Tomb Art as Political Representation
Michael Zone Király
Santa Rosa Junior College
mkiraly@santarosa.edu
Southwestern Political Science Association Conference
March, 2008
Las Vegas, Nevada
1
Overview
London’s Westminster Abbey. Vienna’s Kaisergrüft. St. Peter’s Basilica. The pyramids
of both Egypt and Peru. Displays of skulls under busy intersections of Mexico City.
Lenin's refrigerated body at the Kremlin. Cultures remember their fallen heroes in vastly
different ways and -- across time, culture and language -- tombs stand as authentic
symbols of a society captured at a distinct moment, communicating invaluable insight
into its core values, history, cultural themes, self-awareness, political socializations, and
group aspirations.
Often considered macabre reminders of our mortality, tombs stand witness to a culture’s
memory and interpretation of its struggles, reflecting dynamic shifts in ideologies and
governmental systems, the rise of dynasties and empires, the all too human thirst for
power and immortality, the love of wealth conflicting with accepted moral teachings, the
influence of revolutions and reformations, and even contemporary fashions, jokes, and
personal aesthetics. In fact, a viewer could not help but respond subconsciously to the
wealth of symbolism and allegory on many tombs. “In a sense, the very making of a
monument was itself a symbolic act, but beyond that a whole range of symbolic and
allegorical conventions formed part of monumental designs and iconography from the
earliest days.”1
This paper seeks to examine techniques and forms of cultural
representation in select church monuments and tombs at specific points in time to discern
as much as possible about their art, politics and philosophies of the day.
Such monuments often hint at shifts from elitism to egalitarianism, as well as a society’s
respect (or distain) for the arts, humanities, and sciences. One can measure a culture’s
shift in religious feeling, national identification, and worship of state, isolationism and
cross-cultural exchanges through examination of these monuments. “Monuments were
able to present a highly selective if not fictional historical narratives for their viewers…
monuments are a form of representation which can stop history and freeze an image.”2
James Stevens Curl in A Celebration of Death notes that “Death, and the disposal of the
dead, have been aspects of social life that played an important part in the lives of all
peoples who lived under Roman rule or who were under the influence of Rome, and so it
2
has been ever since. The inheritors of Rome, in Europe and the New World, all owe an
immense debt to Roman culture for the great legacy of funerary architecture that has been
handed down.”3 The Etruscan and Roman concept of memorializing in effigy stands as
common legacy to each of the three cultures under examination.4
During cultural revolutions and civil unrest objet d’art often fall prey to destruction or
defacement.
Although image-breaking was associated with the official rejection of
Roman Catholicism, monumental sculptures in churches, however, and especially tombs
and effigies, seem overall to have escaped this ruinous treatment, or at least suffer less
from overly enthusiastic cleansing programs.5
Were it not for the many surviving
medieval tomb effigies, contemporary scholars would be much less aware of costume and
armorial styles of the Middle Ages. Furthermore, “monumental sculpture has one vast
advantage over painting, it is in the round. We can see how our ancestors looked and
how they dressed from behind; how they thought of death and resurrection; how they
fought and how they were armed.”6
In an era of increasing globalization, this examination of the tombs of Elizabeth of
England (1603), Maria Theresa of Austria (1780) and Pope Alexander VII (1667) serves
as a vehicle for very different societies and cultures to understand each other’s art,
history, religious socialization, politics and philosophies.
Elizabeth I of England
General Overview
Elizabeth I of England was born of King Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn,
in September, 1533. Elizabeth reigned over England and Ireland (as well as France, in
name) from November, 1558 until her death in March, 1603. One of the longest reigning
English monarchs and best beloved of her time, Elizabeth remains one of the most
intriguing, fascinating and deeply studied of her line.
She is buried, along with her
Catholic half-sister, Queen Mary I, below the north aisle of the Lady Chapel built by her
grandfather, King Henry VII in 1503, at the east end of the Collegiate Church of St.
Peter, known as Westminster Abbey.
3
When Elizabeth died childless in 1603 she had left her second-cousin, King James VI of
Scotland, heir to her throne as James I of England. Elizabeth's letters to James suggest
she expected him to take the throne even though she had not yet named him successor. In
1596 James made clear his acceptance by strategically naming his first daughter
Elizabeth. James was the son of the Catholic Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots and widowed
queen of France, who’d suffered execution at the order of Elizabeth in 1567. James was
faced with the political reality of having to acknowledge his mother to whom he owed his
lineage and loyalty, as well as acknowledging she to whom he owed his throne yet who
caused his mother’s death. To not build a monument to the beloved Elizabeth makes
little political sense.7 The style of tomb, the placement, and the timing, however, seem to
show less than full ardor for his predecessor.
The Artwork
After extensive and well-documented funerary rites, Elizabeth’s lead coffin was enclosed
in one of elm, covered in red silk velvet, and placed alongside that of her grandfather,
Henry VII (Tudor) and his wife, her grandmother Elizabeth of York, in the crypt below
their ornate tomb centrally located in Henry’s Lady Chapel at the east end of Westminster
Abbey in London.8
At the instigation of the powerful Cecil family, James hired little
known Huguenot (French Calvinist) immigrant Maximilian Colt (1595-1645) to design
and implement Elizabeth’s church monument, while hiring the better known Master
Mason in the Office of the King’s Works, Cornelius Cure, for that of his mother. Colt
used the fame acquired in building Elizabeth’s monument to gain further commissions,
notably that of Sir Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, and the children of James, Sophia and
Mary. Colt was eventually named Master Mason himself.
Since painting the marble
effigies was the most common manner in finishing tombs, John De Critz would be hired
to paint the marble effigy of Elizabeth, covering the flaws in the marble so obvious to us
today. He would also achieve fame as a result of his work on this monument, going on to
paint well-known portraits of James I, Anne of Denmark, and Robert Cecil.9
4
Due to the size of the monument and the close quarters of the north aisle of the Henry VII
chapel, it is very difficult to photograph it as an entire piece. To that end, a complete
description at this juncture would serve our examination well:
“In the north aisle – in middle, of Queen Elizabeth, 1603, and to Queen
Mary I, 1557, elaborate monument of black, white and coloured marbles
consisting of a paneled abse with paneled pedestals, at the angles, in the
center of the east and west sides, and two on the north and south sides,
making three bays; each pedestal supports a black marble column with
moulded base and gilt Corinthian capital supporting a flat canopy of the
east and west bays and an arch over the middle bay. At the east and west
ends of the canopy large enriched panels with inscriptions. Under the
canopy on a moulded grey marble slab resting on four couchant lions is
the white marble effigy of Elizabeth in ruff and stomacher, ermine-lined
robe, rich ear-rings and necklace, head on two cushions, feet on lion,
handle of scepter in right hand, orb in left hand; two achievements and
forty-one shields of arms”10
English monument-making didn’t develop in a vacuum.
When Colt designed the
monument he invoked all his artistic sensibilities as well as the political and philosophic
ideas he’d acquired in northern France which had, consequently, developed in the
European continental context.11
Elizabeth’s monument, grand as it is, is uniquely
restrained in its ornamentation and relies for effect instead on the contrast of white and
black marble with a minimum of gilding and paint. “It is sumptuous without being in the
least vulgar, a danger which (it must be admitted) could so easy entrap the over zealous
decorator of monuments of the period.”12
Monument making suffered a set-back during the intense, image-smashing Protestantism
of Edward VI’s reign (1547-53) when monumental effigies were at times as vulnerable to
damage or destruction as religious images were, and, although such acts ceased under the
Catholic Mary I (1553-58), they threatened to break out again at the accession of
Elizabeth until she decreed against defacing monuments, preventing the ‘extinguishing of
the honorable and good memory of sundry virtuous and noble persons deceased,” and
‘not to nourish any kinde of superstition’.13
So, the effigy of Queen Elizabeth being
installed and yet left unharmed is evidence of religious feeling in England in 1606
balanced against the love her people had for her.
5
Art at this time was finding new footing, being driven in part by the emerging Protestant
Reformation in England, as well as new thoughts and ideas coming about due to the
Columbian Exchange, it was suspicious of anything hinting at the Church of Rome, to
wit, statues of saints, angels, skulls, skeletons, or any overtly iconoclastic imagery. Even
simple crosses were suspect. Elizabeth’s tomb is as much evidence of Reformation
Thought by what it does not contain than for that which it does. Notably missing are any
obviously “popish” decorative features seen on other tombs created prior to, or even
immediately following, Elizabeth’s era. Left are the non-inflammatory heraldic beasts
and shields, along with the inscription to the tomb inhabitant(s).
The inscriptions written in the panels on the canopy are in Latin, and may be translated:
Sacred to memory: Religion to its primitive purity restored, peace settled, money
restored to its just value, domestic rebellion quelled, France relieved when
involved with intestine divisions; the Netherlands supported; the Spanish Armada
vanquished; Ireland almost lost by rebels, eased by routing the Spaniard; the
revenues of both universities much enlarged by a Law of Provisions; and lastly,
all England enriched. Elizabeth, a most prudent governor 45 years, a victorious
and triumphant Queen, most strictly religious, most happy, by a calm and
resigned death at her 70th year left her mortal remains, till by Christ’s Word they
shall rise to immortality, to be deposited in the Church [the Abbey], by her
established and lastly founded. She died the 24th of March, Anno 1602 [this is
Old Style dating, now called 1603], of her reign the 45th year, of her age the 70th.
To the eternal memory of Elizabeth queen of England, France and Ireland,
daughter of King Henry VIII, grand-daughter of King Henry VII, great-granddaughter to King Edward IV. Mother of her country, a nursing-mother to religion
and all liberal sciences, skilled in many languages, adorned with excellent
endowments both of body and mind, and excellent for princely virtues beyond her
sex. James, king of Great Britain, France and Ireland, hath devoutly and justly
erected this monument to her whose virtues and kingdoms he inherits.
There is evidence of significant religious symbolism in canopies erected over tombs, and
that of Elizabeth is no exception. Research into monumental symbolism at the time
shows such canopies over tombs were thought of as representative “gateways” through
which the soul of the deceased would enter into heaven. That of Elizabeth is a grand
affair, reaching almost to the ceiling of the chapel in which it is situated, making
photography nearly impossible. Supported by the tomb are ten marble pillars crowned
6
with beautiful capitals holding aloft a tri-form sheltering edifice reminiscent of Roman
triumphal arches in Rome. A triumphal arch, therefore, placed over Elizabeth’s tomb as
her gateway to heaven clear testament to her being well beloved by her people, and not
abjured as her half-sister, Mary, whose tomb was unmarked until her sister’s placement.
Elizabeth’s tomb is regal in its simplicity and authoritarian in its lack of overt
grandiosity. It is exquisite in its carving and a serves as an understatement underlying
great power. The face of the effigy is thought to have been taken from a death mask, and
clearly shows the visage of a woman used to authority and respect.
idealization or glossing over of her humanity.
Gone is any
One notes the strength of her brow, her
strongly curved nose, and her aged aspect. The effigy has Elizabeth dressed in kingly
attire – robe lined with ermine, jewelry, stomacher, etc., and shows the Elizabeth holding
the symbols of her throne, a scepter referencing her claim to France by being topped with
a Fleur de Lis, and an orb surmounted by a cross.
Dynastic politics of 1600’s England are clear in the tomb of Elizabeth I. One needs look
no further than its setting in relation to other monuments and within the abbey itself. The
philosophies of the Reformation evinced a denial that the form or placement of a tomb in
relation to saints’ tombs or an altar had any religious significance. To that point, in
Queen Mary’s original crypt her coffin had been piled upon with broken and desecrated
altar slabs which had to be removed to allow Elizabeth’s coffin to be placed within. In
Protestant countries, therefore, funerary architecture and placement of tombs became a
purely social consideration.
This is to the point, since Elizabeth is in the crypt of her childless sister, Mary Tudor,
daughter of Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII, as well as with four children are also
memorialized in the alcove. The moving epitaph, “Partners both in Throne and grave,
here rest we two sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, in the hope of one resurrection,” aside, one
might argue the placement of two childless women in one crypt, surrounded by children,
is a political and social statement that these are family lines which end abruptly and
permanently.
7
Should one argue this impression, one can see a contrasting view in the south aisle
(known as the Beaufort Chapel) where one finds the memorial to James’ mother, Mary
Stuart. In a clear denial of her having been executed, she is crowded in by members of
her fecund family, both ancestors and progeny, crowned, noble and certainly fertile.
Originally buried in Peterborough Cathedral, Mary Stuart’s remains were moved to
Westminster Abbey where her memorial is flanked by Margaret Douglass, Countess of
Lennox, her mother in law, as well as by her great grandmother Margaret Beaufort,
Countess of Richmond, the mother of Henry VII.
Her tomb is twice as large, and cost
almost twice as much to build, as Elizabeth’s.14 Although her son James is buried with
Henry VII (claiming legitimacy through proximity) many of her line find rest in the
Stuart crypt below her memorial in the Beaufort Chapel. The placement of the tomb,
then, is evidence of the ongoing political needs of the royal house to re-state not only its
lineage, but it’s future viability as well.
Contemporary commentators, furthermore,
clearly saw how important to James I the possession and control of his successor’s body
was to his dynastic ambitions.15
One might take away from viewing the tomb of Elizabeth a sure feeling of being in the
presence of regality and of great power, yet one also feels a sense of aloneness and of
sterility, one might say even coldness. The sheer size of the slab, the effigy and the
canopy, replete with heraldic devices are meant to impress upon the viewer the
importance of the tomb’s inhabitant, and impress they do. Queen Elizabeth’s tomb is the
highest ranking individual site visited within Westminster Abbey, which receives
upwards of half-million visitors per year. Pointedly, in 1606 burial in the abbey was
restricted to monarchs, or at the monarch’s discretion. It wasn’t until the Victorian Age
that burial in the Abbey was awarded to the highest bidder.
Secular iconographic are in place, such as unicorns, representative of England but also of
Virginity (The Virgin Queen) and the dragon refers to St. George, patron saint of
England. The four lions the effigy rests on represent ichnographically courage and
strength. The red and white roses, apart from being Tudor heraldry, also represent sinless
8
innocence and virginity. However, there is little feeling of connection with the dynasty,
past or future, or of contributing to the further security of the realm. In life as in death,
Elizabeth appears alone and solemn in her regality, buried with a sister who she couldn’t
have been more unlike, in a side chapel built by her grandfather.
The reader might ask for what viewer the tomb was built to be seen. Visitors to the
Abbey in 1606 were much as they are today, where the tombs of the kings drew great
curiosity from high and low born alike. This tomb, then, was a story being told to the
visitors of dynasty, power, regality, and fecundity. Further discussion of the cultural
representation evidenced in Elizabeth’s monument is found the fact that drawings of it
were printed and distributed very widely throughout the kingdom.
Contemporary
accounts note that it was a rare church that didn’t have an engraved print of this tomb
monument framed and proudly exhibited well into the contemporary times.
Apart from the effigy, so popular in the time, the absence of the ‘personal’ in Elizabeth’s
tomb reflects the honor of the state above the honor of the individual. It was for the state
the tomb was built, and for the state’s honor to be told. There is really little “Elizabeth”
in the monument. Clearly, to the viewer of 1606 as well as of 2007, it’s meant to
establish the legitimacy and stability of the throne, and thus of the state. Honoring
Elizabeth seems to be almost an afterthought, a perfect balance to James’ quandary.
Maria Theresa of Austria
General Overview
Empress Maria Theresa of Austria (1717-1780), was the eldest daughter of Emperor Karl
(Charles) VI and Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel. She was Archduchess
of Austria, King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, and Empress Consort and then Dowager
Empress of the Holy Roman Emperor, Francis I Stephan (Duke of) Lorraine (1708-1765),
and co-regent Imperator with her son from 1765 to 1780. It was for her sake the
Pragmatic Solution was formed and for whom, subsequently, the War of Austrian
Succession was fought. This war continued with the Seven Years’ War, and the War of
the Bavarian Succession.
9
Maria Theresa eventually assumed a position analogous to her father’s as principle ruler
of the Habsburg dynastic lands.16 “To appease (the Hungarians) Maria Theresa became
an archduke, at least in nomenclature, and this crossing of gendered titles also allowed
her to become a king. It was as king that she received the Hungarian crown on 25 June
1741” in Bratislava. She was also crowned King of Bohemia at St. Vitus’ cathedral in
Prague, where she (once again) participated in the ceremony as a male and assumed
sovereign authority by receiving the crown of St. Wenceslas.17
However, unlike her father, she could not be crowned Holy Roman Emperor, a title by
definition and precedence, masculine. The title of Holy Roman Emperor carried with it
an important role as protector of the Catholic Church and emperors were ordained as subdeacons in order to be considered fit to rule. Since sub-deacons are, to this day, men by
law and custom, women were thus ineligible to be given the office. She was able to have
her husband assume power as Emperor Franz I Stephen in 1745, which created her
Empress Consort and founding the Habsburg-Lorraine line. She also allowed him to be
crowned co-regent (i.e., not consort) to her inheritances of Hungary and Bohemia, and as
Archduke of Austria.
Maria Theresa refused a coronation as Holy Roman Empress-Consort because, as her
contemporary critics believed, she felt accepting this title would constitute a “step down.”
Her inability to occupy this most important of her father’s titles remained an issue
throughout her reign.”18
This problem was in title only, as her husband Francis
apparently left the bulk of governance to his able and controlling wife, opting instead to
support her through application of his business acumen and common sense, spending the
bulk of his short reign indulging his great interest in the natural sciences.
Maria Theresa’s reign is likened to that of Queen Victoria in England in its length,
stability and fecundity. She had sixteen children, and was well loved in her empire,
although by the end of her reign it can be said her subjects were ‘ready for a change’.
Although unsympathetic to the philosophies of the Enlightenment, Maria Theresa
10
nonetheless achieved great social, religious and legal reforms in her lands.
She is
remembered as a beautiful queen leading Austria through its darkest hours, as a loving
wife and mother who, because of the grace of God and the obligations of her dynasty,
took up the burdens of state.19 After Maria Theresa’s death, Pope Pius VI would not
allow her to be buried by his Cardinal Legate in Vienna, with what would be the usual
pomp shown a deceased Catholic monarch. Pius declared that such honors could not be
given “a woman, even though she had been the ruler of a great Catholic country.” 20
The Artwork
This work of art, by definition, is neither tomb nor church monument. Maria Theresa and
her husband are memorialized by their sarcophagus as it was completed by Triolian
sculptor Bathlazar Ferdinand Moll (1717-1785) in 1772, seven years after Francis’s
death. Moll spent twenty one years working on this magnificent structure, often being
watched and encouraged by Maria Theresa. Maria Theresa’s participation in the creation
of the sarcophagus can not be underplayed.
Moll’s other works include twenty
sarcophagi in the Kaisergrüft, as the Habsburg crypt below the Capuchin Church in
Vienna is known.
Most notable among these is the famous sarcophagus of Maria
Theresa’s father, Karl VI, which has four memento mori (meant to remind the view of
their mortality) evidenced in death’s heads wearing Karl’s crowns.
Placing the sarcophagus in context, the Kaisergrüft (or Kapuzinergruft) holds the remains
of most of the senior branch of the Habsburg dynasty, including 12 emperors and 18
empresses. Only one non-Habsburg by either blood or marriage is buried there. It was
founded in 1622 by Empress Anna and the crypt holds the bodies of 142 persons. It has
been extended and expanded several times, with the most recent expansion /
reorganization, an effort at organization and preservation, taking place in 1960 with
access for the disabled added in 2003. Empress Maria Theresa’s sarcophagus rests in the
crypt area that was expanded at her command in 1753 by Alsace-born architect Jean
Jadot de Ville-Issey.21 The ‘Maria Theresa Crypt’ has natural light coming in through a
domed window in the ceiling looking into the court yard of the church above.
11
Maria Theresa and Francis’ sarcophagus is the most ornate in the Kaisergrüft, completed
in quintessentially baroque rococo style. The simplicity in structure and materials reintroduced by her son, reforming Emperor Joseph II, is quite obvious when one sees his
plain sarcophagus resting at the feet of his parent’s, with only a simple Apostles’ Cross
emblazoned on the lid.
According to the official Kaisergrüft website, in order to guarantee the stability of the
enormous display tombs, they have iron bracings and wood lining inside. This avoids
both cave-ins and a buckling of the side walls from the weight of the cover. The cover
alone of the double sarcophagus of Maria Theresa and Francis weighs 3,800 pounds. The
sarcophagus is made of true bronze, a noble and vastly more expensive material than the
tin used theretofore. Within the outer case lay two wooden coffins that are wrapped in
silk (black with gold trim for rulers, red with silver trim for others). The coffins have two
locks, the key to one is kept by the Capuchin Guardian of the crypt, and the other is kept
in the Hofburg palace in Vienna.
Moll’s cast bronze work is amazing in its life-likeness. The imperial pair lay on a largerthan-life bed, surrounded by fringed draperies and pillows presenting amazing texture
and flow. The aspect is of the couple having just been awakened from death’s sleep by
the Magnificent Trumpet (or Trumpet of Doom) which is held in the left hand of a putto,
(an un-winged figure of a child), who stands behind their heads, and who in his upraised
right hand holds a garland of several five-pointed stars above their heads. The figures are
sitting up in bed, looking into each other’s eyes, and have the feeling of movement.
Francis’ effigy seems overtly masculine, albeit periwigged in the style of the day; he
wears a Roman general’s attire with armorial leggings, complete with ribbons of
conquest, tasseled sandals and mythical animals emerging from his tunic. The likeness
seems true to life through the fullness of face, and does not appear to be overly stylized.
He holds in his right hand, jointly with his wife in her right hand, the bottom of an orbed
scepter. Maria Theresa’s effigy is made to appear quite feminine and lovely, with
12
flowing draping costume and a bejeweled stomacher. She has a small diadem in her hair
which, when one looks at the monument, gives the sense that both effigies have equal
height although, if one corrects for the diadem, Francis is just a touch taller than Maria
Theresa. The effigy of Maria Theresa is certainly an idealized representation of her in
her younger years, and probably was so idealistic even when first created by at her
direction, representing a quiet vanity lurking in Maria Theresa’s persona.
Most
importantly to our examination, however, is that the right hand of Maria Theresa’s effigy
is the upper-part of the orb shared with her husband, but with her left hand is
independently clasping the hilt of a sheathed sword.
The raised engravings on the two elongated sides of the sarcophagus depict four
important events in their lives that joined them in sovereignty, including the ceremonial
entrance to Florence as archduke and archduchess of Tuscany, Francis’ coronation as
Holy Roman Emperor in an elaborate ceremony at Frankfurt, his coronation at St. Vitus’
Cathedral in Prague as co-regent King of Bohemia, and the coronation ceremony at St.
Martin’s Cathedral in Bratislava as Maria II Theresa, King of Hungary.
At the four corners of the sarcophagus, grieving statues serving as aspects of Germany,
Hungary, Bohemia and Jerusalem hold the identifiable crowns, heraldic devices on
shields, and national flags, of their sovereignty. On the two sides are tributes to fallen
warriors, to wit, battle flags, a helmet resting atop a vertical mace, an empty suit of armor
draped with garlands of victory, numerous guns and cannonballs, battle drums, and
tipped battle flags. On the front and back of the sarcophagus one notes memento mori in
the guise of skulls wearing the crowns of the Holy Roman Empire and Archduchy of
Austria, with crossed sword and scepter. The entire sarcophagus is on four feet, deftly
hidden in the dresses of the grieving aspects of nations, the presence of which are
necessary for this to be considered sarcophagus instead of a tomb. The entire mass rests
on a base of rose colored marble.
The placement of the sarcophagus is a masterful stroke at propaganda.
Through
placement in brilliant daylight light, giving it a central location and creating great height
13
makes the sarcophagus of Maria Theresa and Francis a focal point for visitors coming
into the Kaisergrüft.
It rests at the west end of a long, dark aisle flanked on either side with no less than 43
predecessors, 15 of whom are vested with imperial title. The visitor’s first impression is
of an unimpeded view down a very long aisle originating at the dark end of the Founders’
Crypt, through the Leopold and the Karl Crypts, respectively, and into the natural light
blazing through the dome over Maria Theresa’s sarcophagus.
The visitor, then, might
assume the ornate sarcophagus bathed in light holds the remains of the final fruit of the
noble lineage laid at length before it. It isn’t until one reaches the Maria Theresa vault
that one might look to the north to continues on to the Franz Crypt, etc., but this is not in
view at the entrance.
Conclude Maria Theresa
In the effigy, Maria Theresa is shown as feminine and motherly and yet holds power
equal to, or greater than, her husband. By holding the top part of the scepter and
independently holding the hilt of the sword, the effigy signifies joint sovereignty, but
individual military power and, in iconography of the mid-1700s, it also represents justice,
constancy and fortitude. The rococo edging of the sarcophagus is made of entwining oak
leaves, representative of strength and honor. Further trees are seen in the relief, symbolic
of regeneration and immortality. She is shown as co-equal to her tomb-mate by her
effigy being made same height as his, and looking frankly and directly into his eyes. The
putto, in classical iconography, is evidence of the strength and peace of a woman’s reign,
and the putto holds the garland of stars, representing the blessings of Heaven, over their
heads collectively. According to this iconography, then, she is responsible for Heaven’s
approval of their reign. She has a military tribute on her side as well as he on his, despite
the two major defeats against Prussia (1740-1742 and 1743-1745), as well as the Seven
Years’ War, all of which led to the loss of territory in the Treaty of Dresden, as well as
her having lost the Northern Italian duchies of Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, which
went to the Spanish Bourbons. Perhaps it’s tribute for the addition of Galicia, the
Bukovina, and the Innviertel to the Habsburg possessions.
14
The grieving aspects at the four corners supporting the sarcophagus are of her inheritance
that she shared with him, whereas his inheritance, the Archduchy of Lorraine and of
Tuscany, are only represented in the Archducal crown of Lorraine resting behind Maria
Theresa’s effigy and the crown of Tuscany behind his effigy. Their triumphant entry to
Florence is seen on the relief. There neither is no evidence of their 16 children is shown
in this monument, nor is Joseph II or Leopold II alluded to, although there are several of
their offspring’s sarcophagus surrounding this one. Rather, Joseph II is evidenced in a
simple box at the feet of his parents’ grand sarcophagus, and his brother, Leopold II is on
far away in the Tuscany crypt. Is this evidence of the well-documented friction between
mother and son caused by her unwillingness to relinquish control of the Empire to him
upon his father’s death, or of the internal reforms they mostly disagreed on?
Although Maria Theresa was a devout Roman Catholic, she did not let her piety stand in
her way of reforms designed to strengthen state power and authority at the cost to the
Church. Is this why there are no obvious religious symbols on her sarcophagus, even
though Moll had included such iconography on the sarcophagus of her ancestors and
successors?
Unlike that of Elizabeth, Maria Theresa’s sarcophagus tends to depict the honor of the
person and is a strike at immortality through iconography, rather than calling forth the
honor of the state.
Pope Alexander VII
General Overview
Pope Alexander VII was born Fabio Chigi at Sienna in February, 1599, the son of Flavius
Chigi (and nephew of Pope Paul V) and of Laura Marsigli. The Chigi family was very
powerful and well connected, and for five centuries had been counts of Ardengesca.
Sickly as a child, Fabio was tutored at home. After obtaining his doctorates, he set out to
seek his fortune in Rome. After seven months' prelacy, he held the office of vice-legate
at Florence for five years. As nuncio at Cologne and nuncio extraordinary at Münster, in
15
1648, Fabio Chigi took part in negotiating the Peace of Westphalia, which encorporate
the treaties ending the Thirty Year’s War, which was to affect his world view for the rest
of his life. On the 9th of February, 1652, he was named cardinal in reward for his
services to the papal throne.
After the funeral of his predecessor, Innocent X, sixty-two electors went into a conclave
that would last eighty days, ending on April, 7th 1655 when Cardinal Fabio Chigi, at the
age of fifty-six, was elected pope and crowned on April 18th. He took the name of
Alexander, tradition holds, to honor of his fellow-Sienese, the third pope of that name
There were several political considerations of Alexander’s pontificate which bear
mentioning. Princess Christina Alexandra, the abdicated Queen of Sweden, daughter of
Catholicism's great enemy Gustavus Adolphus, chose the Holy City for her residence
after she’d converted to Catholicism and found a loyal and very charitable supporter in
the Pope, who confirmed her and helped fund her exile. Important, too, was the question
of nepotism in papal appointments.
It was hoped that Alexander would slow the ill-
perceived tradition of papal appointments to office of family members and, for a year or
so, was successful. Eventually, though, prudence dictated the need to have close family
members about to help manage the day to day running of his government, and so
patronage and nepotism found its way into his papacy to levels eventually equal to, or
greater than, his predecessors - this to the great disappointment of those interested in
reforming the papacy’s temporal dealings.
Jansenism, a philosophy put forth by Cornelius Jansen, Bishop of Ypres, and vetted
mostly after his death in his work Augustinus, proved a great source of irritation to
Alexander’s reign vis-a-vis his unwavering support of the philosophically opposed
Jesuits. In 1656 Alexander declared in a papal bull the truth - that five propositions of
Jansen, mostly concerning grace and the fallen nature of man, were heretical. The
conversation resulted in his sending to France his famous formulary to be signed in
agreement by the French clergy as a means of detecting and extirpating Jansenism and
which inflamed public opinion.
16
Finally, the pontificate of Alexander VII was shadowed by continual difficulties with the
young Louis XIV of France, whose alliances with Protestant governments in order to
achieve French ascendancy in Europe, as well as whose surly and disrespectful
ambassadorial representatives, were a constant source of annoyance and perceived
injustice to the Pope.
What Alexander is most remembered for, however, is his internal government of Rome in
light of his urban planning and renewal programs, coupled with his artistic tastes in
architecture and sculpture, and his patronage of great art. One notes it was the vast
erudition Alexander had achieved in his youth which had procured him the favor of
Urban VIII, who was a great lover of letters and a patron of those who cultivated them.
Likewise, Alexander constantly patronized and promoted the sciences, especially art and
architecture.
When Alexander was elected pope the map of Rome in its essential outline had little
changed over the preceding fifty years. The importance of his projects was to give a new
image to Rome: a great city both ancient and modern, a focus to attract the educated of all
nations and of all faiths. This involved improving existing street system, minor links
opened up and streets straightened. To translate this vision into a reality Pope Alexander
had the architects at hand: Bernini and Pietro da Cortona. They were the chief architects
responsible for the grand projects executed during Alexander VII's pontificate period,
who created large spaces to envelope the architecture within a setting, in which spectators
experience in a specific way deliberately designed by them
He was his own best promoter, too, building into dozens of facades, fountains and plazas
the six mountains, oak tree, and star motif of his family crest.
Before examining
Alexander’s monument in detail, some attention to the sumptuous buildings of every kind
which Rome owes to Alexander VII is warranted. Although he only ruled twelve years,
between 1655 and 1667, in that time he changed the face of Rome more profoundly than
any of his immediate predecessors. Advised chiefly by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and Pietro
da Cortona, who were in a class by themselves in Alexander's esteem, together they
17
realized Alexander's vision, to wit, a multiple stage set that could transform spaces and
monuments into theatres, or teatro, of stylized action.22
Bernini, the architect of Alexander’s monument which finds itself under consideration in
this paper, became the chief architect of nearly all major building tasks during
Alexander's pontificate. Alexander saw him almost daily to chat, to be entertained and to
be advised on whatever came along regarding questions in art. For Alexander VII, public
squares were an ornament to the city, apart from filling a public need in the traffic system
of the mid-17th century cityscape, like the long streets, the squares were intended both to
fill urgent practical needs as well as to present a grand show to the visitor. The plaza
facing St. Peter’s was one such example, it was the most ambitious and to Alexander the
most important of his teatri.
A large-scale building program would stimulate
employment in the construction - diggers, quarries, carters, bricklayers and stonemasons
– and was an act of almsgiving in disguise. Alexander was known for spending in great
deficit, taxing his citizens heavily to the point of diminishing returns. However, the
building was meant to also attract tourists and bring employment to domestics and funds
to innkeepers and noble families wiling to let their palaces.
Bernini and Alexander had a long standing relationship around art and architecture,
specifically in Bernini’s refusal to participate in the proposed redesign of the Pantheon
and the influence on the architect of the Trevi Fountain.23 “For Alexander, antiquity was
both a source of scholarly delight and a vehicle to advance the notion of a Christian
capital founded on and surpassing the glories of the ancient city.” Alexander will be seen
to trust Bernini with his memorial, stating “the sculptor would have excelled at any
profession to which he might have devoted himself.”24
In 1667, it is documented that Alexander seriously began to think of his own death. He’d
summoned the cardinals, and showed them a cypress coffin prepared for him when he
became pontiff, and addressed them in a Latin discourse explanatory of his whole
pontifical conduct. Weakened by persistent fever, he had the confession of faith read
according to custom, gave his papal benediction to the cardinals who were present, and
18
died on the 22nd of May, 1667, at the age of sixty-eight years, having governed the
Church twelve years, one month, and fifteen days.
He was buried at the Vatican, memorialized by this monument which was the highly
esteemed work of Bernini, towards the close of his career. In private life Alexander was
known to be cheerful and as full of anecdote as Pius VII. He liked his company to be
lively in reason, and to seem to enjoy erudite conversation. His company habitually
consisted of Allacci, Herbstenius, the Jesuit Pallavicini, Bosca and Roncati of the
Cistercian order, Rondinini, secretary of the briefs to princes, and Nerli, Archbishop of
Florence. When the conversation ceased to be familiar to him, he would quietly speak
upon literature, ecclesiastical history, and upon the sacred sciences. 25 We will find these
personal and political aspects of Alexander VII Chigi reflected in his tomb monument.
The Artwork
Bernini’s monument to Alexander VII is found in St. Peter’s Chapel of the Sacrament, in
St. Peter’s Basilica, Rome. His monument features the praying pope by Michele Maglia
surrounded by Charity (referring to Queen Christina) with young child by sculptor
Giuseppe Mazzuoli, Truth (referring to the papal bull describing Jansenism heretical) by
Lazzaro Morelli and Giulio Catani, Prudence (representing family members serving the
papacy despite distaste of nepotism) by Giuseppe Baratta and Giulio Cartari and Justice
(in light of Louis XIV) by Giulio Catani. Begun after the pope’s death in it was
completed in 1678, the same year that Pope Innocent XI ordered Charity’s breasts be
covered in a metal vest because they were too indecent for the counter-reformation age, a
fair slap at classic tastes and sentiment. “A winged skeleton appears to be emerging from
the door below, as if rising from the papal tomb to grasp the pope and deliver him to life
everlasting.”26
The tombs of the previous recent popes, even of Urban VIII, seem almost conventional as
compared to the groundbreaking effect of Alexander VII’s which may be called Bernini’s
last great work (executed between 1671 and 1678). Commissioned of Bernini by
Alexander itself, it seems to be composed as a pyramid, but the effect is sensationally
19
theatrical and full of movement. This pyramidal shape echoes that of the coat of arms
strewn liberally about the city, as noted above. The monument seems to use different
types of marble to “paint” the monument, filling in the well-lit space with texture and
color. The pope is shown praying above his own tomb-chamber, with the triple tiara at
his side, and four free-standing statues of Virtues placed below.27 Panofsky tells us “The
borderline between aesthetic and natural space seems to have been further morphed by
the omission of a coffin or sarcophagus, and the introduction of a door which – half
concealed by a curtain of jasper pulled up by Death himself directly connects, or seems to
connect, the space in which we find ourselves with the vault that shelters the remains of
the pontiff; and, moreover, by the fact that the two personifications in front so vigorously
overlap the lateral boundaries of the niche that they seem to belong, quite literally, to two
worlds.”28 One notes Bernini departed from previous iconography in that the effigy
statue of the pope is no longer crowned and enthroned, giving apostolic blessing, as with
many of his predecessors’ tombs, but rather kneeling in an aspect of prayer.
The composition is similar to that of the other (Urban VIII) tomb, however, there some
differences. In contrast with the dominant figure of the Pope on the Urban tomb, the Pope
here is a simple kneeling figure without any sign of his office. Instead of two there are
four allegoric figures, Charity, Prudence, Justice and Truth. Below, there is a (real) door
symbolizing the Gate of Death, from which a sand-glass holding skeleton (the Death)
raises the heavy drapery.
Conclude Alexander VII
Papal tombs had evolved from the simple niches of the catacombs to lavish tombs such as
this, and have since returned to the simple sarcophagus of John Paul II, and reflect the
papal institution’s coming full circle as well. Alexander VII’s monument, however,
represents the apogee of papal tomb building, reflecting the temporal powers gathered in
the medieval and Renaissance papacy at full throttle.29
20
The statue of Pope Alexander kneeling as opposed to being enthroned speaks to his
humility. The iconographic triregnum, or triple tiara, resting at the pope’s knees instead
of being worn represents the pope’s having laid down his earthly power and being ready
for transcendence.
This reflects the folklore of Alexander being ready to die, and
welcoming death, to the point of having kept his coffin in his apartments and inviting his
cardinals in to view it. The aspect of the pope’s face in the statue seems tired, but
hopeful and his eyes lift up to view the future, rather than being cast down as one would
expect in prayer.
The statues of the Virtues which accompany the statue of the Pope Alexander invoke a
strongly standardized iconography which makes the viewers’ understanding of “who’s
who” easier. In fact, in 1603 a book by Cesare Ripa, a librarian employed by a Cardinal
Salviati, set clear rules for the portrayal of Virtues and a host of other personifications.
Charity, for example, is always portrayed in the act of offering her breast to a child,
usually with another child waiting at her foot although Alexander’s Charity has only the
one. Truth is holding a sun to her breast, representative of the light of truth and holding it
close. Prudence holds a remora (suckerfish) that, when attaches to a host fish, slows its
movement, just as thought and prudent deliberation should be slowed. She also holds a
mirror, an allusion to the maxim Nosce te ipsum (know yourself) derived from an
inscription in the main temple of Delphi. The knowledge of personal strengths and
weaknesses is a requisite of a prudent action
Traditionally Justice was represented
holding a scale, but Bernini who designed the monument but entrusted his associates with
its execution, preferred to identify Justice through other attributes: the fact of being
blindfolded (because Justice must not be influenced by the senses, but only rely on
reason) and the fasces, the bundle of rods with projecting axe-blade, which in ancient
Rome were carried before the magistrates.
Justice, rather than being blindfolded, just
covers her eyes and we are left with an image of Justice, which appears to represent the
very human portrait of a young widow and of her inconsolable grief.30
Truth standing naked and apart from the monument is a very overt statement, and one
might conjecture it’s a personal reference to the later years of Alexander VII, a man
frustrated to the point of unparalleled humiliations against the French, in his heroic
21
attempts to assert the power of the Holy See, the Truth, against that of Louis XIV, the
Janesens, as well as his unsuccessful in his efforts to unite all Christian nations against
the Turks.”31 One notes Truth’s left foot stands on England, with her toe pointing to
France and is most surely not accidental.
In the iconography of the virtues in the monument of Alexander VII, we find the
emphasis has been switched, from the saving power of virtues external to the deceased,
such as those of patron saints, to the moral worth of the deceased’s own virtuous life, for,
as well as personifying virtues in the abstract, allegorical figures were used to portray in
particular the virtues aspired to or possessed by the deceased.32
The representation of the skeleton (death) is in the act of showing the pope a clepsydra to
tell him his life is over. He hides his face in the folds of the jasper cloth portraying that
even death is ashamed of having deprived the world of such an esteemed pope. Note that
this representation of death is winged, or is flying, and is representative of the motto
Volat irreparabile tempus (Time irreparably flies), more so when coupled with the
iconography of the hourglass. To the viewer in 1678, the skeleton represents a memento
mori, a popular tomb icon that stands reminder of one’s mortality, an echo of that style
reflected more systematically as the Transi tradition very strong in England and France.
“Memento mori objects combined images of death with moralistic advice, and were
intended to inspire humility and virtuous action in the living.” This invokes Panofsky's
history of the representation of death, the phenomenon of the transi contained images of
the dead, usually naked and partially decomposed, picturing the "collective relevance" of
life on earth, rather than individual achievements and status. They were common in
northern Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
Unlike that of Elizabeth, whose tomb honors the state or Maria Theresa whose tomb
honors the person, Alexander’s tomb seems to honor the abstract ideas of the fleetingness
of life and time, and the importance of four of the seven cardinal virtues, namely
prudence, charity, justice and truth.
22
Conclusion
As detailed at the start of this examination, tombs are often considered macabre
reminders of our mortality and stand witness to a culture’s memory.
We’ve seen
interpretation of its struggles between dynasties, religions and empires, such as those
between the power of France and the Holy See, between Prussia and Austria. We’ve
reflected dynamic shifts in ideologies in Alexander’s tomb and governmental systems in
Elizabeth’s. We’ve seen the rise of dynasties and empires along the path in Kaisergrüft
toward Maria Theresa’s sarcophagus as well as the all too human thirst for power and
immortality evidenced thereon. We see the love of wealth conflicting with accepted
moral teachings in the overly plain and austere tomb of Elizabeth I, and the influence of
revolutions and reformations in Alexander. We’ve even seen contemporary fashions,
especially in Elizabeth and Maria Theresa, humor in James’ epitaph for Elizabeth and
Mary, and personal aesthetics evidenced through Alexander’s commission of his
monument with Bernini. In fact, a viewer could not help but respond subconsciously to
the wealth of symbolism and allegory on these tombs.
We’ve seen “the importance of the interwoven roles that commemoration, remembrance
and memorials played in both the public consciousness and the creative production” of
societies.
33
We’ve measured three culture’s shift in religious feeling (from Mary to
Elizabeth, from Maria Theresa to Joseph II, and from Urban VIII to Alexander VII), in
views of national identification, and worship of state, isolationism and cross-cultural
exchanges through examination of these monuments. Thus is the church monument of
Elizabeth I of England, the sarcophagus of Maria Theresa of Austria and the tomb of
Pope Alexander VII cultural representations of art, religion, politics, fashion and
philosophy.
23
1 English Church Monuments, Kemp, Brian B.T. Batsford, Ltd., London, 1980, 13
2 Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England Llewllyn, Cambridge University Press, 2000, 40
3 A Celebration of Death, Curl, James Stevens, Scribner’s, New York, 1980, 36
4 Tomb Sculpture: Four Lectures its Changing Aspects fm Ancient Egypt to Bernini, Panofsky, E., Harry N. Abrams, Inc., NY, 29
5 Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England, Llewllyn, Nigel, Cambridge Univ Press, 2000, 259
6 English Church Monuments 1510-1840, Esdaile, K., Malvern Wells, Worcestershire, Batsford, 1946, 55
7 Maximilian Colt: Master Sculptor to King James I, White, Adam, in Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, XXVII (1) 1998
8 Dean Stanley - James was buried alongside his forefather Henry VII in a statement of continuity of the Tudor line legitimately flowing into that of the Stuarts. The
final resting place of Elizabeth was confirmed by opening the crypt below the monument in 1868. See The Royal Tombs of Great Britain: An Illustrated History,
Aidan Dodson, Duckworth Publishing, 2004, 98.
9 Funeral Monuments in Post-reformation England, Llewellyn, Nigel Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, 139
10 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments: England. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in London, Vol I: Westminster Abbey, His Majesty’s
Stationery Office, London, 1924
11 English Church Monuments, 11
12 English Church Monuments, 73
13 Death in the Middle Ages, Library of Medieval Civilization. Boase, T.S.R., McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1972
14 “Reading the tombs of Elizabeth I,” Walker, Julia M., English Literary Renaissance, Autumn 1996, 510.
15 Funeral monuments in post-Reformation England, 313
16 after the Havichsberch Castle on the right bank of the River Aare, south west of Brugg in the canton of Aargau (Switzerland).
17 Widowhood and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe. Levy, Allison, ed., Ashgate Publishing., Hampshire, England, 2003, 118
18 Widowhood and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe, 111
19 Maria Theresa, William J. McGill, Jr. Twayne Publishers, NY 1972, 146
20 “Maria Theresia of Austria” Goldsmith, eLibrary Austra, der freien Wissensdatenbank, originally published 1936, Great Britain.
21 The Family-crypt of the Habsburgs in Vienna, Kusin, P. Eberhard, Buch U. Kunstruckverlag Othomar Kloiber Vienna, 1949
22 See The Rome of Alexander VII 1655-1667, Krautheimer, Richard, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1985.
23 “Bernini and Alexander VII: Criticism and Praise of the Pantheon in the Seventeenth Century. Tod A. Marder, The Art Bulletin, December 1989, Volume LXXI,
Number 4
24 D. Bernini, Vita, p. 97 “Se si fosse il Bernino in qualunque scienza o professione raffinato collo studio, e coll’esercizio, haverebbe in tute avantaggio ogni altro di
questo Secolo per illustre, che fosse.” in “The Pope, the Bust, the Sculptor, and the Fly” Bulletin de L’Institut historique belge de Rome, Delbeke, Maarten.
25 This general biographical data is liberally from "The Lives and Times of the Popes" by The Chevalier Artaud De Montor. Published by The Catholic Publication
Society of New York in ten volumes in 1911.
26 The Deaths of the Popes: Comprehensive Accounts Reardon, Wendy J., McFarland and Co., 2004, 46
27 A Celebration of Death, 123
28 Tomb Sculpture, 94
29 The Deaths of the Popes, 47
30 Roberto Piperno, Abridged History of Rome
31 Tomb Sculpture, Panofsky, 95
32 English Church Monuments, 187
24
33Tombs
and
Memory
in
Speculum,
the
Journal
of
2003
25
Medieval
Studies,
Vol.
78,
no.
2,
p.
450,
April
Bibliography
Monographs
Death and Architecture, James Stevens Curl
English church monuments 1510 – 1840, Esdaile, Katharine, London and Malvern Wells,
Worchestire, 1946
The Family Crypt of the Habsburgs in Vienna, Kusin, P. Eberhard, Buch U.
Kunstdruckverlag Othmar Kloiber, Vienna, 1949
The monumental effigies of Great Britain, Stothard, Charles Alfred, London, Chatto and
Windus, 1876
Tomb Sculpture: Its changing aspects from Ancient Egypt to Bernini, Erwin Panofsky
Church monuments in romantic England Penny
Death and Burial in the Roman World, Toynbee, J.M.C., The Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, MD, 1971
Death in the Middle Ages, Library of Medieval Civilization. Boase, T.S.R., McGraw Hill
Book Company, New York, 1972
Metamorphosis of a Death Symbol, Cohen, Kathleen, University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1973
Manual for the study of Sepulchral slabs and crosses of the Middle Ages Rev. Edward L.
Cutts, London, John Henry Parker Publishers, mdcccxlix
Saving Graces David Robinson
26