Editing the "Cloisters Cross"

Author(s): Elizabeth C. Parker

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Gesta, Vol. 45, No. 2, 50th Anniversary of the International Center of Medieval Art
(2006), pp. 147-160
Published by: International Center of Medieval Art
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067137 .
Accessed: 31/07/2012 07:49

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.

International Center of Medieval Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Gesta.

http://www.jstor.org
Editing the Cloisters Cross
ELIZABETH C. PARKER
Fordham University, em?rita

Abstract Resurrection on the left (Figs. 3-5). A round centralmedallion

considerable devoted to the Cloisters shows Moses and theBrazen Serpent (Fig. 6). Just above, the
Despite scholarship
Cross, both its provenance and iconography are still debated. titulus of the cross is inscribed not with "Jesus of Nazareth,
This article surveys publications that postdate The Cloisters the King of the Jews," but rather, "Jesus of Nazareth, the
Cross: Its Art and Meaning that relate to issues concerning
King of the Confessors" inGreek, Latin, and an unreadable
the cross. The role of antisemitism in the production of the "Hebrew."2 Caiaphas and Pilate stand on the titulus (Fig. 3);
cross's program has drawn the most attention. Applying recent
to the problem that argue for close attention to the
their inscribed scrolls respond to the cross inscription.
approaches
specifics of individual incidents of social violence by Chris Caiaphas's scroll reads: "Write not, The King of the Jews, but
tians against Jews to the situation at Bury St. Edmunds ex thathe said, I am theKing of the Jews"; Pilate's scroll offers
poses methodological weaknesses in the theory that the cross the rejoinder: "What I have written, I have written." Adam
was designed as an instrument of conversion for the Jews and Eve crouch at the base of theTree of Life on the frontof
there. Recent scholarship by historians of theology is also
to an understanding the cross, fromwhich a corpus of the dead Christ ismissing.3
relevant of the cross. Not only does this

clarify points of theological dispute between Christians within Also missing on this side is a base plaque thatmay have shown
monastic and cathedral schools and between Christian and a Nativity.4 The terminals on the back show the evangelist
Jewish scholars the nature of Christ, but it also
concerning
symbols typical of a processional cross: John's eagle at the
documents the increased emphasis on the penitential aspect of
top,Mark's lion to the left,Luke's ox to the right.Matthew's
Eucharistie theology and its effect on liturgical performance.
In addition, the scholarly theory that fears of judgment at the winged angel would have been at the base. The center me
promise of theSecond Coming in
anticipated but unfulfilled dallion does not depict the standard triumphantLamb, but in
tensified these same twelfth-century theological discussions stead, the apocalyptic "Lamb thatwas slain" (Apoc. 5:12),
new insights into our understanding of the
offers promising from whom a defeated Synagogue turns (Fig. 7). Along the
Cloisters Cross.
shaft are twelve of the original thirteenfigures, of which only
Jonah's label survives. The figures are specifically identifiedbut
For thisGesta volume celebrating the fiftiethanniversary not positioned in a recognizable order, and they carry scrolls
of the founding of the International Center of Medieval Art, fully inscribed with scriptural verses. Except forMatthew, all
it seems appropriate to acknowledge the generous hospitality are Old Testament prophets. Six additional prophets, also iden
of The Cloisters, which provides an office for this organiza tified and carrying inscribed scrolls, are on the crossbar.
tion, by a discussion of one of the stars of its collection, the Figures positioned in the two center roundels and terminal
Cloisters Cross. A pocket version of a major monument like scenes on the front carry scrolls inscribed with passages from
the Sistine Ceiling or theArena Chapel, the cross is a chal the Old and New Testaments, and there are numerous wit
lenge not only to art historians but tomedievalists of many nesses, some of whom can be distinguished as Jews by their
disciplines. The lack of documentation concerning its com pointed hats. Two rhymed couplets in large capital letters line
mission, the uniqueness of its imagery, and the absence of a the sides and front of the cross: "Ham laughs when he sees
source for its combination of inscriptions have worked against the naked private parts of his parent./The Jews laugh at the
any easily identified pedigree for the cross. Reactions in the pain of God dying" (sides); "Earth trembles, Death defeated
popular and scholarly press to the publication of The Clois groans with the buried one arising./Life has been called, Syn
tersCross: Its Art and Meaning suggest there is still no clear agogue has collapsed with great foolish effort" (obverse shaft).5
solution to either its art or itsmeaning.1 The goal of this essay The cross has been localized to England on the basis of
is to discuss recent scholarship on topics relevant to the cross stylistic and textual analysis. In 1994 Charles Little and I
thatmay help to bring some of the still-open questions about supported the possible attribution?first made in 1964 by
its program into sharper focus. Thomas Hoving?of the cross to the Benedictine monastery
The Cloisters Cross is a double-sided cross of walrus of Bury St. Edmunds in themid-twelfth century.6We elabo
ivory, about 23 inches high with an arm span of 14.5 inches rated on Hoving's stylistic comparison with Master Hugo's
(Figs. 1 and 2). In the form of a processional and/or altar Bury Bible of 1138. Master Hugo introduced intoEngland the
cross, it has three square terminals on the front showing the so-called clinging curvilinear damp fold, a drapery device
Ascension at the top, the crucified Christ on the right, and the derived from Byzantine painting to define limbs. In theBury

GESTA XLV/2 ? The International Center of Medieval Art 2006 147

FIGURE 1. The Cloisters Cross, ca. 1150, front, ivory, New York, The Met FIGURE 2. The Cloisters Cross, ca. 1150, back, ivory, New York, The Met
ropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters Collection, 1963, 63.12, (photo: ? ropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters Collection, 1963, 63.12, (photo: ?
The Metropolitan Museum of Art). The Metropolitan Museum of Art).

Bible, Master Hugo combined the damp fold, which is also
associated with northern French and Mosan art,with the dis
tinctive animated gesticulating figures of Anglo-Saxon art that
are a marked feature of English Romanesque. We believe the
heightened life and tension in the figures on the cross to be a
later phase of the style found in theBury Bible. In the roundel
of theBrazen Serpent, for example (see Fig. 6), the pronounced
oval thatdefinesMoses' striding leg, the nests of sharp V-folds
that tighten cloaks and sleeves, and the drapery swags that
accentuate the twist of the bodies of the angels who cling to
the rim are devices derived from the Bury Bible that indicate
a mid-century date for the cross. Other scholars suggest the
cross originated elsewhere in England at artistic centers that
also developed versions of this sophisticated style:Winchester,
St. Albans, and, most recently, Canterbury,
as a late work of
Master Hugo.8 Hoving also adduced textual evidence for a
Bury attribution; he suggested that the distinctive description
of Christ in the titulus as "rex confessorum" derived from an
interlinear gloss on theGospel of Mark preserved in a manu
script from Bury (Cambridge, Pembroke College MS 72).9
More recently,T A. Heslop identified the source of this epithet
as theGlossa Ordinaria, which circulated in the schools, and
therefore is not as rare a text as
originally thought.10 None
theless, this volume and other works surviving from the library
at Bury provide insight into the abbey's intellectual pursuits
as it enlarged its library inmid-century. They provide acces
sibility to themes pertinent to images and inscriptions on
the cross: Anselm of Canterbury's doctrine of atonement, the
challenge to the doctrine in debates between Christians and
Jews, and the exegetical methods of Bible study developed in
the Paris schools, particularly the Victorines.11 By contrast,
Hoving and also Norman Scarfe concentrated on visual and

148
textual elements of the cross that echoed the abbey's antago
nism to Jews who were expelled from theBury community in
1190.12
While most published scholarship has at least agreed that
theCloisters Cross is a masterpiece of English Romanesque
ivory carving of the twelfth century, there is a long-standing
view that favors a sometimes unspecified continental origin.13
One opinion, firstvoiced in the early 1970s inRosalie Green's
iconography seminar at thePrinceton Index of Christian Art,
assigns the cross to the circle of Henry the Lion.14 The late
Christopher Hohler, of theCourtauld Institute inLondon, ex
pressed a preference for a Flemish origin or more widely in
the former Austro-Hungarian Empire.15 Hohler described
several features that seem typical of Flanders and Germany:
for example, the "heavy didacticism" of the figures with
inscribed scrolls, although this feature is not unknown in
England.16 He mentioned another for which no exact com
parison can be found: the unusually pointed hats of the Jews.
The shape of their hats along with the curled form of the
Brazen Serpent on a forked stick and the depiction of Syna
gogue in the central roundel are iconographie features most
commonly cited as
"un-English."17 Other
tion to paleography unusual to England: the L in "stulto" in
the shape of the numeral 2 on the shaft; or the use of an
ampersand at the end of a word, for example, "consurg&" in
Balaam's inscription.18
While
the active artistic and intellectual interchange
between northern France, Flanders, Germany, and England
complicates a firm attribution of the cross to either England
or the continent, it also helps explain the coexistence of
"alien" features in the cross.19 Nevertheless
the cross needs to address specifically English aspects of the
style and iconographie program: the iconography of the dis
appearing Christ in theAscension scene and the lively style
of the carving of the cross. If no definitive comparison to the
shape of the hats of the Jews can be found, might it be pos
sible to interpret their exaggeration as a stylistic affectation
similar to the pointed beards and elongated extremities of the
"Master Hugo" style of the figures on the cross?20 In fact, no
direct comparison can yet be found for any of the scenes in
the terminalplaques and the central roundels of Synagogue and
the Brazen Serpent. These compositions
in the positioning of the standard figures but also in the added
witnesses who crowd in, or comment on,
The liturgical context for the Cloisters Cross remains
undetermined. In The Cloisters Cross, we discuss images and
inscriptions related to theBenedictine liturgy of Holy Week
and Easter that included dramatic embellishments preserved
from theAnglo-Saxon Regularis Concordia. But the inscrip
tions are drawn from the Bible; they are not the formulation
of a particular monastic use. Further, recent scholarship on the
Regularis Concordia suggests that it cannot be seen to describe
completely even the liturgical celebrations ofWinchester, for
which it was written.21 Manuscript scholars
ingly cautious about the extent towhich The Monastic Con
stitutions,written in 1079 by Lanfranc?former abbot of Bee
who became archbishop of Canterbury?determined the course
of liturgical performance in England after theNorman Con
quest. It is not clear how much of theAnglo-Saxon tradition
was preserved or displaced, even at Canterbury, St. Albans,
Westminster, and Durham, foundations with which Lanfranc's
text is most closely associated.22 Both the Regularis Con
cordia and The Monastic Constitutions offer guidelines for the
regulation of monastic life, but they also describe liturgical
practices that relate toBenedictine reformmovements on the
continent that derive from Cluny, and, in the case of theRe
gularis Concordia, also from Lorraine, and are therefore not
confined toEngland.23While Rodney Thomson correctlypoints
out that theRegularis Concordia was not in the library at Bury
St. Edmunds, neither its presence nor its absence necessarily
proves how the liturgy was actually performed in any par
ticular monastic church in the twelfth century.24
Even though the relationship of Bury to the Regularis
Concordia ismore tenuous than previously thought, the dra
matic qualities of the enhanced compositions of the terminal
scholars draw atten scenes on the frontof the Cloisters Cross are strikingly anal
ogous to its spirit.Rather than themore standardDescent from
the Cross (Joseph of Arimathea is absent), the right-hand
plaque on the cross shows theAdoration of theCross of the
Good Friday liturgy (Fig. 4).25 The focus on the protracted
grief of Mary and John for Christ's suffering is emphasized
by the watchful figures behind John and the two mournful
faces below him. The Regularis Concordia calls for the par
ticipation of themonks "with deep and heartfelt sighs" at the
any attribution of Adoration of theCross, whereas Lanfranc advises his monks
that they "shall not lie in adoration for long, but praying briefly
and simply."26Even more striking is the way in which the
Resurrection on the left terminal recalls the extra-liturgical en
actment before the Easter Mass at Matins described in the
Regularis Concordia, but completely omitted by Lanfranc.27
It shows the encounter with the angel seated on the empty
tomb of theMarys, one of whom holds a thurible specific to
the liturgical performance (Fig. 5).28
Scholars have long proposed sermon literature as the
source of the distinctly "speaking" aspect of the Cloisters
are unique not only Cross, although none has been found that can account for the
program as a whole.29
Recently, however, scholars questioned
the event. the long-held assumption that the imagery of a church portal
or choir screen
requires
a one-to-one connection to a master
text, and suggested that sculpted programs might spring from
a common source, serving
as
supplements to the written or
spoken word.30 The challenge to scholars in applying this
approach to an analysis of the cross is determining appro
priate contexts for discussion.
The context thathas sparked themost recent scholarship
is the relationship between Christians and Jews in the twelfth
century. Several scholars see the altered wording of the titulus
are also increas as evidence of a reluctance on the part of the designer of the
149
cross towrite "The King of the Jews."31 Scholarly analysis of
the depiction of Jews within the scenes and of the rhymed
couplets on the shaft have led to the increasing charges of
antisemitism leveled at themakers of the cross, charges that
continue to strike a chord with the popular press.32Most in
flammatory is the remark of Thomas Hoving, who, in bring
ing out a revised e-book edition of his King of theConfessors
in 2001, asserted: "It's almost as ifHitler and Michelangelo
got together tomake this thing."33
The considerable scholarly concentration on Jewish
Christian relations in theMiddle Ages may clarify various
aspects of the cross.34Although it is firstused in the late nine
teenth century to characterize a biological racial theory, the
term antisemitism has acquired
a
generic pejorative
tation, referring to any hostility to Jews throughout history.35
Robert Chazan describes the continuity of antisemitism
from themedieval to themodern period.36 A reviewer of The
Cloisters Cross suggested that the cross be considered in
relation to the Early Christian doctrine of supersession that
holds that Christianity made Judaism obsolete.37 The Early
Christian claim, based on biblical scripture, of the fulfillment
of the Old Law by theNew had indeed produced a sophis
ticated typological system of representation by the twelfth
century: for example, the understanding of Moses' Brazen
Serpent as an image of Christ's Crucifixion (Fig. 6). The guilt
of the Jews for theCrucifixion, another fundamental claim pro
nounced in late medieval imagery and built into the liturgy
until Vatican II rejected it, resonates still, as witnessed by re
sponses toMel Gibson's 2003 film,The Passion of theChrist?*
Religious violence related tomodern terrorismhas further
exacerbated this emotionally charged subject, prompting a
closer look at the relations of medieval Christians with me
dieval Jews and Muslims, classic examples of the "other" in
medieval society.39 Concurrent with this is the tendency to
label theMiddle Ages as an undifferentiated whole as syn
onymous with the backward and "inhumane," now mainly a
pejorative in the popular press against the Islamic Middle
East.40 Many now criticize the view, associated with Edward
Said's Orientalism, which characterizes theMiddle Ages as
a static and immature pre-modern stage from which
gressive Enlightenment history of the nation may unfold."41
Recent proponents of postcolonial theory assert thatmedieval
studies as a whole must now accept the impossibility of em
bracing any methodological framework that is comfortable
only with singular truth and advocate a "localizing perspec
tivist epistemology."42
A similar change in approach has occurred inmedieval
Jewish-Christian studies. As scholars have shifted their focus
from the laterMiddle Ages to the heightened tensions between
Christians and Jews living in the eleventh and twelfth cen
turies, they increasingly call for the need to establish anti
Jewish contexts through carefully grounded local studies.43
Thus research on the area of theRhineland that some suggest
as a provenance for theCloisters Cross refutes the traditional
150
analysis of the fierce attacks on Jews inMainz, Worms, and
Cologne in 1096 and again in 1146 as the work of popular
crusading armies. Consideration of Jewish sources reveals
the complexity of the situation, in which random crusaders
and burghers, sometimes together, sometimes alone, turned
the anti-Muslim rhetoric of the papal call for crusade against
local Jews.44 Examination of individual incidents of social
violence against the Jews lead to nuanced models of behavior.
Some cases show violence instigated from the "top down,"
others from the "bottom up"; some violence is instigated by
secular figures, other by religious, and motivation is some
times economic and sometimes religious.45
Gavin Langmuir introduced a furtherdistinction between
conno the rational debates among Christian and Jewish scholars and
irrational Christian outbursts against the Jews. He narrowed
his own definition of antisemitism to the irrational Christian
fantasies against Jews about crucifixion and cannibalism that
begin in themid-twelfth century with the charges of ritual
murder and led to those of host desecration in the thirteenth.46
Langmuir's assessment of the irrationality of these accusa
tions has been challenged, specifically in the "ritual murder"
ofWilliam of Norwich in 1144, a case of particular interest,
because Scarfe and Hoving thought themurder of William
of Norwich and his subsequent cult was the event that initi
ated the anti-Jewish climate at nearby Bury St. Edmunds.47
Emily Rose has dissected the sequence of events and traced
the origin of the charge ofWilliam's ritualmurder to Bishop
William Turbe of Norwich, who was protecting a disaffected
knight on trial for themurder of a Jew in 1150, rather than
toWilliam's biographer, Thomas of Monmouth,48 In contrast
to the substantial surviving documentation of Jewish reaction to
German attacks of 1096 events, Jewish sources are silent about
these English charges.49 Although Bishop Turbe's account of
themurder ofWilliam of Norwich was prompted initially by
secular concerns, his subsequent promotion of the cult of St.
William, while not particularly successful in its own right,
resulted in similar ritualmurder accusations against Jews in the
last quarter of the century, including the case of Robert of
Bury.50
"the pro The monastery of Bury's indebtedness to Jews from
Norwich is the basis forHoving's and Scarfe's attributions of
the Cloisters Cross to Bury.51 It is, thus, useful to examine
recent scholarship on the economic situation of Jews in
Norwich and Bury in some detail, in order to assess their
arguments. Jews, first from Rouen and then theRhineland,
settled inNorwich in the early 1140s. Their principal source
of income, forwhich they competed with Christian financiers,
was coin exchange and money lending, in the face of the silver
shortage that began around 1100. The pressure for funds in
tensified in response to the financial drain of King Stephen's
civil war throughout the 1140s, followed by the increasingly
stringentmonetary policies of Henry II thatreduced thenumber
of mints and forced traditionalChristians out of money lending
activities in 1158. These local Christians were replaced by
Christian merchant financiers from abroad who developed a
system of lending through bonds. The Norwich Jews with
whom they collaborated additionally prospered from the
ability to negotiate for a place at the lucrative fairs controlled
by the abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, who was also wealthy
from the abbey's mint.52 The situation worsened, however,
when Pope Alexander III instigated the Church's crackdown
on usury at the Council of Tours in 1163 by imposing con
straintson theuse ofmortgages bymonasteries. This happened
in the same year thatKing Henry II imposed new financial
burdens on English monasteries and asserted his right to the
estates of all money lenders, an action that drove Christians
out of business by 1200.53 Jewswere protected in theirmoney
lending activities by Henry II througha series of Royal Charters
granting special privileges, forwhich the Jews paid increas
ingly high taxes. Among themost important privileges was
the establishment in 1194 of the "Exchequer of Jews" to
settle disputes over debt between Jews and Christians.54 The
adequacy of the crown's protection, however, is open
tion in the face of Alexander Ill's decrees separating Christians
from Jews at the Third Lateran Council of 1179: canon 26
prohibited Jews orMuslims fromhaving Christian servants.55
In England by 1181, Jews were further subject to theAssize
of Arms forbidding them from carryingmilitary weapons and
therefore rendering them unable to defend themselves.56 The
situation at Bury had changed drastically since the 1170s, when
Jocelin of Brakelond describes in his chronicle how Jews pro
tected by the sacristWilliam were "wandering by the altars
and round the shrine [of St. Edmund] while Mass was being
celebrated. Their money was deposited in our treasury, in the
sacrist's custody."57Deeply indebted to a Christian (William,
son of Isabel) as well as to several Jews, Bury's financial
situation deteriorated because of the closing of itsmint in
1180, the year that Samson, leader of the anti-Jewish faction
at Bury, was made sacrist before being elected abbot in 1182.58
Abbot Samson no doubt used themartyrdom of Robert of
Bury in 1181, a copycat ritualmurder in themode ofWilliam
of Norwich, to fuel his call for the expulsion of the Jews from
Bury, for which he secured the permission of Richard the
Lionheart in 1190 before Richard joined theThird Crusade.59
Norman Scarfe assigns theCloisters Cross to the hand of
Master Hugo from 1148-1156 when Ording was abbot at Bury,
and interpretsZachariah's scroll on the right hand plaque?
"They shall mourn for him as for an
only son"?as a reference
to themartyrdom of St.William of Norwich in 1144 (Fig. 3).60
However, the first six books of William's Vita were written
only in 1155 and the early miracles did not emphasize Jewish
culpability.61 Scarfe's evidence for "anti-Jewish sentiment" at
mid-twelfth-century Bury comes from theChronicle of Bury
St. Edmunds, which was begun in the late 1190s by Jocelin
of Brakelond, who came to the abbey in 1173 and recorded
the ascendancy of Abbot Samson. While Jocelin describes the
Jews as being in the church in the 1170s, evidence suggests
the Jews settled inBury itself by 1159, at the time of Abbot
Ording's successor, Abbot Hugh.62 To accommodate his
association of the Cloisters Cross with Abbot Samson,
Hoving argues that in the late 1180s Samson added the in
scriptions and the couplets on the shaft of the cross executed
byMaster Hugo around 1150. He specifies a furtheraddition
of the hooded figure of "Samson" with "his fist raised in the
air" on the top of the center roundel on the back "in a style
virtually identical to Hugo's, three or four decades before"
(Fig. 7).63
Despite the thinness of these arguments, speculations on
the impact of the social and economic status of the Jews at
Bury on the program of the Cloisters Cross multiply, raising
methodological questions.64 Debra Higgs Strickland gives a
mid-century date with an end-century explanation for the anti
Jewish climate at Bury that she, too, sees as the determinative
factor for the program of the Cloisters Cross. Thus, like
Hoving, she contextualizes the cross within historical events
that postdate the era in which stylistic analysis suggests the
to ques cross was made.65 In addition, she argues for the power of art
as polemic, in a church tympanum, for example, but does not
address the role played by scale and location in determining
accessibility to the artisticmessage of the cross. An unresolved
question arising from this line of argument is whether Jews
were, in fact, the intended viewers of the Cloisters Cross. If
one agrees with Hoving and Scarfe that themessage the cross
offered the Jews was a call for conversion, one must first ask
how well the cross could be seen in the candle-lit space of a
church, let alone whether, by the 1180s at Bury, Abbot Samson
would have let Jews into that space at all.66 If the cross were
addressed to a Jewish audience, why is theHebrew garbled?
And would Jews have had a sufficient command of Latin to
read the inscriptions in that language? This seems unlikely
as the use of Latin in Jewish circles "was almost considered
taboo, referred in Yiddish or Hebrew documents as 'Galo
chims Sprech' (priest language)."67 Whether Jewish scholars
in the twelfthcentury knew Latin is subject to debate, accord
ing toMichael Signer, but their disputations with Christians
took place in the vernacular?Romance or Old French?and
not in the scholarly Hebrew or Latin that Jews and Christians
used when theywrote about them.68
The nature of the religious rivalry between Jewish and
Christian scholars is the focus of much recent scholarship
thathas implications for understanding theCloisters Cross.69
Beginning in the eleventh century, both Jews and Christians
were engaged in studies of the literal sense of the scripture,
beyond their respective inherited traditions.Both placed a new
emphasis on explaining a single passage within a larger bib
lical context and on understanding the author's historical
circumstances.70 For Christians, themajor project was the
Glossa Ordinaria, a compilation of patristic exegesis of bib
lical texts, completed by Anselm of Laon in 1120. This cir
culated in the schools and monastic libraries in themid-twelfth
century and was known at Bury.71 The "rex confesorum" of
the titulus, inscriptions on the two central medallions and the
151

FIGURE 3. The Cloisters Cross, ca. 1150, front, detail of Ascension, Caiaphas
and Pilate, Titulus, ivory, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The
Cloisters Collection, 1963, 63.12 (photo: ? The Metropolitan Museum of
Art).
"Cham ridet" couplet on the shaft of theCloisters Cross come
from theGlossa Ordinariats Gospel of Mark.72 Other aspects
of the cross' program have been associated with writings from
theAbbey of St. Victor, one of the Paris schools espousing
the new learning which replaced Laon in importance after the
1120s.73The Victorines regularly consulted on the literalmean
ing of theHebrew scriptures with followers of Rashi at his
school at Troyes, who were not unaffected by the exegetical
methodology of Christian scholars.74
The divergence between Christian and Jewish interpre
tation of the allegorical meanings of Hebrew scripture was
the source of polemics on both sides. The most pressing issue
for Christians, and the one to which the Jews took great ex
ception, was theChristian understanding of the sacrament of
the Eucharist as containing the body and blood of Christ, a
belief fully articulated in the dogma of theTransubstantiation
152
*.#.^?^ ^^
* ' "*
V
FIGURE 4. 77i<? CloistersCross, ca. 1150, front, detail of the Crucified
Christ, ivory, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters
Collection, 1963, 63.12 (photo: ? The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.75 In this defining
moment, the Eucharistie host, a symbol of the unity of the
Christian community, became a visible sign of the unity of
the institutional Church. Although the roots of this reformu
lation date to theCarolingian period, the reformulation of the
central doctrine of theRoman Church stemmed from a dispute
between Lanfranc, while still abbot at Bee, and Berengar of
Tours. Itwas resolved inLanfranc's favor by Pope Leo IX in
1050 and affirmedby Berengar afterGregory VIF s pre-Lenten
synod of 1079.76Anselm, Lanfranc's successor as archbishop
of Canterbury, wrote Cur Deus Homo in 1097-1098 to explain
the necessity of Christ's sacrifice for the atonement of human
sin. This became a central text for the ongoing debate among
Christians and between Christians and Jews in the twelfthcen
Anselm's understanding of Christ as God-Man is indeed
tury.77
the central idea of the Cloisters Cross. The inscriptions that
line the edges of the upper terminals?"Christos" (top), "An
thropos" (left), "Pantocrator" (right)?are a "unique instance
of the naming of the [two] natures of Christ in aWestern work
of art" inGreek.78 Anselm cast Cur Deus Homo as a dialogue
with themonk Boso, who presumably articulated questions of
Christians thatoverlapped with the concerns of the Jews about
the rationality of the Incarnation.79 Langmuir's assertion that
theobjections posed in this and subsequent writings were a pro
jection of Christian doubts onto the Jews is a matter of ongoing
debate.80 Certainly, the Jews' objections to the Incarnation and
FIGURE 5. The Cloisters Cross, ca. 1150, front, detail of Resur FIGURE 6. The Cloisters Cross, ca. 1150, front, detail ofMoses and theBrazen Serpent,
rection, ivory, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The ivory, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters Collection, 1963,
Cloisters Collection 1963, 63.12 (photo: ? The Metropolitan 63.12 (photo: ? The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
Museum of Art).

to the ignominy of the Crucifixion presented a challenge to Norman abbots, while on the other hand they "accommodated
Christian writers. In disputations written by Christians, how the theological changes that redefined not only the Eucharist
ever, the Jews' point of view is presented through the filterof but also the function of thewritten text in the eleventh cen
the Christian authors.81 tury."84Kobialka might interpret the result of contemplating
Current scholarship on the contest over these major theo the image of theMarys' encounter with the angel on the cross'
logical concerns moves Jewish-Christian debates to a central left-hand terminal (Fig. 5) as redirecting "procedures thatguar
place in any interpretation of the Cloisters Cross?2 Further anteed an outward
representation of the most intimate move

more, recent studies by Michal Kobialka and Rachel Fulton ments of thought" of individual monks to an affirmation,
of the development of new theological and liturgical formu equivalent to confession, that equates the theological truth
lations in twelfth-centuryEurope draw themes embodied in the embodied in the Quern Quaeritis dialogue with the reality
program of the cross into a more coherent relationship with of the image of theGod-Man.85 On the angel's phylactery is
one another.83Within this frame, the left-hand terminal plaque "Quaeritis Naza Iusum Renum Crucifixum" (You seek Jesus
depicting the Resurrection serves as the point of departure of Nazareth, who was crucified, Mark 16:6). "Jesus of Naz

(Fig. 5), returning us to a consideration of the importance of areth," imposed like a seal in the midst of the phrase, is
extra-liturgical embellishments of the Regularis Concordia Mary's reply to the angel's Quern Quaeritis in the drama's
to the program of the cross. text.86The angel's implicit "Non est hic. Surrexit sicut prae
Kobialka argues that themeaning of theEaster Resurrec dixerat" (He is not here. He is risen as he foretold), which
tiondrama, theQuern Quaeritis, as performed inpost-Conquest completes the exchange in the text of the Regularis Con
England, shifted to reflect the new concerns of the Roman cordia, is depicted in the unexpected figure of the Risen
Church which Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury sought to Christ (see the leftbackground of Fig. 5) reaching up toward
impose
on the customs and liturgy of monasteries. In the "mo the hand of God that emerges from the cloud beneath the
mentary instability" caused by abandoning old authorities, titulus (see Figs. 1 and 3). The incorporation of this unusual
Kobialka sees a new role for liturgies thatpreserve the forms element in a Resurrection scene is, however, consistent with
described in the two surviving texts of the Regularis Con the addition of post-Resurrection appearances of Christ, such
cordia. On one hand, these liturgies were used "to express as the Noli Me Tangere and the Supper at Emmaus, to the
the strengthof theAnglo-Saxon tradition" now threatened by extended dramas and the visual arts in the twelfth century.87

153
They, too, present further visible proof of the resurrected
body of theGod-Man.
The image on the right-hand plaque speaks directly to
the new meaning of the Eucharistie celebration (Fig. 4). The
haloed God-Man stands above the inert corpse at his feet. To
emphasize the sacredness of Christ's human nature, Mary
supports his freed right arm with covered hands, while the
upright lance of the centurion behind her alludes to thebarely
visible sacramental wound in his right side.88 Read on this
level, the image is a visualization of theElevation of theHost,
a liturgical innovation of the twelfth century often accompa
nied by the ringing of a bell.89 The movement in the course
of the twelfth century toward the institutionalization of the
reception of the Eucharist?what Kobialka calls the ecclesi
ological approach to a discussion about the body of Christ?
was linked to a similar project to institutionalize the practice
of confession and the sacrament of penance. These monastic
observances prescribed in theRegularis Concordia were given
fresh urgency by Anselm's own devotions and Lanfranc's
statutes.90By the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, confession
and penance became an annual requirement for all Christians
to receive communion.91 The central roundel on the vertical
shaft links the themes of confession and penance to the image
of the crucified Christ that once hung in frontof it (Fig. 6).92
Tied by its inscriptions to Christ's sacrifice for the redemp
tion of human sin,Moses' Brazen Serpent hangs as the source
of healing before those who, by looking at it, confess and
"choose life."93Adam looks up from the base of the shaft,
with Eve behind him, visualizing the promise of the redemp
tion of sinfulmankind. The inclusion of Eve with Adam may
allude to dramas like the twelfth-centuryLenten Jeu d 'Adam,
which begins by recounting the story of the original sin and
ends with Old Testament prophecies of redemption.94
The crucial link between penance and confession and the
Eucharistie celebration returns us to the much discussed titulus
just above the Brazen Serpent (Fig. 3). Moving beyond the
literalmeaning over which Caiaphas and Pilate debate, "Jesus
of Nazareth, King of theConfessors" echoes the explanation
of this formulation by Leo theGreat: "the mediator between
God andMan, Christ Jesus, gave the rulers of theChurch this
power."95 "King of theConfessors" may also be a nod to the
role of the most venerated members of the monastic com
munity. Other than bishops, they were still the arbiters of
penitential practice before itwas institutionalized within the
broader Church after 1215.96
Rachel Fulton asks different questions that are also
relevant to imagery on the cross. She examines why this new
understanding of Christ emerged at this time, and why the
"surge in pious devotion" burgeoned in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries. Fulton associates these developments with
millennial concerns.97 Anticipation of the Second Coming, set
first for 1000 and then 1033, and the added tensions when the
apocalyptic event did not occur, generated fear of punishment
at the ever immanentLast Judgment.98After 1033, three further
154
times were predicted for the advent of theAntichrist and the
end of time: these were rare years when Good Friday fell on
March 25, the Feast of theAnnunciation?1065, 1076, and
1155, close to the suggested date for the Cloisters Cross."
Fulton speculated that contemporary anxieties about the end
of time coalesced around the liturgical function of the new
image of the crucified Christ as Judge, like that depicted on
theright-hand terminal (Fig. 4).100 She cited two tenth-century
liturgical embellishments of the Adoration of the Cross on
Good Friday designed to enhance theviewer's shame and guilt.
First, the story of theBrazen Serpent, a familiar metaphor in
monastic piety, was the subject of the sinners' prayer for
redemption added to the Romano-Germanic Pontifical.101
Second, the Improperia, reproaches uttered in the name of
Jesus by deacons at the foot of the cross, migrated from the
continental monastic reform movement into the Regularis
Concordia and were adopted inLanfranc's Constitutions. Nine
reproaches were added to the original three in the eleventh
century, and the set of twelve became fixed in theRoman lit
urgy by the twelfth century.102
As a corollary to the emphasis on the sufferingChrist as
Judge, Fulton discusses the growing role of Mary's suffering
at theCrucifixion and the concurrent rise inMarian devotion.
She traces the need to address the believer's abject remorse,
in acknowledging total indebtedness to and responsibility for
Christ's suffering, to Anselm's meditations on Mary's com
passion.103Mary's poignant stance beside her crucified son on
theCloisters Cross offers amodel of compassion and expressed
grief to theweeping figures around her.104She becomes as well
the object of prayers for compassion and for intercession on
the sinners' behalf. Twelfth-century theologians often wrote
about Mary's bodily assumption into heaven and her role as
intercessor at the Last Judgment. Tied to her compassio, her
bodily assumption is the guarantee of her presence before
Christ at the Last Given this association, it is
Judgment.105
notable thatMary's only other appearance on the cross is in
the Ascension in the upper terminal, where her non-scriptural
presence hints at her assumption, just
as the angels' inscrip
tions that bracket the scene promise the Second Coming
(Fig. 3).106
The liturgical practice of the Adorado Crucis generally
took place at theAltar of theCross, commemorating the place
of Christ's Crucifixion in Jerusalem.107 As themillennium
approached, the focus on Jerusalem intensified, not only as
the locus of theCrucifixion but also as the site of the Second
Coming. The destruction of theHoly Sepulchre in Jerusalem
in 1009 triggeredwidespread violence against Jews.108 In the
course of the eleventh century, in 1026, 1033, 1054, and 1065,
Jerusalem was the goal of major pilgrimages in anticipation
of Christ's return.109The recapture of theHoly Sepulchre in
1099 exacerbated a heightened sense of "longing for the
presence of this now absent historical reality" that drove
Christians into deeper meditation, penitential devotions, and
prayers forMary's compassion. It is less easy to define the
 impact on Jews of theChristian anticipation of an immanent
Second Coming as it stretched into the twelfth century.110
The Cloisters Cross reflects these contemporary tensions
most clearly in the couplets on the shaft.The first,on the sides,
is from the Glossa Ordinaria: "Cham laughs when he sees
the naked private parts of his parent/The Jews laughed at the
pain of God dying."111The one on the front is so far untrace
able: "The earth trembles, Death defeated groans with the
buried one rising/Life has been called, Synagogue has col
lapsed with great foolish effort."These couplets relate to the
right-hand terminal and the central roundel on the reverse
(Figs. 4 and 7). These are associated visually by the haloed
figures of "God dying" and of theLamb "that was slain [who]
isworthy to receive power and divinity," and by the presence
in both of John inmirrored mournful poses. The appearance
of the Lamb in the central roundel is radically different from
the traditionalMajesty of the triumphant apocalyptic Lamb,
surrounded by the evangelist symbols to indicate the Second
Coming. The inscription carried by the allegorical figure of
Synagogue to the left ("Cursed is everyone thathangeth from
a tree") underscores the ambiguity of the slain but still trium
phant Lamb; she turns away from the Lamb with downcast
eyes and unbroken lance. The allegorical interpretation of
Cham in the couplet on the sides has a checkered exegetical
history that can be traced back toAugustine, forwhom he is
the example of heretics and bad Christians as well as of Jews
who tauntedChrist.112 In late twelfth-centurysermon literature
Sabrina Harcourt-Smith found Cham compared to laymen who
disobey priests or are impenitent.113The laughter that the in
FIGURE 7. The CloistersCross, ca. 1150, back, detail of Synagogue and
associates with Cham is not, however, a feature of
scription the Lamb, ivory, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters
the Jews depicted on the Cloisters Cross (Figs. 3, 4, 6), nor Collection, 1963, 63.12 (photo: ? The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
is it certain that are to be understood as adver
they always
sarial, or that those who do not look away might be seen as
Jews who convert to Christianity at the end of time. Along hibits a heightened sense of feeling?a very personal artistic
with the other witnesses, they enact the participatory nature meditation on the sufferingChrist?especially in the right-hand
of vision as itwas understood in the twelfth century.114 terminal. Such a
suggestion goes against the common assump
I believe the Cloisters Cross was created for liturgical tion that the artist, even if not a layman, was probably illiterate
use and private contemplation by a member of an English and simply following orders; but a few scholars have enter
monastic community, possibly Bury, who was educated in tained the idea.117
the exegetical methods of the Paris schools and fully engaged There is certainly room for differing ways of looking at
in the issues that divided Jewish and Christian theologians. the cross, of estimating its reception in the twelfthcentury, and
Its size and the illegibility of the inscriptions, other than the of evaluating other layers of meaning beyond those we have
couplets on the shaft,without a magnifying glass and bright identified.118Though an alien practice today, the medieval
lightmake me skeptical that itwas expressly designed for even habit of layering multiple modes of seeing militates against
a Jewish scholar to see.115 The primary aim of the Cloisters a singular reading of a medieval object like the Cloisters
Cross appears to be an erudite exposition through interlocked Cross.119 Scholars from other disciplines will continue to shed
text and image, of the eucharistie nature of Christ's human light on the particular choice of inscriptions on the cross, just
sacrifice and the devotional necessity for confession and as art historians will continue to read the contribution of its
penance. Because of the degree towhich word and image are visual imagery and assess its localization to artistic centers with
inextricably bound together in the composition of the scenes compatible contemporary stylisticmodels. My plea is that, as
and of the dramatic intensity of the figure style, I believe the we research this singular masterpiece of Romanesque ivory
educated monk who designed the cross may well also have carving whose themes continue to resonate so
strongly,
we

been its carver: Master Hugo's title could as much refer to a continue to work within the recent trend toward careful his
craftsman as a scholar.116 As intellectual as it is, the cross ex torical and art historical contextualization.

155
 NOTES
* "
I thank the following for their help: Brigitte Bedos-Rezak, Barbara 16. For example, see G. Henderson, 'Abraham Genuit Isaac': Transitions
Boehm, Anne Marie Bouch?, Madeline Caviness, Dorothy Glass, Sara from the Old Testament to theNew Testament in the Prefatory Illustra
Lipton, Charles Little, Vivian Mann, Emily Rose, Nina Rowe, and tions of Some 12th-century English Psalters," Gesta, XXVI/2 (1987),
Elizabeth Teviotdale. 127-139.

1. E. C. Parker and C. T. Little, The Cloisters Cross: Its Art and Meaning 17. Elizabeth McLachlan worked on the Brazen Serpent in the Rosalie
(New York, 1994). Green seminar; see also Heslop review of The Cloisters Cross, 459.

2. Regarding other anomalies such as thewingless angels, see Heck review

Ibid., Fig. 43.
of The Cloisters Cross, 501. Concerning the absence of halos for the
3. G. D. S. Henderson, in his review of Parker and Little, The Cloisters
prophets on the left cross arm, see K. Rorimer, "Thus Spake Obadiah"
Cross, in The English Historical Review, XI/444 (November, 1996), (unpublished manuscript, 1994).
1240-1241, argues for "a prestigious relic of the Passion, wood, nail, or
to be suspended on the short blank strip of the tree trunk in a
18. Regarding the L, see Heslop review of The Cloisters Cross, 459. In the
blood,
course of private correspondence with me, Christopher Hohler men
container, as on theWestphalian Borghorst Cross."
tioned the ampersand. According to Teresa Webber, although common
4. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 38, n. 39, 91-92; B. R. Jones, in eleventh century, the use of the ampersand within words is rare in
"A Reconsideration of the Cloisters Ivory Cross with the Caiaphas I am grateful for her opinion on
twelfth-century English manuscripts.
Plaque Restored to Its Base," Gesta, XXX/1 (1991), 65-88; C. Heck, this point, offered in an e-mail on 23 November 2005.
review of Parkerand Little, The Cloisters Cross, in BMon, IV/152
19. For close links between English and Mosan art, see N. Morgan, "The
(1994), 500-501.
See also T. Hoving, King of the Confessors, rev. ed.
Iconography of Mosan Enamels," in Rhein und Maas: Kunst und Kultur
www.cybereditions.com (2001), 238-239.
800-1400 (Cologne, 1973), 2, 263-275; N. Stratford, "Three English
5. For all inscriptions and English translations, see Parker and Little, The Romanesque Enamelled Ciboria," BM, CXXVI/973 (1984), 204-216.
Cloisters Cross, 241-252. See more generally, K. Leyser, Communications and Power inMedi

6. T. P. F Hoving, "The Bury St. Edmunds Cross," Metropolitan Museum of eval Europe: The Gregorian Revolution and Beyond (London, 1994),

Art Bulletin, n.s. XXII (1964), 317-340; idem, The Chase, the Cap 115-142; R. Fulton, From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ

ture: Collecting at theMetropolitan and the Virgin Mary, 800-1200 (New York, 2002), 285-302.
(New York, 1975), 1-106; idem,
King of the Confessors (New York, 1981; 2001). 20. Examples from R. Mellinkoff, Outcasts: Signs of Otherness inNorthern
7. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 199-206. Europe Art of the Late Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Berkeley, 1993) postdate
the twelfth century. S. Lipton, Images of Intolerance: The Representation
8. For Winchester, see W. Mersmann, "Das Elfenbeinkreuz der Sammlung
of Jews and Judaism in the Bible Moralis?e (Berkeley, 1999), 16-18,
Topic-Mimara," WRJ, XXV (1963), 7-108; for St. Albans, see U. Nilgen,
questions whether Jews always wore these hats and suggests theymight
"Das grosse Walrossbeinkreuz in den 'Cloisters'," ZfKg, XLVIII (1985), not always be a pejorative sign.
39-64; and for Canterbury, see R. M. Thomson, The Bury Bible (Wood
32-33. 21. For discussion of the inscriptions, see Parker and Little, The Cloisters
bridge, 2001),
Cross, 149-173. Christopher Hohler did considerable work on attempt
9. Hoving, "Bury St. Edmunds Cross," 329-330, n. 6; S. Longland,
" " ing to identify antiphons and responses inmonastic usage, none of which
'Pilate Answered: 'What I Have Written, I Have Written,' Metro were incorporated on the cross. For recent work on the Regularis Con
politan Museum of Art Bulletin, n.s. XXVI (1968), 410-429, at 426.
cordia, see H. Gittos, "Architecture and Liturgy in England c. 1000:
10. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 219, and T. A. Heslop, review Problems and Possibilities," in The White Mantle of Churches: Archi
of Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, in BM, CXXXVI/1096 (July tecture, Liturgy, and Art around theMillennium, ed. N. Hiscock (Turn
1994), 459-460; M. Lucco and A. Pontani, "Greek Inscriptions on hout, 2002), 91-106, and N. H. Petersen, "The Representational Liturgy
Two Venetian Renaissance JWCI, LX (1997), 111-129, of the Regularis Concordia'' in ibid., 107-118.
Paintings,"
esp. 114-118. 22. The Monastic Constitutions ed. and trans. Dom D. Knowles,
ofLanfranc,
11. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 175-195. See also T. Webber, rev. ed. C. N. L. Brooke(Oxford, 2002), xxviii-xliii; M. Kobialka, This
"The Provision of Books for Bury St. Edmunds Abbey in the Eleventh IsMy Body: Representational Practices in theEarly Middle Ages (Ann
and Twelfth Centuries," in Bury St. Edmunds: Medieval Art, Architec Arbor, 1999), 119-145.
ture, Archeology and Economy, ed. A. Gransden, BAACT, XX (Leeds, 23. Kobialka, This Is My Body, 40-43, 53-54.
1998), 186-193.
24. For discussion of the Regularis Concordia and Bury, see Thomson,
12. N. Scarfe, "The Walrus-Ivory Cross in theMetropolitan Museum of Art:
Bury Bible, 34. See also Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 209; Die
The Masterpiece of Master Hugo at Bury," in Suffolk in theMiddle Ages
Regularis Concordia und Ihre Altenglische Interlinearversion, intro. and
(Woodbridge, 1986; rpt. 2004), 81-98. commentary by L. Kornexl (Munich, 1993); Kobialka, This Is My

13. review of The Cloisters Cross, review Body,52-99. For problems surrounding reconstituting the liturgy, see
Heslop, 459-460; Henderson,
of The Cloisters Cross, 1241. Kobialka, This Is My Body, 119-127, 142-143; Brooke, Monastic Con
stitutions, xxviii-xxxix (esp. xxxi for his response toA. W. Klukas, "The
14. Stephen Gardner, "The Resurrection Plaque on the Cloisters Cross," Architectural Implications of the Decreta Lanfranci," Anglo-Norman
talk delivered at The Frick Symposium (28 April 1973). My thanks to
Studies, VI [1983], 136-171, esp. 141-144). R. W. Pfaff, "Can Lanfranc's
Elizabeth Parker McLachlan for her seminar notes.
Mass Liturgy be Recovered?" talk delivered at the 40th International
15. Private correspondence in the 1980s and 1990s. Recently, Anne-Marie Congress on Medieval Studies, at Kalamazoo (5 May 2005); I thank
Bouch? pointed toMosan-Flemish aspects of style, and programmatic Professor Pfaff for letting me read his paper. The essential differences
features relating to Germany. Sara Lipton will soon publish arguments between theRegularis Concordia and Lanfranc's Monastic Constitutions
for a German provenance. I thank her for lettingme read her proposal for relate to a greater austerity on the part of Lanfranc, responding to the
this publication: S. Lipton, Dark Mirror: Jews, Vision, and Witness in pressures of the Gregorian Reform movement of the eleventh century,
Medieval Christian Art (forthcoming, 2007). and eschewing the heightened dramatization of the liturgical celebrations

156
 that distinguish the extra-liturgical rites that are described in the Regu Illumination in the Later Middle Ages and Northern Renaissance, ed.
laris Concordia. For this, see Brooke, Monastic Constitutions, xxxvii J. F. Hamburger and A. S. Korteweg (Turnhout, 2006); S. Stanbury,
xxxviii; Kobialka, This Is My Body, 127-142. "Pathos and Politics: Nicholas Love's Mirror and Mel Gilbson's The

25. Parker and Little, The Cloisters 153-160.

Passion of the Christ," in the forthcoming The Four Modes of Seeing:
Cross,
Approaches toMedieval Imagery in Honor of Madeline Harrison
26. The Monastic Agreement of theMonks and Nuns of the English Nation, Caviness, ed. E. S. Lane, E. Pastan, E. M. Shortell (Ashgate, 2007);
trans. T. Symons (London, 1953); Brooke, Monastic Constitutions, 62-63. see also S. Lipton's forthcoming Dark Mirror. And what are the im
27. Brooke, Monastic Constitutions, 70-71; Kobialka, This Is My Body, plications of the apocalyptic scenario of the best-selling Left Behind
series of Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins? See T. P. Weber, On the
80-85, 134.
Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend
28. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 164-165.
(Grand Rapids, MI, 2004).
29. The late Sister Kilian Hufgard, OSU of Ursuline College (unpublished
39. C. Andrew, "Religious Violence in Past and Future Perspective," in
paper from the 1980s) pointed to sermons, especially "Sermon for Spy
Religious Violence between Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots,
Wednesday," by Bernard of Clairvaux, as a source for the Cloisters
Modern Perspectives, ed. A. Sapir Abulafia (Basingstoke, UK, 2002),
Cross: see St. Bernard's Sermons for the Seasons and Principal Festivals
172-178. G. Deleuze, "A Theory of theOther," in The Deleuze Reader,
of the Year, trans.A Priest of Mount Melleray (Westminster, MD, 1950),
ed. and intro by C. V. Boundas (New York, 1993), 59-68. Among
134-153. Working from her earlier research on the "Cham ridet" couplet
the interconnected "others" of themedieval period, only the Jews left
on the shaft, Sabrina Harcourt-Smith is currently exploring the sermons
a rich written record: Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes, ix-xii; see also
preached by Stephen Langton in Paris and England in the late twelfth
R. I.Moore, Formation of a Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance
and early thirteenth century (see S. Longland, "A Literary Aspect of the
inWestern Europe 950-1250 (Oxford, 1987), for the linkage of Jews
Bury St. Edmunds Cross," Metropolitan Museum Journal, II [1969],
" with heretics and lepers.
45-74). See also S. Lipton, 'The Sweet Lean of His Head': Writing
about Looking at the Crucifix in the High Middle Ages," Speculum, 40. K. Davis, "Time behind the Veil: the Media, the Middle Ages, and
LXXX/4 (2005), 1172-1208. Orientalism Now," in J. J. Cohen, The Postcolonial Middle Ages (New

30. S. Murray, A Gothic Sermon: Making a Contract with theMother of God, York, 2000), 105-122, at 105. See also F. C. Robinson, "Medieval, the
Middle Ages," Speculum, LIX/4 (1984), 745-756. For the classifica
Saint Mary of Amiens (Berkeley, 2004), esp. 48-57; J. E. Jung, "The
tion of Islamic fundamentalism as "medieval," see, for example, N. D.
Stone Bible: Faith Personified," in New York, Metropolitan Museum of
Kristof, "A Wimp on Genocide," New York Times (18 September 2005),
Art, Witness toHistory: The Face inMedieval Sculpture (forthcoming).
13: "It was our own Axis of Medieval"; W. Zihad, "Jihad's Fresh Face,"
For a discussion of a sermon, liturgy, or liturgical drama as the source
ibid. (16 September 2005), A27: "Islamic fundamentalism is a product
for prophets with inscribed scrolls, see D. F Glass, "Otage de l'historio
en Italie," CCM, XLIV of a 'medieval' mindset, we are told, and if we can deliver elections
graphie: l'Ordo Prophetarum (2001), 258-273.
to the Arab world, our enemies will cower before the spirit of the
31. Hoving, St. Edmunds Cross,"
"Bury 329-330; Longland, "'Pilate
Enlightenment."
Answered," 426; Heslop review of The Cloisters Cross, 459; D. Higgs
Strickland, Saracens, Demons, and Jews: Making Monsters inMedieval 41. K. Biddick, "Coming out of Exile: Dante on the Orient Express," in
Art (Princeton, 2003), 102. Cohen, Postcolonial Middle Ages, 35-52, at 37. For an overview of
postcolonial theories, see R. Seiden, P. Widdowson, P. Brooker, A
32. See J. Helpern, "Enigma in Ivory: Dark Medieval Treasures of the
Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, fifth ed. (Harlow,
Cloisters," New York Observer (12 September 1994); A. Curry, "Medi
UK, 2005), 218-242. My thanks to Charles Nelson for this reference.
eval Questions: Was the Bury St. Edmunds Cross a Tool of Hate?" US
See S. Tomasch, "Postcolonial Chaucer and the Virtual Jew," in Cohen,
News and World Report (13 August 2001), 47; L.-L. Barclay, "Public Art
Postcolonial Middle Ages, 243-260.
and Private Prejudice: Two Works of Christian Art Predating theHolo
caust Raise Questions about Whether They Intentionally Contributed to 42. J. J.Cohen, "Introduction Midcolonial," inPostcolonial Middle Ages, 1
Anti-Semitism," Christian Science Monitor (7 January 2005), 11-12. 18, at 6: "[only] a localizing perspectivist epistemology . . . can
hope
to do justice to the heterogeneity of the past, refusing to bend it to
33. T. Hoving."Super Art Gems of New York City." www.artnet.com/
some master narrative of progress or complete difference."
Magazine/features/hoving/hoving 9-27-01.asp, 2; J. Borger, The
Guardian (29 August 2001), 2. Regarding Topic-Mimara, the former 43. Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes, 131-132.
owner of the cross, see K. Akinsha, "The Master Swindler of Yugo
slavia," Art News (September 2002), 148-156. 44. R. Chazan, "The Anti-Jewish Violence of 1096: Perpetrators and

Dynamics," in Sapir Abulafia, Religious Violence, 21-42. See also

34. For a useful overview, see D Berger, From Crusades to Blood Libels to
Moore, Formation of a Persecuting Society, 29-31.
Expulsions: Some New Approaches toMedieval Antisemitism (New
York, 1997). I thank Vivian Mann for this reference. 45. Berger, From Crusades to Blood Libels, 22-24; R. I. Moore, "Anti
Semitism and the Birth of Europe," in Christianity and Judaism,
35. G. Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Antisemitism (Berkeley, 1990), 314:
Ecclesiastical History Society (Oxford, 1992), 33-57. He assigns
"the hostility thatmade possible Hitler's 'Final Solution' was no dif
ferent in fundamental nature . .. from the riots in ancient Alexandria in
much of the responsibility to knights who, struggling for identity,were
the century's "poor whites."
the first century of the Common Era or from any other hostility Jews
have ever had to face." 46. Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, 12-14, including the
Langmuir,
36. R. Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Antisemitism (Berkeley, following chapters: "Thomas of Monmouth: Detector of Ritual Murder,"
125-127. 209-236; "The Knight's Tale of Young Hugh of Lincoln," 237-262;
1997), 125-140, esp.
"Ritual Cannibalism," 263-281; "Historiographie Crucifixion," 282
37. Barclay, "Public Art and Private Prejudice," 12; R. Helms, Gospel Fic 298. See also B. Bildhauer, "Blood, Jews, and Monsters inMedieval
tions (Amherst, NY, 1988). I thankWilliam Voelkle for this reference.
Culture," in The Monstrous Middle Ages, ed. B. Bildauer and R. Mills
38. D. T. Cashion, "The Man of Sorrows and Mel Gibson," in Tributes (Cardiff, 2003), 75-96. For an instance of host profanation in Cologne
inHonor of James H. Marrow: Studies in Painting and Manuscript in 1150, see Moore, Formation of a Persecuting Society, 38.

157
47. For the controversy surrounding Langmuir, see Chazan, Medieval Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. M. Signer and J. van Engen (Notre Dame,
Stereotypes, 127-134; R. Stacey, "History, Religion and Medieval 2001), 340-354, at 349.
Anti-Semitism: A Reply to Langmuir," in Religious Studies Review, X
63. Hoving, Confessors (2001), 231: "Suddenly it seemed plausible," ibid.,
(1994), 95-101. For discussion of William of Norwich's death in re
(1981), 318. Hoving identifies this figure with a description of Samson
lation to the Cloisters Cross, see Scarfe, "The Walrus-Ivory Cross"; in the dream of one of the supporters of his election in Jocelin's
see also Strickland, Saracens, Demons, and Jews, 104.
Chronicle. Jocelin, Chronicle, 19: "He stood like a fighter ready for
48. E. Rose, "The Cult of St. William of Norwich and the Accusation of combat." For further comments on Master Hugo's participation,
Ritual Murder in Anglo-Norman England," (Dissertation, Princeton Hoving, Confessors (2001), 254.

University, 2001). She challenges the interpretation of Langmuir,

64. See note 32 above. See also Thomson, Bury Bible, 34; D. Edkserdjian,
"Thomas of Monmouth," 209-236, and also J.M. McCulloh, "William
"Signs of the Cross," The Times (London) (14 July 1994), 41; J. P.
of Norwich, Thomas of Monmouth, and the Early Dissemination of the
Caillet, review of Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, in CCM, XLI
Myth," Speculum, LXXII/3 (1997), 698-740, who argues for a different
(1998), 69-70.
instigator and a separate source on the continent other than Thomas of
Monmouth's Vita. In contrast to usual claims, Israel Jacob Yuval ar 65. Strickland, Saracens, Demons, and Jews, 102.

gues that the first ritual murder (attributed to laymen) occurred in 66. Scarfe, Cross," 87; Hoving, Confessors (2001), 254;
"Walrus-Ivory
W?rzburg in 1147, since the charge against William was made later;
Helpern, "Enigma in Ivory"; Curry, "Medieval Questions," 47. Charles
see Berger, From Crusades to Blood Libels, 17-22, and n. 34 for ref
T. Little discussed the issue of lighting in a talk at The Cloisters Cross
erence to Yuval's article (in Hebrew) in Zion, LVIII (1992/1993).
Conference at Bury St. Edmunds (18 September 2004).
"
49. Chazan, "Anti-Jewish Violence," 21-43, and I. J.Yuval, 'They tell lies: 67. On 16 October
2005, Brigitte Bedos Rezak sent me the comments of
you ate the man': Jewish Reaction to Ritual Murder Accusations," in Menachem Sheinberger, who recommends: S. Neuberg, Aschkenasisches
Religious Violence between Christians and Jews, 86-106. Latein ein westjiddischer Cisiojanus Jiddische Philologie (T?bingen,
50. Rose, "Cult of St. William," 195-318; Hoving, Confessors (2001), 228 1999), 111-132; R. Loewe, "A Medieval Latin-German Magical Text
inHebrew Characters," in Jewish History: Essays inHonour of Chimen
229,231.
Abramsky, ed. A. Rapoport-Albert et al. (London, 1988), 345-368;
51. Their source is Jocelin of Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury
G. Dahan, "Les traductions latines m?di?vales des oeuvres de Ger
St. Edmunds, trans. D. Greenway and J. Sayers (Oxford, 1989; rpt.
sonide," in Gersonide en son temps: science et philosophie m?di?vale,
1991), 10. ed. G. Dahan See also J.-P. Rothschild,
(Louvain, 1991), 329-368.
52. R. L. Stacey, "Jewish Lending and theMedieval in A Com "Du latin ? l'h?breu: quelques probl?mes pos?es par des traductions
Economy,"
1086-c. 1300, ed. R. N. Britnell and m?di?vales," in Rashi 1040-1090: Homage ? Ephraim E. Urbach,
mercialising Economy: England
B. M. S. Campbell (Manchester, 1995), 78-101, esp. 83-90 (for Fleming ed. G. Sed-Rajna, Congr?s europ?en des Etudes juives (Paris, 1993),
William Cade's bonds, 89-90); R. J.Eaglen, "The Mint at Bury St Ed 695-712.

munds," in Bury St Edmunds, 111-121.

68. My thanks toMichael Signer for this information. He points to the
53. J.W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants: The Social Views Dijon Bible of Stephen Harding, which describes the conversations in
of
Peter the Chanter and His Circle. (Princeton, 1970), I, 275. the "lingua romana." For Christian interest in learning Hebrew, A. Sapir
Abulafia, "The Testimony of the Hebrew Bible," in Christians and
54. P. R. Hyams, "The Jews inMedieval England, 1066-1290," in England
Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (London, 1995), 94-106;
and Germany in the High Middle Ages, ed. A. Haverkamp and H.
J. Olszowy-Schlanger, "The Knowledge and Practice of Hebrew
Vollrath (Oxford, 1996), 173-192, at 182-186; Moore, Persecuting in Pre-Expulsion
Grammar among Christian Scholars England: The
Society, 44. Evidence of 'Bilangual' Hebrew-Latin Manuscripts," inHebrew Scholar
55. N. P. Tanner, S.J., ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (London, ship and theMedieval World, ed. N. de Lange (Cambridge, 2001), 107
1987), I, 223 (canon 26). 128. For an art historical attempt to interpret the Cloisters Cross as a
visual disputation, see Strickland, Saracens, Demons, and Jews, 102
56. Rose, "Cult of St. William," 298-300, citation to Cecil Roth, A History
104.
of the Jews inEngland, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1964), 13-14.
69. J. Cohen, "Christian Theology and Anti-Jewish Violence in theMiddle
57. Jocelin, Chronicle, 10.
Ages: Connections and Disjunctions," in Sapir Abulafia, Religious Vio
58. See ibid., 4, 125, for identification of the Jewish bond holders. For the lence, 44-60.
financial status of the abbey, see Rose, "Cult of St.William," 300-309,
70. Michael Signer, "Peshat, Sensus Litteralis, and Sequential Narrative:
and Eaglen, "The Mint," 111-121.
Jewish Exegesis and the School of St. Victor in the Twelfth Century,"
59. Jocelin, Chronicle, 15, 40-41. For Rose's reconstruction of Robert's in Frank Talmadge Memorial, ed. Barry Walfish I (Haifa, 1993), 203

story from later sources, see "Cult of St. William," 283-295; Hyams, 216; Lipton, Images of Intolerance, 13-14.
"Jews inMedieval England," 180-181. See also Stacey, "Twelfth
71. M. T. Gibson, "The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible," in "Artes" and
Century England," 249-250, for the tension between Abbot Samson's
Bible in theMedieval West (Aldershot, 1993), 232-244, at 241. See also
claim of authority over the Jews of Bury and his need for the king's
Biblia Cum Glossa Ordinaria, Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps
permission to expel them.
Adolph Rusch of Strassburg, 1480/1481, intro by K. Froehlich and M. T.
60. Scarfe, "The Walrus-Ivory Cross," 81-98, at 93-94. Gibson (Turnhout, 1992).

61. Thomas of Monmouth and completed his Vita et Passione

revised 72. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 219-221.
S. Wilhelmi in 1175, with a dedication to Bishop Turbe: Rose, "Cult of
73. Gibson, Bible," 244. See also Parker and Little, The Cloisters
"Glossed
St. William," 105-111, 271-276. (There is no evidence of the circula 222-223. Gibson, in her introduction to Biblia Cum
Cross, 185-195,
tion of an earlier text.)
Glossa Ordinaria, suggests: "By 1150, in Paris, maybe one scriptorium,
62. R. C. Stacey, "Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century England: Some such as St. Victor, established a complete and definitive version of the

Dynamics of a Changing Relationship," in Jews and Christians in gloss available for dissemination elsewhere" (xi). For competition

158
 between "monastic" and "scholastic" theologians, see Fulton, From 96. See Lucco and Pontana, "Greek Inscriptions," 114-118. Rorimer, "Thus
Judgment to Passion, 315-317. Spake Obadiah," emphasized the point thatPope Alexander III canonized
Edward the Confessor in 1161.
74. S. Kamin, "Affinities between Jewish and Christian Exegesis in Twelfth

Century Northern France," in Proceedings of the World Congress of 97. Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 71-72. See also R. Landes, Relics,
Jewish Studies, 1985, IX (Jerusalem, 1988), 141-155; A. Grabois, "The Apocalypse, and theDeceits ofHistory (Cambridge, MA, 1995); idem,
Hebraica Veritas and Jewish-Christian Intellectual Relations in the "The Fear of an Apocalyptic Year 1000: Augustinian Historiography,
Twelfth Century," Speculum, L (1975), 613-634; A. Sapir Abulafia, Medieval and Modern," Speculum, LXXV/1 (2000), 97-145.
"The Schools," in Christians
and Jews, 11-22. For Rupert of Deutz,
98. Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 70-78.
see Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 309-350.
99. Ibid., 77-78.
75. Tanner, Ecumenical Councils, I, 230 (Canon 1: On the Catholic Faith);
Moore, "Anti-Semitism and the Birth of Europe," 42, 52. Fulton, From 100. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 153-160.

Judgment to Passion, 120-140.

101. For the liturgy, see Fulton, From Judgment toPassion, 85-86. See also
76. Kobialka, This IsMy Body, 101-145; Fulton, From Judgment toPassion, Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 10-25. For the diffusion of the
121-141. Romano-Germanic Pontifical in the eleventh century, see C. Vogel,
Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to Sources, rev. and trans. W. G.
77. A. Sapir Abulafia, "Intellectual and Spiritual Quest forChrist and Central
Storey and N. K. Rasmussen (Washington, DC, 1986), 237-239.
Medieval Persecution of Jews," in Religious Violence, 61-85, at 62;
Parker and Little, The Cloisters 176-184. 102. Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 60, 144; Monastic Constitutions,
Cross,
60-61; Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross
78. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 91, and Figs. 67-69. s.v. "Reproaches,"
(London, 1958, 1966), 1154; Parker and Little,
79. A. Sapir Abulafia, "The Christianization of Reason," in Christians and The Cloisters Cross, 156.

Jews, 34-47, at 42-46; Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 383-384. 103. Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 203-205, 232-240; The Prayers and

80. G. Langmuir, "Doubt in Christendom" Meditations of St Anselm, trans, and intro, B. Ward, foreword R. W.
and "Peter the Venerable: De
fense against Doubts," in Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, Southern (Harmondsworth, 1973; repr. 1979), 107-126.
100
133, 197-208; see also Sapir Abulafia, Christians and Jews, 5-7. See 104. Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 197-203 (Anselm of Canterbury),
Lipton, "'The Sweet Lean of His Head,'" 1172-1197, regarding doubts and 424-435 (Aelred of Rievaulx).
occasioned by the image of the dead Christ. For the calculated use of
to scare and shame the m?ditant into love of God, see Fulton, 105. Ibid., 265-275, at 275 (Honorius of Autun).
words
From Judgment to Passion, 173-175. 106. Parker and Little, The Cloisters 88-90.
Cross,

81. For the Christian claim that the Jews' failure to accept the rationale for 107. Ibid., 119-148.
Christian truthwas proof of their subhuman status, see A. Sapir Abulafia,
108. R. Landes, "The Massacres of 1010: On theOrigins of Popular Violence
"Christianized Reason atWork," in Christians and Jews, 77-93.
inWestern Europe," inFrom Witness toWitchcraft: Jews and Judaism in
82. Moore, "Anti-Semitism," 53, laments its generally peripheral status: Medieval Christian Thought, ed. J. Cohen (Wiesbaden, 1996), 79-112.
"other than the triteobservation that it tended to be stimulated by enthu
109. Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 65.
siasm for the Crusades."
110. For Honius of Autun, see ibid., 277-285; D. J.Malkiel, "Jewish-Christian
83. For prior categorization of themes as "too many" and "unfocused," see
relations in Europe, 840-1096," Journal ofMedieval History, XXIX/1
Henderson, review of The Cloisters Cross, 1241; Heslop, review of
The Cloisters Cross, 459. (2003), 55-83, does not emphasize millennial concerns in the push for
conversions in the eleventh century. See B. Bedos-Rezak, "Les Juifs et
84. Kobialka, This Is My Body, 102-145, at 142. l'?crit dans lamentalit?
eschatologique du moyen ?ge chr?tien occidental
(France, 1000-1200)," Annales HSS, XLIX/5 (1994), 1049-1063. For
85. Ibid., 10-11, 148.
Jewish apocalypticism, see N. Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos, and theWorld to
86. For the seal, see Fulton, From Judgment toPassion, 50-53 (Paschasius), Come: The Ancients Roots of Apocalyptic Faith, 2nd ed. (New Haven,
254-258 (Honorius of Autun). 2001), 129-219.

87. Ibid., 165-167. 111. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 221, Figs. 21, 28; Longland,
"Literary Aspect," 45-74.
88. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 81, Fig. 55.
112. City of God, XVI, 2; Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 169-171.
89. J.A. Jungmann, The Mass of theRoman Rite: Its Origins and Develop
ment Missarum Sollemnia 113. S. Harcourt-Smith, "The Cloisters Cross in a Literary and Preaching
(New York, 1950), 1, 118-121; Kobialka,
This Is My Body, 157. Context," talk delivered at the Cloisters Cross Conference at Bury
St. Edmunds (18 September 2004). See furtherM. H. Caviness, "A
90. Kobialka, This Is My Body, 115-141, 147-157. Son's Gaze on Noah: Case or Causeof Viriliphobia?" in Comporta
menti e immaginario della sessualit? nell'alto medioevo, Atti delle
91. Ibid., 197-202.
Settimane di studio, LIII (Spoleto, 2006), 981-1024.
92. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 30, 253-260.
114. Kobialka, This Is My Body, 87-93; Fulton, From Judgment to Passion,
93. Ibid., 56-63, 160-162, 167-69. 84-87.

94. Kobialka, This Is My Body, 180-194; D. Bevington, Medieval Drama 115. See note 66 above. For a chalice used as a relic of a conversion miracle
(Boston, 1975), 78-121; Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 222 of Jews at Saint-Yved of Braine, see M. H. Caviness, Sumptuous Arts at
223; Glass, "L'Ordo prophetarum en Italie." the Royal Abbeys of Reims and Braine (Princeton, 1990), 67-68.

95. S. Longland, "Pilate Answered," 410-429 at 429. 116. Parker and Little, The Cloisters Cross, 218-222.

159
117. See C. R. Dodwell, "The Meaning of 'Sculptor' in the Romanesque takes on a fifteenth-century painting in Cologne, where the caricature
Period," in Romanesque and Gothic: Essays for George Zarnecki of Jews was more pronounced, see M. Hein-Dunne, "Jews in the

(Bury St. Edmunds, 1987), I, 49-61; T. A. Heslop, "The Production Cathedral," The German Quarterly, LXXIV/1 (2001), 80-82. I thank
and Artistry of the Bury Bible," inBury St. Edmunds, 172-185, and for Madeline Caviness for this reference.
the possibility of monastic artists, A. Gransden, "Some Manuscripts in
119. M. H. Caviness, "Images of Divine Order and theThird Mode of Seeing,"
Cambridge from Bury St. Edmunds Abbey: Exhibition Catalogue," in
Gesta, XXXII (1991), 99-120; reprinted in eadem, Art in theMedieval
ibid., 238-285, at 232; Thomson, Bury Bible, 32-33.
West and Its Audience (Aldershot, 2001), 2, 1-22; Bedos-Rezak, "Les
118. Regarding ambiguity in understanding images at the time, see Lipton, Juifs et l'?crit dans la mentalit? eschatologique," 1049-1063.
"'The Sweet Lean of His Head'," 1172-1175. For varying modern

160