Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:36:35.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Leofric Missal and tenth-century English art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Robert Deshman
Robert Deshman
Affiliation:
The University of Victoria, British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most crucial and problematic periods in the history of English medieval art is the tenth century. Already in the first half of the century there were signs of renewed artistic activity after the comparatively barren period of the ninth century when the Viking invasions rent the fabric of Anglo-Saxon society. But a full revival did not occur until the second half of the tenth century under the impetus of monastic reform and strong royal support. It was then that English artists created the so-called ‘Winchester Style’, which was to exercise a powerful influence in England and also on the continent for more than a century. Despite the research of many scholars, most notably Homburger and Wormald, there are still many more questions than answers about the sources and development of tenth-century English art. Among the most important works from this time are the Anglo-Saxon drawings and initial which were added to the so-called Leofric Missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579). Through a consideration of their style, technique, ornament and iconography I hope to take a step towards a clearer understanding of this period of artistic renaissance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 6 , December 1977 , pp. 145 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 145 note 1 Otto, Homburger, Die Anfänge der Malscbule von Winchester im X. Jahrbundert, Studien über christliche Denkmäler N.F. 13 (Leipzig, 1912)Google Scholar; Francis, Wormald, ‘Decorated Initials in English MSS. from A.D. 900–1100’, Archaeologia 91 (1945), 107–35Google Scholar; idem, English Drawings of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1952)Google Scholar; and most recently Alexander, J. J. G., ‘The Benedictional of St Æthelwold and Anglo-Saxon Illumination of the Reform Period’, Tenth-Century Studies. Ersays in Commemoration of the Millennium of the Council of Winchester and ‘Regularis Concordia’, ed. David, Parsons (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 167–83.Google Scholar

page 145 note 2 For the English art in this manuscript see Otto, Pächt and, Alexander, J. J. G., Illuminated Manuscript: in the Bodleian Library, Oxford (Oxford, 1973) III, 4, no. 25, pl. IIIGoogle Scholar; Adelheid, Heimann, ‘Three Illustrations from the Bury St Edmunds Psalter and Their Prototypes’, Jnl of the Warburg and Courtauld Insts. 29 (1966), 39–43, pls. 7a and cGoogle Scholar; Alexander, , ‘Æthelwold’, pp. 175 fGoogle Scholar. Wormald, , Drawing:, pp. 29 f. and 75 f., no. 49.Google Scholar

page 146 note 1 Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), p. 378, no. 315aGoogle Scholar. For Leofric, see Barlow, F., Dexter, K. M., Erskine, A. M. and Lloyd, L. J., Leofric of Exeter (University of Exeter, 1972), esp. pp. 32–42.Google Scholar

page 146 note 2 The Leofric Missal, ed. Warren, F. E. (Oxford, 1883), pp. xxvi–xliii.Google Scholar

page 146 note 3 Ibid. pp. xliii–liv.

page 146 note 4 On the palaeography see Bishop, T. A. M., English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), pp. xxii and 1Google Scholar, no. 2, pl. 1, 2. Bishop dates these Glastonbury additions between c. 970 and 980.

page 146 note 5 His name was added to the calendar by a later hand. Francis, Wormald (English Kalendars before A.D. 1100, Henry Bradshaw Soc. 72 (London, 1934), 43–55)Google Scholar dated the calendar around 970. But subsequently (Drawings, p. 75, no. 49) he changed his opinion to the later date. See also Warren, , Missal pp. lii–liii.Google Scholar

page 146 note 6 Warren, , Missal, p. liii.Google Scholar

page 146 note 7 Ibid.

page 147 note 1 Ibid. pp. lv–lxv; Ker, , Catalogue, pp. 378–9, no. 315.Google Scholar

page 147 note 2 Warren, , Missal p. xxvii.Google Scholar

page 147 note 3 Manuscripts III, 3, no. 20, pl. II; also Alexander, J. J. G., Anglo-Saxon Illumination in Oxford Libraries, Bodleian Picture Books, Special Ser. I (Oxford, 1970), 7Google Scholar, no. 3b, pl. 3b.

page 147 note 4 Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pp. 107 ffGoogle Scholar., pls. 2c and d, 4c and d and 5.

page 147 note 5 Pächt, and Alexander, , Manuscripts III, 3, no. 21, pl. IIGoogle Scholar; Alexander, , Illumination, p. 6Google Scholar, no. 2, pl. zb.

page 147 note 6 Pächt, and Alexander, , Manuscripts III, 3, no. 19, pl. IIGoogle Scholar; Robert, Deshman, ‘Anglo-Saxon Art after Alfred’, Art Bull. 56 (1974), 183–6, fig. 15.Google Scholar

page 148 note 1 Without any evidence Robinson, J. A. (The Saxon Bishops of Wells, Supplemental Papers of the Brit. Acad. 4 (London, n.d.), 12–14)Google Scholar attributed to Glastonbury the dedication miniature in the Cambridge manuscript of the Life of St Cuthbert which was made for Athelstan in 934. However, the style and ornament of the miniature make a Winchester origin more probable. See Deshman, , ‘Art’, p. 195, fig. 45Google Scholar. But even if it were a Glastonbury product, the miniature still demonstrates that Glastonbury was strongly influenced by Winchester.

page 148 note 2 Wormald, , Drawings, pp. 24 f. and 74, no. 46, pl. 1Google Scholar; Alexander, , ‘Æthelwold’, pp. 174 f.Google Scholar; Hunt, R. W., St Dunstan's Classbook from Glastonbury, Umbrae Codicum Occidentalium 4 (Amsterdam, 1961), vi–viiGoogle Scholar; Pächt, and Alexander, , Manuscripts III, 4, no. 24, pl. IIGoogle Scholar; Bishop, , Minuscule, pp. xx and 1, no. 1, pl. I, I.Google Scholar

page 149 note 1 Drawings, p. 24.

page 152 note 1 Drawings, p. 76.

page 153 note 1 Ibid. pp. 25 f. and 77, no. 51, pl. 2; Bishop, , Minuscule, p. 3, no. 5, pl.III, IGoogle Scholar; Ker, , Catalogue, p. 43, no. 361.Google Scholar

page 153 note 2 Wormald, , Drawings, pp. 25 f.Google Scholar

page 154 note 1 Ibid. p. 77; Alexander, , Illuminalion, p. 7, no. 5.Google Scholar

page 154 note 2 Bishop, , Minuscule, p. 3, no. 5.Google Scholar

page 154 note 3 Ibid. p. xxii.

page 154 note 4 The Benedictional of St Æthelwold, ed. Warner, G. F. and Wilson, H. A. (Oxford, 1910)Google Scholar; Homburger, , AnfängeGoogle Scholar; Francis, Wormald, The Benedictional of St Ethelwold (London, 1959)Google Scholar; Alexander, , ‘Æthelwold’, pp. 176–83Google Scholar; Bishop, , Minuscule, p. 10, no. 12, pl. x.Google Scholar

page 155 note 1 Warner, and Wilson, , Benedictional, pp. lvi f.Google Scholar

page 155 note 2 I hope to deal with this in a future publication. In the meantime see Robert, Deshman, ‘The Iconography of the Full-page Miniatures of the Benedictional of Æthelwold’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Princeton, 1970), pp. 209–57Google Scholar and idem, ‘Christus rex et magi reges: Kingship and Christology in Ottonian and Anglo-Saxon Art’, FS 10 (1976), 367–405, esp. 398 ff.Google Scholar

page 156 note 1 Alexander, , ‘Æthelwold’, p. 176Google Scholar; idem, Illumination, p. 8, no. 9; Rickert, M. (Painting in Britain: The Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (Baltimore, 1965), pp. 34Google Scholar and 222, n. 36) sees the Rheims school, though not specifically the Utrecht Psalter, as the stylistic source of the Missal's drawings. Heimann, (‘Illustrations’, p. 43)Google Scholar implies that Mors with his bird claws (pl. VIIIb) reflects the demons in the Utrecht Psalter. While the Anglo-Saxon copy of the Psalter shows demons of this type (cf. Heimann's pl. 8a), it is not clear (at least in reproductions) that in the Psalter itself they have such claws. The English artist in his copy of the Rheims manuscript may therefore have changed the demons to conform to an earlier Anglo-Saxon iconography that is found in the Leofric Missal. On the general question of the Utrecht Psalter in England see Tselos, D., ‘English Manuscript Illustration and the Utrecht Psalter’, Art Bull. 40 (1959), 137–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wormald, , Drawings, pp. 21 and 29 if.Google Scholar; Suzy, Dufrenne, ‘Les Copies anglaises du Psautier d'Utrecht’, Scriptorium 18 (1964), 185–97.Google Scholar

page 157 note 1 Dewald, E. T.The, Illustrations of the Utrecht Psalter (Princeton, n.d.), p. 2.Google Scholar

page 157 note 2 I owe my thanks to Dr A. Heimann for pointing Out to me the possibility that Anglo-Saxon artists retouched the Psalter.

page 157 note 3 Dewald, (Illustrations, p. 2)Google Scholar states that good examples of the original work in the Psalter occur on fols. 17–24 inclusive and 74v–81v top miniature, but caution must be exercised even on these folios since here and there they also have been retouched.

page 158 note 1 Alexander, J. J. G., ‘Some Aesthetic Principles in the Use of Colour in Anglo-Saxon Art’, ASE 4 (1975), 149.Google Scholar

page 158 note 2 Adolph, Goldschmidt, German Illumination (Florence, 1928) 1, no. 61Google Scholar; Alexander, , ‘Colour’, p. 149, n. 3.Google Scholar

page 159 note 1 Trinity College B. 16. 3, IV; Deshman, , ‘Art’, p. 197, fig. 12.Google Scholar

page 159 note 2 Anfänge, p. 36.

page 159 note 3 See the colour reproductions in Wormald, , Benedictional, pls. 1–7Google Scholar; Alexander, (‘Colour’, pp. 147 ff.)Google Scholar emphasizes the decorative effect of colour in the Benedictional and in Anglo-Saxon art in general; also Deshman, , ‘Art’, p. 199.Google Scholar

page 160 note 1 On the technique of the Benedictional see Homburger, , Anfänge, pp. 35–8Google Scholar; also Runge, H. Roosen, Farbgebung und Technik frübmittelalterlicher Bachmalerei, Kunstwissenschaftliche Studien 38 (Munich, 1967) I, 34 ff.Google Scholar

page 160 note 2 This technique can be somewhat better seen in the colour reproductions in Wormald, , Benedictional pls. 1–8.Google Scholar

page 160 note 3 Francis, Wormald, ‘The “Winchester School” before St Æthelwold’, England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Peter, Clemoes and Kathleen, Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 311 ff., pl. 3dGoogle Scholar; Tannery, P., ‘Une Correspondance d'écolâtres du XIe siècle’, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale 36.2 (1899), 488 ff.Google Scholar

page 161 note 1 The facial types in the drawing should be compared to those of the dedication miniature in the New Minster charter. The drapery of the Muses is very like those of the Marys in the Benedictional's miniature of the women at the tomb. In opposition to my dating Wormald, (‘Winchester School’, pp. 311 ff.)Google Scholar believes the drawing to be a late example (c. 1000) of an early style.

page 161 note 2 Wormald, , Benedictional, p. 30, pl. 8Google Scholar. See also Dodwell, C. R., ‘Techniques of Manuscript Painting in Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts’, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo 18.2 (1971), 645 ff. and esp. 649 f.Google Scholar

page 162 note 1 See the so-called Ramsey Psalter in the British Library; Wormald, , Drawings, pp. 29 ff. and 71, no. 36, frontispiece, pls. 8 and 9Google Scholar. For the Winchester origin of this work see The Salisbury Psalter, ed. Sisam, C. and Sisam, K., Early Eng. Text Soc. 242 (London, 1959), 5, n. 3.Google Scholar

page 163 note 1 Boinet, A., La Miniature carolingienne (Paris, 1913), pls. xcva, xcvib and civa.Google Scholar

page 163 note 2 Anfänge, pp. 28 ff. and esp. 30.

page 164 note 1 See Warner, and Wilson, , Benedictional, pls. 99v and 100r.Google Scholar

page 164 note 2 The only exception is the frieze in an initial in the Cambridge Life of St Cutbbert, made in 934; see Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pl. 4a.Google Scholar

page 164 note 3 Anfänge, pp. 8 ff. and esp. 26 f.; also Deshman, , ‘Miniatures’, pp. 10–72.Google Scholar

page 164 note 4 Adolph, Goldschmidt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der karolingischen und säcbsischen Kaiser VIII–XI. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1914) 1, 52 f., no. 96, pls. XLIV–XLV.Google Scholar

page 165 note 1 See, e.g., Warner, and Wilson, , Benedictional, pl. 22v.Google Scholar

page 165 note 2 Freyhan, R., ‘The Place of the Stole and Maniples in Anglo-Saxon Art of the Tenth Century’, The Relics of St Cuthbert, ed. Battiscombe, C. (Oxford, 1956), pp. 426 ff.Google Scholar

page 166 note 1 Francis, Wormald, ‘An Eleventh-Century Psalter with Pictures’, Walpole Soc. 38 (1960–1962), 8, pl. 2Google Scholar; Heimann, , ‘Illustrations’, pp. 43 f. and 50, pls. 9a and 12a.Google Scholar

page 166 note 2 Heimann, , ‘Illustrations’, p. 41.Google Scholar

page 167 note 1 Deshman, , ‘Christus’, pp. 367 ff., fig. 16Google Scholar; Lothar, Bomscheuer, Miseriae Regum, Arbeiten zur Frü:hmittelalterforschung 4 (Berlin, 1968), 223 ff.Google Scholar

page 167 note 2 Heimann, , ‘Illustrations’, pp. 40 ff.Google Scholar

page 167 note 3 Ibid.

page 168 note 1 Ibid. pp. 43 f. The feet and hands of Vita in the Tiberius Psalter have faded and are difficult to see in reproductions.

page 168 note 2 Jones, C. W., ‘A Legend of St Pachomius’, Speculum 18 (1943), 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 169 note 1 Ibid. pp. 209 f.

page 169 note 2 Latin Liturgical Manuscripts and Printed Books (Oxford, 1952), p. 53.no. 112, pl. xxGoogle Scholar. On ancient and medieval illustrations of finger calculus see Elizabeth, Alföldi-Rosenbaum, ‘The Finger Calculus in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages’, FS 5 (1971), 1–9.Google Scholar

page 169 note 3 For the iconography of the Dextera Dei see Peter, Bloch, ‘Das Apsismosaik von Germignydes-Prés, Karl der Grosse, und der Alte Bund’, Karl der Grosse, ed. Braunfels, W. (Düsseldorf, 1965) III, 253Google Scholar, with additional bibliography.

page 169 note 4 See above, p. 168, n. 2.

page 169 note 5 Warren, , Missal, p. 49Google Scholar; 4r in the Psalter.

page 169 note 6 Jones, , ‘Legend’, p. 198Google Scholar; Wormald, , Drawings, pp. 66 f., nos. 26 and 27, pls. 24 and 34.Google Scholar

page 169 note 7 This scene is mistakenly labelled ‘St Benedict(?) and Two Monks’, ibid, pl. 24b.

page 170 note 1 ‘Legend’, pp. 209 f.

page 170 note 2 For some examples see Hubert, J., Porcher, J. and Volbach, W. F., The Carolingian Renaissance (New York, 1970)Google Scholar, figs. 90, 122, 127, 129, 135, 137 and 167.

page 170 note 3 Drawings, pp. 50–2; idem, ‘Psalter’, pp. 6 f.

page 170 note 4 See above, p. 162, n. 1.

page 171 note 1 Wormald, , ‘Psalter’, p. 10Google Scholar; Deshman, , ‘Miniatures’, p. 147.Google Scholar

page 171 note 2 The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales 940–1216, ed. Knowles, D., Brooke, C. N. L. and London, V. C. M. (Cambridge, 1972), p. 50.Google Scholar

page 172 note 1 Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1965), pp. 443 f.Google Scholar

page 172 note 2 Eric, John, Orbis Britanniae, Stud. in Early Eng. Hist. 4 (Leicester, 1966), 154 ff. et passim.Google Scholar

page 172 note 3 On the charter see Francis, Wormald, ‘Late Anglo-Saxon Art: Some Questions and Suggestions’, Studies in Western Art, ed. Millard, Meiss (Princeton, 1963) 1, 23–6Google Scholar; John, , Orbis, pp. 271–5Google Scholar; Deshman, , ‘Miniatures’, pp. 226 f.Google Scholar

page 172 note 4 See above, p. 155, n. 2.

page 172 note 5 Dodwell, , ‘Techniques’, pp. 649 ff.Google Scholar

page 172 note 6 Winchester under Æthelwold also seems to have been pre-eminent in England in language and literature. See Helmut, Gneuss, The Origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold's School at Winchester, ASE 1 (1972), 63–83.Google Scholar

page 173 note 1 ‘Initials’, pp. 131–3.