Singing chorister fragment, 12th century
/Singing chorister fragment
12th century
July 6, 1996
Jeffrey West studies a fragment from the West Facade featuring a singing head. Featured in The Friends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Report for 1995-1996.
An old photograph in the catalogue to the lapidarium (Fig. 1) shows an orderly pile of carved stones which had been removed from the west front during the course of its restoration by J. L. Pearson.' Some of the stones are voussoirs decorated with chevron and beading, but there are also sections of colonnette and, on the left-hand side of the pile, a damaged capital with a small, finely carved head reminiscent of an antique mask (Fig. 2). As an historical documen the photograph is of considerable value, not least because it allows us to establish the origin of some of the stones now in the lapidarium collection.
The extent of the nineteenth-century refacing of the west front is revealed by the different types of stone used in the facade: Bath stone for Cottingham's restoration of 1825; Weldon stone for Pearson's restoration of 1888-94; and Caen stone (from Normandy) for the original twelfth-century work and the early fourteenth-century north aisle doorway?.
The amount of Weldon stone, particularly in the towers and blind arcading, shows that Pearson's restoration was extensive, although as St John Hope observed, the renewal of 'much of the facing . .. was to a large extent necessary owing to its decayed condition'.3 Certainly, the
drawings of the west doorway made by Sir George Scharf in 1850 show that, in some areas at least, the loss of carved detail was substantial.* If St John Hope accepted that decay justified the replacement of original carving, he did not
approve rebuilding for the sake of stylistic uniformity. Together with the Society of Antiquaries, St John Hope protested against the removal of the fifteenth-century northwest pinnacle, 'in order that it might be replaced by a nineteenth-century mockery' and a 'sham-Norman copy of its fellow'.5 The protests were to no avail. By the end of 1892 the pinnacle had been taken down'.
In addition to the Romanesque carvings removed in the course of restoration, three further pieces of sculpture - one Anglo-Saxon, and two Romanesque - were found during the underpinning of the west front in 1888/9. These are of some interest, but far more important was the discover in sit of that.
bar anitar wanina, a na cental west donany of hie found don, bone co-. which had ben replaced by the present facade be sib dorman is which had been replaced by the present facade of c. 1160.
'The evidence for an 'early Norman' west front, like the late medieval remodeling of the central section of the facade, raises the possibility of the re-use of canes stones either in the mid twelfth-century, or in the mid fifteenth, when the clerestory of the nave was rebuilt and a large eight-light window inserted inte the west front. Carved stone may have been used in the blocking of the two that further re-used material was found in the demolition of the northwest niches which Pearson re-opened in the lowest tier of arcading, and itis possible pinnacle, which was described as being 'merely rubble work - the odds and ends of the mason's (sic) yard While the re-use of twelith -century sculpture can be no more than a speculation, it may explain why some of the stones which appear in the photograph and are now preserved in the lapidarium, are not as decayed as St John Hope's description might have led us to expect.
Pearson was not the first to remove medieval carvings from the west front, nor was his the only restoration to excite St John Hope's disapproval. Sir George Gilbert Scott escaped censure, but in commenting on L. N. Cottingham's restoration of 1825, St John Hope remarked that he had '" restored", that is made new' the fifteenth-century west window, gable, and parapet, with the result that
'the remains of the old Norman diapering [were] relegated to the crypti° And so it must have seemed, but it has been argued that the recently discovered drawings of the gable made by Cottingham in 1825 show that, not only did he initially intend to re-instate those parts of the 'Norman diapering' removed during the restoration - for which his template drawings would have been essential - but also that his decision to remove the twelfth-century carvings was prompted by the view that their arrangement in the gable was a fifteenth-century pastiche and not an authentic feature of the Romanesque west front."
By 1900, a 'large number of carved and moulded architectural fragments' had been amassed from the various restorations.12 Just how many of this number have been lost since 1900 is not known, but on the evidence of those which are now in the lapidarium, St John Hope was right to say that some are of
'considerable beauty and interest. 13 At first sight, the damaged capital noted in the photograph is neither beautiful not interesting, although its very survival prompts questions which may yet throw light on the history of the cathedral in the early twelfth century.
The capital is entered in the inventory as 92/16/5/L. It is Caen stone, and measures 278 capia g5mm x 169mm. Where original surfaces survive, they are dressed with fine, diagonal tooling, typical of twelfth-century ashlars. Some of the original, incised setting-out lines remain, as does part of the moulded necking and part of the abacus at the top of the block. A little over half the block (approx. 155mm is taken up by the remains of a head, of which only the outline of the (clean-shaven) jaw and one ear survive undamaged. A smooth, ovoid ball (of hair? shaven and the ear and a small head (c. 75mm, set on the quoin behind the jaw, looks downward past the necking.
On the evidence of the photograph, it may be assumed that the capital was recovered from the
Mound to me recovered from the west front. Exactly where it was found is not recorded, but as Pearson clearly sought to reproduce the twelfth-century originals wherever possible, the absence of a replica among the nineteenth-century restorations suggests that either the capital did not originate in the c. 1160 facade, or it was displaced and re-used at a later date, probably in the fifteenth-century. What can be said, is that its original use was as the capital of an engaged nook (corner) shaft, most probably for a window or blind arcade.
Human or monster heads as capitals are not a common feature of English Romanesque architectural sculpture. There are two types: those in which the heads look out from the block and are seen to be a continuation of the shaft beneath; and those in which the heads are seen to bite or swallow the shaft, often without any discernable division between shaft and capital. With the exception of two later examples at Sherborne castle and Sherborne abbey (Dorset), the first type is found in buildings of the first quarter of the twelfth century, while examples of the second type are found in the buildings of the second and third quarters of twelfth century.
Despite the loss of most of the head, there can be no doubt that the Rochester capital is of the first type. Given the web of intimate association between Rochester and Canterbury, the occurrence of a head capital on the south side of St Anselm's choir (1096-1130), where they were used in the decoration of the exterior side-aisle windows and the blind arcading of the south-east transept, is of some significance.1 Each of the Canterbury capitals is different, and even though the monsters disgorged by one the heads rest on the inner face of the quoin, the quoins are not used in the manner of the Rochester capital. 15
Iconographically, the small head takes its form from an antique mask.16 The distinctive shape of the mouth, framed by successive folds of skin across the cheeks; the firm, straight nose, heavy brow, and straight hair are characteristic features of the tragic masks of greco-roman art. The detail and expressive quality of the head is certainly comparable with that in the crypt and exterior blind arcading at Canterbury, although there is no direct comparison of motif in these sculptures. Professor Dodwell, in his study of Canterbury manuscripts, drew attention not only to the interest of Christchurch in classical texts, but also the many examples of iconographic and ornamental allusion to classical motifs in their decoration." These references can be no more than an indication of a cultural outlook, and it is probable that the inspiration for the style of the head came either from more public art forms, or from the decoration of Roman buildings which, in Canterbury, were a source of building material. '8
The comparisons offered by Canterbury support a date for the Rochester capital in the first quarter of the twelfth century.19 If the capital was indeed re-used, as was argued earlier, two possibilities for its original location may be briefly suggested.
The first is the 'early Norman' west front revealed by the excavations of 1888/9.
Although St John Hope attributes both a major rebuilding and the use of Caen stone to bishop Ernulf (1114-1124), there is no documentary evidence for this. 7 Rather, Ernulf is recorded in the Registrum Roffense as having built a dormitory, chapter house and refectory.?' An origin in the 'early' west front, nonetheless, remains a possibility.
A second possibility is suggested by the refacing of the lower west wall of Ernulis chapter house in the middle years of the twelfth-century?? Again, comparable architectural detail occurs at Canterbury, where an extensive programme of building and refurbishment was undertaken by prior Wibert (1152-1167). As the rebuilding of the west front of Rochester was also undertaken at about this time, the possibility of the re-use of carved stone from Ernulf's chapter house facade cannot be ignored.
It is likely that firm conclusions about the origin of the capital will remain elusive, and yet the enquiry raises questions which, if answered, may sharpen the focus on the early post-Conquest history of the cathedral church and its neighbour at Canterbury. In its damaged state, the capital cannot claim to be beautiful although like others in the lapidarium, it is undoubtedly of interest.
Jeffrey West
Footnotes
1. Cathedral Library 6750, 1(b). The possibility that the photograph dates drom the late 1890s, or c.1900, is suggested both by the existence of a duplicate in the lantern slide collection of George Payne FSA (HF 2875, G. Payne Collection, Guildhall Museum, Rochester), and by W
H. St John Hope's record of Payne's involvement in reducing the carved and moulded stones found in successive restorations to 'some kind of order'; W. H. St John Hope, The Arthitectural History of the Cathedral Church of St Andrew at Rochester, (London 1900), 135 and 135 n.t; [hereinafter: Hope 1900]. For a summary of Pearson's campaign of work, see, A. Quiney, John Loughborough Pearson, (Yale 1979), 271
See also B. C. Worsam, 'A guide to the building stones of Rochester Cathedral', Friends of Rochester Cathedral Report 1994/95 p.23.
Hope 1900, 93
Illustrated in D. Kahn, 'The west doorway at Rochester Cathedral' Romanesque and Gothic;
Essays for George Zarnecki (Boydell Press 1987) 130, pl. 2.Hope 1900, 86, n. *; 92-3. Building News, 62 (1892), 730, wherein it is recorded that Mr Pearson thought the destruction of the pinnacle unnecessary.
Building News, 63 (1892), 232
The Revd Greville M. Livett, 'Foundations of the Saxon cathedral church at Rochester', Archaeologia Cantiana, xvii, 1889, 261-78, PI. II. The date and art-historical context of the west front are discussed in detail by D. Kahn 1987 (ref. note 4) esp. 129-130, and 130 n. 10.
Hope 1900, 85-87
For the niches see, Hope 1900, 31, n.‡; for the description of the north-west turret see, Building News, 63 (1892), 232.
Hope 1900, 92.
The drawings, now in the Avery Architectural Library, Columbia University: Avery Classics Collection AA 430 R5 M46 (Drawings by an Unknown Architect of Rochester Cathedral), were attributed to Cottingham on a compelling evidence by C. Miele, 'The west front of Rochester cathedral in 1825: antiquarianism, historicism, and the restoration of medieval buildings, Archaeological Journal, 151, 1994, 400-419, esp. 410-415, illus. 1, 2 & 8. A copy of the drawing of the north spandrel (Miele's illus. 2) is included in the lapidarium catalogue (Cathedral Library 6750, sheet 29c). I should like to express my thanks to Mrs. Mary Covert, who first discovered the drawings, and Tim Tatton-Brown, who brought them to my attention in advance of Dr. Miele's publication.
Hope 1900, 135.
34
Hope 1900, 135, n. t. On the establishment of the lapidarium, see, Mrs Annelise Arold, The
"Lapidarium', Friends Report, 1990/91, 21-22.D. Kahn, Canterbury Cathedral and its Romanesque Sculpture, (Austin, Texas) 1991, 86, ills.
145-146, col.pl. xi; G. Zarnecki (ed), Courtauld Institute Illustration Archive, Archive 1, part 8, Canterbury, 1978, 1/8/82. Similar capitals were also used on the exterior of the nave and south transept clerestories at La Trinité at Caen; for which, see; V. Ruprich-Robert, L'Architecture Normande (Paris 1889] Gregg Press 1971), t.i, pl. Ixxv; M. Baylé, La Trinité de Caen: so place dans l'histoire de l'architecture et du décor romans, (Geneva) 1979, figs. 25-26.
D. Kahn 1991 (ref. note 14) ill. 145 & col. pl. xi.
Iconographically, the head is similar to the roundels which once formed part of the Norman diapering in the gable above the west window (Miele 1994 (ref. note 11] 414-416, illus 2, 8,
9). In the exhibition catalogue entry for the surviving roundel (English Romanesque Art 1066-1200, The Hayward gallery 5 April to 8 July 1984, cat. no. 165), D. Kahn expressed the view that the roundel was 'directly derived from a classical mask'. The date of the roundel, and the possibility (Miele 1994, 415) that it may have formed part of a screen, lie beyond the scope of this paper.
17. C. R. Dodwell, The Canterbury School of Illumination 1066-1200, (Cambridge 1954), 61-75, pls. 40 c-f. See also, J. Higgit, 'The Roman background to Medieval England', Journal of the British Archaeological Association, xxxvi, 1973, 1-15.
The relationship between manuscript painters and sculptors is discussed by R. Gameson, 'The Romanesque crypt capitals of Canterbury cathedral', Archaeologia Cantiana, cx, 1992, 17-48.
For Roman Canterbury and the re-use of Roman materials, see, P. Bennett, 'The topography of Roman Canterbury: a brief reassessment', Archaeologia Cantiana, c, 1984, 47-56; T. Tatton-Brown, 'Buildings stone in Canterbury c. 1070-1525' in D. Parsons (ed), Stone: Quarrying and Building in England AD 43-1525, (Phillimore & RAI) 1990, 70-82, esp. 75.Despite the stylistic date of c. 1120 given to the Canterbury capitals (Kahn 1991, 86), William of Malmesbury's contemporary account indicates that the choir was virtually complete when prior Ernulf was elevated to Peterborough in 1107. F. Woodman, The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral, (London) 1981, 45-6.
Hope 1900, 24-28.
J. Thorpe, Registrum Roffense, (London) 1769, 120.
T. Tatton-Brown, The east range of the cloisters', Friends Report, 1988, 6-7; T. Tatton-Brown, The chapter house and dormitory facade at Rochester cathedral priory', Friends Report, 1993/ 4, 20-21.
The Friends of Rochester Cathedral were founded to help finance the maintenance of the fabric and grounds. The Friends’ annual reports have become a trove of articles on the fabric and history of the cathedral.
The repository of stone comprises over 500 sculptural fragments from the eighth to the nineteenth-centuries.
