Raucher dissertation 2016

BLOOD ON THE CROSS: THE CRUCIFIXUS DOLOROSUS AND VIOLENCE IN ITALIAN MEDIEVAL ART by Meredith D. Raucher A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Baltimore, Maryland November, 2015 © 2015 Meredith D. Raucher All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Blood on the Cross investigates contemporary perceptions of the violent imagery of crucifixi dolorosi in Italy.

Crucifixi dolorosi are life-sized wood crucifixes that present the painfully stretched and contorted, often startlingly bloody body of Christ. They proliferated across Europe in the late thirteenth century, particularly in Germany’s Rhine region and across Italy. Deriving from no clear artistic predecessor, the Italian crucifixi dolorosi have been labeled foreign, resulting in their persistent marginalization from the history of Italian medieval art. Previous scholarship generally sought out the origins of the image type, most often cited as Cologne.

My dissertation takes a different approach by investigating the previously unexplored questions of how these objects functioned and were perceived by contemporary viewers. Arguing that the crucifixi dolorosi were a visual means of making late-medieval theological concepts, especially scholastic concepts of vision and beauty, accessible to ordinary viewers, it studies the Italian crucifixes as objects in their own right. My dissertation investigates the crucifixes at their points of intersection with contemporary devotional, scientific, and theological concern. Through their striking imagery, the crucifixi dolorosi called on beholders to regard them as loci of contact with the Divine and as instruments to aid in the devotional quest to imitate Christ.

They compelled viewers to confront the limitations of visual representation and facilitated the ascent from physical to spiritual seeing. Such imagery encouraged the contemplation of Christ’s sacrifice, of his deformity on the cross and his true beauty – salvation. ii My study indicates the need to reevaluate the standard scholarly narrative of the history of Italian medieval art. Challenging the perception that the portrayal of wounds and suffering was characteristic of the North while the beautiful alone prevailed south of the Alps, I demonstrate that the deformed appearance of these crucifixes engaged with local devotional needs, as well as contemporary debates about the role and status of the image and the Eucharist.

Blood on the Cross therefore returns the Italian crucifixi dolorosi to their local contexts and provides a deeper understanding of how late-medieval Italians intended their images to work. Adviser: Herbert Kessler; Second Reader: Felipe Pereda. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My first acknowledgment belongs to my adviser, Herbert Kessler, who always saw in me the potential to do better. He continuously pushed me beyond what I thought were my absolute limits to produce the best work I could, and so whatever quality and depth this work possesses is in large order thanks to him.

Felipe Pereda also deserves my deep gratitude for the hours he spent talking through ideas with me, as well as reading and commenting on my work. Nino Zchomelidse was especially instructive in helping me present my project in its most convincing and captivating light. I am most grateful to the Gerda Henkel Stiftung, which supported my year of research and writing in Rome; without that time abroad to use the collections of such libraries as the Bibliotheca Hertziana and to visit and examine a number of my crucifixes in person, this dissertation would not be even half what it is. I also thank the Department of the History of Art and the Singleton Center at Johns Hopkins for their generous financial support for both research travel and writing.

I have been incredibly lucky to have strong role models and mentors along the way, and two, Jane Carroll and Anne Derbes, stand out for their unwavering support both of this project and of my growth as a scholar. I also count my blessings for the amazing colleagues who have not only contributed to my intellectual growth, but have also been dear friends. Shana O’Connell, Marsha Libina, and Erin Lebbin – the original cohort – have been by my side from the beginning, through every high and every low. Often over burgers and beers, Chiara Valle offered invaluable encouragement, reading countless pages and talking through many versions of the ideas I finally put down on the pages that iv follow.

Christopher Nygren, Andrea Olsen, and Ruth Noyes also deserve thanks for taking me under their wings early on and showing me the ropes. Beyond the History of Art department, I absolutely must thank Don Juedes, who has not only been a fantastic and resourceful librarian, but has also always made me smile. I am hugely grateful to Julie Reiser for running such a formative and supportive dissertation-writing workshop. Thanks to that workshop, I gained insights and ideas from such kind and generous people as Jennifer Watson Wester, Christopher Brinker, and Amy Sheeran.

Heather Stein, too, read many pages, as well as offered deep and loyal friendship. A year in Rome would not have been nearly as productive or fun without Marco Ruffini, Tracy Cosgriff, John Lansdowne, Kelli Wood, and Will Bryant. Good friends are hard to come by, but somehow I have been favored with many. Lili Knorr deserves so much of my gratitude, for her love and incalculable minutes on the phone.

Cole Jones always raised my spirits with good wine and good cheer. For keeping me on my feet for all these long years, I thank Ann Irvine, Heather Parker, Amelia Martin, Lizzy Bonagura, and Elizabeth Ranson, and for always making home a happy place to come back to, Sarah Smith, Arjun Khosla, Dan Shea, and Emily Smith. My family deserves more thanks than there are words to write. They have given me love and support, as well as the strength to see a difficult project through to its end.

As my grandmother always said, their money has always been on me, and for that I am eternally grateful. I have been blessed with not only one wonderful family; in Rome I was gifted with a second who love me like their own. To Lidia and Raffy, grazie mille per tutto – voi sarete sempre mia famiglia. v My final acknowledgment belongs to my greatest, most wonderful husband, Andrew.

If I tried to write down everything he deserves my thanks for, that alone would fill this volume and I would never get around to the crucifixi dolorosi. IV LIST OF TABLES. VIII LIST OF FIGURES. THE HISTORIOGRAPHIC MAKING OF THE CRUCIFIXUS DOLOROSUS.

18 EXPRESSING THE “TRUE GERMAN SPIRIT”: THE CRUCIFIX IN ST. MARIA IM KAPITOL. 20 ITALIAN PERSPECTIVES ON ITALIAN CRUCIFIXI DOLOROSI. CHRIST AND THE CRUCIFIX, INHERENCE AND ILLUSION.

41 ACTIVATION BY APPROACH: ANTICIPATING THE MOVING VIEWER. 47 SUFFERING AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS. 56 IMAGE AND THEORY, INHERENCE AND INTERRUPTION. SEEING IS BECOMING: THE VIOLENT CRUCIFIX AND TRANSFORMATIVE VISION.

76 FRA GIUNTA AND THE LEGENDA. 86 TRANSFORMATION BY VISION: PERSPECTIVIST OPTICS. 88 THE FRANCISCAN DEVOTIONS OF AN ALTER FRANCISCUS.104 THE “FRANCISCAN-NESS” OF IMAGES IN DEVOTIONS. BEYOND BLOOD: THE CRUCIFIXUS DOLOROSUS AND CHRIST’S TRUE BEAUTY .117 THE BEAUTY IN/OF CHRIST’S BLOOD .121 TO SEE WHAT CANNOT BE SEEN .140 CONCLUSION: FROM EUCHARIST TO CRUCIFIX .149 APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF ITALIAN CRUCIFIXI DOLOROSI.

166 TABLES AND FIGURES. 237 vii LIST OF TABLES 1. Table listing crucifixi dolorosi included by de Francovich, von Alemann-Schwarz, and Hoffmann……………………………………………………………………………….19 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1. Crucifixion between Mary, John, and two saints, first quarter of the 14th century.

Orvieto, San Domenico………………………………………. Crucifixus dolorosus, end of the 13th century. Orvieto, San Domenico……………………………………………………. Detail: torso and side wound……………………………………66, 128 2b.

Detail: left arm……………………………………………………. Giovanni di Balduccio, Wood Crucifix, ca. Florence, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo……………………………………………………. Crucifixus dolorosus, first half of the14th century.

Florence, SS Ognissanti……………………………………………………………………. Crucifixus dolorosus, first half of the 14th century. Rome, San Lorenzo in Damaso…………………………………………………………. Crucifixus dolorosus, early 14th century.

Florence, Santa Maria Novella…………………………………………………………………8, 47 6a. Crucifixus dolorosus, early 14th century. Chioggia, San Domenico……………………………………………………………………. Detail: view from below right……………………………………….

Detail: view from below left…………………………………………54 7c. Detail: view of torso and face from below right……………………. Detail: view from directly below right………………………………. Detail: painted embroidery on hem of loincloth…………………….

Crucifixus dolorosus, early 14th century. Fabriano, Sant’Onofrio (Santa Scala) ………………………………………………………. Detail: side of Christ’s head and face………………………………135 8b. Crucifixus dolorosus, ca.

Cortona, Santuario di Santa Margherita……………………………………………………………. Detail: torso and side wound………………………………. Crucifixus dolorosus, first half of 14th century. Oristano, San Francesco…………………………………………………………………9, 35, 47 10a.

Detail: view into chapel……………………………………………51 10b. Detail: frontal view……………………………………………. Detail: view from below right………………………………………52 10d. Detail: closer view from below right……………………………….

Detail: torso and face from below left……………………………. Crucifixus dolorosus, early 14th century. Palermo, Cattedrale metropolitana della Santa Vergine Maria Assunta………………………9, 34, 156 11a. Detail: head and torso (curls falling onto torso) ………………….), Wood crucifix, second half of the 15th century.

Venice, San Giorgio Maggiore…………………………………………. Crucifixus dolorosus, ca. Maria im Kapitol………………19, 20 13a. Detail: Close up of face…………………………………………….

Detail: revealed patch of first layer of polychromy………………. Crucifixus dolorosus, 14th century. Lucera, Cattedrale di Santa Maria Assunta…………………………………………………………26, 35 15. Crucifixus dolorosus, early 14th century.

Crucifixus Dolorosus, detail, early 14th century. Pisa, San Giorgio degli Innocenti (previously ‘dei Teutonici’) ……………………………33 17. Arnolfo di Cambio, Tomb of Cardinal de Braye, ca. Orvieto, San Domenico……………………………………………………………………….

Pulpit, detail of a clergy in devotion before a crucifix, 1311. Benevento, Cattedrale di Santa Maria Assunta………………………………………………50 19. Seal of Domincan Order General Munio di Zamora, ca. Seal in wax.

Giotto, Croce dipinta, ca. Florence, Santa Maria Novella. Saint Francis praying before the crucifix in San Damiano (Life of St. Francis Cycle), ca.

Assisi, Basilica of San Francesco, Upper Church…. The funeral of Saint Francis (Life of St. Francis Cycle), ca. Assisi, Basilica of San Francesco, Upper Church…………………………………….

Francis receiving the Stigmata, ca. Paris, Musée du Louvre………………………………………………………………………. Detail: croce dipinta arm visible in interior of chapel……………. Roger Bacon, Diagram from the Perspectiva………………………………….

Fatimid crystal reliquary of the Holy Blood, 10th century. Rock crystal with silk. Ugolino di Prete Ilario, Domenico di Meo, and Giovanni di Buccio Leonardelli, Crucifixion, 1357-1363. Orvieto, Cattedrale di Santa Maria Assunta, Cappela del Corporale……………………………………………………………………….

Pietà, 14th century. Cortona, Cattedrale di Santa Maria Assunta…………………………………………………………………………. Perugino, Monteripido Altarpiece, 1502. Oil on panel.

With Giovanni Tedesco (attrib.), Wood crucifix, ca. Perugia, Galleria Nazionale dell’Umbria…………………………………………………………………….161 x INTRODUCTION On the southern wall of the Cappella di San Tommaso in Orvieto’s church of San Domenico,1 a fourteenth-century fresco of Christ crucified between Mary and John survives within a niche (figure 1). The painting is what one might expect given its date and location: contained within an ornamental frame painted around the edges of the niche, the scene shows Christ hanging from a simple Latin cross mounted atop a small hillock, at the bottom of which is Adam’s skull. Christ hangs almost peacefully, his head falling forward, his curly golden hair cascading gently over his shoulders, his transparent loincloth delicately swathed around his hips and thighs.

The streams of blood from his hands and feet and the spurts of blood and water from his side are meager and delicate. Although they stand on the same ground as the cross they flank, Mary and John are depicted proportionally larger than Christ. The two holy figures appear not to be perturbed, each gazing out to engage the viewer before them. John raises his right hand in speech, subtly pointing his lowered left hand towards Christ, while Mary’s right hand is raised to gesture towards her son (specifically towards his side wound).

Furthermore, two saints, now both partially effaced, flank the scene on the niche’s side walls; from what remains of these figures, it seems that one looks directly towards the viewer and the other gestures towards the scene. This was an image intended for the quiet contemplation of 1 Before much of the church of San Domenico was dismantled in 1934, the chapel stood directly to the south of the main sanctuary (to the right, when facing the high altar). Today, the chapel is one of four side chapels of the nave, which was the church’s original transept.