The Plan of St. Gall a study of the architecture & economy of & life in a paradigmatic Carolingian monastery |
| I. |
 |
| I. |
 | II. |
| II. 1. |
| II. 2. |
| II.2.1. |
CROSSING |
| II.2.2. |
| II. 3. |
| III. |
| IV. |
 | The Plan of St. Gall |  |
CROSSING
The reconstruction of the crossing (figs. 108-112) has been
a matter of some controversy and, in fact, permits different
interpretations. Two basic questions present themselves
immediately: first, was the crossing surmounted by a
tower; and second, were the roofs of nave and transept of
equal height? The first of these two questions must, I
think, be answered in the negative. The second does not
admit a clear-cut answer.
Crossing towers have been assumed in Fiechter-Zollikofer's
and Gruber's reconstructions of the Church of
the Plan (figs. 277 and 282).[136]
Historically, this is a perfectly
feasible solution. Square towers, rising from crossings
produced by the interpenetration of two volumes of space
of essentially equal height, existed in the Abbey Church of
St.-Denis, constructed under Abbot Fulrad, 750-755;[137]
in the basilica of Neustadt-on-the-Main after 768/69[138]
(fig. 116); in the Abbey Church of St. Mary's on the island
of Reichenau, consecrated by Bishop Haito in 816[139]
(fig.
117); and in the church of St. Martin at Angers, end of
ninth century.[140]
But the Plan of St. Gall does not call for a
tower. In any of the other buildings, wherever a structure
was composed of two stories, the maker of the Plan indicated
this by an explanatory title, defining the function of
the lower story with a phrase that begins with the adverb
infra, "below," and that of the upper story by a phrase
that begins with the adverb supra, "above."[141]
Had he
meant the crossing to be surmounted by a tower, he could
have expressed his intention with a statement such as infra
chorus, supra turris—"below, the choir; above, a tower."
The fact that he did not do this suggests that a crossing
tower was not intended.
With regard to the respective heights of nave and transept,
the traditional view has been that they were of equal
height and that the crossing was framed by boundary
arches on all four sides, rising from wall pilasters and from
cruciform piers (figs. 107-110). It is in this manner that
the crossing unit was interpreted by Friedrich Seesselberg
(1897), Georg Dehio (1901), Wilhelm Effmann (1899 and
1912), Friedrich Ostendorf (1922), Joseph Hecht (1928),
Ernst Gall (1930), and Edgar Lehman (1938).[142]
It is also
the view that underlies the graphical reconstructions of the
Church, published by J. R. Rahn (1876), Joseph Hecht
(1928), H. Fiechter-Zollikofer (1936), and Karl Gruber
(1937 and 1952).[143]
However, this explanation of the Plan was questioned by
Hermann Beenken and by Samuel Guyer,[144]
who felt that
to interpret the supports in the corners of the crossing of
the Church as piers and pilasters was not permissible,
because the symbol used for these members (a square with
a circle inscribed) is identical with that which is used for
the nave columns. Beenken's and Guyer's criticism is based
on the arbitrary assumption that the square with the
inscribed circle could only have had the exclusive meaning
of "column." A more circumspect analysis of the use and
distribution of this symbol discredits this view. In the
Monks' Refectory, the House for Distinguished Guests,
and the Abbot's House, the same sign is used to designate
used to designate a lectern (analogiu). In the room for the
preparation of the holy bread and the holy oil it stands for
"oil press," in the Monks' Privy, for "a table with a
lantern" (lucerna), and in the hypocausts of the Monks'
Warming Room, the Novitiate and the Infirmary, it stands
for "chimney stack" (euaporatio fumi). It seems absurd to
persist on a course of reasoning which is based on the
supposition that the designer of the Plan of St. Gall was
unaware of the distinction between a pier and a column
because he used the same symbol for both of these structural
members. To do so would be no less incongruous than
to accuse him of having designed a clerestory wall whose
arcades rested on cupboards, lecterns, oil presses, lantern-carrying
tables, or chimney stacks.[145]
It is obvious that in drawing the structural members of
his church, the architect availed himself of a symbol whose
meaning was not limited to "columns," but could be understood
in the more general sense of "arch-support," leaving
it to the builder of the Church to interpret this sign as its
architectural context required, either as a freestanding
column (as in the nave arcades) or as an engaged half column
(wherever it is shown as being part of a wall), or as cruciform
piers (as in the four corners of the crossing). In order
to preclude any further misunderstandings I should like to
pursue more closely the evidence furnished by the Plan
itself.
The Plan indicates clearly that the supports which stand
in the western corners of the crossing must have been
shaped in such a way as to receive the arches of the easternmost
arcade on either side of the nave, as well as the arches
of the openings which connect the aisles with the transept.
Furthermore, they must have been able to receive on a
higher level the springing of the triumphal arch. The
existence of the triumphal arch cannot be proven on the
basis of the linear layout of the Plan, but its presence is
mandatory in a building of this size for obvious constructional
reasons.
The square symbols with the inscribed circles in the two
eastern corners of the crossing postulate the existence in
these places of engaged pilasters on columns, that make
sense only if we assume that they served as footing for
either a transverse arch, which separated the crossing from
the fore choir, or two longitudinal arches thrown across the
transept arms in prolongation of the nave walls. One of these
two assumptions is obligatory, but the fact that only one
of them can be established compellingly does not preclude
the other. The Plan does not provide us with any evidence
that would warrant dismissing the possibility that the
Church was meant to have had an arch-framed crossing
(fig. 110).
As for the elevation of this crossing unit of the Church of
the Plan, it is futile to speculate whether it belonged to the
fully developed type with arches of equal height, which
became a standard feature of western architecture at the
period of the Romanesque, or whether it belonged to any
PLAN OF ST. GALL
111.A CHURCH. NORTH ELEVATION
111.B CHURCH. SOUTH ELEVATION
Because of the surrounding buildings, no one standing on the
monastery grounds would have been able to entirely encompass
these two magnificent views of the Church. They strikingly
portray the antinomy and balance between directional thrust and
inward-turning that characterizes Carolingian double-apsed
churches of this type.
One may feel perplexed by the aesthetic kinship of these two-apsed
Carolingian churches—not so much by such unidirectional classics
of Early Christian architecture as Old St. Peter's (fig. 141) or
St. Paul's Outside the Walls (fig. 81) upon which their layout is
based (cf. below, p. 187ff); but rather with the pagan imperial
prototypes of these great palaeochristian transept churches, the
Roman market halls, many of which had apses at each end; and
most of which had attached to one broad side (as in the case of the
Church of the Plan of St. Gall) an open, galleried court through
which the building was entered laterally rather than on axis
(basilica of Trajan, fig. 239; Severan basilica at Lepcis Magna,
fig. 159; basilica of Silchester, fig. 202).
The Church of the Plan of St. Gall is a sophisticated combination
of both concepts. It is directional like the churches of the two
prime apostles, because the transept and presbytery, in the
heaping-up of their spatial masses, make it clear that the architecturally
most prominent part of the church, and its liturgical
focus, is its cruciform eastern end. This effect is emphasized in the
interior, through the raising of the floor level of the Presbytery
over the level of all of the other parts of the church; and on the
exterior, through the attachment to the two transept arms, on
either side of the Presbytery, of two double storied lean-to's, one
containing Sacristy and Vestry (south side) the other Scriptorium
and Library (north side).
Yet this directionalism has no starting point, because the church
has no façade. Instead it faces the outside world with a counter
apse which binds its spatial energies inward, blocking access to the
nave, and channeling visiting laymen in a semicircular movement
around it to aesthetically insignificant secondary entrances in the
aisles (cf. caption to fig. 82).
Double apsed-churches (cf. below, pp. 199ff) were common in the
palaeochristian architecture of North Africa, but rare in the
Italian homeland. Recent studies have shown that they also were
very common in Visigothic Spain (for a brief review see the
article Hispania in Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen
Kunst) which may have played a more important role in transmission
of this motif to the Carolingian world than has hitherto
been admitted or recognized.
112. PLAN OF ST. GALL. CHURCH SEEN FROM THE NORTH LOOKING SOUTH
AUTHORS' INTERPRETATION
This broadside view of the Church displays with great pictorial strength the magnificent grouping of its slender longitudinal masses, intercepted
in the east by a monumental transept.
The Church has no façade, but its entrance side has, instead, a counter apse encircled by a semicircular atrium through which visitors are
channeled sidewards into the aisles of the building (cf. fig. 82). We have reconstructed the transept as being equal in height to the nave of the
Church, although this dimension is not certain. The double-storied lean-to attached to the northern transept arm in the east contains the
Scriptorium (on the ground floor) and the Library (above). The extended lean-to attached to the northern aisle of the Church in its entire
length accommodates the Lodging for the Visiting Monks (next to the transept), the Lodging of the Master of the Outer School (in the middle,
and Lodging of the Porter next to the entrance of the Church).
In the monastery itself this view of the Church could never have been seen in totality because of the adjacent buildings whose ridge reached to
the sill level of the nave windows. They are from left to right: the Abbot's House (co-axial with the transept), the Outer School (next to the
Lodging of its Master) and the House for Distinguished Guests (next to the Lodging of the Porter).
113. PLAN OF ST. GALL. CHURCH SEEN FROM THE WEST LOOKING EAST
AUTHORS' INTERPRETATION [after the model displayed at Aachen in 1965]. ELEVATION TAKEN ON SECTION X-X
This is the only example of a Carolingian church with detached circular towers. The motif is unique and does not appear in later medieval
architecture. Explanatory titles denote that its towers carried at the top of one the altar of Michael, of the other, the altar of Gabriel. There is
no indication of the presence of bells, and, because of the distance from the high altar, their sound in any case could not have been coordinated
with the liturgy. Gabriel and Michael are the celestial guardians representing forces of light against those of darkness and evil. The towers have
no practical function, but symbolically might announce from afar to travellers (and at close range almost threateningly) that they approach a
Fortress of God.
115.X REICHENAU-MITTELZELL
HAITO'S CHURCH OF ST. MARY
(806-816)
This capital from the main
arcades was re-used in a
column ascribed to Witigowo
(985-997). Its floral motifs,
although distantly based on
classical sources, represent in their
simplicity and flatness of relief
an early, rather than a high
Carolingian tradition. One is
reminded of developmental
stages of the Godescale Gospels
or the Genoels-Elderen diptych
(Fig. 190.X).
114. HÖCHST-ON-THE-MAIN. ST. JUSTINIUS, CAPITAL, CA. 834
This superb piece of Carolingian architectural sculpture combines a Greco-Roman acanthus capital with a strigilated Byzantine impost, plus a
refreshing touch of medieval abstraction. It embodies a synthesis of style, the historical ingredients of which are found in similar combinations in
some of the most accomplished illuminations of the period, such as the portrait of St. Luke in the Ada Gospels (fig. 184.A)
115 ST. GALL CAPITAL.
EXCAVATED BELOW THE PAVEMENT OF THE PRESENT CHURCH
CAPITAL FROM GOZBERT'S ABBEY CHURCH (830-837)
[after Sennhauser, "Zu den Ausgrabungen in der Kathedrale, der ehemaligen
Klosterkirche von St. Gallen," Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Architekt
Hans Burkard, Gossau 1965, 109-116.]
More classicizing in the detail of its design than the capital of Höchst,
opposite, this one nevertheless seems to project a touch of weariness with
the classical tradition, clearly lacking stylistic firmness and sophistication
of the Höchst capital.
The capital, presumably from the columnar order of the nave arcades of
Gozbert's church, was re-used in the masonry of the foundations of the
Gothic choir built by abbots Eglolf and Ulrich VIII, between 1439 and
1483 (II, p. 326). It was discovered by R. H. Sennhauser in 1964 when
the south wall of the choir was breached to accommodate a modern
heating duct. For other discoveries made during these operations, see
preliminary report on Sennhauser's findings (II, 358-59).
Figure 115 shown above is reproduced from an original drawing executed in carbon
pencil, size, 8.5 × 10 inches (215 × 25.5cm). The drawing is based on a document
not adequate for direct photographic reproduction but possessing legibility features
of sufficient clarity and definition of form and detail to permit a drawing to be
developed with reasonable fidelity to the original artifact and satisfactory for the
purpose here.
term "abgeschnürte Vierung."[146] It is true that a great
many Carolingian churches had low transepts, but it is
equally true that high transepts with arch-framed crossing
units existed in St.-Denis, as early as 750-755; in Neustadt-on-the-Main,
shortly after 768/69 (fig. 116); in the Abbey
Church of St. Mary's in Reichenau, before 816 (fig. 117).
The low transept may have been more common, but a
square crossing produced by the interpenetration of two
volumes of space of equal height, and framed by arches on
all four sides, was entirely within the realm of possible
solutions open to a Carolingian architect. Advanced and
superior as he was in so many other respects, the designer
of the Church of the Plan of St. Gall may also, in this
instance, have anticipated a development which had as yet
not found a widespread application in Carolingian architecture.
In our reconstruction of the Church of the Plan (figs.
108-112) we have chosen to emphasize this possibility. Had
we had more leisure and space, we would have supplemented
this solution with an alternate drawing that showed the
Church with a low transept. A reconstruction in which the
Church is furnished with a low transept will be found in
Emil Reisser's study of the Abbey of St. Mary's in
Reichenau-Mittelzell.[147]
The tower of St.-Denis is mentioned in the Miracula Sancti Dyonisi,
I, xv; see Mabillon, Acta, III:2, 348; see also Crosby, 1953, 12-18, and
53, fig. 14.
For Neustadt-on-the-Main, see Boeckelmann, 1951, 43-45; and
idem, 1952, 109; idem, 1956, 58-62.
For St. Mary's at Reichenau, see Reisser, 1933, 163ff; and idem,
1935, 210ff; also Boeckelmann, 1952, 108.
This is the procedure chosen in the case of the Dormitory, the
Refectory, the Cellar, the Abbot's House, and the Stable for Horses and
Oxen; see below, figs. 208, 211, 225, 251; and II, fig. 474.
Seesselberg, 1897, 99, fig. 279; Dehio and von Bezold, I, 1901,
161-62 and Plates, I, pl. 42, fig. 2; Effman, 1899, 163, fig. 134, and 1912,
11, fig. 29; Ostendorf, 1922, 43, fig. 53; Hecht, I, 1928, pl. 4; Gall, 1930,
pl. 1; E. Lehman, 1938, 17, note 2.
Beenken, loc. cit., the discussion of the arch-framed crossing, in
Carolingian architecture suffers somewhat from a skeptical over-reaction
to Effmann's self-assurance in proposing a fully developed arch-framed
crossing in his reconstructions of Centula and Corvey. As far as Centula
is concerned, the situation is not very different from St. Gall. Beenken
could not disprove Effmann's assumption of an arch-framed crossing;
he could only point out that the crossing of Centula need not necessarily
have belonged to the fully developed type suggested by Effmann. On the
problem of the "abgeschnürte Vierung," cf. also Boeckelmann, 1954, 10113;
and Grodecki, 1958, 45ff.
Reisser, 1960, 80ff and figs. 326 and 327. Reisser's reconstruction
of the Church of the Plan (which was made before the publication of the
color facsimile of the Plan in 1952 but published posthumously in 1960)
has two anomalies which I fail to understand. Reisser reduces the arcades
of the nave from 9 to 8; and he omits the transverse arm of the crank-shaped
corridor crypt.
| The Plan of St. Gall | |