 Every portal had a window set above, and here the outline of the original window is clearly delineated.

Moralejo calculated that the number of windows pronounced by Aymery confirmed his own hypothesis that building terminated at bay 5 in 1140. At this point Moralejo noticed a change in the style of the abaci and capitals, a claim accepted and developed by D’Emilio.23 Conant pondered briefly over a possible lack of windows in the gallery at the time of Aymery’s visit, with the reminder that the nave was practically finished in 1124.24 He came to the conclusion that the outer works of the western portico and the tribune were ‘still incomplete in the thirties but must have been finished by the forties’. He noted as well that ‘for economic reasons, the completion of the main fabric must not be put too late’, since by the 40s the abbot of Antealtares was reclaiming the dues according to the arrangement in the Concord of 1077.25

Between the Chapel of St Faith (now dedicated to St Bartholomew), and the Chapel of St John the Evangelist lies the Portal of the Via Sacra (see fig. 1.3, b). The area behind had similarly been converted into a chapel and sacristy, but these were removed in 1933 leaving a gash across the stonework.27 The full range of mouldings, nook columns and capitals decorating the eaves of the two chapels can be appreciated once again (figs 2.4, 2.5, 2.5a).

It is inappropriate to attempt to use Aymery’s numbering of the windows as a formula for proving that the cathedral had not reached the west end. The only result achieved is to demonstrate that there are alternative methods of presenting numbers. Nothing can really be established by Aymery’s short paragraph since it is not clear which windows he includes in his assessment, apart from the fact that the ones he counts were 21

The monks from San Pelayo de Antealtares used a portal opposite the Portal of the via Sacra, but the Romanesque doorway has since been Gothicised and leads into the sixteenth-century Mondragón chapel (see fig. 1.3, c). Only the top section of the window remains. Aymery does not mention the Puerta Santa to the south of the Salvador chapel. It has been recognised as a sixteenth-century alteration and is only open during a Holy Year (see fig. 1.3, h).28

Lopez Ferreiro (1900), III, 125.

22

To note: there are 5 windows facing east in both north and south transepts at gallery level, but only 3 in each transept at ground level: this is due to the apsidal chapels. A door exists that leads into the bishop’s palace from the north-west end of the north transept gallery. The archivolt fits the doorway which is set at a lower level than its neighbouring window. There is no sign of disturbed stonework. The H.C. mentions that, to save Gelmírez having to make a long and inconvenient detour to reach the choir of the church, a chapel was made for him in the north gallery. This implies access to this area either from the palace doorway, or the north tower at the west end which had a door opening into the north nave gallery: H.C. (1994), II, XXV, 345-6. Castiñeiras records that at San Martiño in Mondoñedo there is direct access at first floor level from the bishop’s palace to the church: M. A. Castiñeiras González, ‘La Catedral Románica: Tipología Arquitectónica y Narración Visual’, in Santiago, la Catedral y la Memoria del arte, ed. M. Nùñez Rodriguez (Saint-Jacques-deCompostelle, 2000), 46.

The Chapter portal once occupied the second bay on the east side of the south transept: it is now blocked and a confessional box fills the space (see fig. 1.3, d). The window above retains its position and glazing, although it opens into the seventeenthcentury Pillar chapel. The portal to the stonemasons’ yard (now 26

Cusped arches appear elsewhere in the cathedral; the earlier Mozarabicstyle carving is deeper; see figs 1.22, 2.3, 3.1. 27

J. Carro García, ‘El palacio y la torre de don Berenguel en la cabecera de la Catedral de Santiago’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, III/IX (1948), 348. In 1933 the sacristy to the chapel of St John was removed, revealing the Portal of the Via Sacra.

23

Moralejo (1992), 215; J. D’Emilio, ‘The Building and the Pilgrims’ Guide’, in The Codex Calixtinus and the Shrine of St. James, eds J. Williams and A. Stones (Tübingen, 1992), 185-6. Their statements will be discussed in Chapter 6. 24

Conant (1926), 30.

25

Conant (1926), 32.

28

Conant, in his plan of the Romanesque period, marks the Puerta Santa as being the monks’ entrance to the ambulatory. He has been corrected on this point, but he divined accurately that the blocked area between the chapel of St Faith and St John had once been the Portal of the Via Sacra: seven years after his publication a restoration project proved him to be correct.

23

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 2.5. Chapel of St John

Figure 2.4. Portal of the Via Sacra

the cloister) on the west side of the south transept continues to function, but it has been transformed into the Renaissance style to match a new opening leading to the Sacristy two bays to the north (see fig. 1.3, e). A second portal to the stonemasons’ yard occupied the seventh bay of the nave’s south aisle (see fig. 1.3, f). This now backs onto the Sacristy, therefore has been closed and the blank wall used for a confessional box. The archway retains its delineation and the glazing in the window above has been replaced with stone, but without any care having been taken to match the coursing. Directly opposite, the seventh minor portal led to the Episcopal School and the archbishop’s palace (see fig. 1.3, g).29 This too is blocked with a vestige of the original arch betraying its former existence. Thus all the portals named by Aymery can be traced today.

Figure 2.5a. Detail of north corbel

it seems to me, could bathe in it with ease’ (fig. 2.6). An inscription around the base of the column informed the public that Bernard, the treasurer of St James, erected the monument on April 11th 1122. He also repaired the aqueduct dating from the time of Sisnando I, Bishop of Iria (c.869-920). Aymery describes the water as ‘sweet, nourishing, healthful, clear, excellent, warm in winter, cool in summer’. Gelmírez specifically asked that a supply of water be diverted to the hospice for pilgrims situated close to the north transept but now occupied by the gardens of San Martín.30 Pilgrims following the Camino Francés would arrive at the north portal of the cathedral hence the hospice and the fountain were situated advantageously.

The Fountain of Saint James The magnificent bowl of stone holding the fountain’s water was set in the parvis of the north portal; it is now in the cloister. Unfortunately it no longer stands on a platform three steps high, and missing too is the column of bronze with seven panels fitted together at its base. Water used to flow from the mouths of four lions into the bowl carved on the exterior to resemble a scallop shell. Aymery comments that ‘fifteen men,

The Parvis of the City Aymery turns his attention to the parvis. Stalls were set up near the fountain, selling much the same type of goods in the

29

The Episcopal, or Grammar school, played an important part of the cathedral life, encouraged and supported by Gelmírez. He also founded a Library, additions made to his collection are listed in H.C. (1994), III, LVII, 408-9.

30

A section of the piping has been preserved in the present Monastery of San Martín.

24

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

Figure 2.7. North portal columns in the cathedral museum

half of the eighteenth century resulting in a hunt for the missing sculptures.

Figure 2.6. Cloister: fountain of St James

According to Aymery there were twelve columns of marble and stone adorning the double doorway of the north portal. The cathedral museum displays some of the surviving parts: carved in spiral bands they contain a wealth of detail with figures and sirens, monsters and animals, birds biting their tails, and all entwined or gripping the encircling foliage (fig. 2.7). Trying to apportion twelve columns between the two doorways is awkward – on the south portal eleven columns are spaced out evenly (see fig. 2.3). Perhaps Aymery miscounted, but he specified that above the twelfth column – which must have been positioned centrally – sat ‘the Lord in Majesty, giving His blessing with His right hand and holding a book in His left hand’. This piece of sculpture has been moved to the south portal, the Platerías, and placed on the adjoining west side wall.33

twelfth century as they do today.31 The North Portal The Guide is an excellent source of information for the study of the three main portals, Aymery’s description helping to identify specific pieces of sculpture. Since pilgrims arriving at the cathedral approached the north portal, the Puerta Francigena (now renamed the Azabachería), this is the one he outlines first.32 The façade was entirely refaced in the second 31

Aymery digresses from descriptions of architecture and devotes this section to pilgrims. He tells us that the most popular item sold was the scallop shell, the emblem of St James: pilgrims would take a shell home as proof that they had reached their destination. The majority of visitors nowadays will have entered the city by more comfortable means, but they will not be deterred from buying the emblem as a souvenir of their holiday. Aymery lists the wares offered in the Parvis: ‘wine flasks, sandals, deerskin scrips, pouches, belts and all sorts of medicinal herbs and other spices; and many other things are for sale there’. Translate bottles for flasks, boots for sandals, rucksacks for scrips and the reliance of all pilgrims on medicinal cures, in order to appreciate that the basic needs of a pilgrim remain unchanged. He adds a timely reminder: ‘moneychangers, indeed, and hotel keepers and other merchants are in the Street of the French’. The same businesses greet tourists today.

of Christ flanked by disciples on the frieze above. The west entrance is the gathering area for ceremonies, allowing the opportunity for prolonged and contemplative study of the Transfiguration (the most important event of James’s life), thereby advertising and spreading propaganda concerning the cult of St James in Santiago. 33

J. Williams (2008b), 219-38. Williams prints hypothetical reconstructions of the north and south portals showing the original positions of pieces of known sculptures (figures 10, 12). A photograph of the Christ in Majesty is reproduced in A. Shaver-Crandell, P. Gerson, A. Stones, The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela (London, 1995), plate, 22. Williams is currently investigating a third ‘Christ in Majesty’ positioned on the adjoining east wall of the Platerías. Christ is again blessing with his right hand and holding a book in his left. The folds of his robes flow more freely and flowers appear in the two top corners. The relief is carved in granite.

32

K. Matthews, ‘ “They wished to destroy the Temple of God:” Responses to Diego Gelmírez’s Cathedral Construction in Santiago de Compostela, 11001140’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago (1995), 164, 176-212. Here Matthews gives an iconographical sequence for the three portals. The north portrays sin and punishment as represented by Adam and Eve, highlighting the penitent aspect of pilgrimage. The south, facing the town’s main street, instructs its visitors with scenes from the life of Christ, with a dominant figure

25

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 2.8. Platerías: frieze above west door

Aymery continues: ‘And encircling His throne are the four evangelists’. One of the evangelists, Matthew, reappears above the left tympanum of the Platerías (fig. 2.8). Scenes of Paradise have also been moved. God creating Adam is now on the adjoining west side wall of the Platerías, the creation of Eve on the opposite east side wall, and the Expulsion has been inserted in the left spandrel of the left door above a trumpeting angel (see fig. 2.8). God reproaching Adam and Eve is in the cathedral museum. Other pieces from Aymery’s description traced to the Platérias are an Annunciation and tablets representing Sagittarius and Pisces.34 Overwhelmed by the profusion of sculpture, Aymery remarks that he cannot describe them all ‘because of their great number’.

with foliage and flowers set in a spiral banding; plain columns support the inner orders. Aymery’s description of the sculptures on the tympana agrees with the present arrangement. The lower band on the right tympanum displays scenes from the Passion with the Betrayal to the right and the Flagellation in the centre (fig. 2.10). Aymery describes the figure seated on a throne to the left as Pilate, although it appears more likely to portray Christ crowned with thorns. On the higher band Aymery mentions the Madonna Enthroned, the three Kings and a star to the left, with an angel spread-eagled above warning them not to return to Herod. I would like to suggest an alternative explanation. The badly damaged third King appears to be carrying a lamb on his shoulders, more in keeping with a shepherd. Moreover, the figure is followed by an animal, either an ox or an ass, while a wolf-like creature hovers menacingly above (fig. 2.10a). Since wolves kill sheep and shepherds are linked to the Nativity, there is a good reason to believe that the third figure was meant to be a shepherd, with the glad tidings announced by the angel above. Mary looks to the right where a swooping angel holds out a crown. The crown does not rest above any one head but floats between Christ (on the lower level) and the soldier about to arrest him. It is tempting to ask whether the angel could have been a replacement for the third King. Aymery does not mention every piece of sculpture, for instance he has left out Christ healing the blind man on the far left.

The South Portal Eleven columns frame the south portal, the eleventh finding its natural position at the head of the central pier (fig. 2.9). The three marble columns supporting the outer orders are distinct from any design elsewhere in the cathedral: they comprise tiers of saints, apostles and prophets each set within a niche and separated by twisted columns, some decorated with beading (fig. 2.9a).35 The middle order granite columns are carved 34

Durliat’s analysis of the sculpture is comprehensive, with a plan of the Platerías identifying the repositioning of the various pieces, see, M. Durliat, La Sculpture Romane de la Route de St-Jacques (Mont-de-Marsan, 1990), 310357. 35

This assemblage is more usually seen in ivories, but the configuration also appears in part of the ciborium of San Marco in Venice.

The left tympanum is filled with scenes from the Temptation 26

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

Figure 2.9a. Detail of marble column

repeating a contemporary saga concerning the sculpture. Aymery names four apostles on the jambs of the doorways, but the only apostle represented is Andrew. The others are Moses (balancing a tablet of stone in each hand) and a damaged figure thought to be a bishop or Melchizedek.37 Probably Aymery failed to inspect the carvings closely, assuming them to mirror the apostles he recorded in the same position on the north portal. The fourth jamb – thought to be a replacement from the north portal – is decorated with a woman holding a lion and another woman below holding a ram, both in the style of the ‘adulterous wife’.38

Figure 2.9. Platerías: central columns

(fig. 2.11). Aymery delights in telling the reader of the hideous creatures who offer the kingdoms of the world to the Lord, and the good angels who wave censors and ‘minister unto Him’. Aymery is intrigued by the figure squashed to the right:

All four angels listed by Aymery have survived, ‘each holding a trumpet announcing the Day of Judgement’. The ‘ferocious lions, one of whom holds its rump to the rump of the other’, are the addorsed lions perched above the central pier; a third is perched on a string-course to the west of the portal guarding the entrance, but the fourth to the east is missing due to the invasive tower.

‘Nor should be forgotten the woman who stands next to the Lord’s Temptation, holding between her own hands the stinking head of her lover, cut off by her rightful husband, which she is forced by her husband to kiss twice a day. Oh, what ingenious and admirable justice for an adulterous wife; it should be recounted to everyone!’36

Interpreting Aymery’s comments on the reliefs in the spandrels

The fact that the woman is seated – not standing – and ‘the stinking head’ is actually a skull indicates that Aymery is

37 38

M. Chamoso Lamas (1982), 46.

Durliat (1990), 348-9, links the woman holding a lion with the Sigum relief from the west façade of the Church of St Sernin, Toulouse (on view in the Musée des Augustins), where one woman holds a lion and the other a ram.

36

Gerson (1998), 75-77. There is also a lengthy note which cites alternative interpretations for the figure: Eve, Mary Magdalene, or Vanitas, 207, n. 86.

27

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 2.10. Platerías: right tympanum

Figure 2.10a. Detail of right tympanum

28

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

Figure 2.11. Platerías: left tympanum

and the frieze above becomes more complicated, with a great deal of discussion arising over which works are original and which have been replaced. Those specifically named by Amery are ‘the Lord upright’, now identified as a thirteenthcentury substitute,39 and ‘Saint Peter on His left holding the keys in his hand’ replaced in 1884 by a group of six sculptures from Mateo’s dismantled choir (fig. 2.12). A relief of Peter appears to the far left, out of alignment with a row of apostles and above the aforementioned Matthew (see fig. 2.8). The ‘Blessed James’ stands between two cypress trees, the symbol of death, but water spurts from the bare trunks promising the continuity of life. ‘His brother St John’ is indeed next to James, and there are certainly other apostles ‘to the right and left’.

to describe two prominent pieces of sculpture: Moses, set on the central spandrel, and a relief above identified as Abraham according to an inscription at its base (figs 2.13, 2.14). The omission could be accounted for by the fact that these pieces were moved from the west portal to the south portal some time after Aymery’s visit, most likely by Mateo. The theme governing the west portal is the Transfiguration, and Aymery describes the sculptures in his section on the west portal: ‘Above, however, the Transfiguration of the Lord just as it occurred on Mount Tabor is marvellously sculptured. And there is the Lord in a dazzling white cloud, His face shining like the sun, His robe glittering like snow and the Father above, speaking to Him; and Moses and Elijah, who appeared with Him, telling Him of the end which would take place in Jerusalem.41

Art historians continue to analyse the sculptures and reassess the arrangement.40 The unnatural placing of certain pieces of sculpture over the façade creates disunity, but the ensuing speculation as to their origins presents a fascinating puzzle.

Moses is depicted with horns, the protrusions symbolic of two rays of light that issued forth from his head when he received the Ten Commandments.42 The Father certainly gives the impression of ‘speaking to Him’, as recognised by Aymery. Argument over the figure of the Father is derived from an inscription surrounding the relief declaring it to be Abraham; but the lettering could have been added at a later date, perhaps

The West Portal In some instances it is what Aymery does not mention which is more revealing. When commenting on the south portal he fails 39

Moralejo (1992), 219. Williams suggests that the original Christ in Majesty is now in the cathedral museum (2008a), 231, figure 11. A double photograph of the sculptured section of the Platérias can be found in Shaver-Crandell (1995), plate 10. 40

I have not attempted to delve into the styles of the various masons employed in the decoration of the portals, since I have concentrated on other aspects of the sculpture relevant to the theme of this book. Durliat (1990); Moralejo (1992); Castiñeiras González (2000), 69-77; J. Williams (2008a), et al have written at length on the subject.

41 42

Gerson (1998), 77.

Moralejo has a different interpretation for Moses and the ‘horns’. He suggests that the figure of Moses is ‘probably Hades, Lord of the Dead, conquered and bemoaning the deliverance of one of his subjects’, Morelejo (1992), 222.

29

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 2.12. Platerías: SS John, James, ‘the Lord upright’, Matean sculptures

Figure 2.14. Platerías: God the Father (referred to as Abraham)

Figure 2.13. Platerías: Moses

when the piece was moved.43

Aymery only devotes fourteen lines (in the manuscript) to the west portal compared with twenty-seven for the north and forty-three for the south, although he does state that the west portal:

43

The inscription reads: TRANSFIGURATIO IHESU and SURGIT HABRHAM DE TUMULO. Abraham was linked to the Lord through the sacrifice of his son Isaac. Another link between Abraham and the Lord is at the Theophany at Mamre, the apparition of the three Angels taken as an allusion to the Trinity (Genesis 18). Chamoso Lamas does not think the inscription refers to Abraham. In his opinion the figure represents God the Father presenting the

Transfiguration of his Son: M. Chamoso Lamas and Dom Victoriano González, Galice romane (La Pierre-qui-Vire, 1973), 111. For a comprehensive interpretation see Moralejo (1992), 219-23, and more recently, Williams (2008a), 233.

30

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

at the crossing, that ‘perhaps only the squinches were built when the description was written, and that the opening had only a flat wooden roof’.47

‘surpasses by its beauty, size and workmanship the other portals. This one is larger and more beautiful than the others and more admirably worked, with many steps outside, and adorned with various marble columns, and various forms and in divers ways, and is sculptured with images of men, women, animals, birds, saints, angels, flowers and various works of this kind. There are so many works that they cannot be included in our account’.44

The rest of the towers can be located, albeit with some difficulty. Two flanking towers (with spiral staircases) are shown on Conant’s drawing of the Romanesque south façade (see fig. 1.12), but alterations to the building changed the skyline and both towers have lost their elevations. Figure 17 in Conant’s monograph on Santiago shows the remaining part of the west tower in question. The level of the roof has since been raised, thereby hiding the shafts, but the billet-moulded impost and the curved exterior wall of the spiral staircase are recognisable (fig. 2.15). The capitals survive and an horizontal angel holding a flower acts as a decorative corbel in the style of the sculptures on the Platerías (fig. 2.15a). The entrance to the tower’s spiral staircase is from the south gallery, but the tower has been terminated at roof level. The spiral staircase at the south end of the east gallery is in use. The entrance has been enlarged and the massive Reloj tower envelopes the original Romanesque staircase.

The brevity of this description has led some scholars to conclude that the west end did not exist at the time of Aymery’s visit, and he simply described how he imagined the final setting of the sculptural pieces. There is always the possibility that because the towers were unfinished and work was continuing at the west end, the sculptures were covered for protection against damage, or they had not been raised to their final position. To determine what actually existed, architectural features must be taken into consideration. These will be explored in the ensuing chapters and will establish that the building had reached the west end. Towards the end of the paragraph Aymery informs his readers that there were ‘many steps outside’, an interesting phrase signifying a grand entrance at the west end (see Chapter 5).

Although well disguised by its eighteenth-century mask, Romanesque work can be traced behind the north portal. In the north gallery transept, a doorway leads to the Bishop’s Palace. Behind it lurk two shafts supporting worn capitals, an impost and a short curved section belonging to the north portal’s west spiral staircase (fig. 2.16). There is also evidence of the north portal’s east tower. Outside the east window of the north transept gallery, a flat roof covers St Andrew’s chapel, which was attached to the eastern end of the north portal in 1674. Nestling in the angle created by the east gallery wall and the north façade is part of a shaft, its capital and impost, a fraction of the curved section of the spiral stairway and a section of the end wall (see fig. 1.15). The shaft of the tower can be traced through the chapel of St Andrew below (fig. 2.17). Both imposts on the north towers lack billet moulding. Instead they are composed of two hollow chamfers either side of a fillet and resting above a roll moulding. This design is strange in the context of decorative motifs at Santiago, and helps to support an early dating for the first north portal: billet moulding is ubiquitous elsewhere in the cathedral.

The Towers of the Basilica There is a phrase in this short chapter which also has been lifted from the text, and used as confirmation that the west end was not extant at the time of Aymery’s arrival. It reads: ‘But of all these things of which we speak, some are completely finished and others remain to be completed’. It must be emphasised that this sentence occurs at the end of the section on towers. Aymery said that nine towers were intended: ‘two above the portal of the fountain and two above the south portal, and two above the west portal, and two above each of the spiral staircases and another greater one above the crossing in the middle of the basilica’.45 A few of the towers had not attained their ultimate height when Aymery visited Santiago, specifically the two at the west end, their construction continuing into the following century.46 Nevertheless, it will be established in Chapter 5 that the towers had reached roof level during the time of Gelmírez.

Aymery names another pair of towers, due super singular uites. The translation reads: ‘two [towers] above each of the spiral staircases’, except that the staircases are not spiral but ‘winding’ as recognised and corrected by Conant.48 Aymery too has made an error: there are not two towers above each staircase, but one over each. The towers are set in the angles between the nave and the north and south transepts. The south tower is in regular use and provides access to the gallery and organ loft. From there upwards the tower is blocked, but part of its exterior can be seen at roof level where it has been taken down to below the line of balustrades (fig. 2.18). Its companion

The crossing tower’s dome and balustrade belong to the second half of the seventeenth century. The tower that Aymery saw may only have had a temporary covering, thus becoming another candidate for one of the items that remained to be finished. Conant notes that the measurement Aymery gave for the interior height of the cathedral is 2.44 metres higher than the actual nave. He suggests the measurement had been taken 44

Gerson (1998), 77.

45

Ibid, 77. See below concerning ‘and two above each of the spiral staircases’.

47

Conant (1926), 26. Conant allowed for the thickness of the modern pavement as well as shrinkage of the vault. He went on to suggest that a dome, similar to the contemporary castle chapel at Loarre, was intended for the crossing vault..

46

The western facing parts of the west towers were covered by Casas y Nóvoa in the Baroque style (and made taller). The lower level Romanesque sections were retained and can be recognised from the north and south sides of the Obradoiro and from the roof.

48

31

Ibid., 54, n.7.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 2.15. South transept: west exterior, showing curved section of spiral stairway

Figure 2.15a. Detail of corbel on spiral stairway

on the north disappeared with the addition of the Chapel of the Communion (1764), although its old entrance is betrayed by a line of masonry before which has been placed a confessional. Aymery ends his list of towers by praising the construction of the church. He mentions the roof covered with teolis, a word of unknown origin which has caused confusion amongst translators (Aymery has derived Teolis from the French tuiles,

Figure 2.16. North transept: west exterior showing curved section of spiral stairway and shafts

32

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

Figure 2.17. North transept: shaft of east spiral stairway in the chapel of St Andrew

the correct Latin word being tegula). 49 It has been understood that the roof was originally covered with stone slabs, and that Aymery may have mistaken them for tiles because of the way they had been set in an overlapping manner. Conant’s photograph of the nave roof shows it to be covered with clay tiles, which had been placed over a thick bed of rubble, conceivably when the battlements were converted to balustrades in the seventeenth century.50 These were cleared away and replaced with stone slabs during the restoration work of the late 1960s, in imitation of what was presumed to have been the original roof covering (see fig. 5.33). This supposition is supported by marks on the east facing slope of the south transept roof. Indents are visible on a section of old stone slabs, the weight of tiles and rubble over three and a half centuries having left their marks (see fig. 5.33a).51 Therefore Aymery may well have seen a roof covered with ‘overlapping’ slabs.52

Figure 2.18. Remains of tower in the angle of the nave and south transept

are completely finished and others remain to be completed’.53 This is hardly a description of a church terminating abruptly half way down the nave. As the heading of this section is ‘The Towers’, they are the most likely architectural structures to be the ‘others’ requiring completion. The Altars of the Basilica

Aymery concludes:

The careful listing of the altars in the Guide confirms information given in the Historia Compostelana. At ground level the altars stood in chapels referred to by the name of the saint to whom the altar was dedicated. One chapel mentioned in the Historia Compostelana had already changed its dedication from St Fructuosus to St Martin by the time Aymery visited Santiago de Compostela.

‘With these and many other very beautiful works, the basilica of the Blessed James shines most gloriously. It is totally built of the strongest living stone, brown, that is, and hard as marble, and decorated within with various forms and on the exterior excellently roofed with tiles and lead. But of all these things of which we speak, some

A sequence of radial chapels surrounded the ambulatory and adorned the east facing sides of the transepts, presenting a typical Romanesque east end. Gradually, with the addition of chapels and sacristies, this side of the cathedral became an architectural mess. One only has to compare Conant’s East Elevation with Vega y Verdugo’s drawing of c. 1660 to recognise the difference (figs 2.19, 2.20). Towards the end of

49

Moralejo (1992), 215, analyses Aymery’s use of the word teolis, and in n.26, he lists the views of other art historians on the tegula interpretation; see also Gerson (1998), 209, n.92. 50

Conant (1926), Fig. 26.

51

My thanks to Antonio Castro who pointed out to me these markings.

52

I was in Santiago in September 1996 and witnessed the clay tiles being removed from the roofs of the chapels of the Conception and St Faith, and being replaced by stone slabs.

53

33

Gerson (1998), 79.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 2.19. East elevation as originally designed (after Conant, 1926)

the seventeenth century the east end was camouflaged by a wall running parallel to the transepts and incorporating the entrance to the passageway leading to the Puerta Santa (fig. 2.21). The smaller doorway to the north gave entrance to the south portal of the Corticela chapel. This is now kept locked and the Corticela is entered through its west doorway which is linked to the cathedral.

by the Pillar chapel, and the chapel of St John the Baptist disappeared to make way for access to the Quintana door (see fig. 1.3, 8 and 9). The best preserved chapel, dedicated to St Faith, is on the north side of the ambulatory (see figs 1.3, 3). It is polygonal in style, with windows occupying the three central angles and blind arcades the outer two. The matching chapel of St Andrew, directly opposite, was replaced by the chapel of the Pillar occupying the area between the ambulatory and the south transept (see fig. 1.3, 7). Williams produces a persuasive theory that both these chapels were the source for the polygonal chevet designed for the cathedral of Pamplona.54 It is recorded that the architect Esteban was working in Pamplona by 1101, having first been employed at Santiago.55 The accepted dates for his time at Santiago had been estimated from 1093 until 1101.56

Many of the chapels named by Aymery were altered at various times to provide extra space for worship, and also to accord with the fashion of the period (see fig. 1.4). Aymery begins with the chapel dedicated to St Nicholas in the north transept (see fig. 1.3, 1). The back wall was pierced to allow for a covered passageway to the Corticela Chapel, but its cupola remained intact and the two side windows, although blocked, kept their framework with nook columns and capitals. The chapel of the Holy Cross has been enlarged and rededicated as the chapel of the Conception (see fig. 1.3, 2). It occupies two bays, which means that two of the transept’s windows no longer admit light. One has become an open archway through which to view the chapel; the outline of the second window at the north-west end of the ambulatory is original, only the light having been redesigned in the Gothic style. Of the chapels projecting from the south transept, St Martin was appropriated

54

J. Williams (2008a), 221, n.18.

55

There is a reference to Esteban working in Pamplona recorded by Sandoval (1614), 72.2: ‘En el año 1101, á once de Junio dio el Obispo don Pedro unas casa y viñas en Pamplona, al maestro de la obra de la Iglesia, y de la de Santiago’. F. J. Ocaña Eiroa devotes an article to the work of the master Esteban, discussing the polygonal chapels and the sculpture of Santiago and Pamplona: ‘La controvertida personalidad del Maestro Esteban en las catedrales románicas de Pamplona y Santiago’, Principe de Viana, 64/228 (2003), 7-58. 56

34

Otero Túñez suggests that Esteban was employed by Gelmírez from 1093

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

Figure 2.20. Eastern parts of the cathedral by Vega y Verdugo, c. 1660 (after Conant, 1926)

Figure 2.21. East end of the cathedral from the Quintana

35

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Aymery makes clear the importance of the rounded apsidal chapel projecting to the north-east of the ambulatory: ‘the altar of Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist, brother of Saint James’ (see fig. 1.3, 4). The rear curve was demolished in the sixteenth century in order to allow space for a new chapel ending in an apse of its own. A small drum with windows provides effective light. The space between the chapels of St John and San Salvador was enclosed to make the chapel of Our Lady in White. Much of the original stonework remains, including two eleventh-century capitals which graced the eaves on the exterior of the St John chapel. They now appear on the interior of Our Lady in White chapel and face the altar (fig. 2.23). St John’s chapel is matched on the south-east by one dedicated to St Peter, renamed the chapel of the Virgin of the Azucena (see fig. 1.3, 6). It has remained virtually untouched, except for two windows which were blocked due to the addition of yet another chapel and sacristy; the third window was altered to allow for a door to be cut into its own sacristy. The most important altar, the San Salvador, occupied the axial chapel (see fig. 1.3, 5). Its foundation belonged to the church built by Alfonso II in the ninth century where the monks guarding the tomb of St James said mass.58 The Romanesque chapel kept the original design: a squared east end with pointed blind arches on the exterior set either side of a Mozarabic-styled window. Fortunately, Vego y Verdugo recorded its appearance in a drawing (see fig. 2.20). The east end is now hidden by the seventeenth-century wall, and any remnant of the interior face of the window is invisible behind a fixed altarpiece. Two shallow niches topped with semi-cupolas, and set at angles of roughly 45º, flank the altar. Two windows remain: the north, retaining its nook columns and capitals, now shares the interior wall of the chapel of Our Lady in White (fig. 2.24); the south window opens onto the passageway linking the Puerta Santa to the exterior portal. In the passageway, a far smaller window is delineated in the masonry to the east (fig. 2.25). It must already have been blocked by the time of Aymery’s visit, for he does not mention it in his window count.59

Figure 2.22. Chapel of St Faith: woman astride a lion

Chamoso Lamas, through his discoveries on the ambulatory roof, was able to allocate the whole of the chevet to Peláez. The exterior of the chancel roof is also polygonal in style (see fig. 3.1), which links it to the two polygonal chapels in the ambulatory thereby suggesting that Esteban was employed by Peláez from the beginning of construction at Santiago. The apex of the roof of St Faith is adorned by a splendid woman astride a lion (fig. 2.22). She has plump cheeks, the ‘signature’ of a mason whose carving appears on the north and south portals, thought to be the work of Master Esteban, but disputed.57 Since it has now been proposed that Esteban was involved in the first stages at Santiago (see previous note); that the North Portal also had an early starting date, and that many of the north portal sculptures were moved to the south portal, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Esteban was indeed the sculptor of the ‘fat cheeked’ figures.

None of the remaining altars listed by Aymery in the gallery are extant, but all the altars set in chapels at ground level can be traced through Aymery’s account.60 58

This is implied in the Concord of Antealtares, which records the building of a third and large church containing three altars, San Salvador and SS Peter and John: López Ferreiro (1900), III, appendix I, 3-6. Williams (2008b), 188, matches the dimensions of the San Salvador chapel to those of Santa María de la Corticela. Excavations undertaken in 1966 by Chamoso Lamas (1982), 74, revealed the Corticela to have been built at the end of the ninth century under Bishop Sisnando I.

until 1101 when he left to work on the cathedral of Pamplona: ‘Problemas de la Cathedral Románica de Santiago’, Compostellanum, 10/4 (1965), 607-12.

59

A matching window (similarly blocked) exists in the chapel of Our Lady in White whose south wall is party to San Salvador’s north wall (see fig. 2.24). Neither of these windows can be traced on the interior walls of the chapel of San Salvador, their positions covered by the niches either side of the altar (see fig. 1.7).

57

There is a similar sculpture on the chapel roof of St John. J. Williams in: ‘La arquitectura del Camino de Santiago’, Compostellanum, XXIX/3 (1984), 282, reminds us that Esteban’s name does not appear in Compostellan documents. The documents were biased towards Gelmírez, inviting a conclusion to be drawn that Esteban worked earlier for Peláez. Williams (2008a), 221, n.18, develops this theory and comes to the conclusion that ‘Bernard and Robert [recorded as working at Santiago] were Gelmírez’s architects and Stephen [Esteban] was Peláez’s’. Ocaña, (2003), 23-47, 58, discusses the sculpture of the Master of the Platerías and that of Esteban, denying the latter any hand in the Platerías.

60

As well as the Guide, the Historia Compostelana lists altars in the gallery but the two accounts differ slightly: Gerson (1998), 79; H.C. (1994), I, XIX, 109 for San Miguel en la parte superior, and II, XXV, 346 for additional altars. This leads to the speculation that the altars could have been in position at an earlier date. It also confirms that free-standing altars were movable.

36

Santiago according to Aymery Picaud

Figure 2.23. Chapel of St John: corbels on the exterior of the chapel, now on the interior of the Chapel of our Lady in White

The Final Sections

he stumbled over phrases to describe architectural terms; his addition of windows continues to be problematic, and he was not totally accurate in his description of the sculptures on the north and south portals. Every word and phrase, observation and statement written by Aymery has been subjected to minute investigation. In spite of arguments over his text, his contribution to the research of Santiago cannot be underestimated. ‘In truth’ – as he oft recites – he tried to the best of his ability, and what emerges very clearly is Aymery’s undisputed enthusiasm for his subject:

Aymery leaves the architecture of the cathedral and turns his attention to the decorative features, ‘the qualities exemplifying cathedral status’. In the final seven sections he describes the tomb of St James; the original altar said to have been made by James’s disciples and the replacement commissioned by Gelmírez; the altar frontal; the ciborium and three lamps presented by King Alfonso of Aragon. Aymery concludes by stating the authority of the canons and naming the master masons. As if writing a postscript, he reminds his readers that the see was transferred from Mérida to Santiago by Pope Calixtus II in 1120, thereby confirming the ‘Authority of the Church of Saint James’ and Diego Gelmírez as its first archbishop in 1120.

‘In this church there is no fissure, no defect. It is admirably built, large and spacious, clear, of fitting size, harmoniously proportioned in breadth, length and height; and it is of two storeys, like a royal palace. A man who goes up into the galleries, if he is sorrowful when he goes up, will be happy and comforted after contemplating its perfect beauty’.61

Throughout Chapter IX in the Guide, Aymery sought to praise the church and endeavoured to convey the magnificence of the building. He was unable to pace out the exterior measurements;

61

37

Gerson (1998), 69, 71.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 2.24. San Salvador Chapel: exterior north wall, now the south interior wall of the Chapel of our Lady in White

Figure 2.25. San Salvador Chapel: exterior south wall

38

Chapter 3 Foreign Influences and Related Problems By far the greatest influence on the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela was that of Diego Gelmírez. His life’s ambition was to create a building worthy of St James, and in the process he drew inspiration from a wide spectrum of sources. He gleaned ideas from Italy, where he spent several months in Rome at the Lateran, and from France where he visited the abbey of Cluny in Burgundy. The foreign origins of many architectural features at Santiago are recognisable both in the dimensions of the building and the lavish adornment of the interior.

administrator.7 Pope Urban II died in 1099 and his successor, Paschal II, was sympathetic to Alfonso. Gelmírez took this opportune moment to make his first journey to Rome. The Journeys of Gelmírez Gelmírez made two journeys to Rome proving highly beneficial for Santiago, the first as a pilgrim lasting from December 1099 to the summer of 1100. This visit resulted in his being elected a bishop. His second journey, in 1105, was an attempt to raise the see of Compostela to metropolitan rank. Although he failed in that quest, he was granted ‘the right to wear a pallium on certain solemn occasions in the liturgical year’.8

Diego Gelmírez came from a respectable Galician family. The year of his birth is unknown but indications lean to the mid 1060s.1 His father served under Bishop Peláez, administering his estates and the strategically important castle of Torres del Oeste.2 Gelmírez attended the cathedral school and became a canon of the cathedral. He was appointed chancellor to Count Raymond of Burgundy who had arrived in Spain after the capture of Toledo by Alfonso VI in 1085. Raymond married Alfonso’s daughter, Urraca, but Alfonso had already established connections with France by marrying Agnes of Aquitaine and, after her death, Constance of Burgundy.3 With the depth of French influence at the Spanish court, Gelmírez understandably became a keen Francophile.

Extensive building was taking place in the countries through which Gelmírez travelled, with churches being enlarged to cope with the increasing number of pilgrims.9 Conditions were ideal for him to gather ideas for his grand scheme at Santiago. On Gelmírez’s second journey the most significant of his visits was to Cluny where Abbot Hugh was in the process of raising the third abbey-church. Alfonso VI was now donating a huge sum of money annually to the abbey (two thousand gold pieces), the contributions from the Spanish court financing a major part of the building of Cluny III.10 The Historia Compostelana records details of this journey to Rome, saying that Gelmírez was well received at Cluny with several processions ordered in his honour.11 The two transepts of Cluny III were completed in 1100 and impressive towers were rising above their north and south arms.12 Gelmírez

Peláez initiated the building of Santiago but resigned in 1088. The next bishop, appointed by Alfonso, was forced to stand down owing to Pope Urban II’s disapproval. Worse was to follow when two successive lay administrators allowed church property to be appropriated.4 In 1093 Gelmírez was chosen to carry out the duties of administrator until the following year when Dalmatius, a monk from Cluny, was nominated bishop of Santiago.5 At the Council of Clermont in 1095 Dalmatius managed to obtain a bull fixing the seat of the diocese firmly at Compostela, but he died eight days after this momentous achievement.6 1096 saw the reappointment of Gelmírez as

1

7

Reilly (1968), 481, suggests that Gelmírez was probably put in charge of the cathedral as early as 1090, and might even have been created a bishop by Alfonso VI in 1097/8. 8

Accommodating pilgrims was currently a problem throughout Europe and the East. In Jerusalem, where a sheer mass of humanity gathered for feast days, hundreds were said to have fainted. At Durham muscular stewards were employed to control the crowds, while the impossible situation at St Denis gave Abbot Suger the excuse to rebuild his abbey: J. Sumption, Pilgrimage (St Ives, 1975, repr. 2002), 213-4.

Fletcher (1984), 102-3; Biggs (1949), 23.

10

Abbot Hugh of Cluny exerted considerable influence over Alfonso VI and visited his court in 1077 and 1090. (Alfonso VI’s confessor was a Cluniac, subsequently to be consecrated Archbishop of Toledo.) Alfonso’s father, Fernando I, had paid Cluny an annual donation of one thousand gold pieces. Cluny, founded in 910, became the chief benefactor of pilgrims struggling to reach Compostela, overseeing monasteries the length of the route: Mullins (2006), 70-7, et al.

2

The tower was originally a Roman mansio with a view of the sea, converted later to a defensive tower: A. Tranoy, La Galice romaine. ��� Recherches sur le nord-ouest de la péninsule ibérique dans l’Antiquité (Paris, 1981), 217. 3

Biggs (1949), 19, 25. Raymond and Urraca’s son eventually reigned as Alfonso VII, while Raymond’s brother, a monk from Cluny and archbishop of Vienne, would be anointed Pope Calixtus II. 4

H.C. (1994), I, III, 78-9; Fletcher (1984), 106.

5

H.C. (1994), I, V, 80.

Fletcher (1984), 196-7.

9

11 12

H.C. (1994), I, XVI, 101.

K. J. Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture 800-1200 (London, 1966), 116: in 1100, Pedro, Bishop of Pamplona consecrated the chapel of St Gabriel in the existing stair tower attached to the great transept; K. J. Conant, ‘Medieval Academy Excavations at Cluny’, Speculum, V (1930), 83, c. 1100 an inscription in the chapel of St Gabriel in the upper part of the south-west

6

Biggs (1949), 30. Bishop Teodomir had transferred the episcopal see from Iria to Compostela, but it was not confirmed until 1095.

39

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

‘This frontal Diego II, Bishop of Santiago, had made in the fifth year of his episcopacy [1105]. Cost: eighty-less-five marks of silver from the treasury of James. The king was Alfonso, and Duke Raimondo was his son-in-law when the aforementioned bishop finished this work.’17 Gelmírez commissioned a ciborium made of gold and silver and precious stones, the ornamentation again described in detail by Aymery.18 He also installed a confessio in imitation of St Peter’s, lower than the sanctuary with the descent to it lying between two of the columns of the ciborium.19 Pilgrims would have recognised these references to Rome, such enhancements to the fabric proving necessary both to attract and to impress foreign visitors. The larger the building the more space available for altars and the devotion of saints; the revenues collected from the offertory boxes increased, thereby ensuring the continued prosperity of the cathedral and the spread of its fame abroad.

Figure 3.1. Apse: exterior

planned nine towers at Santiago aspiring to emulate Cluny.13

The Historia Compostelana

Rome made a formative impression on Gelmírez, providing a stimulus for the commission of numerous works on his return to Spain.14 Peláez had already placed spiral colonettes on the exterior of the apse at the very highest point of the east end of the cathedral, an area of supreme importance where five windows shed light on the choir, the altar, and hence onto the tomb of St. James (fig. 3.1). Spiral colonettes were used to decorate columns on the north and south Portals (see figs 2.7, 2.9). The spiral motif came from St Peter’s tomb where ‘six columnae vitineae that Constantine brought de Grecias (sic)’ were used to support the canopy and entablature that enhanced the sacred area.15

Gelmírez commissioned the Historia Compostelana to record for posterity everything that had been undertaken to create a new sanctuary for St James. There were three main authors: Hugo, a canon of Compostela (later to be consecrated bishop of Oporto); Nuño Alfonso, a canon who participated in the election of Gelmírez (in 1113 he was consecrated Bishop of Mondoñedo), and Giraldo, the best educated and head of the cathedral school.20 Coming from Beauvais, Giraldo praised anything French and his style is the most vivid and dramatic in the Historia. He seldom left Gelmírez unattended and then only when sent away on business. The three were considered friends of Gelmírez, hence their views naturally tended to be biased in the archbishop’s favour.21

On his return to Compostela, Gelmírez ordered a new altar for the glorification of St James. Any alteration to this sacred area was unpopular, but Gelmírez pacified the Chapter by leaving the tomb in its original position.16 He covered the altar (set in the chamber above the tomb) with a marble slab, and provided a magnificent silver altar frontal to which Aymery devotes a section in his Guide. Gelmírez’s pride in the altar is announced on an inscription translated as follows:

The opening paragraph of the Historia Compostelana announces that Gelmírez wants to keep an account of the treasure and vestments, and a list of the estates, properties and dignities acquired by him for the benefit of the church. Every now and again the possessive adjective ‘his’ slips into the text revealing the extent to which Gelmírez considered Santiago to be ‘his’ possession.22 Even the clergy recognised this attitude given Gelmírez’s total commitment to the cathedral. In addition, his building projects extended throughout his see.23

tower of the Great Transept shows that this tower was already completed. 13

Aymery in his Guide announced that there were to be nine towers: Gerson (1998), 77. 14

It is not known whether Gelmírez visited Montecassino (south of Rome), but the renowned new monastic complex would no doubt have been discussed. Abbot Desiderius rebuilt the monastery between 1066 and 1071, and in 1075 added an atrium and an outer portico between two towers. A remarkable group of technicians proficient in stone, wood, stucco, bronze, ivory, gold and silver were gathered to adorn his abbey (Gelmírez was to attempt to emulate this example at Santiago): K. J. Conant in collaboration with H. M. Willard, ‘Early examples of the pointed arch and vault in Romanesque architecture’, Viator 2 (1971), 204, 206.

Gerson (1998), 81.

18

Ibid., 81, 83.

19

H.C. (1994), I, XVIII, 108, and n.192.

20

Nuño (or Muñio) may well have instigated the Historia by deciding to ‘compose a “register” of the deeds of his bishop’: B. F. Reilly, ‘The Historia Compostelana: The Genesis and Composition of a Twelfth-century Gesta’, Speculum 44 (1969), 79. 21

Biggs (1949), xv-xxxiv. It is thought that a couple of other clergy may also have contributed, perhaps Pedro Anaya and a ‘magister’ Rainero.

15

J. B. Ward Perkins, ‘The shrine of St. Peter and its Twelve Spiral Columns’, Journal of Roman Studies, 42 (1952), 21-3. E. Fernie, ‘The Spiral piers of Durham Cathedral’ in Medieval Art and Architecture at Durham Cathedral, eds N Coldstream and P. Draper, BAA conference transactions for the year 1977 (Leeds, 1980), 51-3. 16

17

22

H.C. (1994), I, XVIII, 106,107; II, LXXVII, 451,452; these are but a few examples. 23

Gelmírez ordered the building and restoration of numerous churches in Iria and around Compostela including San Miguel, San Felix and San Benito; and a new church for the monks of San Pelayo de Antealtares, the old one being

H.C. I, XVIII, 106-8.

40

Foreign Influences and Related Problems

procedure.34 Unfortunately the two west towers were set out inaccurately.35 Other strange inconsistencies appear in the composition of the towers: they were exceptionally large and positioned to the sides of the aisles. Conant noticed that the axis of the nave begins to deviate at bay VII, each side of points A-G on his plan (see fig. 2.1).36 Moralejo supposes this deviation in the nave was owing to ‘a merging of campaigns – an interruption’.37 Earlier, López Ferreiro recognised this strange angle, describing it as a representation of the body of Christ on the cross.38

Gelmírez was keen to preserve the ‘dignity’ and ‘honor’ of St James; these terms were repeated frequently throughout the text.24 Also pointed out is the suffering Gelmírez had to endure from Queen Urraca and the citizens of Compostela while trying to achieve his objectives and in defending his acquisitions.25 The Historia Compostelana is more concerned with the daily events in the life of Gelmírez and few architectural details or dates are recorded. The phrase quoted for the commencement of the cathedral has given rise to a wealth of controversy;26 however, a specific and undisputed date of 1112 is given for the destruction of the old basilica.27 A cloister is mentioned frequently. The clergy had been using the old cloister belonging to the monks of Antealtares, but it was far too small – access to it had been through the Portal of San Pelayo.28 Gelmírez, aware of the problem, declared his desire to build a new cloister soon after his appointment as bishop in 1100.29 He was elected archbishop in 1120, and in 1124 he announced that by the grace of God the major part of the building was complete but there was still no cloister. He pledged 100 silver marks towards the cloister, 30 immediately and the rest a year later, and also bequeathed 100 cows at his death for the same work and for the salvation of his soul.30 By 1134 there was still no cloister, and the archbishop reaffirmed his promise to give one hundred marks for its construction.31 Although it appears that Gelmírez was slow to instigate proceedings on the cloister, he maintained a rapid pace on the actual construction of his cathedral-church.

By 1112 the new cathedral had reached the fourth nave bay west from the crossing. It had been built around Alfonso III’s basilica, which was finally ready to be pulled down. Besides recording the date, the Historia Compostelana confirms the inclusion of a choir large enough for all the clergy and magnificently decorated with two pulpits.39 The towers were by now well underway. At some stage it must have been realised that if the nave continued in the same direction it would not meet correctly with the towers at the west end. In order to rectify this error a change of orientation was necessary. This explains the enigma of the bend marked in Conant’s plan.40 In 1960 Guerra Campos included a plan in his review of Chamoso Lamas’ excavations.41 It depicts the outline of Alfonso III’s basilica within the excavated foundations of the Romanesque church. An orientation key is drawn, ‘A’ marking the orientation of the eleventh to twelfth century church and ‘B’ Alfonso III’s basilica of the ninth century (see fig. 1.9). Extending the lines of the orientation key and transferring them onto the nave of the Gelmírez church, shows the two orientation lines diverging considerably by the time they reach the west end.

The West Towers: orientation Building continued at the east end of Santiago, but around 1105 Gelmírez hastened his campaign by simultaneously beginning construction at the west end.32 He may have been encouraged in this strategy with the knowledge that the north – and possibly the south – façade had been started before the apse and transepts were completed.33 Working on different areas of a building at the same time was an acceptable medieval

Alfonso’s basilica is much closer to the exterior north wall of the Gelmírez building than to the south side (see fig. 1.8, x, y). This is because the west towers were set out incorrectly. The master mason’s view to the east was hampered by Alfonso’s basilica (which was still being used for services), and also by

described as ‘muy vieja y miserable’: H.C. (1994), II, LV, 402.

34

For example at Nôtre-Dame, Paris: ‘the nave was well underway while the upper stories of the choir were being completed ... [and] work began on the north corner of the west facade while the main arcade supports of the nave were under construction’: C. Bruzelius, ‘The Construction of Nôtre-Dame in Paris’, Art Bulletin, LXIX (1987), 540-69.

24

Ibid., I, XVIII, 107; II, III, 301. Besides referring to dignity, esteem and respect, honor also meant acquisitions in the manner of adornments, or tenure of property, all for the benefit of the cathedral: Fletcher (1977), 341. 25

Ibid., I, III, 79. Gelmírez was twice imprisoned by Urraca, in 1110: I, LILXII, 160-8, and in 1121: II, XLII, 363. 26

Ibid., III, I, 493-4: ‘that forty-six years have passed since the beginning of the new church of Santiago’. See Chapter 1, Excavations and Inscriptions. 27

Ibid., I, LXXVIII, 189.

28

Gerson (1998), 202, n. 52. See also Chapter 2, The Portals.

29

H.C. (1994), I, XX, 111.

35

Conant (1926), 32.

36

Ibid., 29.

37

Conant/Moralejo (1983), 230a: ‘Suponer allí un enlace de campañas – mediando una interrupción que justificara el descuido u olvido de ciertos ‘secretos’ del taller – me parece muy plausible’. 38

30

Ibid., III, I, 494. Gelmírez also recognised the need for administrative offices, ‘such that exist in churches north of the Pyrenees’.

López Ferreiro (1900), III, 61: ‘Los lados del crucero los brazos; el ábside la cabeza que inclinó algún tanto hacia la derecha para recordar aquel pasaje de San Juan: ‘By inclining the head, he has yielded up the spirit’, y para que así apareciese más viva la imagen de la cruz’.

31

39

Ibid., III, XXXVI, 556. The announcement was made following the consecration of the new bishop of Avila at Santiago on the feast day of St James, July 25th. 32

H.C. (1994), I, LXXVIII, 189.

40

Countless reproductions have been made of Conant’s plan with the bend gradually ‘straightened’. Many of the modern plans ‘after Conant’ appear quite symmetrical.

Conant (1926), 32.

33

41

See Chapter 1, The North Gable, and n.12 for the possibility of an early commencement for the south portal.

J. Guerra Campos, ‘Excavaciónes en la Catedral de Santiago’, La Ciencia Tomista, LXXXVII/274, (1960b), 285-7.

41

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 3.2. West tower: junction with nave south exterior

Figure 3.3. Nave north exterior: junction with west tower

42

Foreign Influences and Related Problems

There are also differences between the two towers themselves, the south tower having a thicker internal wall penetrating further into the narthex (see fig. 2.1, y). In the first bay of the south aisle there is an even more pronounced realignment when the arcade changes direction in order to join up with the west end (see fig. 2.1, x, fig. 3.4). Measurements taken in the cathedral confirm the alterations: the widths between the Pórtico piers and their outer north and south walls differ, and the actual depth and formation of the south aisle soffit is at variance with its northern counterpart (fig. 3.5). Mateo had no alternative but to fit his Pórtico de la Gloria into a pre-existing structure. If Mateo had planned the entire west end from the beginning, surely he would have made a better task of positioning the towers. The West Towers: size and spacing No explanation has been proposed for the size and spacing of the west towers at Santiago. The generally accepted opinion is that they were built by Mateo. The towers are, however, too large for the last third of the twelfth century.

Figure 3.3a. Detail of half-bay

one of the fortification towers built by Don Cresconio in 1063 (discovered during the excavations carried out by Chamoso Lamas in the 1950s). The tower took up half the north side of what now constitutes bays 2 and 3 (see fig. 4.16). Setting out new towers without a clear view to the east was not a simple matter; unfortunately Gelmírez’s masons aligned the towers with Alfonso’s basilica. Had work begun after the dismantling of Alfonso’s church in 1112, no error would have been made.

Twin towers were unusual in the north of Spain before the twelfth century. One of the most important churches, San Isidoro at León, had one massive tower at the west end in construction towards the end of the eleventh century.43 Jaca likewise possessed only a single central tower at the west end of its cathedral, which also came to be included in the main body of the building in the manner of a porch or narthex.44 Work continued at the west end of Jaca before the nave had been completed, perhaps prompting Gelmírez to start work at the west end of Santiago.45 San Martín de Frómista, under construction in 1066 and completed between 1085 and 1090, presented two towers at the west end standing proud of the aisles; however, they are cylindrical and closer in scale to turrets.46 Rectangular bell-towers flanked the west front of Ripoll (begun in 1020), but they were positioned at the end of double aisles.47

When the nave eventually reached the west end Gelmírez and his masons had to make adjustments. Instead of the usual design of a full bay adjacent to the towers, there was only room for half a bay at Santiago (see fig. 2.1, z). Where the south-west tower and nave join at roof level, the tower and nave arches are incomplete: they meet at the corner on their haunches, short of their crown (fig. 3.2). On the north exterior of the nave the configuration of arches is different. There the nave arch joins the west tower after the crown, as it begins to fall (figs 3.3, 3.3a). The fact that on one side of the nave the final arch joins its tower on a rise while on the other side it meets on a downswing exposes a miscalculation in the planned building works.

The scarcity of contemporary sources from which to draw inspiration may have prompted Gelmírez to look back to the Carolingians. A long history linked Santiago with the old Empire, the most important episode being the appearance of St James to Charlemagne in a dream urging him to make a pilgrimage to Compostela. This event is recorded in the fourth book of the Codex Calixtinus along with stories recounting the battles fought by Charlemagne and Roland, and episodes linking them to the pilgrimage.48

Michael Ward inspected the half-bay from the north side only. He noted that the towers caused considerable difficulties and that the exterior arcading ‘abuts against the tower walls on the downswing of the arch; the efficiency of the arcade as a buttress to the side wall and also to the tower is therefore greatly reduced, alerting us to the possibility that towers so tremendous in scale were not part of the plan when the side aisle bays were first constructed’.42 I suggest an alternative theory, namely that the towers were built first and problems arose when the nave eventually came to be joined to the west end. It will be shown in Chapter 5 that the towers were too large to have been designed by Mateo sixty-five years later.

43

J. Williams, ‘San Isidoro in León’, Art Bulletin, LX (1973), 179. For illustration and plan see A. Viñayo González, St Isidore’s Basilica, León (León, 1998), 6, 33. 44

plan. 45

F. Rhalves, Cathedrals and Monasteries of Spain (London, 1966), 62-3.

46

Whitehill (1961), 194-8.

47

Ibid., 38, fig. 15 for ground plan.

48

42

Conant (1966), 192; Whitehill (1961), 240, fig. 107 for ground

Overlooking the Valcarlos Pass at Ibañeta (in the western Pyrenees close to the French and Spanish border) there is a memorial to Roland where legend recalls that he blew his horn to summon help when ambushed.

M. Ward, ‘Studies in the Pórtico de la Gloria at the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1978, 63-4.

43

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

here the ‘extant towers of the tenth- to eleventh-century church were reused in the twelfth-century campaign, as were, apparently, the foundation courses of the nave walls’.52 Pedro, Bishop of Pamplona, could offer a link. He attended the dedication ceremony at Santiago and consecrated the chapel of St Faith; moreover, he had been a novice at Conques and served at St-Pons-de-Thomières before taking up his position at Pamplona.53 No doubt he discussed architectural planning with Gelmírez who was soon to embark upon his west towers. Further afield, English great churches such as Edward the Confessor’s abbey at Westminster and Durham Cathedral provided models for west towers standing clear of the aisles.54 Ste Trinité, Caen, with an early starting date of 1062, also has projecting west towers, although the west towers at Santiago protrude further to the side.55 The plan devised by Gelmírez was remarkable in that he allowed such a wide spacing between the west towers. This could have been for three reasons. First, he wanted a grander entrance than his rivals – after all he was already a bishop, he had been awarded the pallium and he was in charge of an exciting new building. Secondly, he was raising a pilgrimage church. The reason for the rebuilding was to make provision for a large number of visitors as well as a grand entrance. Gelmírez anticipated not only a gallery in the current fashion of the day, but one that circumscribed the entire cathedral providing a passageway from which to view his glorious creation.56 On his way to Rome Gelmírez had passed through Toulouse where St Sernin was in the process of construction. Santiago and St Sernin were similar in design. They shared masons who travelled back and forth across the Pyrenees and along the camino francés; their chevets matched, both surrounding the tomb of their respective saint, besides which a certain amount of rivalry no doubt existed between the two churches. St Sernin possessed four aisles similar to St Peter’s in Rome, and this could provide the third reason for the wide spacing between the towers at Santiago.

Figure 3.4. Nave: showing the ‘bend’ at the west end

The Carolingians provided a vast architectural heritage from which to draw ideas, one of them being the example of the prominent west end.49 Equally inspiring could have been the fortress-type of west end developed during the eleventh century, the cathedral at Trier (c. 1040) manifesting this style with both square and smaller round towers.50 Bayeux (104677) and St Étienne, Caen (1096-1100) were placed in the category of twin-towered façades even though their buttressed west fronts each displayed a ‘block-like mass’.51 Santiago adopted twin-towers, but it was the relation of the towers to the aisles that was unique.

If Gelmírez planned to imitate St Sernin and St Peter’s with double aisles at Santiago, his towers would then have been placed at the west ends of the outer aisles and his transepts would not have appeared so long or out of proportion. Gelmírez may have allowed for the aisles when he started erecting the towers, but for some reason – perhaps difficulties over the lie of the land which fell from north to south as well 52

133.

Few Romanesque churches displayed towers that projected beyond the aisle walls in a similar fashion to Santiago. St. Pons-de-Thomières in the Languedoc is an exception, but

53

S. Bonde, Fortress-Churches of Languedoc (Cambridge, 1994),

H.C. (1994), I, XIX, 108-9.

54

For a drawing of Westminster Abbey, see R. Gem, ‘The Origins of the Abbey’ in Westminster Abbey (London, 1986), figure 16. For a plan of Durham Cathedral see Conant (1966), figure, 78.

49

Examples of impressive west façades and towers: Corvey (87385); Reichenau-Mittelzell (end of the ninth century); St Pantaleon (984-96) and St Cyriakus, Gernrode (founded 961) dated by C. Heitz, L’architecture religieuse carolingienne (Paris, 1980).

55

For Ste Trinité see L. Musset, ‘Caen’ in Normandie Romane I (La Pierrequi-Vire, 1967), plan on page 62. 56

An apse with a gallery was not found at St Sernin or any of the other socalled pilgrimage churches. ����������������������������������������������� An exception is at Ste Foi, Conques, which probably emulated Santiago: G. Gaillard, ‘Une abbaye de Pélerinage: Saint-Foy de Conques et ses rapports avec Saint-Jacques’, Compostellanum 10/4 (1965), 342. Gaillard notices that the first chapels to the left and right of the choir are set tight against the ambulatory suggesting that the ambulatory may have been added later. See also: Conant/Moralejo (1983), 222b.

50

Others include Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire (c. 1065-80) and Jumièges (mid-eleventh century). Both had massive west ends imitating the westwork system. 51

J. P. McAleer, ‘Romanesque England and the Development of the Façade Harmonique’, Gesta XXIII/2 (1984), 91a.

44

Foreign Influences and Related Problems

Figure 3.5. West end: measurements by author, drawn by John Holland

as east to west – his aspiration never reached fruition. But the stage had been set, and this could explain the novelty of the towers being placed so far apart that they projected beyond the side of the building. In any case, it is difficult to accept the current assumption that the towers at Santiago were built at a later date (by Mateo), for by then their heavy style would have been out of fashion (see below).

first and second states (figs 3.6, 3.7, 3.8).59 The south portal, commonly known as the Platerías, is the only portal to portray its Romanesque origins (see fig. 2.3). Leaving out the towers in the following assessment of façades, Conant shows the south portal of Gelmírez divided into four parts, two doorways with windows to either side and four windows at the higher level (see fig. 3.7). The west portal has a similar format, with four windows across the façade (see fig. 3.8). They appear grander than the ones on the Platerías, in keeping with Aymery’s description of the west façade being larger and more beautiful than the others. An extra band of blind arcades fills the space between the doorways and windows, and gables are set above the outer windows (see fig. 3.6). Both of these decorative features pertain to the original design of Gelmírez.60

The West Façade Set between the two west towers, the Romanesque façade built by Gelmírez was essentially a four-part design: a double portal with windows on either side. Mateo’s commission was to redesign the west end. Had he inherited a clear site, he would no doubt have drawn inspiration from a sophisticated new style developed for Ste Trinité, Caen (1120-30), with the more glamorous title of façade harmonique.57 One of the functions of this essentially tripartite façade was to articulate aisles set behind towers, emphasising the ‘interrelation of interior to exterior’.58 Instead, Mateo was presented with two strong towers joined by a four part façade. He could not remove or change the towers, therefore he attempted to alter the four-part façade set between them into a tripartite façade harmonique. In doing so he was unable to eradicate completely the traces of the earlier façade.

Vega y Verdugo’s drawing shows Mateo’s wide single span arch, with two narrower arches to either side articulating the aisles, balanced by a giant rose window above (see fig. 3.6). Despite this alteration, Mateo is unable to carry his tripartite theme throughout the whole façade. This is exposed by Vega y Verdugo who depicts pilasters rising either side of the portal, with a shortened one in the centre. Conant noticed this central feature, remarking that ‘the pilaster strip between fits so awkwardly with a three-part design and so logically with a 59

López Ferreiro made a conjectural drawing of the south façade, the Platerías, but it is at variance with Conant’s. López Ferreiro shows the heavy buttressing but he makes the towers square, and the spacing of the gable arches and window is too wide. For illustration see López Ferreiro (1900), III, 99.

The easiest way of appreciating the façades is to compare Vega y Verdugo’s c. 1660 drawing of the western aspect of the cathedral with Conant’s south and west elevations in their

60 57

J. P. McAleer, (1984), 87b, quotes Charles Seymour for the term.

58

Ibid., 88a.

Conant (1926), 31, suggests the gables may be original, Mateo’s rose window displacing a third gable. He finds a resemblance between the façade at Santiago and the west front of Le Puy-en-Velay. Blind arcades were a distinctive motif of the Lombard style, possibly noted by Gelmírez on his way to Rome.

45

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 3.6. West façade (after Vega y Verdugo c. 1660)

Figure 3.7. South elevation: first state of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), detail

Figure 3.8. West elevation: second state of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), detail

46

Foreign Influences and Related Problems

four-part design, that it is hard not to believe that it harks back to the latter’.61

palace, robbed and destroyed much of the contents.67 This implies that an entrance to the palace existed from a ‘higher part’. This could have been through an extant doorway in the north transept, or from the north tower at the west end.68 Next the insurgents went back to the church, ‘going up the tower of the palace and prepared to attack the bell tower’.69 The Bishop and the Queen with their attendants defended well, but finally ‘the citizens ... sheltering their heads beneath their shields, united amongst themselves, managed to introduce fire through a window situated in the lower part of the tower’.70 Eventually the Queen and Bishop were forced to emerge. The Queen was attacked, thrown to the ground and her clothes torn, but somehow she managed to escape, meeting the Bishop in Santa María de la Corticela.71 She thought it safer to seek shelter in the church of San Martín and then made her way back to her army. The Bishop, disguised in a cloak and after an hairraising flight over the roof-tops of neighbouring houses, joined her. They returned to the town with the army, re-established the Bishop’s authority and exacted an indemnity.

Mateo may have envisaged his design as rivalling the great Gothic façades. Had he been able to build from an uncluttered area the whole format of the west end would have been totally changed. Instead, Mateo was forced to embrace the existing heavy, square towers inspired from an earlier era, and was unable to disguise all traces of Gelmírez’s work. The Uprising of 1117 There are two further ways of checking which towers existed at Santiago prior to Mateo: Aymery Picaud’s Guide and the Historia Compostelana. Aymery devotes a section to the towers of Santiago saying that nine were planned. A skyline of towers was certainly intended to honour the saint for, as the Historia Compostelana frequently reminds the reader, Gelmírez ‘works to exalt and increase the church for the glory of St. James’.62 Even though information on the actual building is limited, the progress of construction can be gleaned from certain passages in the Historia Compostelana. One of the most pertinent occurs in the dramatic account of the uprising of 1117, when the west towers form an important part of the narrative.63

The whereabouts of the bell tower has been the subject of considerable debate. Conant, hunting for a solution to the problem, presupposed that ‘one of Don Cresconio’s towers still remained standing ... or perhaps the upper stage of one of the western towers was a shell containing a bell-cage in 1117’.72 The discovery of Cresconio’s tower during the excavations made by Chamoso Lamas in the 1950s was a revelation: this was now hailed as the tower in which Gelmírez, Urraca and all their retinue took shelter.

The citizens of Compostela had been rebelling against the authority of Gelmírez causing discontent for over a year. When Queen Urraca arrived with her army and encamped before the city walls, they mistook this meeting with Gelmírez as a show of force.64 Anticipating their overthrow, the citizens took refuge in the cathedral. A rumour spread through the city that the Bishop and the Queen’s troops had attacked them. A riot ensued and the cathedral was set on fire, the flames spreading to the unvaulted sections of the roof which had been covered for protection with planks and tamarisk.65 The Historia Compostelana records extensive damage to the building, although there may have been some exaggeration to attract sympathy for Gelmírez: many exclamation marks accompany this section.

If there were no west towers in 1117, then Cresconio’s tower may have been the place of refuge for Gelmírez and Urraca. On the other hand, if the cathedral had reached the west end 67

Ibid., 273: ‘Los compostelanos suben a lo alto de la iglesia del Apóstol y pasando al palacio del Obispo corren, roban, tiran’. 68

Conant (1926), 29, n.3, mentions a doorway in the north transept in his numbering of the windows. A door exists today which leads into the palace (see Chapter 2, The Towers of the Basilica). It is acknowledged that the old palace, first recorded in 912, lay within the locus sanctus to the south of the cathedral: López Alsina (1988), 143, 246-7. On becoming a bishop in 1100, Gelmírez announces that he would like to build a new palace: H.C. (1994), I, XX, 110. After the riots of 1117 he states that he would like to rebuild his palace in a grander style: Ibid., II, XXV, 345. This implies that the palace, damaged during the riots, already existed to the north of the cathedral.

The Historia Compostelana specifically mentions towers in its commentary, and implies that the gallery and roof were accessible. We are told that the Bishop and the Queen – who were by now in the palace – finding nowhere to hide, took refuge in the bell tower with all their retinue.66 The citizens went to the ‘higher part of the church’ and, passing into the

69

H.C. (1994), I, CXIV, 273: ‘… suben los compostelanos a la iglesia de Santiago, suben a la torre del palacio del obispo y se preparan a asaltar la torre de las campanas’. 70

Ibid., 274: ‘… uniendo los escudos sobre sus cabezas meten fuego por una ventana que había en la parte inferior de la torre’. 61

71

Ibid., 275, tells an horrific story of the attack on the Queen: ‘Cuando la turba la vio salir, se abalanzaron sobre ella, la cogieron y la echaron en tierra en un lodazal, la raptaron como lobos y desgarraron sus vestidos; con el cuerpo desnudo desde el pecho hasta abajo y delante de todos quedó en tierra durante mucho tiempo vergonzosamente’. Giraldo, who wrote this section, obviously had no sympathy for the Queen.

Ibid., 31.

62

H.C. (1994), II, XXII, 341: ‘… que deseaba vivamente elevar y aumentar la iglesia de Santiago’. 63

Ibid., I, CXIV, 271-82.

64

For a comprehensive evaluation of the troubles between the citizens and Gelmírez, see Fletcher (1984), 181-191.

72

Conant (1926), 25, n.3. Later, Conant produced another theory as to the place of refuge for the Bishop and the Queen: the crossing tower. In a drawing he shows the roof of the cathedral on fire, and proposed that Gelmírez and Urraca made their way to the crossing tower: K. J. Conant, ‘Municipal Politics in 1117: an explanatory note’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, XV/1 (1956), 3.

65

H.C. (1994), I, CXIV, 273: ‘pues no poca parte de la iglesia estaba cubierta con tablas y paja’. Tamarisk was often used instead of straw. 66

Ibid., 273: ‘no atreviéndose a confiar en los palacios del Obispo, se refugiaron in la torre de las campanas junto con su séquito’.

47

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

as implied in the Historia Compostelana, then Cresconio’s tower would long have been demolished. More likely, the bell tower in which Gelmírez and Urraca took shelter and which is referred to in the Historia Compostelana, was the west end’s south tower: the Campanas (turrim Signorum). Bells serve an important function in the Christian liturgy and the Historia Compostelana tells us that Gelmírez ‘ordered the restoration of the church of Santiago, and the renovation of the broken bells’.73 The text adds that ‘an artist from over the mountains skilled in the art of bell casting made two large and two small ones for the honour and benefit of his [the archbishop’s] church’.74 The Historia Compostelana’s reference to the tower of the palace could only have been the north tower, the Carraca. The citizens, already having climbed to the church, were passing back and forth between the church and the palace (the stairway in the tower allows access to the nave and the west gallery, and also to the palace).

revolts within the kingdom far worse than the sporadic civil war that continued in Galicia after 1130. Until her death in 1126 Gelmírez suffered traumatic events instigated by the ‘second Jezebel’.79 Urraca tried to overthrow Gelmírez on numerous occasions, even threatening to attack Compostela in 1115.80 In 1121, at Queen Urraca’s request, Gelmírez accompanied her on a campaign against Portugal. On the way back she arrested and imprisoned him and returned to Compostela alone, arriving on the vigil of the feast of St. James. The townspeople expressed their fury at this outrage. The canons dressed in mourning and cancelled the celebrations for the following day, July 25th the feast day of St James, displaying total allegiance to the archbishop. Their loyalty secured his release.81 Gelmírez endured a period of high tension during the revolts of 1117; in 1136 a second uprising took place.82 The palace was again assaulted and Gelmírez was forced to take refuge in the cathedral, this time sheltering in the choir. Missiles were hurled from the galleries and he was wounded in the shoulder; fortunately iron gates protected him from the mob. The riot was halted by the tears and prayers of women appalled by the spectacle, the citizens who rushed to the cathedral to help Gelmírez, and the assistance of the canons of the church. The outrage of 1136 does not seem to have lessened the authority of Gelmírez. The country people always supported him – after all he was a native of Galicia. Alfonso demonstrated his loyalty to Gelmírez by refusing a substantial bribe of 3000 silver marks from the conspirators who wanted the archbishop deposed and exiled.83

Restoration would have been carried out promptly, given the fervour and application of Gelmírez, especially since funds for the construction programme relied to a large extent upon the donations from pilgrims and hence the necessity of encouraging their visits to the tomb. The Historia Compostelana reveals the distress of the pilgrims and how they were reduced to tears at the dreadful spectacle of the cathedral being set alight. ‘Oh! How great were the tears of the pilgrims who had arrived from different regions to worship the body of the Apostle!’75 The later years of Diego Gelmírez, Archbishop of Compostela

Gelmírez was ill at the end of the 1120s, but he recovered sufficiently to attend an ecclesiastical council at the Cluniac priory of San Zoilo in Carrión de los Condes in 1130, where he defended Alfonso in his marriage to Berengaria of Barcelona.84 The marriage survived and Gelmírez was duly rewarded by a grateful Alfonso. Gelmírez visited the royal court at Carrión in 1133 and 1138, and attended another council at Burgos in 1136.85 It was no mean feat to cross the mountains surrounding Galicia and travel over the wild meseta to Burgos. If Gelmírez was able to make these arduous journeys, surely he was sufficiently motivated to carry on with his lifelong ambition, the completion of the cathedral of Santiago.

It has been suggested that no building took place at Santiago after the mid-1120s, Gelmírez becoming too old and ill to cope with a construction programme; and that internal strife and money demanded by Alfonso VII drained the reserves of Santiago curtailing any further progress.76 In addition, development was further hindered by frequent skirmishes over border disputes with Portugal and campaigns against the Moors for the reconquista.77 Earlier, Peláez had suffered the cessation of dues from the taifa kingdoms but this had not deterred his plans for a new cathedral;78 nor was the building progress of Gelmírez hampered by political frustrations. Gelmírez dealt with greater contentions in the first half of his term of office than in the second.

While it is true that Alfonso VII proved obstructive at times, demanding large sums of money in 1127 and 1129 for his campaigns against the Almoravids and disputes with Portugal, it is also true that Alfonso was courteous towards Gelmírez

During the first quarter of the century Queen Urraca incited 73

H.C. (1994), I, CXVI, 289: ‘Mandó reconstruir la iglesia de Santiago que había sido incendiada, hacer las campanas que se habían derretido, y reconstruir sus palacios’.

79

Fletcher (1984), Chapter VI is entitled A second Jezebel: Diego and queen Urraca. The H.C. calls Urraca ‘Jezebel’ four times in the Chapter describing the abduction of Gelmírez: (1994), II, XLII, 363-70.

74

Ibid., II, LXXVII, 452. By now Gelmírez had been made an archbishop (1120). It is revealing to note that the author of the Historia Compostelana alludes to Santiago as his, meaning the archbishop’s church: ‘… para honra y provecho de su iglesia’. 75

Ibid., I, CIX, 273. ‘¡Oh! ¡Cuánto era el llanto de los peregrinos que desde diversas regiones habían venido a venerar el cuerpo del Apóstol’. 76

For example see D’Emilio (1992), 185 and 194-5.

77

Fletcher (1984), 275, 298.

80

H.C. (1994), I, CIX, 257-60.

81

Ibid., II, XLII, 363-70.

82

Ibid., III, XLVII-XLIX, 578-86.

83

Fletcher (1984), 189-90.

84

Ibid., 266-7. Alfonso and Berengaria’s great-great-grandmothers had been sisters and there was a danger of their nuptial contract being annulled by a visiting papal legate.

78

This occurred chiefly after the retaking of Toledo in 1085 and the arrival of the Almoravids to help regain lost Muslim territory: Carr (2000), 77-8.

85

48

Ibid., 291.

Foreign Influences and Related Problems

who had supported him throughout the troubled years of his mother’s reign.86 When both Alfonso and Gelmírez attended councils at, for instance, León, Carrión, and Burgos, Alfonso always called on Gelmírez rather than summoning him to his own apartments.87 After all, Gelmírez had been Alfonso’s guardian and crowned him king of Galicia in the cathedral in 1111.88

t​he upbringing of Alfonso VII, left so many deathbed grants to Santiago in 1128 that Giraldo said that he could not list them all, since the book he was writing would have required an extension.93 Compostela had the advantage of owning its own mint from the end of the eleventh century. Gelmírez had managed to wrest control of it from Alfonso VI in 1107, and in 1129 confirmed with Alfonso VII that all the money coined in Compostela would go to the building of the cathedral.94 This was naturally a great bonus and a diplomatic triumph for Gelmírez.

Much has been made of the friction between Alfonso VII and Gelmírez to prove that Gelmírez had neither the time nor the funds to continue building the cathedral, however, Gelmírez was well able to cope with contentious situations. He skilfully wrested certain important concessions from the king. In 1127 Alfonso promised to be buried in Santiago, thereby enhancing the status of the cathedral; as a reciprocal gesture, Alfonso was made a canon of the cathedral.89 In 1128 Gelmírez persuaded Alfonso to sign an undertaking ‘that the see of Compostela should be exempt from the exercise of regalian right’, thus allowing freedom of election to the chapter when the see fell vacant. Urraca had promised this vital concession, but she died before signing the charter. The charter meant that from now on the church revenues were protected from lay administrators appointed by the king; it received papal confirmation two years later.90

The Historia Compostelana lists many objects of gold and silver that were bought, acquired, or received by Gelmírez for the service and decoration of the cathedral. Vestments are described as well as additions to Gelmírez’s growing library.95 There appeared to be no lack of money in Compostela.96 The city was an important trading centre where goods were of excellent quality and prices high. Around 1129 Alfonso VII sent a gold chalice to be sold in Compostela knowing that there he would achieve the best price.97 Pilgrims played the most important part in the creation of Santiago. Funds for the building came from their donations deposited in a chest placed next to the altar of St James. If it were not for these visitors there would be no city of Compostela, no wealth, no building. Through all adversity the prime concern of Gelmírez was to ensure an increasing number of pilgrims, and this would not have been possible without a cathedral of the splendour described by Aymery Picaud. It was entirely due to the energy, dedication, and diplomacy of Gelmírez that he succeeded in his ambition: the elevation of his see to metropolitan status and the raising of his great monument.98

Gelmírez may have had to fund Alfonso VII, but the coffers of Santiago were kept full with revenues from its estates, some located as far away as Huesca, Auch and Toulouse.91 Donations to Santiago de Compostela were numerous. Queen Urraca frequently made over lands, churches or monasteries, and Alfonso’s sister, Sancha, was also a substantial donor.92 Pedro Froílaz, Count of Traba, who had been entrusted with

86

Biggs (1949), 194.

87

Ibid., 304-5.

88

H.C. I, LXVI, 174, mentions the coronation of Alfonso VII.

89

Ibid., III, LXXXVII, 477-8.

93

H.C. (1994), III, III, 496-8: ‘Pues no hemos querido anotar sus donaciones en este libro para evitar una desmedida extensión’. Giraldo was the author of this section.

90

R. A. Fletcher, ‘Regalian Rights in Twelfth-Century Spain: the Case of Archbishop Martín of Santiago de Compostela’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 28/4 (1977), 337-60, esp. 344; see also Biggs (1949), 206. Church revenues had been squandered in the previous century by lay administrators appointed by Alfonso VI and Raymond of Burgundy following the deposition of Peláez. 91

94

Ibid., III, XIII, 512-3.

95

Ibid., II, LVII, 408-9.

96

Fletcher (1977), 342, 256.

97

H.C. (1994), III, VIII, 506, ‘el rey don Alfonso envió a Compostela … para ser vendido un cáliz de oro digno y precioso … porque sabía que no había lugar alguno en España donde pudiese venderse mejor’. 98

R. A. Fletcher, The Episcopate in the Kingdom of León in the Twelfth Century (1978, Oxford), 52-55. Besides Gelmírez’s appointment as archbishop, Fletcher puts his interventions in the confused politics of Urraca and his control of the royal chancery conceded to him by Alfonso VII in 1127 as his greatest achievements.

Fletcher (1984), 179-80.

92

Biggs (1949), 124: Urraca also donated the skull of St James the Less (Alpheus) to Gelmírez. López Ferriero (1903), VI, 69: The skull was placed in a reliquary bust in the fourteenth century.

49

50

Chapter 4 The West Crypt When Gelmírez, at the beginning of the twelfth century, started constructing the western towers, he and his master mason would have been aware of the various problems, one being that the land sloped to the west. The obvious solution was to create a covered area or crypt that would act as a support for the cathedral above. A small eastern chapel was included in the scheme. The west crypt, built by Gelmírez, ended at the west wall of the crypt transepts. Mateo designed the nave with the terrace above and a stairway, and he made extensive alterations. Maximilian of Austria extended the west crypt at the beginning of the seventeenth century with a narthex and passageway – necessary due to his addition of the double stairway. In the eighteenth century Casas y Nóvoa completed the alterations by reinforcing the two outer piers between the nave and transept for exactly the same reason that Mateo thickened the central pier: in order to support his additional construction above.

Andrade; while Caamaño Martinez, Otero Túñez and Azcárate Ristori are of the opinion that the whole of the west end, and hence the west crypt, was Mateo’s work.3 This assumption was developed by Ward, Moralejo, D’Emilio and Stratford who are firm supporters of the Matean school. Street, in 1865, was one of the first to comment on the west crypt, not doubting that it was the work of Mateo.4 A year later Villa-Amil y Castro also declared that Mateo was the creator of the underground chapel, but in 1909 he modified his earlier statement recognising that the fabric was of the eleventh century, a change no doubt inspired by the opinion of López Ferreiro.5 López Ferreiro voiced his theory saying that the large crypt ‘supported the grand west portal raised at the end of the eleventh century’.6 King compared Santiago with the cathedral at Le Puy, emphasising their common features: each stood on a hill with a flight of steps leading to a porch, and both had structures below supporting their west ends. King appreciated that at Santiago there was already some form of crypt in position before Mateo decided to rebuild.7

Conant, commenting on the west crypt, observed that, ‘Archaeologists would speak better of it if it were less a riddle’.1 By comparing the contrasting accounts of scholars, looking carefully at the masonry and with the help of twentiethcentury excavations, I hope to resolve some of the ‘riddles’.

Gaillard recognised that ‘the falling of the land necessitated the existence of a lower chapel, which had to be reconstructed and enlarged by Mateo’.8 Chamoso Lamas was more forthright when describing the origin of the west crypt, connecting it with the eleventh century, hence its title la cathédrale

Rival Contentions The west crypt captivates visitors with its delightful architecture and sculpture, but it has also proved enigmatic and provoked intense controversy. From the east end of the cathedral the land slopes to the west at an incline of 12%, necessitating a structure at the west end in order to fill the void and support the building above (see fig. 1.12). The space is occupied by a crypt, and debate focuses on whether Gelmírez or Mateo was responsible for its foundation.

3

Full references for these authors will be given when they are quoted individually. 4

G. E. Street, Some Account of Gothic Architecture in Spain, 2 vols (London, 1865); repr. ed. G.G. King (New York, 1914); Ibid., (repr.1969), I, 195: ‘The arrangement of its plan is very peculiar. ... There can be no doubt whatever, I think, that this is the work on which Master Matthew was first employed … we may safely put down this chapel as having been begun and finished circa A.D. 1168-75’.

For the discussion it is easier to separate the proponents taking part into two factions: the orthodox school and the Matean school.2 The orthodox school agree that the west crypt was built by Gelmírez and altered by Mateo. They include López Ferreiro, King, Conant, Gaillard, Chamoso Lamas and Pita 1

5

J. Villa-Amil y Castro, Descripción histórico – artística – arqueológica de la Catedral de Santiago de Compostela (Lugo, 1866), 91-2, 175-7; Ibid., La Catedral de Santiago: Breve descripción histórica (Madrid, 1909), 153-5. 6

López Ferreiro (1902), V, 12: ‘Este gran basamento, hueco y abovedado, en realidad ya existía, pues era el que sustentaba la gran portada occidental elevada á fines del siglo XI’. 7

G. G. King, The Way of St. James, 3 vols (New York, 1920), III, 535. She supposes that Mateo: ‘rebuilt the whole [the west crypt] more or less; it is safe to put the stress upon the more, remembering that Master Matthew with his Pórtico was more than doubling the weight those three central piers sustained’.

Conant (1926), 30.

2

Ward (1978), 28-9. Ward coined the word ‘orthodox’: ‘My purpose in this Chapter is to show that the orthodox position must be seriously modified. It is founded solely on an interpretation of the literary sources mentioned above [the Historia Compostelana and the Liber Sancti Jacobi otherwise known as the Codex Calixtinus or the Guide], rather than of the physical evidence of the building. If one examines the very fabric of the basilica, it is evident that the entire west end – crypt, towers, porch, tribune and façade – was not a random accumulation of architectural parts, but a well-planned and concentrated effort, the result of a unified campaign with a single purpose; to complete the earlier portion of the basilica and to provide it with a twin-tower narthex’.

8

G. Gaillard, ‘Le Porche de la Gloire à Saint-Jacques de Compostelle et ses origines espagnoles’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiéval, I/4 (1958), 466: ‘en effet, la déclivité du terrain avait obligé déjà à construire sous la façade romane une chapelle basse qui a dû être reprise et agrandie par Mathieu’. Gaillard continues, ‘Il a eu d’abord á reconstruire, en l’agrandissant, la crypte qui existait déjà sous le portail roman’.

51

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

vieille.9 In 1955 Pita Andrade recognised that Mateo ‘did not build the cathedral vieja but was faced with the task of restoring and consolidating this lower part with the principal objective of creating a solid seat for the Pórtico’.10 By the time of Pita Andrade’s 1977 article, his friends, ‘mis compañeros Caamaño, Azcárate y Otero Túñez’, had become supporters of the Matean school.11 Pita Andrade admitted many discussions took place ‘fortunately with good grace’, but he was not persuaded to change his mind.12

Santiago as stipulated by López Ferreiro and others, because they had based their findings ‘on an interpretation of literary sources [the Historia Compostelana and the Guide] rather than on the physical evidence of the building’.18 Ward proposed to examine the very fabric of the basilica, showing that the entire west end – crypt, towers, porch, tribune and façade – was the result of a unified campaign to complete the building, not a random accumulation of architectural parts. I too have made a careful examination of the fabric of the building, and it has enabled me to reach the opposite conclusion and support the orthodox school: the west end was far from a well-planned and unified campaign, rather it is a hotch potch of styles built originally by Gelmírez and extended by Mateo.

Caamaño, at the end of his long description of the west crypt, concluded that the crypt was conceived by one person only, that it was the sole creation of Mateo.13 Azcárate agreed with Caamaño’s analysis writing decisively that ‘Mateo built the crypt totally and enlarged the church from its base’.14 Yet in the preceding paragraph he had admitted that the ‘unfinished church was perhaps finished in its lateral walls and in the gable end’, while being uncertain as to the state of the roofing and realising that the unevenness of the land had caused problems.15 By 1977 he is denying any existence of a west end before Mateo.16 Otero Túñez slips into his text, ‘the principal façade, planned by himself [Mateo] between the square towers of Gelmírez’.17 Having supported the Matean school, he appears to retract by mentioning the existence of earlier towers.

Ward appears to have drawn on some of the early writers to back up his theories. For the late beginning of the crypt he names Street, Lampérez and Lambert who date it to c. 1170.19 Lampérez wrote in 1930 acknowledging the west crypt’s Romanesque qualities, but recognising exclusively the hand of Mateo.20 Street and Lambert turn out to be rather unreliable ‘witnesses’. The contract for the cathedral of Lugo is dated 1129, and Street announced that Santiago had been finished ‘so far as the fabric was concerned the previous year’.21 This contradicts his original dating of 1168-74 for the west crypt.22 Ward’s citation of Lambert to plead his cause is even more perplexing. Lambert recognised the necessity for a west crypt due to the unevenness of the land, and remarked that the lower church was an ‘original construction where Burgundian inspiration is not doubted’.23 This statement is perfectly correct with regards to Mateo’s work, however, at the beginning of the chapter he appears to offer a contrary observation. He commented that the Pórtico de la Gloria, ‘added to the Romanesque church of Compostela, replaced the old main façade described in the Guide’.24

The objections of Caamaño, Azcárate and Otero Túñez, having been printed in 1962, 1963 and 1965 respectively, provided a basis for Ward’s theory in 1978. In his thesis Ward stated that his purpose was to challenge the building sequence of 9

M. Chamoso Lamas (1973), 195: ‘Le nom de ‘cathédrale vieille’, expression qui n’est pas entièrement inexacte puisqu’elle dut naturellement être construite avant la basilique. Elle se rattache donc par son origine au XIe siècle, comme la cathédrale elle-même à qui elle sert partiellement de fondement’.

Moralejo accepted the ideas of Ward and his contemporaries in the Notas he added to a reprint of Conant’s monograph on Santiago de Compostela.25 Moralejo commented on each stage of the building work, updating information following

10

J. M. Pita Andrade, ‘Varias notas para la filiación artística de Maestre Mateo’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, X/XXX (1955), 381: ‘Nuestro maestro no construyó la “Catedral vieja”; hubo de afrontar la tarea de restaurar y consolidar esta parte baja con el objetivo principal de crear un sólido asiento al Pórtico. Para ello no desaprovecharía elementos de la obra llevada a cabo cuando se levantó la fachada occidental descrita en el Calixtino. El desnivel existente hacia los pies de la basílica exigió desde el primer momento esta construcción semi-subterránea’. 11

Pita Andrade (1977), 92b.

Ward (1978), 28-9, see note 2.

19

Ibid., 31-2.

20

12

V. Lampérez, Historia de la arquitectura Cristiana Español, 3 vols (Madrid, 1930), I, 434-7.

Ibid., 93a: ‘En la polémica nos hemos enredado, por fortuna con mucha deportividad, excelentes amigos y ha de considerarse un buen camino en la búsqueda de la verded’.

21

Street (1864, repr. 1969), 171-2. Lugo was begun early in the twelfth century under the direction of a certain Maestro Raymundo of Monforte de Lemos. His contract with the bishops and canons was dated 1129.

13

J. M. Caamaño Martínez, Contributión al estudio del gótico in Galicia (Valladolid, 1962), 61: ‘La unidad de concepción que revela tan sabia traza hace pensar que pertenece por completo a una sola persona. ... Cripta, pues, y planta noble del Pórtico creemos se deben íntegramente a Mateo’.

22

See note 4.

23

E. Lambert, L’Art gothique in Espagne aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1931; repr. New York, 1971), 48 : ‘L’église basse est déjà une construction fort originale où l’inspiration bourguignonne n’est pas douteuse’. Here ‘original’ could equally mean ‘creative’ or ‘inventive’, as opposed to ‘existing from the first, earliest’.

14

Azcárate (1963), 19: ‘En este caso, como deduce Caamaño habría que admitir que el maestro Mateo construye totalmente la cripta y alarga la iglesia hacia los pies’. 15

Ibid., 19: ‘Todo lo cual, aparte de otras cuestiones, inducen a pensar en una iglesia inacabada, quizá terminada en sus muros laterales y en el hastial, pero pendiente de resolución del problema de la cubierta, en relación con fuerte desnivel del terreno’. The ‘other questions’ which Azcárate discussed were the measurements mentioned briefly in Chapter 2, and more fully in appendix A. 16

18

24

Ibid., 46: ‘La partie ainsi ajoutée à l’église romane de Compostelle a remplacé l’ancienne façade principale que décrivait encore, vers le milieu du XIIe siècle, le Guide du Pèlerin de Saint-Jacques. C’est le célèbre “Porche de la Gloire” ’. (Emphasis by the author.)

Azcárate Ristori (1977), 213-5.

25

Conant/Moralejo (1983), 230a. Moralejo reiterated his comments in ‘Le Lieu Saint: Le Tombeau et les Basiliques Medievales’, in Santiago de Compostela. 1000 ans de Pèlerinage Européen (Gand, 1985), 52.

17

Otero Túñez (1965), 623: ‘La fachada principal, planeada por el mismo entre las torres cuadrangulares de tiempos de Gelmírez’.

52

The West Crypt

discoveries or excavations. He showed that certain speculations made by Conant turned out to be correct.26 Moralejo’s main objection to Conant’s thesis was in his consideration of the west crypt, and he quoted the same authors as Ward to make his observation: Street, Lampérez and Lambert. 27 Moralejo admitted that there were certain incongruities in the crypt, ‘the majority easily explicable’; he noted changes in mouldings and decoration but added that this did not in any way justify a campaign before 1168.28 D’Emilio used the style of capitals as a ground for pushing the break in building works further back down the nave to the east, and Stratford linked the sculpture of the west crypt to that of twelfth-century Burgundy thereby justifying the later dating of the west crypt.29 Both these authors’ theories will be discussed in Chapter 6. Although it may be unfair to compartmentalise the two sides into an old school and a modern school, the pattern does appear to have taken that course. Certainly Ward, Moralejo and D’Emilio, in 1978, 1983 and 1992, stated their views resolutely and have swayed many to their way of thinking. Writers of the old school have stood by their traditional beliefs, especially Chamoso Lamas in his numerous publications. His views should command authority: his knowledge of the cathedral was extensive having been in charge of excavations from the 1940s. Pita Andrade, despite good humoured arguments with his friends, believes in the existence of the west crypt before Mateo.

Figure 4.1. West crypt: pier M facing west

The Nave and Transepts of the Catedral Vieja

Controversy, however, is nothing new; discussions over dates were already taking place at the beginning of the twentieth century. In a small book by C. Gasquoine Hartley, published in 1912 with line illustrations, the author takes Street to task:

The west crypt is dominated by the central pier which is covered with a myriad colonettes (fig. 4.1). There are seven, the two outer ones spiral in form and the central enhanced by the addition of smaller colonettes to either side. All the colonettes carry distinctive capitals and deep abaci, and stand on high bases. They illustrate to perfection the style of Mateo, which is characterised chiefly in his capitals by loose cabbage-type leaves and fantastical figures. Decorated archways lead from the nave to the eastern parts of the catedral vieja tempting many to assume that the whole of the west crypt was the invention of Mateo. On the east facing side of the same central pier the ornamentation is totally different: the attached shaft is supported by only two colonettes (fig. 4.2). By using plans and examining the stone coursing it is possible to demonstrate a division between the eastern and western parts of the crypt, and to show that the eastern half existed before Mateo’s intervention. A greater understanding of Mateo’s participation in the west crypt has been possible since a restoration project was initiated in the late 1970s.

‘This masterpiece of Romanesque [the west crypt] is considered by Street – who appears to take it for granted that we owe the whole of the work to the hand of Mateo – to date from the years just after the middle of the twelfth century. We are inclined to think that it is considerably earlier’.30 She places the chapel in the eleventh century. 26

Three examples are: 1) Conant suspected the commencement of works to be earlier than 1078, the date marked on the west jamb of the right Platerías portal – subsequently the date 1075 was found on an inscription in the chapel of San Salvador; 2) Cresconio’s tower anticipated by Conant was discovered by Chamoso Lamas during his excavations in the 1950s; 3) the Portal of the via Sacra was revealed in 1933 when dismantling the sacristy. 27

Conant/Moralejo (1983), 230b: ‘En cualquier caso, las mayores objeciones a las tesis de Conant resultan de la consideración de la cripta o ‘Catedral Vieja’, que hay que reconocer, según hicieron ya E. G. Street, V. Lampérez y E. Lambert, como una estructura organizada en función exclusiva del Pórtico que sustenta, construída conjuntamente con él, tal como indica el propio epígrafe del nártex superior al atribuir la obra a Mateo a fundamentis’. For a fundamentis see Chapter 5, The Narthex. 28

In 1978 work was undertaken to repair the terrace where rainwater had been seeping into the west crypt below. The paving was stripped, the rubble cleared and the vault covering the west crypt nave was revealed. Unfortunately no further excavations were allowed much to Moralejo’s ‘bewailing at such a lost opportunity’.31 Apparently only he and Puente Míguez had the chance to examine the uncovered sections and to take photographs in difficult circumstances; nevertheless,

Ibid., 231a.

29

D’Emilio (1992a), 185; N. Stratford, ‘“Compostela and Burgundy?” Thoughts on the Western Crypt of the Cathedral of Santiago’, in Actas Simposio Internacional sobre, ‘O Pórtico da Gloria e a Arte do sue Tempo’, Santiago de Compostela, 3-8 de Outubro de 1988 (La Coruña, 1992), 55, from now on referred to as Actas (1992). 30

C. G. Hartley (Mrs. Walter M. Gallichan), The Story of Santiago de Compostela (London, 1912), 185; her description of the west crypt runs from pages 184-91.

31

Conant/Moralejo (1983), 232b: ‘A la lamentacíon, ya inútil, por una ocasión más perdida’.

53

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 4.3. Hypothetical reconstruction of the west façade (after Puente Míguez, 1992)

the east semi-groined (fig. 4.5). The aisles were originally separated from the crypt nave by arcades, but were made into rooms when the two outer arch piers were strengthened in order to support Casas y Nóvoa’s Baroque façade (fig. 4.6, piers 2 and 4). In the 1860s, when Street found his way into the crypt, the entrances to the rooms were closed and the walls so heavily whitewashed that he never realised the aisles existed, as demonstrated in his plan of the catedral vieja.35 Mateo had designed double aisles and side entrances which Puente Míguez includes in his reconstructed plan of the west crypt (fig. 4.7, A).36 Another of Puente Míguez’s plans omits these outer aisles but includes a small room leading from each of the inner aisles to the west; they have quadrant vaulting and were set beneath the short flights of stairways leading to the terrace (figs 4.3, x; 4.6, x; 4.7, x).

Figure 4.2. West crypt: pier M facing east

discoveries were made.32 The recovery of pieces of Mateo’s stone choir from under the paving generated a great deal of excitement – the choir had been dismantled shortly before the creation of a new stairway in 1606 and the pieces used as infill.33 Significantly, Mateo’s two top flights of stairs were found to be resting on the backs of the vaults of the crypt’s north and south aisles. Puente Míguez’s hypothetical reconstruction of the west façade displays this correct articulation. Conant, without the knowledge of these findings, drew his two flights of stairs turning 180 º to meet each other in the centre of the terrace (figs 4.3, 4.4).34

In the seventeenth century the south tower showed signs of weakness. The architect in charge, Ginés Martínez, was forced to build an abutting tower in the south-west corner, necessitating the closure of the south side entrance.37 The north entrance was closed when Casas y Nóvoa completed his façade, duplicating the south additions on the north side for aesthetic purposes.38 In order to allow for more light in the west crypt transept, slits were cut at the top of the west transept wall, opening beneath the tread of the steps entering

The west half of these west crypt aisles are barrel vaulted and

35

32

J. A. Puente Míguez, ‘La fachada exterior del Pórtico de la Gloria y el problema de sus accesos’, see Actas (1992).

The outer aisles and side entrances are now hidden from view, but in 1993 the blocked north entrance could be spied through an opening in the north side-room.

33

For the stairway of 1606 see the following Chapter on the west end. The Matean pieces of sculpture have been reassembled under the direction of Ramón Otero Túñez and Ramón Yzquierdo Perrín in the cathedral museum. 34

For plan, see Street (1969), plate IX, 200.

36

Conant (1966), Restoration Studies, IVa.

54

37

Míguez (1992), 118.

38

Ibid., 129, n.7.

The West Crypt

Figure 4.4. Hypothetical reconstruction of the west façade (after Conant, 1966)

the church above (fig. 4.8, y).39 During Gelmírez’s time there had been no natural lighting.40 Aymery Picaud does not mention the west crypt, and Conant believes ‘that the west façade was en obra when the description [in the Guide] was written, and that the portal was incomplete or covered with scaffolding on account of works going on above’.41 On the other hand, the west crypt may have been a chapel for the private use of Gelmírez with entry denied to the public.42 Access was only possible from the two internal stairways which led from bay II in the church above to the east sides of the crypt transepts. The south stairway is now blocked, but the north is used by the cathedral staff (see fig. 4.7, c, d).43 I suggest that the original chapel ended at the west side of the transepts; the length of the transepts was defined by the tower walls.

Figure 4.5. West crypt: north aisle

If, as I suggested above, the building activities of Gelmírez ended at the west side of the transept with a solid wall, then the nave and aisles must be allotted to Mateo. The north and south aisles have pointed arches at their east ends; the only other pointed arches in the cathedral are in the west gallery, where they continue the line of the north and south aisles (see figs 4.5, 5.26). The west gallery was altered by Mateo (see below) therefore it seems logical that these crypt aisles were similarly the work of Mateo. The pointed arches are placed in front of blank walls. Generally, aisles lead into transepts, but here the arches at the end of the aisles support the beginnings of vaults forming Mateo’s addition to the west. Another feature is that both ends of the nave’s central arch rest comfortably on Matean capitals, demonstrating that the vault was built in conjunction with the piers (see fig. 4.6, W1 to M7).

In his discussion as to which parts of the west crypt were altered by Mateo, López Ferreiro assumed that Mateo accepted the nave as he found it, only covering the piers with columns and capitals.44 Chamoso Lamas also limits Mateo’s work in the west crypt nave to doubling the thickness of the three piers which separate the nave and transept, enclosing them with numerous attached columns and adapting them to the new arrangement of the vaults (see fig 4.7, M, Mn, Ms).45 39

A dividing wall can now be proposed between the west crypt transept and the nave, with Gelmírez’s creation to the east and Mateo’s to the west. Various longitudinal sections, plans, and a study of the internal walls help to support this hypothesis (see figs 4.6, 4.8). Conant shows the west façade sitting neatly over this dividing wall, which bears the weight of the outer wall of Gelmírez (see fig. 2.2, B). Mateo thickened pier ‘M’ in order to sustain the extra weight of his heightened construction, adding a cluster of colonettes to the west (see fig. 2.2, Mb). Pons Sorolla draws the current structure (see fig. 4.8). Mateo’s nave is to the west of pier ‘M’; the narthex and passageway belong to Archbishop Maximilian of Austria. In 1606 Maximilian

Ibid., 131, n.37.

40

Hartley (1912), 66. ‘The doors of the sacred cathedral are never closed; lamps and tapers fill it at midnight with the splendour of noon’. 41

Conant (1926), 28. It is strange that Aymery does not mention the west crypt, but then neither does W. M. Whitehill (1961) in his Chapter on Santiago de Compostela. 42

Chamoso Lamas (1982), 62, suggests: ‘maybe to provide the bishop with a secluded sanctuary’. 43

The width of the stairs is the same as the width of the winding stairs in the tower in the south-west corner of the nave: 104 cm. 44

López Ferreiro (1902), V, 14: ‘Mateo respetó la primera nave, ó sea la exterior, y sólo revistió de columnas y capiteles los pilares que la separaban de la segunda. En ésta conservó parte de los pilares’. 45

liers que séparent le premier corps du second. Sans démonter ces piliers, il les entoura de nombreuses colonnes cantonnées que leur ont donné plus de solidité et de sveltesse et les adapta à une nouvelle disposition des voûtes.

Chamoso Lamas (1973), 195b: ‘L’oeuvre de Matthieu se limite à la création des éléments indiqués par les hachures serrées [demonstrated in López Ferreiro’s plan], ce qui consiste seulement à doubler en épaisseur les trois pi-

55

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 4.6. Plan of the west crypt (after Puente Míguez, 1992, with capitals numbered by Stratford, 1992), with annotations by author, drawn by John Holland

56

The West Crypt

Figure 4.7. Reconstructed plan of the west crypt (after Puente Míguez, 1992), with annotations by author

57

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 4.8. West crypt, longitudinal section (after Pons Sorolla, in Puente Míguez, 1992), with annotations by author

added three flights of winding stairs parallel to Mateo’s flights, making the intricate and beautiful stairway that exists now (fig. 4.9).46 Mateo knocked down part of the solid wall between his new west crypt nave and the old transept to create an entrance with decorated archways. There are traces of door hangings and locks on the jambs of these ornamental arches, evidence of the iron gates inserted by Mateo in order to retain the privacy of the eastern section.47

can be observed to the right of the shaft, but are not conclusive evidence that a former return was planned in this position. Assuming, however, that there had been a modification in the course of construction, there is a possible explanation: Gelmírez, who was the first to work in the crypt, had to extend this wall angle in order to receive his groin vaulting which did not quite reach the intended colonnette and capital; or, alternatively, Mateo had to carry out the alteration when he inserted his ribs (see below).

The masonry between the west crypt transept and nave also demonstrates that alterations were made. A low bench that surrounded the transept has been cut, clearly showing destruction of a pre-existing design (fig. 4.10). In addition, the masonry fails to course through from the east side of the arches to the west, and it is noticeable that the socles are higher on the west side (see fig. 4.10). Taking the south wall (duplicated on the north), three different periods of construction can be noted (fig. 4.11). To the east the coursing of Gelmírez matches until it reaches the archway; the arch with its floral decoration and raised socle is Matean. To the west of the archway, and joined to it, one of Mateo’s spiral shafts rises from a base similar to those on the central pier. Casas y Nóvoa’s work then takes over. Unfortunately his strengthening of the pier enveloped the two remaining Matean colonettes (see figs 4.6, 4.7 for comparison). Casas y Nóvoa’s alterations also cut into Mateo’s pointed arches at the end of the north and south aisles (see fig. 4.5).

In the bay to the south of the ‘seam’ (matched by the bay to the north) a rib springs from S10 and falls on a corner diagonally opposite; S9 does the same (see fig. 4.6). Pita Andrade draws attention to this peculiarity, ‘not understanding why in one instance the ribs lean on capitals, and in another on corners prepared to receive groins’.49 Lambert also remarked upon this fact, comparing the combination of the two styles as having come from Burgundy, from the narthex of Vézelay.50 Gaillard shrewdly pointed out that, ‘the irregularities presented in the two buildings are not the same: at Santiago some columns which seem to be made to carry groin vaults have received ribs, while groins fall on colonnettes (in the angles)’.51 In other words, the eccentricity in the presentation of the ribs has led to confusion. If the west crypt had been designed entirely by Mateo, a more orderly system would have been expected instead of the rather haphazard arrangement that was forced piers, a plan which apparently was modified during the course of construction … The reason for this change of plan is obscure’.

Ward lays stress on ‘a seam in the masonry’ occurring on pier 4 in the transept of the west crypt, but this does not seem clear in the fabric (fig. 4.12).48 Some joints in vertical alignment 46

49

Pita Andrade (1977), 93: ‘No se explica por qué en unos casos los nervios apoyan sobre capiteles y en otros se aprovechan (quiero subrayar esta palabra) las esquinas para recibir las ojivas’. 50

López Ferreiro (1907), IX, 35.

51

Lambert (1931 repr. 1971), 48.

Gaillard (1958), 466: ‘M. Élie Lambert avez déjà remarqué l’emploi simultané des voûtes gothiques et romanes, comme au narthex de Vézelay, et il y voyait une influence bourguignonne. Mais les irrégularités que présentent les deux édifices ne sont pas les mêmes: à Saint-Jacques, des piliers, qui paraissent faits pour porter des voûtes d’arêtes, ont reçu des croisées d’ogives, tandis que des voûtes d’arêtes retombent sur des colonnettes d’angle’.

47

Chamoso Lamas (1973), 196. Also pointed out by López Ferreiro (1902), V, 14. 48

Ward (1978), 38: ‘A seam in the masonry … runs from the pier cornice down to the socle at floor level. The seam indicated that the plan of these piers was changed, and it probably marked the corner angle of the first plan for the

58

The West Crypt

Figure 4.10. West crypt: central pier M, showing bench and stone coursing from east to west

Figure 4.9. Stairway leading to west portal

upon Mateo – forced because he had to accommodate an already existing crypt. The Vaulting The west crypt consists of a combination of varied enclosures. Although they are arranged in a coherent form, when studied they reveal an extraordinary mixture of styles, particularly in the vaulting. Assuming that the crypt was built from east to west, then the small rectangular chapel with its barrel vault came first (fig. 4.13). The ambulatory and transept are rib vaulted (fig. 4.14); the nave groined; while the entrance passageway and the narthex, the last to be constructed, are barrel and quadrant vaulted.52

Figure 4.11. West crypt: three periods of construction

The groin vaulting in the nave appears strange considering that it was built by Mateo. It may have been that Maeo did not want to detract from his entrance to the transept whose twin arches are highly decorated. Or it could have been a deliberate decision for liturgical reasons, keeping the nave simple in contrast to the importance of the transept and sanctuary. In a parallel situation in England, Thurlby suggested that the monks at Glastonbury Abbey used traditional sculptural motifs when rebuilding their Lady Chapel (the old Vetusta Ecclesia) in 1184, to ‘express their profound veneration for the Old Church’.53 Mateo could have built the nave to reiterate the groin form of vaulting he had inherited in the transept, enriching the eastern section to keep to a hierarchical sequence.

or pulled down the vaults and started again.54 López Ferreiro believed that ‘the vaults were completely re-covered, the Pórtico pavement being set above’; Chamoso Lamas agrees.55 Pons Sorolla’s elevation shows the ribs integrated with the vaults (see fig. 4.8). On the supposition that Pons Sorolla’s diagram is correct the conjecture that mouldings were added to the groins can be dismissed. This leads to the conclusion that Mateo replaced the Gelmírian vaults with ribs of his own design. The type of rib Mateo used was ubiquitous in the second half of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries: an axial roll flanked by hollow chamfers for the ambulatory and a pair of large angle rolls separated by a broad fillet for the transepts.56 A

Making an assessment of the vaulting in the transept becomes a matter of eliminating various possibilities. If Mateo designed the whole of the west crypt then no comment is necessary but, assuming that Mateo had to accept an existing crypt, he had various options. He could have added mouldings to the groins,

54

This premise is on the assumption that Gelmírez had used groin vaulting. Conant would have liked to attribute the rib vaults directly to Gelmírez with Norman associations, but realised that this was only possible ‘if we suppose that the west front of the church was being constructed in the thirties of the twelfth century’: Conant (1926), 30, – but the 30s is too late. I have argued that the west gallery was used by the insurgents during the 1117 uprising (see Chapter 3, The Uprising of 1117), and that the gallery was completed by the time of Aymery’s visit c.1135.

52

The ambulatory is not an ambulatory in the strict sense of the word, in that it does not surround a high altar or chancel. It does, however, form a semicircular passageway around a central pier and, in the case of the west crypt at Santiago, is referred to by scholars as the ambulatory.

55

López Ferreiro (1902), V, 12: ‘Reformó, sí, por completo, las bóvedas sobre que está asentado el pavimento del pórtico de arriba’. Chamoso Lamas (1973), 195: ‘Il démonta complètement la couverture ... construisit de nouvelles voûtes sur lesquelles repose le pavement du porche de la Gloire’.

53

M. Thurlby, ‘The Lady Chapel of Glastonbury Abbey, Antiquaries Journal, 75 (1995), 164-5; also, ‘… rib-vaults are used selectively for the areas deemed more important, while the lesser spaces would be groined’: M. Thurlby, ‘The Purpose of the Rib in the Romanesque Vaults of Durham Cathedral’, in Engineering a cathedral, ed. M. Jackson (London, 1993), 70.

56

59

Variations on the style of ribbing are traceable to other churches, for in-

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 4.13. West crypt: east chapel

Figure 4.12. West crypt: south transept, east facing wall

more sophisticated variation was already at hand on the south portal, the Platerías (fig. 4.15). Mateo appears to have chosen simple mouldings following the configuration he adopted in the nave, in keeping with the earlier style of the west crypt. The East End of the Catedral Vieja The chapel at the east end of the catedral vieja is rectangular in shape and covered with a barrel vault. The curious feature is a pair of mitred arches either side of the central extended arch on the east wall (see fig. 4.13). Mitred arches appear in the church above: to either side of the oculus on the north gable, and on the exterior of the San Salvador chapel depicted by Vega y Verdugo (see figs 1.13, 2.20). The form of the mitred arch comes from the orient and was adopted as a decorative motif in the west; its inclusion in the small chapel implies an early construction date.57 López Ferreiro suggested that the chapel’s architectural characteristics linked it to Cresconio’s stance León and Frómista in the north of Spain, and St Sernin, Toulouse, to mention only a few examples. 57

The triangular shape, referred to as a mitre, recalls features in buildings as far apart as the Pantheon in Rome, the rock-cut tombs at Petra, and the Basilica of St. Simeon the Stylite at Qalaat Seman in Syria. The mitre appears on the exterior of the seventh-century Visigoth oratory of San Fructuosus de Montelios near Braga, which Dodds linked to the mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna: J. Dodds, Architecture and Ideology in Early Medieval Spain (University Park, Pennsylvania, 1989, repr. 1994), 12. The mitred arch also appears on the interior as well as the exterior of the sixth-century baptistery at Poitiers, and further north it decorates the Carolingian gatehouse of the abbey of Lorsch. These are only a few examples.

Figure 4.14. West crypt: rib mouldings

60

The West Crypt

mid-eleventh-century towers.58 Hartley recognised Byzantine influence, for ‘Levantine craftsmen ... were settled in Northern Spain in the tenth and eleventh centuries’.59 Another distinctive feature of the east chapel is the colonettes. There are four set against the altar wall, and they are thinner than any others in the west crypt or the main cathedral. The double columns to either side of the entrance to the chapel are also unique to Santiago (see fig. 4.13). They too are thin and differ from those in the rest of the building. A parallel source could be the double columns of the mihrab of Abd al Rahman II (833-52) in the Great Mosque at Cordoba.60 It is accepted that architectural motifs were brought to the north by Mozarabs who had lived and worked in Arab-run cities in the south of Spain. Their style of cusping, used to grace some of the arches at Santiago, is instantly recognisable (see fig. 3.1). Those who believe that the west crypt (the catedral vieja) was built entirely by Mateo, declare that the east chapel is a copy of the San Salvador chapel at the axial end of the cathedral.61 The east chapel could equally – with the San Salvador chapel – be dated to the ninth century.62 It may have been a small oratory or a mortuary chapel standing outside the entrance gate to the lugar sacra, in a suitable position for visitors to Compostela; or the chapel could have formed the east end of a church similar to the ninth-century St. Felix de Lovio situated without the city walls to the east.63 Chamoso Lamas has proved by his excavations that a medieval cemetery existed at Compostela from the fifth to seventh centuries, succeeding a Roman necropolis and Suevian tombs.64 The little vieja chapel would not have been inappropriate in this setting.

Figure 4.15. Platerías mouldings

Chamoso Lamas carried out excavations in the cathedral from 1946 to 1954. Below the nave he discovered one of Bishop Cresconio’s towers which had been used as a foundation for piers II and III in the north arcade of the Romanesque cathedral,

and its wall as a base for pier II in the south arcade (fig. 4.16).65 The south-west corner of Cresconio’s tower is close to the east end of the catedral vieja. Next to a well, a ditch was discovered filled with a great deal of Roman rubbish consisting of broken tiles, stucco and pottery, probably disturbed when the towers were erected. Here the archaeologists detected part of a corridor. López Ferreiro, in his excavations of 1879, was responsible for this corridor which was dug from the centre of the east chapel in an easterly direction. The tunnel stopped one metre short of Cresconio’s wall and tower.66

58

López Ferreiro (1900), III, 122: ‘A la misma época debe pertenecer, á nuestro juicio, el pequeño ábside de planta quadrangular que se enquentra en el fondo de la llamáda Catedral Vieja. Sus caracteres arquitectónicos así lo índican. Es de suponer que debajo de la gran escalinata que daba acceso á la Basílica, quedase algún espacio abovedado, del cual formase parte dicho ábside: á no ser que quiera suponerse - y en ello no hallamos dificultad - que este ábside perteneció á alguna de las torres que fabricó D. Cresconio en esta parte para defenda de la Basílica. En tal caso se vería en cierta manera justificado el título de Vieja que lleva esta capilla subterránea’. 59

Ward and his supporters believed that building works came to an halt when the nave approached Cresconio’s tower. Moralejo notes that one of Cresconio’s towers – inconveniently in the way – was demolished towards 1120.67 Conant suggests

Hartley (1912), 188.

60

For illustration see: M. Gómez Moreno, ‘Arte Mozárabe’ in Ars Hispaniae (Madrid, 1951), III, 52. 61

65

Ibid., 70. It was subsequently established that the towers and walls erected by Sisnando around 900 to protect the basilica formed the base for Cresconio’s defensive system; López Ferreiro (1899), II, 472, mentions the walls and towers having been built by Cresconio to fortify the town of Compostela; Conant (1926), 10: ‘Between 1037 and 1066 two fortified towers were built at the west’.

Ward (1978), 30-6; et al.

62

For early dating of the San Salvador chapel see Chapter 2, The Altars of the Basilica. 63

Shown on Plano 1: El locus Sancti Iacobi (ca. 830-880), in López Alsina (1988), 139. St Felix, Santa María de la Corticela, San Salvador and the vieja chapel, share a feature that links them to the same period: they have squared east ends. Clapham points out that this type of design is peculiar to ninthcentury Austurian churches, the later Mozarabic churches adopting horseshoe arches inherited from the Visigoths: A. W. Clapham, Romanesque Architecture in Western Europe (Oxford, 1936, repr. 1959, 1967), 16. 64

66

Guerra Campos, (1960a), 121, n.85. Conant, writing forty-seven years later in 1926 and unaware of the position of the fortifications, speculated on the existence of Cresconio’s towers: Conant (1926), 25, n.3. A further thirtythree years lapsed before this was confirmed by Chamoso Lamas. Moralejo referred to this episode as one of Conant’s intuitive speculations which eventually proved to be correct: Conant/Moralejo (1983), 230a. 67

Chamoso Lamas (1982), 12-14.

61

Conant/Moralejo (1983), 230a: ‘Como la Historia Compostelana se refiere

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 4.16. Plan of excavations (after Guerra Campos, 1960), detail showing Cresconio’s tower and wall

that work at the west end began about 1105,68 in which case it would appear logical for Cresconio’s tower to have been taken down at about that time. There are two reasons for this observation: one, that the walls of the niche in the west crypt ambulatory and the north transept wall, which is party to the tower wall, contain some extra large stones (see 4.8, z). They

could have been utilised from Cresconio’s tower.69 Secondly, no actual date is given in the Historia Compostelana for the demolition of the tower. The reference to its demolition is in a chapter where Gelmírez is given the title of archbishop, a status to which he had been raised in 1120, which might have led to the erroneous belief that the demolition occurred at that late date. The demolition, however, is described as having happened in the past.70 There are instances in the Historia

as su demolición hacia 1120’. Since the discovery of Cresconio’s tower in the nave, it has been presumed that this was the tower serving as the refuge for Queen Urraca and Gelmírez, and that it was set alight during the disturbances of 1117. There is no evidence, however, that this was the tower in question. The H.C. implies that there were two towers which López Alsina marks on his plan of the Villa Sancti Jacobi: (1988), 246. 68

69

The west crypt nave also carries a medley of stonework, but it relates to the enlarging of the piers in the eighteenth century. The later, and regular, stone-coursing in the passage-way belongs to Maximilian’s stairway of 1606 (see fig. 4.8). 70

The destruction of the towers (in the plural) is mentioned in the H.C. (1994), II, XXV, 344-6. The phrase referring to the incident is in the Past Per-

Conant (1926), 32.

62

The West Crypt

Compostelana when episodes are not related chronologically. The text was shared by three or more authors, so it would not be surprising if a particular incident were omitted by one of the chroniclers and recorded at a later stage by another.71

contains two semi-circular niches and two shallow alcoves, imitating the ambulatory chapels in the church above. The rib vaults of the catedral vieja’s ambulatory fall in a conventional manner: they arch from the corners of the chapels to rest on the central pier ‘E’ (see fig. 4.6). López Ferreiro remarks: ‘the vaults supported with old groins were totally replaced with ribs’.72 Pita Andrade fifty-three years later concurs with this view writing that: ‘the presence of arches reinforcing the vault shows a clear removal of the original covering of groins from the ambulatory. It seems logical to think that Mateo preferred to replace these with ribs’.73 Over half a century further on, I find that I agree with both López Ferreiro and Pita Andrade in their architectural judgements.

Gelmírez almost certainly adopted the chapel that existed outside the walls. He probably had to move and reconstruct it between the towers he was erecting at the west end, since it was unlikely to have been fortuitously in the correct position. Quite simply, Gelmírez may have decided to use the chapel at the west to complement its counterpart at the east. His additions to the west of the rectangular chapel consisted of an ambulatory and the transept. In designing these he tried to mirror the cathedral as much as possible. The ambulatory

fect Indicative tense, therefore connected to an event or action which happened in the past before another action: Gelmírez ‘had destroyed [the tower] when he built the church of the Apostle’. The Chapter also refers to two altars which ‘had been in Cresconio’s old towers’. Chapter XXVI relates to events taking place in 1121, XXVII to 1120.

72

López Ferreiro (1902), V, 13-4: ‘Reformó, sí, por completo, las bóvedas sustiuyendo con nervaduras las antiguas aristas’.

71

Reilly (1969), 81: ‘Because of the interspersing of three and possibly more authors, the narrative is not necessarily consecutive’; López Ferreiro (1900), III, 40: … porque como la Compostelana en su narración no siempre siguió rigurosamente el orden cronológico …’. To quote an example from the H.C., Chapters as far apart as LXIX (book I) and XXII (book II) recall the same event, that of Queen Urraca’s donation of land between el Ulla and el Tambre to Santiago.

73

Pita Andrade (1955), 383-4: ‘… mas la presencia de arcos reforzando la bóveda significa un claro alejamiento de las originales cubiertas con aristas del deambulatorio. Parece lógico pensar que fué Mateo quien prefirió aplicar estos ‘nervios’ dispuestos de forma radial y cuyos perfiles coinciden con los de las ojivas existentes en los tramos inmediatos a esta cabecera’.

63

64

Chapter 5 The West End: from the narthex to the roof José Vega y Verdugo, the canon in charge of the fabric of the Compostelan church in the mid-seventeenth century, made drawings of the east and west façades of Santiago. Well versed in the architecture of Italy, he produced a delightful plan for bringing the north tower, the Carraca, to the same height as the south Torre de las Campanas, the bell tower, and covering both with Italianate cupolas (fig. 5.1).1 His ambition was not fulfilled, but the drawings are invaluable for they give an idea of the state of the Romanesque cathedral at this time. The stairway he illustrates, however, is the one built in 1606 by Archbishop Maximilian of Austria (see fig. 4.9); the portal was altered in the previous century.

from outside by many steps’.3 Aymery does not mention steps by the north portal, the Azabachería. There may not have been any in his day with a slope leading naturally to the entrance, but there is enough of an incline for there now to be three lateral flights of steps in line with the side of the cathedral (fig 5.2). The number of steps in each flight decreases from eight, to seven, to six, to accommodate the slope falling away from east to west.4 The slope from north to south means that, on entering the cathedral, a further flight of seven steps descends from the north portal to the transept. The exterior of the Platerías, the south portal, has a wide stairway leading down to the main street of the town, the Rua del Villar, but there is no record of how this exterior was originally handled and Aymery does not mention any stairs at this entrance in his Guide. For Aymery to have described the stairs at the west entrance must have meant that they made an impression; it could be that originally they ran the full length of the west portal descending to the level of the square, their format copied at a later date outside the Platerías (see fig. 2.3). This is speculation, but would account for the concealment of the west crypt intended by Gelmírez. Puente Míguez estimated that, due to the fall of the land to the west, twenty-six steps would have been needed to reach the terrace in front of the west portal from the square (the Obradoiro).5

The alteration to the portal had become necessary, basically for hygienic reasons. The cathedral had always been open day and night allowing pilgrims to sleep in the aisles. It is thought that the silver Botafumeiro, introduced in the fourteenth century, swung incense in order to dissipate the smell of the crowds who filled the cathedral at all times.2 At the beginning of the 1520s the situation had become unmanageable and the Chapter ordered doors to be made for the portal. This was a fairly simple operation. Mateo’s one large central arch spanned the width of the nave; all that had to be composed in order to fix wooden doors in the centre was a lintel and trumeau, with a semi-circular glazed window above for light. Doors were also made for the side aisles.

A comparable situation may still be seen at Saint-Gilles-duGard in Provence. The dates for the rebuilding of St Gilles range from 1116 to c.1170.6 The original plan was modified about 1140, when the decision was made to ‘build an ambitious church at a higher level; an arrangement which occurs at the great pilgrimage churches of Le Puy and Santiago de Compostela’.7 A wide stairway, covering the entire width of the west façade, precluded entry to the crypt from the west. It could be postulated that the idea came from the west façade of Santiago. Scholars are quick to put forward the tested theory that ideas passed from France to Spain, but masons – and equally pilgrims – returning to France could have brought

In Chapter 3 a comparison between Vega y Verdugo and Conant’s drawings of the west and south façades allowed an evaluation to be made of the original west façade of Gelmírez. In the twentieth century Conant and Puente Míguez made hypothetical reconstructions of the west end showing their versions of Mateo’s façade. The differences in their assessment of the west crypt have been examined in Chapter 4. After a survey of the stairway at the west end, my discussion continues with the interior of the cathedral. The Stairway Aymery’s reference to the number of steps leading to the west portal is significant. He says the west portal ‘is approached

3

Hogarth (1992), 74.

4

The road, parallel to the north side of the cathedral, continues to run steeply downhill through a rib-vaulted tunnel, which passes under the first floor of the Palace of Gelmírez, and down twenty-two more steps before it reaches the Obradoiro square.

1

M. Chamoso Lamas, ‘La fachada del Obradoiro de la catedral de Santiago de Compostela’, Archivo Español de Arte y Arqueología, XII (1936), 210-4. Vega y Verdugo’s two other drawings of the cathedral are illustrated (see figs 2.20 and 3.6).

5

Puente Míguez (1992), 125.

6

V. R. Markham, Romanesque France, (London, 1929), 397-405. R. Laffont, ‘Saint-Gilles-du-Gard’ in A. Chastel (ed.), Dictionnaire des Eglises de France (Lyon, 1966), II, 146. W. S. Stoddard, The Façade of Saint-Gilles-duGard (Connecticut, 1973), 131-7.

2

An alternate theory is that the swinging of incense complemented the liturgy. The present Botafumeiro dates from 1851 and is silver plated. Eight vergers are required to pull on ropes to enable the Botafumeiro to reach a height parallel to the vaults of the transepts. Accompanied by the swelling sounds of voice and organ, it makes an impressive spectacle.

7

65

Conant (1966), 147.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 5.1. Projected west façade (after Vega y Verdugo c. 1660)

Figure 5.2. Azabachería: three flights of steps (behind: the Monastery of San Martín Pinario)

news of a grand stairway at Santiago.8 The theory that ideas passed along the Pilgrim route has been mentioned frequently, initially by Porter, then by Gaillard, Durliat, et al.

of Santiago could have appeared in its first state (fig. 5.3).9 Both churches had to cope with land falling away to the west and having to support a building above. Santiago occupied the space with its crypt; Orense with weight-bearing arches, the vaults subsequently being converted to shops.10 Orense had

Orense has been cited as a reflection of how the west front

9

Pita Andrade (1977), 94-6. Orense is 111 kilometres south-east of Santiago, in the province of Galicia.

8

‘La comunicación constante con Francia por la ruta internacional de la peregrinación ...’, L. Torres Balbás, ‘Arquitectura Gótica’, in Ars Hispaniae (Madrid, 1952), VII, 15. Markham (1929), 404-5, points out the influence of masons from Lombardy on the sculpture at Saint-Gilles-du-Gard, ideas having been transported across the Alps.

10

M. Sánchez Arteaga, A puntes histórico-artísticos de la Catedral de Orense (Orense, 1916), 49, n.1: the town council rented out the vaults. For a time one of the spaces was used to shelter animals, however, in 1539, the owner was threatened with excommunication unless he removed them within fifteen

66

The West End: from the narthex to the roof

no access to its west entrance from ground level, the narrow terrace above being reached from the west portal via the nave.11 A narrow terrace also existed at Santiago before the subsequent alterations by Mateo. A curious discrepancy can be noted in the actual disposition of the present west stairway: it stands at right angles to the towers (and the façade) but not at right angles to the nave. This can be demonstrated on Conant’s plan by continuing the lines of the stairway east and noticing how they swing to the south (see fig. 2.1, c,d,e,f). The reason for the alteration in axis is that both the Matean and the later Maximilian stairway had to line up with the original façade of Gelmírez. The towers were to blame, for they had been set up incorrectly causing a misalignment with the nave.12 Mateo designed his stairway with parallel flights and changes of direction to replace the functional stairway of Gelmírez. He was able to do this by adding the crypt nave, thus allowing for a deeper terrace above. Maximilian in turn took his direction from the Matean stairway. The Western Aspect According to Aymery the west portal was the most magnificent, and in his list of portals he mentions it first. Those who believe that Mateo was responsible for the whole of the west end say that Aymery was fabricating his description of a complete cathedral with a west portal; but on the ‘orthodox’ side there are scholars who believe Aymery’s account. López Ferreiro wrote that the west façade was replaced in the last third of the twelfth century by the Pórtico de la Gloria.13 Chamoso Lamas has always acknowledged that the west or principal portal, finished in 1128, ‘was replaced by the Pórtico de la Gloria the work of master Mateo’.14 Pita Andrade ‘does not doubt the truth of the words in the Calixtino in respect of the early west facade’.15 Even Stratford, who has already agreed ‘with those who see nothing in the crypt surviving from the earlier 12th century’, inserted a phrase: ‘I believe that it is difficult to write it off as a purely literary ekphrasis when referring to Aymery’s description of the west portal’.16

Figure 5.3. Orense: stairway leading to west portal

the west portal of Gelmírez. As one enters the cathedral Mateo’s work dominates, both in the narthex and the gallery above. On closer inspection, it will be discovered that enough vestiges of the Gelmírez period exist to show that his building programme had a decided influence on Mateo’s design. The Narthex The narthex is not as wide as the church and its depth is governed by the western edge of the towers (see fig. 2.1). Mateo’s Pórtico de la Gloria spans the width of the inner portal, overwhelming in the profusion of its sculpture. The original outer archways, without their sixteenth-century doors, would have allowed a better view of the Pórtico. Nevertheless, the space is confined and even Ward admits that ‘the sculptures seem literally to have been squeezed into the narthex’ (fig. 5.4).17 This awkwardness leads one to speculate why, if Mateo were planning on an undeveloped site at the west end, he did not design a deeper viewing platform for his magnificent creation. One only has to look at Conant’s plan to see that if Mateo had moved the towers just half a bay to the west, he could have extended the narthex area and even eliminated the unsatisfactory appearance on the exterior of the nave where there is only room for half a bay (see fig. 2.1, z). The answer must be that Mateo was handicapped in his plans by towers that already existed conjointly with the crypt below.

Casas y Nóvoa’s façade at the west end of the cathedral hides the Matean creation of the late 1100s, which in turn obliterated days. 11

Sánchez Arteaga (1916), 49-50: reference is made to a stairway rising to the north corner of the portal in the eighteenth century. B. M. Castro Fernández, Francisco Pons-Sorolla y Arnau, arquitecto-restaurador: sus intervenciones en Galicia (1945-1985) (Santiago, 2007), 619, 623-5: Castro describes the present stairway designed by F. Pons-Sorolla in 1958, and shows plans of the project. 12

See Chapter 3, The West Towers: orientation.

13

López Ferreiro (1900), III, 122: ‘De esta antigua fachada, sustituída en el último tercio del siglo XII por la del Pórtico de la Gloria’. 14

Chamoso Lamas (1973), 396b  : ‘Remplacé par le grand porche de la Gloire, œuvre de Maître Matthieu’. 15

Pita Andrade (1977), 94a: ‘No cabe dudar de la veracidad de las palabras del Calixtino en torno a la primitiva fachada occidental’. He continues: ‘¿Por qué pensar, ante un texto tan explícito, que en el Calixtino se consideraban realizadas obras in curso o todavía en proyecto? Cabe admitir que la reforma de Mateo, se produjo cuando todavía no estaba rematada in su coronaciento; pero no creo debamos llegar más lejos en las suposiciones’. 16

17

Stratford (1988), 55.

67

Ward (1978), 78.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 5.4. Narthex: Pórtico de la Gloria

Figure 5.5. Nave: south pier (O.C) north side

An inscription on the underside of the lintel of the Pórtico de la Gloria confirms Mateo’s involvement in its creation. Translating from the Latin text the last sentence reads, ‘Master Mateo who from the foundation themselves performed his skill’.18 The phrase, ‘from the foundation’, has been used ad infinitum by those who wish to prove that Mateo built the whole of the west end from the foundation upwards. They take the word ‘foundation’ as meaning the stones in the trench: the first stones placed in the ground. ‘From the foundation’ can equally be interpreted as ‘from the stones’ already in position, and that Mateo used his skill from the ‘existing’ base upwards. There is no mention in the contract of completing the cathedral or even building any foundations. No one disputes that Mateo was involved in the west crypt; he continued his project through the narthex to the gallery roof, even adding storeys to the towers. Mateo, delighted with his achievement, left an inscription on the lintel in the manner of a signature.

of Gelmírez is clearly defined. Figure 5.5 illustrates the lower part of the north side of pier O.C, and figure 5.6 its base on the south facing side. Measurements taken of the two piers and their plinths demonstrate their dissimilarities (see fig. 3.5). Another strange aspect which is revealed when taking measurements at the west end is that the soffits of Mateo’s aisle arches and the central lintel are not on the same plane. Even more peculiar is the irregular shape of the south aisle archway which the plan reveals to be a lopsided rectangle (see fig. 3.5, z). Most of the measurements differ, the chief variation being the distances between the exterior walls of the aisles to their inner piers, and the spans of the archways. This has already been explained with reference to the inaccurate setting out of the towers. Mateo inherited standing fabric which caused problems when arranging his new Pórtico. The bases of the attached shafts of piers O.B and O.C facing east betray original work by Gelmírez: they match others elsewhere in the cathedral, suggesting that they were in situ before the Mateo rebuild. Other unusual features on these piers are two orders tucked into angles and terminating below their anticipated abaci: they have no apparent function (figs 5.7, 5.8 and see 3.5, xs). At the angle between the aisle walls and the beginning of the tower walls are the ‘stumps’ of three further orders, similarly without a function (fig. 3.5, ys).

The West End Passing from the narthex into the nave an abrupt change is noticeable in the two aisle piers that form the inner portal (O.B and O.C). They appear to have been cut vertically, with Mateo’s Pórtico de la Gloria added to their west sides. The dividing line between Mateo’s work and the original interior 18

‘Magistrum : Matheum : qui : a : fundamentis : ipsorum : portalium : gessit : magisterium :’, Gaillard (1958), 465.

Alterations to the fabric can be observed from the nave by 68

The West End: from the narthex to the roof

match the south gable. There may have been small roundels in each gable, but the two extant ones were inserted at a later date for greater illumination.19 This is apparent from the disturbed stonework on the exterior of the north and south gables, especially on the south gable where the colonettes have been squashed to one side by the new roundel (see fig. 1.22). Albeit badly weathered, the decorative carving on the stonework bears Mateo’s style. The point to be noted is their size, which contrasts with the roundel set in the west inner portal. Mateo heightened the west gallery, but in the process lost the gable and a direct source of light into the nave. The roundel inserted by Mateo at the end of the nave to introduce more light was far larger than the roundels in the transept gables (see fig. 5.9).20 It cuts into the string-course in an unfortunate manner and chops off the top of the shaft. On the north and south inner portals, the central shafts rise with the piers and terminate naturally at the string-course above the gallery arcades (fig. 5.13). At the west end’s inner portal, a foliate finial was inserted to cap the top of the shaft and help it to meet

Figure 5.6. Nave: south pier (O.C) south side

looking back to the west inner portal, and comparing it with the inner portals of the north and south transepts (figs 5.9, 5.10, 5.11). One of the differences is in the size of the roundels. A source of illumination for the nave and transepts came from lights inserted into the gables. Vestiges of windows lie beneath mitred arches on the north gable (fig. 5.12), but they do not appear on the south gable (see fig. 1.22). They were probably from the first north gable (the stones reused when the gable was raised to a higher level), and blocked when altered to

19

I am grateful to Ramón Yzquierdo Perrín who suggested that the roundels were aggrandised in the mid-thirteenth century during the episcopate of don Juan Árias, who also built the cloister. 20

Again no date is to be found concerning two quatrefoils to either side of the roundel. Either they were inserted by Mateo, or later, but not knowing the exact date does not alter the interpretation of building sequence.

Figure 5.8. Nave: order on the south of O.C

Figure 5.7. Nave: order on the north side of O.B

69

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 5.9. Nave: inner portal

Figure 5.10. North transept: inner portal

the base of the roundel (fig. 5.14). Similarly, at the base of the shaft, a corbel softened the termination (fig. 5.14a). The way Mateo altered the inner portal at the west end can now be appreciated. The original inner portal of Gelmírez resembled the form of the north and south transepts with tall, stilted arches. Mateo found it necessary to lower the arches at the west end in order to display his Pórtico de la Gloria on the narthex side. He inserted the lintel, on the underside of which he carved his inscription to be read by those entering the cathedral, and reduced the thickness of the central pier, making the archways wider and allowing a better view down the nave. On the nave side Mateo formed a wide single arch for the purpose of bearing the additional weight of his structure above, but he retained the original articulation. This can be seen in the way he kept the orders. The inner order (x) matches those on the transepts, while the outer order (y) spans both archways (see figs 5.9, x, y; 5.10, x, y; 5.11, x, y). All three portals are topped with the ubiquitous row of billet moulding. Mateo’s heavy lintel is out of harmony with the rounded arches of the typical Romanesque interior. Its horizontality contrasts unfavourably with the stilted arches at either end of the transepts which allow a glimpse through to their respective narthexes. His roundel interferes with the masonry and the shortened shaft serves no purpose. Mateo’s alterations fail to camouflage the pre-existing work of Gelmírez.

Figure 5.11. South transept: inner portal

70

The West End: from the narthex to the roof

Figure 5.12. North gable

Figure 5.14. Nave, inner portal: shaft and roundel

Figure 5.13. North transept, inner portal: shaft ending at string-course

Problems with the Aisles Figure 5.14a. Detail, base of shaft

Gelmírez did not plan archways at the west end of the north and south aisles: he made a closing at this juncture with windows. Visible breaks in the masonry on the east facing walls reveal this in the form of straight lines and broken imposts (figs 5.15, 5.16). The best way of detecting a reason for these lines is to look at the south transept, the Platerías, which retains its original articulation (chapels fill the spaces at the end of the north transept). In the Baptistery on the east and above the sixteenthcentury entrance to the Treasury on the west side of the south portal are two of the original windows (figs 5.17, 5.18). The Baptistery window is now blocked and the lower part of the Treasury window disturbed by a broken pediment, but both are easily distinguishable and can be compared with the lines in the masonry at the west end. The stonework blocking the west

end windows has been well matched to the level of the impost; the impost extension would have covered a nook column and capital and supported an archivolt as revealed on the Baptistery and Treasury windows. The line of billet moulding serving as a base to the windows is used throughout the cathedral at the same height; only by the insertion of new doors or chapels has the decoration been destroyed. At the west end of the aisles the standing fabric gives a clear indication of a cutting back and elimination of the two west windows in order for Mateo to make two archways to lead from the aisles to his Pórtico de la Gloria in the narthex. In the same manner as Mateo, Gelmírez encountered 71

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 5.15. Nave, south aisle: showing breaks in masonry

Figure 5.16. Nave, north aisle: showing breaks in masonry

problems at the west end of the nave, and he too was forced to compromise. Because his towers were in the way he found difficulty in aligning the wall holding the south window with the south pier (O.C) – they join on the skew, making the ‘lopsided-rectangle’ mentioned above. The cut-off orders on the piers O.B and O.C (referred to above) were probably the fault of Gelmírez. The orders were stopped before completion because they could not be used as originally intended. They are more likely to be attributed to Gelmírez than to Mateo for they are positioned on the Gelmírez side of the piers. The ‘stumps’ against the aisles must also be the fault of Gelmírez. The enforced change of plan may have occurred with the dawning realisation that the nave was not aligned with the west end; drastic measures had to be taken, manifest in the bending inwards of the south aisle’s final arcade (see figs 2.1, 3.4).

matching its counterpart in the Baptistery (see figs 5.15; 5.17). The north aisle’s roundel is also off centre with the bay and its groin vaulting, and even displays irregular stonework. From the straight masonry line and short impost, the north window would have matched the Treasury window which is positioned closer to its exterior wall (see figs 5.16; 5.18). Gelmírez’s masons failed to relate the exterior with the interior, resulting in the unsatisfactory balance of window to bay. There should have been less likelihood of Mateo making a miscalculation at the west end, especially if, as it has been claimed, he was designing from a clear space. The fact that Mateo was unable to place the combination of arch and roundel with some relation to the groin vaulting of the aisles, can only imply bad planning on his part; or, more likely, that his project was predetermined by the windows of Gelmírez. Gelmírez, in turn, was governed by towers already dictating the construction.

The roundels above the archways at the west ends of the north and south aisles are Matean. This is demonstrated by comparing the setting of the archways with the closing walls of the south transept where, in the Baptistery and the Treasury, the windows take up most of the wall space. The height of the transept and nave aisles is the same, so there would not have been room for roundels in the original scheme at the west end. The placing of the Matean roundels is peculiar: they are not central to the aisles; neither are the archways (figs 5.19, 5.20). Judging by the impost at the end of the south aisle, the position of the Gelmírez window would have been reasonably central

The wall at the west end of the aisles has been referred to as the ‘closing wall’. Some scholars are of the opinion that when Aymery mentioned the last stone being put in place in 1122, he did not allude to the completion of the cathedral but merely to these few stones having reached the west end.21 Ward, adamant that nothing existed at the west end before Mateo, does, however, acknowledge this closure saying that ‘the side aisle walls of bay W11 [bay I] and W10 [bay II], and the corner 21

72

Gerson (1998), 85; Conant/Moralejo, (1983), 231b.

The West End: from the narthex to the roof

Figure 5.18. Treasury

Figure 5.17. Baptistery

Figure 5.20. Nave, north aisle: roundel at west end and disturbed masonry

walls runs integrally with the towers indicates a building of one period. The coursing also runs true from the east chapel to the west wall of the transepts in the west crypt. It breaks at the point where Mateo takes over, which has been described in Chapter 4, The Nave and Transepts of the Catedral Vieja.

Figure 5.19. Nave, south aisle: roundel at west end

angles of the western closing wall belong to another, earlier and separate campaign’.22 The fact that the coursing of the side

The setting of windows at the west end of the aisles poses a question. Why did Gelmírez place them here? The answer given by those advocating a shorter nave is that the cathedral

22

Ward (1978), 54. Ward numbers his bays in Arabic numerals starting with 11 at the west end and decreasing numerically towards the crossing. To avoid confusion I have changed Ward’s numbering to accord with other plans used.

73

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

inner portals and therefore had stilted arches.27 These stilted arches would have been too high for the sculptures of the Transfiguration to be displayed. Therefore the scene described by Aymery could only have been designed for the exterior, the format matching the Platerías. The idea of the four arched openings is reasonable, with the two central ones matching the Platerías and the two outer ones narrower. The function of the interior windows would then have been to carry light through to the aisles. This solution might have been forced upon Gelmírez because of the difficulties he encountered at the west end: he could not run his aisles to the exterior of the narthex in the same manner as the transepts, because the towers were partly in the way. To approach the case from another angle, the narthex had to exist because it supported the west gallery above; the existence of the west gallery at this time will be proved in the following section. The West Gallery Chamoso Lamas believed that the two arcades with their twin arches in the gallery at the west end were preserved from the first period of construction, which rules out the hypothesis that Mateo added an extra bay at the west end of the nave.28 The two arcades form the upper section of the west inner portal, their arrangement similar to the twin arcades on the north and south transepts (see figs 5.9, 5.10, 5.11). The function of all the inner portals was to support their gables. The barrel-vaulted roofs of the nave and transepts end at their inner portals and beneath their respective gables. The quadrant vaulting, covering the north and south galleries and their sloping roofs above, obscures any glimpse of the structural work in between (fig. 5.21, and see fig. 1.13). In the west gallery, however, the row of voussoir-like stones running in an arch reveals the end of the nave’s barrel vault (fig. 5.22). It is possible to see this because of Mateo’s alterations. Mateo’s gable rises far higher; so he inserted a relieving arch – the line of the pointed moulding – to bear the additional weight.

Figure 5.21. South gallery: quadrant vaulting

terminated at these windows set in line with the inner portal. San Vicente (Avila) is drawn into the debate.23 Azcárate hypothesised that the cathedral of Gelmírez ended at the inner portal, with the open area to the west bordered by the side towers (matching the present arrangement at Avila).24 Later Mateo was said to have enclosed the space thereby adding a bay to create the narthex.25 It should be noted that this theory admits to west towers already being in existence.

Another function of the three inner portals was to provide space for a gallery to run behind, thus allowing a complete circulation of the cathedral. The gallery was the same width as the aisles and ambulatory beneath. Comparing the west gallery with the north and south transept galleries shows that the west gallery existed before Mateo.

An alternative explanation is helped by a remark of Conant. He made an interesting comment that the ‘original west front probably had four arched openings’, but in the accompanying note he puts Aymery’s double portal where the Pórtico de la Gloria now stands.26 This arrangement is not really feasible. The nave inner portal matched the north and south transept

The north and south galleries are not as deep as the west gallery, but since Aymery said that the west portal was larger than the others, this would be expected. What is not expected is the difference in width between the two archways either

23

Avila is between Madrid and Salamanca. Pita Andrade (1977), 93, says, however, that there are many chronological problems between Avila and Santiago, which cannot be discussed in this instance.

27

For the reasons already debated in Chapter 2, The Dimensions of the Church, it can be assumed that the nave inner portal was in the position as described by Amery: where it is now. One of the outcomes concerning the ‘fictitious’pier was to agree on this location for the inner portal, confirmed by the fact that it supported the west gable.

24

This theory was discussed in Chapter 2, The Dimensions of the Church, when counting the piers as numbered by Aymery. 25

Azcárate (1963), 19.

28

Chamoso Lamas (1973), 196b  : ‘De cette construction primitive sont conservées les deux arcades avec leurs deux arcs jumelés dans la nef haute ou triforium. Et ce fait paraît, exclure l’hypothèse selon laquelle l’œuvre de Matthieu aurait ajouté une nouvelle travée aux nefs originelles’.

26

Conant (1926), 31 and n.1: ‘Giving upon a covered porch, at the back of which was the double portal mentioned by Aymery, with a window or windows to each side’.

74

The West End: from the narthex to the roof

Figure 5.22. West gallery: relieving arch on inner portal facing west

side of the west gallery. The rounded north arch measures 3.20 metres, but the south arch is stilted and is only 2.33 metres wide (figs 5.23, 5.24). The archways leading to the north transept gallery measure 3.60 metres and 3.58 metres, and to the south transept gallery 3.54 metres and 3.65 metres. Although there is a difference of 2 cm. and 11 cm. respectively, it is insignificant compared with the 87 cm. discrepancy at the west end. In addition, all the arches at the ends of the north and south transepts are the same: rounded, whereas there is a distinct difference between the rounded and stilted arches at the west end. Yet again, the solution lies in the towers: because the towers had reached gallery level, and since they had been set out incorrectly by Gelmírez, Gelmírez himself was forced to make serious adjustments when his gallery aisles reached the west end. If Mateo’s advocates argue that the west end was designed and constructed entirely by Mateo, then it only has to be repeated that it is inconceivable for the master mason to have made such a fundamental error of calculation when building from a vacant site.

be recognised at the west end (figs 5.26, 5.27, 5.28).29 The rounded arches throughout the galleries rest on Gelmírez responds (marked by ‘G’ on the illustrations). Mateo stripped the vaulting in the west gallery in order to raise its height, and his pointed arches took over from the former rounded ones leading to the corner bays; but they fall on Gelmírez responds (see figs 5.25, 5.26). That the central rounded arch previously existed can be proved by its supporting east respond having been left in position – it now carries a spotlight (fig. 5.26a). There would be no reason for Mateo to have erected part of a respond and then failed to use it. Mateo removed the arch to the level of the impost, from where the arch would originally have started to spring. He replaced a few courses of the respond to make it rise vertically against the inner wall, and then angled the final stone before it interfered with his roundel. The outer (west) respond disappeared with Casas y Novoa’s alterations. The towers governed the depth of the west gallery and would have determined the span of the archways. On Conant’s longitudinal section it can be appreciated that the outer wall of the west gallery aligns with the outer wall of Gelmírez’s crypt (see fig. 2.2, B-B). There were two rebuilding campaigns after Gelmírez: Mateo at the end of the twelfth century and Casas y Nóvoa in the eighteenth century. Casas y Nóvoa covered the façade using stone from a different quarry, recognisable when placed alongside the fabric of Gelmírez to which he attached

There are other indications that the gallery existed as far as the west end during the time of Gelmírez. The stone-coursing runs in line along the exterior wall of both gallery aisles, continuing into the west gallery and to the responds by the window (fig. 5.25). The stones are well matched and must have come from the same quarry.

29

The windows in the north gallery were enlarged when the new façade was added in the eighteenth century; otherwise the articulation of the north gallery matches the south gallery and the remaining parts of the west gallery.

Comparing the three galleries is a good way of demonstrating how some of the original construction work of Gelmírez can 75

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 5.23. West gallery: arch leading to north gallery

Figure 5.24. West gallery: arch leading to south gallery

his creation. The west windows illustrate this aspect where the two types of stone are readily distinguishable (fig. 5.29, x-x). An old type of Gelmírez impost has been left behind on an order in the south-west corner of the west gallery (fig. 5.29a). Mateo, governed by the existing depth of the west gallery, used the orders, imposts and responds of Gelmírez to support the continuation of his elevation. Another example of this can be seen in the central bay where he set his carved angels to act as corbels for the rib vaulting (fig. 5.30). On the east side the carved angels are positioned in the corners (fig 5.30a), on the west each angel leans against an extension of an order of Gelmírez upon which crouches a smaller angel (5.30b). Casa y Nóvoa’s new stonework (x) contrasts with the old respond and order of Gelmírez (y) and Mateo’s extension of the order (z) (see fig. 5.30).

Figure 5.26a. Detail of central respond

There are other strange pieces of stonework in the west gallery. On the east side of the south arcade arch, a strip of Gelmírez-type impost runs between Mateo’s pointed arch and the arcade wall (fig. 5.30c; marked by an arrow on fig. 5.30). An adjoining piece of impost has been used as a resting point for the relieving arch. The arcade at the north end of the gallery carries the same feature (see fig. 5.26). The function of these two imposts is unclear; they are not repeated on the west side of the pointed arch. There are two plain Gelmírez imposts in the first bays of the gallery aisles next to inserted

Matean capitals; the difference in the type of stone and the style is obvious (fig. 5.31). Besides the various pieces of masonry mentioned above, the overwhelming evidence for the west gallery having existed during the time of Gelmírez is the variation in the width and form of the two archways leading from the aisle galleries to the west gallery. The west gallery required support from below, 76

The West End: from the narthex to the roof

Figure 5.25. West gallery: north wall party to tower

Figure 5.26. West gallery

77

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 5.27. North gallery

Figure 5.28. South gallery

78

The West End: from the narthex to the roof

Figure 5.29a. Detail of Gelmírez impost indicated by arrow in 5.29

Figure 5.29. West gallery: window revealing Casa y Nóvoa’s stonework

which means that the narthex had to exist. It can no longer be stated that Santiago had one fewer bay: the west gallery has proved otherwise. The Roof There is further indication at roof level that the nave was finished and consequently joined to the towers. The evidence is in the corbels whose function would have been to support the eaves along the north and south nave exteriors. The north line can be seen from the Palace of Gelmírez, the corbels stretching the length of the nave albeit damaged in parts (see fig. 1.19). The corbels running the length of the south exterior of the nave were cut off either when the roof line was heightened, or when the row of chapels and sacristies was added to the south side of the cathedral.

Figure 5.30. Mateo’s heightening of the west gallery, noting angels and masonry

The corbel blocks cannot be measured on the north exterior of the nave, but I was able to gain access close to the south exterior and measured those blocks and their dimensions (fig. 5.32, x). They were 20 cm in width, apart from one between bays II and III which was 24 cm. The blocks of stone between were 43 cm wide, and the course 34 cm deep. There were a few damaged sections, chiefly in the areas marking the chapels below: the walls dividing the chapels are raised above their vault line and abut with the south aisle.

The consistency of the corbel line indicates an uninterrupted building progression to the west end. Conant reached the same conclusion: ‘The fact that the corbel blocks continue to the junction of the nave with the western towers seems to me good evidence that the nave was carried along without any great interruption or lassitude. Had the 79

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 5.30b. Detail of west angel-corbel

Figure 5.30a. Detail of east angel-corbel

western bays of the nave been lacking when the fortification was begun surely the new work at the west would have been carried out without them’.30 Fortification of the cathedral was first mentioned in the Historia Compostelana when Santiago was threatened in 1115: ‘the church was fortified with a great number of soldiers and with other things that were necessary’.31 Unfortunately we are not told what constituted the ‘other things’, but the towers and the obra (work) of the church were also fortified ‘in order to resist the enemies’. At some later stage the roof was heightened in order to incorporate battlements.32 Conant shows the battlements in his East and South Elevations of the cathedral in the fifteenth century, and Vega y Verdugo makes a drawing of them from the east end (see fig. 2.20).33 They were removed in the seventeenth century and replaced by balustrades, except for the stretch along the nave south which was in-filled to make a solid wall.34 The battlements were 30

Conant (1926), 24.

31

H.C. (1994), I, CIX, 258-9: ‘… había fortificado … la construcción de la iglesia de Santiago con gran número de soldados y con otras cosas que eran necesarias’, and, … ‘ordenó que las torres y la obra de la iglesia de Santiago fueran fortificadas para, al menos allí, poder resistir a los enemigos’. It has to be noted that no mention is made of how the church was to be fortified, or which part was undertaken first. 32

To my knowledge, there is no reference for any specific date for the building of the battlements. 33

Conant (1926), plate III and V. His photograph (ibid., Fig. 13) shows the filled-in battlements. 34

López Ferreio (1907), IX, 202. The north side of the cathedral could be seen from the Palace of Gelmírez and therefore was renovated according to the fash-

Figure 5.30c. Detail of impost indicated by arrow on 5.30

80

The West End: from the narthex to the roof

Figure 5.32. Nave: south exterior illustrating cut-off corbels

restored to their former state in the late 1960s (fig. 5.33).35 In this chapter I have shown that the ghost of Gelmírez is manifest throughout the west end of Santiago de Compostela, showing his hand in various pieces of masonry and revealing his construction in other areas, despite Mateo’s efforts to cover them with his own design. The west gallery proves that the work of Gelmírez had risen higher in construction than envisaged in recent years. In fact, Gelmírez attained the literal peak of his ambition: the roofing of his cathedral.

Figure 5.31. North gallery, bay 1: an inserted Matean capital next to Gelmírez imposts

ion of the day. The south parapet was hidden from public view by the cloister, so there was no reason for any modification. 35

Restoration took place when F. Pons Sorolla was in charge of repairs to the roof in the late 1960s: ‘Restauracíon de la Catedral de Santiago de Compostela’, Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (Madrid, 1969).

81

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 5.33. Battlements along the south side of the nave; the tiled area in the foreground covers chapels and sacristies

Figure 5.33a. Detail of stone slabs showing tile marks

82

Chapter 6 The Language of Architectural Detailing Capitals, abaci, bases, colonnettes and masons’ marks are not foolproof methods for dating a building. Of course they are helpful, but only in conjunction with archaeological evidence; and the latter should take precedence over the imprecision of interpreting styles of capital carving. Those who argue that Mateo built the west end of the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela have placed strong emphasis on the evidence of the capitals. They link capitals in the west crypt with ones in the western bays of the nave, aisles, and gallery, interrelate them with the Pórtico de la Gloria capitals of the late 1170s, and draw a correlation with Burgundian sculpture of the midtwelfth century. In this chronology, they date everything at the west end of the cathedral as having been created in the last third of the twelfth century by Mateo and his workshop. I will show, however, that changes in style in the cathedral’s capital sculpture support the argument that there was steady building progression to the west, without a break in construction.

Take for example the two capitals VI.Be from the Gelmírez era and VI.Bw from a Sar capital alleged to have been carved forty years later (figs 6.2, 6.3). If this were indeed the case, the second mason was exceptionally good at copying: both corner leaves are split and covered with a smooth top; the leaflets are divided with hairlines and the abacus is supported by three blocks on the long side.4 There is greater variation between two capitals within the socalled Sar bay, V.Be and V.Bw (figs 6.4, 6.5). The treatment of the foliage is entirely different. The leaflets on V.Be are plain; the ones on V.Bw are sculpted more realistically, the tips curving forward and with an hairline marking the central vein on each leaflet. Although the format of the capitals correspond – lions peering through divided-leaves – the carving of the foliage on V.Bw is far superior. This conundrum may be explained by a new mason; it demonstrates the possibility of sudden alterations occurring within a designated category.

The Nave Galleries

At bay V a change takes place on the west side: a groove line is introduced on the abacus. Much is given to this as an 1160s motif heralding a new building campaign. Groove lines, however, were not new: they existed earlier on abaci at Jaca, Conques (Ste Foi) and Toulouse (St. Sernin). The introduction of the groove line at Santiago demonstrates either a new mason carving the abacus, or a directive by the master mason to incorporate a current theme. To cite a similar instance, ring shafts at gallery level do not occur in the transepts, but they are suddenly introduced in the nave – at the whim of a mason?

Ward placed the point at which the cathedral was left in abeyance at bay III, Moralejo indicates a change at bay V, and D’Emilio at bay VI.1 I have taken a few examples of capitals in the nave gallery to demonstrate that there was no break in construction, and to illustrate the gradual development in the style of carving from the east to west. D’Emilio’s diagram ‘Distribution of Capitals in the Western Bays of the Nave at Santiago’ is useful for referring to specific capitals. I have added a few more bays; capitals described in the text are printed in italics (fig. 6.1).

The split-leaf and divided-leaves of the Gelmírez and the socalled Sar capitals are carved in the same manner, showing continuity and an intermingling of ideas. Plain leaflets continued to be used in bay IV, but the central divided-leaves house foliage instead of lions (IV.Be, fig. 6.6). Foliage within the split-leaf had already been used in bay X (X.Be, fig. 6.7). The mason of bays IV and V was fond of carving lions, but his carving of the capital IV.Ce was not nearly as skilled as that of the mason who produced VIII.Bw: he gave his lion more realism and character, and also finished his leaf ends in the style of an early crocket (figs 6.8, 6.9).

By 1112, when Alfonso’s basilica was demolished, construction had already reached the eighth bay of the nave – or the fourth bay west of the crossing. Since Gelmírez was building for the honor of Santiago, it is unlikely that he would come to an abrupt halt, completing only one bay further west in the gallery during the course of the next twenty-eight years.2 D’Emilio identifies capitals carved by the masons of Santa María del Sar to bays IV - VI in the gallery. This is certainly possible. The Sar masons could have been contracted to Santiago, but I suggest that the work was in hand before the Sar church was begun in the 1150s, not afterwards as D’Emilio proposes.3

The name ‘Gudesteo’, incised on the abacus of capital III.Bw, has been used to prove that this part of the gallery and the

1

Ward (1978), 53; Conant/Moralejo (1983), 231, n.45; Moralejo (1992), 215; D’Emilio (1992), 185-6. 2

For honor see Chapter 3, n.24.

4

To differentiate between the types of leaf: 1) the ‘split-leaf’ is where the central vein is split showing a plain surface between the gap; 2) the ‘divided-leaf’ has a larger space in between, sometimes filled with another type of leaf, or it can be wide enough to display a lion or creature; 3) the ‘hollow-leaf’ has a gap/hollow in the centre which reveals the undercarving.

3

D’Emilio (1992), 192. The church of Sta María la Real was established on the banks of the river Sar by the bishop of Monodoñedo shortly before his death in 1136, granted royal confirmation in 1137, and building started in the 1150s: P. Pedret Casado, ‘Santa María la Mayor y Real del Sar’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, IV/XIV (1949), 339-72.

83

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 6.1. Diagram of capitals in the gallery (after D’Emilio, 1992), with additions and annotations by author, drawn by John Holland

Figure 6.2. Gallery: capital VI.Be

Figure 6.3. Gallery: capital VI.Bw

Figure 6.4. Gallery: capital V.Be

Figure 6.5. Gallery: capital V.Bw

84

The Language of Architectural Detailing

Figure 6.6. Gallery: capital IV.Be

Figure 6.7. Gallery: capital X.Be

Figure 6.8. Gallery: capital IV.Ce

Figure 6.9. Gallery: capital VIII.Bw

capital were not installed until the late 1160s when Archbishop Gudestéiz presided (fig. 6.10). The name is spelt incorrectly. Moralejo admits that the capital is unlikely to refer to Gudestéiz, for prelates were generally called by their Christian names, omitting the family name.5 He suggests that the inscription refers to some sort of dedication to Bishop Gudesteo who died a martyr in 1069, but the same problem arises with the use of the family name. Perhaps the name was added at a later date? On the same capital it is noticeable that the mason has embellished earlier motifs: the leaf within the divided-leaf is no longer plain; ‘forward spirals’ originally used in the north transept and in bay V are reintroduced, and the volutes are bound with clasps. Clasps binding ornate foliage were already used to great effect back in bay X (fig. 6.11, X.Ce).6

themes from earlier parts in the cathedral to compose his lion scene. He has become more adroit at using space and does not have to wait until west of bay V – or the suggested 1160s – to show his expertise. Lions are spread around the bell of the capital grasping the vine between their jaws. This entwining motif is common. It was used in the ambulatory in a simple fashion on an early lion capital, on capitals on the Platerías where vines entwine themselves through the legs of lions, and on a north transept capital where two creatures bite the vine – to mention but a few examples. Additional lion capitals occur further to the west, for instance on III.Cw, which is slightly damaged but similar to IV.N (fig. 6.13). It has been suggested that their ‘grinning, nearly human faces … may be compared with those on other capitals at La Charité-sur-Loire’.7 This is possible, but addorsed lions with grinning human faces were already deployed in the ambulatory at Santiago. Lions also appear on the only historiated capital in the gallery, the Daniel capital, VIII.N (fig. 6.14). They sport decorative manes similar to the lions on the capital next to it, VIII.Bw (see fig. 6.9), although the ringlets on the Daniel lions

In bay V, where Moralejo proposes a break in construction, a capital to the east of this division, V.Cw (fig. 6.12), demonstrates another instance where the sculptor has drawn ideas from a medley of motifs. He has adopted and adapted 5

Conant/Moralejo (1983), 231b.

6

There is a cross on the short side of the abacus. This could be a masons’ mark: it appears elsewhere in the cathedral (see below).

7

85

D’Emilio (1992), 187, n.10.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 6.10. Gallery: Gudesteo capital, III.Bw

Figure 6.11. Gallery: capital X.Ce

Figure 6.12. Gallery: capital V.Cw

Figure 6.13. Gallery: capital IV.N

Figure 6.14. Gallery: Daniel capital, VIII.N

Figure 6.15. Gallery: capital I.Ce

86

The Language of Architectural Detailing

Figure 6.16. Gallery: capital V.N

Figure 6.17. Gallery: capital V.S

in the bay VIII in the nave gallery. Certain leaves in the nave gallery have been linked to capitals in the west crypt and thence to sources in northern France and Burgundy.10 One of the forms described is the palmette. It appears in the gallery on V.N and V.S (figs 6.16, 6.17), although it was common much earlier on abaci in the ambulatory and on an inserted pre-romanesque capital in the gallery ambulatory (fig. 6.18).11 The palmettes in V.N and V.S are either enclosed within clasped vines or shielded within a broad leaf, both motifs existing previously. The palmette continues to be used sporadically towards the west gallery, purely as a lesser decorative feature – a form of enclosed palmette is used on 1.Ce (see fig. 6.15). It does not appear in the west crypt except on the lower part of E.3 where it makes a band beneath a ‘frill’, above which spring acanthus leaves (fig. 6.19).12 The capitals in the west crypt derive chiefly from the acanthus leaf, which fails to emerge in its true corinthian form in the gallery – that is with undercutting and pierced work.

Figure 6.18. Gallery ambulatory: roman capital

are stiffer, in contrast to the flowing and more realistic quality of the ringlets on the earlier capital.

Other capitals in the west gallery and in bays I and II can, however, be compared with Matean capitals in the west crypt.13 The leaves have become fleshy and cabbage-like, and the plain leaves are coarsely decorated, matching those on M.7 (see fig. 6.28). The grinning Matean lions on I.Cw are replicated in the Pórtico de la Gloria (fig. 6.20, and

None of the features described so far are actually novel, all traceable to earlier parts of the cathedral. The manner of their application and the imaginative way they are presented suggests that new masons were probably contracted at various times, but this would be usual practice on a major building site. A new hand has certainly been introduced to the west of bay III.8 Some of the capitals continue to display old motifs, but they have been modernised: the veins on the tips of the leaves on I.Ce (fig. 6.15) are more delicately carved, and beading, taken from the side of the Daniel-volutes (see fig. 6.14), features on its stalks.9 The difference between these two capitals, eight bays apart, is really no greater than the improvement in naturalism from the capitals in the transept galleries to the Daniel capital

10

D’Emilio (1992), 186.

11

The palmette motif is fairly common and seen, for example, on capitals at Jaca, Conques, Toulouse (St. Sernin) and Moissac. The preromanesque capital has palmettes arranged in tiers: S. Moralejo Álvarez, ‘Artistas, patronos y público en el arte del Camino de Santiago’, Compostellanum, XXX/3-4 (1985b), 403, n.18. 12

I have reproduced Puente Míguez’s plan, conveniently numbered by Stratford, so that readers can relate the capitals described in the text to their positions in the west crypt: Stratford (1992), Plate 1, annotated by the author and drawn by John Holland (see fig. 4.6).

8

Ward and D’Emilio (on his diagram) allot the capitals to Mateo. Obviously some of the capitals are Matean, but not all.

13

For illustrations of III.S, II.Cw, and I.Be, see figures 5-88, 5-90, and 5-91 in C. Watson, ‘The Western Parts of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela: a reassessment’, unpublished M. A. by research, University of Warwick, 1998.

9

Beading was not new, the decoration having been used on some of the Platerías colonnettes (see fig. 2.9a)

87

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 6.19. West crypt: capital on E.3

Figure 6.20. Gallery: capital I.Cw

see fig. 6.34).14 The Matean gallery capitals could be replacements. An example of such a replacement can be seen at the west end of bay I, on the capital facing the north aisle. The new capital with its smooth abacus is placed next to old Gelmírez imposts (see fig. 5.31). Apart from these few Matean capitals at the west end of the gallery, none of the other gallery capitals appear to be linked to capitals in the west crypt; neither do they rely on sources from northern France or Burgundy, nor are they sufficiently different in style to belong to a totally new campaign. Rather, the masons carried on using ideas from the cathedral, updating the character of the capitals and elaborating previous motifs. There is continuity in style which makes the assertion of a forty-year break in the construction of the cathedral-church of Santiago difficult to uphold. The Nave and Aisles

Figure 6.21. North aisle: capital in bay II

The construction of the nave would have advanced more quickly than the galleries, resulting in earlier-styled capitals at the west end of the aisles. Matean-style capitals appear intermittently at the west end, Mateo doubtless feeling it necessary to replace some of the old fashioned capitals that infringed too closely on his modification of the Pórtico. Capitals may have been damaged in the rebuilding process, or even during the skirmishes of 1117, and therefore in need of restoration. Stokstad suggested that ‘the original capitals of the piers were re-carved, or that the present capitals were added to the older fabric in the late 12th century’.15 Capitals have been replaced in other parts of the cathedral, D’Emilio stating that ‘both interior capitals of the south window in bay IV [in the nave] are later insertions’.16

The same analysis applies to the capitals in the nave and aisles where motifs are linked to other parts of the cathedral. A capital on the north aisle wall in bay II is linked to E.3 in the west crypt; it carries a similar ring of palmettes (fig. 6.21 and see fig. 6.19). It also sports a head in the axis, the source for this inspired perhaps from Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire where heads in axis were to be found in conjunction with palmettes (see p. 93).17 Moralejo links a griffin capital on the south aisle wall of bay II with a near identical capital at San Vicente (Avila), which he dates to the second quarter of the twelfth century.18 It follows that the Avila capital could have been a replacement occurring before Mateo’s arrival. D’Emilio records that the fourth bay capital on the south aisle wall is a Matean insertion, the result

14

A change can also be noted on some of the blocks set beneath the abaci: they were given an undulating surface.

17 18

Conant/Moralejo (1983), 231b. He concludes the paragraph with the comment: ‘No hay que descartar, pues, que la campaña de 1168 hubiera comenzado con intervenciones en partes ya construídas en la anterior’; ‘It should not be ruled out, then, that the 1168 campaign might have started with interventions in parts already built in the earlier campaign’.

15

M. Stokstad, ‘The Pórtico de la Gloria of the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Oklahoma, 1957, 174, 194, n.29. 16

For illustration see Vergnolle (1985), figure 45.

D’Emilio (1992), 192, n.29.

88

The Language of Architectural Detailing

Figure 6.22. Nave: base O.C backing Mateo’s Pórtico

Figure 6.23. South transept: pier base V (east)

of necessary repairs.19 Replacements could equally have occurred elsewhere in the cathedral, similar to the example of the pre-romanesque capital in the gallery ambulatory. Even Ward admits that ‘all the capitals along the side up to the western closing were carved and in place before the campaign of c. 1168 was begun’.20

differences in the depth and height of the scotia. Of major importance are the two bases backing Mateo’s Pórtico which match bases to the east, indicating these piers existed in the time of Gelmírez (figs 6.22, 6.23).

The Pier Bases

Masons’ marks have been used to back up theories that much of the nave was left unfinished from the end of the 1120s. It has been said that there are fewer marks in the western bays and that they are less varied and less prominent that those in the transepts and easternmost bays of the nave.22

Masons’ Marks

The bases in the cathedral of Santiago follow the attic form derived from antique and early Christian models. They are likewise to be found at Frómista, San Isidoro (León), Jaca and contemporary churches in France. Bases in the nave confirm that construction had reached the west end before Mateo’s alterations.

It is true that Masons’ marks in the westernmost bays of the nave are less prominent, some being less deeply carved, no doubt due to new masons and developed techniques. The marks may be less varied, and a thorough survey would be helpful to allow a detailed comparison and analysis. A brief inspection, however, provides some basic information. Using the north arcade of bay I as an example, marks are carved on nearly every block of ashlar (fig. 6.24). Many of the marks that appear in the western parts can be recognised in the east. For instance, the ‘S’ appears on the order without a function on the north aisle inner portal at the west end (fig. 6.25), and also at the beginning of the north side of the ambulatory as well as elsewhere.23 A ‘B’, with an extra line on its straight side, clearly carved in bay IV in the gallery on both the north and south sides, is replicated as far apart as the transepts and ambulatory. The ‘Gudesteo’ capital has a cross carved on the short side of the abacus. These crosses can be traced to a pier in the nave (bay VI), to voussoirs in bay I and to the ambulatory, to mention just a few. As López Ferreiro comments, one can come across some of these marks at both the east and west ends, and in the ‘highest parts: which demonstrates that construction work continued in one phase and without interruption’.24

The nave piers, although all the same format, demonstrate a miscellany of bases standing on alternate round and square socles. The round socles carry curved plinths supporting the attached shafts. The plinths vary to such a degree that no conclusion can possibly be reached as to a division of works: they nearly all vary in height, some have extra fillets, others a crisper profile, and occasional rope mouldings provide added attraction; the scotias also vary in height.21 Those with square socles carry square plinths with spurs, many of them badly worn or damaged, but the mouldings are fairly consistent throughout the cathedral – albeit with minor 19

D’Emilio (1992), 192.

20

Ward (1987), 56. ‘The capitals used on the side walls of both these bays [I and II] are different from the type used in either the crypt or the narthex. A capital from one of the engaged colonettes of the side aisle wall in W10 [bay II], though routine in quality, continues the capital types used in the eastern parts of the nave and transepts. One may safely assume, therefore, that all the capitals along the side up to the western closing were carved and in place before the campaign of c. 1168 was begun’. 21

For illustrations of various piers and their bases see Watson (1998), 102-39. Rope mouldings, together with decorative banding and small stone balls, also appear on the bases on the exterior of the apse from the first period of construction.

22

D’Emilio (1992), 185, 193.

23

For ‘order without a function’ see Chapter 5, The West End.

24

López Ferreiro (1900), III, 145: ‘Es de notar que algunos de estos signos, lo mismo se encuentra en las partes por donde se comenzó á cons-

89

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 6.24. Nave: bay 1, north arcade, masons’ marks

Figure 6.25. North aisle: masons’ mark on cut-off order

shape and structure; clearly it is a kind of early Gothic crocket’ (fig. 6.26).26 However, since the capitals on the exterior vary in style, it could be argued that Ward’s ‘Gothic crocket’ is merely a development of the many types of similar motifs used earlier – as already noted in the development of the gallery capitals from east to west. Ward mentions that the base on the west side of bay III ‘with its half-torus moulding, finds its parallels in the western crypt and on the Pórtico de la Gloria’.27 Variations in the base mouldings occur from bay to bay, and within each window, not just in bay III which he describes. All types of bases are used, from the fat torus to varying shapes of the attic base. The abaci alter in style too, and within each bay. For example in bay II the abacus on the east side of the window is thicker than the abacus on the west side, the bases show differing profiles and neither do the columns match (fig. 6.27). In fact, there is such a mixture of capitals, abaci and bases on the exterior that no conclusion can be drawn. Ward suggested a change in the design of the corbels along this exterior, but the same argument which I advanced for the interior gallery capitals holds good. There is insufficient evidence on the exterior to mark a total disruption in the building campaign in bays III, V or VI. Similarly, neither does the exterior of the nave south show any sign of a break in construction work, as discovered by inspection of the masonry (see Chapter 4).

Figure 6.26. Nave: north exterior, bay III, detail of west capital

The Exterior of the Nave On the north exterior of the nave Ward uses capitals and bases of nook columns to indicate that Mateo’s new building campaign began at bay III.25 He writes: ‘The capital on the east side of the window [bay III] belongs to a type that is a late variant of the Romanesque capitals of the transepts’, and ‘the capital on the west side of the window, by contrast, has a different

The West Crypt In his thesis of 1978 Ward argued that the west crypt was constructed during a single building period, and that the capitals of the ‘eastern and western sections of the crypt were made about the same time’.28 His ideas were accepted at the 1988 symposium where D’Emilio and Stratford presented their theories, and Moralejo summed up the problems arising in the cathedral in his Notas.29 Stratford agrees ‘with those who see

truir la iglesia, que en las últimas y más elevados; la cual demuestra que la obra se llevó á cabo de un golpe y sin interrupción.’ López Ferreiro illustrates a selection of masons’ marks. For additional illustrations of masons’ marks see Street (1969), 200, plate IX. Until a full survey of the marks is undertaken, these comments must be regarded as provisional. 25

Ward (1978), 56. As mentioned previously, Ward numbers his bays in Arabic numerals starting with 11 at the west end and decreasing numerically towards the crossing. I have followed D’Emilio’s format, which uses Roman script with bay I numbering from the west end.

90

26

Ibid., 58.

27

Ibid., 58.

28

Ibid., 50, 41.

29

M. Ward, ‘El Pórtico de la Gloria y la conclusión de la Catedral de

The Language of Architectural Detailing

Figure 6.27. Nave: north exterior, bay II

nothing in the crypt surviving from the earlier 12th century’.30 He places the capital sculpture to one period, finding links with the first generation of Gothic buildings in the Ile-de-France and Vézelay in northern Burgundy, and sees the campaign at the west as the completion of an incomplete building. On the other hand, the capitals can be interpreted quite differently: by reading the language of architectural detailing.

volutes, and birds are arranged in a more restrained manner (figs 6.29, 6.30). The abaci in the nave and transept are also dissimilar: the mouldings above the capitals on the west of M are more complex than the abaci on pier E in the transept (see fig. 6.28; compare with fig. 6.31). The form of the piers differs too. Pier E was modelled on the crossing piers in the church above, while pier M on its west side was constructed to a different design by Mateo in order to support the additional height of his construction (see fig. 4.6). Stratford observes, referring to the central shaft M7, that the ‘triplet shaft [is] one of the hallmarks of Early Gothic’ (see fig. 4.1).31 He dates the decorative architecture and the sculpture in the west crypt nave to the latter half of the twelfth century, tying it conveniently to the Matean period for which there is no dispute.

In Chapter 4 the west side of the large central pier M with its seven colonettes was shown to be a Matean addition (see fig. 4.1). The treatment of foliage on the centre capital, with its flowery or cabbage-like leaves which bend and curl in a loose fashion, and the fantastical figures on the next capital to the north-east are both typical of Mateo’s style of carving (fig. 6.28). The capitals in the crypt transept are carved in a more classical style: the acanthus leaves have pointed tips or end in

There is a general consensus that in the west crypt the so-called Matean capitals are linked with the carvings in the Pórtico de la Gloria.32 This agrees with the architectural observations already made that the west crypt nave was constructed, and the Pórtico altered, by Mateo: accordingly the capitals match. In

Santiago de Compostela’, see Actas (1992), 43-52; J. D’Emilio, ‘Tradición local y aportaciones foráneas en la escultura románica tardía: Compostela, Lugo y Carrión’, see Actas (1992), 83-102; Stratford (1992), 5382; Conant/Moralejo (1983), 231, 235, n.39. 30

Stratford (1992), 55, 57, 60: ‘I am in complete agreement with those who see nothing in the crypt surviving from the earlier 12th century. ... The crypt is a homogeneous building ... the consistent vocabulary of the mouldings and, above all, the evidence of the capital sculpture, which is all clearly of one period; ... Thus, there can be no doubt of the essential unity of the single great campaign at the west; it saw the completion of an incomplete building, by the creation of a totally new and massive substructure or platform for the Pórtico, west tribune and towers’.

31 32

Ibid., 56.

Otero Túñez (1965), 620-3, suggested that at least three sculptors were involved in producing the carvings on the Pórtico. Moralejo takes up this idea laying more emphasis on Mateo’s contribution to the architectural side and limiting the work of Mateo the sculptor: Conant/Moralejo (1983), 231a. Stratford (1992), 64, goes even further and gives art historians another field for debate by asking whether Mateo was even ‘a sculptor at all?’

91

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 6.28. West crypt: detail of M.8,7

Figure 6.29. West crypt: capital S.11

Figure 6.30. West crypt: capital S.9

the west crypt transept, which I have already shown belongs to Gelmírez, the capitals differ from the nave in style and character. The West Crypt Transept To demonstrate that the whole of the west crypt is of one period, Ward shows that the capitals match each other across the transept and are consistent in their composition. Nevertheless he admits that ‘the column bases in the east differ from those used in the west’.33 The bases on pier E match ones in the church nave – belonging to the Gelmírez period (see fig. 6.31). The bases of M facing west are raised on a plinth (see fig. 4.1). The moulding covering them is similar to Mateo’s mouldings in the Pórtico de la Gloria, which rest on the backs of grotesque 33

Figure 6.31. West crypt: pier E

creatures (fig. 6.32). This matching of the west crypt nave and the Pórtico de la Gloria finds a general consensus. No explanation has been given for an unused base at the north end of the west crypt transept (fig. 6.33). Set on a low bench that partially surrounds the transept, the style of the base suggests that it belonged to the earlier Gelmírian period. It is unlikely

Ward (1978), 35.

92

The Language of Architectural Detailing

Figure 6.32. Pórtico pier base: grotesque creatures

Figure 6.33. West crypt: base without a column

that Mateo placed the base in this position, realised later that it was not required, and subsequently failed to remove the unwanted structure.34

already stated in 1931 that ‘a Burgundian inspiration was not doubted’, and cited capitals from St. Lazare, Avallon; NôtreDame, Étampes; and La Madeleine, Vézelay as providing inspiration for the capitals at Santiago.38

The conclusion reached at the end of the chapter on the west crypt was that the ribs in the crypt transept were replaced by Mateo. What happened to the capitals upon which the ribs rested is questionable: they could either have been retained from Gelmírez or replaced by Mateo. If they were from the first building period of Gelmírez, various sources can be traced. Impetus could have come from Cordoba, or SaintBenoît-sur-Loire where Vergnolle recognises the revival of the corinthian capital in the tower porch of the abbey (dating from the 1060s).35 The pseudo-Roman capitals at St Benoît and ones in the crypt at Santiago imitate the elongated acanthus leaves, volutes, and the arrangement of leaves in tiers to be found on Roman capitals.36 Roman remains were abundant throughout Spain providing a source for inspiration; besides, St Benoît was on the pilgrim route from Paris allowing for a transmission of ideas, motifs and masons.

The most likely solution, however, is that the capitals were replaced a decade later. As previously pointed out, the vaults in the west crypt nave were built in imitation of an earlier style on the direction of the architect. The same procedure may have taken place with the capitals in the west crypt transept in an attempt to maintain continuity for traditional or aesthetic reasons. Volutes and beading were incorporated into the capitals, and the plain leaf form (the feuilles lisses) was reintroduced from its earlier appearance in the church above. On some capitals heads replace leaves on the central axis beneath the abaci, in a similar fashion to ones at St Benoît.39 Besides using themes from former capitals, the local masons were unable to resist displaying their knowledge of contemporary trends. They added current motifs to bring their capitals up to date but, as Stratford attested, they were not always successful in their interpretation.40

Pita Andrade suggested that Mateo started work in the crypt in 1161 therefore the remodelling of the crypt was well advanced, perhaps already finished, by 1168.37 A Burgundian influence has been advocated for the capitals. Lambert had

The West Crypt Ambulatory Mateo replaced the vaulting in the ambulatory; he could equally have replaced some of the capitals. The capitals on pier E are finely carved and relate to the capitals in the crypt transept. The abaci, similar in form to those in the church above, have an additional groove line at the lower edge (for example see fig. 6.30). Although a common decorative motif throughout the twelfth century, at Santiago the groove line is only to be found on the gallery capitals to the west of bay V, on the two pier capitals backing onto the Pórtico de la Gloria, on

34

There is the possibility that originally a column was set on this base which supported an arch used to decorate the blank wall behind. The arch was subsequently removed when the wall was cut back at a slant to allow for the insertion of the ‘lighting’ slit (mentioned in Chapter 4, The Nave and Transepts of the Catedral Vieja). The arrangement would have been duplicated in the south transept. 35

Gaillard suggests that the source for the corinthian capital came from Cordoba where it had been remodelled by the Omayyads. G. Gaillard, Les débuts de la Sculpture Romane Espanole: León, Jaca, Compostelle (Paris, 1938), 234-7. ������������������������������������������������������������������� He also points out that Mozarabic churches were decorated with magnificent capitals derived from the Corinthian order, which became models for the Romanesque capitals: ibid., xxi. E. Vergnolle, Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire et la sculpture du XIe siècle (Paris 1985), 198: Vergnolle proposes that the revival of the corinthian capital was inspired by the rich acanthus decoration depicted in manuscripts at the end of the tenth century.

38

‘Oú l’inspiration bourguignonne n’est pas douteuse’, Lambert (1931), 48. 39

For an illustration of a ‘head in axis’ see Vergnolle (1985), figure 45. A ‘head in axis’ in the form of a ‘chubby-faced’ lady peers out of foliage on pier I (west) in the south transept, and also in bay III in the south transept gallery.

36

For illustrations of St Benoît capitals see Vergnolle (1985), figures 41 to 46, and figure 40 for an ‘acanthus’ Roman capital.

40

Stratford (1992), 58. Criticising the sculpting of feuilles lisses in the west crypt, Stratford remarks: ‘No French sculptor would have ever committed the solecism of misunderstanding the abacus as a flat band behind the angle – and central – “teeth” of the abacus; this should of course be concave’ (W1 on fig 4.6). For illustration see Watson (1998), fig. 5.17.

37

Pita Andrade (1955), 386-7. 1168 is the date of the document which announces Mateo’s official undertaking of works at the west end of the cathedral (see Chapter 5).

93

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Figure 6.34. Pórtico de la Gloria: capitals

Figure 6.35. West crypt: capitals N.5, 4 and 3

Figure 6.37. West crypt: capital S.3,4

plan. Part-circular abaci were used in the Pórtico de la Gloria, but there they are formed with a roll moulding, whereas in the west crypt they consist of a hollow chamfer, the profile matching those in the rest of the cathedral (figs 6.34, 6.35). These four rounded capitals are positioned either side of the two semicircular niches. Part-circular mouldings appear in the nave and transepts of the cathedral-church above, where ring-shafts enclose attached shafts rising to the vault. These occur at the level of the springing points for the arcades, and at gallery level in the nave continuing the line of the abaci (see fig. 1.2).42 A few abaci in the gallery ambulatory also follow the shape of the stonework above. The abaci are cut on four sides to conform to arches set at angles to each other because of the curving ambulatory (fig. 6.36). These two sets of examples in the cathedral may have motivated the alternative shaped abaci to be adopted in the west crypt.

Figure 6.36. Gallery ambulatory: abacus following shape of masonry above

the capitals in the west crypt transept and on the two capitals at the entrance to the west crypt ambulatory, N7 and S7. Emphasis has been placed by scholars on the carving of the groove line to imply a later dating for the capitals.41 It could equally be due to a change of mason (as discussed in The Nave Galleries). Capitals N5, N6, S5 and S6 in the west crypt ambulatory do not have a groove line on their abaci and are semi-circular in

42

Curiously, ring-shafts do not occur at gallery level in the transepts, indicating a change of mason or directive. (Ring-shafts are not used in the other extant pilgrimage churches: St. Sernin, Toulouse or Ste Foi, Conques.)

41

Conant/Moralejo (1983), 231, n.45: Moralejo (1992), 215: D’Emilio (1992), 186.

94

The Language of Architectural Detailing

The East Chapel in the West Crypt At the entrance to the east chapel double colonnettes face each other across the archway; they support plain abaci and single capitals.43 Stratford admits that they ‘belong to an older Spanish tradition, for instance the [south] capital with harpies and men riding lions is reminiscent of the finely woven rinceau capitals of the first workshop of the Silos Cloister’ (fig. 6.37).44 The capital opposite, on the north side, imitates the carvings on the north portal columns where figures with chubby cheeks climb through vine foliage (see figs 2.7, 6.35). Nevertheless there is a difference. On the north capital the figures are clothed, their hair, stylish and their faces, expressive, indicating a replacement capital with the sculptor using the north portal columns for inspiration. The pertinent point regarding these two capitals is that they sit on ancient columns, which are thinner and carved from a different material to any others in the cathedral. The four capitals on the east wall are set on thin colonnettes with a selection of primitive bases (see fig. 4.13). Various sources exist for these capitals. Ward, describing the carving of the capitals and the vine scrolls knotted together in the centre of the bell, cannot place them as early as ‘Conant and Chamoso Lamas would have us believe’ (fig. 6.38).45 He likens them to early Gothic forms.46 Stratford matches them with ‘Nearly identical capitals … in one of the choir chapels of Noyon Cathedral dating, according to Charles Seymour, to c. 1150-60’.47 The binding together of the leaf stalks is a common form of decoration, Vergnolle citing numerous examples of foliage bound with clasps at Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire.48 In fact the motif could have come from an even earlier source: the Visigoths. Simple entwined leaves decorate pilasters in the Archaeological Museum in Mérida, derived in turn from Roman tablets, some on view in the same museum. Similarly,the

Figure 6.38. West crypt: east chapel, capital S.2

clasp motif is found on rinceau motifs from the beginning of the eighth century, incorporated on an external frieze of the presbytery at Quintanilla de las Viñas. Such carvings could well indicate an earlier date for the east chapel, earlier even than realised by Conant or Chamoso Lamas. The capitals in the west crypt, together with their abaci and bases, can be divided into three distinct styles relating to separate periods. Those in the east chapel are the earliest, while the Matean capitals in the nave belong to the latest stage linked with the Pórtico de la Gloria. The capitals in the ambulatory and transepts were replaced during Mateo’s alterations, the masons consciously imitating the style of Gelmírez in the desire to match an older tradition.49

43

‘Plain’ implies that the groove line is not used at the lower edge of the abacus; the single decorative line at the upper edge of the abacus is ubiquitous throughout the cathedral. 44

Stratford (1992), 62. The dates concerning the first campaign for the cloister at Silos are contentious, varying from 1075 to the second quarter of the twelfth century. For sculptural links between Santiago and Silos, see E. Valdez del Àlamo, ‘Relaciones Artísticas entre Silos y Santiago de Compostela’, see Actas (1992), 199-212. 45

Conant (1926), 32, places the construction of the west crypt at the beginning of the twelfth century. Chamoso Lamas (1973), 195a, suggests the ‘cathédrale vielle ... dut naturellement être construite avant la basilique. Elle se rattache donc par son origine au XIe siècle’. 46

Ward (1978), 41.

47

Stratford (1992), 58.

48

Vergnolle (1978), fig. 53.

49

To quote an example of this practice, that of deliberately using archaic motifs in respect of the past, see L. R. Hoey, ‘A Critical Account of Suger’s Architecture at Saint-Denis’, Avista Forum, 12/1 (1999), 15: ‘Grant is not the first to suggest that an innate conservatism in Suger’s makeup led him to demand backward-looking features in his new building. Suger believed that the building he was replacing or ‘completing’ had been built in the seventh century by King Dagobert.’

95

96

Conclusion The ambition of Don Diego Gelmírez was to build a church worthy of Spain’s patron saint, James. In this he achieved his goal. From the moment he attained a rank in the cathedral hierarchy, he influenced the construction which had been started by Don Diego Peláez in the mid-1070s. By the time Gelmírez was appointed bishop of Santiago he dominated the proceedings; his appointment as Archbishop secured considerable prestige for Compostela, and it became a centre of pilgrimage rivalling Rome and Jerusalem.

north exterior of the chevet which signified the heightening of the ambulatory. It provoked a debate as to the reason why, and, more specifically, when, this break in building construction occurred. A similar difference of opinion arose as to who had been responsible for which parts of the eastern end of the cathedral: Peláez or Gelmírez. With Chamoso Lamas’ examination of the ambulatory roof, and prompted by Williams’ comments on two differing excavations plans, it can now be stated that Peláez’s church advanced further to the west than has previously been accepted.

The Historia Compostelana is devoted to the life of Gelmírez and his achievements. Only small sections refer to actual building works, but the text can be revealing when describing historical events. We learn more of the appearance of the cathedral from Aymery Picaud. Having survived the rigours of pilgrimage, he describes the Romanesque cathedral with considerable enthusiasm in his Guide. Aymery’s vagueness in his numbering of the windows and piers, and his failure to produce exact measurements for the exterior of the cathedral, is noted by scholars wanting to prove that the west façade was incomplete. I have given alternative explanations for Aymery’s text and have shown that various interpretations can be drawn from a given set of figures – even certain phrases are ambivalent.

Work started independently on the north portal. Evidence for this is found in a lower north gable; uneven masonry on the exterior of the east transept; mouldings without billets on the remaining sections of the two north portal towers, and the fact that the chapel of St Nicholas was not completed in time for the consecration ceremony. An appreciation of these features advanced the hypothesis of a much earlier starting date for the north transept at its northern end, with the beginnings of a return to the crossing. The major point of contention in the cathedral’s development has been at the west end. Instead of the completion date for the main parts of the cathedral being set in the 1120s, as advocated by Conant, it has now been claimed that Gelmírez failed in his task and, consequently, Santiago was left in an unfinished state at its west end for many years. I have been able to disprove this theory, mainly through observation of the stonework, following the threads of masonry and exploring the hidden parts of the cathedral.

The cathedral went through many changes, the first major one taking place towards the end of the twelfth century when Fernando II appointed Master Mateo to make alterations. The cloister finally made an appearance under Archbishop Árias in the thirteenth century, and his plans for a huge Gothic east end threatened to overwhelm the Romanesque apse.1 New towers broke the skyline, chapels and sacristies surrounded the original fabric, and Casas y Nóvoa smothered the Romanesque. The north portal was similarly encased, the old roof re-covered and embellished with parapets. Wooden choir stalls replaced stone, which in turn were discarded, and the presbytery became a floating choir of gilded angels.

The west towers are crucial to the analysis of the building and demonstrate most clearly the campaign of Gelmírez. Everything hinges on their structure and positioning. They are massive, but I have suggested that they were planned for a five-aisle church emulating St. Peter’s in Rome or St. Sernin, Toulouse – both seen by Gelmírez on his journeys abroad – in which case the towers would have fitted more coherently into the general design. They were ‘projected early in the 12th century’, a fact admitted by Ward, acknowledged by Otero Túñez, and already suggested by Conant in 1926.2 Gelmírez was keen to build, and started to raise the towers at the west end soon after his return from Rome in 1105. In adopting this building sequence he was following the example of Peláez who had begun work on the north portal before completing the chevet. Gelmírez aligned the towers with Alfonso III’s basilica, which remained in position until 1112 obscuring a direct view of the east end. The miscalculation in the positioning of the towers meant that the nave arrived at the west end with space

With another change in fashion the Romanesque regained its popularity, and Kenneth Conant took up the challenge by writing a monograph of Santiago de Compostela in 1926. Interest had begun in the previous century when, in 1878, López Ferreiro organised excavations in the area of the tomb and wrote an history of the cathedral in eleven volumes. Chamoso Lamas added to the historical knowledge of the cathedral through his excavations in the middle of the twentieth century. Conant alerted his readers to marks in the masonry on the 1

The stumps of massive Gothic piers can be seen in the area between Santa María de la Corticela and the Portal of the via Sacra. They continue beneath the Quintana stairway.

2

97

Ward (1978), 63; Otero Túñez (1965), 623; Conant (1926), 32.

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

available for only half a bay on the exterior before meeting the towers, resulting in an abrupt termination instead of a more pleasing and correctly planned full bay.

Mateo designed the Pórtico de la Gloria. Unfortunately the narthex was not deep enough to display his creation to its best advantage. Mateo was unable to expand in any direction except upwards, his ambition again hampered by the existence of the towers.

The misalignment also affected many aspects at the west end. The south aisle had to swing to the north in order to meet the inner portal; the measurements of the inner portal piers fail to agree; Mateo’s arches either side of the Pórtico de la Gloria differ in width and the south arch is narrower on its north side. The most revealing piece of structure, which confirms the existence of west towers prior to Mateo, is perceptible in the gallery where the north and south gallery aisles meet the west gallery. The arches vary in width, the narrower southern one being forced to adopt a stilted form in order to fit into its allotted space. This extraordinary arrangement is dictated by the pre-existing towers.

The inner portals of the north and south transepts provide an excellent comparison for Mateo’s west end alterations. The east facing side of the inner portal at the west end shows how Mateo retained the earlier double arches and made a single archway to cover both, inserting a lintel on the Pórtico side. By this arrangement he kept the original articulation which matches those of the north and south transepts, although the central pier is much thinner and the arches are lower. Various inconsistencies in the fabric reveal other alterations: Mateo’s oculus is seen to disrupt the string course of Gelmírez, and Mateo failed to remove the attached shaft, instead giving it a foliate finial and a corbel to tidy up each end. The incomplete orders present a puzzle and could belong to either Mateo or Gelmírez, but are more likely to have been positioned in the time of Gelmírez for they rise from the nave side of the piers. The masons of Gelmírez were unable to use them: they too were inconvenienced by the incorrectly set towers and had to make adjustments.

As my examination developed it became apparent that the west end of the cathedral was divided between the construction work of Gelmírez and Mateo. In the manner of a treasure hunt, delving for clues, I discovered which parts belonged to Gelmírez and which to Mateo. The Matean supporters discount Gelmírez entirely from the western parts, but it became obvious that Gelmírez had activated the major part of the area. He had, therefore, determined the framework into which Mateo fitted his plans.

The west gallery, like the narthex, has been considered entirely the work of Mateo. On closer inspection I found signs of Gelmírez’s signature. Besides the incongruous archways mentioned before, other vestiges of his work remain: the central respond – mysteriously cut off and now supporting a light fixture – and the remaining responds which match those in the north and south transept galleries. The stone-coursing of the tower walls and pieces of abaci of matching stone reveal the presence of Gelmírez, while a different type of stone heralds Casas y Nóvoa’s extension. This extension abuts the façade of Gelmírez. Mateo’s efforts to develop his project were restricted, and at the lower level of the west gallery there is hardly any sign of his participation. Yet in the west gallery Mateo is perhaps at his most impressive for he solved the problem by raising the height of the roof and thereby creating a magnificent western termination to the cathedral.

The individual contributions made by Gelmírez and Mateo can be assessed. The present stairway belongs to the beginning of the seventeenth century. Mateo’s stairway can be reconstructed as a result of the inspection carried out during work to the terrace in 1978, but the wide stairway of Gelmírez is conjecture. The only hint that Gelmírez had built a stairway, apart from a reference to it by Aymery, is in the alignment of Mateo’s stairway and the present one: they were both set at right-angles to the towers; however the towers are not at right-angles to the nave. The towers were built by Gelmírez, therefore Gelmírez, in effect, dictated the direction of the subsequent stairways. As for the west façade, I have shown how Mateo tried to cover the design of Gelmírez by altering the four-part scheme into a tripartite plan. Mateo achieved his aim at portal and gable levels but was unable to disguise the original setting of the gallery, the existing towers and façade denying him freedom of design.

The existence, in the west galley, of a relieving arch above the termination of the tunnel vault, and the cut-off corbels along the exterior nave south, are further indications of the completion of a building to roof level prior to the arrival of Mateo. Mateo can claim the upper stages of the towers. It can even be confirmed that his construction led him from the foundation stones to the height of the west gable, for he aggrandised the whole of the west façade. He was, however, thwarted by boundaries throughout his building at the west end. If Mateo had operated from an open site presumably he could have developed a more homogeneous design, without the confusion of asymmetrical arches and disproportionate measurements, interrupted orders and dysfunctional responds, incorrect axes and various misalignments, all of which left behind a trail of clues indicating a former building campaign.

Apart from the eastern chapel in the west crypt, which is earlier, a natural division appears in the west crypt with Gelmírez responsible for the construction to the east and Mateo to the west. The division is conspicuous on pier M where Mateo enlarged the west side in order to support the additional height of his façade, and he produced a flamboyant series of capitals to decorate his extra colonnettes. Both ‘architects’ contributed to the west crypt transept and ambulatory, Gelmírez being accountable for the original layout and Mateo for the redecoration. Mateo replaced the groin vaulting with ribs, and the capitals destroyed in the process were either re-carved or replaced. The sculptors were influenced by the earlier style extant in the cathedral, but incorporated contemporary motifs into their work.

After a thorough investigation of the cathedral, using visual evidence and making a detailed analysis of the fabric, I 98

Conclusion

discovered even more of the early Romanesque period hidden behind the Baroque façade than had hitherto been envisaged. I have also been able to demonstrate that the west end, apart from the upper sections of the towers, existed before Mateo was appointed Superintendent of the works at Santiago.

acceptance of a west end dominated by Mateo. Gelmírez should be reinstated to his rightful position as its creator; after all, he left behind enough evidence in the masonry for his achievements to be recognised. In addition, I would like to return to the old school of Conant who set the criterion for the study of the cathedral. In the words of the apocrypha, ‘Forsake not an old friend; for the new is not comparable to him’.3

Modern theories may have their attractions, but they are not always correct. I would like to call a halt to the escalating

3

99

Ecclesiasticus IX: 10.

100

Appendix A Measurements Aymery Picaud in his Guide states that:

A few paragraphs further on from the above quote, Aymery explains how to calculate the stature of a man: ‘We [Aymery] reckon[s] the stature of a man at just 8 palms’,5 which on Conant’s stature of 5.59 feet makes a palm equivalent to 21.25 cm. Aymery was a cleric from Parthenay, not thought to have been particularly accomplished in architecture nor well versed in architectural terms. He was, nevertheless, acquainted with the widely adopted concept of the proportions of man, using the body as an analogy to describe the shape of the cathedral.6

‘The basilica of Saint James is in length 53 times the stature of a man, namely, from the western door up to the altar of the Holy Saviour; in width, in truth, it is forty-times-less-one [= 39], that is from the Portal of the French to the south portal’.1 (Aymery has indicated that these are interior measurements.) Before the length and width of the cathedral according to Aymery can be calculated, it is necessary to establish what measurement corresponds to ‘the stature of a man’. I will then compare Aymery’s measurements with those given by some eminent 20th century scholars. The results of this comparison will reveal a diversity of opinion on the matter, and will also show how measurements can be used to reinforce personal theories (see Table of Measurements).

Proportions were taken from antiquity. Vitruvius writing on the principles of symmetry declares: ‘Without symmetry and proportion there can be no principles in the design of any temple; that is, if there is no precise relation between its members, as in the case of those of a well shaped man’.7

Conant estimates Aymery’s ‘status hominis apparently [at] about 5.59 feet’.2 This converts to approximately 1.70 metres (5.59 feet times 0.3048 metre/foot equals 1.703832 metres before rounding to 2 decimals), bringing the length of the nave to 90.30 metres (53 times 1.703832 metres and then rounded to 2 decimals), (fig. A.1). Later (on page 50 note 2), Conant calculates Aymery’s length of ‘53 times a man’s stature’ as being ‘about 296 feet’, which converts to 90.22 metres.

Vitruvius states that the palm of the hand (the wrist to the tip of the middle finger) is the same as the face (from the chin to the top of the forehead: the lowest roots of the hair), both constituting one tenth part of the total body (the stature of a man); his measurement for the head, from the chin to the crown, is one eighth of a man.8 Aymery, on the other hand, either misinterprets Vitruvius, or chooses to apply another canon. He takes the palm as representing an eighth of the stature of a man, whereas it ought to be a tenth.9 The following calculations have all been based on

Conant gives the internal measurements for the width of the cathedral (the length of the transepts): ‘From valve to valve, about 218 feet originally [66.45m], 212 feet 10 inches net [64.87m]’.3 His first given width of 218 feet confirms a stature of 5.59 feet (1.70 metres), but the second of 212 feet 10 inches is only 5.46 feet (1.66 metres).4

measurements because a nullo valet comprehendi (Gerson 1998, 66). Chamoso Lamas pointed out that it was equally difficult to give these external measurements today as there were numerous later additions surrounding the Romanesque cathedral (1973), 104. 5

Gerson (1998), 69.

6

1

‘… one larger head [ie., the axial chapel], namely, where the altar of the Holy Saviour is found, and one ‘laurel wreath’ [ie., the ambulatory], and one ‘body’ [ie., the nave and aisles], and two ‘limbs’ [ ie., the transept arms and their aisles], and eight other small ‘heads’ [ie., the transept chapels and the remaining radiating chapels], in each of which are found individual altars’. Ibid., 67, 69.

Gerson (1998), 67. I have typed all figures in the appendix in Arabic numerals for ease of assessment. 2

Conant (1926), 26. Conant does not say how he arrives at this figure. My thanks to Hugh McCague for his help with my calculations, and our discussions of historical metrology and Vitruvius. As he pointed out, 5.59 feet is not an established historical standard unit of measurement known independent of this cathedral building.

7

Vitruvius, Ten Books of Architecture, translated by M. H. Morgan (1914, repr. New York, 1960), III, I, 72. See also later edition translated by I. Rowland (Cambridge, 1999).

3

Conant (1926), 50, n.3. Valve means the leaf of a door, therefore Conant measures from door to door.

8 9

4

Ibid., 72, para. 2.

‘Statum hominis recte de octo palmis esse dicimus’, Gerson (1998), 68 : ‘We say that the height of a standing man is 8 palms’. For ‘standing’ read recti for recte, pointed out by F. Davey. It has been suggested that Aymery did not use Vitruvius as his authority, see Gerson (1998), 198, n.24. However, L. D. Reynolds in his Chapter on Vitruvius, in Texts and transmission: a survey of the Latin classics (Oxford, 1983), 440-1, shows that manuscripts of De architectura were circulating in Europe in 800 and later throughout the medieval period: ‘Of the eighty or so extant manuscripts … the great majority are descended from British Library, Harley 2767 (H) … Its splendid calligraphy … suggests

Conant gives two measurements for the external lengths of the nave and transept. On page 19 note 2 he says: ‘The length externally of Santiago was originally about 327 feet [99.7 metres] … with the cross axis at 238 feet [72.5 metres]’. On page 50 note 5 he adds: ‘The exterior length of the church proper is now about 331 feet 6 inches [101 metres] … [and] … the exterior width of the transept proper is about 240 feet 7 inches [73 metres]’. The difference of 4 feet and 2 feet respectively could be accounted for by the extra thickness of the Baroque stonework affixed to the west and north portals, since Conant says ‘now’, presumably meaning 1926. Aymery fails to work out the exterior

101

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Aymery’s declaration of eight palms to a stature.10

fig. A.1, H).17 (Both these measurements are modern and not linked to Aymery’s 53 or 39 times the stature of a man.) Aymery writes that his reckoning is taken from the western door up to the altar of the Holy Saviour. When this is calculated, his length falls short of the entrance to the chapel of the Saviour. Chamoso Lamas’ measurements for the length and width fit neatly into Conant’s plan of the Romanesque cathedral. It is pertinent to note that Chamoso Lamas’ 97 metres is more accurate on the north side of the cathedral as a result of the bend in the nave (see fig. A.1, L).18 Chamoso Lamas does not become involved in the ‘palm’ discussions. If palms were to be deduced from his measurements, they would be 22.88 cm for the length and 20.9 cm for the width.

Conant’s calculations on Aymery’s status hominis (5.59 feet) makes Aymery’s palm equivalent to 212.5 mm (21.25 cm).11 Fernie quotes from the Liber Sancti Jacopi, which ‘gives a man’s stature as eight palms, or between 210 mm (21 cm) and 225 mm (22.5 cm) to the palm for a height between 1.68 m and 1.81 m’.12 Azcárate reckons a palm to measure 21cm or 20.65 cm, which would result in the nave being 89.04 metres or 87.56 metres, and the transept 65.52 metres or 64.42 metres (see fig. A, Z).13 Pita Andrade makes Aymery’s ‘53 times the height of a man’ in the nave to become 88 metres and ‘39 times the height of a man’ to equal to 65 metres in the transept, which means that his stature of a man is 1.66 metres for the nave and 1.67 metres for the transept (see fig. A, P).14 He observes that his transept measurements correspond to the 65 metres quoted by López Ferreiro, but not with López Ferreiro’s 97 metres for the nave.15

Azcárate’s hypothesis is that the cathedral of Gelmírez was one bay shorter, consequently his measurements start from the inner portal. Pita Andrade respects Azcárate’s hypothesis for one fewer bay but cannot accept the idea because it would necessitate a ‘fictitious’ pier, which could not exist for reasons expounded in Chapter 2, The Dimensions of the Church.19 It is already evident that measurements differ considerably. The position of the actual starting points for the nave measurements varies according to the author’s point of view and whether he agrees with Azcárate or the ‘orthodox’ historians.20

Chamoso Lamas gives the length of the Romanesque cathedral, ‘Longueur totale de la basilique’, to be 97 metres, from ‘la chapelle du Sauveur jusqu’au porche de la Gloire’, and the width, 65 metres, ‘depuis la porte Nord jusqu’á la porte Sud’ (see fig. A.1, L).16 Hogarth measures 94 metres for the length and 65 metres for the width (see

The various interpretations offered for the palm of the hand and its proportion to the stature of a man, make it difficult to rely on measurements as categorical proof of a specific aspect of the cathedral: for an incomplete cathedral at the time of Aymery’s visit or, in Azcárate’s case, for one fewer bay. Aymery’s figures do not agree with modern calculations, but then neither is there a consensus among twentieth-century scholars. Aymery may not have been too particular in his recordings; his lengths of 53 and 39 would almost certainly be approximations probably to the nearest whole number. He was more concerned with portraying a cathedral of great splendour and magnitude which, besides having ‘two storeys’, was also built ‘just like a royal palace’.21

that it might well have been written at the palace scriptorium of Charlemagne. This is supported by the fact that the first two men to show any knowledge of Vitruvius after the Dark Ages are Alcuin, in a letter written to Charlemagne between 801 and 804, and Einhard (832 and 840)’. 10

It is interesting to note that the palm of 20.65 cm – the shortest measurement given by Azcárate (see following paragraph) – multiplied by 8 (Vitruvius’ palm to the hair line) comes to a stature of 1.652 metres; multiplied by 53 for the length of the cathedral equals 87.56 metres. Using Vitruvius’ palm as being a tenth the height of a man, 20.65 cm for the palm results in the height/stature of 2.065 metres; multiplied by 53 would make the cathedral 109.445 metres long. The length, according to Chamoso Lamas (in 1973 page 177) is 97 metres, and Conant (in 1926 page 50 note 2) 296 feet, which equals 90.22 metres. 11

In a note on Aymery’s description of the ‘Altar of Santiago’ (page 55, note 5), Conant states: ‘The palm, judging by the church measurement, is just under seven tenths of a foot’. Seven tenths of a foot equals 8.4 inches which is 21.34 cm. Eight palms equal a stature, therefore 21.34 multiplied by eight gives a nave length of 1.707 metres. 12

E. Fernie, ‘A Beginner’s Guide to the Study of Architectural Proportions and Systems of Length,’ in Medieval Architecture and its Intellectual Context: Studies in Honour of Peter Kidson, ed. E. Fernie and P. Crossley (London, 1990), 237. Using Fernie’s quoted figures (see table), the length of the nave would be 89.0 metres (with a 210 mm palm) or 95.4 metres (with a 225 mm palm), and the transept 65.5 metres (with a 210 mm palm) or 70.2 metres (with a 225 mm palm). Fernie in his investigation on palms found that the term ‘applied to two entirely different lengths. In Antiquity its standard use was as a quarter of a foot, or about 75 mm depending on the length of the foot. On the other hand there are one or two references to it as the unit of three-quarters of a foot or c. 225 mm’: Fernie continues: ‘In the course of the first millennium the old short palm ceased to be used, and the term applied to the longer measure’, 236. 13

17

Azcátate (1963), 19.

For the bend in the nave and orientation and axis lines see Chapter 3, The West Towers: orientation.

14

Pita Andrade (1977), 92. To carry Pita Andrade’s calculations a stage further, his palm would be 20.75 cm for his 88 metre nave, and 20.83 cm for his 65 metre transept. 15 16

Hogarth (1992), 66, n.101.

18 19

Pita Andrade (1997), 92a, 93b.

López Ferreiro (19), III, 62.

20

For explanation of the term ‘orthodox’ see Chapter 4, n.2.

Chamoso Lamas (1973), 177, 103.

21

Gerson (1998), 69.

102

Appendix A

Table of Measurements

Nave

Transepts

Length

Width

Aymery Picaud

53 × stature

39 × stature

Conant/Aymery

Pita Andrade

90.30 m or 90.22 m 89 m to 95.4 m 89.04 m or 87.56 m 88 m

66.30 m 66.45 m 64.87 m 65.5 m to 70.2 m 65.52 m or 64.42 m 65 m

López Ferreiro

97 m

65 m

Chamoso Lamas

97 m

65 m

Hogarth

94 m

63 m

Fernie Azcárate

Stature of a man nave 1.70 m

transept

1.70 m 1.66 m

1.68 m

Palm nave 21.25 cm

1.81 m 1.66 m

1.67 m

1.65 m 1.66 m

1.67 m

21 cm to 22.5 cm 21 cm or 20.65 cm 20.75 cm

1.83 m

1.67 m

22.88 cm

103

transept

20.83 cm 20.9 cm

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

A.1 Plan of the cathedral (after Conant, 1926), with annotations by author, drawn by John Holland

104

Appendix B

Appendix B Gallery columns: further measurements North transept

‘A clear indication that the Guide describes an unfinished building is its stating the number of its windows. According to my calculations, the number mentioned accounts for the work done as far as the fifth or sixth bay of the tribunes of the nave. This is precisely the point at which the capitals begin to exhibit a different style, the abaci and different profile and the paired columns more slender proportions.1

I.E = 73; II.E = 75; III.E = 78; IV.E = 81.5; V.E = 88 I.W = 77.5; II.W = 78.5; III.W = 78.5; IV.W = 80.5; V.W = 85 South transept I.E = 80; II.E = 78; III.E no gap therefore could not measure; IV.E = 80; V.E = 85.5 I.W = 79; II.W = 78.5; III.W = 76.5; IV.W = 79.5; V.W = 85.5

Moralejo’s statement on the windows has been discussed in Chapter 2, The Windows, and the abaci in Chapter 5, The Nave Galleries. I measured the paired columns and present the results below (the columns are numbered as in fig. 6.1).

There is a variation in the thickness of the double columns in the galleries: on the nave north from 66 cm to 85 cm, and on the nave south from 65 cm to 87 cm. There does not appear to be any specific reason for this inconsistency. All the columns, however, have thicker circumferences approaching the crossing, where there is a greater weight to support.

Circumference of inner double columns in cm Nave north I.N = 68; II.N = 66; III.N = 76; IV.N = 67; V.N = 70; VI.N = 75; VII.N = 75.5; VIII.N = 75; bays IX and X covered with organ casing; XI.N = 85

I also measured the attached columns either side of the bay openings with similar inconsistent results. They ranged from 71 cm to 73 cm in the nave north and 69 cm to 75 cm in the nave south, with 77 cm to 79 cm in the north transept and 76 cm to 79.5 cm in the south transept.

Nave south I.S = 70; II.S = 71; III.S = 71.5; IV.S = 65; V.S = 66; VI.S = 75.5; VII.S = 80; VIII.S = 82; bays IX and X covered with organ casing; XI.S = 87

1

Moralejo (1992), 215.

105

106

Glossary Compound pier. A pier with several shafts, attached or detached. Corbel. A projecting block, usually of stone, supporting a beam or other member. Cornice. The top, projecting section of an entablature. Crocket capital. An early Gothic form, consisting of stylised leaves with rolled endings, similar to small volutes. Cusp. They project from the underside of the arch and form the tracery. Drum. A cylindrical wall supporting a dome. Ekphrasis. An eulogistic description of a painting or sculpture with attention to detail. Entablature. The upper part of an order, consisting of architrave, frieze and cornice. Fillet. A narrow (or sometimes broad), flat, raised band running down a shaft between the flutes in a column or along an arch or a roll moulding. Finial. An ornament at the top of a canopy, gable pinnacle, etc. Frieze. The middle division of an entablature, between the architrave and cornice; usually decorated but may be plain. Also the decorated band along the upper part of a wall, immediately below the cornice. Gable. The triangular upper portion of a wall at the end of a pitched roof corresponding to a pediment in classical architecture; generally straight sided, but there are variants. Haunch. Part of an arch, roughly midway between the springing line and crown, where the lateral thrust is strongest. Impost. The cap of a pier or pilaster from which an arch springs. Lintel. An horizontal beam or stone bridging an opening. Meseta. The extensive flat plains of the north and central Spain. Mitred arch. The pointed arch takes its name from the tall cap or mitre worn by a bishop. Mozarabic. The style evolved by Christians living under Moorish influence (they were allowed to practise their own religion). An example of the most commonly adopted feature was the horseshoe arch. Mozarabs brought their adopted style of architecture to other parts of Spain and as far north as the Chapelle St Michel-d’Aiguille in Le Puyen-Velay. Mullion. A vertical post or other upright dividing a window or other opening. Narthex. A porch or vestibule through which a church is entered. Oculus. A circular opening in a wall. Order. Of a doorway or window: a series of concentric

Abacus. The flat slab on the top of a capital. Addorsed. An adjective applied to two figures, usually animals, placed symmetrically back to back; usually found on capitals. Ambulatory. A semicircular or polygonal aisle enclosing an apse or a straight-ended sanctuary. Arcade. A range of arches carried on piers or columns. Architrave. The lowest of the three main parts of an entablature. Archivolt. The moulding on the face of an arch, following its contour. Apse. A vaulted recess, semicircular or polygonal, usually at the end of the chancel or chapel. Ashlar. Hewn blocks of masonry laid in horizontal courses with vertical joints, as opposed to rubble or unhewn stone straight from the quarry. Asturian. The kingdom of Asturia with its capital, Oviedo, lay in the north-west of Spain, flourishing in the ninth century. Its most important extant churches described as being in the Asturian style are S. Julián de los Prados, S. Miguel de Liño, Sta María de Naranco and Sta Cristina de Lena. Axial. An axial chapel is at the east end of a longitudinally planned church. Basilica. A church divided into a nave and aisles; the nave higher and wider than the aisles, the interior lit by windows in the clerestory, its source being the Roman basilica or meeting place. Billet moulding. A Romanesque moulding consisting of several bands of raised short square pieces placed at regular intervals. Blind arcade. A sequence of arches, their openings filled with masonry. Buttress. A mass of masonry or brickwork projecting from or built against a wall to give additional strength, usually to counteract the lateral thrust of an arch, roof, or vault. Capital. The head or crowning feature of a column. Chamfer. The surface made when a stone block is cut away, usually at an angle of 45° to the other two surfaces. It is called a hollow chamfer when the surface made is concave. Chancel. That part of the east end of a church in which the main altar is placed; reserved for clergy and choir. Chevet. The French term for the east end of a church, consisting of apse and ambulatory with or without radiating chapels; formerly applied to Gothic architecture, but now used for descriptions in the Romanesque period. Ciborium. A canopied structure over a high altar. Clerestory. The upper stage of the main walls of a church above the aisle roofs, pierced by windows. Colonette. A small column. 107

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

steps receding towards the opening. Pallium. A vestment of wool worn by patriarchs and metropolitans (in the R.C. Church conferred by the Pope). Parvis. An open space in front of and around cathedrals and churches. Pediment. A low pitched gable above a portico; also above doors, windows etc. Pier. A solid masonry support, as distinct from a column; a composite pier has several shafts, attached or detached, or demi-shafts set against the face. Pilaster. A flat column against the face of a wall (usually engaged – built into it). Plateresque. Exuberant sculpture and architectural ornamentation said to resemble the art of the platero (silversmith). Polychrome sculpture. A sculpture that has been coloured. For full description see, The Oxford Companion to Art, ed. H. Osborne (Oxford, 1992). Portico. An entrance porch. Presbytery. The part of the church which lies to the east of the choir, where the high altar is placed. Quatrefoil. A decoration formed of four lobes or part circles. Reconquista. The Christian reconquest of Spain from the Muslims (beginning of the 8th century to the end of the 15th century). Reredos. An ornamental structure covering the wall behind and above an altar. Roll moulding. Moulding of semi-circular or more than semicircular section, hence an axial roll is formed at the apex of the moulding (see fig. 4.14). Roundel. Similar to oculus and oeil-de-boeuf: a small round window, although the latter is more usually oval. Scotia. A concave moulding which casts a strong shadow (as on the base of a column), from the Greek word meaning darkness: from a dark shadow within a cavity. Socle. A low plain block or plinth serving as a pedestal to

a statue or column. Soffit. The underside of any architectural element. Spandrel. The triangular space between the side of an arch, the horizontal drawn from the level of its apex, and the vertical of its springing; also applied to the surface between two arches in an arcade. Squinche, or squinche arch. A small arch built obliquely across each internal angle of a square tower or other structure in order to carry a circular dome or octagonal spire. This form is of ancient eastern origin. Spur. An ornament on the corner of a square plinth. Stilted arches. A stilted arch has its springing line raised above the impost level, making the arch appear, to the eye, taller and narrower. String course. A continuous horizontal band on a wall face. Taifa. A principality ruled by Muslim. Transverse arch. Separates one bay of a vault from the next. Tribune. The gallery in a church. Trumeau. Upright supporting member between two openings. Tympanum. A panel filling the space above a door between the lintel and the arch. Vaulting. An arched ceiling or roof of stone or brick, sometimes imitated in wood or plaster. Barrel (or tunnel) vault: a continuous vault of semicircular or pointed sections, unbroken in its length by cross vaults; groin vault: this is produced by the intersection at right angles of two barrel vaults of identical shape; quadrant vault: half a barrel vault. At Santiago the quadrant vaults covering the gallery aisles buttress the great semi-circular barrel vault of the nave and transepts (see fig. 5.23). Volute. A spiral scroll, first introduced on Ionic capitals. Voussoir. Each of the stones, usually wedge-shaped, forming an arch.

108

Bibliography

Abou-el-Haj, B., 1991, ‘The Audiences for the Medieval Cult of Saints’, Gesta XXX/1, 3-15 Actas, 1992, Actas Simposio Internacional sobre, O Pórtico da Gloria e a Arte do seu Tempo, Santiago de Compostela, 3-8 de Outubro de 1988, A Coruña Azcárate Ristori, J. M. de, 1963, ‘La Portada de la Platerías y el programa iconográfico de la catedral de Santiago’, Archivo Español de Arte, XXXVI/141, 1-20 Azcárate Ristori, J. M. de, 1977, ‘El Protogótico’, in La Catedral de Santiago de Compostela (ed. anon.), Santiago, 207-46 Bevan, B., 1938, History of Spanish Architecture, London Biggs, A. G., 1949, Diego Gelmírez First Archbishop of Compostela, [Catholic University of America, Studies in Medieval History, New Series, XII], Washington Bilson, J., 1899, ‘The Beginnings of Gothic Architecture’, Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 6, 289326 Bonde, S., 1994, Fortress Churches of Languedoc, Cambridge Bony, J., 1983, French Gothic Architecture of the12th and 13th Centuries, Berkeley Bruzelius, C., 1987, ‘The Construction of Nôtre-Dame in Paris’, Art Bulletin LXIX, 540-69 Caamaño Martinez, J. M., 1962, Contributión al estudio del gótico in Galicia, Valladolid Carr, R., 2000, Spain. A History, Oxford Carro García, J., 1948, ‘El palacio y la torre de don Berenguer en la cabecera de la Catedral de Santiago’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, III/IX, 347-60 Carro García, J., 1949, ‘La escritura de concordia entre Don Diego Peláez, Obispo de Santiago, y San Fagildo, abad de Monasterio de Antealtares’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, IV/XII, 111-22 Carro García, J., 1952, ‘El privilegio de Alfonso VII al Monasterio de Antealtares’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, VII/XXI, 145-57 Castillo, A. del, 1926, ‘Inscripciones inéditas do la catedral de Santiago’, Boletín de la Real Academia Gallega, XV, 314-20 Castiñeiras Gonzalez, M. A., 2000, ‘La Catedral Románica: tipología arquitectónica y narración visual’, in Santiago, la Catedral y la Memoria del arte, ed. M. Núñez Rodríguez, Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle, 39-96 Castro Fernández, B. M., 2007, Francisco Pons-Sorolla y Arnau, arquitecto-restaurador: sus intervenciones en Galicia, Santiago Chamoso Lamas, M., 1936, ‘La fachada del Obradoiro de la Catedral de Santiago de Compostela’, Archivo Español de Arte y Arqueología, XII, 209-38

Chamoso Lamas, M., 1950, ‘El coro de la catedral de Santiago’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, V/XVI, 189220 Chamoso Lamas, M., 1956a, ‘Noticia de las excavaciones arqueologicas que se realizan in la Catedral de Santiago’, Compostellanum, I/2, 349-92 Chamoso Lamas, M., 1956b, ‘Noticia de las excavaciones arqueologicas que se realizan in la Catedral de Santiago (Segunda fase)’, Compostellanum, I/4, 803-56 Chamoso Lamas, M., 1957, ‘Noticia de las excavaciones arqueologicas que se realizan in la Catedral de Santiago (Tercera fase)’, Compostellanum, II/4, 575-680 Chamoso Lamas, M., 1959, ‘Esculturas del desaparecido pórtico occidental de la catedral de Santiago’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, XIV/XLIII, 202-8 Chamoso Lamas, M., 1960, Excavaciones Arqueologicas en la catedral de Santiago. Homenaje a Antonio López López Ferreiro en el cincuentenario de su muerte, Santiago de Compostela Chamoso Lamas, M., 1962, ‘Excavaciones realizadas en la Catedral de Santiago de Compostela’, Noticiario Arqueologico Hispanico, V, 1956-1961, 251-4 Chamoso Lamas, M., 1964, ‘Nuevas aportaciones al conocimiento del arte de Maestro Mateo’, Principe de Viana, 25/97, 225-37 Chamoso Lamas, M., 1971, ‘Noticias sobre recientes descubrimientos arqueológicos y artísticos efectuados in Santiago de Compostela’, Principe de Viana, 32/122, 3548 Chamoso Lamas, M., 1977, ‘El Prérrománico’, in La Catedral de Santiago de Compostela ed. anon., Santiago, 51-86 Chamoso Lamas, M., 1982, Santiago de Compostela, Madrid Chamoso Lamas, M., and F. Pons-Sorolla, 1962, ‘Noticia del descubrimiento de primitivas construcciones romanicas en la Catedral de Santiago’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, XVII-LII, 303-5 Chamoso Lamas, M., and Victoriano González, 1973, ‘Saint-Jacques de Compostelle’, in Galice romane, La Pierre-qui-Vire, 87-204 Clapham, A. W., 1936 (repr. 1959, 1967), Romanesque Architecture in Western Europe, Oxford Conant, K. J., 1926, The Early Architectural History of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Cambridge, Mass. Conant, K. J., 1930, ‘Medieval Academy Excavations at Cluny’, Speculum, 5, 77-94 Conant, K. J., 1954, ‘Medieval Academy Excavations at Cluny’, Speculum, 29, 1-43 Conant, K. J., 1956, ‘Municipal Politics in 1117: an 109

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Fletcher, R. A., 1984, St. James’s Catapult. The Life and Times of Diego Gelmírez of Santiago de Compostela, Oxford Fletcher, R. A., 2000 (repr. 2001), ‘The Early Middle Ages 700-1250’, in Spain. A History, ed. Carr, Oxford, 63-89 Focillon, H., 1963, The Art of the West, ed. J. Bony, ii, London Gaillard, G., 1932, ‘L’Église et le Cloître de Silos’, Bulletin monumental, 91, 39-80 Gaillard, G., 1938, Les Débuts de la Sculpture Romane Espagnole: León, Jaca, Compostelle, Paris Gaillard, G., 1957, ‘Les statues-colonnes d’Antealtares à Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle’, Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France, December, 171-9 Gaillard, G., 1958, ‘Le Porche de la Gloire à Saint-Jacques de Compostelle et ses origines espagnoles’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, I/4, 465-73 Gaillard, G., 1964, ‘L’influence du pèlerinage de SaintJacques sur la sculpture en Navarre’, Principe de Viana, 25/97, 181-6 Gaillard, G., 1965, ‘Une Abbaye de Pélerinage: SaintFoy de Conques et ses rapports avec Saint-Jacques’, Compostellanum, X/4, 335-46 Gaillard, G., 1972, Études d’Art Roman, Paris Gem, R., 1986, ‘The Origins of the Abbey’, in C. Wilson, P. Tudor-Craig and J. Physick, Westminster Abbey, London, 6-21 Gerson, P., A. Shaver-Crandell and A. Stones, 1998, The Pilgrim’s Guide: A Critical Edition, London Gómez Moreno, M., 1934, El arte romanico español, Madrid Gómez Moreno, M., 1951, ‘Arte Mozárabe’, in Ars Hispaniae, III, Madrid, 355-89 González-Pardo, I. M., 1985, ‘Le Lieu et la Ville Sainte’, in Santiago de Compostela:1000 ans de Pèlerinage Européen, catalogue of exhibition, 204-6, Gand Grabar, A., 1946 (repr. 1972), Martyrium, I, Paris Grant, L., 1998 Sugar, Abbot of Saint Denis, 1081-1151, London Guerra Campos, J., 1960a, ‘Excavaciónes en la Catedral de Santiago’, La Ciencia Tomista, LXXXVII/273, 97-168 Guerra Campos, J. 1960b, ‘Excavaciónes en la Catedral de Santiago’, La Ciencia Tomista, LXXXVII/274, 269324 Guerra Campos, J., 1977, ‘El Sepulcro de Santiago’, in La Catedral de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, 11-50 Guerra Campos, J., 1982, Exploraciones arqueológicas en torno al sepulcro del apóstol Santiago, Santiago de Compostela Hartley, C. G., 1912, The Story of Santiago de Compostela, London Hauschild, T., 1992, ‘Archeology [sic] and the Tomb of St James’, in The Codex Calixtinus and the Shrine of St James, eds J. Williams, A. Stones, Tübingen, 89-103 Heitz, C., 1980, L’architecture religieuse carolingienne, Paris Historia Compostelana, (H.C.) 1950, ed. and translated from the Latin text into Spanish, M. Suárez and J. Campelo, Santiago de Compostela

explanatory note’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, XV/1, 3-4 Conant, K. J., 1966, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture 800-1200, London Conant, K. J., in collaboration with H. M. Willard, 1971, ‘Early example of the pointed arch and vault in Romanesque architecture’, Viator, 2, 203-10 Conant, K. J., (Conant/Moralejo) 1983, Arquitectura románica da catedral de Santiago de Compostela. Notas para unha revisión da obra de K. J. Conant por Serafín Moralejo Álvarez, Santiago Crook, J., 2000, The Architectural Setting of the Cult of Saints in the Early Christian West c.300-1200, Oxford D’Emilio, J., 1988, ‘Romanesque Architectural Sculpture in the Diocese of Lugo east of the Miño’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art, London University D’Emilio, J., 1992a, ‘The Building and the Pilgrims’ Guide’, in The Codex Calixtinus and the Shrine of St. James, eds J. Williams and A. Stones, Tübingen, 185-205 D’Emilio, J., 1992b, ‘Tradición local y aportaciones foráneas en la escultura románica tardía: Compostela, Lugo y Carrión’, see Actas, 83-102 Davis, R. H. C., 1938, ‘Masons’ Marks in Oxfordshire and the Cotswolds’, Oxfordshire Archaeological Society Report, 84, 69-83 Davis-Weyer, C., 1986, Early Medieval Art 300-1150, Canada Dodds, J., 1989 (repr. 1994), Architecture and Ideology in Early Medieval Spain, University Park, Penn. Durliat, M., 1966, L’Architecture Espagnole, Toulouse Durliat, M., 1971, ‘The Pilgrimage Roads Revisited?’, Bulletin monumental, 129, 113-20 Durliat, M., 1990, La Sculpture Romane de la route de Saint-Jacques: de Conques á Compostelle, Mont-deMarsan Enlart, C., 1905, ‘L’architecture romane’, in Histoire de l’Art, ed. A. Michel, 8 vols, Paris, I, 443-588 Falque, E., See Historia Compostelana Fernie, E., 1980, ‘The Spiral piers of Durham Cathedral’, in Medieval Art and Architecture at Durham Cathedral, eds N. Coldstream and P. Draper, BAA conference transactions for the year 1977, Leeds, 49-58 Fernie, E., 1990, ‘A Beginner’s Guide to the Study of Architectural Proportions and Systems of Length’, in Medieval architecture and its intellectual context: studies in the honour of Peter Kidson, eds E. Fernie and P. Crossley, London, 229-37 Filgueira Valverde, J., 1948, ‘Datos y conjeturas para la biografía del Maestro Mateo’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, III/IX, 48-69 Fletcher, R. A., 1972, ‘The Archbishops of Santiago de Compostela between 1140-1173: a new chronology’, Compostellanum 17, 45-61 Fletcher, R. A., 1977, ‘Regalian Right in Twelfth-Century Spain: the Case of Archbishop Martín of Santiago de Compostela’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 28/4, 33760 Fletcher, R. A., 1978, The Episcopate in the Kingdom of León in the Twelfth Century, Oxford 110

Bibliography

Historia Compostelana, (H.C.) 1994, ed. and translated from the Latin text into Spanish, E. Falque, Madrid Hoey, L. R., 1996, ‘A Problem in Romanesque Aesthetics: the articulation of groin and early rib vaults in the larger churches of England and Normandy’, Gesta, XXXV/2, 156-76 Hoey, L. R., 1999, ‘A Critical Account of Suger’s Architecture at Saint-Denis’, Avista Forum, 12/1, 12-19 Hogarth, J., 1992, The Pilgrim’s Guide, trans. London Jongkees, J. H., 1966, Studies on Old St. Peter’s, Groningen King, G. G., 1920, The Way of St. James, 3 vols, I, III, New York, King, G. G., 1924, Pre-Romanesque Churches of Spain, London Laffont, R., 1966, ‘Saint-Gilles-du-Gard’ in Dictionnaire des Eglises de France, ed. A. Castel, II, Lyons, 144-8 Lambert, E., 1931 (repr. 1971), L’Art gothique in Espagne aux XIIe et XIIIe siécles, Paris (repr. New York) Lampérez y Romea, V., 1930, Historia de la arquitectura cristiana española en la Edad Media, 3 vols, Madrid Linehan, P., 1993, History and the Historians of Medieval Spain, New York López Alsina, F., 1985, ‘Compostelle, Ville de Saint Jacques’, in Santiago de Compostela:1000 ans de Pèlerinage Européan, [catalogue de l’exposition organisée dans le cadre d’Europalia 85 España], Gand, 53-60 López Alsina, F., 1988, La ciudad de Santiago de Compostela en la alta edad media, Santiago de Compostela López Ferreiro, A., 1898-1911, Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, 11 vols, Santiago Louis, R., 1955, ‘Fouilles exécutées dans la cathédrale de Sainte Jacques de Compostelle’, [par Don Manuel Chamoso Lamas au cours des premiers mois de 1955], Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaries de France, June, 152-3 Lyman, T., 1967, ‘Notes on the Miégeville Capitals and the Construction of St. Sernin in Toulouse’, Art Bulletin, XLIX, 25-36 Lyman, T., 1969, ‘The Pilgrimage Roads Revisited’, Gesta VIII/1, 30-44 Markham, V. R., 1929, Romanesque France, London Matthews, K., 1995, ‘ “They wished to destroy the Temple of God:” Responses to Diego Gelmírez’s Cathedral Construction in Santiago de Compostela, 1100-1140’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago McAleer, J. P., 1984, ‘Romanesque England and the Development of the Façade Harmonique’, Gesta, XXIII/2, 87-105 McAleer, J. P., 1988, ‘Particularly English? Screen facades of the type of Salisbury and Wells’, British Archaeological Association Journal, 141, 124-58 Melczer, W., 1993, The Pilgrim’s Guide, New York Mezquiriz Irujo, A., 1985, ‘Hallazgos romanos en las excavaciones de la catedral de Santiago’, Compostellanum, XXX/3, 235-44 Michel, A., 1905-29, Histoire de l’art depuis les premiers temps Chrétiens jusqu’à nos jours, ed. 8 vols, Paris, I, II

Moralejo Álvarez, S., 1969, ‘La primitiva fachada norte de la Catedral de Santiago’, Compostellanum, XIV/4, 62368 Moralejo Álvarez, S., 1985a, ‘Le Lieu Saint: Le Tombeau et les Basiliques Medievales’, in Santiago de Compostela. 1000 ans de Pèlerinage Européen, [catalogue de l’exposition organisée dans le cadre d’Europalia 85 España], Gand, 41-52 Moralejo Álvarez, S., 1985b, ‘Artistas, patronos y público en el arte del Camino de Santiago’, Compostellanum, XXX/3, 395-423 Moralejo Álvarez, S., 1985c, ‘Le porche de Gloire de la Cathédrale de Compostelle. Problèmes de sources et d’interprétation’, Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa, 16, 92-110 Moralejo Álvarez, S., 1987, ‘El patronazgo artístico del arzobispo Gelmírez (1100-1140): su reflejo in la obra e imagen de Santiago’, in Atti de Convegno Internazionale de Studi Pistoia Settembre 1984, Perugia, 245-72 Moralejo Álvarez, S., 1992, ‘The Codex Calixtinus as an Art-Historical Source’, in The Codex Calixtinus and the Shrine of St. James, eds J. Williams and A. Stones, Tübingen, 207-227 Moralejo Álvarez, S., and F. López Alsina. 1993. El camino de Santiago: culto y cultura en la peregrinación a Compostela, eds, catalogue of an exhibition held at the Monastery of San Martín Pinario, Santiago de Compostela Morris, R. K., 1992, ‘An English glossary of medieval mouldings’, Architectural History, 35, 1-17 Mullins, E., 2006, In Search of Cluny, Oxford Musset, L., 1967, ‘Caen’, in Normandie Romane I, La Pierre-qui-Vire, 62-100 Ocaña Eiroa, F. J., 2003, ‘La controvertida personalidad del Maestre Esteban in las catedrales románicas de Pamplona y Santiago’, Príncipe de Viana, 64/228, 7-58. Otero Tùñez, R., 1965, ‘Problemas de la catedral románica de Santiago’, Compostellanum, X/4, 605-24 Paci, S. M., 1995, ‘Of Apostolic Memory’, 30 Days, II, 48-53 Palol, P. de, 1968, Arte Hispanico de la Epoca Visigoda, Barcelona Pedret Casado, P., 1949, ‘Santa María la Mayor y Real del Sar’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, IV/XIV, 339-48 Pita Andrade, J. M., 1949, ‘Aportaciones recientas a la historia del arte español’, Archivo Español de Arte, XXIII/88, 369-72 Pita Andrade, J. M., 1950, ‘En Torno al arte del Maestro Mateo: el Cristo de la Transfiguración in la portada de las Platerias’, Archivo Español de Arte, 89, 13-25 Pita Andrade, J. M., 1955, ‘Varias notas para la filiación artística de Maestre Mateo’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, X/XXX, 373-403 Pita Andrade, J. M., 1959, ‘Sobre los orígenes españoles del Pórtico de la Gloria’, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, XIV/XLII, 131-37 Pita Andrade, J. M., 1977, ‘La arquitectura románica’, in La Catedral de Santiago de Compostela, ed. anon., Santiago, 87-104 111

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Pons Sorolla, F., 1969, ‘Proyecto de obras de reposición de cubierta en la capilla de la Comunión y restauración de elementos románicos de la torre de las campanas en la Catedral de Santiago de Compostela’, [from the Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Archivo central, Alcalá de Henares], Madrid Porter, A. K., 1923 (repr. 1969), Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrim Roads, Boston (repr. New York) Porter, A. K., 1924, ‘Spain or Toulouse? And Other Questions’, Art Bulletin, VII, 3-35 Porter, A. K., 1928, Spanish Romanesque Sculpture, 2 vols, Florence Puente Míguez, J. A., 1992, ‘La fachada exterior del Pórtico de la Gloria y el problema de sus accesos’, see Actas, 117-31 Puig I Cadafalch, J., 1961, L’Art Wisigothique et ses survivances, Paris Rahlves, F., 1966, Cathedrals and Monasteries of Spain, London Reilly, B. F., 1968, ‘Santiago and St. Denis: the French presence in 11th-Century Spain’, Catholic Historical Review, LIV/3, 465-83 Reilly, B. F., 1969, ‘The Historia Compostelana: the Genesis and Composition of a twelfth-century Spanish Gesta’, Speculum, 44, 78-85 Reilly, B. F., 1976, ‘The Chancery of Alfonso VII of León Castille: The Period 1116-1135 Reconsidered’, Speculum, 51, 245-66 Reilly, B. F., 1988, The Kingdom of León-Castilla under King Alfonso VI, 1065-1109, Princeton Reinhardt, H., 1933, ‘Étude sur les églises-porches carolingiennes et leur survivance dans l’art roman’, Bulletin monumental, 92, 331-65, Paris Reynolds, L. D., 1983, Texts and transmission: a survey of the Latin classics, ed. Oxford Sánchez Artega, M. 1916, A puntes históricos-artísticos de la Catedral de Orense, anotados por Candido Cid Rodriguez, Orense Sandoval, Don Prudencio de, Bishop of Pamplona, 1614, Catalogo de los Obispos que ha tenido La Santa iglesia de Pamplona del siglo ocho, Pamplona Sauerländer, W., 1970, ‘Sculpture on Early Gothic Churches’, Gesta, IX/2, 32-48 Sauerländer, W., 1972, Gothic Sculpture in France 11401270, London Saulnier, L., and N. Stratford, 1984. La Sculpture oubliée de Vézelay: Catalogue du Musée Lapidaire, Geneva Schaefer, H., 1945, ‘The Origin of the Two-Tower Facade in Romanesque Architecture’, Art Bulletin, XXVII, 85108 Schapiro, M., 1939, ‘From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos’, Art Bulletin, XXI, 313-74 Schapiro, M., 1942, ‘A Note on an Inscription of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela’, Speculum, 17, 2612 Shaver-Crandell, A., and P. Gerson, 1995, The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela, London Stoddard, W. S., 1973, The Façade of Saint-Gilles-duGard, Connecticut

Stokstad, M., 1957, ‘The Pórtico de la Gloria of the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan Stokstad, M., 1978, Santiago de Compostela: In the Age of the Great Pilgrimage, University of Oklahoma Stratford, N., 1992, ‘ “Compostela and Burgundy?” Thoughts on the western crypt of the Cathedral of Santiago’, see Actas, 53-82 Street, G. E., 1865, Some Account of Gothic Architecture in Spain, 2 vols, London Street, G. E., 1914 (repr. 1969), Some Account of Gothic Architecture in Spain, 2 vols, ed. G. G. King, New York Suárez, M., and J. Campelo, see Historia Compostelana, 1950 Sumption, J., 1975, Pilgrimage: an image of medieval religion, London Talbert, R. J. A., 1992, Barrington’s Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. Princeton Thurlby, M., 1993, ‘The purpose of the rib in the Romanesque vaults of Durham Cathedral’, in Engineering a cathedral, ed. M. Jackson, London, 64-76 Thurlby, M. 1994. ‘The Roles of the Patron and the Master Mason in the First Design of the Romanesque Cathedral of Durham’, in Anglo-Norman Durham 1093-1193, eds Rollason, Harvey, Prestwich, Woodbridge, 161-84 Thurlby, M., 1995, ‘The Lady Chapel of Glastonbury Abbey’, Antiquaries Journal, 75, 107-70 Torres Balbas, L., 1952, Architectura Gótica’, in Ars Hispaniae, VII, Madrid Tranoy, A., 1981, La Galice romaine. Recherches sur le nord-ouest de la péninsule ibérique dans l’Antiquité, Paris Tyler, W., 1941, ‘A Spanish Romanesque Column in the Fogg Museum’, Art Bulletin, XXIII, 45-52 Valdez del Álamo, E., 1992, ‘Relaciones Artísticas entre Silos y Santiago de Compostela’, see Actas Vázquez de Parga, L., J. M. Lacarra and J. Uría Ríu, 1948-49, Las peregrinaciones a Santiago de Compostela, 3 vols, Madrid Vergnolle, E., 1985, Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire et la sculpture de XIe siècle, Paris Vielliard, J., 1938 (repr. 1963), Le Guide du Pèlerin de Saint-Jacques de Compostelle, trans. Macon Villa-Amil y Castro, J., 1866, Descripción histórico – artística – arqueológica de la Catedral de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo Villa-Amil y Castro, J., 1909, La Catedral de Santiago: Breve descripción histórica, Madrid Viñayo González, A., 1998, St Isidore’s Basilica, León, León Vitruvius, 1914 (repr. 1960), The Ten Books on Architecture, trans. M. Hicky Morgan, Cambridge, Mass. (repr. London), [see also edition trans. I. Rowland, 1999, Cambridge] Ward, M., 1978, ‘Studies in the Pórtico de la Gloria at the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University Ward, M., 1992, ‘El Pórtico de la Gloria y la conclusión de la catedral de Santiago de Compostela’, see Actas, 43-52 112

Bibliography

Ward Perkins, J. B., 1952, ‘The Shrine of St. Peter and its Twelve Spiral Columns’, The Journal of Roman Studies, 42, 21-35. Watson, C., 1998, ‘The Western Parts of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela: a reassessment’, unpublished M.A. by research, University of Warwick Watson, C., 2000, ‘A Reassessment of the Western Parts of the Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 59/4, 502-21 Whitehill, W. M., 1941 (repr. 1961), Spanish Romanesque Architecture of the Eleventh Century, Oxford Whitehill, W. M., 1944, Liber Sancti Jacobi, Codex Calixtinus, trans. Santiago de Compostela Williams, J., 1973, ‘San Isidoro in León’, Art Bulletin, LV, 171-84 Williams, J., 1976, ‘ “Spain or Toulouse?” A half century later: observations on the chronology of Santiago de Compostela’, in Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Historia del Arte, held in Granada in 1973, Granada, 557-67 Williams, J., 1984, ‘La arquitectura del Camino de Santiago’, Compostellanum, XXIX/3, 267-90 Williams, J., 1988, ‘Cluny and Spain’, Gesta XXVII/1, 93-101

Williams, J., 2008b, ‘The Tomb of St. James: The View from the Other Side’, Cross, Crescent and Conversion: Studies on Medieval Spain and Christendom in Memory of Richard Fletcher, eds. S. Barton and P. Linehan, LeidenBoston, 175-91 Williams, J., and A. Stones, 1992, The Codex Calixtinus and the Shrine of St. James, eds, Tübingen Yzquierdo Perrín, R., 1986, ‘El monasterio de Carboeiro’, Monacato Galego Sexquimilenario de San Bieto, Actas do Primeiro coloquio Ourense 1981, Ourense, 121-51 Yzquierdo Perrín, R., 1989, ‘Aproximación al estudio del claustro medieval de la catedral de Santiago’, Boletín de Estudios del Seminario Homenaje a Don Ramón Otero Tuñez, 10, 15-41 Yzquierdo Perrín, R., 1993, Galicia: Arte Medieval, I, X, A Coruña Yzquierdo Perrín, R., and C. Manso Porto, 1996, Galicia: Arte Medieval, II, XI, A Coruña Yzquierdo Perrín, R., 1999, Reconstrucción del Coro Pétreo del Maestre Mateo, A Coruña Yzquierdo Perrín, R., 2002, Santiago de Compostela en la Edad Media, Spain Zarnecki, G., 1979, Studies in Romanesque Sculpture, London Zielinski, A. S., 1993, ‘Variations of the Acanthus and other foliate designs at Saint-Martin-des-Champs, Paris’, L’Acanthe dans la sculpture monumentale de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, ed. anon. [Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques], Paris, 327-44

Williams, J., 2008a, ‘Framing Santiago’, Romanesque Art and Thought in the Twelfth Century: Essays in honor of Walter Cahn, 219-38, University Park, Penn.

113

114

Index Only names and places in the main text are mentioned. References to notes are given when they indicate matters of special interest or importance. Such references are italicised by page no. – note no. Abd al Rahman II 61 Agnes of Aquitaine 39 Alcuin 102-9 Alfonso I, King of Aragon 2, 38 Alfonso II, (the Chaste), King of the Asturias xi, 4, 36 Alfonso III, King of the Asturias xi, 41, 43, 83, 97 Alfonso VI, King and Emperor of León-Castile xii, 2, 4, 7-8, 10, 39-40, 49 Alfonso VII, King and Emperor of León-Castile 48-9 Almansur, vizir of Al-Andulus xi Andrade, Antonio de 1 Árias, don Juan, bishop of Santiago 18, 97 Arles xi Auch 49 Aymericus, chancellor 19-1 Aymery Picaud ix, x, 2, 6, 9, 19, 21-34, 36, 38, 40, 45, 47, 49, 55, 65, 67, 72, 74, 97-8, 101-2 Azabachería (see Portal of the Azabachería) Azcárate Ristori, J. M. de 21, 51, 52, 74, 102 Baptistery xi, 71-2 Bayeux 44 Berengaria of Barcelona 48 Bernard of Sédirac xii Bernard (Bernardo) the Elder, (el Viejo) 9, 36-57 Bernard the Treasurer 24 Biggs, A. G. 6 Botafumeiro 65 Burgos 48-9 Caamaño Martinez, J. M. 51-2 Calixtus II, pope 19, 38 Campanas tower 47-8, 65 Carraca tower 48, 65 Carrión de los Condes 48 Casas y Nóvoa, Fernando de 1, 51, 54, 58, 67, 75, 97-8 Castillo, A. del 4-6 Castiñeiras González, M. A. 23-22 Cesures, bridge 15 Chamoso Lamas, M. x, xi, 7, 10, 18, 36, 41, 43, 47, 51, 53, 55, 59, 61, 67, 74, 95, 97, 102 Chapel of Mondragón 23 Chapel of Our Lady in White 36 Chapel of San Salvador 4, 6, 14, 36, 60-1 Chapel of St Andrew 31, 34 Chapel of St Faith (formerly of St Bartholomew) 6-7, 23, 34, 36, 44 Chapel of St Fructuosus (later of St Martin) 33 Chapel of St John the Baptist 34 Chapel of St John the Evangelist 14, 23, 36 Chapel of St Martin (formerly of St Fructuosus) 33

Chapel of St Nicholas 12, 14, 34, 97 Chapel of St Peter (also called the Virgin of the Azucena) 2, 14, 36 Chapel of the Communion 32 Chapel of the Holy Cross (now of the Conception) 34 Chapel of the Holy Spirit 23 Chapel of the Pillar 14, 23, 34 Charlemagne 43 Clavijo, battle 1-3; tympanum 18 Clermont, Council of 39 Cloister 3, 18, 24, 41, 97 Cluny 39-40 Compostela (Assegonia), xi, xii-42, 4, 6, 8, 19-5, 39-41, 40-23, 43, 48-9, 61, 97 Conant, K. J. ix, 1, 6, 12, 14-5, 21-23, 23-28, 31, 33, 41, 45, 47, 51-55, 58, 61, 65, 67, 74-5, 79-80, 95, 97, 99, 1012 Concord of Antealtares 2, 2-6, 23 Conques xi, 6, 44 (see also Ste Foi) Constance of Burgundy 39 Constantine 40 Cordoba, the Great Mosque xi, 61, 93 Corticela (see Santa María de la) Cresconio, bishop of Santiago 43, 47-8, 60-62 D’Emilio, J. 23, 51, 53, 83, 88, 90 Dalmatius, bishop of Santiago 39 Davey, F. 5-24, 6, Desiderius, abbot 40-14 Durham Cathedral 9-51, 44, 39-9 Durliat, M. 66 Edward the Confessor 44 Enlart, C. 3 Esteban (Stephen) 34-55, 36-57 Fagildo, San, abbot of Antealtares 2 Fernando II 15, 18, 97 Fernie, E. 102 Flórez, P. Enrique 3 Froílaz, Pedro, count of Traba, 49 Frómista (see San Martín) Gaillard, G. 51, 58, 66 Galicia x, 39, 48-9 Galilee x Gelmírez, don Diego, archbishop of the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela ix-x, 5-10, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23-4, 31, 38-41, 43-5, 47-9, 51-2, 55, 58, 62-3, 65, 67-8, 70-6, 79, 81, 83, 88-9, 92-3, 95, 97-9, 102 Gerson, P. 22 Gethsemane x Giraldo, from Beauvais 40, 49 115

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compstela: a reassessment

Glastonbury Abbey 59 Gómez Moreno, M. 5 Granada 8 Gudestéiz archbishop 85 Gudesteo, bishop of Santiago xi, 85; capital in nave gallery 83, 89 Gundesindo, abbot 8 Guerra Campos, J. 7, 41 Hartley, C. Gasquoine 53, 61 Hauschild, T. x Henry I of England 2 Herod Agrippa x, 26 Hogarth, J. 102 Huesca 49 Hugh, abbot of Cluny (later bishop of Oporto) 39 Hugo, a canon of Compostela 6, 40 Ildefredo, Abbot xi Ile-de-France 91 Jaca, and cathedral 43, 83, 89 Jaffa x Jerusalem x, 29, 39-9, 97 King, G. G. 51 La Charité-sur-Loire 85 Lambert, E. 52-3, 58, 93 Lampérez y Romea, V. 52, 53 Lateran, the 6, 39 León 49 Le Puy-en-Velay xi, 51, 65 Loarre 31-47 López Alsina, F. 3 López Ferreiro, A. x, 2-3, 6, 10, 22, 41, 51-2, 55, 59-61, 63, 67, 89, 97, 102 Louis VI, le Gros 2, 19 Louis, R. 7, 10 Lugo (Lucus Auguati), cathedral of, 52 Lupa, noblewoman x Marantes, San Vicente de 18 Martínez, Caamaño 51 Martínez, Ginés 54 Matamoros, Santiago 1, 1-3 Mateo, Master ix, 15, 17-8, 22, 29, 43, 45, 47, 51-55, 5861, 63, 65, 67-9, 70-6, 79, 81. 88-93, 95, 97-9 Matthews, K. 25-32 Maximilian of Austria, archbishop 51, 55, 58, 65, 67 Mérida 38, 95 Mitre 60-57 Montecassino 40-14 Moralejo Álvarez, S. 6, 19, 23, 41, 51-3, 61, 83, 85, 88, 90, 105 Mount Tabor x Narthex 1, 43, 51, 55, 58-9, 65, 67-8, 70-1, 74, 79, 98 Nôtre-Dame (Étampes) 93 Nôtre-Dame (Paris) 41-34 Noyon Cathedral 95 Nuestra Señora de las Angustias de Agualada 18 Nuño (or Muño) Alfonso (later bishop of Mondoñedo) 40 Obradoiro, Plaza del 1, 65 Orense 66

Otero Tùñez, R. 51-2, 97 Padrón (Iria Flavia) x, 1-1 Palace of Gelmírez (Bishop’s Palace) 2, 19, 23-22, 24, 31, 47-68, 47-8, 79 Pamplona, cathedral 34, 45 (for bishop, see Pedro) Paris xi, 93 Parthenay 19, 101 Paschal II, pope 6, 39 Pedro, bishop of Pamplona (Roda and d’Andouque) 6, 44 Peláez, don Diego, bishop of Santiago de Compostela ix, xi, 2, 6-8, 10, 15, 19, 36, 39-40, 48, 97 Pelayo xi Picaud, Aymery (see Aymery) Pilgrimage churches xi-38 Pita Andrade, J. M 21, 51-3, 58-9, 63, 67, 93, 102 Platerías, the south portal 3-10, 3-12, 18, 25-6, 31, 45, 60, 65, 71, 74, 85 Pons-Sorolla, F. 10, 18, 55, 59 Portal of San Pelayo 23, 41 Portal of Santa María 23 Portal of the Azabachería (Puerta Francigena, the North Portal) 14, 25, 65 Portal of the Chapter 23 Portal of the Episcopal School 24 Portal of the Stonemasons (east transept) 23 Portal of the Stonemasons (nave) 24 Portal of the Via Sacra 1, 23 Porter, A. K. 66 Pórtico de la Glória 1, 17, 21, 43, 52, 67-8, 70-1, 74, 83, 87-95, 98 Puente Míguez, J. A. 53-4, 65 Puerta Santa 1, 17, 23, 34, 36 Quintana (Plaza and door), 34 Quintanilla de las Viñas 95 Raymond (Raymondo) of Burgundy 39 Reilly, B. F. 3 Ripoll 43 Robert (Roberto), mason 9, 36-57 Roland 43 Rome 6, 39-40, 44, 97 Roman roads x-11 Sahagún xii Saint-Benôit-sur-Loire 88, 93, 95 Saint-Gilles-du-Gard 65 San Isidoro, León 43, 89 San Martín de Frómista 43, 89 San Martín, monastery of 24 San Miguel San Pedro Mezonzo 4-19 San Pelayo de Antealtares 23 San Rosendo 4-19 San Vicente (Avila) 74, 88 San Vicente de Marantes 18 San Zoilo (Carrión de los Condes) 48 Sancha, Alfonso VII’s sister 49 Sancho the Great xii Sandoval, Don Prudencio de 6 Santa María de la Corticela 18, 23, 34, 36-58, 47 116

Index

Santa María la Real del Sar 83 Santa Susana 19-5 Sculptures mentioned in The Portals 27-30 Abraham 29; Adam 26; Andrew 27; Christ 26; Elijah 29; Eve 26; God the Father and Lord in Majesty 25, 26; Herod 26; James 29; John 29; Mary (the Madonna Enthroned) 26; Matthew 26, 29; Melchizedek 27; Moses 27, 29; Peter 29; Pilate 26 Segeredo, canon 8 Sepulchres x-13 Seymour, C 95 Silos, cloister 95 Sisnando I, bishop of Iria xi, 24, 61-65 St Étienne, Caen 44 St Felix de Lovio 61 St Fructuosus (see chapel of) St James ix-ix, 1, 4-6, 15, 17-8, 22, 29, 33, 36, 38-41, 43, 47-9, 51, 97 St James the Less (Alpheus) 49-92 St Lazare (Avallon) 93 St Martial (Limoges) xi St Martin (Tours) xi St Peter’s (Rome) 40, 45, 97 St Pons-de-Thomières (Lanquedoc) 44 St Sernin (Toulouse) xi, 44, 83, 97 Ste Foi (Conques) xi, 83, (see also Chapel of St Faith) Ste Madelèine (Vezelay) 9, 58, 93 Ste Trinité (Caen) 45 Stephen, see Esteban Stokstad, M. 88

Stratford, N. 51, 53, 67, 90-1, 93-95 Street, G. E. 51-54 Sugar, abbot of St Denis 39-9, 95-49 Theodomir, bishop xi, 7, 39-6 Thurlby, M. 59 Toledo 39 Torre de las Campanas 48, 65 Torre del Reloj (Clock tower) 14, 31 Torres del Oeste xi, 39 Toulouse xi, 44, 49 Treasury 22, 71-3 Urban II, pope 39 Urraca, Queen (the second Jezebel) 39, 41, 47-9 Vega y Verdugo, J. x, 1, 14, 33, 45, 60, 65, 80 Vergnolle, E. 93, 95 Vézelay xi (for abbey church see Ste Madeleine) Vielliard, J. 21 Villa-Amil y Castro, J. 51 Vitruvius 19, 101 Ward, M. 43, 51-53, 58, 61, 63, 67, 72, 83, 89, 90, 92, 95, 97 Westminster Abbey 44 Whitehill, W. M 2, 12 Williams, J. 7-8, 25-33, 34, 97 Yzquierdo Perrín, R. 18 Zaragoza (Fabara) x

117

BAR S1979 2009 WATSON

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela: A Reassessment Christabel Watson

a

The Romanesque Cathedral of Santiago de Compostel

B A R

BAR International Series 1979 2009