yerre ÉglonniséReliquariesWINDOWS TO RELICS

AND MIRRORS OF THE DIVINE

SARAH DILLON

f l n i ^ i f s ^ S ' S j s ' c ' f g ' ^ ^ i H* Italian Renaissance art is often characterized by the revival of a"jjinf- s l n S - S g - S ' - ^ l s ' f î t naturalistic style, resulting from an increased interest in human-

stDÍS ^ s ° ' S " - 2 : S ' S ' S " ^ Vïïî istic values, Aristotelian philosophy, empirical observation,

IS-^ i t F - S j i . •»•Is l í a and Franciscan ideals. These trends have been understood to

S »-g- ? « = ! !§ ' ñ o s r i em's- signify a general shift away from the more abstract spiritual

, ° o 5 - P | n S Q . T j i | ä " i E = ° " interests ofthe late medieval period toward the more earthly

^ § ^ ° - S Í 3 ; ; 2 S | ¿ g - g ? 3 g ^ concerns ofthe Renaissance. As a result, unique aspects of

^ 5 g 3 - ñ ^ ? - ^ | a o ' 3 S l ^ *^® respective emergence of these currents have occasion-

iïï ? . 3 Q . Í S . S S C ' " ~ S . ftSs; ally been suppressed or streamlined in service of this unified

"^o" ^ l ° ï ^ J - l ï - S""3^ narrative.' Within this paradigm, the Trecento has traditionally0 5 O § ^ 2 ö o 2 o ' ° S ' n ' ï

m ^ r " ^ o ~ g | î ; - r g _ i '«=^ been viewed as a transitional period, in which many ideas from

•D'O, S ^ g . g ^ S . ^ 0 ^ n . |. I^S antiquity resurfaced but had not yet been fully integrated into

CL u^ 5:c)í5Í_3^S^S"'= -S-"J^ culture. Consequently, fourteenth-century Italian art is rarely

5 | ^ 1 - 5 ¡ ^ I ^ O " 3 ' R s " thought to contain deeply rooted scientific or philosophical

" " | o < ° - : r | . i i " | " 5 underpinnings. Challenging this prevailing interpretation, a

^ o: ^ "" "• °- le. .- S 3 ^ =: I contextual reading of a group of fourteenth-century gilded

S Q « 5 - 0 . 5 - ^ 5 ^ " ^ sj ' i glass reliquaries suggests that artists were deeply engaged

o ÏÏ s | | _ 5 ' ^ S ' o S " f ' î , v^lth complex, overlapping period discourses on visual theory,

5-8 S ' ^ N " 5 ^ S g - i . 2 'g-i optical technology, and reliqious symbolism.

Is • 5° S I i- f g- i ! . î ?i s f S ' 5 ' S " ^ ° o ^ o o f During the late-thirteenth century, the Italian peninsula wit-

nessed a renewed interest in optics and glass. Over the ensu-

ing century, transparent glass production steadily increased, as

" g à . i r n 5 " S did debates among natural scientists over the nature of vision.^

• a g- S S- = S I- 5L - IO O C í i < - O - í " m t ü 3 S

I / ) - V I ( O O _ 0 < I I | - ) ( D Q - ^

The rising interest in glass resonated within both scientificC Q O « » P o c Q ^ . _ ^ a j . ^ g uo"

S. I > ,3<s"S2-Q.onS AS and artistic circles. Artisans and students of optics used qiass

i/1 I * s 2 0 - I 5 I I I I to create mirrors, magnifying lenses, and, beginning around

• " <" "• . 1280, eyeglasses.^ Concurrently, works of art from the late

20

Fig. 1 RELIQUARY DIPTYCH, late 14th century.Italian, made in Unnbria or the Marches, Verre églomisé, painted and gilded wood, parchment.The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917 (17.190.982).Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Source: www.metmuseum.org

Duecento and Trecento began to feature transparent glass in several different forms.Pictorial representations of glass, such as a mirror held by the personification ofPrudence in Giotto's Arena Chapel, appeared as early as 1305. Panels of clear glassbacked with shimmering, gilded highlights adorn monumental public commissions,such as Nicola Pisano's pulpit for the cathedral of Siena (ca. 1265) and Orcagna'stabernacle in Orsanmichele (ca. 1360). Reliquaries comprise a third major categoryof artistic objects that feature clear glass in the Trecento. Clear glass set beforerelics, as in the case of the Metropolitan Museum of Art's late fourteenth-centuryReliquary Diptych, served both to display and protect relics (fig. 1).

Reliquaries of this sort indicate that the scientific and artistic applications of trans-parent glass were indeed closely linked. The Metropolitan's Reliquary Diptychencompasses multiple instantiations of glass's scientific associations in the Trecento.In devotional contexts, viewers could read the diptych against concurrent opticaltheory that allowed transparent glass to simultaneously resonate with contempo-

21

I

raneous theories of vision, Franciscan optics, and the weighty

debate about the nature of the Beatific Vision. By harnessing

these multivalent associations, the Reliquary Diptych visually.

l ° ' K 9 ! 5 - g ' § s. I theoretically, and theologically encouraged Trecento viewers to3 3 - ' O Q ' ^ > ~ 2

S^»f ^ t' i " - S n ^ ^ ' ^ S " l The Metropolitan Reliquary Diptych provides a characteristic

f• H Q. § a. I o -T, ° ° n I" S- I example of a group of popular Franciscan reliquaries dating

= gS s I" i ^ g - | | s S " | " ' S from the mid-to-late-fourteenth century from central Italy.^ The

§ ^ 3 - 3 ^ 3 ? T ^ i ° 3 - ' S ' ° diptych and others like it feature panels of qiass decorated usinq

= ^ 2 : 3"-"" S c - a s ' - T i s f ï verre églomisé, a technique for inscribing imagery into a gilded

SSCT- 5 Î , •v'gf.^S-n, q:^" panel of clear glass, typically encased in hinged wooden frames.'

" i " S- ^ , " ' S | ¡ r o " S n 3 " 3 ' The Metropolitan reliquary uses the verre églomisé technique to

3 % sr " ? 3 I " - 5 S S H 3 " - < illustrate the Nativity and Crucifixion in the center of each panel

^ 3 " - • 5 o ' Ä ' " c ä - U..V... ...le Angel Gabriel and Virgin Annunciate in lunettes atop

" f ' 3 5 ^ £ . g - i ^ ^ § ï | § each panel. Symbols of the four evangelists and two unidentified

g ' S ^ .g-J i ' g â S ^ ç l ^ ^ saints surround the Nativity, while portraits of Saints Peter, Paul,

gP* ! ; r ? f s ^ ' o . ^ l S ^ i l Francis, and Clare, along with two other unidentified saints frame

f ? ? ^ t " g i ^ i - i ï ^ o " ? the Crucifixion. In the borders, interspersed between the saints'

s ' î . î ? ° %%: ^ ? r ?• ° S, portraits, are a series of rectangular fields devoid of gilding.'

~ - D - c - o - o - œ s - ^ - J T ) These small "relic-windows" reveal a variety of relic fragments

ä ? ? i S ? o ï 3 3 ° 9Í.^'g" 5 with their authentics (small identifying labels written in the Italian

! ? | S - - 5 ï H ^ N ä s î 3 ^ i ; o Gothic rotunda script) displaying relic fragments sourced from

^ 0 3 ^ 5 0 3 3 2 ^ ° go -3 3. the likes of Mary Magdalene and the True Cross.^

^ | - g - S 2 l ^ Í 5 | | g - | § s 5 The verre églomisé technique remained dormant in Europe from

the early fifth century, until it was revived at the end of the thir-

teenth century.' The earliest commentary on verre églomisé reli-

quaries can be found in Cennino Cennini's Craftsman's Handbook,

an early modern treatise on artistic practices written around 1390.

Following his discussion of stained glass, Cennini introduces

gilded glass. He describes the verre églomisé technique in detail

and recommends its use in decorating reliquaries. He notes,

"there is another process for working on glass, indescribably

attractive, fine and unusual, and this is a branch of great piety,

for the embellishment of holy reliquaries; and it calls for sure and

ready draftsmanship."'" In what follows, Cennini provides charac-

S ' l i i ? ° ^ ° ^ f " teristically detailed instructions for the process. Missing from the

s ' i l ; ! ?• J 'L. Cl S-3-o" commentary, however, is any elaboration on why this technique

=•• l i « f 1 ^ " ^ i m suddenly resurfaced in the late-thirteenth century and what made

It so appropriate for decorating reliquanes.

22

IJ_* o__

IQ

c'

a.

0 -^a. M

"2. gie ori<fura.

n 'tD —

0 S

libroarte,

ed.

0- 1liel

xv-xlvilvana

a

Ïtri

cuora

3O"

CL0rati egr,3 ffiti.

-

ript St

die

ñrnell

n0

3

iptionript,

(D

__ 3

3" r

0

ter 0sr of

tú" fD

"§'0S

Chicago art journal volume 20

SARAH DILLON

Modern scholarship has supplemented our understanding of reliquaries fea-turing verre églomisé by investigating their artisan creators, their Franciscanorigins, and their relation to monumental frescoes at San Francesco inAssisi." However, many of these texts overlook the reception of theseobjects within private Franciscan devotional practice. The dynamic inter'-play between the portions of verre églomisé imagery and the areas of thereliquary left transparent is key to the reliquary's success in the devotionalcontext and likely accounts in part for Cennini's endorsement for its usein reliquary decoration. Through this combination of verre églomisé withuntreated glass, the Metropolitan reliquary offered Trecento Franciscan view-ers two divergent visual experiences—one based in the reflectivity of goldand the other in the transparency of glass—that constitute both individuallypotent and mutually reinforcing modes of accessing the divine.

Viewing Christ's Humanity and Divinity

Initially, the areas decorated with verre églomisé and those left transpar-ent seem to be in aesthetic conflict with one another. Glass functions in theformer as a gold-backed mirror and in the latter as a transparent window.Placed in the context of contemporary optical discourse, however, the con-trasting treatment of the glass in the reliquary more clearly provides devo-tional viewers two dramatically different visual experiences that togethergesture towards Christ's dual humanity and divinity. Moreover, it becomesapparent that one form of decoration, namely the gilded glass, appearsgrounded in earlier medieval traditions while the other, the clear window,anticipates dominant Renaissance trends.

The transparent portions of the reliquary's glass compel the viewer to lookthrough the surface to the relic fragments of wood, cloth, and hair. Theirsmall size requires viewers to draw close, and even strain their eyes, in orderto see the relics, which lends intimacy to the viewing process. Correctly iden-tifying the relics further requires that devotees be literate in order to discernthe text contained in the authentic. This type of spiritual devotion basedin careful observation resonates with an empirical mode of viewing, and assuch can be seen as a harbinger of the growing interest in scientific investi-gation typically associated with later Renaissance values. The visual displayof relics was not commonplace in medieval reliquaries. When describing theRe//quafy of the Staff of St. Peter, Cynthia Hahn notes, "typical of reliquariesmade in the western medieval world, this golden staff holds its relic tightlyand invisibly, inaccessible to either devout or skeptical eyes."^^ Therefore,viewing the relics in this manner provides the viewer access to the human

"C "^ oo î i (n

ï " S

o 'S i 0 ; !

ro (1) OT•= T l -

2 " "

*- ':£cr D

i = ro03 D_

Í Ea "-i s E -° a'

•^ 2 E

g .2 "g

U ï2 o

u * -

.ï Ñ SI §

ro o — ^

'S . i iI '§ I I

•5 S '- i f g" 'S ai Si

- 3 .2 d S X• " O C - Ol C wO g -LU ^ I

! û o

QJ

-ë 2

^ > ^ QJ Si- (n QJ O a ( 1" '<» T5 s o ^ t; o

S- -sTOO C" i i

t -2"• " O QJ

I

TO î 2

^ 3 ^î°

1 23

" I'Q) o o cr cr - .

I' î ? I " 1

side of Christ and the saints by engaging with synecdochic fragments of their mate-rial forms. The reliquary permitted fourteenth-century viewers to establish powerfulconnections to their spiritual role models, and ultimately Christ, based on a sharedembodied relationship to the relics.

-.rj w _J *ti . ^ ^ ' ^

Q7 (-) ^ (D CD ~

§•' i if m i J 1 The portions of glass decorated with verre églomisé depict canonical Christian nar-^ I "i. °- '^ I J ratives. Set in front of glowing candle flames, golden glints would have bounced offyi - ^ 3 5 D 5'

' ' » 2" ÏÏ s' ^ '•' ' gilded imagery, while sharp, bright reflections of light would slide across theI" ^ î Q. 3 ^ S surface of the in conjunction with the beholder's movement. In his discussion of theQJ . < tD ^ - tu ^

J S ä f ^ 5- gilded panel's highlights in relation to Trecento light and optics, Paul Hills notes,S (2 I " ^ " the lustre moving over the surface...could be experienced as a personal link^ S-jj §.'?-"' between the worshipper's eyes andthesacred image....The light of Christ'sbright-

3: ;;; g s; ness could literally shine upon the eyes; and this physical light entering the eyes

^ 3 î * would have been intuitively understood as metaphor for spiritual i

J j ^ _ ,.., J suggests, such an experience in the Trecento could have formalized a pow-

'ü ^ 1. ÏÏ, » I erful connection between the viewer and the holy image, given that it was com-

tô -D 3 Z Q- 5 mon to associate light and spiritual enlightenment at this time. Such gilded imagery

•3" t i ? - 1 a" could have easily reminded a Trecento viewer of the more traditional medieval treat-3 to 3 3^ ÎL ^

g- J ^ ^ H gi ment of concealing relics behind an array of precious materials, particularly gold, in^ - •" ^ " " order to evoke the precious nature of the divine." Rather than depicting the holy

2 > î •§- nature of God, the relics behind the transparent glass would have encouraged the^ ii Î- 1: faithful to use inner spiritual reflection to figure divinity. Thus, the transparent glass^ CO p CD invites the Trecento viewer to use his or her sensory perception to examine physical

•3 » s- - evidence of the saints' human nature while the golden highlights hold the potential

g 2 s S- to abstractly symbolize the divine.;o •• o 2 ,

I 3- !?. lg Sophisticated viewers may have appreciated the opportunity to negotiate theseg I g •? contrasting treatments. In following with early modern Christian doctrine, whichV, J 3 S. was predicated on the irreconcilable nature of Christ as both fully human and fullyOI 'o' 5" ^ divine. Trecento viewers would not necessarily have expected cohesion and may

5 = S" have even found the opposing aesthetic elements helpful in contemplating theiro (g faith. By fusing the two different decorative treatments within a single sheet of glass,^ I |. the reliquary recalls Christ's paradoxical status as both fully human and fully divine,

subtly replicating the functional work of the relic encased within. In so doing, itmerges the medieval tradition's penchant for abstract representations of the divine

4; ^ I: with the emerging empirical approach that would come to be associated with the4 3m Renaissance tradition. Just as the two treatments of glass meld devotional viewingî Ü S v^^i^ the rise of scientific observation, thereby challenging our conventional peri-ls S; S. odization of this paradigmatic cultural shift, the reliquaries also resonate with con-.| = o" temporaneous visual theories of intromission and extramission.

24

I I'i

Chicago art journal volume 20

SARAH DILLON

Envisioning Vision 5 S

The Platonic theory of vision known as extramission permeated Western European tu ,

thought from the fourth through the end of the thirteenth century. Plato theorized " =s

that the eye sends out visual beams that coalesce with external light and reach ¿J

out to the object, resulting in visual perception.'^ Trecento viewers sympathetic to | b

Plato's visual theory, when facing the reliquary, would be able to conceive of the i x

dramatic golden reflections as more than just indications of the object's holiness. si .

These sharp rays of light bouncing off the glass could also be understood as visual •£ 'QJ 0 » ' • •

manifestations of Plato's fiery rays emanating from the eye, hitting an object, and i |

returning to the viewer with the input. In this context, the reliquary's gilding visu- S rô s

ally allegorizes this type of contact between the devotional viewer and the reliquary. 'S =§ i>

The golden highlights from the verre églomisé portions of glass rather than the •- " ?i 2

transparent glass resonate most with Plato's visual theory. His philosophical outlook "1 5 ^ -2

deals more with abstract concepts than observable phenomena. For Plato, truth QJ "S .| 2

lies beyond the sensory world. His philosophy likewise resonates with the medieval ^ ^ £ .st= ;^ E o

Christian view, primarily associated with Augustine, which imposed a notion of God's 5i § 5 ¡Idivine nature onto Plato's theory of the Forms." . ^ S I E'

. = jj . . » r^

While Plato offered a model to reflect on the divine nature of God, the emerging Í 2 "? 13 5

philosophy and visual theory based on Aristotle was more suited to an examination - '^ ~ .- .- r

of the human lives of Christ and the saints. Aristotle's visual theory—along with his í í S í s

general philosophical system—began to supersede Plato's by the beginning of the S ° I .£ "^

fourteenth century after its reintroduction to the Latin West through Muslim and I " t g I

Ancient Greek optical treatises." Aristotle combined certain aspects of Plato's extra- -S " m ? 1^ .s ? -o

mission with its main theoretical alternative, intromission, which holds that an object ^ J= -g < 5sT " S " "

of perception sends forth images of itself, known as eidola, to the eye. In order to i ^ 5 I °reconcile these two seemingly opposed systems, Aristotle developed what David o | | I ILindberg has termed the "mediumistic" theory of vision."* i %" ^ | ^

Aristotelian theory asserts that the perceived object sends forth eidola into the ^ g | ^ S f

intervening medium, usually air; visual properties are absorbed through this medium J S -5 .9 "o ^

and subsequently processed by the eye. Lindberg describes Aristotle's position | i g i .| '"

as one not focused on directional rays from the object or eye, but rather one that ' , ^ t .s g- >;

pays attention "toward the medium between the observer and the visible object."" J § i .= " g

Lindberg continues, noting that Aristotle "perceives the absolute necessity of this I Ë-^ f 1 2

medium...[which is] diaphanous or transparent, a nature or power found in all bod- ? " 1 "i " f

ies, but especially air, water, and certain solid substances."^" For Aristotle's theory, f ¿ I -s.then, which was ascendant at the time of the Metropolitan's Reliquary Diptych's fab- is ">• E " s i

> "O J3 ,c:rication, a great deal of importance was placed on the space between the viewer's Q o ^ ^

^ ~ _û oeyes and the observed object. The transparent glass is of particular significance to ï .2 I 5

25

I

^^^ reliquary in this context, since transparency functions as a necessary precondi-

tion for visual contact to be made in Aristotle's system.

While neither Aristotle nor Lindberg entertains transparent glass as a suitable "solid= g" J s'5; V

-"• < 0 '., i" ^ substance," it is worth considering that the portions of clear glass set before the

relics in the Reliquary Diptych certainly may have met the necessary requirements.? 5" - 5 :g Viewing the verre églomisé reliquary with an Aristotelian model of vision in mind,Q_ i* ^ 5 •<"

? 9 a 'è' f ^ fourteenth-century observer could interpret the transparent glass panel as a.§-"g 5 g I stable, physical manifestation of the visual process, reaffirming the point of contacto S o_ ° 5 between the relic and the Trecento viewer.

o ^ .

— Q,

•

The ability of the Metropolitan's Reliquary Diptych to simultaneously resonate with^ ^ ^ „ „ both the Aristotelian and Platonic modes of vision does not constitute a conceptualÎ; > g I o" weakness, but reflects, rather, a particular historical context when both theoreti-

|- sj S ? ^ cal models remained available. Although a general shift from the Platonic to the3 » g " 5 Aristotelian model occurred from the thirteenth to the fourteenth century, the sameK> 5 'û g t» debates continued from the time of the medieval scholastics until Johannes Kepler? » ?i ä 3 Thus, even in the late fourteenth century, Plato's theory was known to natural scien-i, ci S 5 £. tists such as Henry of Langenstein and Blasius of Parma, albeit principally as a coun-

5 ' Í 5 terexample with which to assert intromission's dominance over extramission.^'3- S a. 2.

When speculating about whether one theory could be privileged over another inrelation to objects of devotional art, it is important to keep in mind that scientific

|. i" f,- n ? tg' 3 theories were considered a means to larger spiritual ends during the fourteenth^ ^ i " S ä" Q century. In the religious context of the early modern period, and particularly in the" S i" S! z S î Franciscan view, devotional efficacy ultimately set the terms for the optical debate.5"'S r i ic - ? Faithful viewers could draw from any number of theoretical models in their interac--" <S 5" S" oT S tions with the reliquary. Even for a viewer with exposure to optical theories (which3 ? ^ J I S ^ would have been more than plausible for an educated member of the Franciscan

order), his concern would not be with the specifics of the theoretical debates while~ 3 deep in prayer; when faced with the potential of spiritual enlightenment, he would

c n o -n< .^ — 3

3- laen ID T

5 " S have employed any and all methods at his disposal.^

tu < _» Of 3â. I: :§ 3" -- iT a 3- -o

While it is difficult to recover the full extent of critical engagement among Trecentoviewers with these visual theories, of all the religious orders at the time, theFranciscans were among the most interested in studying and capitalizing on an; 1

ff ^ 1 o ^ I understanding of optics for their devotional pursuits.^^ Not only did Franciscans

^ ii 5 §

commission many of the most famous works of visual art of the early modern period,I but also several members of the order made important contributions to the scienceZ S- " S S" of optics, and many others referenced optical theory in their theological writings.0 3 o" o ^ ^^ tu r\ ^ o ^

I |- i o" 1- S In the mid-thirteenth century, St. Francis's official biographer, St. Bonaventure,expressed a characteristically Franciscan position when he noted, "behold how the

26

Chicago art journal volume 20

SARAH DILLON

Divine Wisdom lies hidden in sense perception, and how wonderful is the con-templation of the five spiritual senses in the light of their conformity to the sensesof the body."^* Following Bonaventura's embrace of the physical senses, otherFranciscans began studying and writing about the nature of the sense of sight.Many of the most influential theorists of thirteenth-century optics, including RogerBacon, John Peckham, John Duns Scott, and William Ockham, all belonged to ormaintained associations with the Franciscan

Franciscan emphasis on the visual finds particular support in some of the order'smost famous works of literature and visual art. The Meditations on the Life ofChrist, written around 1300, was devised by a Franciscan friar and addressed to anun of the Poor Clares as an attempt to help her with her devotional practice. Itvividly describes biblical events and implicates the reader as a witness by invok-ing a rich sensory experience with the goal of inspiring the reader to envision theevents in her mind's eye.

Further evidence of the Franciscan privileging of visual media is found in theextensive artistic program at San Francesco in Assisi. The visual arts commissionedfor the Franciscan headquarters not only strove to capture the appearance of thenaturalistic world and inspire the viewer's sense of sight, but the Assisi decora-tive program also referenced optics more directly. Optical instruments and glasscan be found throughout the decorations in the Lower Church of San Francesco inAssisi. To convey the powerful insight of Prudence, Giotto painted her holding amirror while a second one stands in front of her.^' Approximately thirty years later,Andrea de'Bartoli da Bologna painted one philosopher holding a pair of eye-glasses and another holding a magnifying glass in his scene of The PhilosophersConfronting St Catherine in the burial chapel of Cardinal Albornoz. In addition tothese illustrations of glass objects, an abundance of actual mirrors, in the form ofconvex glass backed with silver, cover the ceiling of the Lower Church, simulatingstars against a dark blue sky. ' it is worth noting that, in the decades preceding theproduction of the gold-glass reliquaries, the Franciscans at Assisi commissionedmany artworks incorporating actual glass or depictions of optical devices made ofglass, making it likely that at least some of the Franciscan patrons and viewers ofthe Reliquary Diptych had exposure to optical technology.

In addition to an interest in the sense of sight, the Franciscans studied the natureand theology of its optical counterpart: light. St. Bonaventure wrote extensivelyabout the theoretical implications of light in his commentary on the Sentencesof Peter Lombard. Following in the tradition started by Augustine, Bonaventureconceptualized light as having three different modes: lux, lumen, and color. ^ Hedistinguished the three as follows: "Lux can be considered as threefold, that is initself, and in transparent media, and as terminated at the limits of the perspicuous:

-Dtn

E

1

m ..2 .ï

ï- -d"o tu

1 1 §'S « s

.ç -a 5

'S I I» TI i

2V5 £ a

2 ^<o Ec u

s s3 E8 S

-S o 5C u_ -C

1 .E

*- in

"2 ~01, 0) 11

-j; ¿ . S u

27

I

s :3 gi " ë S in the first mode it is/ux, in the second/umen, in the third the hypostasis of color""

° In "5! i F i In other words, lux is the essential nature and source of light, lumen is the radiance

I :: 5 »i 5 that stems from this source, and color is the effect produced when light falls onto

,5 o -" I f. solid objects.^"

J •" J, à? ? In looking more closely at the translation of Bonaventure's description in rela-? o 5' "Q_

? ! & = ;; tion to the formal characteristics of the Rel/quary Diptych, interesting connections

0 ô ° ^ S" emerge between the different aspects of light and the visual experience of the

c r? 3 Metropolitan's diptych. As the essential nature and source of light, lux was spiritu-'^ " ^ 3 'oT

" Ô m ally analogous to God, in addition to being associated more literally with flameso ro p- %_ or the sun. Bonaventure himself referred to God as the "Father of Lights" in his

m

I=i Iprologue to The Soul's Journey into God noting, "in the beginning I call upon the

First Beginning, from whom all illuminations descend as from the Father of Lights,

3

I, from whom comes every perfect gift ." '" Lumen, the emanation of lux, is most com-

Jl ^ T monly observed in such instances as the aura of light emanating out from a candle

s ^ à flame or the rays of the sun. Lumen therefore was often associated with Christ, as he

s- s_ •.... was considered the ultimate emanation from God and the vehicle by which God's

ç_ g' light enters the world. As Bonaventure describes in his Tree of Life, "in this eternal

% I kingdom, all good and perfect gifts come down in plenty and abundance from the

? I Father of Lights (James 1:17) through Jesus Christ, who is the superessential Ray....

^ „ _ ^ _. For he is a pure effusion of the brightness of the power of the omnipotent God. "^^

y ^ 'I I .g Bonaventure corroborates this analogy by linking Christ to God with the visual meta-

ÏÏ n 5" S phor of a ray of light.

I 2 ?" ^ I" ^ ° S 0 According to Bonaventure, color is light resting on a solid, opaque object. Color inn CD 2 - =^ "*^

I f this sense is the entity that makes manifest the visual qualities of physical objects.

g 3. g- ' 5 »" 3 For Bonaventure, one's experience of the natural world, and the way in which it

I 5 I reflects God's goodness, depends on the presence of light as color As with lux5; "D O'

S I ^ and lumen, color also finds a visual parallel operating in the Reliquary Diptych. The

T i ¿ candle's lux emanates through the air and glass as lumen, and as color, it makes

5. 5- ^ visible the relics' shape, texture, and other physical qualities. Just as the reliquary

= 2 î refracts the lumen, the saints represented by these relics evoke God's divine nature

ñ 1- I' reflected through the mundane world. For Bonaventure, the presence of color in the

5 o " world enables the beholder to appreciate God by appreciating his creation. In the

5 g-1 Reliquary Diptych, the contrasting transparent and reflective devices likewise employ

"2 5' ¡5 light, glass, and color to illuminate the relics.^^

I" " = While many informative connections between theology and light can be found

I" §- ff within the reliquary, none of Bonaventure's categories neatly correlate to the spar-

s' | '1 kling highlights. As if in response to this very issue, another late thirteenth century

¿ S I Franciscan, Bartolomeo da Bologna, added a fourth type of light to Bonaventure's

system: splendor.^'' For Bartolomeo, the concept of splendor could be observed,

28

•? S"

I

Chicago art journal volume 20

SARAH DILLON

"when rays emanating from a luminous body reach another body that is smooth, S .a § - I

polished and shining, such as a sword or gilded panel {tabulam deauratam), and | g. :§ | r

rebound back from that body this is called splendor. And by such reflections on I * 'S f, ¿

a polished and shining body the light {lumen) in space is multiplied and such ^ ö | -o <

multiplication of light is properly called splendor."^'' The reliquary's highlights Í3 J I " |

are central to the beholder's visual experience, serving to create a powerful "- " ^ ~° -i

connection with the viewer and perhaps embody the fiery rays of the Platonic ° f " f |

system. With the addition of splendor to Bonaventure's categories, the gilded 1 *" — s J-

highlights joined the complex Franciscan theology of light. 3 2 = 2 ¿

While color is light striking a solid, dense body, splendor is light falling on a î '» s ^ "S-C _ro : t : ^ 'fí

radiant or shimmering one, or, as Umberto Eco puts it, "strictly, splendor was •? <J ? ? a

the light of luminous bodies, co/or that of terrestrial bodies."^* Therefore, while 1-:i I iS-s

both color and splendor are reflections, the former illuminates the physical S j 01 ^ -^

objects (i.e. the relics) while the latter illuminates the gilded portions of the " "ï c 1 '

verre églomisé. When light reflects off the gilded glass panel, which has simi- | " "? d 1

lar qualities to the tabulam deauratam described by Bartolomeo, reflections =s ' c T 'S j

obscure one's view of the glass's surface and the gold leaf. Unlike color, which ¿ S S s -o g;

enables one to study the physicality of the relies, sp/endor negates the physieal o I' - i t

characteristics of the panel. In so doing, light as sp/endor takes on an immaterial I r I ¡r S &

quality that resonates with its religious context." Therefore, while color may rep- ^

resent the divine as experienced through the natural, observable world, splen- S | I

dor seeks to evoke the presence of God in more supernatural, unobservable " :í '

forms, such as miracles, visions, or holy angels. In the case of both a miraculous I -Ï 2

encounter and splendor, the essence of the divine is kept appropriately out of | e " |

reach, since, ultimately full understanding of the divine was inherently elusive =, " ^'

and real knowledge of God had to wait until one reached heaven. 0 £ «

Seeing God Face to Face: Beatific Vision

The doctrine of Beatific Vision, or visio Dei, refers to the moment after death

when one comes into visual contact with the divine. As famously described by

St. Paul, "for now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face-to-face: now I

know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known" (1 Cor. 13:12). ^

The message may seem straightforward: that while living an earthly existence

one's knowledge of God is imperfect and only perfect knowledge is possible in i s | •

heaven. However, a pronouncement by Pope John XXII in the 1330s set off an E" 2 "g \

intense debate among church leaders, especially within the Franciscan Order, ^ . | =

over exactly when this experience of mystical union occurred.^'Pope John ! "? i2 <

believed that the union took place after the Last Judgment, meaning that there S S S P;

was a waiting period between death and the Last Judgment. The opposing view

29

-a -Q-3 S

of

1

Q o promoted by Pope Benedict Xll's Benedictus Deus, however, mandated that indi-|- g viduals, if properly cleansed of their sins in purgatory, could indeed experience the•< " visio Dei after their individual death but before the end of time.*"

Ï 5" It is worth considering the reliquary within this context, and in particular its represen-2; "S tat ion o f t h e spiritual through its physical counterpart. Given that St. Paul specifically

i - equates the human experience of God to viewing him through a glass panel in the

p. ^ aforementioned passage, it is conceivable that, presented with the glass panel of

? S the reliquary, a Trecento viewer would be reminded of the arcane nature of God's

3. a existence while still inhabiting the earthly realm. This is not to imply that the bibl i -

c o cal associations of the transparent glass would have been inherently discouraging

^ f to a Trecento Franciscan praying before the Reliquary Diptych. On the contrary, the- 03

-< 8. reliquary engaged numerous visual tactics to evoke the sense that powerful inspira-S =" tion rested just behind the panel of glass, while the relics affirmed the message that,5 S. when the time came, the viewer too could be united with God.

By employing an Aristotelian outlook, viewers could carefully examine physical evi-dence that heavenly saints had once walked this earth just as they did. At the sametime, the verre églomisé scenes affirm that some mystical relationship with God,however abstract, was also possible while still living a corporeal existence. Finally,by approaching the highlights and complex narrative elements from a Platonicmindset, early modern Christians could reflect on the fact that God's light, thoughelusive, could maintain a presence in the natural world. Thus, by invoking a combi-nation of earthly senses and spiritual insight, the Reliquary Dyptych offers a sophis-ticated, multivalent, and elegant visual aid for understanding the Beatific Vision. Infitting with such a complex devotional tool, the artist ofthe Reliquary Diptych useda single sheet of transparent glass as both a window to relics and a mirror of thedivine to inspire faith and transcendental insights into the promise ofthe BeatificVision and direct knowledge of God. By simultaneously evoking this multitude ofdifferent visual experiences and meditative opportunities, the Reliquary Diptych waswell suited to the Trecento culture, which continued the more mystical medievaltraditions at the same time it looked forward to the emerging Renaissance scientific

outlook. CÛJ,0

SARAH DILLON is a doctoral candidate atThe Graduate Center, City University ofNew York. Her research focuses on earlymodern relic worship and issues relatedto visuality.

30

Copyright of Chicago Art Journal is the property of University of Chicago, Department of Art History and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.