v FI\il

-c-l -

Meaningful Spectacles: Gothic Ivories Staging the DivineSarah M. Gu&rin

The history ofmedieval art in the West is that of a struggle totransform into meaningful spectacle the spiritual impoverish-rnent of visible things that had been delegated to a "second,-,rder" of sign if ication.-M ichae I Camille. Gotlir ldol. 1989r

In Thz Sense of (hd,er, Ernst Gombrich recounted a conversa-don he had with Erwin Panofsky in Cape Cod while they werervalking Panofsky's dogJerry in the summer of 1951:

He fPanofsky] told me how puzzled he had been in hisstudent days by the expression "Gothic painting." Hecould understand the application to buildings or decora-tion, but in what sense could a painting be Gothic? Isummoned my courage and asked "Do you think that allthis really exists?," to which he replied with an uncomprcmising "yes." Only later I realized that in his lectures onGothic Architecture and Scholasticism he had just committedhimself to another attempt to justiry the Hegelian tradi-tion of governing spiris.'

Gombrich, citing this anecdote in the midst ofa discussion ofrhe thorny issue of Hegelian Z,eitgeist, proceeds to take up thequestion Panofsky posed and to examine whether "thereexists a link between a painting and its frame, or more.pecifically between all the elements of a Gothic altar, the.hrine with is sculptures, tire wings with their reliefs and *repainted panels and the architectural detail of its fretwork.etting." Gombrich's solution for complex objects like thelate fifteenth-century High Altar of Blaubeuren Klosterkirchr. a t'?e of guilt by association: we the twentieth- and twenty-:irstrentury art historians are so attuned to seeing late me-dieral paintings within Gothic frames that "Gothicness" is:ransferred to the painting or sculpture, iself devoid of suchcharacteristic features as pointed arches, flying buttresses, orrib vauls. Ifthe only quality these objects share is their spatialproximity, Gombrich avoids the uncomfortable ideological.gound of having either frame or sculpture participate in anlndefined and mystical Spirit of the Age. The paintings are,:,rr Gombrich, Gothic merely by virtue of their habitual ar-:engement and our built-up expectations, and not the result,i an "organic unity" of a period style.'

-\ version of Panofsky's question that summer day in Cape(.od leads to an examination of the rationale behind the:renasive use of microarchitectural forms on ivory carvings:rom t}te thirteenth century. Just before recounting his dis-, rrssion with Panofsky, Gombrich had enumerated ivory dip-:rchs as among the g?es ofobjecs passively adorned with the:.ohionable architectural omaments of the day.a That such,bjects today are habitually called "Gothic ivories" seems

<lf-erident: t}te material of elephant ivory and the miniatureerchitectural frames are taken as their defining features (Fig.

1). Yet if we avoid treating the marriage of ivory and micro-architecture as axiomatic, we find the choice behind thisunion of material and ornamental form not only sheds lighton the use of microarchitecture as a prelalent artistic choicein the thirteenth century but also demonstrates a visual re-sponse to a pressing intellectual and societal concern. Inrefusing to probe more deeply for fear of discovering Hege-lian roots, Gombrich misunderstood Panofsky's thesis andbrushed aside an instructive question for the understandingof a widespread phenomenon in the Gothic period: the useof microarchitectural frames.5

ln Gothic Architzcture and. Scholasticism (1951), Panofsky hadtried valiandy to redefine an age's unifying aesthetic ten-dency, its style, by replacing bitg&t witl't habitlts, or habit ofmind.6 In the text's introduction, Panofsky speaks aboutindefinable "parallelisms" between intellectual rends andartistic forms, but *rese generalizations too are set aside infavor of a more concrete assessment of a specific time andplace where philosophers and masons coexisted in closeproximity and, he argues, intermingled, Panofsky's thesis wasthat the Scholastic intell€ctual formation shaped a mentalhabit that generated what we know as Gothic architecture.The "controlling principles" of Scholasocisrr', maniJestal,io a\dconcqrd,antia, structural clarification and reconciliation of au-thorities, define for Panolksy both the formal characteristicsof Gothic and is nonlinear, almost dialectical, stylistic devel-opment.T While some have echoed Heinrich W6lfflin's cau-tionary words fiom his 1888 dissertation, "We still have tofind the path that leads from the cell of the scholar to themason's 1ard.'" Panofsky's habitus has been adopted (andadapted) widely by such eminent thinkers as Pierre Bourdieuand Michael Baxandall," even if the specifics of Panofsky'sargument are still debated.to

Thus, two "controlling principles" defined the main char-acteristics of the style of Gothic architecture and set thetemplate for the changing morphology of that style, An icon-ographic rather than stylistic approach, though, obviates theneed to define controlling principles. In examining micro-architecture as a bearer of meaning, in ascribing it a semio-logical role, I move away not only from Panofsky and Gom-brich's stylistic discourse but also from the traditionaldiscussion of microarchitecture as omament. Oleg Grabardefined ornament as "the aspect of decoration which appearsnot to have another purpose but to enhance its carrier."rrand James Trilling echoed him in stating that "ornament isdecoration in which the visual pleasure of form significandyoutweighs the communicative '€lue of content."r2 Seeingornament in general, and microarchitecture in particular, asa formal element superfluous to the function of a workignores the semiotic functions of ornament and focuses ex-clusively on the terynopoietic properties, a word Grabar coinedfor the pleasure-bringing quality of ornament.r3 Yet seeing

ornament as exclusively for pleasure and divorced from func-tion has plunged ornament into the moralistic debates thatpreoccr rp ied rhe f ie ld i r r the n \en t ie th cent r r rv . l '

Looking at Gotlric ivories from a different perspective re-veals that a governing metaphor has shaped their configura-tion, deternining their format, composition, and iconogra-phy and indeed incorporating the materialig, of ivory itself.The applicarion of this rnetaphor rvas a re\ponse to an in-creasingll' pressing problem in rvestern Europe in the thir-teenth century: How can sacred objects be presented todistinguish them from the mundane ones of the everydiryrvorld? That such sacred things as relics and, by the thirteentlrcentury, the Eucharist were visually indistinguishable fromthe paltI"/ remains of decomposed corpses or liom ordinaq'pieces of urleavened bread rvas troubling. It was one role ofthe visual arts in the medieval West to help articulate andmediate the special ontological status of these traces of thedivine on earth! visual signposts were needed to guide viervers

1 Hemitage dipnch, Picardy,ca. 1240, ivory, each panel 127+ X8% in. (32.4 x 21.5 cm). The StateHermitage Museum, St, Petersburg,F-45 (artilork in the public domain;photograph b,v Natalia Altonola,O The State Hermitage Nluseum, St.Petersburg)

arvay from sacrilege and to\vard proper venemtion.15 Divinepresence mandated a different mode of looking, and this rc-quired a different setofanisdc con\€ntions to evoke that specialbehavior. Ariss and theologians alike struggled, as Camilleaptly phmsed it, to mountsufficiendy "meaningfirl spectacles" toappropriately frame the presence of the divine on earth.

The thirteenth century in rvestern Europe, especiall,v inFrance, s'as a time of concerted attention to this problem.Approaching it practicallv, the Fourth Lateran Council ol1215 expressed concern for the physical safety of the Err-charist while also call ing for a more rigorous and forth-right presentation of relics,"' The latter issue was of fore-most concern to Louis IX of France, and therefore to hiscouncillors and court as \\'ell, ivhen he bought the relics olthe Passior liom Baldl'in II of Constantinople in 1238-39.The qrrestic,rr r-,f hor. to slage the mosl preciou. remrarrL.of Christ's life and sallific sacrifice properly and with ducreverence occupied the court and led to the innovative so-

lution of the complex, multimedia p! ognm at the Ste-Chapelle.rT

Simultaneously, in even more ertr<litc Padsian circles, theScholastic theologians teaching at the Lnilersin ofParis lverestudying, lecturing, and writing abour rhe problem of theacceptable modes of veneration due to larious entities:Christ, his mother, the sains, relics, the Eucharist, and im-ages. This series of problems stemmecl fi'om book 3, distinc-tion 9 of Peter Lombard's Sententie? in IV libris disliwtae(1155-57), which explores the Incat'nation and questionslhether Christ's human nature is to be adored rvith his divinenature.ls The important implication here is that Christ'shuman nature is visible. whereas his divine nature is invisible.Subsequent ruminations on the topic, by Scholastics Alexan-der of Hales (1223-27\, Albert the Great (1245-48), andBonaventura (1250-57), stretched the purely incarnationalargument to encompass broader topics, stimulating some ofthe most considered statements on medielal image theory.rsIt is crucial to remember that these scholars developed andrefined their theorems in oral disputations while lecturing atrhe Parisian schools: their final formulations \{ere not re-corded in rvriting uDtil later.2o It folloh's that a large commu-niw of individuals rvas engaged in debates about the proper\'eneration ofvisual things. Thomas Aquinas treated the Lom-bard's book 3, distinction 9 in both his Commentaries on the\entences (1256-59\ and in his final Summa th.eologtca (1265-i-1), and although these texts became paradigmatic for theiater Middle Ages, they represented but the culmination of adch discussion spanning generations.zl His conclusion was!hat objects/entities across a spectrum ofsacredness deservedit commensurate range of modes of veneration, thereforenecessitating a gamut of strategies for their proper presenta-l l ( )n .

It rvas amid this mid-thirteenth-century enthusiasm for de-rising methods to stage the divine that Gothic ivoriest'rnerged. The rationale behind the union of microarchitec-rrrml forms with the material of ivory thus participates in abro:rd visual discourse. To explore this point, it is necessary to.rdduce works in other media, including illuminated manu-.r dpts comrnissioned for the French royal family, the struc-:ure of the Ste-Chapelle, innovative reliquaries, and liturgical'bjecs designed to meet the needs of Lateran [V. That

( n)thic ivories resonate particularly rvell with objecs formu-,rtcd rvithin the fervent intellectual contexs ofthe day argues

:,rr a similar pedigree for the ivories' program and a deliber--rtc intention behind their slurbolic forms. In other words,'he inlrovators behind the Gothic ivories rvere prily to, and:,.rrticipating in, the same intellectual discourse.

It rvas renewed access to the rarv material that inspired the:r,rrel forms. Patrons and craftsmen continuously sought el-. irhrnt ivory throughout the Middle Ages, but the supply was. r ratic, aDd the material employed rvas frequentll' reused or

rnsisted of another, less desirable, species altogether. Un-..<'cl elephant ivory was rare in northern Europe ir the

'rt lfth century and the first decades of the thirteenth. In the:te 1230s, however, significant developments in the interna-'-, 'n:rl trade routes that supplied nolther-n France ancl Flan-:t-r, i l ' i th chemicals for the burgeoning te\ti le industn':,rught ships full of Meditenanean goods to northeri 'r.:-,,rcs, and elephant tusks l\rere among the products that

came rushing to Francophone markets- The supply of ivory tonorthern Europe increased gradually but steadily from thispoint on until the mid-fourteenth century, when the supplyonce again began to decline.z2

The first artisans who carved this new abundance of ele-phant tusks abandoned traditional formats. The book coversand decorative appliqu€ plaques that characterize produc-tion of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were ignored infavor of statuettes of the Virgin and Child, diptychs, andtriptychs. The combination of ivory and microarchitecture\!as a lery early inno tion of the Gothic ivory carvers. Theso-called Soissons group of ivory diptychs and triptychs, longconsidered the first group of Gothic ivories and now dated asearly as the 1240s, already bears fully articulated microarchi-tectural frames.!3 A diptlch now at the State HermitageMuseum, St. Petersburg, displays the group's tlpical scheme(Fig. 1). Cuspeci, pointed arches measure out the fourlevelnarrative. On the top register these are surmounted by soar-ing gables ornamented with rose windows and nail-headedcrockets, and the arches on the lower registers are inter-spersed with a blind arcade and minute pinnacles. Closeexamination of the diptychs reveals that delicate pinnacles,long since broken, flanked the gables ofthe upper register.elThe st majority of ivories caned between 1240 and 1280,the first generation of Gothic ivories, was purposivelyadorned with microarchitectural frames, though by the turnof the fourteenth century diptychs and triptychs were notnecessarily so adorned-such as the diptychs with rosetteborders or the members ol the Death of the Virgin group.2iThe intention to couple elaborate architectural forms withthe specific material was thus fully realized with the firstGothic ivories, and this pairing ofarchitecture and material isintrinsic to their meaning.

Three-dimensional ivory statuettes were also originally pre-sented with microarchitectural frames, but all of these sepa-rate baldachins, while attested in documentary evidence, aretoday lost.26 Fol example, the Duomo in Pisa commissioneda new high altar from Gioranni Pisano in 1298, later de-scribed as a gilt-wood ciborium sheltering ivory statuettes oftne Dlesseo vlrgrn ano nvo angels.- uanrelte uaDoflt-Lnoprnfurther posited similar microarchitectural frames for severalmultifigure ivory groups, namely, the Deposition group(1270-80, norv at the Mus€e du Louwe, Paris) and theGlorification of the Virgin group (ca. 1260) from the RoyalAbbey of St-Denis.'" This missing visuai evidence complicatesefforts to understand the motivation of the specific couplingof ivory with microarchitecture. Made of gilt silver, wood,ivory, or rvhalebone, largescale framing devices acted likestage sets for the ivory figures beneath, in a manner similar tothe few remaining metalwork ensembles from this period.This can be seen in the reliquary of the Holy Sepulcher atPamplona Cathedral (i255-64), rvhere small, threedimen-sional figures act out the drama beneath an ornate construc-tion of inset trefoil arches, gables with rose rvindors, andsoaring towers and pinnacles (Fig. 2).?e Similar large-scale,highly visible manifestations of the marriage of ivory andmicroarchitectule demonstrate its inportance as a motif andsrrnbol, deploved not only in small-scale private items like theSoissons ilories but also on altars in some of tlre most impor-tarlt ecclesiastical foundations of Gothic Europe, including

2 Reliquary of the Holy Sepulcher, Paris, 1255-64, silver€ilt,engraved, chased, and repouss6, bronze-gilt base, and opaquecloisonn6 enamels, height 35% in. (88 cm). Pamplona CathedratTreasury (a.rtwork in the public domain; photograph provided byJavier Martinez de Aguirre)

the Royal Abbey of St-Denis, the Notre-Dame Cathedral inParis, and the Duomo of Pisa. None of these large-scale,liturgical ensembles is extant, but the basic format is pre-served in miniature pol)?tychs, like the one now at theToledo Museum of Alt (Fig. 3).30 Dating to rhe last decadesofthe thirteenth century, the Toledo pol)?tych is in excellenrcondition; only its eleven stocky pinnacles are modem resto-rations.3r The central compartment shows the Glorificationof the Virgin, or a standing Virgin and Child flanked by twocandle-holding angels, with a third half-length angel crown-ing the Virgin from above. The wings of the pollptych areanimated with scenes from the infancy of Christ, with thethree Magi on the bottom left venerating the central epipha-nic representation. The pollptych, especially its central por-tion, preserves a rigorously planned arrangement codoiningivory and architecture that was designed for some of the mostimportant churches in western Europe.

Microarchitectr[e and MeaningDespite is cenfality and ubiquiry, microarchitecture onGothic ivories has not hitherto been studied in depth. Rav-

mond Koechlin, in laoires gothiques franpaiq which is still theseminal text in the field, regarded microarchitectural framesonly insofar as they allowed him to classif an unwieldy num-ber ofobjects, forming groups such as "diptychs with arcadedfriezes" and "ivories with colonnettes."3? More recently therehave been attempts to use architectural elements to localizeivories, with some scholars, for example, suggesting that tiledroofs point to production in Cologne or the Rhineland.ssThe precision of microarchitectural forms on some ivoriestempted scholars to identifi a specific monumental sourcefor the program; as with other miniaturized media, however,exact sources are difficult to identifi.sa As a result of themedium-specific approach to the phenomenon, microarchi-tecture on Gothic ivories has not yet been integrated into orconsidered part of *re rich discussions regarding microarchi-tecture in other media.

Microarchitecture was not invented in the thirteenth cen-tury, nor did it grace only ivories in the Gorhic period. Anornamenral motif inherited from late antiquity, it was de-ployed across a range of media. from manuscrips lo mortu-arJ monumenLs. lrom reliquaries ro choir screen..55 AchimTimmermann has pointed to the close stylisric relation be-tween micro- and macroarchitecture in the thirteenth andfourteenth centuries that distinguished the Gothic phenom-enon from previous uses.36 Among the vast literature onmicroarchitecture across all media in the Gothic period, twonoteworthy strands of inter?retation deserve mention.3T Thefirst is a fairly pragmatic line of argument. Starting withFrangois Bucher in his pioneering study of 1976, much schol-arship has focused on the question of technologies that en-abled the decorative use ofarchitectural motifs.38 Indeed, therise of microarchitecture in all media has been linked to thedevelopment of architectural drawing in the thirteenth cen-tury.3e This view holds that drafring unyoked the architect'screative energies from the reality of built structures, therebyallowing the design offantastic facades, towers, and buildingspossible only at an imaginary or miniature scale.ao Bucherfurther proposed that Gothic architects, as prestigious do.raryslathomorum (doctors ofstones),ar enjoyed enough privilege toimpose their architectonic vision on the full spectrum ofartistic projects, from reliquaries and monstrances to balda-chins, pulpits, and Eucharistic towers. This unified aestheticas conceived by Bucher was all encompassing, not unlike thatofhis own contemporaries Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and LeCorbusier. Although examples of the architect-as-interior-decorator can be enumerated for the late Middle Ages, theone example proposed by Bucher for the thirteenth century,the now sadly destroyed reliquary of Saint Gertrude thatbelonged to the abbey of Nivelles, known as the Chdsse deNivelles (Fig. 4), in fact reveals a different genesis for theextensi\e use ol microarch i lecture

In 1272 the canonesses and canons of Nivelles commis-sioned two goldsmiths, Nicolas de Douai and Jacques deNivelles, to execute in silver and gotd the plan (poloimture)devised by the monk Jacques d'Ar.rchin for the reliquary ofSaint Gertmde.a2 Bucher had assumed thatJacques d'Anchinwas an architect, but close scrutiny of the extant commission-ing contract reveals that he was a goldsmith and monk."D'Alchin did not, therefore, choose to employ radically con-temporary architectural motifs on the Nivelles chassebecause

'{, '

[,,,.li i' r t i '

f.\fl?,,, Iii

lilllI ' t ,ie. tZ / \f r 'I iA,L ilr

il Pohptrch $' i th t lrr ' \ ' i r-gin and ( lhi lr l.urcl scer-res o1't lrc i l f i rncr of Chlist,I ' . r l is. 1280-i)0. i \o11 \r i th u-accs () l: r , r I ch r -on r ' . ope r 11 / s X l l i l .- .19.+ x 23 cm). I 'olcdo trIuseunr ol '\r t . Toledo, Ohio. l ' t rrchased *i th:rrrds f iom thc' Libbel Endo*,ncnt.( , i l t of l . ld\ lafr l l )r ' rrmrnond Libbo,.1r:)0.304 (art\Lork in rhc publ icl , ,naint photogleplr l l Richalt l

L,,roclbodr. pr 'or idcd br rhe Toledo\ lLr\eum of -\rr )

r( ' \ \as al l aLclr i tcct enarnored l ' i t l r his cm[t; i rslclrd. as a, l i g i ous pJann ing l he re l i qua r r l i ; r one o f t he n r i ) s t i n )po r. int saints i t l rc r-esion. he l ikch h:rcl expl i t i t thcological:r)t i \at ions f ir l incorporating the nrost ntodettr () l afchitcc-

' r lal forr ls on Lhc plannecl lcl icluarr ' . . facques cl ' . \r tr :hin in-.udcd nicr 'oalc h i tcctrue for thc srmbolic potcntial i t:r) l lght to t lrc lcl iquan rather' tharr to ploplgal( a l i tored, . t l l e t i c n l o ( l t .

Rccent scholalship has lentulet l a nuntbeL ol i t t tclprcta-rrs of nricloarchitecture th:rt . facques d Archin rnight hare

r r l i n m inc l t hcn p lann ing t l r t Sa in t Ge r - t n r c l c t e l i quan .. j rrrnernitrtr t 's r 'ccel l l works on t l tc developnrerl l () [ inicr^o-' , l r i tectural st l l rctures f i)r_ sacrirnreDt holtscs, baptisnralrrts. and si l lcr 's crosses pr-() l)()se that architectLrlal ele-, rrts signif \ ther chur'ch. sirntr l taneoush i ts l)LLi l l rrrarr i festa-,n and i ts l i r i rrg inst i tut ional lroclr. Ecclesia. L I)t l r lor ing anr lcsiast ic anhitectural lrcirbrr larl ort sactatrrctr l l t l sttuc-

.: t ' : clearlv crnph:rsized that i1 \ ' i rs onh thlorrglr l l rr 'sacLa-' ' r ) t s ned iaL ( l b | t he chL rach l ha t saha t i on (o l l l ( l l x ' a t -r cc l . T imnrc r - rnann p lace r l s i gn i l i cau t l c i g l r t r , t r t he. ' , l u t i ous o l t l t e Fou r t l t L l t c l a r ) ( , ounc i l L l l l i t . t ' l t i ch.r Lrssed not oDl\ ' the phvsical st cul i tr of sacr l l r ] l In l .r l .pcci( i. t l l so t he ncccss in o f ecc les ias t i c i r l med ia l i r ) r ) i r r . . r l r . r t i . n .r c t t c ccss i t l ' o l t hc chu rch ' s r r r l c l , as so l i c l i l i c r l , , r r r r l r t 'r r r sc o f t he t h i r t ee l t h cen t t l r t i l l l - esponsc I ( ) . t t t r t r t r l r r ' t , , 1

, l ( l l r i rsse of Sainr (hr '(ruclc of\ i lel lc\. \ i rcl les. 1272-ca. l l l (X).cuglarecl, chirsecl, arrrL lcporrss6 sihcr '-gi l t on loodert cort.cloisonnE enanrels, lurr l precioLrs stonr:s. ()r iginalh 33% x 70% x!l | / l in- (86 X l l l () X 5+ cm). Desnolcrl : I iagmeDts p|c:scr\ccl i l r\i\(lleri. thc tr-casulc ol dre Coll6giill( Sl('(lcr rde (ar-fir{)rk inthc public clonrirr photogrrph O IRl'-\-lilK Brarsscls)

letc nrelf th-certurr anricler_ical hen'sics. In l ' i r t tr t t t rnann'sr icl . the appear'ancc of ar_chjtcctrrr-al Jbr-ms :r l l ' : rvs sigrrals :r. r r r r bo l i c i n t cne l t i on o r emphas i s ( ) l ) t he 1 -o le o l t h ( ' ( l l L r r ch

5 Solomon Oites Thanks.lbr lh? Tet lh attd Christ (liu's Thanks fotth? Chur.h, fr-om the Old Frcnch \krr ' :r l ized Bible. Pal is, 1215-25. 6sterleichische Naticlrralbibl iothck, \ ' ienna. ( lod 255'1.fol. 50v, Aa (ar-nvork in the public rlolnain; photogr-aph O thcOsterrciclr ische National l t ibl iothck)

in eschatology. Follorving this interpletation, thc' rricroarcfri-tecture on the Chasse de Nivelles rvould decl:rre forcefulll'trrthe congre€lants that the intercessorl pol 'er ol the saint 'sbodv must be mediaLccl in turn bt the inst i t t l t i (nral chulclr,Iepresented by the architectural shel l . Individuals cannotaccess the saint excePt under thc auspices <tl the earth)ychurch.

This interpretat ion is made morc immediatc in the SaintGertr-udc reliqual' by the incorporation of the most contem-poraDeous of alchitecltlral forurs. li Man'itt Trirchtenbcrg'sthesis of Gothic style as a medievll "modernisnr" has offerecla compell ing ner{ categon'for the i t tvestigation of the arcl l i -tecture of the Nliddle Ages. Posing the terms /ri.tlo,i.isl oPPo-slte mod.trnist, Trachtcnbel-g argtred lbr a purP()sefnl ruptrrrcin the building style of the nri<l-trvelfth celltttla, \\rhelrroundcd iraches 1t 'srq 'broken, ' cl :rssical col l lDns " inlPl- is-on[ed]" bl concatenirted pi l lars, aucl sol id \ \?1l ls 'exploclccl '

into flying buttresses. "' Porverfttl though Tmchtenberg srhetoric nr?r) ' be, i t iemains dist ir tct ly impr-ol lable that thcpatrons behind the l l rsl Gothic bui ldings thought of thepointed arclres, fl)ing buttresses, or ribbed vatllls the'\ enr-ployed in such radical terms.r Although architectrual sPecial ists may st i l l debate rrrt ,? I lc-de-France Patrons becanlc

sensit i lc to tht .r rrt l rol ic pos,c l of the rec( nt fashiolr, bv atleast the:econtl r lccecle ofthe thirteeDth ccnttu' i in P:l l - is ana\raacncss o1 t lrc cl i l ler-encc betrr 'eeu $h:rt r te cir l l Ro-rlanrs(lLre and ( i()t l r ic \as f i t lh ar-t icr.r latccl. 'n In thc l l rstMor-al izecl Biblc. plob:rbl l cotntnissioned bl ot-for Blanchc o{Casti le abour 1220. " ' the roundcls i l lustrat ir)g and moral izi l lgSolornon s thanksgi l ing fot tht ' completiott of the Tenrple (3Kirgs ft : l -22) concisel l dernonstlate this Point (Fig. 5)."0Solornon's templ( is represel l tecl as a domcd structurc \ \ ' i thclassical colunlr ls, sqlrat to\!cr 's. aotlndcd :rrches, aird sPll lsedecoratiorr. Belorr, the mo.al iz?lt ior- l roluldcl sho\{s ( lhl ist

standing beside his churclt , "gi l ing thalks to the Fatl lcl ofHear,cn for f inishing the Floly Church." This stnrctrtrc isshown ns a dist inct l l 'and expl iciLlv Gothic l)rr i lding: a tal l andthin basi l ica structure \r i th soal- ing to\rers al)d l inials, ( learh'dcl incated tr i for iurn and clcrcston eler.at iolts, trefbi ls andquatlel ir i l decorations, and thl-ee Pl-onrineut f l ,ving l luL-tresscs.ir By repr-escnting the Old Testamctrt tcmplc thloughan ?ult iquated icl iom and resening col)tenrP()ran Cothic de-tai ls f i l -Chr-ist 's "sainte egl isc." the i l l t t tniuzrtor- Placed thecontcnporal architectural st,vle iD a b'Pological an(l nr()r 'alrelation rvith prcvious stvles. Architectur:rl modes, raLherthan beinFl simplv paratactic, oDe fol lot l i t tg the ne\t i l l n()hiemrchical o1-der-, are herc construed hr potactical lr ' : Ro-mancsque is subordinated to ( iothic; Gothic sttperuetles Ro-mancsque. As thc l lel ! covenzlr l l snpelsedecl lhe old, cotl teln-porarl Fr-ench architecture sl lpPlantecl i ts at lrecedell ts. i : Br 'the nrid-thi l teentlr centun i t is absoluteh cleal th:r l thepoirrted ar-ch, dec()rat ive tref ir i ls, : lnd f l l i lg l t t t t tresscs ol thearchitcctrue of t l ' tc dav exprcssed modet tr i ty

I n l l r e Ch ;sse , l c \ i r e l l r . . t l r I pL r rp , ' s i r t co t t t c t np , ' r ' r r r c i nof the architectural fbrms emphasized that i t was the Prescnt,l i l ing church that mediated access to thc Ieneratecl sir i l t t .Much scholarship has identi f iccl a secdrd sigDif icance ol themicr()al-chitcctulc irs point ing IroL just to t l le earthl) ' clr t l rcl lbut also to the hcavenll one. A \rel l kno\vr1 ir l legon for l t t t i lc l-ings, the Heave nlr ' . feutsalen ol the Apocalvpse is a f i) l -mulaeasi ly t lanslated f irr lr rnacr_()- t() microarchitectt lre.sir As Ottov()n Sirnson su|nr 'r l : l r ized, "the church is, tr tyst ical lv alrt l l i tur-gical lr ' , i rn irnage of heaven," and this al lpl ics cqr.ral lv tosmall-scale representations ol chut-ches.i ' r Apphir-rg t lr is rnet-ap}rol to the Chirssc de N-i lcl lcs, Bruno Boerner notecl thatthe sih'er-gi l t st i l tucs ofApostlcs, the Vir-girt tr ' Ian, altcl ( lhr ist

stoo(l i r t thc thrcsholds to thc Fleavenh .Jerlrsalen, l-cPre-sented b! the dinrinutir-e Gotlr ic poltals. to i [ tercedc andtne r l i i r t e [ o r t l l c b ( l i i ' \ e r s i r ( r o \ \ I l l e l i n l i r l . l l .Pd ( e . : f l ] . , r l e l rI helc offer 'yet anolher intel l )r-ctat ion ol l l l icroarchitcctt lralf<rnns in thc context of GoLlt ic i lor ies, I do nol \ ! ish tosupcrsede these p!e\ ious st lggestions, bl l t l -athcr to ir( ld al lothcr la\ 'er ol coDrple\ i t1 lo iut alread\ r- ichlv undclstoodmotiJ and to considet the spcci l lc n-rerger-of microarcl l i tec-rure aDCl the natc'ri:rl ol i\'ory'.

Tabernacles of IvoryIn approaching t lre question of the aPPcarance of r lr icro-architecture o1r thirteenth-ccntury Gothic ivot- ies, t :rkiug astep back to c\al l i [e the origi lral thir leel l t l l -centtrn ternl i-nolog used to ( lcscl- ibe thenr \ ields an inlPort lult nei l len\thr-ough \rhich lo considel t l lese objects. The descl iPt(nsemployed i l t inlcntor- ies help tt trravel thc complex syntl lol ic

6 Moses Rzceiuing the Law, the Golden CaA and, the Tabernacle, from the Saint Louis Psalter, Paris, 1258-70. Biblioth€que Nationale deFrance, Paris, MS lat. 10525, fols. 35v,36r (artivork in the public domain; photograph provided by the Bibliothdque Nationale deFmnce)

knot composed of medium, format, ornament, and iconog-raphy, allowing us to recognize a pervasive metaphor rulingmany forms of artistic production in the thirteenth century.This gives us the means to discern a visual strategy employedin Gothic ivories as well as in a broad array of media gracedrvith microarchitectural 1brms.

Inventories from the mid-thirteenth century to the mid-fourteenth century, from England, France, Flanders, andItaly, all use the same word for describing Gotlic ivories:tabetnaculum. For example, William Brewer, bishop of Exeterfrom 1224 to 1244, donated a tabernacle of ivorywith imagesof the blessed Mary and orher figures to his cathedral. 'a On\pri,l24, 1242, the household of Henry III of England com-rnissioned a tabernacle of gilded silver to complement ani\ory sraruette ar Windsor Casrle.'7 The 1295 invenrory olBoniface MII lists an ivory image of the Virgin and Childseated within a tabernacle or podium,o'The wardrobe ac-count of Edward I in 1299-1300 liss: "A tabernacle of ivorysith numerous images of ivory in a case; a small tabernaclesith images of ivory in a case; and an image of the blessed\lary of irorl wirh a tabernacle of ivory in a case. "r ' funongthe objecs belonging to Raoul de Clermont-Nesle, the porv-erful chamberlain ofFrance, that were recorded iD his chapelat Biauleu at t}le time of his death at the Battle ol the GoldenSpun in 1302 was an image of ivory with a tabemacle ofr'halebone, valued at thirry sous."" ln 1325, the hotrsehold of

Mahaut, countess ofArtois, paid nineteen lirres parisis for anivory image ofOur Lady in a tabernacle.6r And a 1343 inven-tory of the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris noted an ivoryimage of the blessed Mary in a tabernacle also of ivory.62

The inventory terrfi tabemaculun, far from merely descrip-tive, was replete with typological references. At its root inclassical Latin, tabenlaculum was simply a synonlm for l?nlariuJ, or tent, and as such rvas used inJerome's Vulgate trans-lation of the Bible not only for the many tents used by thedesert peoples of the Old Testament but also, in Exodus 25and 26, specifically for the tent made to protect the Ark of theColenant tlrat contained rhe Mosaic Tabieu of rhe Law.": 'The tabernacle of Exodus is a tentlike structure of cloth andsetim (acacia) board, and the text details the fine linens ofviolet, purple, and scarlet, nvicedyed and embroidered, usedin its making, and how all was arranged into a two-roomedstructure. To the mind steeped in biblical learning, the termtabennculun of the inventories thus signaled the nvo arche-typal Old Testament forms nested witiin: Tabernacle, Ark ofthe Covenant, and Tablets of the Larv. Seen in this light, thewhole str-ucture of such an object as the Toledo polyptychbecomes a translation of the Old Testament objecs of faithinto contemporary Christian terms. The exterior architec-trrral elements of the pol'?tych, the tabernacle, make a visualargument for the importance of its contents, equating what is

7 The Calling of Samael, from the Morgan Picture Bible, Paris,1240-50. Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, MS M.638,fol. 20v, purchased byJ. P. Morgan in l9l6 (artwork in thepublic domain; photograph provided by the Pierpont MorganLibrary)

contained witiin to the sacred objects of the Exodus Taber-nacle.

As an embodiment of God's word. the Tablets of the Lawand their repositories fumished ample visual gpes to gener-ations of theologians searching to mediate visible manifesta-tions ofthe divine.6a Looking at two manuscript illuminationsdepicting &e Tabernacle roughly contemporary with the firstgeneration of Gothic ivory cawing helps unfold a sophisti-cated tt?ological inter?retation inherent in the inventorydescriptions and, moreover, in the ivory objects themselves.

The illustrated Old Testament prefatory cycle of the SaintLouis Psalter was made, in all likelihood, for Louis IX ofFrance in the years before his embarkation on a final, ill-fatedCrusade in 1270. It takes great care to render the Old Testa-ment artifacs according ro rhe biblical rext.65 In lhe scenesillustrating Moses receiving the Commandments, the Tabletsofthe Law are shorur as two attached panels, Ionger than theyare wide, with rounded upper edges (fol. 35v, Fig. 6). On thefacing folio (fol. 36r, Fig. 6), the Tabernacle is shown as anembroidered textile structure, closely following the text ofExodus: "And thou shalt make the tabernacle in this manner:Thou shalt make ten curtains of fine twisted linen, and violetand puryle, and scarlet twice dyed, diversified with embroidery" (Exodus 26:1).66 wirhin the Saint Louis Psalter Taber-nacle are two chambers; the first contains the menorah and

the manna, \rhilc the second compartment holds the Ark ofthe Covenant iself. Appearing as the short end of a rectan-gular wooden box, overlaid with gold and surrnounted lvith agolden crolvn, this representation likewise remains faithful tothe biblical text in Exodus:

Frame an ark ofsetim wood, the length whereofshall be oftwo cubits and a half: the breadth, a cubit and a half: theheight, likewise, a cubit and a half. And thou shalt overlayit with the purest gold within and without and over it thoushalt make a golden crown round about. (Exodus 25:10-l l )

On either side of the Ark, as commanded (Exodus 25:16-20), two cherubim stand facing one another, their wingstouching.

The Morgan Picture Bible offers a r'ery different versionand adopted a less literal approach to picturing the Ark andthe Tabernacle. Made in Paris in the 1240s, perhaps also forKing Louis IX, twenty years earlier than the Saint LouisPsalter, the Morgan Picture Bible is a curious manuscriptoriginally devoid of text and composed exclusively of imagespresenting Old Testament scenes from Genesis through 2Kings.6? In the scene ofthe Calling ofSamuel (1 Kings 3:3-4,Fig. 7), the young prophet is seen sleeping before the Arkwithin the Tabernacle."" Here ti is srmcrure is disringuishedby an especially elaborate architecture: three tall Gothic pin-nacles burst through the frame and flank two squat towersthat sit above rounded arches. The Ark of tie Covenantframed below stands on an altar flanked bv two cherubim ona clothdraped altar. This Ark, however, is starkly modern, touse Trachtenberg's term, compared with the representationin the Saint Louis Psalter. A golden stmcture crou'ned withthree high gables sis on a tall, footed base, and the mainbody of the vessel has a cusped-arch aperture. So distant isthis representation of the Ark from biblical descriptions thatthe artist must have been drawing from another visual tradi-tion.

Detached architectural sacrament houses to hold the con-secrated hosts were just gaining popularity in France in themid-thirteenth century, and they make a remarkably compel-ling comparison to the Ark of the Covenant in the MorganPicture Bible.6e The thirteenth-{entury wooden sacramenthouse of S6nanque, a Cistercian abbey in Provence, displaysthe same simplified geometric forms as the Morgan PictureBible Ark: cusped and quatrefoil windows pierce the centralvolume, which is surmounted by trefoiled gables and a soar-ing tower (Fig. 8).70 A contemporary sacrament house thusserved as the model for the Ark of the Covenant, establishinga typology by equating the two vessels and the sacred objectsthey contain. The Tablets of the Law inside the Ark were thetestimony of the "old" faith that was fulfilled and supersededby Christ's sacrifice on the cross, an event ritually reenactedand made present with the bread transubstantiated into thebody of Christ, the Eucharist. The tlpological relation be-tween the age of Larv and the age of Faith has been articu-lated in terms of the Tabernacle since at least the letter ofPaul to the Hebrews (9:1-15), rvhich explicitly construed thisdichotomy byjuxtaposing the rituals of the Tabernacle withthe sacrifice of Christ.Tr According to Paul, the rites enacted

I

(

,..\

a

t(r

r

ilfimePpffinrumftini,

8 Saclamerrt housc. Ftarrce. l?50 1300, rxrod, glass. arrdrrrodern polvchronrv, hcight 6l l in. ( l t iO cm). Abba)e ( lc56nanque. \ 'auclusc (art\rork in rhc ptbl ic donr:r in)

\t \ the tabe uulurl of rhe Old C<x,ert: t t t t , tht ' r 'eat- lr blootl. .rcr i f ices made bv the high pl iest befolt the .\rk. let-e lcrtr l tred obsolcte by Chlist 's ult inarc sacl i i icc l i th lhich lre: ' ,a€ied the ne\! c() l l t ract. the NeN Tcstarrrcnt.

Thc consccratecl E!rcharis(, hortsed lrrtcl pr 'oteclt :cl i Ir i rst , r r t h i c " - \ - k , en rbod i cs t he l i r l f i l l r ncn t . r nd r t l r l l c t r t en l o fl)c Old ( i) \ 'cnant, r-eplcsentcd br the -\r ' l anrl thc l i r l ) leLs of

'1rc L-arr. This npolog is maclc alrrurdenth t lc.u in the 7'r-- i trrr iDit ial of the mid-l l l i r tecnth-c( ntu11 (.holt r \ l isral ( | ig., . l l t i ch ope l t s t l t e ca l t o r ' t o l t he \ l ass anc l i r t i t r r t c . l l l e t ( \ t s'r .r t r ' i tual lv transform breacl anrl l inc into t lrr hoth l trcl

r oc l o f ( l h r i s t - i n o the r l o rds . l l t e r cc r rL t t r r r r r t t . 1 t hct i o r t s t haL ab roga rec l t he O Ic l La l . t ! l - t c l t ' i . r . r h , , r , , r ' r r , t l

, - r . r r r i l i ca t i on o l t he ( l h r i s t i a r t ch t r l ch . i . sh , , t ' I r h , ' l r l i : r r . r r r' : r pha t i ca l l y Go th i c sac ra [ t eu t h ( ) ( r se r l i t l r a l . L rL h . r r r . t i r r l r . L i, inside, lhi le t l re bl indfolt lecl att t l ck lr . ' . r t t ' t l \ \rr .r- ,{ .r l ( :-. r l r . f a l r l e t . o l t l r e L r r r ' r r . t l r c c r ' , n r ' r r l i | . l r , . n . t , , : r " '

-

c irr imolated bodv of Chlist. r t tacle present ir t l , r l r , l . ,. . . l r pe rsedes t he Tab le t s o i t hc La \ \ . a t l ( l l i t ( r ( i , r r ' : . (

, l lLr ist ic lessel becornes the ncrr , \ 'k rr{ t l rr ' ( 1,\ ( : : . , :

I Ini t ial ol thc 7r r.gitur; f iom thc Clholct ) l issal, Prl is. 1270-80. l l ibl ioteca ( irpitolare, Paciua, \ IS D :1.1, fol. l l3r (art\ f{)rkin rhe prrbl ic donrain: photograpir proricled b\ the lJibl iotccaflapitolatc)

The \ ' lorgan Picttr le Bible ancl the Saint I-()uis PsalterderDonstl lr te that t l )c \ I()saic - l abelnacle \ las i l prot(ct i | i 'ar-chitectrrr 'al st lr .rcture [br (he Ar-k and corls(]quenth ac(( cl al\a l laming del ice signal ing thc sacrc(i object rt i thin. Thcthreefolcl, nesl ing sLr(rcturc r.rf Tabet-rt lcle, , \ tk, and Tabietsestabl isht cl a srrnbol ic senrlnt ic unit { ir l pxrperlr stagirg theslcrecl in Chlist ian visual cultur-c. l aber lacle/ alchitcc tur 'ear<l -\ 'kt lesstl . Lhe ()utcr and rnidcl le ter-nrs. cl t note<l thcinl lx)rtancc ol the i lcm contairr<rr l , eqrlat ing this object ir i thrhc c onclt ' t izrd \fold ol Oocl. Sirrultaneouslr ' . thc mod('rnit \. l r l r t erchiteclural l i l ' r ls establ ishecl a qpological rclat ionr' i r l r rhr rcrr \ t l rrctur 'es r-r ' lcaencccl, cr lphasizirrg the suprerr l-.LLr oi r lr t \c\ Co\cnant. As l lanel Stalr l convincingl l ar '-srrr r l r)rt SaiDr Lorr is Psalter is cspecial lr |cleal ing oD this

point:74 the Mosaic structures, adhering closely to the biblicaltext, seem free from qpological inference (Fig. 6). The elaborate microarchitectural superstructure abo\€, hoI\'ever,crorvning each Old Testament scene with gables set rvithRayonnant rose windows, turreted pinnacles, and rows oflancet rvindows, applies the qpological interpretation acrossthe whole cycle. By inserting contemporary architecturalforms above each scene, the whole Old Testament narrativeis literally subsumed within a Christian hermeneutic.Whereas the Morgan Picture Bible presented an emulsion,mixing into a homogeneous pictorial field the Old and NewCovenants, the Saint Louis Psalter separated the two ele-ments, with the Gothic floating above the archaic, the Nelvsuperseding the Old.

The tert of Exodus thus furnished thirteenth-century im-age makers with an appropriate metaphol or figure for dis-playing the holiest of Christian objects in a propel visualcontext. The threefold, nesting arrangement is key, as theactual Christian forms substituted for the Judaic elementsrvere fluid and adaptable. It is this tripartite schema that is theruling metaphor for explaining the presence of architecturalforms on Gothic ivories. The elaborate architectural frame ofgables, cusped arches, and soaring pinnacles of the Toledopollptych (Fig. 3) can therefore be identified $'ith the Tab-ernacle that sheltered the Ark of the Covenant. What u'e seein place of the Ark, however, is not an inanimate containerbut the fleshly vessel who contained God incarnate. TheVirgin was fiequendy described in exegetical literature as theArk of the Col'enant, an interpretation stemming directlyfrom the typological parallels established in the Gospel ofLuke. " Th is po in t i s made c lear i r the south V i rg in por ta l o fthe west facade of Amiens Cathedral (Fig. 10). In the lintel,six Old Testament prophets sit on either side of a decidedlyGothic looking Ark of the Covenant, which Stephen Murrayhas suggested rvas a visual reference to an actual sacra[lenthouse that once stood on the high altar.t6 Directly under-neath the Eucharistic Ark is the trumeau statue of the Virginand Child. The juxtaposition establishes a relation beh{eenthe Virgin and the Ark: as the Ark sheltered the Tablets oftheLaw, that is, the Word of God, so did Mary bear Christ, thatis, the Word made Flesh (ohn 1:1,1), in her rvomb.Just as thesacrament house and Eucharist could stand in for the Ark ofthe Covenant and the Tablets of the Lalv, Mary shelteringChrist rvas a parallel iteration of the same Old Testamentmetaphor.Tt

The Toledo pollptych can therefore be read as a contem-porary Gothic tabernacle sheltering the Ark in a form thatembodied the New Covenant, a Virgin cradling the incar-nated Word in her arms. This threefold schema based on OldTestament forms additionally explains other iconographicelements standard in ivory polyptychs: the h1'o flanking an-gels correspond to the cher-ubim on either side of the Ark,and the crowning ofthe Virgin by the angel above-althoughsimultaneously a literal reference to the iconography of theCoronation of the Virgin-recalls the golden crown atop theArk referred to in Exodus 25:11. Read this way, the standardGothic iconography of the Glorification of the Virgin, longseen as an anachronistic conflation of dre Virgin and Childwith her post-Assumption Coronation, is actually a fully de-

veloped visual trpokrgl r'eacting to the Old Testament texts ina careful and sophislicated manner.t8

Material Matte$: Ivory as ChastityIdentif,ing the ircn polvpq,ch as the tabemaculum that con-tained the Ark of the \erv Covenant and the incarnate Wordof God explains the inclusion of microarchitecture to sur-round images of thc \rirgin and Child. But why rvas ivoryconsidered to be so particularly apt for these tabernacula?Another Marian metaphor reveals a threefold structure sim-ilar to the Tabernacle-Ark-Tables: the throne of Solomon.Thoroughly explored b)' llene Forsyth, the Sedes sapientiae asa theme of Marian iconography long predates Gothic ivo-r ies . ' The Old Tes tament rypo logy remai red cur renr in lhethirteenth century, aDd various aspects of the metaphor rvereelaborated. Solomon, the wise king of Israel and, as such, aprefiguration of Christ, was the great architectural patron ofthe Old Testament. God ordained that he should have thehonor ofbuilding the first temple inJerusalem. Solomon alsobuilt for himself a royal palace, and within it placed a mag-nificent ivory throne adorned with the finest gold (3 Kings10:18). Given that King Solomon is the tlpe for Christ'swisdom, the throne in rvhich he sat was taken to signily hisnother Mary.8o This relation rvas based on the spatial ar-rangement of Christ sitting in Mary's lap, so characteristic ofnvelfth-century woo der' Sed,es sapientiae sculptures. The meta-phor was augmented in the thirreenth century with the adop-tion ol the material of the throne itself. Biblical exegetes,follorving a commentary tradition that stretched back to Plinythe Elder, identified ivory as a frigid and therefore chastematerial-3r Nothing better signified Mary's pure and virginalflesh than the ivory of Solomon's throne. As Guibert ofNogent $'rote in the nvelfth century, "The wisdom of God theFather. . , that is Solomon, made for himself a throne ofivory, that is the seat in the Virgin, because he rvould not beplaced in anything unchaste."8: The Moralized Bible madefor King Louis IX about 1230 reiterated this exegetical tropein the gloss on Solomon's throne (Fig. 11). It reads, "Solo-mon's ivory throne signifies the blessed Mrgin in whosewomb reposed Christ made man. Ivory signifies chastity anclgold charity. . . ."83 Thus, ivory representations of the Virginand Child, even if they abandoned the frontality and hielaticpresentation qpical of Romanesq\re Sedes sapientiae, sigrrale.lthe exegetical interpretation of Mary as the Throne of Solo-mon simply by virtue of the matedal from which it rvas

Daniel Weiss, in unpacking the significance of the tribunescreen and baldachin of the Ste-Chapelle, identified the im-portance of including Solomon's palace in images of thethrone of Solomon, as, for example, in the late thirteenth-century devotional treatise known as the Vrigiet de solas (Fig.12).35 On the six steps guarded by nvelve l ions, a l itelalillustration of 3 Kings 10:19-20, sits a lorv throne with acrowned Virgin Mary holding the Christ Child in her lap.Trvo larger felines, labeled "terror of demons" and "terror o1enemies," act as armrests, and above them the two crownedqueens of the virtues charity and chastity support the elabcrate Gothic superstmcture. Rendered as an arcaded porch ofjustice, an architecLural tlpe r'{eiss demonstrated was inher-ited from antiquitl, the facade of Solomon's palace is inhat>

l0 Portal of the Virgin, south portalin the rvest facade of the Notre-Dame(lirthedral, Amiens, ca. 1240-50(armork in the public domain;photograph by the author)

ited rvith oersonifications of the virtues and Old Testamentp,'ophets.d6 While Solomon's throne "was rouncl behind" (3Kings 10:19), the microarchitecture here is transfotmed intospindly gables and pinnacles, underlining the firct that thisinrage presents not a prefiguration of God's \f istlonr but hislirlfi lled incarnation.

The architectural superstructure surroundil'lg the throneof Solomon gives an essential context for the construction ofrhe Marian metaphor. Indeed, Forsyth noted thal archaeGLrsical and textual sources indicate that wooden t\\elfth-century Sedzs sapientiaz st"j'.res likely also sat uuder architec-rrrml baldachins.sT ln this way, the microarchitectuml palacc

yields a third, outer, architectural component to Solomonand his throne, completing a threefold trope analogous tothe nesting Tabernacle-Ark-Tablets of the Law configurationdelineated above. Both of these tripartite Old Testamenttypes ere employed in the thirteenth century as str-ategiesfbr-properly presenting the divine to the rierver'; the outerarchitectur-al term alerted the vielver to the presence of t}resacred vessel and its divine contents within.

The materiality of the throne of Solomon explains the useol ilon prxes for storing the Eucharist. An ivory plx stowed\\'ithin such alchitectural sacrament houses as that from 56-nanque (Fig. 8) created a pairing of architectural form and

ll Salomon's 'l'hrone and the Virgin ar the Throne of Solonon, fromthe Saint Louis Moralized Bible, Paris, ca. 1230. CarhedralTreasury, Toledo, MSS 1-3, fol. 132 Bb (artwork in rhe publicdomain; photogmph O M. Moleiro Ediror)

ivory container, thus providing the correctframe ofreferencefor staging the precious body of Christ. The microarchitec-tural exterior served as a sign to notiry viewers of the sacredcontents sheltered within. The statutes from the Synod ofParis (t 198 -1203 ) testify ro the widespread use of ivory pyr(es.After dictates issued in 1196, rhe bishop of Paris, Eudes deSully (d. 1208), admonished those parish priests who still didnot have the proper implemens to house the Eucharist:"They are negligent those who have neither plxes of ivory nortabernacles where the body of Christ can be reserved withhonor."3s Ivory py<es holding the body of Christ and shel-tered within microarchitectural sacrament houses wereviewed as essential for the replication of the threefold syntaxof the throne of Solomon. Encapsulating rhe Eucharist in a"throne" of chaste ivory and housing it in a microarchitec-tural "palace" composed a suffrcienrly elaborate setting forthe comprehension of the significance of the true body ofChrist.

The first planners of Gothic ivory pollptychs of the Virginand Child thus drew on two parallel visual traditions ofthreefold Old Testament types to construct a powerful devo-tional tool: the Mosaic Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant,and the Solomonic palace and ivory throne. The Old Testa-ment figures that informed the po\?q'ch construction,

moreover, fruther our understanding of another popularGothic form, the irorl diprych. The elaborate microarchitec-ture is certainh sinrililr. but instead of acting as a frame for acentrally placed dcpiction of the Virgin and Child, the archi-tectural elemenLs on thc diptychs articulate and measure outa dense retelling of rhe Passion of Chrisr. The tall and narrowtwo-paneled form of the diprych furnishes the key to under-standing these objects and invokes the same symbolic vocab-ulary.

\tl-rile enshrined ilon,statuettes stem from the Sedzs sapi-entiae type common in Romanesque Europe, the appearanceof ivory diptychs in France in the mid-thirteenth centurypresents something of a mystery. The Hermitage diprych wasamong the first Gothic ilories to be made in northernFrance, in about 1240 (Fig. 1). There existed no conrempo-rary two-paneled objects in rvood, metalwork, or stone. Inspi-ration for making the llrst Gothic diptychs seems to havecome from studying tenth- and early eleventh-century Byzan-tine ivory diptychs, such as an example from Constantinople,now in St. Petersburg (Fig. i3).8'g This diptych, Iike manyother Byzantine exemplars, is composed of tall and narrowplaques arched at the top and hinged together so rhar whenopened, the car-ved imagery below the domelike arches facesthe viewer.eo The Byzantine diptychs rypically presenr narra-tive scenes from the life of Christ, a subject matter echoed onthe Gothic diptychs.

\Artratever the initial inspiration for choosing the form, thetwo-paneled diptych had a more immediate and accessiblereferent for the thirteenth-century liewer, one representedon the Hermitage diptych irself (Fig. 14). At rhe Deposition,Synagoga and Ecclesia, personilications of the Old and NewCovenants, stand at either side of the moving scene. Behindthe mourning Mary, a crowned Ecclesia brandishes her stan-dard and holds a miniature church with a gabled centralportal surmounted with a finial. Physically separated from therest ofthe scene by a column, Synagoga holds as her attributethe Tablets of the Law: nvo tall, narrow panels with roundedcrests-that is, the diptych form isell Though it may seemunusual, Synagoga and Ecclesia are present at the Depositionfollowing the same logic as their presence in the CholetMissal for the Te igitur, and, indeed, they sport similar attri-butes (Fig. 9). The Eucharistic ritual-which the pnyer ini-tiates and the Deposition prefigured-reenacted the end ofthe Old Covenant and the beginning of the New, a transirionnauated in the Gospels. Mattherv 27:50-51 pictured thisvividly: "AldJesus again crying with a loud voice, lelded upthe ghost. Arld behold the veil of the temple was rent in nvofrom the top even to the bottom."er The precise moment ofChist's death on the cross therefore rendered the Old Cov-enant null and void. InJohn's Gospel, the analogous momentafter Christ's death is occupied with the narrative of thesoldier piercineJesus' side, releasing the miraculous bloodand water (]ohn 19:31-35). Augustine read these fluids asstanding for the Eucharist and, by synecdoche, for all theholy sacraments, $'hich themselves constitute the Christianchurch.e2 In other lvords, Ecclesia, the personification of theNew Covenant, lvas born $'hen the blood and tvater flowedfiom Christ's side after the Crucifixion, and with her birrhshe replaced the pemonification of the Old Covenant, Syna-goga, in a visual formula harking back to Roman exempla.ej

12 I'hrone of Solomon, from the Vr-igietde solas, Paris, ca. 1300. Bibliothdque\ationale de France, Paris, MS fr.9220, fol.2r (artwork in the publicdomain: photogr.rph prorided by theBibliothdque Nationale de France)

Following the visual cue of Synagoga's Tablets of the Lawand the hermeneutical context of the covenantal transfer.the ivory panels with scenes of the Passion of Christ becomethe tablets of the Nerv Covenant under Christ. Instead ofverbal commandments rvritten on cold stone, rhe ivon dipnch lvas instead inscribed with scenes of the Passion of(lhrist, the very propitiatory actions that folged the nertcontmcL Their status as emphatically ne$ is uDclerlinecl bvthe replacement of the rounded upper edgc, discernible inSrrragoga's panels (Fig. 14) as rvell as on the Brzantinc pro-()t)?e (Fig. i3), with thejagged gables and (nissing) pinna-cles of a Christian church (Fig. l). The diptlch l ir lnrat andCothic microarchitectural ornamentation made ll lc interpr e-tation of the Passion iconography explicit. The matedalin olthe diptychs, their transformation frorn hard stone rabler\ r()almost corporeal ivory panels, further contribures ro rhcdiptychs' signifi cance.

An exegetical tradition based on the ivory dorzrzs of Psalm44:9-10 interprets the physical process of carling ivory asparallel to the tortures rsithstood by the martyrs.e4 Stemmingfrom the PseudoJerome Bt?uiaiutn l, Prnlrnor.qi the pru-ported author's auctoitas led. to the metaphor's incorpora-tion into many of the most important compilations on thePsalms, including Peter Lombard's Glossa ord,inaria.e6 HngllofSt. Cher (1190-1263), the Dominican chair at the Univer-siti ofPalis from 1230 to 1236, wrote his Postilla to update thecentun-old Glossa, and his retlorking of the Pseudo-Jeromegloss mav have had a certain resonance in Paris at that time,as i\on tusks rvere just beginning to arrive in northern Eu-ro1:earr lrallror':. aftel a cenrrrryJong deartlr. l ' ; Hugh begirrsrrirh the starrdard interpretation of ivory as chastit l, but ap-plies ir to rhe pure flesh of the saints instead of rhe Virgin\lan. He coltinues rvith a close paraphrase of the Pseudo-.lt 'r onre:

13 Diprych with twelve scenes from the life of Christ,Constantinople, eally llth century, ivory, open l0% X103/ in. (26.4 X 26.4 crn). The State Herrnitage Museurn, St.Petersburg, W-13 (artivork in the public domain; photographbv Inna Regento\", O The State Hermitage Museum, St.Petersburg)

14 The Deposition, from the Hermitage diplvch, detail. TheState Herrnitage Museum, St. Petersburg, F-{5 (arnvork in rhepublic domain; photograph by Natalia Antonova, O The StateHermitage Museum, St. Petersburg)

And it is said that the house of ivory is Ecclesia. Becausethrough cold ivory, we ar€ to understand the chasity of thesaints. Ard because just as ivory is at first dull, but withfiles, and saws, and ards is made to shine, and afterwards isshaped and sculpted, so the Saints through tribulationsare made more pure and ale engraved, as it were, with avariety of virtues. This is the sense of the words. . . thatthe saints may senr'e as examples ofthe mortification of theflesh, humility and faith for the lesser ones of thechurch.es

The chaste fleslr of nrartlrs is literally cut, slashed, and lacer-ated, as i{ell as Iiguntir-eh Nounded through the deprivationsof the ascetic. In so doir-rg it becomes more beautiful andperfect, just as rrorkcd iron' is more beautiful than the rawmaterial. And these arc the actions that constitute Eccelsia,that are the chur-ch. \\'hat is true for the chaste flesh of thesaints must hold f()r' the paragon ofchastity and the universaloblation, Christ. Thc iron' of the diptych is, metaphorically,the carved, scraped, perfbrat€d, and helvn immaculate fleshthat sealed the \err Co\enant. The carefully rlrought scenesof Christ's Passion simpll 'manifest the implicit meaning ofcarved ivory: that salvation and perfection are rightly eamedthrough the tribulations of chaste flesh. The tablets of thenew dispensation are the flesh that God sacrificed on ourbehalf, Christ's flesh. Form, rnedium, omament, and iconog-raphy work in concert to fashion a porverful tool that presentsthe most sacred tenets of salvation histon.

Meaningfrll SpectaclesThe tripartite Old Testanent figures of the Ark of the Cor.enant and the throne of Solomon furnished Christian imagemakers in the thirteenth century with a vocabulary, to para-phrase Carnille, for transforming impoverished visible thingsinto meaningful sacred spectacles. Layering the metaphorscomplicated and en ched the contemplative path (dactus)the user would take in untangling the symbolic forms, apractice that itself constituted prayer, as Mary Carrxthers hasshorvn.ee But contemplation does not seem to be a sufficientresponse to these objects: under the theological principlesbeing articulated just at that time, the central object of theTabernacle (the Tablets) or of Solomon's palace (embodiedWisdom) is an entity to be rvorshiped. The threefold OldTestament figures gave objects the means to signal and ad-vertise to viewers that their contents were indeed sacred, thatthe contents were equal and commensurate with God's in-scribed Word or ernbodiment of his Wisdom. Exterior micro.architecture housing an ark/throne of ivory rvas a sign to theviewer of the import of the object contained within. Thecomplicated staging, comprising nested forms, was a visualtechnique developed in the mid-thirteenth century to mounta meaning{rrl specracle fol the recepri\e vieiver.

The risual strategy employed in Gothic ivo es was devisedto help viewers maneuver in a nen'ly complex visual/devo-tional environment. Correct recognition of the Eucharist, ofsome relics, and of the image of Christ increased in impor-tance at this \€ry time, as the Parisian schools rvere delineat-ing different modes of veneration appropriate to differentsacred things. The threefold Old Testament figures of theArk ofthe Covenant and the throne ofSolomon were therebyemployed to distinguish, from lesser holy items that shouldmerely be venerated, the most sacred entities that desene thesuprene form of worship.

Scholastics, Bonaventura (1221-1274) aud Albert theGreat (1193,21206-1280) among them, articulated in theirlecture courses, and later in their rfritten treatises, a range ofattitudes $'ith Nhich images rve|e to be approached. Althoughno specific formul:!tion becanre dogmatic, the thesis outlinedin part 3, question 25 ofThomas Aquinas's broadly circulatedSunma theologi rr':rs perh:rps the most rvidely read. The au-thor distingrrished ir) this l{ork three t}pes of attitudes.loo

l5 Pollptych of Floreffe, Floreffe,after 1254, silver-grlt and coppergilton lvooden core, submerged bas-relief,f i l igree, niel lo, and precious stones,open, 31% x 36% in. (79 x 92 cm).Vus6e du Louvre, Paris, OA 5552(artwork in the public domain;photograph by Daniel Arnaudet,O Rr\4N-Grand Palais, Mus€e duLouvre)

1-arria, or adoration, is the highest form of devotion due toGod alone (in his various aspects) and is manifested throughboth a spiritual and a bodily adoration, that is, by suchphysical abasements of the body as kneeling or bowing.rorI)ulla, simple veneration, is to Aquinas an honoring of abeing's excellence, not rvorship. \ hile primarily an internalrnovement of the heart, dulia may additionally take physicallbrms, like saluting or bowing or offering gifts, but the end orqoal of these actions is fundamentally different from those oftatia.to2 H)perdulia, the last mode Aquinas defines, is anaugmented form of du lia resen'ed exclusively for the Virgin\tary.ro3 The tripartite Old Testament figures discussed herervere to help viewers discriminate between rvhich images/objects were due the worship of lalria and which were due thehonor of dulid or \penl,ulia. Those that desen'ed latria weregilen the complex and striking tripartite setting borowedtrom the throne of Solomon and the Ark of the Covenant. Byrecognizing the typological signs, the viewer was instructedhorr to interact with the object presented and how to avoidnr'o equally egregious errors-those of idolatry and sacri-1ege.roa The nelvly articulated distinction benveen larnla andlulia/ lqperduka thus marked a new chapter in the history ofrisuality, and reference to the Ark helped liewers navigate anen'ly complex visual field.r05

This threefold OId Testament schemata deciphered in( 'otlric ivories is deployed in another mid-thirteenth-centu!'\'rbject, the magnificent reliquary of Floreffe (Fig. 15), tthich

, r)nvevs the same message as can be decoded in Gothic:ror-ies. Created by local and Parisian metalrrolkers for rheI'remonstratensian abbey of Floreffe in the diocese of LiEge.'he reliquary polyptych was made to house fragmenrs of rheI me Cross that Baldwin IX of Flanders donated to the Ibun-

dation in the aftermath of the 1204 sack of Constanti-nople.l06 A niello inscription on the interior of the centralpanel relates that the metalwork frame was begun only afterrhe cross fragment miraculousl) bled in 1254.r0i The centralarchitectural volume, roofed with an elaborately crocketedcusped arch flanked by two towers, houses fivo angels whoselvings cross behind the centrally mounted cr-ucifix. Theirexplicidy crossed wings recall the description of the cheru-bim in Exodus 25: "And the cherubim shall stretch forth theiru'ings on high, covering the propitiatory, and their faces shalllook one to another." It seems that the angels have onlyjustuncrossed their outer wings, echoing the opening wings ofthe po\?tych, to reveal to the viewer the sacred item theysupport: a silver-gilt cross that originally bore the fragmentsof the Trle Cross at its crossing, set as the most precious ofgems.108 The rqhole of the metalwork ensemble aimed toprepare the viewer for the encounter with this precious in-strument of the New Covenant and the stuff of divinity. Thethreefold, nesting stmcture-microarchitecture, metahvork"ark," and relic-with attendant angels alerts the viewer tothe kind of attention that must be given to this splinter ofwood, whose special status is indiscernible to the naked eye.Aquinas wrote rn hls Summa theologira that pieces of the TrueCross, inasmuch as they absorbed Christ's blood and preservetraces of his sacred flesh, deser-ve the utmost rvorship, that is,they deseFr'e the adoration of latria.r0s Aquinas's explanationresonates rvith the polyprych's niello inscription, which as-sers: "This cross, I knolv, the blood of Christ stained fcnzo4literallr,, gored] and blessed."ll0 The architectural tabernacleand the flanking angels of the Ark give the viewer the q?o-logical infonnation needed to enact the proper level of wor-ship and to comprehend the eschatological significance of

this humble sliver of i\ood, impregnated with the blood ofChrist. The tripartite arrangement signals to the viewer thebodily presence of God and instructs the l'iewer to worshipaccordingly.

The reliquary of the Holy Sepulcher at Pamplona Cathe-dral (Fig. 2), crafted by Parisian goldsmiths in the decade of1255-64, enacts a similar dramatization ofsight, seeing, andworship, but the narrative depiction of the Marys visiting thesepulcher complicates the cher-ubim's candid presentation ofthe relics of the True Cross seen in the Floreffe polyptych.The text from the Gospel of Mark 16:6 utters three importantaspecs of the Christian faith: the angel clad in rvhite says tothe three women who sought Jesus Easter morning, "He isrisen, he is not here, behold [erca] the place where they laidhim." Christ's body is no longer present, but the materialsthat witnessed the redemptive sacrifice and resurrection are.The silver-gilt angel emphasizes this last command, issued inthe imperative, through his downward-pointing finger, drarv-ing the viewer's as rvell as the $'omen's attention to thecontents of the sepulcher. Covered by a transparent rockcrystal lid, the contens of the casket were recendy publishedand contain, among numerous relics no longer identifiable,a piece of the sudarium (face cloth) of Christ, a piece of thetable of the Last Supper, and a piece of the Holy Sepulcheriself.lll If the viewer had close access to this object, theseprecious contents were visible. And rvhat should such a viewerdo in this circumstance? The angel specified merely "ecce,"behold. How and with what demeanor should these relics beapproached?Javier Martinez de Aguirre has underscored thefamilial relation this reliquary shares with the Passion reli-quary of the Ste-Chapelle, and it seems fairly obvious at thispoint that the elaborate microarchitectuml frame that shel-ters the repouss6 figures is related not only stylistically butalso functionally to the Parisian installation. The metalworktabernacle, in reference to the repository of the Ark and toSolomon's palace, announces that the relics containedshould, like the embodied Word and Wisdom from the OldTestament, be worshiped with l,.rtia. The threefold nestingstructure-microarchitecture, sepulcher, relics-loosely represents the Old Testament forrns, but the message remainsclear. The angel's injunction to behold, actually means toworship, not just venerate, the fragments of Christ's fleshembedded in the sudarium and in t}.e stones ofhis sepulcher.It is the microarchitectural frame that conveys this message.

The ivory pollptych in Toledo (Fig. 3) employs the samevocabulary of Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant as theFloreffe and Pamplona reliquaries, issuing a similar directiveto worship, but it is one that may have been surprising tocontemporary viervers. With such ivories there is no sacredrelic present, no actual bodily presence, so on rvhat basis didthe artists deploy such a strong visual directive to rvorship, toenact latia? The Gothic ivories indicate that instead of .em-nants of the flesh of Christ, it is the image of God, supportedby his mother-as-throne, that is to be adored wfth latria.t t2Worship, Aquinas and the other Scholastics had decided, isthe proper response to an image of God incarnate. ThomasAquinas here evoked Aristotle in saying that the mind is ableto distinguish between the material image and what it repre-sents, thus avoiding the sin ofidolatry in worshiping a createdthine:

As the Philosopher sa!s, there is a nvofold movement ofthe mind to\riuds an irlage: one indeed towards the imageitself as ;r certain thing; another, towards the image in sofar as it is the image of something else. And between thesemovements there is this difference; that the former, bywhich one is moled tonar-ds an image as a certain thing, isdifterent from the Drolement tonards the thing: whereasthe latter mo\'ement, which is to$'ards the image as animage, is one and the same as that which is towards thething. tr3

While acknowledging a distinction benteen sign and signi-fied, the vierver ought to approach an image of God with themental and physical adoration resen'ed for /alria, just as thecomposition of the ivory polyptych instructs the viewer toworship (he who is represented in) the image. The visualcues of microarchitecture and nested structure advise theviewer as to the tt?e of devotion to enact in no less obliqueterms than the text on the tivelfth-century Mosan phylacteriesrecently discussed by both Herbert Kessler and NinoZchomelidse.rra

Housed in a modern Gothic tabernacle, Mary, the Ark ofthe Covenant, holds in her arms the image of God-theimage to be adored. This configuration, rvhich signals theriewer to worship the infant Christ, simultaneously clarifiesthe relationship of the Virgin Mary to God and the qpe ofattention that should be offered to her: she herself is not tobe worshiped .wilh latria, because to adore any creaturebreaks the second commandment. which. it is stressed. isidolatry.rr'' However, Mary's unique and special role vis-i-visthe Godhead, as Theotohos, or God bearer, makes her worthyofan augmented version of duli&-thatis, hlperdulia.tt6 Marydesenes an intensified, indeed, the highest q?e of honor,but not the distinct mode of attention that qualifies as wor-stlip (latria),111 By representing Mary in an ancillary part ofthe tripartite typological construction, depicting her as Arkor as throne, the viewer is reminded to not worship her butnevertheless to honor the Virgin for her role in salvationhistory. Its constrtuent parts interacting within a cohesivewhole, the polJptych assists the viewer in comprehendingdistinctions among recently articulated modes of attention tobe brought to visible things. The threefold, Old Testamenttropes ensured that spiritually rich, though visually ambigu-ous, objecs uere mounted in sufficiendy "meaningful spec-tacles" in order to elicit the worship proper only to the divine.

A symbolically specific version of what Oleg Grabar identi-fied as the universal function of architectural ornament hasbeen proposed here: architectural forms at their most gen-eral connote a separation of inside from outside, and in soseparating, valorize and present what is inside.rrs Grabareven rvent so far as to say that architecture "gift wrapped'objects for the rierrer. For Grabar, architectural omamentforms part of the strrtax of the image, tie grammatical stIrc-ture of a visual language. The role of represented architec-ture is to direct our perception to emphasize the represen-tation contained \\'ithin. This notion differs from Gombrich'seven more general role of ornament as simply "framing,"llebecause Crabar relies on the experiential knowledge specif-ically of built structures to articulate the dichotomy betweeninside and outside. \\-hile Grabar's articulation of this prin-

ciple was generalized ancl quasi-universal, the version putforward here is more specific in nvo ways. First, it holds tharthe microarchitectural ornament on Gothic ivories is noroPtisemic, a neologism Clrabar defined as a presemiologicalperception of a thing, but has instead two specific signilieds:contemporary architecture, for we have seen that the thirteenth century was fully arvare of the modernity of ils non-umental forms, and the symbolic precursors ofpalticular OldTestament str-uctures, namely, the Tabernacle and Solornon'spalace. Second, I have suggested that the microarchitectureon Gothic ivories relied on a threefold, not merely nvofold(inside-outside), distinction. In other rvords, it is not merelya matter of architecture defining rvhat is inside versus $hat isoutside, but rather that the container or vessel inside thearchitecture contains the truly important item. The tripartitenature of the Old Testament figures of the Tabernacle-Ark-Tablets of the I-arv and palace-throne-King Solomon extendthe basic logic Grabar argued for microarchitecture to aspecial circumstance, in which the object contained-tJrethirteenth-century equivalents to the ernbodied Word or Wis-dom-is worthy of the r.ltmost quality of attention a humancan muster: rvorship, or lalria. The function of microarchi-tecture on many objects from thirteenth-century France, in-ch.rding Gothic ivories, thus carries Grabar's "separating andwrapping" to a special circumstance. The artists, whoeverthey might have been, embraced the inherited logic of mi-croarchitectural forms, incorpomting the specific referenceto the Old Testament precedents of containers for the holy,and thereby constructed a powerful visual trope for stagingthe divine on earth.

Gothic Ivories and Scholasticism: Intention and ReceptionLittle is knon'n about the first artisans who can'ed Gothicivories, making their access to the erudite concerns of theelites difficult to prove definitively. ln order to avoid thecriticisms leveled at Panofsky for Gothic Arehitecture and Scho-ld.rri.i.rm, holvever, the social and intellectual formation of theindividuals responsible for cawing Gothic ivories should beaddressed. Even though the mling metaphor of the Taber-nacle-Ark-Tablets is much more concrete than Panofsky'scontrolling principles or habitu*-itt otller words, the meth-odological shift from style to iconography narrorvs the field ofinquiry-a social context for the communication of the ideaof the Ark must be posited. How much could the first ivorylmagius ha'te known of the Scholastic debates legardingproper rvorship? Is it possible that the sculptors tllenselvesattended such lectures? What access could the sculptors havehad to the Ste-Chapelle, or to those rvho fornrulatcd thesophisticated program? Were they aware of the Forrlth Lat-eran Council's edics concerning the proper storage of relicsand the Eucharist? What was the role of the patron in thecrafting of the sl.rnbolic forms of Gothic ivories? Thcse ques-tions cannot be fully answered, but exploring rvhat cridenceis available will at least problematize the received carcgoriesofthe educated clerglman as the font ofknorvledge and ideasrersus the unlearned cEftsman who possesses nrarrtrirl skillsto translate ideas into objects.

The lack of information on the first ivon sculDrors iscomplicated by the fact that the period that Richald Randa]lcalled the golden age of ivory caNing (1240-14(X)) also r' ir-

nessed an important general shift in artistic production, frombcing largely the domain of the church, at the hands ofnroIlks and canons, to an urban, secular, and marketdrivenl r rodr r t t ion bv laymen. r !0 Th is caur ions aga ins t re r rospec-tivelv applying to the mid-thirteenth ceDtury documentaryevideDce from the mid-fourteenth century. \4'hen the supplyof i|on rvas still relatively scarce in the mid-thirteenth cen-tun, there rvere no ivory specialists ( iuoine.rs) unlike in thefourteenth century.r2r There is a disrincr possibiliry thatlearned ecclesiastics might have been the first carvers ofGothic ivories, as is true of contemporary illuminators andmetalworLers.r22 In the last third of the thirteenth century,Jacques d'Anchin, the designer of the Chisse de Nirelles, rvasboth a goldsmith and a monk.r23 It is notervorthy that hiscredentials in both arenas, as educated religious and as crafs-man, likely caused him to be chosen as the planner, theconcepteur, of the chdsse. Likewise, Hugo d'Oignies $'as anAugustinian canon and accomplished metahrorker re-nowned throughout French Flanders in the second third ofthe thirteenth century.rz4 A member of a religious commu-niry his whole life, he was educated and literate, even tran-scribing and illuminating at least one manuscript.r:ls LikeJacques d'Archin, Hugo offers a potential model for a con-tempomry individual who carved ivory.

One particularly informative piece of documentary evi-dence comes from the accounts of Eleanor of Provence,queen ofEngland, from l25l to 1253, stating that three anda halfpounds of ivory were purchased for l3s. 5d. to be madeinto images by the hand of Ricardi Scriptoris.t26 In 1245"Richard the Clerk" was awarded a tun ofwine by King HenryIII for his good service, and it is very likely this refe.s to thesame man who was to carve the queen's ivor].l2t Clerks, man),historians have observed, rvere by definition litente; manyprofessed minor orders and most were university edtrcated.' " l-he carver ol Eleanor ol Provence s ivory. rherefbre.upsets the inherited assumption that Gothic ivory caners'were unschooled artisans. The preliminary profile of RicardiSc ptoris 6rs better within the nascent, albeit nebulous, cat-egory ofcourt artist rather than commercial craftsman.l2l' Asa talented individual rendering a number of diverse servicesto the court, from the artistic to the clerical, from the sublimeto the mundane, Ricardi Scriptoris points ahead torvard suchindividuals as.fean Bondol in the serice of Charles V ofFrance (r. 1364-80).t30 Although it is admiuedly rhin, rheevidence from across the English Channel suggests that theivory carvers who first united ivory and architecture rvereeducated individuals, intellectually capable of engaging inthe theological discoumes of the day and positioned sociallyto communicate with other ulemb€rs of the "creative class"employed at court.131

Specifically Parisian evidence comes from the Livre desN'l6tiers, rvritten tow'ard the end of Louis IX's reign (1260-/{,) Dr the l 'arrslan Dro\ost t trenne de lJorleau. ' lhere we|'eseven guilds authoiized to work in ivory, but none was de-rrrted excltrsively to that material; artisans wer-e defined byrheir skills (image maker, knife maker, dice maker) and notbv the media they employed. The image makers (lrzaglers),lcpresented b1, nvo guilds, rvere ofEcially allowed to rvork in\|rxrd. stone, bone, ivory, and any other material, as long asthc\ kner{ the craft.r:r:r As a document produced to regulate

professionals, the statutes do not address such versatile indi-viduals as the English Ricardi Scriptoris working in the ambitofthe court, norwould it cover religious living in community.

The first preserved Parisian tax roll (1292) gives a sense ofthe mercantile stmcture of the urban fabric of the Frenchcapiul and the socjal context ol the professional lay sculp-tors. lVhereas many individuals are identified with namesother than their profession*for example, their place ofbirth-the ta-t rolls feld some sense of the commercialmakeup of thirteenth-century Paris. The lmagiers are locatedmostly on the Right Bank in the parishes of St-Germain-1'Auxerrois (six), St-Eustache (five), and St-Leu-St-Gilles(eight).r54 Thus, nineteen of the twenty-six lziagzars living andworking in Paris were concentrated mostly in what is now theFirst Arrondissement, on either side ofthe busy thoroughfareof the Rue St-Denis.l35 The 1magie6 frequently lived nextdoor to or were close neighbors with other ivory-workingprofessionals, such as the tabletiers, the ytiting-tablet makers,rvhom scholars think may have been responsible for the ivorydiptychs and triptychs:' the pa,ternosterizrs, prayer-bead makers;or the aforementioned dice makers.136 In addition to thisconcentration of fellow craftsmen, the closely knit urbanfabric of Paris encouraged community among all walks oflife,meaning that even these professional craftsmen were neigh-bors with academics, secular clerics, and functionaries ofroyal and aristocratic courts.137

The intimacy engendered by the urban center is illustratedby the 1343 inventory of the Notre-Dame Cathedral. It re-cords that an ivory Virgin and Child was donated to thecathedral by execution of the will of a vicar of St-Germain-IAuxerrois, Federici de Placentia.ris The exacl date ol Fe-derico's death is unrecorded,l3s but one "dominus Federicus,canonicus noster" paid for prayers following the death of afellow Lombard, "Obertus Lombardus," to be said on January

16 Casket with courdy scenes, Paris,1300-f320, ivory with later silverfittings, 17s x 5% x 3Vz ir'. (4.8 x14.4 X 8.9 cm), Mus6e du Louvre,Paris, LP 615 (artwork in the publicdomain; photograph byJean-GillesBerizzi, O RMN-Grand Palais, Museedu Louvre)

16.t'0 \4then it came to securing the fate of his own immortalsoul, the cleric Federico turned to the craftsmen active in hisneighborhood and donated an example of their artistry tothe cathedral.rar Might he have consulted with the Jmagier todetermine the iconographic program? This evidence, thoughof the fourteenth century, maps interaction between clerics,craftsmen, and cathedral in a closely circumscribed urbanarea, the whole of which can be crossed by foot in approxi-mately fifteen minutes.

\4ll-rile much remains unclear about the craft of ivory carv-ing in the thirteenth century, the extant evidence points to acomplex situation in which the educated clerical classes,emplored al courr or l iving in religious communities, ma1have played a much more prominent role in commissioningand producing ivory carvings than previously assumed. Theunknown innovator who first linked the material of ivory withcontemporary Gothic architectural forms was likely a partic-ipant in the broader intellectual community of Paris. It is tothe multitalented, educated individuals populating contem-porary courts and canonries that we must look for the origi-nators of the ivory tabernacle formula, whether this individ-ual crafted the object himself or communicated his conceptto a chosen artisan. Returning to the idea of Gothic ivoriesand Scholasticism, then, it seems most probable that, address-ing Wolfflin's caveat, the path from the scholar's cell to theworkbench of the lmagier was traversed by the Scholastichimself: it was either he who embodied both roles, or it washis initiative to commission the object from an artisan. Aspa:ror'/ concepteur or as ivory carver himself, the learned in-dividual was engaged in the contemporary discourse andactively involved in derising strategies for staging the divine.

ln the longue darle, the reception of the Gothic ivory tab-ernacle formula las mixed. Microarchitecture remained aregular adornment of Gothic ivories, but as noted at the

outset, its ubiquin dinrinished somelvhat in the decadesabout the year 1300. r ' 'ot onh are ivory diptychs produced$ithout the characteristic Ciorhic fbrms, but the crocketedand pointed alches, lhich. as t 'e have seen, lvere originall lsignifiers of a most sacre(l presence, further appeared onivory objecs categolicalll secular in nature. For example, acasket \r'ith courd! scenes roda\ ar tlre Louvre, r'hich can bedated to 1300-1320, is amons the fir-st secular ivories of theGothic period (Fig. 16).'1? The sides of this small objectdepict lovers cavorting in a compressed, r-ectilinear space.The lid, by contrast, is adorned ilith four Gothic archesseparating additional vignettes of lolers, caressing each otherand exchanging signs of love. It is tempting to read thisobject follorving the rubrics defined above lbr the Toledopolyptych: the microarchitecture stands for the Tabernacle,the ivory casket itself is the Ark of the Covenant, and the lovetokens contained are the physical manifestation of the Word,the promise ofthe lover. This interpretation may seem shock-ing, flirting even with sacrilege, yet a similar interpretation ofthe morphology ofa contemporary p)r< would prove perfectlylog ica l (F ig . l7 ) . ' " "The cv l indr ica l i to rvbox is adorned r t i than architectural frieze on the lorver of nvo registers illustrat-ing scenes from the infancy of Christ. The narrative retellingof the Incarnation piovides an appropriat€ context for theconsecrated Eucharistic rvafers, rvhich rvere presumablystored inside. The strrrctural slntax from Exodus is presened:Cothic arches refer to the Tabernacle, and the ivory con-tainer (throne/Ark) is a repository for the embodied Word,rhe Eucharist, kept within. Referring ro rhe Old Tesramentplototypes when housing the Eucharist is perfectly accept-able and orthodox, but using the same vocabulary for asecular context enacts a mock sacralization of courtll, loleand simultaneously an irreverent secularization of the holiestof holies, the Tabernacle of the Lord. It is a transposition ofthe most hallorred of forms to an earthly register as a literaryconceit, $ell studied in vernacular and Latin poetrl of thethirteenth century. Whether it is a pollphonic motet juxta-posing courtly vernacular love lyrics with liturgical chant or aLatin parodl'of the Mass composed to honor the god of the!a\.ern, the plaful appropriation of religious forms for the\ake of amusement and humor was commonplace.l{r A sim-ilar aesthetic of a risqu6 mixture of secular and profane isDlesent in t}le secular caskes.

The Louwe casket plays with the vieruer's expectations andiubverts an accepted visual convention. It is a visual innuerrdo:hat rlorks only rvhen the vierver is awale ofthe code it blcaks::he mischievous manipulation of the Old Testamenr r-elcr-.nce to the Tabernacle-Ark-Tablets of the Lar! is preclicatecl)D the ready recognition of its original slntax and fu ction.

lokes based on an unklorvn metaphor are funnr to no one.lr is is cultural currency that allows the semiotics ol thelabernacle-Ark-Tablets to be so exploited. The pleasrrrc..\en the Jbuir.rara? that comes fi-om sublerting a \\ellrsrirtFiihed visual metaDhor is echoed in the erotic anrLrsenl(n(i

-ccn on the caskets;'ni the semantic game plaled b| thc:,)rnlal elements of the casket echoes and enltances the l l ir---ttious iconogmphy. The use of microarchitecture on the-tcular caskets can bejudged purposefully plalful: to b()n()r\r;rabar's term, itrs terpnopoietic-it bears pleasure. Sonrc lilrrtars after its f irst articulation, the sophisticated constlrrcri,,r:

17 Cylindrical p1x with scenes of the infancy of Christ, Parisor eastern France, ca. 1300-1330, ivory with later wooden baseand polychromv, 5% x \Va in. (14.8 X 14.8 crn). Mus€e desBeaux-Arts, Djjon, C-A. 1462 (art\{ork in the public domain;photograph b,v FranqoisJal, @ MrN€e des Beaux-Arts deDiion)

of Gothic ivories that drew on Old Testament q?ologicalreferences had not been forgotten. It was sufliciently recog-nized and amalgamated into the fisual culture of late thir-teenth-century France that its sacred function could be ma-nipulated to becom€ a source of secular pleasure.

The fact that the material of the casket-i\ory, meant tosignify' chastity-is antithetical to this suggestive interpreta-tion argues that the iconology of ivory, rather than havingbeen forgotten, contributed to the clever innuendoes en-coded l'ithin the casket. Material initially cool to the touch,ivory warms quickly to body temperature when handled.Instead of an object meant to inhabit a scopic economy, astl'te chaste Mrgin's flesh of the tabernacles, the miniaturecasket at the Louvle llas an item of use, to be picked up,cradled in one's hands, opened, closed, and set down again.The phenomenon of dre changing temperature of the ivorybox revises the metaphor on rvhich ir,ory's chastity is based: ifi|oF is chaste because of is frigidity, as the scienrific rexrsiDherited from antiquity indicated, what of its yielding na-trrre. its acquiescence to human heat and passion, rvhenlirndled and caressed? A luxuriant object indeed to gift alt lxeci. \\ 'orking in concert rvith the iconography of amo-r.rrs lolen and the mischevious joy from parodying the rul-irtr.J rrteupltor of Tabernacle,/Ark,/Tablets, the materialitv ofirorv enhanced the overall significance ofthe object, substan-:r.tt ing its nressage.

I he rrplesentatiorr of microarchitectuml forms on Gothic

ivories, in conclusion, rvas a purposeful evocation of twostrxctures from the Old Testament that sheltered containersfor the divine: the Tabernacle and Solomon's palace. Micro-architecture acted as a sign for the viewer to recognize thesacred presence within, the image of the Christ Child, Godincarnate, and to enact the proper form ofveneration, latda.That the first planners of Gothic ivories were engaged in thecurrent academic debates on the subject and were well awareof contemporary practical applications of these concerns-for example, the St€-Chapelle, the sacrament house of 56-nanque, and the pol)?tych of Floreffe-indicates their par-ticipation within a broader theoretical conversation.Specifically, in the central decades of the thirteenth century,this conversation consisted of a search for visual means toproperly inform viewers both as to the sacred nature ofrepresentations/objecS as well as the direction of those view-ers toward the proper response of /alna, or worship. Theforrnulation of a specific response to a prevalent concern isnot a reliance on Panofsky's habitus as articulated in GotricArchitecture and Scholasticism. Here there is no subconscioushabit of mind proposed. Instead, the artists, be they nascentcourt artists, ecclesiastics, or professional ymagiets, by choos-ing the specific forms and formats that constitute the corpusof Gothic ivories, were consciously responding to a contem-porary concem and strove to mount images of Christ withina sufficiently meaningful spectacle so as to elicit the viewer torvorship properly.

Sarah M. Gudu a postdoctoral fellul at lhe Courlauld Instilute ofAn, has held lelhaships at Columbia Untuerciry and tle Mehopol-itan Mueum of Art. Hating published extensiue$ on the lechnicaland dtuotional aspects of the mcd.ium, she is currenllj compbting abooh manuscipt on thz materialiq and, function of Gothic itoies[Cou auld Institute of Art, Somerset House, Strand, WC2R 1RN,U. K., sarah.guerin@cowlauld. ac.uk l.

NotesI $rculd like to thank a nurnbcr ofrcaden rchosc input hxs grcatly enhancedthis afticle during i6loDg gestation. Stephen Mutra,vand Andre\rTnllon bothotrercd man,v insighl5 ai I prepared the 6tsMIsion for presentation in theirsession "Repres€ndng Gothic tuchilecnrre" at th€ 2011 ADnualConference ofthe College Art Asso.iation in N€r! York. Iuai UI€iDryb, Shirin Fozi, andespeciall] Njcholas Herman hale all prorided ;nvaluable coDnr€n!s on dratlsaharious stages. The rery 6ne suggestions ofthe two anonmous readcrs for

mentor ,nd t toho, tnrn Aclan S. Cohcn. *h"* r igor"u. . randa,ds and gerr-erous nature pushed me to seek a fuller undcrstandinB of codlic ivories.

Unle\s otheruise indi .ar .d, r 'anslar ions are mine.

l. vichael Camille, Cohn ldol: ldeolog an.l lnns. Making i1t M?dituat Afl(Cambridge: Cambridge Unilersiq Press, 1989), 205.

2. E. H. Gombrich. The Sen:e of Ord?r: A Studj in tlv Psi(.lnkg aI Dccora-rt,e,4ri (oxford: Phaidon Press, 197S), 199.

3. Ibid., 199-200.4. Ibid., 198: "Nor is it dif6cl t to see how these elenents ofdesigD [aF

chitectuEl elementsl spread from here [architecture] to odler Dediaand other DurDoses whenever function iDvited (lecorative enhnncc-menr. The C,oihic chalice or ivory diprych will exhibir Corhic dcsigns,much as the Renaissance title-page or pictrne frame will display clc,ments of the Renaissance repcrtory."

5. See Raymond Koechlin, Les iuoires gothiqu?s Ita"rda 3 vols. (Paisr Au-guste Picard, 1924). More re€ently, Danielle caborir-ChopiD offered anafrat j rF a,coun' o l rhe hisroD oi rhe rner l ium. f to i r , r r l l , \ lqar Jgr(Fribourg: Office du Lilre, 1978)i and Peter Barner curated a ivatcr-shed exhibition on Coihic ivories at the Detroit Institute of Arts and

the \^ ahers \tt \lu.cuDr. Baltimore, unjfying a $€alth of recent schol-arship h tlr. licld iD its .alalog. Barnet, ed., Inag..s in ho\: PttciolLtOl)ic.ts of th. (t'thk .1., lPriDccton: Princeton Unn'ersiq Press, 1997).Currend\. rhc (;(Jrhi. honcs Project at dre Courtauld Institute of Art,Londor, dirrcrtd b\.johD Lorlden and managed by Catherine Ylard,is assembling an onlinc dalabase that promises to be the Koechlin ofthe t\{enrvfirsr (Drrn: hrp://$$y.gothicivones.counauld.ac.uk/.

6. En'in Panofsfr, (hthn .\(hn..t1oe and Sclmlarrtl1rm (Latrobe, Pa.: Arch-abbe) Prcss, l95l ) .

7, Ib id. , 61.8. Heinfich $dlfilin, RnuLjanu aml Baroquq trans. Kathrin Simon

(London: Col l ins, 1978),77, quoled in Freder icJ. Schwartz, "Cathe-drals and Shoesr Concepts of Style in \ lilfflin and Adorno," Na, Grman Critiqlk 76 (1999):3-48, at 10. Some critics ofPanofskys th€sishave includ€.I Robefl Branner, who was quite dismissii€ of the rhesisin hjs n,idal rc\;e\\, Joumnl of thc Sacicq of Archibttural Hhtorhns 13,no. I (1954): 28-31, but adopted a more favorable posidon later in"A Note on Gothic Architects and Scholars," Bzrlington Magazine 99(\957): 372-75. Meyer Schapiro wrote to Panofsky soon after thebook's publication in 1951 and pressed him mostly on technicalpoint! (see ENin Panotsky. Enin Panalshj Konesqondmz 1950 bis t956,€d. Dieter $httke lwiesbaden: Harrassowiu Verlag, 2006], nos. 1475,1480)i later, Schapiro criticized Panofsky's methodology (anony-moudy) as "an analogical speculation which dolesl not hold up un-der detailed critical study," in 'Style." in ,lntrmpolog Tod.a\, ed. A. L.r\rober (Chicagor Uniyersiq of Chicago Press, 1953), reprinied inS.h^ptro, l heur- and t'hitosoptry o.f A'1: Srytz, Ani an.l So.,.D (NeivYork: Ceorge Braziller, 1994), 51-102, at 85. Hanl Bober ga\e anequalll negative opinion in "Reviei! of Golh ,,tfthitecture and Schokisti-.,r,, b/ Enqin Panofik)," A't Bu etin 35 (1953); 310-12, bur Bober.like Branner. mod;6ed his viet{ some years larer; see Panofskv, ,cr.rrnPanoJA, Kotrc'ponA?n\ ]no. 1757.

9. Brucc Hohhge. s examination of dre mediei?l underpinnings of con-remporary French fieon has brought to light Piene Bourdieu's adoption of Panofsk,v s ,tarir6. For a translation of Bourdieu's posdace ofdre F ench edilion of Gofiit Ar.hiketure and Schaldri.&n, see Holsin-ger, 1 he P uolem Condilion: Medituatis'n and the ttaking of Theot)ichicago: U ilersiw or Chicago Press, 2005), 221-42. Michael Ba{an,dall mo.e obliously adapted and refined Panofsk\"s dreory in his for-nufatio'r of the 'period e!e. Bdandall, Parmr oI Intntion: On theHinon&l l:spknation oI Pt lrrrer (N€r! Ha\cn: Yale Unn€Ni$ Press,198:,): aDd idem, Painting and Expoiene in 15th Gntut\ Ital\ (Oxfotd,Oxford Unnersitl Press, lS72).

10. To signal onl\' tuo rccenr discussions and emendarions of Panofstl\thesis, see Stcfaan \hn Lietreringe, 'The Hemic\rle of Norre-Dame ofPar;s: Goth;c Design and Geornetrical Knort'ledge in rhe TNelfth Cen-rur\," Joumat oI lhe sriel oI At hik(twal Hkbnans 6S (2010): 490-507ja'rd E k Inglis, "Gothic Architecture and a Scholastic:Jean deJan-dunyTract2tus d€ laud;bus Paisius (1323)," a?Jro,12 (2003):63-85.esp. 73-78.

ll. Ofeg Grabar, l'lp Mcdiation oI Ona'n?n 1 (Princeton: Princeton Uni\.er-s; t ) Press. 1989),5.

12. James Trilling, Omanent: A Modern Pe6!../ird (Seattle: Universiw of\r[ashinglon Press, 2003), 23.

13. Cr^b^t, '1h? M?diation oI Or11.tnant. 37.14. Trilling, Omahent: A Madein P6pptlr',a 137-68, even traced the Uiest-

ern disdain fbr immoderitc omamentarion back ro ancient Creece.The classic lexr demonizing onament;s Adolf Loos, Omawnt undI/?nw.l*n (1908) (Vienna: Prachner, 2000); see also Gombrich, 7r,

Jatt.y'a/z/4 "tp

i9-o/, aDdfb.an arc/tl?ecrun/ pont onieh,Anne-Marie Sankovilch, "Strncrur€/Ornamenr and the Mod€rn FigImtion of Arc h itecture," An Buletin 80 (1998): 687-717.

15. To cite only a few titles in thc elerrxpanding lireratrrr€ on this ropic.see Caroline $'alker Bynum, "The BodI of Chr-isr in rhe lnter MiddleAges: A Reply to SteiDberg," in liagmtation and R?nel4rlian: E$qs onccndff md th. Hunmn BadJ in Med.idat R?ligion (New York ZoneBooks, 199I ), 79-118; Miri Rubin, Co4)11t Chisti: 'I he Eu.h6i't in Lat.Mctliaal (llho" lc^tr'tbtidge: Cambridge Universiry Press, l99l); Pat-rickj. Cean, lturkt Saoa": 'th..I of Rrk s in he Cmbal Middb Ages(Princeton: Prnrceton Unir€rsiry Press, 1991); Anron Legner, P,"lt{up,in Kun:t rnd K lt zu,^.h"n Antike unA Atftkitung (Barmsradr Wissen-sch,rftlichc Bnchgesellschaft, l9g5); Martina BaFroli er al., eds., ?'rsa-sur$ o[ H.aL,.n: S(ink, tuli..l and. Ddotion in Medi?.t'al )turope lNe\\ H^-ven:Yrlc Urli\cfsi$ Pfess, 2010); and Carotine lvalker Blnum.Chistxot trk oielit\: An l:'s.]. on Rlligion ht Lak Meditual Eurof, (Cam'br idge, Nl . rss. : iu lT Prcs, 201l) .

16. For the rext :rDd transhrion of Latenn IV. seeJohn Evans, ed. andt^ns., '1'hc Skttut/s of th. ]nw C,eneml Council of Lateran. . . . (Londo.:L. and (1. Sccler. 181:l). For implicarions on rhe presentarion ofrelics, see C:vDrlritr Hrhn. Shangp Bcnu4: Origins nnd Issus in the Makin!

of Mediarat Rzliquancs, a00 .. 1204 (Uni\ersity Parkr Pennsrh"niaState Univ€rsiry Press,2012), esp. "The Impact of 1204, the Spacc ofthe Ark, and Conclusion.' My gratitude to C)nthia Hahn, r!ha, aJr.r Ipresented a veNior of this article at thc Annual Confe'encc of rheCollege Art tusociatiorl in 2011, noted r!€ had both dedu.cd the nr)'Dortance of rhe Ark of the Corenant for thi.teenthrentun risual cul'iure. She has kinrlly made rhis larr (hapre' a|"ilable ro me bclore ,t:publicadon. For the important repercnssions of the l2l5 council onEuchaiistic presentation, see Achim Tim'nermann, Real Ppsnft: Sa.rannt Houses and the BodJ of Christ, t. 1270-1600 (Turnhour Brcpols,2009), esp.7-10.

17. Louis Crodecki. 1-a Saintz-Chabe z (Patis: Caisse Nationale des lfonu-ment.s Hhtoriques et des Sites, 1963); Roben Branner, "The GrandeChasse ofthe Sainte{hapelle," C@tk dzs Beaux-A't, n.s.,77 (1971):i-18; Beat Brenk, 'The Sainle-Chapell€ ar a Capetian Political Pro-gam," in A,r;ttk Integration in (kthi Buidings, ed. Virginia ChieffoRagxin, Ibthryn Brush, and Peter Draper (Toronto: Universiry ofTo-ronto Press, 1995), 195-213; Dan;el H. Weiss, "Architectural S)mbol-ism and the Decorarion of fie S|e.-Chapelle, A11 Bullztin 77 \1995J308-20; idem, Art and Cwdz ;n lhe Age of Sa;nt Loun (Cambridge:Cambndge Univeniq'Press, 1998); Stephen Murray, 'The Archnec-tural Envelope of the Sainte{hapelle, Form and-Meaning." in Piaratunide, coubur: litudlt .l'hittoire tu I'en du Mqm Age l'honntur dAnnef'la.ra ed. FabienneJoubert and Dany Sandron (Paris: Presses deI'Unir€rsite de Paris'Sorbonne, 1999), 223-30;Jannic Durand andMar;e Pierre Laffitk. eds., Le trcsor d2 la S inte-Chdlrr" (Paris: R6uniondes Mus6es Nationaux, 2001); Jean-Michel Leniaud and FrancoisePetrot, La Sdnk-Uafetb (Paris: Centre des Monuments Nationaux,2007); and M€redith C,ohen. "An lDdulgence for fie Vishor: The Pub-lic at the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris," .S2p.rl",n 83 (2008): 840-83.

18. Peter Lombard, Siztenti@ in Mil'ris ltistinct@. 3rd ed., 2 vols. (Rome:Collegii S. Bonav€ntume ad Claras Aquas, 1981), i'ol.2,68-71. Seealso Philipp W. Rosemann, Pet..r Lo,nbard (Oxtord: Oxford UniversityPress, 2004), 203-5; and Marcia Colish. "From th€ Sentence Coll€c-don to rh€ &at.n.? CommenBry and the ,t&n'arr Parisian ScholasticTheology, 1130-1215," in Studies in Sdnlastiisn (Budnlgton, Vt.: Aih-gate, 2006), XIL

19. Alexander of Hales, Closa in quatut lil)los wtentiatu'n Peh Lmbardi,ed. PP. Collegii S. Bonaventura, 3 vols. (Quaracchi, Florence: CollegiiS. Bonaventurae, 1951-57), vol. 3, 108-10, lib. 3, distinctio 9;Albertth€ Great, "Super sententiarum," in Opetu onni: Ex.ditione lugdunetLtir.ligio\P t^hgato. ed. A\tg!5t Borgnet and Emile Borgnet, 38 volr. r Paris: Ludoyicum VivBi, 1890-99), vol.28, 17F74; Bonaventum. "Qua€ytiones srper Mibros Sententiarum Petri Lomb^di," in Opa onnia,ed. A. C. Peltier, t0 vols. (Paris: Ludovicus vi\'as, Bibliopola Editor,1865), vol. 4, 203. for an introducdon to the vast bibliography on im-age theory in the thirteenth century, se€ Herbert Kessler, "Gregorythe Creat and Image Theory in Northern Europe durinS the Twefdrand Thirteenth Centuries," in A Comqanion to Medieul 4,1: Ronanesqwand Grthi. in Nonh"m Eumla ed. Conrad Rudolph (Malden. Mass.:Blacks'ell Publishing, 2006), l5l-72, €sp. 152; andJean Wirft , l)'arg,d ltpoqe gothiqw (P^ri.: Editions du Ce'{, 2008), esp. "I-es scolas-tiques et I'imag€," 23-75.

20. Beryl Smalley, The Studr o.f the Bit)t! in the Middb Ag6, std ed. (Oy.rotd:Basil Blackwell, 1984), 200-208.

21. Thomas Aquinas, Sdltu,t su,6 sentntin Magisti Petn LonbarAi ed.R. P. Maria Fabianus Moos (Parisr Sumptibus P. kthiclleux, 1933),306-16; and ;dem, Sanna thzologi.t trans. Farhers of the English DGminican Provinc€, 20 vols. (London: Burns Oares & \r|ishbourne,1918-28), vol. 15, 342-55, part 3, question 25.

22. Sarah M. Cu6rin, ",4t)dio d'ogni ngionr The Supply oi Elephant Ivoryio Nonhern Europc in the Gorhlc Et^," Ioumal a.[ Me iaal History 36(2010)r 156-74.

23. For the sccalled Soissons group of ivories, see Ralmond Koechlin,"Qu€lques atelie|f, d'ivoirieE fmn{ais aux Xltle et Xne siacles.- Caette da Beaur-Att' 34 (1905): 361-79. More recendv, sce Barnet. /,rages in luo), nos. 10, 11, which sugg€sts a date abour 1250. For theproposal of the earlier date, even as early as the late 1230s. see SachM. Gu6rin, " 'Tears of Complrnction': French Gothic hr)ries in DelGtional Pracdce" (PhD diss., University ofToronto, 2009). I22-78.

24. In addition to \estiges of these piDnacles on the Hemritagr dipirch.the essentially contempomry diptlch noN in the $hllace (:ollecrionhas full or partial remains offour t\vGtoried c.enellated ro{ers \irlrnvin lancer windons ar each level.

25. For the diptychs r{irh dzcor de M4 see Koechlir\, hoin' K'!hiqu.' ti.}-ri?ir, vol. 2, no. 234, for a diptych divided beMeen thc CloisteF. rheMetropotitan Mus€um of Art. Ne$'York (inv. no. 17.190.280). an.i rheAihmolean Mus€um. Oxford: see also Barnet. ttu?ga tr ft4^. no. I l.for a sitnilar diprych dn'ided beN€en the \4'alteN Art lhlscum in\Do.71.124) and the British Museum, London (in!. no. I t I .1 :l . I l.l ' ' i . lBoth diDtvchs can be dated to 1280-1300. For lhe Deadr oI rhe \:.-

gin group, dated to the same period or somewhar larer, see DanielleGaborit-Chopin, ho,us n.xti@aux, ve-Xve sbd, earis: R6union desMus6es Nationaux, 2003), no. I10, in the Mus6e du Louvre, Paris(ini. no. OA 110S6); and Joh^ Lowden, Med.i@al tuoirs and. Wotks ofAr1: Ttu Thol son Ca zrtion at tlLe Ai Ga zry af Onlano (Toronto: Sk)'let,2008), cat . no.30, in the Thonrson Col lecr ion ( in! . no.29102).

26. A copper€ilt architectural aedicule 3l% in. (8t cm) high fron theFranciscan Church in Toumai (roday in rhe Kunsrgerverbemuseum inBerlin) \'ould have housed a Marian starueue abour 1l% in. (30 cm)high. There is no evidence, however, to suggest ihat this starueue r\asnecessarily of ivory. The "submerged berelief' technique on th€\\ings indicates a date in the middl€ of the thirteenth century. andthereby roughly contemporary {'ith our first Gothic ivories. Otto vo'rFalke, "Kunstgewerbemuseum: Ein Frnhgothischer Marienaltar ausTorrrnzi." Antuche Boiehte alL\ rlcn K,nigkhcn Kunstsarnnlungm 39(rgr8): 1-6. A partial-gilt silver tabemacle from the Cuelph reasure,early fourte€nth century (also in the Kunstge$'erbemuseum), hs apedre ivory statuet te of the Virg in and Chi ld (heighrt%in. [3.4cm])withiD; see tuno Sch6nb€rger. "Ein Klappaldrchen des welren-sch^t2es, bits.hnp dzs Deuts .n Veftirc fir Kunstuxsenschafr 21 (1967).13F40; Charles T. Little. "lvoires et art gothiqre," Rmu? de l'An 16(197s): 58-67, esp. 6l-62: and also Legner, Rsl'tuim in Kunst tndKult 17248.

27, The arrangement war described in the 1369 inventoryr "Tabulamunam eburneam ab altari maiori cum l-rnaginibus. Ciborium unum deligno deaumb quod superponirur in medio dicte tabuje in quo esr)mago beate Marie in medio duorum angelorum d€ ebore." See Ric-cardo Barsotti, 'Nuovi studi sulla Madonna ebumea di cio\anni Pi-saro,' Citica d'Ade, n.s., 4 (1957): 47-56; idem. "Cli antichi iN€ntandeffa Cart€dmfe di Pisa." Gitba d'At1e, n.s.,3 (1956)r 501-25, n.s., .{(1957): ?3-88, 161-76,249-64.513-28, at 16l ; and Mu Seidel , "ThcIvory Madonna in the Tr€asury of Pisa Cathedral," in ltalian An oI lhcMiddt Ages and Fnaissa".r (Munichr Deutscher Kunstverlag,2005),3.{5-88.

28. For the Deposition group, see Danielle caborir{hopin, NicodaDe|rayesi: la Desente dz Ctuix d'noire du l,ouwe," n",, 2 de I'Aa 8).(1988): 3l-46; the Bvo remaining statuettes from this group, SainlJohn and Synagoga, were discovered in the fall of20l2, completingthe iconography. The Louwe hopes to acquire them. See rl1w.tousmecenes.tr. Fof &e Glorification of the Virgin group from St-Denis,see idem, "Vierg€ a I'Enfant et deux anges portant dcs chandeliers(reliquaire de saint Romain)," in Le trasor dz Saint.Dmis (P^ias:R€union des Mus6€s Nationaux, 1991), 231-37t idem. "I-a Vie.ge iI'Enfant et les Anges d ivoire du Tr6sor de Sain(Denis." La Rdue rluLouue et d.s MtL'oes da Frun." 4 (1991):26-27; and Sarah M. Cu6rin,.An lvory VirSin at the M€tropolitan Museum, New York, in a GorhicSculptor's Oeuvre," ,r/ington Mag zine 154 (2012)t 394-4o2.

29. I would like to thankJavier Martinez d€ Aguine for allowing De ropublish his pholographs of this extraordinary object, which he hasnewly dated !o the mid-thirteenth century (1255-64) bared on rex-tual, technical, and stylh.ic evid€nce. Maninez de Agxirr€, "k reli-quaire du Sainls6pulcre de la cath€drale de Pamp€lun€," in A.rzr l"co oque autoul dz Hugo d o,!?t r, ed. Roberr Didier andJacques Tous-saint (Namur: Soci6t6 Arch6oiogique d€ Namur, 2004), 2r5-28; andidem, "Los rclicarios g6ticos del Santo Seputcro Giglo XIII) y de laSanta EspiDa (siglo XV) de la catedral de Pamplona," lLttitucil'nNnci?e dr Viana (Panptona)63, no.226 (2002): 295-326. See also, burIvirh an early foune€nthrentury dating, Danielle Gaborit{hopin andJean-Ren6 Caborit, eds., L an at knlts des roi: naudix: PhiIiW t Bet .tses fk, 1285-t328 eans: Reunion des Mus6es Narionaux, 1998), no.1 2 1 .

30. This relation was suggested in Max Seidel, "'OpB Hebumcun': TheDiscovery of an Ivory Sculptlrre by Ciovanni Pisano," in idem, lalu nAn oI he Middb Ages, 349-406. See also Litde, "lvoires et artgothique," 6l-62.

31. Baner, hnag.s in IxaD, no. l7; and Richard H. Rzndall, Thz Golden AgeoI twry: Co tu Iu(D Ctuings in North Analmn C"4"..,io,6 (Nerv York:Hudson Hills Press. 1993). no. 32.

32. Iloechlin, lroins gothiqws Iran{ai:,, yol. l, 34-36. For Koechlin's cala,loging system and his intelleclual development, see Michele Tonasi."L objet pour passion: Remarques sur la d6marche intellectuelle deRatnond r\oechf in ( 1860-1931), historien de I'arr," Histoirc .k l'An 5a(2006):133-44.

33. Randall, Attributing Cotiic lvor;€s," in The C,oldn Age of l@ry,10-16.esp. lil; aDd Charles T. Little, "K6lner Elfenbeinschnitzereien der G(Ftiki \';elc offerre Fragen," in Clanz und Crd$e da Mittelaltters: Kiilru.r.\l?;sh&rk us d2n gossen Sannlungen ds WeIt, ed. Dagmar R. Taube(\lunich: Hirmcr Verlag, 2011), 83-89. Compare this approach wirh.\nne'\Irrie Bouch€, "The View from rhe Roof: On the Chimnels oftlre \Io.gan Picture Bible," in Betuen Ih2 Pi.turc and th! Word: ̂ Ianu-'apt stunics Iro,n ttv Index of Chnstian A'1, ed. Coll'l m Hourihane (L i,

versity Park Pennsyllania State Unii'ersitr Press; Princeton: Index ofChrisiian Art, 2005), 24-50.

34. Wilhelm Voge compared the architecture of the SoissoDs diptych(Victoria and Albert Museum. London, 21 I 65) to that of BouryesCathedral, while Koechlin, hoires gothittuc' lhnrai!, vol. t, 75 n. 5, in-sisted on Pans. Vdge, ,46stelLung lon Kunstue*m .Ies Mittelaltqs ausBeni@ Privatbesitz (Rerlin: C. Grote. 1899), 66. Danielte Gaborit-Cho-pin has compared rhe archirecrure of rhe Hemirage diptych and itsgroup to Picard monuments; Cabo_ftChopin, "Paris ou Amiens? Legroupe de la Vierge Davillier," i\t Etudes d'hktoire de ta'1olla1es i!Jacqucs Thiion, ed. Nain Erlande-Brandenburg, Jean-Michel Leniaud.and Xavier Dectot (Paris: Ecole des Chartes, 2001), 85-98. Comparethe approach with Carl F- Barnes, "Cross-Media Design Motifs inXlllth-Century France: Architectural Motifs in the Psalter and HoursofYolande de Soissons and in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame atAmiens," Ccr,a 17 (1978):37-40.

35. For a wide-ranging account of omamental architectuml representations, from fourthrentury mosai.s to paintings by Claude Monet, seec"abar, The Mcd.iation of OmamL 155-93-

36. Timmermann, ilaal hesmc4 13-14.37. S€e, for exanpie, the twenty-six papen in Chrisrine y\ratzke and Lrr\,e

Albrecht, eds., M,l'oal.,r,itektur im Mittzhhzr: Ein gauungsttbeaqreifmdesPhanoncn zui.sclrn P,?aliht und Imagination; Bdtrii4e der ghichn.rnignnryung im CmanisclEn Nationabn6tun Nnmbug 1)an 26. bL\ 29. Oktcbo 2005 (Leipzig KJa\zke Verlag ftrr Kunsr- und Kulturgeschichte,2008).

38. Fmnqois Bucher, "Micro-Architecture a5 the 'ldea' of Gothic Theoryand Style, Csrla 15 (1976): 71-89.

39. For the connection between architectural drafting and microarchitec-ture, se€ Peter Kurmann, "Mikroarchitektur im r3.Jahrhunderr ZurFrage nach Architekturmodell€n zur Zeit der Hochgotik," in Kratzkeand Albrecht, lrliAramchitektur im Mittslafta, 83-97i and idem, "Gigantomanie und Miniatur: M6glichkciten gotischer Architektur zwischenCrossbau und Kleinkunst," Kalnd Domhlatt 61 (19SG)r 123-46. For ar-chilectural drawings themselies, see Robert Branner, Villard de Hon-necourt, Reims and the Origin of Gothic Architectural Drawing," a;a-zette dzs Beaux-Atls 6l (1963): 129-46i Stephen Murray, "The GothicFa9ade Draaings in rhe'Reims Pal impsest , ' " Cer la l7 (1978):51-55;Roland Recht, 'Sur le dessin d'architecture gothiqrc, ln Etud,s d'aawditaal ollenes i) Louis Crol".Ai ed. Sumner Mclhighr Crosby et al.(Paris: Ophrys, 1981). 233-50; and nori' espe.ialll Robert Bork, ftsanonetry aI Creation: Architectural Dtuuing and th" Dtnanics of Gathi( Dert8? (Farnham, U.Kr tuhgate, 201l). Though the stereometric dra$"ings in Villard de Honnecourt's notebook are b), another hand, hisinterest in drawing architecture is ne!€rtheless characteristic of theperiod. See Carl F. Barrcs I., Th! Panfolio af vitlard. d" Honnecoun: ANru Critixal Ed.ition and Calor Facsinile (Farnham, U.K: Ashgate, 2009).See also Timmermann, Raal Presae, 14-17.

40. For the interaction of lare medieval architecti and metalworkers, seeLon R. Shelby, Golhn Design Technirus (Carbondale: Southem lllinoisUniversity Pres', 1977).

41. Borrowing the epi.bet applied to the mason Pierre de Montreuil (ca.1200-1267) on his tomb once at St-Germaindes-Pres, Paris. See AnnePI?ch€, "Un architecte du XIIIe siacle et son oeuvre: PieDe de Montreull,' Histoift et Archaalrgie a7 (1980).26-35.

42. Hans Dieter Bork, "Le conrat de la chasse: Texte et transcription,'79-81, and Rob€ri Didier, "L'int€rpr6tation du texte," 82-90, both inUn iesor gothique: La chasse dr Ni?rlrq! (Paris: R6union des Mus€es Na-tionaux, 1996). For a longer discussion of the architecture of the.,laur, see in the same I'olume Peter Kurmann, Cath6dmle miniatureou reliquaire monurnental? L'architecture de la chasse de sainte Ger-trude, ' 135-53.

43. Buch€r, "MicrcArchitecture as the'ldea' of Co.hic," 73-74r "Seloncle pourtrature ke maistreJakenez d'Anchin, li olfe\re, at fait" (following the plan that masterjacques d'Anchin, the goldsmith, made) and"Er i avons fair merre ausi le saiai maisreJakemoD I'orfaue, moined'Anchin" (And we also placed the seal of masterJacques the goldsm;th, monk ofAnchin). H. D. Borl, "Le contrat," 79. 80. SeeJinBugdag, 'The Shrine of St. Gertrude de Nivellei," FACAR (Rmue d AnCanaaimne/Canad.ian Arr -Rzz,ru) 20 (1993): 16-28.

44. The fullest development of this analysis is Timmermann. Rral l\.rn..,passim, but see also Achim Timmermann, "l,ate Gorhic Microarchitec-ture and Topographies of Criminal Justice," in katzke and Albrccht,Mikroarchitcktur in MittclalteL 297 313; idem, "Microarchitecture andMystical Death: The Font Ciborium of St. Mary's in Luton." in lirYnr 1300 and thz Geation oI a Ntu European Afthitzctue, ed. AlexandftGqjewski and Zo€ Opaai6 (Turnhout Brepols,2007), r33-42i andidem, 'Designing a House for the Body of Christ, ca. 1300: The Be-ginnings of Eucharistic Architecture in Western and Northern Eu-rope," Ane Medieuab, n.s.,4 (2005): 125-35.

Kurmann. ( larhidt? le miniature."Manin Trachrtnberg. -Suger's Mil?cles. Branner's Bourges: Reflec-iions on Corhic.\rchireclufe' a5 Medieval Modemism," G.r/a 39(2000): 183-:r )5. e ip. 188 89.Reccnt scholarslrip luggests ihai the innovative plan for the chevet atSt DeDis $?s iLs.lf an arrempi at historicism; see Eric C. Fernie, "Sug-er's Compleriorr ol Sainl'Denis." in Raguin et ^1., Anitic Integratian,

45.46.

47-

84-91; and Bnrno Klein, Conlenientia et cohaercntia antique et novioperas: .\ncien eI noureaux aux d6buts de l'a.chitecture gothique," inJouber! and SaDdron. Pieie, lunibe, couhu\19-32.

48. Effin Panofskr inrroduced this idea alreadl in his study of Nether-landish painrinss. I:a \ l'ethdlandkh Painting, Ih Ongins and Chardcter(Cambridge. \Ias.: Hanard Universiq, Press, 1953), 134-40.

49, Osterreichische \:tionalbibliothek, Vienna, Cod. 2554. John Lowden,TtE Mahitry af the BiLbs Morulis.es," 2 \.ols. (Unirersiq Park: Pennsy'la-nia State Uni \crs i t l Press,2000), vol . 1,50-54.

50. Reiner HaLNsher usecl this comparisorl to opcn his article, "TemplumSalomonn und Ecclesia Christi: Zu einem Bildvergleich der Bible1r\otalisCe," Ta.its.hif fnr Kunstges.hichte 3r (1968): r0l-21. For therransciprions and rranslarions of fie accompanying texts, see Hans-$hlter Stork, ,u li'ure, .frunziisis.he Bible motulisae: Cod,x 2554 d4 Oster-r.ihit.h.n Nationahibliotlpft (St. Ingbert, Cerm.: W.J. Rdhrig, 1992),l1g and Bibb nomlisiz: Cadzx Vindobanmsis 2554, Vienna, Oste,reichischcNationahibliothik, trans. Cerald B. CLrest (Londonr H. Miller. 1995),

51. For the signincance and semantics of the 0ying buttress, see NlaileHutterer, Broken Outlines and Struclural Exhibition: The Flying But-iress as ,{esthetic Choice in Nledie'al FEnce' (PhD diss., Institute ofFine Ara, New York Unn'ersity, 2011).

52. There has been an extensile and co)npelling anourlt ofscholanhipdiscussing dre status of the French as the 'hew chosen people" andParis as dre NeNjerusalem in conjunction with state Crusading ideol-ogy. See especially Brenk, "The Sainte-Chapelle as a CapetiaD PoliticalProgram," 195-213; and Weisr, Afl and Cntsad,, t1-75.

53. For a ma-sterful exploration of microarchitecnre as the Hea\enlyJerusalem, see Han€t Stahl, "Heaven in View: The Place of the Elect inan lUuminated Book of Hours," in lasl Tttngsj ,eath and lhe Altoca\psein the ̂ [iddlz Ag6, e(1. Caroline \4lalker Bynum and Paul Freedman(Phitadelphia: Universit) of Pennsylvania Pr€ss, 2000), 205 32, 344-50. See also for the Gothic period Claus Bernet. "VoD der mikrohisterischen Idealvorstell$g zum makrohisto schen Umsetzungsversuch:Das NeueJerusalen im Mitt€lalter und in der frnhen Neuzeit," 191-211, and Gia Toussaint, "Imagination von Architektun Das Halber-sted&r Tafelreliquiar als Bild des himmlischen Jerusalern," 213-23, inKratzke and Albrecht, M?lroarchikktur im Mittekther. The use of microarchitecture to connote the HeavenlyJerusalem was deployed wellbefore rhe Gothic period, especially in settings for gems on metal-work. See O. K Werckmeis1.f.J, Der Dechel des Ade, Aureus nn St. Ennzran: Ein Collschnicdeue& des 9. Jahrhundzrx (Raden-Baden: \ierlagHeitz, 1963),69 70; and for the Osnabdck processional cross, seeDa.\ Rzich dd Salio, 1A24-112i: Katalog zur A^stzltung dzs Lander Rheinland-Prrat (Sigmaringenr J. Thorbecke, 1992). 361. Enormous, toweredchandeliers of the Ortonian period expljcitly represent lhe HeavenllJerusalem, and the copper-gitt exanple in the Hildesheim Cathedralcommissioned by Bishop Hezilo (1054-1079) displays an insciption

at indicates iust lhati d Rrich da Salia. 4hg-62.I canno! offer here a full summarv of the ext€nsI canno! offer here a full summary of the ext€nsive liteEture on

the church as H€avenly.Jerusalem. Two key studies ar€ Otto von Sthe church as H€avenly.Jerusalem. Two key studies ar€ Otto von Sim-son, Thz Gothic Cath,dral: Origi6 of Gohn Architectue and the Medi@alson, Thz Gothic Cath,dral: Origi6 of Gohn Architectue and the Medi@aCon .Pt o.f Odo (London: Roudedge and K Paul, 1956); and BiancaKnlJnet, Fmm the Eatlhb to ttu Hearmb JenL'abn: Rtlnestntations oI theHab CitJ in Christian Art oI the Fbst Miltznniun (Romer H€rder, 1987).For a corrective to the ovemse of fie concept, see withelm Schlink,"The Gothic Cathednl as HeavenlyJerusalem: A Fiction in ClermanArt History," in 't'he R al and ldeal Jenaabn in Jeuish, Chrktian and, Is-ldmic All, ed. Bianca Knhn€l Oerusalem: Center forJewish Art, He-brew Universiry ofJerusalem, 1987). 275-85.Simson, The Cothi. Cathedral, A.Bruno Boerner. "Interpr€tation du programme iconognphique de ]achasse de sainle Gertrude a Nilelles,' in Un tr.sor gothiquc, 225-33.''De dons Willielmi Bfewere, Episcopi- . . . Unum tabernacuiumeburneum cum maginibus beate Maric et multa. Gcorge Olivcr,Lires af the Bisltops af Erete\ and A HXtory aI the Call,,lral (Exeter: $'il'l i d m R o h e r 6 . B r o d d g d r e . l 8 6 l ) . 2 q 8 . d p p . 2 .'April 2.1. 12.12. \lindsor Castle. 'Liberate de thesauro nostro dilectiset fidelibu nosois Eadwafd filius Odonis de Weshonasrerii . . . xiiii dper ponde xiiii d\vr argentum ad quonddam tabernaculum factum adquondan maginam de eboer per i.xii d per ponde ii dwi puri auriad idem thuribulum lrdius tabmaculunl deauranda." 26 Henry UI.arch. no. lti, \lembmne 6. Public Record Office, National Archives.

54.55.

London. An Engiish translation is found in Cabndar of thc Lihiat,Rall: Prc:etued in thc Pubti. R"told Olf.a HarD,r11 (London: His \l:ijr.iy s Stationen Ofice, 1937), !o1. 2 (A.D. 1240-45), 120.

58. "706-Item, unam lconarn de ebore cum inagine beate virginis t(nentis Filiun in bmchio er sedentis in ouodan Dodio sir,e tab.rna-, ulo. Emile Molrniet. InvntaP du'li&r tlu sa,n Siagr tu, Bo"i1n,WII (1295) (Patist Ribtiothaque de I'Ecole des Chafles. 1888), (hap.38.

59. "Unum tabernaculum ebum'cum dilersis irnaeinibus de ebore inuno.omno. Un' 'm tabcma.ulum panrrm cum rmaginibus. ie ehumin uno comno, and Imago beae Marie de eburn'cum tabernaculoebum' in uno comno." Libn quot lianus .ontramtulatni\ ga tmbae:Anno nqni R2gis Ur!.tftli Prini liiusino o.tavo; A.D. MCCXAX € I|CCC(Londonr Society of Antiquaries, J. Nichols, 1787),349-52. Scc alsoPaul Williamson, "lvory Caryings in English Treasuries before rhe Ref-ormation," in Studizs in Medielral Art and Archite.ture Pnsented to PctqZ6to, ed. David Buckton and T. A. Heslop (Do\€r, N.H.: Alan Sutton,1994), 187-202, esp. 197.

60. Alexandre Pinchart, ed., A,thifts ies ans, scimfts et lrttrcs: Dodtn nhinediL',3 \ols. (Gh€nt, L. Hebbelvnck, 1860-81), i'ol. l, 85.

61. "Pour une ymaige de Notre-Dame d'ivire i tabernacle, XIX l. par."J M. Richard, Une fetite ni?u Ae sainl Louis: Mahaut contcs$t d'Artoi: eld2 Bouryagne (1302-1329) (Parisr Champion, 1887), 322.

62, "It.. quedam alia )Dago ebumea B. Marie in quodam tabernaculoebumeo." Gusbre Fagniez, ed., "lni€ntaires du tr6sor de Notre-Dam€de Paris de 1343 et de 1416," Revue Arch.nt'giqu, n.s., 27 ( 1874): 15765, 249-59, esp. 261.

63. Johanne Wilhelmus Fnchs, Lexion Latinilatis Nflldhndicae bledii Adi(Leiden: Brill, 2003), s.v. "tabernaculum." See also Albert Blaise, tri'rcn Latinitatis Medii Adi: ha*dlin ad Es uclzsi6li.ds inlrenigandas Petlizar (Turnhout Brepols, 1975), s.v. "tabemaculum."

64. For th€ Byzantine andJewish u-aditions, s€e Elisabeth Revel'Neher. /."ttnoignage de I absne: Ixs objeck du san(tuaire d BJ&nre et dans I'an juifdu ){Ie au We sitel?s (Paris: De Boccard, 1998). $hile rher€ l|as a.hrivingJewish manuscript illumination tradition depicring th€ sanctu-ary struclufes, it does not seem io have influenced th€ examples discu$ed here. See also Bianca Kiihoel, 'Jervish S).rnbolism of the Tem-pte and Tabernacle and Chistian Symbolism ol the Holy Sepulchreand the Heavenly Taberl cle," Jruith An 12 (1986): 147-68; for *leearly Middle Ages, see EnkTh.u,],a, Inngc anA RNln: Med;ating thz Sa-.rcn il F.an\ MetlieflI Rou (Romai L'Erma di Bretschneider, 2002);and for the High Middle Ages, Hahn, &rang" Bdad), palsim.

65. Bibliothtque Nationale de France, Paris (her€after BNF), MS lat.10525, Paris, 1258-70. The arms of Navarre and Champagne in theheraldic line Ellers give the ea.ljer date, 1258, rvhen Louk IX'sdaughter Isabelle mani€d Thibaut of Chanpagne, king of Navarre,and the terminus date is LoLris IX's death. For a full bibliography, seeHafley Sr^hl, Pi.tunng Kingshif: H*tory and Painting in the Psaltel afSain, rorn (Unilersity Park Pennsyhania State Unn€rsiq Press,2007).

66. All biblical quotations are from rh€ Douai-Rheims tmnslation.6?. Pierpont Morgan Lib|ary, New York, MS M.638. Based on the exten-

sive bellicos€ iconography, th€ manuscript is dakd lo the decad€ pre-ceding Louis Ix's commencement of his first Crusade in 1254. S. C.Cockerell and M, k. J^mes, A Boah oI old't^hn2nt I u\trations of theMidnb oI tlv Thirlunth Cenluu Sent b Ca inal Bernaftl Mad"jouski toShahAbbB thz GreaL King r/P.rr,a icambridge: Roxburghe Club,1927); more recently, William Noel and Daniet \4'eiss, eds., The B@k oIKngs: An, War Md the Morgan Libary's Lledidal Pntur. ,rrl. il-ondon:Third Millennium Publishing; Ballimor€: $hlten Ar.l Museum, 2002),esp. Kelly M. Holb€rt, "Picturing the world in the Thirleenth Cen-tury," 61-67; and Houriharc, Bchum thz Picture anl. th. wonl, espe-cially articles by William Voelkle, Anne-Marie Bouch6, nnd AlisonStones. Schola6 generally accep! that a number of hands $orked onthe Morgan Picture Bible. and Holbert, "Picturing the $i'ld. hasobserved fta! each of the artisll difters slighdy in depiclirg rhe Art ofrhe Corenant. It should b€ noted, hower€r, that all anis6 emplo! acothic rocabularv in represenring rhis Old Testamen! forDr.

68. The Cat l ing of Samu€l ( l Kings 3:3-4) reads: Before(belaDpolcod went out, Samu€l slept in rhe Temple of rhe l.ord lt.hlllo Dcntn,l, where the Ark of Cod Rai. And the Lord called SaD)uel. .\rdhe answered: Here am I." Samuel rvas a prophet in the rinre of lirngDalid, and it was not uniil King Solomon. Dalid's son, Ihar the fiEtremple was built inJerusalem. FolloNing a consistenr rcadins or th(chronology, "Ternple" here should actually read Tabernircle.- a lrctnoted by se\eral exegetes. The architectonic term ma\' hale sueqeir.dthe architectural representation, but lh€ contempoml1 li,rilrt $cr.'the inference of the artist.

59. For the rise of separare sacrament houses in the thinecDrir .cnru^ :,their apogee in the sixteenth, see Timmermann, -R",11,r.a',... :;-61.

70. For the S€nanque sacmment house, see ibid., 32-33;Jacques Foucart-Itonille, "Les tabernacles eucharistiques dans la Fmnce du Molen.\ge," Buttair Monunmtal148 (1990): 349-81, esp. 372; and Eugane'Emmanuel Violfet-le-Duc, Di.ionnaile nisonna du nobilier ltanpis d?I'ifaque cdrhtinqimne d k rmaissance, 6 wls. (Paris: A. Morel, 1874),\ o l . 5 . 2 4 6 - 4 8 .

71. uciss, At azl crural", 70-74, also focused on Paul'sletter to the Hebrerrs (9:1-15) to explicat€ the understanding of the French crorn'sfelation Io history.

72. See Rober Branner, Manw.ript Paintiag ;n Pa'* dunng th, Rzign ofsaint Louk: ,1 studJ oI Sq1"r (Berkeley: Unn€rsiry of California Press,1977), 130-32. cat. no.238. Alison Stones. ks manuicrits du Cardi'nalJean Cholet et l'enluminure Beauvaisienne vels la fin du XIIIesid.te," in L'an gohique dan\ Ir Beaulrani' 6ct.s du Co oque 1998), ed.Philippe Bonnerlaborde.ie (Beaurais: GEMOB, 2001). 239-68. Ford1e illustrations that accompany the ft rgrlrr, see Rudolph Suntrup,"? Atzx Initialen und t\anonbilder in Mittelalterlichen Sakmmennr'handschriften," in Text und BiU: Asppkk .Ls ZLran n nuirt L' i)eioKrnsb in Mittbalkl nd frlher Ne zit, ed. Chnstel Meier and U\!e Ru'berg (wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reicher! Verlag, 1980), 278-382, esp.313-20.

73. For the most recent analysis of the p€rsonifications of Sl-rlagoga andEcclesia throughout the Middle Ages, see Nina Rowe, The Jau, th. Ca-tldral antl thc M.dir.tul Ciq: $nagoga and Dccl?sia in th, Thinmh Cnrury (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ€rsity Press,20ll), esp.47-80, forthe motif in medie\"I art and a futl bibliographl-

14- S\ahl, Pntunry Kingship, a4-89.75. For the tt?ological construct in Llrke, see Michael D. Coulder and

M. L. Sanderson, "S!. Luke s Genesis," /oznal o/ Th@lognal Studies I(1957): 12-30. The figure of Mary as Ark or the Covenant gainedpopularity jn thirteenth-cenrury France. See, for example, the ser-mons of Guillaume d'Auvergne, bishop of Paris rrom 1228 (o 1249, inOlera onnia,2 \ols. (Paris'OrlEaDs: Ludo!'icus Bjllaine and F. Hotot,1674). \'ol. 2, 446 (Sermon on the Assumption), 4tl (Sermon on th€Annunciation). Margot Fassler's superb stud) on the cuh of the Vir-gin at Charues Cathedml explores the r$e of the Ark of the Colenantas a parallel and complementary metaphor for Sotomon's Seat of wis-dom: Fassler, Th? virqin oI Chatuz': Mttking Hi'tory th'ough Litutg mdlfu ATtr (New Hav€nr Yale Univ€rsity Press, 2012), esp. "The Virginand the Tabernacle," 205-41, which covers some of the same territorydiscussed here. See aho Ttmmermann, Rzal hesencr.249-52.

76. Steph€n Murray, ,VotreDaw Cattudral ol AtuizE: Thz Po&et oI Anngp incolIt (Ner{ Yorkr Cambridge Unnersiq Press, 1996), 98, for the dat-;ng or the portals, 106-8, for iconography. See also Marcia R. Rick-ard, The lconography of rhe Virgin Porkl at Amiens' Gesta 22{1983):147-57.

78.S€e Fassler, Irp vtrg,u o/ Chatlft\ 212-14.This relation $drh dre AIk of the Covenant is not remarked on in Ma-rielouise Th6rel's othent'ise comprehensn'e consideB.ion of Marianiconographl in the Gothic em: Th6rel, Iz tionphe dz k vierge-l,glL\e: AI'oigine du de.or du poaail occidcntal de Notft Dan dz Snlis, souftes histeriqu6, littiraircs ,t i.otugmPi.rqurr (Paris: Editions du Cenrre Nationalede la Recherche Scientifique, 1984); see also Philippe Verdier, Z. Co!-rcnnenent d? la Vi?rg.: Les origines et bs prenieE divewMk d'un th,nei&nographiqu (Monteal: Insritut d'Etudes M€di6val€s Albercle-Crand,1980).

79. Ilene Forslth, Th? Thnne of Wisdon: Waod S(ulftuvs of th, Madonna inRtn&n2:qw Fran.c enncetoni Princeton Un;\€rsity Press, 1972).

80. rbid.,24-30.8r. For example, Anselm of l-aon (d. 1117). ir his Ennaration on th. Song

o/Songr. wrote: "Elephas enim frigida€ naturae est, unde per €bur cas-titatem siSnificamuJ' (Elephants indeed are ofa frigid narure, andconsequently ivory signifies chastiry). I'atnlogia latina (here^frer PL),ed.J.-P. Migne, vol. 162. cols. l2l5B-C.

82. Guibert of Nogent, Lil)er dr Lauda San.tM ndid4 Caput III, in PL, iol.156, col. 542A: "Sapientia Dei Parri. . . ipsa est Salomon, quae threnum de ebore sibi facit, dum sedern in Virgine, qua nil unquam fuitcastius, sibi poni!." Also cited in Fors)!h, l hrone of wisd.on,24-25.

83. Bible Moralis6e, Paris, ca. 1230. Toledo, Cathedral Treasury. MS 1-3,fol. 132 Bb: "Thronus eburne Salomoni signet beatae virginae incuius utero Chrisus factus homo requievit. EbuI castitatem aummcaritatem signet...." Biblia dz San Luit (Rarcelona: M. Moleiro,2000).fol- 132. See also Lo\{den, }vlaking oI ttu "Bibbs M6ahtrs," \'6t. 2, 127-

8.1. (;tnrher Bandmann, "Bemerkungen ?u einer lkonologie des Materi-..1i.- 9addJahd'u 2 (1969): 75-100, esp. 82-84.

85. B\F. \IS fr.9220, fol. 2r.l4reiss. "Architectural Slmbolhm," 314. Forrhe |rigier de solas. see Arthur Langfors, "Notice du manuscrit fran-fajr 9??0 de 1a Bibliothaque national€: QuaFains franqais sur le tr6ne

de SalomoD, la visioD de saint Paul, lcs vers latins du Miroir de vie etde mort, etc.," -Romand 54 (1928): 4t3-26;Jean-Claude Schmitt, "Lesimages classificatrices," Bil,lioth?q e de lEcole d.s Chanes t4T (tsag):311-41,esp.328 38i and most recently Aden KumleL 'translating

Truth: Annitious hnages and. tulilious KnoukAge in Late Meiiadl lT anceand England (Ne'N Ha\en: Yale University Press, 2011), esp. 61-68.

86. weiss, Architecturnl Symbolism," 313 14.87. Forsyth, I'hnne aIwisdon,49,57 n. 85. See also Karhryn Horste, "'A

Child h Born': The Iconography of the Portail Ste.-Anne at Paris," AdBul.lztin 69 (rs91): Ial-2lo.

88. Eudes de Sully, S\nodicac nnstitutianes, (ap.5, Pt, vol. 212, col.66,quoted in Foucart-Borille, "Les tabernacles eucharistique," 361-621"35. . . - Ita sunt negligentes quod nondum habent plxidem ebur-neam nec tabernaculum ubi reservetur cum honore corpus Domini-'See also Timmermann, Real Prcsmu,25.

89, Litde, 'Ivoires et art gothique,' 63 65, first propos€d Blzantine ivorydiprychs as the model for those of the Gothic style. See also Guerin," 'Tears oi: Compunction,' " 329 31. For the Blzantine dipqch wnhscenes from the life of Christ (the State Hermitage Museum, St. Pe-tersburg, acc. no. w.l 3), see H€len E\ans, ed., The Glou of ttJzantiun:An and Cuhue af the Mid.dlz BJ.antine Eia, A.D. 81r--1261 (New York;Metropoliun Museum ofArt, 1997), cat. no.91.

90. Blzantin€ depictions of the Tabletr of the Lar', by contrast, usuallyshoiv square, not rounded, plaques. See, for example, the Paris Psalt€r (BNF, MS gr. 139), fot. 422v. See Hugo Rrchthal, The Miniatufts afttu Pais Psalter: A StudJ in Middl? Btzantine Painli?r$ Studies of theWarburg Institute (London: Warburg Institute, 1938), pl. X, for illus

91. "Et ecce velum templi scissum est in duas partes a summo usque de-orsum-" For the importance of textiles to allegorical refercnces to theArk and Tabemacle, see Roland Ikischel, "Cloths in and on Paint-ings-fiom Curtain to Shutter and Back Again," iD Euroqean PaintedCloths, C 14th-C 2Lst, ed. Chrisrina Young and Nicola CostaEs (Lon-don: Archerype Books, forthcoming).

92. "Adam slept so that Eve colrld come to be; Christ died so thar thecburch [ac.kia] could come to be. Eve came to be from the sleepingAdam's side; the tance ran rhrough the dead Chrisfs side so that thesacraments could flow out ivhi.h formed Ecclesia [Dormit Adam utfiat Evai moritur Christus ut fiat Ecclesia. Dormienti Adae fit Eva deiarere (Gen. 11:21): moftuo Chrisro lancea percutitur latus 0oann.,Xlx:34) ut pronuant sacramenta quibus formetur Ecclesial." FromSaint Aug1lstine's homily on the Wedding at Can , In Joannis tuange-Iium Tra.tL\ CXXN9.70, in PZ, vol. 35, col. 1465. See Sunley Ferber,"Crucifixion Iconography in a Group of Carolingian Ivorl Plaques."An Bulatin 48 (1S66): 323-34i and S. Tromp, "De nativitate ecclesiaeex corde lesu in cruce," (negoianun 13 (1932):500.

93. Celia Chazelle hrs demonstrated fiat S).nagoga and Ecclesia on Carolingian ivories were based on Roman models of power transfer. Chazelle, Thz (:ru.ifed Gad in the hnLineian Era: '['hzolog an.l At af Chin\Pa$?"" (New Yorkr Cambridge University Pr€ss, 2001), 281-87. Seealso Rowe, ft?/z?d, the Cathtdral and. thz M.nitual Citj,47-80,lor frulldiscussion of the development of the motill

94. Ps. 44:9-10: "Mlrrh and stacte and cassia perfume fiy gannents, fromthe ivory houses: out ofwhich the daughrers of kings hale delightedihee in thy glory." The allegorical unde$tanding of materiat processesis also explored by Herbert Kessler, "The Eloquence of Sih€r Moreon the Allegoization ol M^rLe\" iD L'all.agorb dans I'drl du Mqm Age:]|ames et fondio'ts; Haituges, crar ons, mutations, ed. Christian Heck(Turnhout: Brepols, 20l l), 49-64.

95. Jerome tPseudojeromel, Bretanun in Psatn r in PZ, !ol. 26, cols.958C-D.

96- Glossa onlinana in PL, \'ol. 113, col. 9l0C (Ps. 44:9-10); and PeterLombard, Comwntoium in Psahnos Daridicas, ir PL, vol. 191. cois.442-43 (Ps.44r10).

97, Cuinn. Aruno J "gnt 'dgi"n.. l56-1a98. Hugh of St. Cher, Porti a Hugoni d! Sancto Cha',, ed. N. Pezzana, 8

vols. (Venice: N- Pezzana, 1703), !ol. 2, l18: "Et dicitur Ecclesia do-mus eburnea: quia per ebur frigidum, intelligitur caslitas sanctorum.Et quia sicut ebur pdmo obscurum est, sed limis, & serris, & scopulislucidum Iit, postea celatur, & sculpitufl sic Sancti per tribulaiionesfiunt puriores, & \arietate virtutum qua5i insculpuntur. Est ergo sen-sus verborum, quae dicuntur hic, quod per exempla Sanctorum, habenr minorcs Ecclesiae carnis morrifrcarionem, humilitatem, & fi-

99. Mary CarrudreN, 'I he CraIt oI 'I'hought: Med,itation, Rhetoic, and the Making of Inages, 4AA-1204 (Cambidget Cambridge Unilersity Press,2001); see also Alexa Sand, "Vision, Devotior, and Difficulty ir thePsalter Hours 'of Yolande of Soissons,' " ,4r ,rtktin 81 12005): 6 23.

100, Many ruthors have discussed the Scholastic differentiation be6veen

latia, dulia. and hvndLlia, ind[ding Camille, Gortr 1d"4 206-9; Ke$sler, "Gregon lhe Great and Image Theory,' 151-72; and Wirth,L\nag( d 1 .l)ottuc gothique, 23-75.

r0l. Aquinas, SuDDna theatagica, \ol. 11, 69-74, part 2.2, question 84.102. Ibid., i'ol. 12. 17-24. part 2.2, question 103.103. Ibid., part 3, question 25, article 5.104. Camille cafefully charted many moments of such anxieq in Grlti,

Idol, esp.l9i-241. See also how this theme was expressed in cont€m-porary image cyclesr Ibtherin€ H. Tachau, "God's Compass and VanaCuriositas: Sciend6c Study in the Old French Bible Moralis€e," A'./Brlll"rt?' 80 (1998)r 7-33, esp. 16-17; and Alyce A. Jord^n, VkuauzineKingship in thz wiruIous of lhe Saintz-Chapeltz \Tornhout: Brepols, 2002),24-26, pls. ,q., B.

105. See Cynthia Hahn, "Visio Dei: Changes in Medieval Visualicy," 169-96, and Michael Camille, "B€for€ the Grze: The Internal Sens€s andLate Medieial Pmctices of Seeing," 19?-223, in Visuali\ belore and be)antl the Rgnuissance: Seeing a' Odrrr Szu, ed. Robert S. Nelson (Lon-don: Cambridge University Press, 2000); see also Cynthia Hahn, "Vision," in Rudolph, Conpanion to Meditual A4 4.1-64. For the changingrote of the vision aDd visuality in &e staging of reli.s, see Gia Tous-saint, "Die Sichtbarkeit des Gebeins im Reliquiar eine Folge derPhnderung Konstantinopels?" h Relittuiare in Mittelalte\ ed. B noReudenbach and Toussaint (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005), 89-106.

106. Un resor gathittue, no. 13; PierreYves Le Pogam and Christine Vi!€t,eds., Les l,relnien retdb (Xlh-dabu du XTe si.ch): UE l',je m scins duradi (Paris: Mus6€ du Loulre, 2009), no. 10.

107. ln 1204, Abbot Weric received the fmgment of the True Cross fromPhilip rhe Noble, count of Namur, rvhich he in turn had receivedfrom his brother Baldwin IX of Flanders (Baldwin I of Conshnri-nople). A miracle occuned soon aft€r the fragment arived at the abbey: the relic bled. Abbot Pie.re d€ la Chapelle commissioned thereliquary in 1254 after the relic repeated the miracle at its fiftieth anniversary. The niello inscription records these miraculous effusions ofblood. Le Pogam and Viler, L"s prmim retables, no. 10.

108. Unfortunately ampered with in the nineteenth century, rhe relic wasoriginally frxed at the center of the reliquary cros. Such an arrange-ment is still presered in a contemporary reliquary cross from thenearby workshop or Hugo d'Oignies, ca. 1250, wooden core, with s;li€r-gilt sheets, and openwork. chased copper€ilt, precious stones,glass, illuminalion on vellum, height without base 20% in. (51.9 cm),Victoria and Albert Museum, London, inv. no. 244-187. See RobertDidier andJacques Toussaint, eds., Ari,rr de -AqD I OiSzt$ (Namur:Soci€t6 Arch6ologique de Narnur, 2003), 337-40.

109. Aquinas, Sunna thealogica, \ol. 15, 350-52, part 3, question 25, arricle4.

ff0. rrEc cRUx q(uam) voluxrr NoBrs / Rrs sAcurNtr Fr.uxrr / euAM scro euoDrrNxlr cRIsrI cRUoR Ac BINEDIXr (This cross which desired forus / twice flowed blood ,/ this cross. I know, the blood/the gorelbloodl of Christ stained and blessed). Le Pogam and Vivet, l,rr lf&niers retablas, no.10. For holy blood miracles, which increased in num-ber and popularity in the later Middle Ages, see Caroline walker By-nu.n, Wond!"Iul Blaatl,: Theolog and, Pra.txe in Late Medietal NoflhemGernar,) and BE1nd, (Philadelphia: Universicy of Pennsylvania Press,2009), although she does not add.ess Floretre directly.

lll. Martinez de Aguirr€. "Le reliquaire du Saint S6pulcre," 222; andjesisMaria Omenaca, "lnventario de las reliquias contenidas en el r€licariodei Santo Sepulcro de la catedral de Pamplona," hincipe de Viana(Pamphna) 63 (2000): 287-93.

ll2. Aquinas, Sunma theal1gica, \ol. 15, 347- 4S, part 3, question 25. article3.

ll3. lbid. See also Aquinas, Sctiptum supd smknlta vol. 3, 3ll-12.ll4. A complex phylactery at the Hermitage iDstrxcts the beholder !o

"Veienre ladnal the ;mage of Christ wh€n you pass ir by borrine.Honot lho or.t) not the image, but what it represen6." Herben Kes'slef, Neitl@ God n6 Man: Wod' Inagcs, and the Medielnl Anxieq aboutA', (Freiburg im Breisgau: Rombach Verlag, 2007); and NinoZchomelidse, 'Deus Homo Imago: Representing the Divine in theTwelfrh CenrLrn." in Loaking Bqand: Vkions, DEans, and. Insigtts inMedi@al An G Hist.D. ed. Colum Hourihane (Univenig Park: Penn-sylvania Srate UDn€rsiry Press; Princeton: lndex of Christian Ari,2010), 107 27, esp. 122-26.

ll5. "Since ,l,ia is due ro Clod alone, it is not due to a creature so far awe venerate a crertlrre for its om sake- Aquinas, Sunnd theobgia, \ol.15, 353, part 3, qucstion 25, article 5.

l l6 . Ib id.ll7. Ibid., rol. 15.350-52. part 3, quesdon 25, article 4, esp. objection 2.rr8. Grabar, Th. .\t.didtion oI (>,anen r, 186-93. Cf. Kumler's discussion.

'tmnslating 7,'u t, 183-85, of the role of microarchirccrur. ,n t'anuscript illumination.

ll9. For Gombrich, Thc Sense oI6der. 75-83, framing un(l llllinq sere rhct'r() essential fnnctions of ornamentation.

120. Randali, ?'ht Colln Age ol hory. This is best ch.rfr(d in rht produclioDofmanuscript illuminarion; n began as earh as rhc (lrlcnrh ceDltr^.SeeJonathanJ. C. Ai€xa'ier, Mcdielral lllltninlk,\ tnl l h.ii )I.thads aIlyorA iNew Haven: Ynlc Unir€nitr Press. 1992). l:-:3.95-l?0.

l2l. The scholarship frrrther disagrees about \{helh(r rl)r\( ft';n4 \ereactually can€rs or simply p n€),ors of non goods. Sc( lli,abelhSears, "Ivory and I\or) l^brke$ in Medieral Paris.- in ltarnet. /nagzsiu /uoD,3l-32; Raymond Koechlin, "Quelques 'ronrs d noiriers desXIVe et XVe siecle," in M,lang6 orfens ir LL H.n\ Lnnonnio. . . par ktSocEE de I'HNoire d, I'Ad Fran{ah, vs amis et vs l1tupr (Parisr Cham'pion, 1913), 17-38i and Richard Randall, A Pnrisian l\on car1er."Jomal of thz Waltn A Cal"ry 38 (1980): 60-67.

122. For thirteenth{entury illuminators who beloDged to a religious order,s€e Alexander, M".lr'r?al I u,ninato ,29-30.

123. See n. 42 abole.124. Robert Didier, "Hugo d'Oignies: Prol6gomenes, in Didier and Tous-

sai , Autou de HWo d'Oignicr,59-81. Didier funher enumemtes anumber of othcr lale hlelfth and early thirreenrh-century goldimithsi{ho also professed ord€rs.

125, Hugo d'Oignies, evangelary of Oignies. 1228-30, Mus€e Provincialdes Arts Anciens du Namurois, Namur, nouv. acq. See Xavier Her-mand, "L 6vang€liaire d'Oignies, vers 1230," in Didier and Toussaint,Autaur dc Huga d'Oignies, 165-19.

126. Pro tribus libris et dimidio eboris ad faciendos imagin€s ad opusregine per nanus Ricardi Scriptoris, xiiis.\'d." E. l0l/349/t8 (QueenEleanor's household accoun0, Public Record Omce, quoted in NeilStratford, "Gothic h'on' Caning in England," in 1],1 ACe oI Chitalry:Aa in Plantag.n.t Englan.l 1200-1400, ed. Jon than Alexander andPaul Binski (London: Weidenfeld and Nicokon, Roral Academy orArIs. 1987), 107-13. For a much fuller discussion of rhis text, se€Gu6rin, "Tears of Compunction," 65-70.

127. Calendar ol the Libaate Rolts, vol. 5 (1245-51), 34. William of Glouc€ster, rvho rvas Henry III's goldsmnh for many years, was corlcurreDtlyemplo,ved (and referred to) as a clerk. See R. Kent Lancaster, "Artists,Supptiers and Clerks: The Human Factors itr lhe Art Patronage ofKing Henn lll." /ormdl of u wafiury and Coutrauld Innihttes 35(1972): 81-107, esp. 90-96. Surnames, holl€ver, \vere arnbiguous sig-nifiers in the !hirteenth cendry. as they sometim€s designated thefather or grandfalh€r's tlade, nor thar of the individual. S.e Sears,'hory and Ilory \'ork€rs, 19-37, esp. 26.

128. Not€. too, the closeness between the tems "cl€rk" and "cteric andth€ir elision in lhe sources. Frank Pegxes, "The Cleri.us in the LegalAdministration ofThirteenth Century England," Iingtish Histnitul Re-?td?r 41 (1956)r556-59; Ceorge P. Cuttino, "King's Clerks and theCommuniry of th€ Realm," Squulun 29 (1954): 396-403; and Freder-ick Maurice Po$'icke, Tlp Th;rtzznth Centua (Oxfordr Clarendon Press.1953).340-41.459-60.

129, For other artisaDs at the English rolal cour! ar this time, see Paul Bin'.ki, weslninstet AbbE an.l th, PlantagmeL': Kingship ond the REpescntationof Ptu6, l2m-1400 \Nerv Haven: Yale Unirersity Press, 1995), r72.

1 30. Martin \^'arnke, 'l h. (hun Ani:t: On the Anust'j of the Modem AflnLtmns. David McLintock (Cambddge: Cambridge University Press,1993), esp. 3-6i Sophie cassagnes'Brouquet, "Des 6rrangers a h cour:Les artistes et les dchanges culturels en Europe au tcmps du gothiqueintemarional," 4.,/,s d"r Congrs d" la Sociiti tus Hktorizns Mediaittes d.eI'Ettftignenznt Sulirirut Purlt. 30 ( 1999) : 1 65-77i Jean Campbell, "'Slnon; nostro sdotsi nuf?t io.uniissiM'i The Co|Irl ,A.rtisti Heart, Mind,and Hand,' 53-45. and Sherry C. M. Lindquist, "'The \r\ill ofaPrincely Patron, and Artists at the Burgundian Court," 46-56, both inAnn/J at Coun: hnage-itoking and ldatir, 1)m-155q ed. Srephen J.Campbell (Boston: Isabella Ster€ri Gardner Museum, 2004); and val-colmv^le.'Ihe hinccl\ Caua: M.rlietal (hu,ls anl Cultltre in Nonh-ll?stEunpe, 1270-1380 \Oxford: Oxford Unn€rsiry Press, 2001), 263-82.ForJean Bandol, see Millard Meiss, l.rnclr Pattti,\: nt Ih. tine ofJnotrlz Bet :'l'lk Latc liturxprnth CrntuD anrl tlt Pfttronagc oI th. I)uke (Loi-donr Phaidon, 1967), 21-25.

l3l. Uhile such an anachronisdc phrase is undoubtedlvjarring, R;chardFlorida s rotion is \€ry'useful in €liminrdng the distincl;on be$(eerl

producers and lhinkel.s, bet1\een ph)sical and intellectual creatiriq.Florida, The Rise oI thp (;r?attue Clats: And Hou lt{r' nslonning tvoh,Leiswq Connuniq Mn Llrarla) r,f (NewYork Pers€us Book Group,2002).

132, Etienne de Boilear, Rlgbntns sur ks Ans et Mttios dc Paris, lediges auXIIIe sitcle, et .onnus sall\ lc non du l.ite des Mttiers d'Eti.nn. Bai-I"az. . . . , ed. G. B. Depphg (Paris: Impnmeur d€ Crap€let, 1837).The working copy of Boileau's regrlations was kepr at dre Chakletfortress and updated periodicau o\€r approximarely a century (BNF,NIS fr.24069). See also Ralmond Koechlin, "L'ivoirerie et les iloiri-ers," in idem, lrotrr g"rhiques Iranqai', \o1.1, 1-42; Sears, "Il'ory andIlory \^'orkers," 18-37; Elizabeth Sears, "Craft Ethics and the CriticalEye in Medieval Parh," &sra 45 (2006):22r-38; and Sarah Gu€rin,''Duplicitous Fornls," W.i 86th l8 (2011): 196-207.

133. Boileau, n gr%ar J!1r lcr,{/rr, titre LXII, "Paintres et tailleursd'ymages," and tirre LXI, "Ymagiers Tailleurs eI ceus qui taillent cru-chefis."

134. Henri G€Eud, Paris sow I'hilwe-b-Bel, .l'tlltPs t .s do.unenb onginaux,ct notann"nt d.'apfis un nanlljeit .ontenant lt rob d? h tailb in,ose surbs habitant' de Par'l en 1292 (Paris: L'Imprimerie de Crap€let, 1837).See alsoJean Guerout, Les €tudes sur la frscalit6, la d€mographie etla topoSmphre i Parisr Bilan er problemes." Bil'liutliqu. dc IL,ob dp\Chafles 130 (1972'): 383-465; and Sean, 'Iiory and hola Urorkers,"26 -2 7. Koech lin, ftorirr gothiques lranqais, \ol. I , I 4 - 15, not€d that bythe beginning of the fourteenth century, the parish of St-Germain-lAu\eno;s had become a (enre ' for )Daga.

135. Philippe Lorenrz and Dany Sandron, Arlzr de Pais all. Mqm Age: EsPace u$ain, habitat, so.iatq, ftUgion, LiM dz poutoir (Paris Edirions Pari-sramme, 2006), 79-74, 201-5.

136. For exmple, just ouLsid€ th€ Pofte St-Denis, Maq the l,tazr"t had onone sideJehan the prayer-bead can'er and Eude the dice maker, andon the other Hugh the miror maker. G€EId, Pans soru Philil,'lele.Bel53. See dso Sears, "lvory and lvory yorkeA," 26-27.

137. For example,Jehan, ll''raSlrr $'ho lived on 'Rue oir l'en cuit les OEs,"is the nexcdoor neighbor of MesterJourdain, "mesu€ de I'ecole.'GCt:ard, P6is sa6 Philirn&-Bel 70.

138. Inventory of the Calhedml ofNotre-Dame, 1343. no. 7: "It., quedamalia ymago €bumea B. Marie in quodam tabernaculo eburneo de ex-ecucione defuncti domini Federici de Placentia, r'icarii S. GermaniAutissiodorensis in ecclesia Parisiensi.' Cushve Fagniez, ed., "In!en-taires du tr€sor de Nore-Dame de Paris de 1343 et de 1416," n""r"Afth.ologiqu. n.s.,27 (1874): 157-65. 249-59, esp. 251.

139. A "Frederici Lombardi, ricar;i sacerdotis" is listed on April 17 in theobits of the Notre-Dame Cathedral. bur the manuscripr was copied inthe lat€ fourte€nth centlrry and giles no sense of the year in r{hichFrederic died. Auguste Molnlier, Obituaircs dr la |n@inu d, Sm5 4 yols.(Parisr Impr. Nationalc, 1902-23), \'ol. I (Dioceses de Sens et dePar is) .217.

140. Molinier, Obituaires .lp k ltorina dz smr, vol. 1, 785: "l.rnuarnB. 16.X\rII kal. tno\uml Ob. Obernls Lombardus, pro quo dominus Federi-cus, canonicus noster, d€dit nobh quinque solidos annui redditus,sitos ad punctam Sancli Erlsuchii, super domo Aube i Barberii."

l4l. for similar behalior of Italian clerics in lta\'donating iior,v siatuettesat their death, seeJulian Gardner, The French Connection:Thoughb about French Patrons and Italian Art, c. 1250-1300," in ,,{'iand Politics in Late Meni4al and Ea J Rmai$ane 1t4: 125A-1500, ed.Charles M. Rosenberg (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre DamePress. 1990).81-102.

142. Gaborilchopin, aoircs n*dieffiM. no. 131i see also Paula Mac Carns," Co"ttr)iltrIio:n l\ory: -fhe Composite Casket in the Metropolitan Mu-seum." C6la 4.1 (2005): 69-88.

143. Koechlin, lrotlA golhittups [ran.ek, \ol. 2. no. 231; and Gaborit-Chopinand G^bonr, L an au k'nrs des rcis naudits, no. 1O7 .

144. Martha Bayless, Paro.b in the Middlz Ages: The Lati,t 'l rtdition (Ann Ar-bor: Unn€nil of Michigan Pr€ss, 1996), esp. "Religion and Humor inthe Middle Ages," 17?-212; S,vhia HuoI, ,{llcgori.al I'lq in the OHFrench Motet: 'l'he Sa.un ann thc Pnlane in Thnleenth-U,nlury Po4gha\,l.i&?ar (Stanfordi St?rnford Unn€rsity Press, 1997), esp. 11-18; seeespecialty Camille, l hc (btht( Idol" 307-16.

145. Roldrd Brf lhe\ , / . / / , /ar \ r du t"xt . tPatst EdiLioI \ du Scui l . I9;3) . esp.33-38.

Generated by CamScanner