A Crusading Fresco Cycle at the Cathedral of Le Puy

Author(s): Anne Derbes

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Dec., 1991), pp. 561-576
Published by: College Art Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3045830 .
Accessed: 12/03/2013 05:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art
Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Crusading Fresco Cycle at
Anne Derbes
The notion that the crusades influenced aspects of Ro-
manesque iconography is not new. Over forty years ago,
Katzenellenbogen proposed that the tympanum at VWzelay,
depicting the Mission of the Apostles, reflected the preach-
ing of the crusades at that site.' Though it has been
questioned, Katzenellenbogen's thesis has become the stan-
dard interpretation of the VWzelay tympanum, routinely
cited in most surveys of medieval art.2
More recent scholarship has documented additional in-
stances of the impact of the crusades on Romanesque art. In
a series of probing studies, Linda Seidel has expanded our
understanding of both the subjects and the form of much
Romanesque art. First in two articles on the equestrian
figures in the sculpture of western France, later with consid-
erable enlargement in a monograph on the Romanesque
fagades of Aquitaine, she convincingly described the political
and spiritual context of these works. Specifically, she demon-
strated that the falades of Aquitaine, based on Roman and
Carolingian triumphal motifs and embellished with imagery
taken from Islamic luxury goods, served as visual analogues
of Pope Urban II's evocation of Charlemagne in preaching
the crusades: both "legitimized the campaign and incorpo-
rated it into a victorious tradition."3 She has also taken a
similar approach to the portico at Moissac, arguing that it
derives from the Arch of Titus and thus intentionally recalls a
monument that commemorated an earlier conquest ofJeru-
salem.4 These insights into crusading ideology and its expres-
sion in Romanesque art are important to the arguments that
will be presented here.
I am grateful to Nicole Bissonette, Walter Cahn, Robert F. Cook,
Jaroslav Folda, Louis Jordan, Frangoise Kantor, and Julia Miller for
their help with this paper. Thanks are also due to F. X. Amprimoz and
Nicole Amprimoz who greatly facilitated my work by providing me with
photographs of the drawings and watercolors in the Mus&e Crozatier
and copies of the files, and to Rector Louis Comte of the cathedral of Le
Puy and his staff, who were also very helpful. The research for this paper
was supported by a grant from the Hood College Board of Associates.
'A. Katzenellenbogen, "The Central Tympanum at V4zelay: Its Encyclo-
pedic Meaning and Its Relation to the First Crusade," Art Bulletin, xxvI,
1944, 141-151.
2 See, for instance, W. Stoddard, Art and Architecturezn MedzevalFrance,
New York, 1972, 71; M. Stokstad, MedzevalArt, New York, 1986, 239. J.
Snyder, MedzevalArt,New York, 1989, strengthened Katzenellenbogen's
arguments by adducing a page from a crusader's handbook that depicts
monstrous races of the world, much like those seen in the lintel at
Vezelay (284, fig. 354). But some have doubted the thesis. F. Salet, "Le
Grand Tympan de Vezelay," Bulletin monumental, CxxvI, 2, 1968,
185-188, esp. 188, dismissed Katzenellenbogen's ideas as "fragiles,"
and M. Taylor, "The Pentecost at V6zelay," Gesta, xix, 1, 1980, 9-15,
esp. 13, allowed only that "it is possible that the peripheral portions of
the tympanum were evocations of the crusading ideal."
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the Cathedral of Le Puy
Several other scholars have also contributed useful studies
of the impact of the crusades on Romanesque art. For
instance, Deschamps has surveyed military subjects in Ro-
manesque frescoes, many of which can unquestionably be
linked to the crusades.5 O'Meara has convincingly associated
the of St.-Gilles-du-Gard with the First and Second
facade
Crusades, pointing out that many of its iconographic anoma-
lies reflect crusading propaganda.6 Brown and Cothren have
discussed the crusading iconography of a stained-glass win-
dow from St.-Denis.7 Finally, Denny has applied this ap-
proach to matters of dating, arguing that the fresco of the
equestrian figure of Christ at Auxerre reflects the crusading
activities of Bishop Humbaud (1092-1114) and concluding
that it must have therefore been painted around 1100.8
Though these studies vary considerably in scope and
approach, taken as a whole they demonstrate the importance
of the crusades as one force that shaped Romanesque
imagery. This paper takes a comparable approach to a fresco
cycle in the cathedral of Notre Dame, Le Puy, which similarly
seems to be a monument to crusading ideology. It discusses
the iconographic idiosyncracies of this cycle and attempts to
explain them as references to a leader of the First Crusade,
Adhemar, bishop of Le Puy. It concludes that the frescoes
must have been executed after the First Crusade, probably
not long after Adhemar's death in 1098.
The frescoes in question were found in the south transept
of the cathedral. Virtually all of the cycle was destroyed in the
mid-nineteenth century during the course of renovations
supervised by Aymon Mallay; only three haloed heads, now
'
Seidel, Songs of Glory:TheRomanesqueFacadesofAquztazne, Chicago and
London, 1981, 72; see esp. 70-80. For the two earlier studies, see zdem,
"Holy Warriors:The Romanesque Rider and the Fight against Islam," in
The Holy War, ed. T. Murphy, Columbus, 1976, 33-77; and "Constan-
tine and Charlemagne," Gesta,xv, 1 and 2, 1976, 237-239.
"4Images of the Crusades in Western Art: Models as Metaphors," in The
Meetzngof Two Worlds:CulturalExchangebetweenEast and Westdurzngthe
Period of the Crusades,ed. V. Goss and C. Bornstein (Studieszn Medieval
Culture,xxI), Kalamazoo, 1986, 377-391.
5 "Combats de cavalerie et episodes des Croisades dans les peintures
murales du XII et du XIII siecle," Orzentalzachrzstianaperiodzca,xIII, 1/2,
1947, 454-474.
6 O'Meara, 116-142. For a summary of her arguments, see M. F. Hearn,
RomanesqueSculpture,Ithaca, 1981, 207-209.
7 E. A. R. Brown and M. W. Cothren, "The Twelfth-Century Crusading
Window of the Abbey of Saint-Denis," Journal of the Warburg and
CourtauldInstztutes,XLIx,1986, 1-40.
' D.
Denny, "A Romanesque Fresco in Auxerre Cathedral," Gesta,xxv, 2,
1986, 197-202.
562 THE ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 1991 VOLUME LXXIII NUMBER
in the Mus6e Crozatier, Le Puy, survive.9 However, Mallay
did have watercolor copies of the frescoes made by a local
artist, as well as a drawing of the program as it appeared in
the south transept; these are also found in the Mus6e
Crozatier.'o The drawing seems fairly reliable; the copyist
even recorded specific decorative details, areas of peeling
plaster, fragments of inscriptions, etc. (Fig. 1). The watercol-
ors also seem relatively faithful to the original, and some-
times preserve detailed inscriptions. Further, there is gener-
' On these
frescoes, and the cycle in the north transept of the cathedral,
see Deschamps and Thibout, 56-60; A. Grabar, "Peinture murale, notes
critiques," Cahzersarcheologzques,vI, 1952, 177-191, esp. 185; Grabar,
162-164; Demus, 1970b, 416; R. Mesuret, Les Pezntures murales du
sud-ouestde la France, Paris, 1967, 50, 147-150; Cahn, 66-67; Durliat,
118-124. For a history of the cathedral and discussion of Mallay's work,
see Cahn, 1-10, 59-83; Durliat, 55-98. For several accounts of the early
history of the cathedral and accompanying legends, see Rocher. On the
location of the frescoes within the south transept, see Durliat, 119. For
plans and elevations of the cathedral before the renovations, we must
rely on Mallay's drawings, and the quality of the published drawings
varies. For a plan, see Durliat, fig. 6. The best published elevation of the
interior is in Cahn, fig. 31; however, this is the north side of the
cathedral; he reproduces only the exterior of the south elevation (fig.
29).
10The watercolors and drawings are attributed to Florentin Giraud
(1781-1864); the watercolors were given to the Mus6e Crozatier in 1950
by Baron Pierre Grellet de la Deyte. The drawings also include two small
sketches of decorative patterns and one of a small figure on the base of
the right pier of the north wall. The drawings came to the museum in
1958 from the Societe Acad6mique du Puy. F. X. Amprimoz, director of
the Mus6e Crozatier, ascribes the catalogue notes quoted below (nos. 7,
13, 21) to his predecessor at the Mus6e Crozatier, Rene Gounod.
In all, fourteen watercolors, four drawings, and three fresco fragments
are found in the Mus6e Crozatier. The first number refers to the
museum's identification of the works in the display case; the second to
the inventory number used in the files.
1. No. 847.7.1: Interior view of the south transept. Pencil and ink on
paper; 230 x 360mm; 323 x 350mm.
2. No. 847.7.2: Micah. Watercolor; 210 x 80mm.
3. No. 847.7.3: Moses. Watercolor; 210 x 90mm.
4, 6: Nos. 847.4, 6: Decorative motifs (a diamond pattern; a wheel
inscribed with scallops). Pencil; 300 x 312mm; 380 x 70mm.
5. No. 847.7.5: Unidentified figure (a small figure, labeled "OA,"
looking up and to the right, toward the Entry into Jerusalem). Pencil and
ink on paper; 300 x 312mm.
7. No. 50.3.36: Entry of Solomon to Jerusalem; Construction of the
Temple; Meeting of Solomon and Sheba (catalogued as "scene bib-
lique?"). Watercolor; 210 x 420mm.
8. No. 50.3.38: Christ's Entry to Jerusalem. Watercolor; 260 x
420mm.
9. No. 50.3.41: The Last Supper. Watercolor; 190 x 285mm.
10. No. 50.3.54: Zechariah. Watercolor; 230 x 73mm.
11. No. 50.3.53: Sophonias. Watercolor; 230 x 73mm.
12. No. 50.3.56: David. Watercolor; 200 x 90mm.
13. No. 50.3.55: Unidentified figure (catalogued as "un prophete
peut-etre Samuel [?]"). Watercolor; 160 x 80mm. (This figure is almost
identical to no. 2, Micah, and the inscriptions on the scrolls of the two
are the same; this version, however, lacks the interlace pattern and small
tree seen above the figure in no. 2).
14. No. 50.3.52: Moses. Watercolor; 220 x 120mm (almost identical
to no. 3, Moses, but simpler, lacking the stylized shell above the figure in
no. 3)
15. No. 50.3.40: Moses Striking the Rock. Watercolor; 315 x 390mm.
16. No. 50.3.37: Moses Receiving the Law; Christ Teaching the New
Law. Watercolor; 270 x 555mm.
17, 18, 19. Nos. 892.7.41, 892.7.42, 39.121: Heads. Fresco frag-
ments; 180 x 300mm; 180 x 300mm; 180 x 360mm.
20. Two figures in adoration. Watercolor; 210 x 119mm.
21. No. 50.3.48: Catalogued as "Saint Etienne &crasantla tete du
dragon." Watercolor; 280 x 135mm.
Nos. 20 and 21 are described by Mallay and placed in the north
transept (Mallay, 170).
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4
ally a fairly close correspondence between the details of the
watercolors and of the drawing.
Mallay also wrote three accounts of his work on the
cathedral; the most complete includes a description of the
frescoes." Mallay is not, however, a wholly trustworthy
witness; he was often vague, little inclined to specify all the
scenes of the ensemble, and, further, at times mentioned
scenes that do not appear in either the drawing or the copies.
For instance, one sentence reads: "On trouve, pour l'ancien
testament, Moise, Ezechias et David, Jonas sortant du corps
de la baleine, l'eau jaillissant du rocher, etc., etc; les scenes
du Nouveau Testament donnent lieu a de grandes pages,
telles que l'entr6e a Jerusalem, la Cene, Jesus b6nissant ses
Apatres, un martyr, etc."" We would of course be most
interested in the subjects encompassed by the "etc., etc."
Further, neither Ezekiel nor Jonah is shown in the drawing,
which seems relatively complete, and neither appears among
the watercolors; Ezekiel could have been among the several
standing figures shown in the drawing, but it is harder to
account for Jonah. Moreover, there is no sign of a martyr-
dom in the drawing of the south transept or among the
watercolors, but a scene usually identified as a martyrdom
does survive in the north transept. On the other hand,
Mallay can be useful; at times his testimony is specific and
provides us with fairly detailed information not found else-
where.
Piecing together information from the three sources, and
weighing the relative plausibility of all three, allows at least
an approximate reconstruction of the cycle. The ensemble
consisted of narrative scenes from the Old and New Testa-
ment and single figures, apparently all from the Old Testa-
ment. As seen in the drawing (Fig. 1), the north wall ended in
a large arch supported by piers; it was subdivided by a blind
arcade with three arches, separated by two pairs of columns.
In the upper half of the wall, in the arched space above the
arcade, was a single composition combining Old and New
Testament scenes: Moses Receiving the Ten Command-
ments to the left, and Christ Teaching the New Law to the
right (Fig. 2). Mallay did not mention these scenes specifi-
cally, though he did refer to one fresco of Christ blessing the
Apostles, perhaps meaning this scene.'" However, the water-
color copy and its correspondence with the drawing leave no
doubt about either the subject or its placement. Below this
composition, on the spandrels of the arcade, were two motifs:
a curious horned mask to the left and a slender tree to the
right.a
" Mallay, 168-171; this account was published by Noiel Thiollier. For
the others, see Cahn, 78, n. 36.
2
Mallay, 168-169.
'~ Ibzd.
of a horned mask in a cycle emphasizing Moses calls to
'4 The presence
mind the image of the "horned Moses" in medieval art. Further, the
image appeared directly beneath the figure of Moses in the fresco above;
see Fig. 1. According to R. Mellinkoff, however (The Horned Moses zn
MedzevalArt and Thought, Berkeley, 1970, 64-65), the motif is almost
entirely unknown in French art before the end of the 12th century. The
juxtaposition of the mask and tree may be a reference to the Old and
New Testaments, which would be appropriate to the typological pro-
gram here, particularly since the mask is on the left and the tree on the
right. I am grateful to Louis Jordan for this suggestion.
 A CRUSADING FRESCO CYCLE AT THE CATHEDRAL OF LE PUY 563

1 South transept, Cathedral of Le Puy, 19th-century drawing. Le Puy, Muse Crozatier (photo: museum)

2 Moses Receiving the Ten Com-

mandments, Christ Teaching the
New Law, south transept, Cathedral
of Le Puy, 19th-century watercolor.
Le Puy, Muse Crozatier (photo: mu-
seum)

Three standing figures holding scrolls originally occupied
the blind niches of the arcade. Even in Mallay's time, the one
on the left was no longer visible.'5 The central niche depicted
Moses; the figure is identified in the drawing and it conforms
as well to the watercolor labeled "MOYSES" (Fig. 3). The
figure holds a scroll with a lengthy inscription: "PROPHE[T]/
AM DE/ GENTE/ TUA ET/ DE FRA/ TRIBUS/ TUIS SI/
CU[T] ME/ SUSSCI/ TABIT TI/BI DNS," from Deuteron-
omy 18:15: "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet from
among you like myself, and you shall listen to him." The
drawing indicates a fragment of another inscription beneath
the figure as well: "VOXSE ... AVES."
The identity of the figure to the right is somewhat less
certain. Mallay identified him as David,16 and a standing
figure labeled David is among the watercolors (Fig. 4). But
the gestures of the figure labeled "David" in the watercolor
do not correspond exactly to the gestures of the right-hand
figure in the drawing. Though Mallay's accuracy as a witness

' "Deux des trois arcades... ont leurs sujets," he wrote (p. '6 Mallay, 169.
169); the drawing clearly indicatesconserv,
only traces of a figure in the left
arcade.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
564 THE ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 1991 VOLUME LXXIII NUMBER
3 Moses. Le Puy, Mus6e Crozatier (photo: museum)
4 David. Le Puy, Musee Crozatier (photo: museum)
is suspect, the drawing may not be entirely reliable in such
details. We can be reasonably sure that a David was among
the standing figures, but we cannot specify his location with
certainty. The David in the watercolor holds a scroll with this
inscription: "INDU/ TI SU NT AR/[IE] TES O/ VIUM/ ET
VA/ LLES/ ABUN DAB/ [NUIS?]," from Psalm 65:13: "The
meadows are clothed with sheep and the valleys mantled [in
corn, so that they shout, they break into song]."
On the lower north wall, beneath a geometric border
resembling a Greek key, were two scenes: Moses Striking the
Rock (Fig. 5) and the Last Supper (Fig. 6)."7Both Moses and
Christ were labeled, according to both the drawing and the
watercolors, and Mallay referred to both scenes, while describ-
ing the Moses scene in some detail; he did not, however,
provide any information about the composition beyond what
the watercolor shows.'" On the piers to left and right were two
other standing figures with scrolls. To the left, beneath a
decorative pattern and a small tree, was a figure probably
representing Micah; the watercolor figure labeled Micah
(Fig. 7) is similarly placed beneath a pattern and a tree, and
the words on his scroll, "PRINCIPIU[M]/ PECCATI/ EST
FILI[A]E/ SION," are taken from Micah 1:13.19
To the right is Zechariah, his identity given by the
17 The Last Supper has been discussed by J. Williams, "MarcialisPincerna
and the Provincial in Spanish Medieval Art," in R. Enggass and M.
Stokstad, eds., Hortus Imaginum: Essaysin WesternArt, Lawrence, Kans.,
1974, 29-36, esp. 32-33; he convincingly identified the figure before
Christ with a pitcher and chalice as Saint Martial, first bishop of
Limoges.
18Mallay, 169.
19Mallay, 169, stated that a Samuel appeared among the figures on the
pillars, along with Zechariah, Sophonias, and David. None of the
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4
watercolor (Fig. 8) and confirmed by the extensive inscrip-
tion from Zechariah 9:9-10: "EX[S]/ ULT[A]/ FILIA SI/ON
ECCE/ REX [TU]/ US VEN[IENT]/ TIBI [I]US/ TUS ET/
SA[L]VAT[OR]/ [IPS]E PA[U]/ PER ET [A]/ SCENDAN[S]/
SUP[E]R ASI[NAM]/ ET SUPE[R]/ PULLUM/ FILIUM/
ASINAE [Rejoice, rejoice, daughter of Sion, ... for see, your
king is coming to you, his cause won, his victory gained,
humble and mounted on an ass, on a foal, the young of a
she-ass]." The passage is a well-known foretelling of Christ's
Entry to Jerusalem, which appears on the east wall to the
right, just above the figure.20
On the west wall above the window was a composition
depicting three scenes from the life of Solomon (Fig. 9).
Mallay mentioned a composition opposite the Entry, but
stated that he could not identify it.21 Grabar, however,
recognized Solomon's entry into Jerusalem on the left-only
the fragmentary leg of his mule and a few men greeting him
are shown in the watercolor-and the meeting of Solomon
and Sheba on the far right; he identified the scene in the
center as the construction of Solomon's palace, and Durliat
followed him, similarly calling the building Solomon's pal-
ace.22 It is actually much more likely that the scene depicts
the construction of the Temple of Solomon. The construc-
watercolors identifies a figure as Samuel, however. The figure men-
tioned in the museum's records as "peut-^tre Samuel" is almost identical
to the watercolor of Micah; see n. 10, no. 13.
20 Mallay did note the presence of Zechariah (p. 169).
21 Ibid., 170.
22 Grabar, 1957, 162-164; Durliat, 122.
 A CRUSADING FRESCO CYCLE AT THE CATHEDRAL OF LE PUY 565

5 Moses Striking the Rock. Le Puy, Mus6e Crozatier (photo: museum)

6 The Last Supper. Le Puy, Mus6e Crozatier (photo: museum)

tion of the Temple appears from time to time in manuscript are domed and gabled structures, turrets, and, above all, a
illumination; the construction of Solomon's palace, however, crenellated wall with five towers. Helmeted soldiers with
is all but unknown as a subject of Christian art.23 Here three shields guard the area, which may explain the description of
figures are constructing a wall of stone or brick; above them the scene in the Mus6e Crozatier's records: "Le sibge d'une

23The Index of Christian Art lists no examples of the Building of
Solomon's Palace. The Building of Solomon's Temple, however, does
appear; not infrequently it is found in a cycle that includes the Visitation
of the Queen of Sheba. One early example appears in the Catalan Roda
Bible (Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 6, fol. 109r; see W. Neuss, Die katalanische
Bibelillustration,Bonn, 1922, pl. 25), where the following scenes occur:
David Encourages Solomon to Build the Temple; the Construction of
the Temple; Solomon Addressing the Elders; Solomon's Sacrifice in the
Temple; Solomon and Sheba. In the Hortus Deliciarum (formerly
Strassburg, Bibl. de la Ville, fol. 209r), the Building of the Temple
appeared with several scenes from the cycle of Solomon and Sheba; see
R. Green, The Hortus Deliciarumof Herradof Hohenbourg,London, 1979,
198-99, pl. 121. A third example is found in the Psalter of Queen Mary
(London, Brit. Lib., Roy. 2 B. vii, fol. 65v); here the Building of the
Temple again joins Solomon and Sheba (see G. Warner, Queen Mary's
Psalter, London, 1912, pl. 116). In these examples, the Temple is
generally depicted as a complex, multi-towered structure, as it was at Le
Puy. For the range of architectural types in medieval depictions of the
Temple, see C. Krinsky, "Representations of the Temple of Jerusalem
before 1500,"Journal of the Warburgand CourtauldInstitutes,xxxllI, 1970,
1-19. See also W. Cahn, "Solomonic Elements in Romanesque Art," in
The Templeof Solomon,ed. J. Guttmann, Missoula, Mont., 1976, 45-72.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
566 THE ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 1991 VOLUME LXXIII
7 Micah. Le Puy, Musee Crozatier (photo: museum)
8 Zechariah. Le Puy, Musee Crozatier (photo: mu-
seum)
ville semble-t-il."24 The drawing indicates a decorative bor-
der below the Solomon scenes; below the border and to the
left was a standing figure, unidentified by the copyist and not
mentioned specifically by Mallay. Above the figure was a
large inscription, again incomplete: "E M I A S I A." An-
other standing figure appeared on the pier below. On the
facing of the window separating this figure from the Micah
was a pair of confronted peacocks, and beneath the pea-
cocks, traces of a standing figure.
On the wall opposite was the Entry into Jerusalem (Fig.
10). The raised leg of Christ's donkey corresponds to the
position of Solomon's mule in the fresco opposite, and the
towered gate ofJerusalem and city wall beneath resemble the
structures in the construction scene. Beneath were traces of
an inscription: according to the drawing, "PUERI
CANTANT .. ."; on the watercolor, "VEN ... DEUM ...
INTEMINI[?]." Between the pair of windows below the Entry
was a standing figure. The drawing indicates a fragmentary
inscription: "NIEL. VIR." In stance, the figure corresponds
to a standing figure labeled "SOPHONIAS" among the
watercolors (Fig. 11). The watercolor indicates that this
figure held a scroll with a lengthy inscription: "LAUDA/
24 Archives of the Musee Crozatier.
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NUMBER 4
FILLIA/ SION/ [J]UBILA TU[?] ISR/ AEL L[AET] ARE
ET/ EX[S]UL/ TA IN O/ MN[I C]ORD/ E FILIA [IE]RU
/SALEM," from Sophonias, or Zephaniah, 3, 14: "Zion, cry
out forjoy; raise the shout of triumph, Israel; be glad, rejoice
with all your heart, daughter of Jerusalem." Two other
figures, unidentified on the drawing, stood on the base of the
piers to the right. According to Mallay, traces of a Crucifixion
appeared above the Entry; the drawing does not indicate it,
however, nor is it among the watercolors. Fortunately, Mallay
was a bit more precise than usual; he noted that the
Crucifixion "devait tre tres remarquable" and stated that
two angels carried the lance and sponge.25
According to Grabar, a final scene, Moses with the Brazen
Serpent, appeared opposite the Crucifixion;" this is an
attractive idea, given the typological structure of the pro-
gram and the emphasis on Moses, but such a scene is not
shown in the drawing. There is, however, a scene among the
watercolors identified by the Mus&e Crozatier as "St. Stephen
with a dragon" (Fig. 12); a beardless saint grabs the head of a
serpentine beast, planting both feet on its coils, as two
admirers marvel in the background. The scene was evidently
accompanied by a second scene showing two more awe-
25 Mallay,170.
26 Grabar, 1957, 162-164.
 A CRUSADING FRESCO CYCLE AT THE CATHEDRAL OF LE PUY 567

9 Solomon Entering Jerusalem, the Construction of Solomon's Temple, the Meeting of

Solomon and Sheba. Le Puy, Mus&eCrozatier (photo: museum)

10 The Entry intoJerusalem. Le Puy, Mus&eCrozatier (photo: museum)

struck observers (Fig. 13); common to the two watercolors
are the arch and stylized scallop shell above. Both the arch
and the stylized shell also occur in the Moses (Fig. 3), which
was placed beneath an arcade. Mallay did mention a Stephen,
as well as accompanying admirers, which he said were in
arcades to the left and right; however, he placed both in the
north transept.27 Grabar may have assumed that the
"Stephen" was in fact Moses with the Brazen Serpent. Durliat
evidently did make that assumption, for he stated that the
Moses was accompanied by two admiring figures in the
arcades to left and right and that Mallay mistakenly placed
this figure in the north transept.28
But the saint, whoever he is, is unlikely to be Moses: he is
tonsured, beardless, and dressed in liturgical garb, in con-
trast with the bearded, tunic-clad Moses in the other watercol-
ors (Figs. 3, 5). Nor does the scene bear much resemblance to
the usual iconography of the Brazen Serpent, where the
snake is typically displayed on a column, pole, or branch, in
conformity with the biblical text ("Moses ... made a brazen
serpent, and set it up for a sign"-Numbers 21:9). Further,
this scene must have been placed, as Mallay said, beneath an
arcade; the Brazen Serpent would much more probably have
been placed opposite the Crucifixion, which was above the
Entry into Jerusalem (cf. Fig. 1). It is thus conceivable that
there was a Brazen Serpent in the south transept; it would
have logically completed the cycle. But Grabar erred in
asserting its presence without qualification, and Durliat
compounded the error by confusing the Serpent with the
saint and onlookers. In any case, the placement of these
figures cannot be determined.
Still partially intact is a cycle in the tribune of the north
transept, which is generally assumed to date from the same
period.29 On the west wall of the tribune is a monumental
figure of Saint Michael (Fig. 14), over five meters tall. This
hieratic figure, whose iconic quality is reinforced by the
Byzantine loros, stands on a coiled dragon and pierces its
head with a lance. Behind Michael is an arched wall with a
window on the left and a second standing figure, a beardless

27 Mallay, 170. 29 Ibid.,119.

28 Durliat, 124.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 568 THE ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 1991 VOLUME LXXIII NUMBER 4

11 Sophonias. Le
Puy, Mus6e Croza-
tier (photo: mu-
seum)

12 Saint. Le Puy,
Mus&eCrozatier
(photo: museum)
13 Two standing
figures. Le Puy,
Mus&eCrozatier
(photo: museum)

saint holding a cross, on the right; above the saint is a
peacock resembling the confronted peacocks in the drawing
of the south transept." Beneath the window and the saint is a
narrative scene, the Judgment of Solomon (partially visible
in Fig. 14)."3On the north side of the soffit of the arch are two
other standing figures, an Evangelist holding a book above
and a soldier wearing mail and holding a shield below.
Two other narrative scenes are found on the north wall,
below a pair of windows. To the left is a scene usually
identified as a martyrdom-an enthroned ruler and his
armed guard and a body sprawled on the floor-and to the
right two animals devour a large corpse as a demon descends
for the soul. Durliat has proposed that the corpse is Jezebel,
For an illustration of the peacock, see Deschamps and Thibout, 58,
30
fig. 16.
31
For an illustration, see Deschamps and Thibout, 56, fig. 13, and
Durliat, 117, fig. 21.
and added that the martyr might then be Nabot, whose fate
is described in the Book of Kings just before the story of
Jezebel (I Kings 23:1-29; I Kings 22:23-24).32 On either side
of the windows are delicate trees recalling those shown in the
drawing of the south transept frescoes.
On the east wall, arched like the corresponding area on
the west, is a single window with standing saints to either
side. At the center of the soffit of the arch is the hand of God;
five standing figures line the sides. The Virgin Mary, flanked
by angels, and Moses holding tablets of the law are said to
32 Durliat, 115-116. For illustrations, see Deschamps and Thibout, 57,
figs. 14 and 15 . Mallay identified the scene of the felled figure as Goliath
brought down by David (p. 171), presumably because of the large size of
the corpse. David does taunt Goliath: "[I will] leave your carcass and the
carcasses of the Philistines to the birds and the wild beasts" (I Samuel
17: 46); the scene to the left could then be David with Saul after he slew
Goliath (I Samuel 17: 55-58). But the corpse's body is intact, whereas
Goliath would have been beheaded. The identification of these two
scenes remains elusive.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A CRUSADING FRESCO CYCLE AT THE CATHEDRAL OF LE PUY 569

14 Saint Michael, a saint (left), Judg-

ment of Solomon (detail), north tran-
sept, Cathedral of Le Puy (from
Demus, RomanesqueMural Painting,
pl. 106)

have been on the soffit as well, but they are no longer
visible."3
The date of the frescoes has prompted much discussion,
but relatively little agreement. For Deschamps and Thibout,
the frescoes were executed no earlier than the middle of the
eleventh century.34 Grabar initially dated them to the end of
the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century-a date
also favored by Mesuret-but then shifted them to the third
quarter of the eleventh century.35 Demus, citing Deschamps
and Thibout, preferred a date of the middle of the eleventh
century.36 Dodwell saw them as products of the second half of
the eleventh century.37 Durliat, the author of the most recent

" The Index of Christian Art describes these
figures, and identifies the
five standing figures as a prophet, an Evangelist, Lawrence of Rome (all
on the left pier); Saint Maurice in mail, and a nimbed saint, possibly
Simeon ofJerusalem, on the right pier.
34 Deschamps and Thibout, 60.
5 Grabar, 1952 (as in n. 9), 185; Mesuret (as in n. 9), 50; Grabar, 1957,
162-164, where he dated the frescoes to the tenure of Bishop Peter II,
1050-73.
36 Demus, 1970b, 416.
s7 C. R. Dodwell, Painting in Europe 800-1200, Harmondsworth, 1971,
183.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
570 THE ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 1991 VOLUME LXXIII NUMBER 4

15 Healing of the man with an unclean spirit(detail),westwall,

Stiftskirche, Lambach (from Demus, RomanesqueMural Painting,
pl. 284)

extensive study of the frescoes, placed them at the end of the
eleventh century or beginning of the twelfth; Barral I Altet
has recently followed Durliat."3
The lack of scholarly consensus is readily understandable.
Attempts to date these frescoes are thwarted by a paucity of
firmly dated monuments, by the absence of compelling
comparanda, by the condition of much that does survive,and
by the provincial flavor of the frescoes themselves. Despite
these problems, it is possible to argue that Durliat's date of
ca. 1100 is plausible for the north transept frescoes. Con-
sider, for instance, the most distinctive figures in the north
transept: the colossal Saint Michael and the closely related
standing saint (Fig. 14). Frontal, hieratic, and immobile, the
figures are noticeablyelongated, and their elongated propor-
tions are only emphasized by their curiously small heads.
Drapery folds, though greatly simplified and heavily out-
lined, do indicate the figures' knees with a schematic loop,
and the general angularity is relieved by the curving lines
below Michael'sknees. Another leavening note is the expres-
sion of the unidentified saint, whose small lips curve in a
smile. The general austerityand rather iconic qualityforcibly
recall Byzantium; both Demus and Cahn have rightly de-
scribed these as "provincialByzantine.""9But the elongation
and tiny heads, as well as idiosyncracieslike the rosebud lips
of the smiling saint, do find analogues in the art of the late
eleventh and early twelfth centuries. For instance, the fres-
coes in the Stiftskirche, Lambach (Fig. 15), dated ca. 1089,
reveal similar attenuated, frontal figures, with similar drap-
ery patterns, especially the loops indicating the knee and the
curving lines below. Comparable, too, are the frescoes in
St.-Hilaire-le-Grand,Poitiers (Fig. 16), where we again find
frontal, elongated, small-headed figures with similarly smil-
ing rosebud mouths. Though they are not firmly dated,
Demus placed them at the end of the eleventh century.40
All of these elongated, hovering figures clearly have a
Byzantine pedigree; they recall, for instance, the mosaic of
Justinian and his retinue from S. Vitale, and our standing
saint'sultimate derivation from such a model is suggested by
comparing his hands-the right carrying a cross, the left
covered-to Maximian's in the mosaic. Demus has argued
that Ravennate models were resurrected in Venice in the
eleventh and twelfth centuries,41and most scholars agree

38 Durliat, 119; X. Barral I Altet, Art roman en Auvergne, Rennes, 1984, 41"Demus, 1970a, 134-135, where he compared the mosaics of the
102. Capella S. Clemente with the Justinian mosaic at S. Vitale. In TheMosaics
39 Demus, 1970a, 101; Cahn, 66. of San Marcoin Venice,Chicago, 1984, I, 83, Demus suggested that the S.
40 Marco mosaic probably dates from the first quarter of the 12th century.
Demus, 1970b, 419 and pls. 123-124.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16 Saint Quintianus, south wall, St. Hilaire-le-Grand,
Poitiers (photo: Marburg/Art Resource)
that Venice played an important role in diffusing a Byzan-
tinizing style through Romanesque Europe. Similarly, Cahn
has compared the Saint Michael at Le Puy to an example at
Torcello, which dates from the second half of the eleventh
century and where we similarly find much influence from
Ravenna.42 It may be, then, that French painters in the later
eleventh and early twelfth centuries, like the painter respon-
sible for the Poitiers frescoes, had developed a local variant
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A CRUSADING FRESCO CYCLE AT THE CATHEDRAL OF LE PUY 571
of this S. Marco/Ravenna idiom, and the Le Puy frescoes are
still another variation on this theme.
Dating the south transept frescoes is even more tenuous.
First, even if it were possible to arrive at a firm date for the
north transept frescoes, we could not necessarily conclude
that the south transept frescoes date from the same period.
Though Mallay is not always reliable, he asserted that the
south transept frescoes were not of the same school as those
of the north transept.43 Durliat also described the style of the
two cycles as "profondement diff6rent," though he dated
both ensembles to the late eleventh or early twelfth century.44
It is hazardous to base any conclusion on the meager
remnants of the south transept; only three heads survive, and
the watercolors and drawing seem almost useless to evaluate
style. The two cycles do not, however, appear to have been
entirely unrelated. The fragmentary heads from the south
transept (Fig. 17), with their exaggerated eyes, thick noses,
and pronounced upper lips, bear a certain resemblance to
some of the heads surviving in the north transept (Fig. 18).
As noted above, similar motifs-the peacocks, the slender
trees-appear in both the north transept and the drawing of
the south transept ensemble. The range of colors in the
frescoes is similar to that seen in the watercolors-in both,
forest greens, mustard yellows, and russets predominate.45 It
is thus conceivable that both cycles were produced about the
same time, and Durliat's date of ca. 1100 seems at least
plausible.
Nevertheless, the inherent problems with a stylistic analy-
sis of this material argue against relying only on visual
evidence to date these frescoes. Such an exercise only
confirms the acuity of Cahn's observation: "There does not
seem to be any hope of dating the paintings in Le Puy more
precisely on the basis of style alone.""46This paper thus will
take a different approach. I will argue that the iconographic
program is the key to interpreting the monument: the
frescoes of the south transept were intended to celebrate the
crusading hero of Le Puy, its bishop Adhemar, and therefore
these frescoes, at least, must postdate the events of the First
Crusade.
The program of the south transept is unprecedented in
medieval art. First, the choice of subjects-scenes from the
life of Moses, Solomon, and Christ-appears nowhere else in
Romanesque fresco cycles. The emphasis on Moses, whose
prominence here is seen in his central position among the
three standing figures of the arcade, as well as in the
narrative scenes featuring him, is certainly unusual. The
patriarch can be found occasionally in French Romanesque
frescoes; for instance, three scenes from the life of Moses
occur at St.-Savin-sur-Gartempe.47 There, however, they
form only a small part of a vast, comprehensive cycle of Old
Testament scenes rather than the focus of a far smaller
42 Cahn, 67; Demus, 1970a, 134.
43Mallay, 170: "Les peintures de la branche de croix nord, sont d'une
autre ecole et d'un autre fois."
44See Durliat, 160, n. 127 for the comment on style; for dating both to
the same time, Durliat, 119.
45For a color plate showing Michael, the standing saint, and part of the
Judgment of Solomon, see Demus, 1970b, pl. 106.
46
Cahn, 67.
47 On St.-Savin, see Demus, 1970b, 420-423.
 DECEMBER 1991 VOLUME LXXIII NUMBER
572 THE ART BULLETIN
17 Head of a saint, south transept, Cathedral of Le Puy. Le
Puy, Mus6e Crozatier (photo: museum)
18 Head of a soldier, north transept, Cathedral of Le Puy
(from Deschamps and Thibout, pl. xvi [2])
program, as they do here. As for Solomon's entry into
Jerusalem and the construction of the Temple, these subjects
are almost never seen beyond an infrequent appearance in
manuscript illumination.48 The prominent role of Sopho-
nias, who is rarely represented in Romanesque fresco cycles,
is also significant. Even some of the scenes that more
commonly occur may have been iconographically odd; the
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4
Crucifixion with angels bearing the lance and sponge, if
Mallay's description is accurate, is a case in point.
Finally, the relationship among the various scenes here is
far from clear. Grabar described the scenes simply as typolog-
ical,49 and this is, to some extent, correct; the juxtaposition of
Old and New Law is certainly a familiar typological pairing.
But the connection of the Mosaic scenes with the Solomonic
scenes, and of the Solomonic scenes with the Entry into
Jerusalem, is far from obvious. Durliat understandably re-
ferred to these correspondences as "myst6rieuses."50
The solution to the mystery seems to lie in the life of a
leading citizen of Le Puy: its bishop, Adh6mar of Monteil.51
Adh6mar, who became bishop of Le Puy before 1087, was a
staunch supporter of Pope Urban II. Urban may well have
consulted the bishop even before he launched the crusade at
Clermont in 1095: the pope was in Le Puy when he
announced the council at Clermont. Perhaps not coinciden-
tally, it was Adh6mar who first came forward to take the cross
at Clermont. Urban then appointed the bishop papal legate
to the First Crusade and "dux," leader, of their army. By
most accounts, it was an inspired choice: the bishop soon
gained the confidence of the army and served with courage,
wisdom, and diplomacy. Adh6mar did not, however, live to
see the crusaders' final victory. Not long after the crusaders
took Antioch in the summer of 1098, the bishop fell victim to
an epidemic, probably typhoid, on 1 August.
Adh6mar's death was a blow to the crusaders. The bishop
was a widely respected and much loved leader to the Franks,
who, grieving, vowed to carry his body to Jerusalem. Adh6-
mar's funeral oration, written by Raoul of Caen, shows the
high esteem with which he was viewed: the bishop was
eulogized as a second Moses.52 Raoul elaborated at length on
the similarities between Adh6mar and his Old Testament
predecessor:
Buried is this most brilliant imitator of Moses
In teaching, in devotion, in character, in service.
Moses was the leader of his people, and this man
was the leader of his people
Both leaders for Christ, both of heavenly origin,
Both devoted to justice, both devoted to teaching
Both act as mediator between the voice of God
and the people. .. .5
48 See the examples cited in n. 23.
49 Grabar, 1957, 162-164;
see also Durliat, 124.
50 Durliat, 122.
51 On Adh6mar, see J.Brundage, "Adh6mar of Puy: The Bishop and His
Critics," Speculum,xxxrv, 1959, 201-212; Runciman, 108-328, passim;J.
Riley-Smith, The First Crusadeand the Idea of Crusading, London, 1986,
58-90, passim. The bishop is depicted in several 13th-century crusader
manuscripts; see J. Folda, CrusaderManuscriptIllumination at Saint-Jean
d'Acre,1275-1291, Princeton, 1976, 32, 83, 112, and pls. 119, 141, 169,
170.
52 Gesta Tancredi,in RHC Occ., III,673-674; Rousset, 96.
53 "Conditus est Moysis clarissimus hic imitator
Doctrina, studio, moribus, officio.
Dux populi Moyses, et dux populi fuit iste:
Ambo duces Christi, coelitus ambo sati,
Ambojustitiae, doctrinae ambo studiosi,
Ambo fuere Dei vox media et populi ....
Raoul of Caen, RHC Occ., III,673-74; Rousset, 96 (my trans.).

This comparison between Moses and Adh6mar-"Moysis
clarissimus hic imitator"-is not surprising. Since early
Christianity,Moses had been cited repeatedly as a paradigm
of military leader and wise ruler, as several scholars have
noted.54 Thus Constantine's victory over Maxentius was
compared by Eusebius with Moses' triumph over the Pha-
raoh at the Red Sea.55Carolingian texts include numerous
references to Old Testament leaders, including Moses, as
prototypes for Frankishrulers; Charlemagne was viewed as a
new Moses, as well as a new David and a new Constantine.56
Predictably,the tradition grew still stronger with the dawn of
the crusades. As Alphandery, Rousset, and others have
shown, the crusading Franks viewed both Constantine and
Charlemagne as models; it is readily understandable that
they would similarly identify with the Israelites of the Old
Testament, who likewise embarked on a long journey to the
Holy Land.5"These evocations of the Israelites are explicit in
the preaching of the First Crusade: Urban II cited the
"children of Israel" in preaching the crusade at Clermont,58
and contemporary chronicles repeatedly likened the deeds
of Old Testament heroes-Joshua, Samuel, David-to the
exploits of the crusaders.59But, logically enough, the acco-
lade of "alter Moyses" in crusading chronicles referred
specifically to the Franks' military and spiritual leader, the
bishop of Le Puy. In Adh6mar's case, in fact, the analogy
seems especially apt. Not only were both Moses and Adh6-
mar military and spiritual leaders of their people, but both
led numerous followers to the promised land, and neither
lived to see the triumphant result.
Perhaps because of the striking parallels between the lives
of the two leaders, as well as the tradition of linking crusaders
with the "childrenof Israel," the comparison between Moses
and Adh6mar often appears in contemporary accounts. For
instance, the chronicler Raymond of Aguilers, a companion
of Adh6mar and a canon of the cathedral of Le Puy,60wrote
of "Lord Adh6mar, ... who in his life had held our army
together with holy deeds and words, like a second Moses."'6
Similar references occur repeatedly: Robert the Monk, Rob-
ert of Rheims, and Balderic of Dol all compared Adh6mar
54 See, for instance, M. Schapiro, 'The Place of the Joshua Roll in
Byzantine History," Gazettedes beaux-arts,xxxv, 1949, 161-176, repr. in
LateAntique,Early Christianand MedievalArt, New York, 1979, 49-66; J.
Riess, PolitzcalIdeals zn Medieval ItalzanArt: The Frescoesin the Palazzo dez
Przon, Perugza(1297) (Studiesin the FzneArts, I), ed. L. Seidel, Ann Arbor,
1981, 25-34, with extensive bibliog.
55Hzstoria eccleszastzca,Ix, 9; trans. J. E. L. Oulton (Loeb Classical
Library), II, 1932, 361, 363; Schapiro, 59. On Constantine as a new
Moses, also see D. H. Green, The MdilstatterExodus:A Crusading Epzc,
Cambridge, 1966, 24-28.
56 E. Delaruelle, "Essai sur la formation de l'id6e de croisade," in Idee de
croisadeau MoyenAge, Turin, 1980, 25-33; for Moses, 27-28.
57 P. Alphand6ry, "Les Citations bibliques chez les historiens de la
premiere croisade," Revue de l'histoiredes religions, XCix, 1929, 139-157;
Rousset, 93-98, 185-192. Also see the discussion in Green (as in n. 55),
228-295. On Charlemagne specifically, see B. Sholod, "Charlemagne, a
Specific Link between the Eighth and Eleventh Century Crusades," in
Studzeszn Honor ofM. J. Bernadete,ed. I. Langnas and B. Sholod, New
York, 1965, 33-64.
58 "The children of Israel, who were led out of
Egypt, and who
prefigured you in the crossing of the Red Sea, have taken that land by
their arms, with Jesus as leader .. ."; from the account of Balderic of Dol,
RHC Occ., Iv, 14; trans. in Krey, 33.
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A CRUSADING FRESCO CYCLE AT THE CATHEDRAL OF LE PUY 573
with Moses or described him as "alterMoyses.""62 The funeral
oration is merely the fullest statement of the comparison
between the bishop and the patriarch. In light of these texts,
the unusual emphasis on Moses in the frescoes in the south
transept of the cathedral of Le Puy seems less curious. They
may well have been intended as a visual equivalent of the
funeral oration, a celebration of the bishop of Le Puy as
"alterMoyses."
A closer look at the specific scenes from the life of Moses,
and at the rest of the cycle, may corroborate this argument.
First, the specific Mosaic scenes seem to have been chosen
with the bishop of Le Puy in mind. The scenes of Moses with
the Ten Commandments and Christ Teaching the New Law
(Fig. 2) seem especially appropriate to the bishop, whose
role as teacher and "mediator between the voice of God and
the people" is stressed in the funeral oration. Moses Striking
the Rock (Fig. 5) may also refer to Adh6mar and his role in
the First Crusade. First, it depicts Moses leading the journey
to the Promised Land; an episode like the Burning Bush,
which took place before the journey, would have less rele-
vance to the life of the crusading bishop. Further, it shows
the patriarch responding to the sufferings of the Israelites
during theirjourney: the rock spurted forth water to quench
the Israelites' thirst. Thirst in particularplagued the crusad-
ers; the shortage of water almost defeated them in the weeks
before Jerusalem fell, as will be discussed shortly.
Thus the emphasis on the life of Moses in the frescoes of
the south transept, and in particular the stress on Moses as
teacher and as a compassionate leader of the Israelites en
route to the Holy Land, may have been meant to evoke the
crusading bishop of Le Puy. The third pair of frescoes, the
Solomonic scenes and the Entryinto Jerusalem (Figs. 9, 10),
are at first more enigmatic; they have no readily apparent
connection with the scenes from the life of Moses. But in the
context of Adh6mar'slife and death, their meaning becomes
less obscure.
First, Christ's Entryinto Jerusalem-an event long associ-
ated with victory63-served as a biblical prototype for Adh6-
mar's army, as a review of the events surrounding the final
59 Rousset, 93-98; Green (as in n. 55), 237-295.
60 Raymond identified himself as a canon of Le Puy: RHC Occ., IIn,235:
"Raimundus, canonicus Podiensis." See also J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill,
trans., Raymond d'Aguzlers,Historza Francorum qui ceperunt Hzerosalem,
Philadelphia, 1968, 6.
61 HzstornaFrancorum qui ceperunt Hzerosalem, in RHC
Occ., III, 301:
"... ablato domino Ademaro, ... qui in vita sua, Moyses alter, exerci-
tum nostrum rebus et colloquiis divinis confovens, continebat."
62 Robert the Monk: "Ille [Adh6mar] itaque, licet invitus,
suscepit, quasi
alter Moyses, ducatum ac regimen dominici populi .. ."; Hzerosolymztana
in RHC Occ., III,747; Rousset, 93. Robert of Rheims: see RHC
Expedztio,
Occ., III, 731; Balderic: RHC Occ., III, 16. All are cited by J. Riley-Smith,
"The First Crusade and St. Peter," in Outremer:Studzeszn the Hzstoryof the
CrusadingKingdomofJerusalem,ed. B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, R. C. Smail,
Jerusalem, 1982, 44. Adh6mar himself was especially interested in
Moses; he cited him (specifically, Deuteronomy 32: 30) in his Gesta
Adhemarz(RHC Occ., v, 355). The reference to Deuteronomy is the only
direct biblical citation recorded in the GestaAdhemarn.
For the derivation of the scene from imperial adventus iconography,
63
see E. H. Kantorowicz, "The 'Kings Advent' and the Enigmatic Panels in
the Doors of Santa Sabina,"Art Bulletin, xxvi, 1944, 207-231; A. Grabar,
Christian Iconography:A Study of Its Origins, Princeton, 1968, 44-45. I
would like to thank Gudrun Mower for her comment on this point.
 THE ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 1991 VOLUME LXXIII NUMBER
574
siege of Jerusalem reveals.64In July of 1099, almost a year
after the bishop's death, the crusaders succeeded in entering
the city. The victory did not come easily. The crusaders had
arrived at Jerusalem on 7 June and immediately began to
besiege the city. But their own supplies of food and water
were limited, and they launched an attack a week later. The
assault failed, and the crusaders, dispirited and exhausted,
were forced to retreat. Another three weeks passed; heat,
thirst, and recriminations further sapped morale. As Runci-
man has noted, the meager water supply was one of the most
urgent problems." Some crusadersbegan to defect, abandon-
ing the cause to return home.
At this criticaljuncture, a miraculous vision came to the
crusaders' aid. On 6 July, Peter Desiderius, a priest in the
crusaders'camp, told the crusaders that he had been visited
by none other than the late bishop, Adh6mar of Le Puy. The
bishop's directions were succinct: to succeed in entering
Jerusalem, the crusadersshould humble themselves as Christ
did when he entered the city. Raymond of Aguilers quoted
the leaders of the crusade as they exhorted the troops with
this new message:
Let us humble ourselves before God; let us march around
Jerusalem in bare feet and, through the patronage of the
saints, invoke the mercy of the Lord, so that Almighty
God, who for us, His servants, laid aside the form of His
Godhead, assumed the flesh, and humbly rode into the
city on an ass to suffer death on the Cross for our sins, may
come to our aid. If we make this procession around the
walls, for the honor and glory of His name, He will open
the city to us and give us judgment upon His enemies and
ours... .66
The new tactic worked. The army marched in bare feet as
the bishop had ordered, took the further precaution of
completing new siege towers, and attacked on 13 July. On
the 15th they entered the city. The inclusion of the Entryinto
Jerusalem in the frescoes at Le Puy thus makes perfect sense
in the context of Adh6mar and the First Crusade:it was only
through the bishop's posthumous instructions to his army
that the crusaders succeeded in entering Jerusalem, and his
instructions specifically directed them to follow the example
of Christ,who similarlyentered the city.67
Finally, the Solomonic scenes (Fig. 9), which are almost
unprecedented in medieval frescoes, are equally apt in the
context of the crusaders' stunning victory. Solomon's Entry
into Jerusalem is clearly another biblical precedent for the
crusaders. The Construction of Solomon's Temple is even
64 See Runciman, 279-288.
65 Ibzd.,283.
66 RHC Occ., III, 296; trans. Krey, 255.
67 The association between the Christ's Entry to Jerusalem and the
crusaders' triumph in 1099 occurs elsewhere. The Mass for 15 July, the
anniversary of the recapture ofJerusalem, said at the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem, referred to the biblical event in this verse: "Cum intravet
Jesus Hierosolymam .. ." (PalestinePilgrzmsText Society,London, 1886-
97, v, 70-71). O'Meara, 138, suggested that the Entry at St.-Gilles was
meant to evoke the crusaders' victory.
68L. R6au, LIconographzede l'artchritien, II,pt. 1, Paris, 1957, 291.
69 RHC Occ., in, 300; trans. Krey, 261.
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4
more suggestive. As Reau has noted, the Temple of Solomon
refers to the triumph of the Church;68the Temple, destroyed
by Nebuchadnezzar, was rebuilt by the Israelites after their
triumphant return to Jerusalem. Even this general meaning
is most appropriate to the cycle at Le Puy. But the scene may
evoke the more specific triumph of Adh mar's men, for the
Temple of Solomon had special significance in that victory.
When the crusadersfinally succeeded in entering Jerusalem,
the Turks fled to the area of Solomon's Temple, hoping to
marshall a defense. The chronicler Raymond of Aguilers
described the advance of the crusaders through the streets of
Jerusalem, then stated:
But these were small matters compared to what happened
at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious
servicesare ordinarilychanted. Whathappened there? If I
tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it
suffice to say this much, at least, that in the Temple and
porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees
and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid
judgment of God that this place should be filled with the
blood of unbelievers, since it had so long suffered from
their blasphemies."69
The Temple was, then, the site of the final triumph of the
crusaders, the culmination of the long struggle mounted by
Adhemar's army. Its pairing with Christ's Entry seems
eminently logical: it was Adhemar who directed the army to
emulate Christ's Entry, and the great triumph at Solomon's
Temple followed directly from this advice.70Raymond's last
words about the victory show that the bishop of Le Puy was
still very much on the minds of the crusaders. Not only did
the bishop advise the crusaders,but, according to Raymond,
he also led them, posthumously, in the final battle. "On this
day, the Ides of July, Lord Adhemar, bishop of Le Puy, was
seen in the city by many people. Many also testified that he
was the first to scale the wall, and that he summoned the
knights and people to join him."71
The frescoes, then, seem to have been intended to be read
on two levels: both as biblical narrativeand as an allusion to
the victory of the First Crusade. The inscriptions on the
scrolls held by the standing figures may have helped contem-
porary viewers make the transition from one level to the
other, for they reinforce this interpretation of the frescoes. In
most of the inscriptions, the tone is celebratory. Particularly
interesting are the two most directly related to Christ'sEntry
into Jerusalem, which are also most appropriate to the
victory of the First Crusade. Thus Zechariah (Fig. 8) holds a
70The Temple of Solomon is a common metonymy for Jerusalem in
12th-century French popular narratives of the crusades; see, for in-
stance, Les Chitzfs,ed. G. Meyers, 1981, v, 3878: "Dont ne vels tu veir le
Temple Salemon/Et les disne Sepucre, le saintisme perron/U Dex
recoilli mort por no redenption?" Adh6mar appears as a crusading hero
repeatedly in these vernacular texts; for instance, he is mentioned more
than twenty times in the Chansond'Antzoche(ed. S. Duparc-Quioc, Paris,
1977, I, 547, 564). I am grateful to R. F. Cook for informing me of these
popular literary traditions, and for extensive citations to these texts,
including the two cited here.
71 RHC Occ., III,300; trans. Krey, 261; see also Runciman, 284.

scroll inscribed with Zech. 9:9-10, which reads: "Rejoice,
rejoice ... your king is coming to you, His cause won, his
victory gained .... " The text held by Sophonias (Fig. 11),
from Zeph. 3:14, is equally apt: "Zion, cry out for joy; raise
the shout of triumph, Israel... ." In fact, though the water-
color does not indicate that the next lines (Zeph. 3:15) were
inscribed on the scroll, they are also strikingly appropriate:
"The Lord has rid you of your adversaries,he has swept away
your foes ... " Surely these passages must have had special
significance for the people of Le Puy around the year 1100.
Finally, even Mallay's reference to the lance and sponge
held by angels in the Crucifixion may help us locate these
frescoes in the period of the First Crusade. First, it should be
noted that Mallaywas right in describing this scene as "trebs
remarquable";the Arma Christiappear only exceptionally in
the Crucifixion at this date." But the inclusion of the lance at
Le Puy is not surprising in the context of the First Crusade.
One of the most dramatic events of the crusade was the
discovery of a piece of iron acclaimed as the Holy Lance.73
Though Adhemar himself was suspicious of the alleged relic,
his doubts were not shared by the army, who greeted the
discoverywith great excitement. Among the most prominent
of the believers was the historian Raymond of Aguilers, who,
though a canon of Le Puy, was disappointed in Adhemar's
skepticism." It is interesting that of all the chronicles of the
FirstCrusade, Raymond'saccount is most useful in interpret-
ing these frescoes. It is Raymondwho has Adhemar referring
specifically to Christ's Entry into Jerusalem to exhort the
tiring crusaders, Raymond who stresses that the final victory
occurred at the Temple of Solomon, and Raymond who tells
us that Adhemar was the first to scale the wall when
Jerusalem finally fell to the crusaders. And it was Raymond
who was among the strongest supporters of the Holy Lance.
Given Raymond's connections with Adhemar and the cathe-
dral, it is tempting to believe that his account of the First
Crusade, which was completed by the early years of the
twelfth century, helped to shape the program of the south
transept.75
It may not have been only a desire to honor Adhemar that
inspired the canons of Le Puy to commission this cycle. Le
Puy had been an important pilgrimage site well before the
late eleventh century; the triumph of the First Crusade, and
72 On the Arma Christi in passion scenes, see G. Schiller, Iconographyof
ChristianArt, II, Greenwich, Conn., 1972, 189-197.
7 On the discovery of the Holy Lance, see Runciman, 241-246;
253-254; 273-274.
74 On Raymond's enthusiasm for the Holy Lance, which he carried into
battle, see Runciman, 245-247.
75 The most thorough analysis of Raymond's account is in the introduc-
tion to the Hills' translation of the Hzstoria(as in n. 60). They noted that
his chronicle is close to another, the Gesta, but that Raymond provided
more information on Adhemar (pp. 4-5). Raymond himself noted: "We
have taken care to write of the Count of Saint-Gilles, the Bishop of Le
Puy, and their army, without bothering with the others" (RHC Occ., III,
235; trans. Hill and Hill, 15).
76 Rocher, xvii: "La premiere croisade et le role memorable, qu'y joua
notre Adhemar de Monteil, porterent a son apogee l'illustration de
notre 6glise. Son pelerinage devint de plus en plus un rendevouz
nationale. .. ." See also the account of Theodosius of Bergamo, Histozre
admirablede l'glzse de Nostre Dame du Puy, Lyons, 1620, in Rocher, 123,
161-170. For a more recent account, see M. Durliat, "L'Art dans le
Velay," CongresArche'ologique de France, cxxxIII, 1975, 14-17.
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A CRUSADING FRESCO CYCLE AT THE CATHEDRAL OF LE PUY 575
the role of the bishop of Le Puy in that triumph, only
increased the crowds.76 Paying homage to a local hero who
was rapidly becoming a national celebritymay have stemmed
from financial acumen as well as piety. In fact, at least one
later pair of frescoes at Le Puy suggests that the crusades
continued to play a role in the decoration of the cathedral:in
the chapter room are scenes representing the siege of a city
and Charlemagne playing chess with a Moorish king. Des-
champs and Thibout recognized crusaders,with red crosses
on their helmets, among the combattants in the siege.77
However, they concluded that both scenes should be under-
stood as references to the struggle against the Moors in
Spain, and dated the frescoes to the mid-twelfth century.
Enaud, rightly noting Charlemagne's status as a kind of
proto-crusader and citing local legends of Charlemagne
visiting Le Puy, argued that the scenes have crusading
overtones.78He called attention to the presence of a bishop
in the scene of Charlemagne playing chess, stressed the
importance of crusading to the bishops of Le Puy since the
days of Adhemar, and connected these frescoes with the
Albigensian crusade of 1209.
Even as late as the fifteenth century, images in the
cathedral seem calculated to evoke the crusades. In 1485,
Pierre Odin, returning from Jerusalem, had constructed
near the cloister a model of Christ'ssepulcher; the ensemble
also included a figure with a red cross and Christ carryinghis
cross with this inscription: "Ante templum Sepulchri Domini
situs est lapis ille cruce signatus, inquo Christus benedictus
baiulans crucem cecidit, qui a Christicolis summa devotione
veneratur."79The red cross suggests crusaders, as does the
reference to Christ carrying his cross. This biblical episode
had been associated with the crusades from the beginning; at
Clermont, Urban II compared the taking of the cross with
Christ's words: "He that doth not take his cross and follow
after me, is not worthy of me."80
The frescoes in the south transept, which celebrate Le Puy,
its bishop, and the crusading ideology that made him
famous, thus seem an antecedent of the Charlemagne
frescoes. In this context, the frescoes seem no longer
"mysterieuses";rather, they form a kind of visual funeral
oration, a testimonial to the deeds of the crusading hero and
the victory that was ascribed to his posthumous advice."'
77On these frescoes, see Deschamps (as in n. 5), 454-456; Deschamps
and Thibout, 137-140; Mallay also referred to the chess-playing scene
(171, n. 1).
78 F. Enaud, "Peintures murales decouvertes dans un
dependance de la
cathedrale du Puy-en-Velay (Haute Loire): Problkmes d'interpretation,"
LesMonumentshzstoriquesde la France, xiv, 1968, no. 4, 30-72.
"
Rocher, 166.
80
Balderic of Dol, RHC Occ., Iv, 16; Krey, 33.
8' The location of these frescoes specifically in the south transept may
itself be significant. Pope Urban II stopped at Le Puy on his way to the
Council of Clermont, where he preached the First Crusade. According to
a local tradition, a special doorway intended for Urban's entrance to the
cathedral on this occasion was built in the arm of the south transept
(Cahn, 62). Thus the frescoes were sited near the one location of the
cathedral that was linked with the visit of Adhemar's friend and patron,
Urban II, on the eve of the launching of the crusades.
576 THE ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 1991 VOLUME LXXIII NUMBER
Anne Derbes received her Ph.D. from the University of Virginza in
1980. Her earlier publications include studies of medieval Italian
paintzng zn Gesta and an article on the crusading ideology of the
frescoes of St. Clemens, Schwarzrheindorf,zn The Second Cru-
sade, ed. M. Gervers, St. Martin's Press, forthcoming [Hood
College, Frederick,Md. 21701-9988].
Frequently Cited Sources
Cahn, W., TheRomanesqueWoodenDoorsofAuvergne, New York, 1974.
Demus, O., 1970a, ByzantineArt and the West,New York.
,_ 1970b, RomanesqueMural Painting, London.
Deschamps, P., and M. Thibout, La Peinture murale en France: Le Haut
MoyenAge et l'ipoqueromane,Paris, 1951.
Durliat, M., "Le Cathedrale du Puy," Congres archdologzquede France,
cxxxIll, 1975, 55-163.
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:45:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4
Grabar, A., "Quelques notes sur les peintures romanes de l'Auvergne,"
Bulletin de la Societe Nationale des Antiquairesde France, 1957, 162-64,
repr. in L'Art de la fin de l'antzquzteet du moyen dge, II, Paris, 1968,
1045-46.
Krey, A.C., The Fzrst Crusade:The Accounts of Eye-Witnessesand Partzcz-
pants, Gloucester, Mass., 1958.
Mallay, A., "Monographie de la cathedrale du Puy. Manuscrit de
l'architecte Mallay," in Societe-Agncoleet Scientzfiquede la Haute-Lozre.
Mimoireset proces-verbaux,xIi, 1902-03.
New
O'Meara, C.F., The Iconographyof the Facadeof Saint-Gdilles-du-Gard,
York, 1977.
RHC Occ. = Recuedldes historiensdes crozsades,Historiensoccudentaux,ed.
Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 5 vols., Paris, 1844-95.
Rocher, C., Les VzellesHzstoiresde Notre Dame du Puy, in Societe-Agncoleet
Scientzfiquede la Haute-Lozre.Mimoireset proces-verbaux,v, 1886-87.
Rousset, P., Les Ongines et les caracteresde la premzirecroisade, Geneva,
1945.
Runciman, S., A Historyof the Crusades,I: The FzrstCrusade,Cambridge,
1951.