Origins and Spread of Romanesque & Gothic Style in France, Germany & Northern Europe. 4

Art & the Monasteries.

“What does the art of the Middle Ages really owe to the monks?” G.G. Coulton.¹

In attempting to answer his own question, Coulton fielded facts that undermined the romantic assumption that monks who worked in medieval monasteries were artists. This myth has been perpetuated by a number of medieval historians who wanted to believe that the men who worked, worshipped and lived in monastic buildings actually built them; that they also carved most of its sculpture and were responsible for its interior painted decoration. By careful scrutiny of statements made by later medievalists like Montamlebert and others, Coulton concluded that those responsible for building projects and “temporal affairs” were the lay-brethren amongst whom would be numbered carpenters, smiths, stone-hewers, and masons who would have been hired by the monks.² Why did this romantic view of the Middle Ages prevail? It was mainly because of the historical interpretation of documents on art made by religious figures. One of the most famous was the Letter of St Bernard of Clairvaux (1090- 1153) in which he expressed the dangers of art which could seduce the monks from their work and devotions, like the above capital at Vezelay. Animadverting against the strange carved figures, “monstrosities” found on pillars and capitals in the cloisters of monasteries, Bernard was simply pointing up the power of art; but none of this powerful statement supports the contention of some scholars that Bernard was an artist himself despite knowledge of the subject.³ What seems to happened is that scholars like Montamlebert took a specific case and generalised from it thus distorting the true cultural picture.

1The Art of the Reformation (Cambridge University Press), 1953, 26.

2Ibid, 33.

3St Bernard of Clairvaux: “And in the cloisters, under the eyes of the brethren engaged in reading, what business have those ridiculous monstrosities, that misshapen shapeliness and shapely misshapenness? Those unclean monkeys, those fierce lions, those monstrous centaurs, those semi-human beings. Here you see a quadruped with the tail of a serpent, there a fish with the head of a goat. In short there appears on all sides so rich and amazing a variety of forms that it is more delightful to read the marble than the manuscripts and to spend a whole day in admiring these things, piece by piece, rather than meditating on the Divine Law.” Quoted in Kenneth Clark, Civilisation, (BCA), 40; Coulton, Art and the Reformation, 53. Coulton also asks why is that the monks after the Reformation in France, Austria, Italy and Spain, did practically nothing as artists when they had the freedom to do what they liked.