Holy grave (Gernrode)
The holy grave in the collegiate church of St. Cyriakus in Gernrode is considered to be the oldest surviving German replica of the holy grave of Jerusalem , one of the main shrines of Christianity , with its construction around 1100 . On the walls of the antechamber and burial chamber in the south aisle of the church of the women's monastery of Gernrode , founded by Margrave Gero in 959 , there is a rich program of pictures and figures with the theme of the resurrection of Christ. Stylistically, the work is of great importance, as it reveals a transition from Ottonian sculpture to Romanesque sculpture . In the late Middle Ages, the holy grave was the focus of the liturgical Easter celebrations.
Description of the stock
Current status of the system - description
The outer dimensions of the chapel complex are 7.35 (east-west) by 4.08 meters (north-south). Its northern outer wall remains behind the alignment of the pillars of the south-eastern aisle and only comes up against this simple pillar change. Like the floor plan of the entire church, that of the Holy Sepulcher is not completely rectangular, the height of the upper edges of its outer walls is about three meters everywhere. To the west of the south aisle and to the transept in the east, the complex is closed off by two walls between the pillars, which are rectangular in plan, and the south outer wall of the church. The holy grave is divided into an antechamber and the actual grave chamber in the west, separated by another wall, which is bricked from the east wall of the chapel about four meters approximately at right angles to the north outer wall. The right part of the north wall, divided by the middle column in the column change of the side aisle, consists of a limestone decorative frame with depictions of animals and people surrounded by tendrils, which is framed by another frame made of stucco and in the middle of which there is a relief of two cut off except for the outlines Figures located. A passage in the left third of this picture into the antechamber, 1.41 meters high and about 0.57 meters wide, is the reason for the incompleteness of this relief. The north wall of the burial chamber is structured by a strongly profiled "framework of round bars" that divides this wall into nine areas. From the viewer to the left, to the right and above a walled up window opening to the burial chamber, which occupies one of the surfaces, there are relief figures made of stucco: on the left a male figure moving to the right, the right arm raised in greeting and a nimbus behind the almost fully rounded head; Opposite her on the right is a female figure, slightly bent back, with the right hand raised and the left on the chest, expressing a certain fright. The head of this figure is also clearly more carved out and is surrounded by a halo. A half-length figure can be seen in the field above the walled-in view, the right hand raised in a gesture of blessing and a book in the left hand. Each of the figures is badly damaged, especially the face of the female figure. The head of the half figure above is completely missing. Four of the other fields, in the corners of this wall and below the walled-up opening, remain empty, only the field in the lower left corner shows a stylized cross on the left and a braided rectangle on the right.
The best-preserved west wall of the burial chamber is covered by a double decorative frame made of limestone with tendril motifs, the inner tendrils of which contain a total of 18 depictions of people and animals. In the middle of this picture-rich frame, surrounded and connected to the outermost frame by round bars, lies a central zone, subdivided into two semicircular niches on the left and right, in which columns stand and which are delimited by two sandstone posts from a central field with another female stucco relief figure in a long robe .
An arched door, almost 0.7 meters wide and 1.49 meters high, leads from the completely unadorned antechamber into the actual burial chamber. Trumpets in the corners - the transitions from the rectangular floor plan of the room to an eight-sided cloister vault - point to the original, but now missing upper end of this burial chamber. Three of the walls have a niche structure with a rounded arch, the sides of which are equipped with columns with sculpted capitals and bases. The niche of the fourth wall, which faces outwards, has a high round arch at the end, on the sides of which there are two smaller columns and in the middle of which a small window to the cloister opens. Just as the walls show remains of paintings, remains of the inlaid marble crosses have also been preserved in the plaster screed floor. Inside in front of the north wall, a flat stucco plate on the floor shows where the sarcophagus must have been once, opposite the head and foot of which, still visible, two angel figures are attached, carrying cross bars and banners. These figures are badly damaged, but the wording of the inscriptions can still be traced. It says: nolite expavescere and surrexit non est hic . ("Don't be shocked. He is risen. He is not here.")
Furthermore, there is a badly damaged group of figures of three women in long robes with a censer, oil bottle and ointment vessel by the sarcophagus plate and a larger than life (2.14 meters), almost fully round stucco figure of a man in bishop's robe and pallium, with a staff and palm branch in hands.
Note on modifications
The founding construction from around 961 already contained a holy grave niche, which has been closed with three walls since 1090 and covered with an eight-sided monastery vault, which was again destroyed in the 17th century. The erection of a fourth wall gave the complex an antechamber, which was initially accessible from the transept of the church. When this entrance was walled up between 1150 and 1160, the entrance that exists today in the north wall of the antechamber must also have been hewn. A viewing window in the middle of the north wall of the burial chamber was also bricked up later.
Older sources assume that the figure in the bishop's robe inside the burial chamber was not originally part of the complex, and because of the conspicuously inclined foot position, consider it to be a reclining figure that was taken from a grave slab and placed in this place while the research is now convinced of the opposite. The figure was merely rotated a little in the direction of the sarcophagus when the sarcophagus was moved from south to north. Significantly lighter traces of mortar on the neck bear witness to the reassembly of the head in 1924. However, the lack of documentation of this restoration work makes it difficult to make statements about the original condition.
The same applies to the group of figures of the three women. Initially, it is believed that they belong to the entire complex for stylistic and thematic reasons as undeniable, but no further statements are made about their original position. Schulze believes that an original installation on the south wall of the grave is likely due to the direction in which the best preserved angel is looking. Stein-Kecks, on the other hand, advocates a former installation on one wall of the anteroom, from where the group would have leaned towards the entrance of the grave.
It can also be assumed that the entire complex was originally painted in color, i.e. both architectural surfaces and figures and ornaments were painted.
iconography
The overall concept
The thematic context of the pictures and figures in the reliefs is unifying in the overall conception of the holy grave: the miracle of the resurrection of Christ. Grote, for example, emphasizes emphatically that he considers the system to be a “uniform plant”. The result is a haunting “sermon in pictures”, the relevance of which should not be underestimated in the visualization of the resurrection for the believers, considering how natural it was for people in the Middle Ages to deal with the images that are difficult to interpret today. The animal books, which were very widespread at this time and which describe the properties and interpretations of many animals and also mythical creatures, bear witness to this. The most popular work of this type is the Physiologus .
The north wall
The tendril frieze on the north wall of the antechamber, made in house stone technique, contains the pictures of three evangelists. The eagle in the top center, the winged lion in the middle on the left and the winged man in the lower middle represent John, Mark and Matthew, from whose mouths the tendrils, Jesus' words, grow. The image of Matthew is threatened from the left by a basilisk, recognizable by its knotted tail. Due to the later broken-in door in the right part of the wall, the fourth evangelist symbol, the winged bull for Luke, is missing. Human heads in the corners of the reliefs pick up these words in the form of tendrils and spread them further. Although the stucco figures in the middle of this ornamental frame are chipped down to the outlines, there is consensus in the research literature that the two people depicted there must be the disciples Peter and John hurrying to the tomb of the Lord. Did they find out beforehand from Mary Magdalene that Christ was risen.
To the left and right of the walled-up viewing window in the north wall of the burial chamber are the risen Christ from the dead, clad in a tunic and pallium, the head underlaid with a nimbus with a strongly profiled cross, and Maria Magdalena, with a long, tight-fitting robe that also envelops the head , shown in the so-called Noli-me-tangere scene. As described in Joh. 20, 14–17, Christ commands Mary Magdalene on Easter morning not to touch him.
The half, or more precisely three-quarter figure above the walled-up opening in question takes up another depiction of Christ, which, like that of the Noli-me-tangere scene, has raised the right hand to the Latin gesture of speech with raised index and middle finger and bent little and ring finger and holding a book in his left arm. This sculpture is called the Salvator figure, Christ enthroned.
Interpreted by some as "baptismal note motifs", the ornaments only preserved in the lower left corner of this wall are also interpreted as purely decorative work.
The frieze of the west wall
The double frieze on the west wall of the complex tells, according to Genrich, a coherent story with the theme: "The victim victory of Christ of God for us humans". The total of 18 depictions of animals and people, surrounded by tendrils, can be divided into the zone of the deity - above a twisted round rod that hits the center field inwards - and the zone of mortals who are in need of redemption and grace - below another round rod. Not necessarily following this interpretation, the further explanation of the representations is divided into the upper and lower zones.
In the center of the upper part is the Lamb of God (Agnus Dei) with cross staff and nimbus. It is a symbol of the sacrificial death of Jesus for the people. Above this lamb an angel's head proclaims the message, as in the frieze on the north wall of the antechamber, in the form of tendrils that run through the outer part of the frame in waves. To the left and right of the lamb are a phoenix with a nibus - this bird, which rises from its ashes to new life after three days, is a symbol of the resurrection - and an eagle, which is understood as a symbol of Christ. One step further out, these birds are flanked by two lions, from whose mouths tendrils with grapes emerge, which are also interpreted as symbols of Christ. On the very outside there are two depictions of people. The left figure, pointing with the right hand to the middle of the upper area, the left hand on the fur coat and cross staff, is clearly recognizable as John the Baptist, the right one as Moses based on the remnants of the tablets of the law. Both are considered "prototypes of Christ". Edged from above by a twisted round rod and from below by a smooth round rod, below the two depictions of people follow a lion on the left, facing the viewer, and on the right the pelican. According to legend, the latter gives his deceased boy new life by opening his chest himself and showering the offspring with his heart's blood. The lion, a formerly Greek cult image adopted from Christianity, is interpreted here as the heavenly sun of God, which looks at the believers while watching and giving life. However, both animals, pelican and lion, are explained elsewhere only as further symbols of Christ's resurrection.
As already indicated, the viewer encounters representatives of human characteristics in the form of animals in the lower zone of the relief. Under the lion there is a deer, which is understood as a symbol of the Christian whose soul thirsts for God like the deer for fresh water (Psalm 42). According to legend, the griffin, depicted under the pelican, flies close to the sun to warm itself in its light, thus also becoming a symbol of the believer who longs for the selfless love of God. Other interpretations suggest that the deer is another symbol of the resurrection, and see in the griffin a dragon, a symbol of the devil. Another animal underneath the deer, consistently recognized by the research literature as a bear due to its massive shape, has a negative connotation. He broke into the flock as a robber, was a clumsy animal that was to be compared with man whom the burden of his sin made clumsy. The creature to the right, equally uniformly identified as a basilisk by its knotted tail, is considered the king of snakes and a symbol of Satan. “It was said that it was hatched by cold toads from a failed cock's egg. It brings mischief, torments people and animals. Anyone who exposes himself to his sparkling murderous look must die. In his vicinity the air would be polluted, the grass and herbs wither, fruits rot, people perish. There would only be one animal that could ban him, he would duck into the ground before the rooster crows. ”In the next animal depiction, Vorbrodt and Schulze suspect a partridge, which steals eggs from foreign nests and is thus to be understood as a symbol of the devil, who seduces those who are not firm in faith, Genrich sees in it a peacock, which is to be understood as a symbol of vanity due to its decorative spring wheel. Another bird is interpreted partly as an ibis, partly as a heron, with similar symbolism. Both animals were considered unclean because they feed on dead fish and other unclean animals such as toads. Leading his life underground, withdrawing from the light of the life-giving sun, the hare / rabbit, the next animal on the right in the picture, is a bad example for the observing person. There is little agreement in the literature on the following two animals. If for Genrich it is a question of the cock and the ostrich, the former as a symbol of vigilance and awakening, who crowed on the night of betrayal when Peter denied his master, and the latter as a symbol of the Christian trusting God, with Schulze it is the cock and the bustard, which, more generally speaking, have a negative meaning. Vorbrodt also decides in favor of a negative interpretation of the ostrich, which, due to its voracity, is to be associated with the sixth mortal sin, gluttony or excess. The tendrils emerging in a kind of network in the middle of the six animals in the lower row are often interpreted as a blossoming tree of life, a symbol of overcoming death.
First of all, the first abbess of the Gernroder women's monastery (Hatuwi = Hedwig) was seen in the female stucco figure in the middle field, but this did not fit into the overall context of the holy grave. Attempts have also been made to ascribe the role of the founder to the figure by means of gestures, which supposedly resemble the endowment gesture of the Middle Ages. However, the interpretation that it is Mary Magdalene standing in front of the Lord's tomb seems more appropriate.
The burial chamber
The most difficult seems to be the interpretation of the larger-than-life male figure on the west wall within the burial chamber. Grote already claims that it is the figure of St. Metronus , to whom the west choir of the church was consecrated. The figure was later removed from a grave slab, as indicated by the feet, and placed there. Later interpretations also agree that it was a reclining figure that was not originally part of the holy grave. Genrich takes a completely different position, who assigns the figure, based on the clothing and attributes of a bishop, to Bishop Bernhard von Halberstadt , who consecrated the first abbess of the monastery in 959. However, the latest research shows that this figure has been in this niche of the burial chamber from the start. Dowel holes in the figure's head refer to a metal nimbus that was once attached. A bishop, holy or not, does not belong in the context of a holy grave, so the main objection. If one wants to do justice to the findings, the only, albeit completely singular, interpretation is that it is about "Christ as the good shepherd" ( 1 Petr 2.25 EU ).
Stylistic classification and importance
Disputes critical of style led the research to the result that the figure decorations, except for the stucco angels in the interior, were created by the same unknown master. This can be observed, for example, in the design of the heads of the male figures, which with their deep-set eyes and slightly pursed mouth represent the same type. The master probably entrusted the design of the grave angels in the interior to an assistant. In the expression of the figures, liveliness is combined with strictness of form. While the wrinkles on the figures with their calligraphic features are reminiscent of ivory reliefs, other parts, especially the heads, are almost completely rounded. The ornaments of the limestone frames showed a similar motif to the bronze works of the Bernward door in Hildesheim. A connection to Rhenish cabaret is likely due to the relationship to Cologne ivory reliefs. "As a result of this relationship in the holy grave one believes to have the first attempt to create a monumental sculpture in which figure and architecture unite, which strives to achieve its goal by simple enlargement." The design and motifs are the ornaments in the collegiate church of Quedlinburg so similar that it can be assumed that the work of Italian stonecutters there at least influenced the creators of the holy grave of Gernrode. These stonemasons, the so-called Comasken , who came from the Italian Como , worked on the reconstruction of the church in Quedlinburg from 1070 onwards. Möbius is also convinced that the composition of the outer walls of the holy grave is derived from Ottonian cabaret, the ivory reliefs on book covers, for example. Here, too, emphasis is placed on the organic liveliness that is typical of Ottonian sculpture, in contrast to Romanesque, the psychological expression with its striving for impersonal typicity is alien. The dating of the complex is sometimes so difficult because stylistic elements of the 11th century are combined with those of the 12th. Although basic painterly tendencies in the design are not yet completely given up, a blockage of individual body parts is only partially achieved, so that an end and a new beginning of the stylistic epochs are evident in the work. Although replicas of the holy grave were made in Jerusalem as early as the 9th century, the work of the master in Gernrode remained in this form without imitation and is the best preserved facility of this type in Germany. The collegiate church of Gernrode is generally considered to be the best preserved Ottonian church building.
Liturgical function
The main purpose of the facility is to deepen belief in the death and resurrection of Christ and to visualize the events. It is also considered likely that the complex was the center of the liturgical Easter games . During this ritual, a consecrated host or a crucifix was wrapped in white cloths and placed in the sarcophagus of the burial chamber and removed on Easter vigil. Then three canons as figures of Mary and two canons as grave angels presented the people with the blank cloths as evidence of the resurrection of Christ.
Such Easter games are attested for the late 12th century in Germany, but there is only concrete evidence of such games in Gernrode from 1502. The high number of female figures on this site as witnesses is striking: “The canons, not only in Gernrode, were able to place themselves [so] in a long tradition: Just as Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother of James, and Salome (Mk 16.1) looked after the body of Jesus, they were responsible for caring for the dead and memorization. "
literature
- Nicole Schröter: The Holy Sepulcher of St. Cyriacus zu Gernrode - expression of the piety of the Gernröder canons in Jerusalem. Volume 11, Mitteldeutscher Verlag, Halle (Saale) 2017, ISBN 978-3-95462-774-5 .
- Carola Jäggi: Places of the Christian Cult, in: Bruno Reudenbach (ed.), History of the Fine Arts in Germany, Vol. 1, Prestel (and others), Munich (and others) 2009, pp. 370–433, ISBN 978-3- 7913-3118-8 .
- Heidrun Stein-Kecks : Pictures in the sacred space, in: Susanne Wittekind (ed.), History of the fine arts in Germany, Vol. 2, Prestel (inter alia) Munich (inter alia) 2009, pp. 264–355, ISBN 978-3 -423-34302-2 .
- State Office for Monument Preservation and Archeology Saxony-Anhalt, Head: Hans Joachim Krause u. Gotthard Voss: The Holy Grave in Gernrode. Inventory documentation and research. From this above all: Rainer Kahsnitz u. Gerhard Leopold: The stock. P. 23–32, And: Reiner Kahsnitz: Die Plastik. Pp. 311–384, Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, Berlin 2007.
- Hans Jantzen: Ottonian art. New edition, expanded and commented on by an afterword by Wolfgang Schenkluhn . Reimer, Berlin 1990, ISBN 3-496-01069-X .
- Helga Möbius: The collegiate church Gernrode. In: The Christian Monument, No. 68, 1966.
- Hans Kurt Schulze: The Gernrode Abbey, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne (among others) 1965.
- Paul Genrich: The collegiate church in Gernrode, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Berlin 1956.
- Günter W. Vorbrodt: The collegiate church Gernrode. In: The Christian Monument. No. 16, 1954.
- Annemarie Schwarzenweber: The holy grave in the German sculpture of the Middle Ages. Albert Verlag, Freiburg 1940.
- Ludwig Grote: The collegiate church in Gernrode. Hopfer Verlag, Burg near Magdeburg 1932.
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ See Jäggi 2009, p. 422.
- ↑ See Kahsnitz 2007, p. 23.
- ↑ See Kahsnitz 2007, p. 27.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, p. 22.
- ↑ See Kahsnitz 2007, p. 29.
- ↑ See on this: Grote 1932, pp. 22–23; Schulze 1965, pp. 114-116; Genrich 1956, pp. 66-67.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, p. 23.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, pp. 23-24.
- ↑ Cf. Kahsnitz 2007, pp. 24-25 and 27.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, pp. 23-24; Schulze 1965, p. 119.
- ↑ See Stein-Kecks 2009, p. 346.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, pp. 24-25; Stein-Kecks 2009, p. 347.
- ↑ See Kahsnitz 2007, p. 23.
- ↑ See Stein-Kecks 2009, p. 346.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, pp. 24-25; Schulze 1965, p. 120.
- ↑ See Stein-Kecks 2009, p. 347.
- ↑ Cf. Krause; Voss 2007, p. 95.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, p. 24.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, p. 119.
- ↑ See Stein-Kecks 2009, p. 346.
- ↑ Cf. Krause; Voss 2007, pp. 171-190.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, p. 27.
- ↑ See Möbius 1966, p. 17; with regard to the frieze on the west wall, see also: Schulze 1965, pp. 117–118.
- ↑ See Möbius 1966, p. 20.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, pp. 66-67.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, p. 22; Schulze 1965, p. 114; Vorbrodt 1954, p. 10; Möbius 1966, p. 17; etc.
- ↑ See Kahsnitz 2007, pp. 311-312.
- ↑ See Kahsnitz 2007, p. 315.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, p. 23.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, p. 116.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, p. 70.
- ↑ Cf. Möbius 1966, p. 25.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, p. 70.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, pp. 116–117.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, pp. 71-72.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, pp. 116–117; Vorbrodt 1954, p. 14.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, p. 23.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, p. 72.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, p. 23.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, p. 73.
- ↑ See Vorbrodt 1954, p. 14.
- ↑ First cf. then verbatim: Genrich 1956, p. 76.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, pp. 116–117.
- ↑ See Vorbrodt 1954, p. 14.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, p. 77.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, p. 77; Schulze 1965, pp. 116-117.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, p. 77.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, pp. 73-74.
- ↑ Schulze 1965, pp. 116–117.
- ↑ See Vorbrodt 1954, p. 14.
- ↑ See Vorbrodt 1954, p. 12; Schulze 1965, pp. 116-117; Möbius 1966, p. 17.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, p. 118.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, p. 23.
- ↑ See Vorbrodt 1954, p. 20.
- ↑ See Grote 1932, pp. 24-25.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, p. 120.
- ↑ See Genrich 1956, pp. 63-66.
- ↑ See Stein-Kecks 2009, p. 347.
- ^ First cf. then verbatim: Grote 1932, pp. 24–27, quotation p. 26.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, pp. 121–122.
- ↑ Cf. Möbius 1966, pp. 26–28.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, p. 121.
- ↑ See Schwarzenweber 1940, p. 2.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, p. 122.
- ↑ See Jantzen 1990, p. 11.
- ↑ See Schulze 1965, p. 122.
- ↑ Cf. Möbius 1966, p. 28.
- ↑ First cf. Then wortlich, Stein-Kecks 2009, p. 347.
Coordinates: 51 ° 43 '27.3 " N , 11 ° 8' 9.5" E