Bernward and Eve at Hildesheim
Author(s): Adam S. Cohen and Anne Derbes
Source: Gesta, Vol. 40, No. 1 (2001), pp. 19-38
Published by: International Center of Medieval Art
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/767193 .
Accessed: 01/09/2011 15:50
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
Bernward and Eve at Hildesheim*
ADAM S. COHEN
The College of William & Mary
ANNE DERBES
Hood College
Abstract
UK . .
The bronze doors of Hildesheim (ca. 1007-1015), commissioned by Bishop Bernward,are famous for their sophisticated
typologicalprogram,which conveys a message about the Fall of
humanity and the opposition of Eve and Mary. Divergences
from the door's pictorial models indicate that the program at
Hildesheim innovatively represents Eve as a sexually provocative woman. Although grounded in patristic theology, Bernward'spresentationreflectscontemporaryclerical concerns.At
the time the doors were executed, the bishop was locked in a
struggle with Sophia, abbess of Gandersheim.Bernward'sbiographers describe her as malevolent and dissolute; the doors
themselves constitute a subtle polemical argumentagainst the
dangers posed by seductive and insolent women.
The bronze doors in the cathedralat Hildesheim are well
known to studentsof earlymedieval art(Fig. 1). Commissioned
by Bishop Bernward,they are generally thought to have been
intendedfor the monasteryof St. Michael's, founded by Bernwardhimself. An inscriptionon the doors states thatBernward
had them made "for the fagade of the temple of the angels"
and gives a date of 1015. They are assumed to have been in
place when Bernwardconsecrated the crypt in 1015 and were
probablybegun sometime after 1007.1 The fame of the doors
derives in part from the technological feat of casting each in
a single piece with narrativepanels in relief; they are the first
historiated bronze doors so cast since antiquity. The narrative scenes, sixteen in all, form a sophisticatedtypological sequence,juxtaposing Genesis scenes on the left wing with New
Testament scenes on the right to convey a message primarily
aboutthe Fall and Redemption of humanity,with an emphasis
on the opposition between Eve and Mary.2
The complex typology of the programis surely the work
of a scholarly cleric, and arguably Bernward himself was
closely involved with the doors' design and production.Much
about the doors can be explained with reference to works that
he almost certainly encountered in his travels. Juxtaposed
narrativesof the Old and New Testamentsappearin such early
examples as the wooden doors of Sta. Sabina in Rome, which
Bernwardvisited several times. Moreover,he would have been
familiar with the undecorated bronze doors at Charlemagne's
Palatine Chapel in Aachen and at Archbishop Willigis's cathedral in Mainz, completed by 1009.3 Bernward's doors combine
the format of the Early Christian type with the medium of the
Carolingian and Ottonian examples.
GESTAXL/1 @ The InternationalCenter of Medieval Art 2001
X::
....
......
iexx:
i? ii*
...........
X
'v
.............
....%:
;iirxxvx
ei,
i..
......
....
..............
mu
Ift
ME
M.
...........
.........XXXX
o:
A.
,X: . . .
.
i:.::f
ON
.. .
.
A
...........
....
..
....................
....
.............
....
.........
.....
........
W
......?....
........
:...
X.
V.7..........
i.N
RAW
..
M.
9R
Aim
FAR
IL
4
LAM:
At-
AWL
WINFI,
-VI
X- "A
E2.
x
i-A
3?Z
Pil
.
...............
..................
....
Z-1...........
so
FIGURE 1. Hildesheim, Dom, Bronze Doors (photo: Marburg/ArtResource,
NY).
19
....
.........
xw
ii!•'0
Nl?~
X*i
. ....
..OW_
. - _...
/!.
. .
~i
... . . i••ii~:
. . . .i
i •
/i..
Z
•~
T~
..
. . ..
..
i
. .. .
iiii~
FIGURE 2. Moutier-Grandval Bible, London, British Library, Add. MS 10546, fol. 5v, Genesis frontispiece (photo: British Library).
Bernward could play a greaterrole than the usual ecclesiastical patron,for he himself was well trainedin the arts. As
described in his vita, Bernward excelled in the "mechanical
arts,"including painting and metalwork:"Trulyin writing he
especially exerted himself, and he practicedthe artof painting
with precision, and he distinguishedhimself remarkablyin the
science of metalwork and the whole art of building.. ."4An
inscriptionon the cover of a deluxe gospel book thatBernward
presentedto St. Michael'sin 1015 refers to the work as "made
throughthe skill of Bishop Bernward,"attesting to his direct
involvement with artistic production. Given this expertise, it
seems likely that Bernwardwould have offered extensive direction to the craftsmen responsible for the doors and may
even have provided them with designs for the scenes to be
included.6
20
Best known of all the narratives at Hildesheim are the
scenes from the opening chaptersof Genesis. These narratives
are particularlycelebrated for their vivid characterizationsof
sacred drama;the Temptationand Fall (Fig. 7) and the Denial
of Blame (Fig. 9) are frequently reproducedas models of the
expressive power of Ottonianimages. Despite theirfamiliarity,
the Genesis scenes are startlingin ways that previous scholarship has overlooked. We will argue that they presenta distinctive interpretationof the Fall as a sexually chargedencounter,
with the locus of blame squarelyplaced on Eve. Theologians
had, of course, long ascribed the Fall to Eve's sexuality, and
the eroticized Eve would become a topos in later medieval art,
as in the lintel at Autun, or the mosaics at San Marco.7But despite the early texts and the later visual tradition,there are few
analogues in the visual imagery of early medieval Europe for
-1
Ni
iiiiiiiiiAll
.
J.1i
Wi
iiiii~iiiiiiBM
xx-iii
iiiii
l
............'IT
i
FIGURE 3. San Paolo Bible, S. Paolo fuori le mura,fol. 8v, Genesis frontispiece (photo: H. Kessler).
this interpretationof the Fall: Eve is far more explicitly defined
as temptress in the Hildesheim doors than in the bibles from
Toursthat are universally accepted as their model. Finally, we
will considerpossible contexts for understandingthe newly lascivious Eve at Hildesheim, arguing that central issues and
events in the life of Bishop Bernwardhimself provide a frame
for interpretingthese singular images and supportthe reading
we propose here.
Toursand Hildesheim: Eroticizing Eve
It has long been recognized that the primary model for
the Genesis scenes of the Hildesheim doors was a ninthcenturyCarolingianbible from the scriptoriumof Tours,which
produceda numberof illustratedfull bibles.8 Surviving Genesis frontispiecescomprise those in the Moutier-GrandvalBible
(Fig. 2; London, British Library,Add. MS 10546); the Bamberg Bible (Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek,Msc. Bibl. 1); and the
First Bible of Charlesthe Bald (Paris,Bibliothbquenationale,
MS Lat. 1, also called the Vivian Bible). An importantwitness to the traditionis the related frontispiece that appearsin
a fourth Carolingian work, the Bible of San Paolo fuori le
murain Rome (Fig. 3), which was itself based on a Touronian
bible.9It is generally agreedthatthe Genesis scenes in the Touronianfrontispieceswere selected from and reflectearly Christian pictures that were part of the so-called Cotton Genesis
recension.10
The presence of a Touronianbible in eleventh-century
Hildesheim is confirmedby the text of the BernwardBible, a
pandectcopied after a Touronianexemplar." CarlNordenfalk,
who made this importantdiscovery, remarkedon the strange
21
fact that this Touronianbible, certainlyillustrated,left no trace
in Hildesheim manuscriptillumination itself, even as it provided the pictorial model for the bronze doors.12 The rectangular format of the scenes, the narrow strip of landscape on
which the drama unfolds, the trees that punctuate the narrative, and a numberof common iconographicdetails all establish the dependence of Bernward'simagery on an illustrated
Touronianmanuscript.
The narrativeson the Hildesheim doors are not, however,
identical to those in any surviving Touronianmanuscript.The
most obvious difference is the appearanceof New Testament
scenes, absent from the Touronianbibles, and the direct juxtaposition of the Old and New Testamentimagery on the two
wings of the doors.13 Yet even where the Old Testamentepisodes on the doors match those of the Touronianmodels, a
comparison of the Ottonian and Carolingianpictures reveals
importantdifferences.
The subject of the first panel (Fig. 4) has long been a
matterof scholarly debate. The most common interpretations
include the Creation or Animation of Adam, the Enlivening
of Adam, and the Creationof Eve.14 In the center of the panel
God, representedas the Christ Logos,15 bends over a semirecliningnude figure whose arms are straightat its sides while
the legs are crossed at the ankle. Hovering at the top left of
the panel is an angel, and at the right, separatedby a tree, is
a standing nude figure who looks toward the central action.
The semi-reclining figure, whose shoulder and upper arm are
being grasped by the Creator,finds its closest parallel in the
figure of Adam in the San Paolo Bible (Fig. 3); in the Carolingian manuscript,Adam leans against a small hillock, which
has been omitted in the bronze door. But if the semi-prostrate
figure in the Hildesheim panel is Adam, then the figure on the
right would also have to be Adam, since Eve was not yet
created: the second Adam would then be construed as contemplating or worshiping his Creatorin an elided version of
what was originally two scenes.16 But, as Soren Kaspersenhas
rightly pointed out, such an interpretationwould mean that
on the Hildesheimdoors Adamis essentially representedviewing his own creation, a renderingof the scene without precedent or any theological grounding.17The same reasoningwould
also preclude the suggestion that the image depicts the creation of Eve with the created Eve contemplating God.18 The
fact that no rib is being drawn from the side of the recumbent
figure furtherrules out the possibility that this is the Creation
of Eve, since this iconographic motif is typically a prominent
feature in the scene.
The most likely interpretationof the first panel of the
Hildesheim doors, then, is that the scene depicts not the creation but the formation of Eve, as described in Genesis 2:22:
"And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam
into a woman, and brought her to Adam."The Formationof
Eve as an episode distinct from her Creationappearsnot only
in the TouronianSan Paolo Bible (Fig. 3) but also in the mosaics of San Marco, which, copied in the thirteenthcentury
from the late fifth-century Cotton Genesis, confirm that the
22
scene was alreadypresent in the Early Christianmodel of the
Touroniancycles.19In the Hildesheim panel, then, the central
action shows the Creatorforming Eve in the presence of an
angel, while Adam witnesses the event with a gestureof acclamation or acceptance.20Althoughthe image has occasionally
been identified in the scholarly literatureas the Formationof
Eve, this idea has not been universally accepted, nor have the
consequences for the programbeen fully recognized.21
By beginning with the Formationof Eve, the Hildesheim
doors departedfrom their Carolingianmodel. The extant Touronian frontispieces all begin with a scene representing a
moment in the story of the Creationof Adam. The absence of
this scene has implications for the reading of the door's first
two panels, which reveal a balancedharmonyin both narrative
and composition. Following upon Eve's formation,the second
panel depicts the Introductionof Eve to Adam (Fig. 5). Were
the first scene the Creationof Adam, then the Creationof Eve
would be entirely absent from the doors. Not only is that
scene one of the few included in all of the Touronianfrontispieces,22but it more logically precedes the Introductionthan
does the Creationof Adam. Finally, in both panels, God is on
the left, Eve in the center, and Adam on the right. The content
of the first two panels thus shifts the emphasis of the program
decidedly toward Eve and creates a tight narrativefocus on
her that is sustained throughoutthe first six panels.
In the Introductionof Eve, Adam and Eve approacheach
other with extended arms and open hands. This detail is not
found in the Touronianbibles or other members of the Cotton
Genesis recension and so appearsto be a novel interpolation
by Bernward.The warmthof the scene would seem to be due
less to the Ottonian predilection for expressive gesture than
to a desire to portraythe idyllic closeness of Adam and Eve
before the Fall, which is the subject of the next panel. The
meaning of the gesture is underscoredby the trees that frame
the scene; perfectly symmetrical,they reflect the couple's prelapsarianconcord.
The difference between the Hildesheim panels and the
Touronian model is even more striking in the case of the
Temptationand Fall. In the GrandvalBible, for example, Eve
takes the apple from the serpent,and she and Adam then share
the forbidden fruit (Fig. 6). As they eat, they stand inches
apart-literally toe to toe-and exchange glances, suggesting
joint responsibility for the decision to defy God. To further
underscoretheir sharedpurpose, little attemptis made to distinguish between the two. Adam and Eve are notably akin in
size and gesture; it is even difficult to perceive any anatomical differences.23The other three Touronianbibles interpret
the Fall similarly, with Adam and Eve resembling each other
closely in size, gesture, and anatomy.24
At Hildesheim, the Temptationand Fall (Fig. 7) has been
considerably reinterpreted.Adam and Eve are placed at some
distance from each other; Eve is now half a head shorterthan
Adam, in partbecause he stands on higher ground;and she is
now obviously female, with her breastsclearly indicated.Most
important,the image is charged with sexual tension. Though
--
-
....
-
RMN
--------.
.....
.. ...
....
?nt
S IM
R:
V.7
.............
.44
"Mir
Owl
3J
K,
IN.
A..n.
.
............
RT
gn;
..
. ....
.. ...........
. ..........
...........
VMR~ 'Mr
ha
.. . ......
RX11A..
U lav
Maus, wI
VA:
.... .
VO
ME
.
WHO.
ax.
.
NO
......
...
AW
72
two
a Z.c
if.
......
.
........
.....
-...........
Ch:
?WW*x,
.........
...
RE
FIGURE 4. Hildesheim, Bronze Doors, panel one: Formation of Eve (photo: Marburg/Art Resource, NY).
.
..........
xlll
...
...
.....
...
N .........
<
VIM.
NO,:
10A
Now
f'Z&
a
iK
A
swill
4
HT
R,-I
13,
0
WI
1.07
...
Is
R.
low
X"T
V-1
z.k:.
se$?
w?
M-
13
ilk
10
4W
zvl?
P5
Owl
M
INS
EWA
P,
a
-0,
ONO
`RF
.TP
..........
ANNE&
FIGURE 5. Hildesheim, Bronze Doors, panel two: Eve introduced to Adam (photo: Marburg/Art Resource, NY).
23
we have little direct evidence about the Ottonianvisual code
for representingseduction, much aboutthe Hildesheim Temptation would appearto cast Eve as an aggressive and sexually
provocative figure. In contrast to her simple, relatively static
pose in the GrandvalBible, here her stance is far more complex. She walks to the right-in the directionof the serpentand simultaneously turns and beckons to Adam; as she turns,
her body twists sinuously, and her right hip is thrustin Adam's
direction. Her very motion, in contrast to Adam's stillness,
marks Eve as suspect; in early medieval and Ottonian art,
such motion often conveys imbalance,falseness, or vice.25 On
Bernward'sColumn, anotherbronze work cast in Hildesheim,
for example, the wickedness of Salome is conveyed through
her dramaticdance movements.26
Although representingmotion would alone probably be
enough to signal Eve's negative character,the Hildesheim image goes furtherin constructing Eve as specifically sexual in
nature.Eve's outstretchedarm, offering the apple, echoes the
placement of the snake, offering anotherapple, and the curve
of her hip echoes the coil of the serpent's body as it wraps
aroundthe tree. As she extends her arm in invitation, furthermore, the apple in her left hand obscures and therebyreplaces
her breast. The image recalls Isidore of Seville's comparison
of breasts to apples in his influential Etymologiae: "The
breasts, mamilla, are so called from their apple-like roundBut the substitutionof breastfor
ness, mala, by diminution."27
apple makes a statement,too, about the natureof Eve's offering. That breasts were understoodsexually in Ottonian Germany is made clear in a penitential by Burchardof Worms
(965-1025): in a canon "Concerning those who touch girls
and women libidinously,"Burchardsternly warns men against
touching or groping the breast or genitalia ("shameful part,"
turpitudinem)of girls and women.28The sinister portent of
Eve's act is further indicated by the surroundingvegetation,
which here as elsewhere serves to reinforcethe narrative.The
centraltree, while in general echoing the shape of the cross in
the Crucifixionpanel opposite, has a prominentleafy branch
that droops just at the level of Eve's hip and genitals. All of
these visual elements, then, underscorethe sexual natureof the
encounterbetween Adam and Eve, signaling an eroticism that
is far more tentative in the Touronianimages.
The next scene, the Denial of Blame, in which God confronts the pair, again differs substantially from the Carolingian images from which it derives. In all threeTouronianbible
frontispieces Adam and Eve stand together, resembling each
other strongly in height, gesture, and even hairstyle-similarities that once again suggest their shared culpability for the
sin. The images in the Grandval(Fig. 8) and Vivian Bibles are
especially graphic:shoulderstouching, the two sinnershuddle
togetheras God confrontsthem, pointedly sepa;atedfrom him
by the Tree of Knowledge.29
At Hildesheim, the composition differs notably (Fig. 9).
The carefullyconsideredchanges areespecially apparentin the
expressive use of the trees. Here, the Tree of Knowledge sep24
arates not Adam and Eve from God, but God and Adam from
Eve, and one branchjuts out over Adam with particularassertiveness, suggesting again the sexual natureof the Fall. Further, in contrast to the Touronianmanuscripts,Eve has been
displacedto the rightof the tree, a space that she shares,significantly, with the serpent. The change suggests a moral as well
as compositionalrealignment,emphasizingEve's separateness
from Adam and her kinship with the serpent. Moreover, in
contrastto the Carolingianmanuscript,where Eve stands upright, here she crouches, her position implying an abased state
and thus her affinity with the serpent. Even so, she boldly
stares at God while Adam lowers his eyes in shame;her proud
defiance will become more explicit in the next episode. The
plant life highlights Eve's guilt: the lower branchof the Tree
of Knowledge and the vegetation on the right point to, and
perhaps evoke, her genitals, again connecting the Fall with
Eve's sexuality. Perhapsthe most explicit signal of the eroticized natureof the Fall is the placement of the serpent'stail,
which coils between Eve's legs-an unmistakablereferenceto
the locus of the problem, her turpitudinem.
In the scene of the Expulsion, finally, meaningful departures from the Carolingianmodel can also be observed. Once
again the Touronianbibles do not draw great distinctions between Adam and Eve: in the GrandvalBible, for instance, the
two are similarly dressed, and both turn back as if to plead
with the angel who expels them from paradise (Fig. 10). Nor
do the Bamberg, Vivian, or San Paolo Bibles distinguish significantly between the two. At Hildesheim, however, Eve's
actions contrast sharply with those of Adam (Fig. 11). Once
again she is cast as the more aggressive of the pair: in a
significantdisplay of motion, she turnsback as if to challenge
the angel as Adam meekly tiptoes out without a murmurof
protest. Eve's dominant role asserts again that she bears primary responsibility for the Fall.
The designer of the doors, clearly drawing upon a Touronian bible, seems to have deliberately reworkedhis sources
to stress Eve's culpability. She is consistently constructed as
the aggressor,the provocateuse, the challengerof God and his
agent, Michael. No extant Carolingianminiatureapproaches
the Hildesheim images in their insistence on the sexual nature
of Eve's sin. Though we may never know with certaintywhat
mighthave motivatedthese changes, some possibilitiesemerge.
Junius 11 and Hildesheim: "One in her hand, the other
at her heart"
A hitherto overlooked source, which would have been
used in addition to the Touronianbible, may have influenced
Bernwardin his representationof Eve. William Tronzo,in his
study of the Hildesheim doors, first suggested that certain
iconographic features were drawn from the Anglo-Saxon tradition, as manifested specifically in the so-called Caedmon
Genesis, more properlyknown as Junius 11 (Oxford,Bodleian
Library,MS Junius 11).30 The manuscript,executed in the first
quarterof the eleventh century, possibly in Canterbury,is a
R.
4:-?g
g,
........
..11",
?k:,.
ax
......
..........
-?w
N"m
Wv
R
Pw
iN
A.
P-im
...
...............
-W
..........
la:A,
. .......
...
....
........
....
&
R
FIGURE 6. Moutier-Grandval Bible, fol. 8v, detail: Temptationand Fall (photo: British Library).
7
z.
i.
0111?`
01
.............-we
,phow-..
diwK
M?.
S
M
i;o,
IN . .
JEW;
iffl:
INN, _WS
....
IiaR
......
. OF
.
IF
R.
yi:
:i sgi : :i : ?i
R.
w
g
m.
a
Rol
.........
.?Oi
...
......
..............
r.
I... qME~
-A
Ow
A
..
........
.............
"Mir
01.
im tAz.
gmizu
5.g
....1NEI~
...........
a
MEN
31-40glyns
..06
41Ems. .....
..........
..
A
GA
,e5
vast,
g
V.,
..
...
MR;
M W
E
Me
al
M
-a
i1xi
?i!?
H4
. ..........
. ..........
.....
X
VMEN
..
........
INNU
50i
.........
...
.
= P,,.50121,
" I .
15
k
In
:X;
i?`&
Riil
..
..
.
NO
..
I
.A
. . _M . CX
Mwa
?Ni:
Bill"
e. w.
ww,
V!
Ri;-%,
21M
R"
W1
&AA
z'gpv:
..........
iM
RN
?74
M.2i
771 M
................
vil
las
w D"
if
'ng.-W.
qpP*
x/Wa,
W,
Z: too-,
..
. :A . . . .
.:A
E.
i?. .
.:X
FIGURE 7. Hildesheim, Bronze Doors, panel three: Temptationand Fall (photo: Marburg/Art Resource, NY).
25
large collection of vernacularbiblical poetry comprising Genesis, Exodus, Daniel, and Christand Satan; the firstninety-six
of the book's 229 pages contain illustrations.31 The Genesis
portion of Junius 11, in fact, consists of two texts. Genesis A,
the longer of the two, is essentially an Anglo-Saxon verse paraphraseof the Bible. Genesis B is a fragmentof an older Saxon
poem on Genesis that was translated and interpolated into
GenesisA; it is a freerrenderingof the Genesis storythatoffers
a dramatic, psychological reading of the Fall of the Rebel
Angels and the Fall of Humankind.32
Tronzo plausibly connected the essentially contemporaneous Junius 11 drawings and Hildesheim doors, for the
monuments have importantthematic affinities. Both focus to
a remarkabledegree on the role of Eve in the narrativeof the
Fall. The evidence for Hildesheim has been presented above.
In the case of the Junius manuscript,scholarly opinion about
the portrayalof Eve's actions ranges from seeing her as completely responsible for the Fall to deserving of almost complete exoneration; most interpretationsend up somewhere in
between, which is probablyan accuratereflection of the poet's
view of Eve.33The illustrationsin Junius 11 do not clarify the
programdesigner's stand on the issue of Eve's culpability, although, like the Touronianfrontispieces, the narrativeimages
depict her as the agent of the Fall. What is importantto note
is that the section of Junius 11 that relates most directly to
Eve and the Fall is the illustratedtext of Genesis B. This West
Saxon poem was written aroundthe middle of the ninth century,perhapsin Fuldaor Werden;A. N. Doane has arguedthat
it was developed in the context of Gottschalk's theological
teachings, deemed heretical, on the question of grace and free
will.34 The textual, philological, and manuscriptevidence indicates that the West Saxon Genesis had a fairly wide distribution in the ninth and tenth centuries, both on the continent,
where it was refined more than once, and in England, when it
was first interpolatedinto the text of Genesis A, that is, in a
lost manuscriptthat was the model for Junius 11.35
There is ample reason to believe that the early eleventhcentury illustrations in Junius 11 reflect a pictorial cycle that
was alreadypartof the West Saxon Genesis B duringthe ninth
century.36It is thus possible that in the early eleventh century
there was available in Saxon Hildesheim an illustrated copy
of this older Saxon poem. Such a manuscriptwould account
for various elements in the Hildesheim panels, including the
focus on Eve. While the full-page illustrationof the Creation
of Eve in Junius 11 (Fig. 12) is not similar in its details to the
first Hildesheim panel (Fig. 4), such an image, if it existed
in the proposed Saxon manuscript, might have given Bernward the idea for the beginning of his own Genesis cycle; the
presence of an angel, unattestedin the Touronianfrontispieces
but partof the Junius image, might well be due to such a picture.37Similarly, the appearance of the dragon-like tempter
and the snake in the Temptationscene, while not exactly like
those in either the Touronianfrontispiecesor the Juniusmanuscript, nevertheless would seem most likely to derive from a
26
manuscriptof Genesis B, with its dramatic emphasis on the
malevolent creaturesof temptation.
Other elements derived from Genesis B present in the
Hildesheim doors may include the angel in the Expulsion and,
laterin the cycle, the instructingangel in the Laborof Adam.38
Furthermore,while the Cain and Abel narrativeis represented
in abbreviatedform in two Touronianfrontispieces (those in
the Bamberg and GrandvalBibles), the somewhat more elaborate renderingin Junius 11 might suggest that Bernward,as
he chose the subjects for the final two Old Testamentpanels,
was motivated at least in part by an illustrated Genesis B
manuscript.39 One telling detail strongly suggests Bernward's
familiarity with the text of Genesis B. After Eve eats of the
apple, she approachesAdam. The poem continues:
Onesheborein herhand,theothersheboreatherheart,
thecursedapple,thefruitof thetreeof death.40
This text certainly reflects the Augustinian concept of Eve's
internalized guilt-a staple of medieval exegesis on original
sin.41 But the particularly vivid passage anticipates the unusual depiction of the Temptationin the Hildesheim doors
and might in part have motivated it. In sum, it appears possible that a numberof details on the Hildesheim doors derive
not from the previously recognized Touronianexemplar, but
ratherfrom an illustratedcopy of the West Saxon Genesis B.
One copy of that work served as the model for the text and
images of the eleventh-centuryAnglo-Saxon Junius 11, while
another, perhaps, remained in Saxony to be used by Bernward as he developed the ideas and images to be represented
on his bronze doors.
The Impact of Reform and the Cult of the Virgin
Genesis B presents a multifaceted picture of Eve, into
which a reader could project his or her negative, positive, or
neutral views of Eve. Presumably Bernward did so as well,
conditioned by his own background and historical circumstances. To be sure, a ninth- or tenth-centurymanuscript of
Genesis B was not the only text available to Bernward that
stressed Eve's culpability, nor was it either the earliest or the
most important.A numberof patristic writers-among them
Tertullian,Ambrose, and Augustine-had assigned primary
responsibility for original sin to Eve and, at times, implicated
all women in the Fall.42 Why then did Bernwardchoose, so innovatively, to emphasize visually this interpretationof the Fall
in his bronze doors? Just as the original text of Genesis B was
perhapsconceived in response to contemporaryninth-century
debates about the question of grace and free will, so too eleventh-centuryconcernslikely influencedBernward.Condemnations of Eve grew more virulent during the course of the
eleventh century-the era that gave birthto the reformmovement that only intensified during the papacy of Gregory VII
(1073-1085).43
Reformershad a numberof aims, but one importantconcern was clerical morality, and the perceived threatposed by
.
VIP`
.
Np,
.....
....
...
lot
4
4w
Ra
10111
ggS
10F
EA
AM.
40:
ARM
A-
MAT
....
.........
.....
.W
........
BROWN.
gm
WIN
MM
Eno
.
.
sit
id
.
.....
....
.........
.
M
mop
........
VMS!
04
FIGURE 8. Moutier-Grandval Bible, fol. 8v, detail: Denial of blame (photo: British Library).
zX.:
lm:
XV
'14
. ..
FIGURE 9. Hildesheim, Bronze Doors, panel four: Denial of blame (photo: Marburg/Art Resource, NY).
27
19-
?l
AW'
:4-
$4
-Ale
el'i
..
.
JAI
FIGURE 10. Moutier-Grandval Bible, fol. 8v, detail: Expulsion (photo: British Library).
K0
... ......
...........
.............
.....
.......
... .............
.J..
o r
:.................
..............
......
........
so.
IM
W
afto
......
. ... ...............
x;44-;, IN
.. ...
.....
g
ME:
ONA
p"-g
...
M
lip
?Ff l
M
AIV
Mk.
.. .
?M.
sgrp
M,
A
j,
IF
AF
..
FIGURE 11. Hildesheim, Bronze Doors, panel five: Expulsion (photo: Marburg/Art Resource, NY).
28
7
'3w-fnp
......
....
.....
.......
.ff?'
..
iR
. . . . . ...........
.
....
em
M
.4'.n
women stirred particularanxiety. Marriage of parish priests
had been, at times, tolerated; strict celibacy was not always
expected. Reforming churchmen, however, took a dim view
of the practice and gradually moved to extirpate it. Still more
worrisome were the lapses of monks, some of whom lived
with wives and children in their monasteries.44 Not surprisingly, tenth- and eleventh-century reformers often pointed to
the Fall, and specifically to Eve, as the cause of the concupiscence plaguing the clergy. For instance, Abbot Odo of Cluny
(926-944) wrote at length about the Fall in a treatise on clerical celibacy. In a sermonon the same subject,Ademarof Chabannes (989-1034) remindedhis audiencethatit was a woman
who caused sin to enter the world, and that women remained,
for the clergy, "the door of the devil, the way of iniquity, the
sting of a scorpion."45PeterDamian(1007-1072) similarlyfulminated against women, warning priests and monks against
these "charmersof the clergy, flesh of the devil" and exposing their purportedties to the Fall, sin, and death.46
There is some evidence that Bernwardshared these sentiments. As Francis Tschanhas shown, the bishop was a zealous reformer, and he was particularly alert to the evils of
clerical unchastity.47Perhapshis fervor was partially inspired
by that of the emperor, Henry II, an importantbenefactor to
Hildesheim and a vigorous supporter of reform.48In any
event, in 1019, four years after the completion of the doors
of Hildesheim, Bernwardissued a strong challenge to clerical
liaisons; he presided over the Synod of Goslar, which denied
to children of such marriagesthe rights that they sought. The
synod was one of three that convened between 1019 and
1023, each a significant step in condemning clerical marriage
and concubinage.49Thusthe depictionof Eve as afemmefatale
on the Hildesheim doors is understandablein the context of
this discourse; the Genesis narrativesseem intended to define
the first woman and, by extension, all women as temptresses
who embody a threat to clerical virtue.
The reform movement of the eleventh century was also
an importantstimulus to the cult of Mary,the virginal antithesis of Eve.50 The juxtaposition of Eve and Mary is a central
theme on the Hildesheim doors; very rare in medieval visual
culture before the Hildesheim doors, this particulartypology
cannot be explained by the Touronian frontispieces, which
depict only Genesis scenes.51 However, a textual tradition
linking the two was long established. Irenaeus (d. 202) wrote:
"And even as she [Eve], having indeed a husband,Adam, but
being nevertheless as yet a virgin ... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the
entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed
[to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, became the cause of salvation, both to herself and the
whole world."52Irenaeus'scontemporary,Tertullian,in his own
discussion of the Fall (ca. 210), likewise contrastedEve and
Mary:
For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring
word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice
of death. Into a virgin'ssoul, in like manner,must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of
life; so thatwhat had been reducedto ruinby this sex, might
by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had
believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel.53
The opposition between Mary and Eve became a topos in
the Carolingian period as a result of the wide distribution of
the popularhymn, Ave maris stella, composed ca. 800.54 The
contrast was furtherelaboratedin OttonianGermany.Of particular interest is Maria, a life of Mary written by Hrotswitha
(ca. 932-ca. 1001/3), a canonessat Gandersheim.Based largely
on the apocryphalPseudo-Matthew,the text draws the parallel
as follows: "Hail, Sole Hope of the World, Illustrious Queen
of the Heavens, Holy Motherof the King, ResplendentStarof
the Sea, Who, O sweet Virgin, hast by obedience restored to
the world that life which the virgin of old forfeited."55Ernst
Guldanhas argued that Bernwardwas familiar with the work
of Hrotswitha, and he is no doubt correct.56Gandersheim
(Fig. 13) was only a few miles distant from Hildesheim, and
the two foundations were in frequent contact. During the
990s, Bernwardconsecratedseveral churchesattachedto Gandersheimand presidedover a synod there;further,Hrotswitha's
writings are thought to have been read at court, where Bernward spent much time as the tutor to Otto III.57 Moreover,
Bernward'svita expressedadmirationfor Hrotswitha,referring
to her as "venerabilem feminam."58
Bernward versus Sophia: The Temptationat Gandersheim
Gandersheim also supplied Bernward with an Eve-like
anti-exemplar,a powerful reminderof the threatposed by assertive and allegedly unchaste women. Not long after he was
consecrated bishop in 993, Bernwardbecame enmeshed in a
protracted,highly public power struggle against a formidable
female. His antagonist was Sophia (975-1039), daughter of
Emperor Otto II and Theophano, and sister of Otto III. The
young princess enteredthe abbey of Gandersheim,which was
closely aligned with the imperial house, in 979, and took the
veil in 987. Gandersheimmust have been a hospitableenvironment for independentwomen, for several flourished thereamong them Hrotswitha,who describedthe abbey as "blissful"
and referredto herself as the "strongvoice of Gandersheim."59
Indeed, the abbey enjoyed considerable autonomy in the later
tenth century;for example, its abbess issued her own coinage
and controlled her own army.60 Moreover, Gandersheimwas
a critical locus of the liturgical and historical consciousness
for the Ottonian house-and was the recipient of much imperial largesse; particularlylucrative were toll rights granted
by Otto III in 990, for the abbey had an enviable location at
the junction of two major thoroughfares.61
When Sophia entered Gandersheim, the abbess was
GerbergaII (959-1001), a niece of Otto I. The princess soon
became identified as Gerberga'sheir apparent,and when the
abbess fell ill in the later 990s, Sophia became de facto leader
29
of the convent; she was consecratedabbess formally afterGerberga's death and ruled for 37 years. Modern historians generally characterizeSophia as a dynamic and capable leader.62
But contemporaryHildesheim authors portray her much differently. Three texts, the vita of Bernward, purportedly by
Thangmar,and the two vitae of Bernward'ssuccessor, Godehard,written by Wolfher, present a highly partisanaccount of
the struggle between Bernwardand Sophia.63Thangmar'stext
paints an unflattering picture of the nuns at Gandersheim,
who, it claims, had fallen into irreverentways and were given
to excess ("superfluitas")and perhapsdebauchery("luxus").64
The Hildesheim author singles out Sophia, in particular,for
her unseemly behavior, referring to her repeatedly as insolent, disobedient, and dissolute. He is particularly incensed
that she once left the convent to returnto court, probably in
994-though the canonesses were allowed to come and go and
Sophia did so with approvalof Archbishop Willigis.65 There,
the text tells us, she followed "the course of a dissolute life"
("dissolubilis vitae tramitem").Rumors soon were flying and
Bernward, "not bearing" ("non ferens") the scandal, decided
to rebuke Sophia, urging her to returnto the convent.66
Of course, this scathing treatment of Sophia, and the
account of the unfolding conflict between her and Bernward,
cannot be considered a disinterested recounting of the events;
Thangmar'stext, an unabashed apology for Bernward, does
not even attemptto conceal contempt for the princess. In fact,
the invective against Sophia participates in a larger discourse; similarly polemical language was used to characterize
other Byzantine princesses in the West, specifically Sophia's
mother, Theophano, and the dogaressa Maria Argyropoulina
(d. 1006).67 Even if we accept at face value the description of
Bernward'smoral outrage at conditions in neighboring Gandersheim, the bishop likely had other, less lofty reasons to
try to assert his authorityover the convent-a privilege also
claimed by Archbishop Willigis of Mainz, the chancellor of
OttonianGermany.ControllingSophia was tantamountto controlling the wealthy abbey; the financial advantagescould not
have escaped Bernward, a canny fiscal strategist with ambitious building plans, though, of course, Thangmar'stext does
not mention this possibility.68Sophia stalwartly resisted the
bishop's maneuvers. She appealed first to Willigis, gained his
support,and then returnedto Gandersheim,where she rallied
the nuns to her side and ordered Bernward banned from the
abbey: "by this effort she could expel him from the place and
order him to separate from it."69
The confrontation between the two soon escalated dramatically. The crisis was precipitated by the completion of the
third church at Gandersheim in the year 1000. The ailing
abbess, Gerberga, invited Bernward to come to the new convent at Gandersheim to consecrate it. According to Thangmar's
text, the bishop took the opportunity during mass to admonish the canonesses for their defiance and to claim the church
as his own. The women were reportedly so enraged by Bernward's words that they responded with "savage curses" ("saeva
30
ana-q:
rrT't'
-'ht'-
an
yrnr
o
'hmblva
nr
ne
hol
St
fm
My:JsTycr-Tu
4-
/I
w
coeyy
ag~yten
-rt
:l:xt
WnrTs
re-l"0,P14
co"
tco lo
t
in"
a
to
tz,::::::::::::
I'MI:::::
cevdshbo
*Oebe"
o
....
-_
:-:~s
FIGURE 12. Oxford,Bodleian Library, MS Junius 11, p. 9, Creation of Eve
(photo: Bodleian Library).
maledicta"), hurling the oblations intended for the offertory
at the bishop. Shocked by this "insolent tumult,"Bernward
deplored the "malevolence of the raving women."The bishop
managed to finish the mass, but left without consecrating the
church.70
Sophia's victory was, however, short-lived. In January
1001, Bernwardtraveled to Rome to make a personal appeal
to the pope, SylvesterII;the pope convened a synod of bishops,
who ruled in Bernward'sfavor, and the pope then grantedhim
control over Gandersheim. But the dispute wore on. In the
summer of 1001, Bernwarddecided to visit Gandersheim,but
Sophia, expecting such a visit, had assembled a throngof soldiers, who bolted the doors and packed the church towers
with munitions to drive the bishop away.71 Bernward,hearing
reports of these preparations,soon thought better of the trip.
"NOW;
.:x:x
...........
........
.....
mg
0,
......
.......
....
........
..
M
"o/
bx
p
?i?i
...
i>x
astical figures in OttonianGermany:the princess, Sophia; her
brother,the emperorOtto III; and her ally, Willigis-not only
the empire's spiritual leader but, as chancellor, perhaps its
strongestpolitical power afterthe emperorhimself. The struggle was most heated in the years immediately preceding the
design and productionof the doors of St. Michael's. The tempestuous sequence of events, as recountedby Bernward'spartisans, offers a lens through which to view the strikingly new
presentationof Eve at Hildesheim. Ideologically, Thangmar's
vita seems closely akin to the Hildesheim reliefs: both text
and images present narrativesof wanton, willful women. Indeed, the very languagethe Hildesheimauthoruses to condemn
the canonesses and especially Sophia-"dissolute," "malevolent,""insolent"-might equally apply to the depictionof Eve,
featuredon the doors as a sexual aggressor, agent of the devil,
and challenger of God's will.
Bernward and Hildesheim: Opening the Door of Paradise
'aligr
SIVA
..
W/
Al:
7.'r
,
AN :
U
FIGURE 13. Gandersheim, Stiftkirche, west fagade (photo: A. S. Cohen).
The long struggle was not resolved until January 1007,
on the day before Epiphany,when Bernward,with the support
of Emperor Henry II, finally succeeded in consecrating the
church. Just after the ceremony, Archbishop Willigis, standing at the door of the church,publicly renouncedhis claim and
the claim of any of his successors to Gandersheim. Sophia
made one last attempt to assert her independence from Bernward. In 1021 she appealed to the new archbishop of Mainz,
Aribo, who then raised the question with Bernward.Bernward
immediately responded, reiteratingWilligis's public renunciation at the door of Gandersheimon the day before Epiphany,
1007.72
The struggle with the nuns of Gandersheim thus dominated Bernward'slife for many years; Tschan noted that this
dispute "occupied Bernward's mind for nearly half of his
pontificate and was a frequent source of worry to him much
of the other half."73The stakes could not have been higher, for
the conflict engaged the most powerful political and ecclesi-
Bernward'schoice of a pair of doors as the site to display
his interpretationof Eve was carefully considered. This is
confirmed by the iconography of the two-page presentation
scene in Bernward's"Precious"Gospels, which he gave to St.
Michael's in 1015 (Fig. 14).74 On the left, Bernward stands
before an altar,holding his Gospels; the detailed architectural
setting includes the arched faqade of a church, its triangular
pediment supportedby two spiral columns. On the right, two
angels crown the Virgin, the patronof the diocese of Hildesheim, while both she and the Child on her lap extend a hand
to the bishop; three arches supportedby spiral columns echo
the architectureof the preceding image, and a large archspans
the entire scene. This arch terminatesat each end with a small
roundel enclosing a female head, identified by inscriptionthe Virgin appearsto the left and Eve to the right, well separatedfrom Bernward.There is an open portal with a cross just
to the lower right of the Mary roundel;it is mirroredby a pair
of firmly latched doors adjacent to Eve.
Lengthy inscriptions explain the meaning of the images.
On the closed doors, beneath Eve, is written:
clausaperAevam
Portaparadisiprimeva[m]
[Thedoorof paradise,closedby thefirstEve]
The inscription continues below the roundel of Mary, next to
the open door:
Nuncest pers[an]c[t]am
cunctispatefactaMaria[m]
all
is
to
[Now open
throughtheholyMary]75
A thirdinscription, seen on the small arch closest to the roundel of Eve, explicitly identifies Mary with the door:
AveportaD[e]ipostpartu[m]clausap[er]evu[m]
[Hail,doorof God,closedforeverafterthebirth]
Although emphasizing Mary's perpetual virginity, the
wordplay between "aevum"and "Aevam"in the inscription's
31
...........
Mi
Oil
s?:ix
?A
ki.!i
eft
4-,?-
7p
4,
"Im
. ..
sli
s'.
w
l?
FIGURE 14. "Precious" Gospels of Bernward, Hildesheim, Dom-Museum, MS 18, fols. 16v-17, Presentation frontispieces (photo: Dom-Museum).
final clause could also suggest a second reading:"Hail, door of
God, closed by Eve after her creation."Thus both visually and
verbally, the miniatureseems almost obsessively to stress the
closing of doors by Eve and their opening by Mary.
Many scholarshave rightly connected the miniatureto the
Hildesheim doors, where Eve and Mary are similarly placed
in opposition.76Theologically, the inscriptions on the presentation pages clearly refer to Mary'scrucial role in redemption,
opening the gates of paradise to all. But in the context of
Bernward'sbitter struggle against Sophia, the references to
the "doorclosed by Eve" and the image of the closed doorjust
beneath the image of Eve take on additional significance. The
doors of Gandersheimhad been literally closed to Bernward
by Sophia, who banned him from the convent; her soldiers
And when Archactually bolted the doors: "portisobseratis."77
bishop Willigis finally surrenderedin 1007, it was at the doorway of the church of Gandersheim:"ad ianuam."78Thus, on
the eve of the feast of Epiphany,the doors of the church,for
many years barredto Bernward,were finally opened to him.
The insistent references on the presentation pages to
doors closed by a female and to doors opening throughdivine
intervention must have resonated powerfully for Bernward,
who arguably worked them into the program himself. The
Genesis scenes, with their unambiguousconstructionof Eve's
32
culpability and assertion of her defiance, disobedience, and
seductiveness, might even be seen as containing a veiled reference to the bishop's view of Sophia, whose challenge to his
authority had such dire results. Unusual features in other
scenes on the doors may corroboratethis reading. Bernhard
Gallistl and Rainer Kahsnitz noted that, very exceptionally,
Mary stands before a conspicuously open door in the Annunciation scene on the lower right (Fig. 1).79Though this motif
signifies primarilythe opening of paradise throughthe Incarnation, as Gallistl and Kahsnitz recognized, it may simultaneously allude to Bernward's1007 triumphover Sophia at the
newly opened door of Gandersheim. A second, still odder,
detail in the Annunciation may be similarly interpreted:the
Virgin holds a palm branch. Kahsnitz considers this unusual
motif to be a sign of Mary'svirginity.80But the palm is an ancient symbol of victory, a meaning particularlyapt in the context of the Gandersheimdispute. The linking of this signifier
of victory with the open door behind Mary may thus be more
than coincidental. Moreover, the prominentplacement of the
Three Magi in the door-they appearjust above the door handle on the right wing-may also be significant, as it was on
the eve of their feast day, Epiphany,that Willigis finally conceded Gandersheimto Bernward.In this context, Bernward's
choice of historiated bronze doors seems especially pointed:
the unadornedbronze doors at the cathedralof Mainz must
have seemed humble precursorsto the Hildesheim doors, a
technologicaland visual tour-de-force.Just as Bernwardbested
doors best
Willigis at Gandersheim, so too did Bemrnward's
those of Willigis.
Commencing the series of New Testament scenes with
the Annunciationhad broadertheological import.Accordingto
the long exegetical traditioninauguratedby Irenaeusand Tertullian, at the moment Mary heeded the words of the angel
she became the vessel for the redemption that was necessitated by Eve, who listened instead to the evil words of the
tempter. This opposition strengthensthe identification of the
first Old Testament scene as the Formation of Eve: the two
panels that open the Old and New Testamentnarrativesthus
focus attention on the two virgins who occupy opposite ends
of the spectrumextending from sin to redemption.81And Eve
was an antitype not only for the Virgin Mary but also for
Mary Magdalene, who appearsin the door's final panel on the
upper right. The two had already been compared by Augustine, who drew a starkcontrastbetween the readybelief Adam
extendedto Eve andthe apostle'sdisbelief at MaryMagdalene's
report about Christ's resurrection.82In the program of the
Hildesheim doors, the depiction of "Noli Me Tangere"in the
final panel symbolizes the establishmentof Christ'schurchon
earth;83 it is, of course, a fitting conclusion to a cycle created
to adorn monumental doors opening into a church. But the
prostratefigureof MaryMagdalenein the gardenalso counterbalances the recumbent figure of Eve being formed in the
garden of paradise. Adam's witnessing of Eve's formation
may thus indeed be understood as a reference to his ecstatic
vision of unification with Eve, evoked by the intertwinedtree
between them. As expounded by Augustine, Adam's vision
was to be interpretedas a symbol of the union between Christ
and the Church-the "magnum sacramentum"referredto by
.84
Paul in Ephesians
5:29-32.84 The narrativeof the doors thus
turns on three key women: it begins with the formation and
sin of Eve, progresses with the Virgin Mary, the vessel of
redemption, and ends with Mary Magdalene, the symbol of
the Churchand its union with Christ.
The doors at Hildesheim, created with Bishop Bernmward'sdirect involvement, can thereforebe read on more than
one level. Their primary function was to present a sophisticated typological juxtaposition of Fall and Redemption. But,
with the unusual emphasis on Eve's transgressions, they also
served to warn a clerical audience about the perils of seductive women-a topical theme in this era of reform. Finally,
the doors subtly celebrated Bernward'sultimate triumphover
a woman condemnedby his supportersfor her allegedly dissolute behavior. As in the presentationminiature of his deluxe
gospel book, the imagery of closed and open doors was used
to make a programmatic statement about the positive and
negative roles of women within the celestial and ecclesiastic
hierarchy.But they were, in addition to all else, a reminderof
the doors once closed to Bemward by a defiantwoman, finally
securely restored to his control.
NOTES
*
Earlierversions of this article were presentedat the Thirty-firstInternational Congress on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo, 1996, and at the Sixth
InternationalSeminar on Jewish Art, Jerusalem, 1999; many thanks to
Elisheva Revel-Neher and the Centerfor Jewish Art for making the presentation in Jerusalempossible. We are grateful to Genevra Kornbluth
for her astute comments on an early draft of this article; our thanks as
well to Emilie Amt, Kurt Barstow, Sharon Gerstel, Julia Miller, Haila
Ochs, Linda Safran,MarkSandona,RobertSchwab, and Diane Wolfthal
for their help and thoughtful suggestions, and to Marina Freeman for
excellent researchassistance. This article has greatly benefited from the
help and insights of Elizabeth Sears, Lisa Bessette, and the anonymous
readersfor Gesta. Fundingfrom the Hood College Faculty Development
Committeesupportedthe initial researchand cost of photographsfor this
article. Unless otherwise indicated, translationsare ours.
1. The inscription,which spans both wings of the door, reads (left wing):
AN[NO] DOM[INICAE]INC[ARNATIONIS]MXV B[ERNWARDUS]
EP[ISCOPUS]DIVE MEM[ORIAE]HAS VALVASFUSILES, and continues (rightwing): IN FACIE[M]ANGEL[I]CITE[M]PLIOB MONIM[EN]T[UM] SUI FEC[IT] SUSPENDI. R. Kahsnitz lists essential bibliographyin "Bronzettirenim Dom" in Bernwardvon Hildesheimund das
Zeitalterder Ottonen,2 vols. (Hildesheim, 1993), II, 503-512 (VII-33).
He questions the traditional belief that the doors were intended for
St. Michael's and argues instead that they were for the westwork of the
cathedral.For a subsequentrestatementof the traditionalview that the
doors were made for St. Michael's, see B. Schtitz, "Zur urspriinglichen
Anbringungsortder Bronzetir Bischof Bernwards von Hildesheim,"
ZfKg, LVII (1994), 569-599. On the inscription itself, which identifies
Bernwardas being "of blessed memory,"see the essays by D. von der
Nahmer, "Die Inschriftauf der Bernwardsttirin Hildesheim im Rahmen
BernwardinischerTexte,"and H. Drescher,"Einige technische Beobachin Bernwarditungen zur Inschriftauf der HildesheimerBernwardsttir,"
nische Kunst.Bericht iiber ein wissenschaftlichesSymposiumin Hildesheim vom 10.10 bis 13.10.1984, ed. M. Gosebruchand F N. Steigerwald
(Gbttingen, 1988), 51-70, 71-75. It is argued in these essays that the
inscription was writtenby Bernwardhimself for inclusion on the doors
at the time of their creation and was not added after his death.
2.
3.
4.
E. Guldan, Eva und Maria: Eine Antithese als Bildmotiv (Graz, 1966),
13-20; W. Tronzo,"TheHildesheimDoors: An IconographicSource and
its Implications,"ZfKg,XLVI (1983), 357-366, esp. 366. The New Testamentscenes on the right wing of the door are as follows, readingfrom
bottom to top: Annunciation,Nativity, Adorationof the Magi, Presentation in the Temple,Christbefore Pilate, Crucifixion,Womenat the Tomb,
Noli me Tangere.For explication of these narrativesand their relationto
the Old Testamentscenes, see, among others, B. Gallistl, "Die Tutirdes
Bischofs Bernwardund ihr ikonographischesProgramm,"in Le porte di
bronzodall'antichitctal secolo XIII,ed. S. Salomi (Rome, 1990), 145-181.
E E Tschan,Saint Bernwardof Hildesheim, 3 vols. (Notre Dame, 194251), II, 141-143. Bronze doors with separatefiguralpanels were also being cast for the cathedralof Augsburg,built between 995 and 1065. Their
precise date is uncertain;they are generally dated to the early eleventh
century.It is thus difficultto assess theirrelationshipto Bernward'sdoors
in Hildesheim. On the Mainz and Augsburg doors, see U. Mende, Die
Bronzetiirendes Mittelalters,800-1200, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1994), 25-27,
133-134, and Pls. 6-7 [Mainz];34-40, 137-139, and Pls. 28-39 [Augsburg]. Bernward,in commissioning for St. Michael's a bronze column
modeled on Trajan'sColumn,similarlydrew inspirationfrom an object he
had seen in Rome. See Bernwardvon Hildesheim,II, 540-548 (VIII-17),
with furtherliteratureand photographs.
Thangmar,Vita Bernwardi episcopi Hildesheimensis, MGH Scriptores,
IV (Hannover, 1841; rpt. New York, 1963), 754-786. The passage in
which Thangmardescribes Bernward'sskill reads: "In scribendo vero
adprimeenituit, picturametiam limate exercuit, fabrili quoque scientia
et arte clusoria omnique structuramirifice excelluit
." (758). See
. .
33
Tschan,Saint Bernward,I, 19-21, for a discussion of this portionof the
text. On Thangmar'sreliabilityas a source for Bernward'slife, see below,
n. 63.
5.
"BERNVVARDI... P[RAE]SVLIS ARTE FACTUM."For the manuscript (Hildesheim, Domschatz, MS 18), sometimes referredto as the
"Precious" Gospels of Bernward, see Das Kostbare Evangeliar des
Heiligen Bernward,ed. M. Brandt(Munich, 1993), with furtherbibliography,and esp. 56 for the full inscription.
6. In his discussionof the Hildesheimdoors, A. Goldschmidt,Die deutschen
Bronzetiirendesfriihen Mittelalters(Marburg,1926), 20, proposedthat,
despite slight variationsfrom panel to panel, a single artistic design for
the doors can be discerned. Whether Bernwardhimself actually drew
these designs, or, like so many medieval patrons,instructedhis artisans
on how to use and adapt the models available, cannot be determined.
Nevertheless, given the other evidence for Bernward'sartisticactivity, it
is likely thathe was more directly involved than most patronsin guiding
the artisticproduction.For Bernward'sartisticendeavors,see G. Binding,
"Bischof Bernwardvon Hildesheim-architectus et artifex,"in Bernwardinische Kunst,27-47. Schitz, "UrsprunglichenAnbringungsort,"597599, arguedthatartisticresponsibilityfor the doors lay with Goderamnus
of St. Pantaleon, Cologne, with Bernwardacting in a more traditional
patron'srole.
7. For the lintel at Autun, see O. K. Werckmeister,"The Lintel Fragment
RepresentingEve fromSaint-Lazare,Autun,"JWCI,XXXV (1972), 1-30.
For the mosaics of San Marco, see P H. Jolly, Made in God'sImage? Eve
andAdam in the Genesis Mosaics at San Marco, Venice(Berkeley, 1997).
Jolly convincingly interpretsthe images of Eve in the mosaics as a pictorial constructionof misogynistic Venetianattitudestowardwomen-a
readingclosely analogous to our interpretationof the Hildesheim doors.
The two monuments,however, presenttheir negative views of Eve in a
very differentmanner,responding to very differentculturalconditions.
The original CottonGenesis cycle-which was a principalsource for the
Touronianbible illuminationthatservedas a main sourceat Hildesheim
was itself alteredwhen the Cotton Genesis was used as the directmodel
for the thirteenth-centurymosaics at San Marco in Venice.
8. Noted already by E Dibelius, Die Bernwardstiirzu Hildesheim (Strasbourg, 1907). On the TouronianBibles in general, see H. L. Kessler, The
IllustratedBibles from Tours(Princeton, 1977).
9. On the four manuscripts,see Kessler, IllustratedBibles, 5-8; for a comparison to Hildesheim, 14-28. See, for more recent evaluations of the
Touronianbibles, D. Ganz, "Mass Productionof EarlyMedieval Manuscripts:the CarolingianBibles from Tours,"and R. McKitterick,"CarolingianBible Production:the ToursAnomaly,"both in TheEarlyMedieval
Bible: Its Production,Decoration, and Use, ed. R. Gameson(Cambridge,
1994), 53-62, 63-77; and P. E. Dutton and H. L. Kessler, The Poetry
and Painting of the First Bible of Charles the Bald (Ann Arbor, 1997).
10. See, in general,Kessler,IllustratedBibles. The CottonGenesis recension
takes its name from the densely illustrated late fifth-century Genesis
manuscript probablyfrom Egypt; the book was once owned by Robert
Cottonand damagedin the famous AshburnhamHouse fire of 1731. The
manuscripthas been reconstructedand analyzed by K. Weitzmannand
H. L. Kessler, The Cotton Genesis (Princeton, 1986).
11. C. Nordenfalk,"Noch eine turonischeBilderbibel,"in FestschriftBernhard Bischoff zu seinem 65. Geburtstag,ed. J. Autenriethand E Brunhilzl (Stuttgart,1971), 153-163. The exemplar was textually closest to
the GrandvalBible, but was probablymanufacturedsomewhat earlier.It
may be thatextantfragmentsin WolfenbuttelandBraunschweigbelonged
to this Touronianmanuscript.For a description of the BernwardBible
(Hildesheim, Domschatz, MS 61), see M. Stihli, Die Handschriftenim
Domschatz zu Hildesheim, ed. H. H~irtel(Wiesbaden, 1984), 147-166,
and, more recently, E. Scholz in Buch und Bild im Mittelalter (Hildesheim, 1999), 33-37, with complete bibliography.
34
12. The groundsfor this may lie in the fact thatthe Hildesheimmonks, being
in possession of an illustratedfull bible from Tours,had no need to create
another such book. In manufacturingthe Hildesheim doors, Bernward
and his craftsmenthus evince a typical medieval approachto artisticcreation:they marrythe pictorialnarrativesfrom an availablesource (a Touronianbible) to a venerable, though unusual, medium (bronze doors) to
create an innovativeand remarkableobject. For a similar,contemporaneous example,note the eleventh-centuryfrescoes in the churchof St. Julien
in Tours, which were copied after illuminations in the so-called AshburnhamPentateuchof the sixth century-as discussed by A. Grabar,
"Fresquesromanescopies sur la miniaturesdu Pentateuquede Tours,"
CA, IX (1957), 329-341.
13. This is not to imply that the Touronianbibles do not include juxtapositions of Old and New Testamentimagery.In these cases, however, typological exegesis is either embedded in individual compositions through
the introductionof specific iconographical motifs or created through
iconographic,compositional,or physical relationshipsamong illustrated
pages scatteredthroughoutthe manuscript.See H. L. Kessler, "Facies
Bibliothecae Revelata: CarolingianArt as Spiritual Seeing," in Testo e
immaginenell'alto medioevo, Settimanedi Studio del CentroItalianodi
Studi sull'alto Medioevo, XLI (Spoleto, 1994), II, 533-594. The Hildesheim doors,because all its scenes can be apprehendedat once, can present
the juxtaposition between Old and New Testaments in an essentially
differentfashion.
14. The possibilities, with arguments both for and against, are carefully
rehearsed by S. Kaspersen, "Cotton-Genesis,die Toursbibelnund die
Bronzettiren-Vorlage und Aktualitit," in BernwardinischeKunst, 79103, esp. 81 ff. For a detailed discussion of the differentphases in the
Creationstory and their illustrationin the Carolingianmanuscripts,see
Kessler, IllustratedBibles, 14-28.
15. On the interpolationof Christinto the Creationnarrative,see Weitzmann
and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, 37.
16. See, for example, Kahsnitz, "Bronzettiren,"506.
17. Kaspersen,"Cotton-Genesis,"81-84.
18. This solution was suggested by Tronzo, "HildesheimDoors,"363.
19. Forthe relationshipof the San Marcomosaics and the Touronianbibles to
the Cotton Genesis, see in general Weitzmannand Kessler, Cotton Genesis, 18-22, with furtherliterature.
20.
While no angel appearsin the Creationor Formationof Eve in the Touronianbibles or in othermembersof the CottonGenesis recension,angels
are present at the Formationin the early eleventh-centuryAnglo-Saxon
CaedmonGenesis (Oxford, Bodleian Library,MS Junius 11, p. 9). This
was one reason why Tronzo, "HildesheimDoors,"groundedthe iconographyof the doors in Anglo-Saxon art.It shouldbe pointedout, however,
that the highly idiosyncraticJunius manuscriptis very much concerned
with issues of angelology in a way that the Hildesheim doors decidedly
are not, and that the representationof the angels in the two monuments,
as Tronzo acknowledged, are visually quite different. On the Junius
manuscript,see furtherbelow. We are gratefulto Michael Kauffmannfor
guidance on this point in specific and on the Junius manuscriptin general. The presence of the angel in the Hildesheim panel may be a transposition of the angel from the Creationof Adam scene, as seen in the
Grandvaland Vivian Bibles. It is thustemptingto adoptKaspersen'ssuggestion, "Cotton-Genesis,"84, thatthe firstHildesheimpanel actuallydepicts the Formationof Eve and,elliptically,the Creationof Adamas well,
so thatboth creationsare condensedinto one compactimage. Adam'switnessing Eve's creationis perhapsa referenceto his ecstatic vision of Eve
at that moment as a symbol of the unificationof Christand the Church,
a notion expoundedby Augustine and consideredfurtherbelow.
21. Advocatesof this hypothesisincludeGoldschmidt,Die deutschenBronzetiiren, 16, and Kaspersen,"Cotton-Genesis,"81-84. Kaspersenexplicates
the idea more fully thanGoldschmidt,creditingit to J. M. Kratz,Der Dom
zu Hildesheim, 3 vols. (Hildesheim, 1840), II, 49-50-a publicationthat
we have not been able to consult.
22. For the differentscenes in the frontispieces,representingfourteento seventeen separateepisodes (dependingon interpretation),see A. A. Schmid,
in Die Bibel von Moutier-Grandval(Bern, 1971), 165-174; Kessler,IllustratedBibles, esp. 25-28; and K. Koshi, "Der Adam-und-Eva-Zyklusin
der sogenanntenCottongenesis-Rezension:eine Ubersichtiuberm6gliche
Mitglieder der verzweigten Cottongenesis-Familie,"Bulletin annuel du
Musde National dArt Occidental, IX (1975), 46-85.
23. The sole exception is the San Paolo Bible, where Eve has conspicuous
breasts.
24. There are, of course, certain differences between the four Touronian
bible renderings,as indicatedby Kessler, IllustratedBibles, 18-19, and
Figs. 2-3, for the Bamberg and Vivian Bibles. The four Touronianversions, are, however, closer to one anotherthanthey are to the Hildesheim
door panel.
25.
See, in general, M. Caviness, "Images of Divine Order and the Third
Mode of Seeing,"Gesta, XXII (1983), 99-120, and, for examples around
the year 1000, A. S. Cohen, The Uta Codex:Art, Philosophy, and Reform
in Eleventh-CenturyGermany(University Park,PA, 2000), 57-58.
26. Bernward von Hildesheim, II, 540-548 (VIII-17). Another image of
Salome is found in the Aachen Gospels of Otto III, p. 92; see E. G.
Grimme, Das Evangeliar Kaiser Ottos IlL im Domschatz zu Aachen
(Freiburgim Breisgau, 1984).
27. Etymologiae, XI, 1, 75-77, ed. W. M. Lindsay, in Isidori Hispalensis
Episcopi Etymologiarumsive OriginumLibri XX (Oxford, 1911); trans.
W. D. Sharpe, in Isidore of Seville: The Medical Writings.An English
Translationwith an Introductionand Commentary,Transactionsof the
American Philosophical Society, n.s., XLIII. For medieval medical
discourse on the breast and reproductive organs, see D. Jacquartand
C. Thomasset, Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages (Princeton,
1988); for their discussion of Isidore, see esp. chap. 1, "Anatomy,or the
Quest for Words."
28. Decretum, XIX, 137, ed. Migne, PL, CXL, 1010: "Si quis obtrectaverit
puellae aut mulieres pectus, vel turpitudinemearum: si clericus est,
quinque dies: si laicus, tres dies poeniteat. Monachus vel sacerdos, a
ministeriodivino suspensi si aliquidtale fecerint, viginti dies poeniteant.
Scriptum est enim: neque tetigeritis neque obtrectaveritisturpitudinem
feminarum."Burchard'scanon was derived from the ninth-centuryPenitential of St. Hubert.See H. Hoffmannand R. Pokorny,Das Dekret des
Bischofs Burchardvon Worm:Textstufen-friihe Verbreitung-Vorlagen
(Munich, 1991), 238. On penitentialsin general, see P.Payer,Sex and the
Penitentials: The Development of a Sexual Code, 550-1150 (Toronto,
1984), esp. 60-62, 105; and J. McNeill and H. Gardner,Medieval Handbooks of Penance: A Translationof the Principal 'LibriPoenitentiales'
and Selections from Related Documents (New York, 1990), esp. 292293, 321-323.
29. The four Touronianbibles each selected slightly differentepisodes from
the Early Christianmodel. Closest to the Hildesheimpanel is the Grandval Bible, which shows the Reprovalof Adam and Eve as an element of
the Denial of Blame. In the Bamberg Bible, two distinct scenes show
Adam and Eve hiding and God reprovingthem as they deny blame. In the
Vivian Bible, Adam and Eve hide from the approachingCreator;except
for slightly different hand gestures, the scene looks very much like the
Reproval/Denialin the GrandvalBible. In the San Paolo Bible, finally,
the Reproval is conflated with the Fall itself, so that Adam and Eve are
not representedinteracting with God as he reproves them. In general,
however, the threebibles from Toursitself (that is, excluding San Paolo)
all include some comparablescene between the Fall and the Expulsion.
For detailedconsiderationsof the differentscenes, see Kessler,Illustrated
Bibles, 19-20; Koshi, "Adam-und-Eva-Zyklus,"
77-79; and Weitzmann
and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, 56.
30. Tronzo, "HildesheimDoors."
31. Thereare many unansweredand contentiousquestionsaboutthis unusual
manuscript,which has long been the subject of scholarly interest and
debate rangingacross multiple academicdisciplines;the bibliographyon
the manuscriptis vast. For a facsimile, see I. Gollancz, The Caedmon
Manuscriptof Anglo-Saxon Biblical Poetry, Junius XI in the Bodleian
Library (Oxford, 1927). For an overview, see A. N. Doane, The Saxon
Genesis: An Editionof the WestSaxon Genesis B and the Old Saxon Vatican Genesis (Madison, 1991), esp. 28 ff., with furtherliterature.
32. Otherfragmentsof this lost poem arepreservedin Vatican,Pal. lat. 1447.
For the Vatican manuscriptand for the relationship of Genesis A and
Genesis B in the Junius manuscript,see ibid., 13 ff., 28 ff., and 55 ff.
33. Ibid., 139-153, for a critical essay on Adam and Eve with an overview
of previous scholarship.To cite and explicate these variousviews of Eve
would be well beyond the scope of the present study, but see in general
S. Burchmore,"TraditionalExegesis andthe Questionof Guilt in the Old
English Genesis B," Traditio,XLI (1985), 117-144.
34. Doane, Saxon Genesis, 93-107.
35. Ibid., 43-54. Accordingto Doane, Genesis B had alreadybeen translated
into Anglo-Saxon and incorporatedinto Genesis A before the early eleventh century; the text of Junius 11 is thus two steps removed from the
original Saxon poem.
36.
See especially the argumentsin B. Raw, "The Constructionof Oxford,
Bodleian Library,Junius 11,"Anglo-Saxon England, XIII (1984), 187210, and "The ProbableDerivationof Most of the Illustrationsin Junius
11 from an IllustratedOld Saxon Genesis," Anglo-Saxon England, V
(1976), 133-148. H. Broderick,in "TheIconographicand Compositional
Sources of the Drawings in Oxford Bodleian LibraryMS Junius 11,"
(Dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity, 1978), arguinginstead that the chief
sources for the Junius drawings were an illustrated Early Christian
Genesis manuscript,together with the Utrecht Psalter and tenth-century
Anglo-Saxon works, did correctlypoint out some problemsin Raw'stheory of an Old Saxon illustratedGenesis; P Lucas, "MS Junius 11 and
Malmesbury(II),"Scriptorium,XXXV (1981), 3-22, advanced further
argumentsagainstRaw'sthesis. Nevertheless,in view of certainproblems
in Broderick'sand Lucas'sown analyses (again beyond the scope of this
workto describein detail), andkeeping in mind the recentworkof Doane
cited above, it is possible to supportRaw's conclusions as a whole. The
most compelling evidence of the existence of an earlierpictorialcycle is
the image of Enoch standingon a dragon (p. 60), which is a referenceto
his defeat of the Antichrist.Because this episode is not in the text of Genesis A as it appearsin Junius 11, but does appearin the Vaticanfragment
of Genesis B, it is clear that the picture must derive from an illustrated
text of Genesis B. The second illustrationof the Ascension of Enoch on
p. 61 of Junius 11 was, on the other hand, the innovation of an AngloSaxon artist. On this image, see R. Deshman, "Another Look at the
DisappearingChrist:Corporealand SpiritualVision in Early Medieval
Images,"AB, LXXIX (1997), 518-546, esp. 521 ff.
37. A theological groundingfor the appearanceof angels at the Creationof
Eve is, in any event, clearlyprovidedby Augustine,De Genesi ad litteram
libri duodecim,IX, 15, ed. J. Zycha, CSELXXVIII (Vienna, 1894), 286288; trans.J. H. Taylor, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Ancient Christian Writers, XLI-XLII (New York, 1982), II, 88-90. The connection
was made by Gallistl, "Ttirdes Bischofs Bernward,"149-150.
38. Both iconographicelements were derivedultimatelyfromthe apocryphal
Vita Adae et Evae, to which Genesis B was deeply indebted. In his
examination of the Touronianfrontispieces, Kessler, IllustratedBibles,
28 ff., demonstratedthe reliance of certain details on the Vita Adae et
Evae, notably the presence of the angels at the Creationof Adam, the
35
presence of Eve at the Admonition, and the angel as the expeller from
paradise.Tronzo,"HildesheimDoors,"esp. 360-362, linked the instructing angel to the Vita,and adducedvarious(later)English examples of the
iconographyto suggest that the Hildesheimrepresentationstemmed specifically from an Anglo-Saxon source. While the expelling angel could
have been derived from either a Touronianfrontispiece or an AngloSaxon manuscriptas reflectedin Junius 11, the instructingangel appears
in neitherthe Touronianbibles nor the Juniusmanuscript.Because Genesis B itself was influencedby the VitaAdae et Evae, it is logical to suppose that both elements were alreadyassimilatedinto the original Saxon
poem with its illustrations,which would have providedthe model for the
instructingangel. For the apocryphaltext, and an introductionby M. D.
Johnson, see J. Charlesworth,ed., The Old TestamentPseudepigrapha
(GardenCity, NY, 1983-85), II, 249-295. For the close relationshipbetween Genesis B and the Vita, see Doane, Saxon Genesis, 96-97.
39. The lowest register of the Bamberg Bible frontispiece is devoted to the
murderof Abel, and Kessler demonstratedthat the episode may also be
found as a tiny detail in the GrandvalBible; in any event, the scenes were
certainlypartof the original Cotton Genesis traditionthatthe Touronian
manuscriptsreflect, as witnessed in the mosaics of San Marco. See H. L.
Kessler, "AnUnnoticed Scene in the GrandvalBible," CA, XVII (1967),
113-119; Weitzmannand Kessler, Cotton Genesis, 59-60.
40.
Line 636, ed. Doane, Saxon Genesis, 223; trans. R. K. Gordon,AngloSaxon Poetry (1926; rpt. London, 1977), 107. Our thanksto MarkSandona for his assistance with this text.
41. For the Augustiniannotion, expressed in The City of God and De Genesi
ad litteram, see Gallistl, "Tiirdes Bischofs Bernward,"153.
42. For a single example, consider Tertullian'soften-quoted statement, addressed to women (ca. 200 C.E.): "Do you not know that you, too, are
Eve? . . . You are the Devil's gateway. You are the unsealer of that forbidden tree. You are the first deserterof the divine law . . . On account
of your desert, that is death, even the Son of God had to die." De cultu
feminarum,I, 12, trans.R. Ruether,"MisogynismandVirginalFeminism
in the Fathersof the Church,"in Religion and Sexism:Images of Women
in the Jewish and ChristianTraditions,ed. R. Ruether(New York, 1974),
150-183, at 157.
43.
The impact of reform, the rise of a Marian cult, and the concomitant
attentionto Eve in Ottonian Germanyhave yet to receive properattention. These issues will be addressedin a forthcomingdissertation,"Redeemer, Mother, and Ruler: The Uses of the Image of the Virgin in
Ottonian Germany,"by Kristen Collins at the University of Texas at
Austin. For the roots of Gregorianreform, see A. Fliche, La Reforme
grdgorienne, I. La Formation des idjes grigoriennes (Louvain, 1924).
For hostility to women among reformers,see J. Delarun, "The Clerical
Gaze,"inA History of Womenin the West,II. Silences of the MiddleAges,
ed. C. Klapisch-Zuber(Cambridge,MA, 1992), 15-24. See also L. Seidel, "Salome and the Canons,"Women'sStudies, XI (1984), 29-66; and
P. Loos-Noji, "Temptationand Reform: A Monastic Life in Stone," in
Equally in God's Image: Womenin the Middle Ages, ed. J. Holloway,
C. Wright, and J. Bechtold (New York, 1990), 220-232; both associate
reform with eroticized images in Romanesqueart.
44. Tschan,Saint Bernward,I, 38; Fliche, Reformegrdgorienne,I, passim.
45. For Odo'streatise,the Collationes, see P. G. Jester,"Why Celibacy? Odo
of Cluny and the Development of a New Sexual Morality,"in Medieval
Purity and Piety: Essays on Medieval Clerical Celibacy and Religious
Reform, ed. M. Frassetto (New York, 1998), 81-115, esp. 91-93. For
Ademar, see M. Frassetto, "Heresy, Celibacy, and Reform in the Sermons of Ademarof Chabannes,"in ibid., 131-148, esp. 138.
46.
36
Contraintemperantesclericos, II, 7, ed. Migne, PL, CXLV,410. The seventh chapteropens: "Intereavos alloquor, o lepores clericorum,pulpamenta diaboli, projectioparadisi... materiapeccandi, occasio periundi."
He goes on to describe women as harpies, sirens, and furious vipers,
among other epithets ("vos harpyiae . . . vos sirenae. .
furiosae").See also Delarun, "ClericalGaze,"23.
47.
.
vos viperae
For Bernward'sroots as a reformer,see Tschan,Saint Bernward, I, 37.
On reform in Ottonian Germany in general, see K. Hallinger, GorzeKluny: Studienzu den monastischenLebensformenund Gegensditzenim
Hochmittelalter,Studia Anselmiana,XXII-XXIII (Rome, 1950).
48. For Henryas Bernward'sbenefactor,see Tschan,Saint Bernward,I, 7280 and passim; for Henry'ssupportof reform, see Fliche, Reformegrdgorienne, I, 97-99 and H. Hoffmann,Manchskanigund "rexidiota":Studien zur KirchenpolitikHeinrichsII. und KonradsII. (Hannover,1993).
49.
On Bernward'sparticipationat the synod of Goslar, see Tschan,Saint
Bernward, I, 151-152. For Goslar and the other two councils, held at
Pavia and Seligenstadt, see K. J. Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, trans.
D. H. Leclerq, IV,pt. 2 (Paris, 1911), 918-924; Fliche, Reformegregorienne, I, 98.
50. See, for instance, Delarun, "Clerical Gaze,"29-30.
51.
Guldan,Eva undMaria, 13-20, esp. 16, describesthe Hildesheimdoors,
and the closely related dedicationimage in Bernward's"Precious"Gospels, as unique documents. He cites as precedentsa few works of Early
Christianart, but, as he notes, these offer only rudimentsof an idea that
is fully developed only in the worksfrom Hildesheim.ForEve and Mary,
see also B. Bagatti, "L'iconografiadella tentazione di Adamo ed Eva,"
StudiumBiblicumFranciscanum.LiberAnnuus,XXXI (1981), 217-230.
52.
Irenaeus,Adversus haereses, III, 22, 4, ed. Migne, PG, VII, 959-960;
trans.A. Robertand W. H. Rambaut,Ante-Nicene Fathers,I (New York,
1885; rpt. Peabody, MA, 1994), 455; cited in the useful study by
K. J. Glaeske, "The Image of Eve in Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and
Old IrishLiterature"(Dissertation,CatholicUniversityof America,1997),
108.
53. Tertullian,De came Christi, XVII, 5-6, trans. P. Holmes, Ante-Nicene
Fathers, III (New York, 1885; rpt. Peabody, MA, 1994), 536; cited in
Glaeske, "Image of Eve," 120.
54. The first two stanzas of the hymn read: "Ave, maris stella / Dei mater
alma, /Atque sempervirgo / Felix caeli porta.// Sumens illud Ave / Gabrielis ore / Fundanos in pace / Mutansnomen Evae."(Hail, starof the sea
/ Gracious motherof God, / Ever virgin / Noble gate of heaven. // Accepting that "Ave"/ From the mouthof Gabriel/ Bring us forth in peace
/ Changingthe nameof Eve.) Forthe hymn, see J. Szbverffy,Marianische
Motivikder Hymnen:ein Beitrag zur Geschichteder marianischenLyrik
im Mittelalter(Leiden, 1985), 14 ff.; for the full text, see Analecta hymnica medii aevi, ed. G. Dreves and C. Blume (Leipzig, 1886-1922), LI,
141-142.
55. This contrastappearsat the very beginningof Maria (lines 1-4): "Unica
spes Mundi DominatrixInclita Caeli / Sancta parensregis, lucida stella
maris / Quae parens mundo restaurasti,pia virgo, / Vitam, quam virgo
perdideratvetula."Ed. P von Winterfeld,Hrotsvithaeopera, Scriptores
rerumGermanicarumin usum scholarum(Berlin, 1905), 5; trans. Sister
M. Gonsalva Wiegand, The Non-dramatic Works of Hrosvitha: Text,
Translation,Introductionand Commentary(St. Louis, 1936), 14-73, esp.
15. The namehas severalalternatespellings in modernscholarship,among
them Hrotsvitha,Hrotsvit, Roswitha, Rotsvita. See also A. L. Haight,
Hroswithaof Gandersheim:Her Life, Timesand Work(New York, 1965).
56. Guldan,Eva und Maria, 17-18.
57. For Bernward'spresence at Gandersheimin the 990s, see Tschan,Saint
Bernward, I, 164. For Hrotswitha's ties with the Saxon court, see
P. Dronke, WomenWritersof the MiddleAges (Cambridge,1984), 57-59.
58. Thangmar,Vita, 763.
59. For the referenceto "blissful"("felicis") Gandersheim,used at the beginning of the PrimordiaCoenobii Gandeshemensis,the historyof the foundation, see Winterfeld, Hrotsvithae opera, 229; trans. Dronke, Women
Writers,80. "ClamorValidus [Gandersheimensis],"which is the Latin
equivalent of her Saxon name, appears in the preface to Hrotswitha's
dramas;see Winterfeld,Hrotsvithaeopera, 106; Haight, Hroswitha, 11;
and Dronke, WomenWriters,70. For the culturalnorms for elite Ottonian women, who enjoyed a relative amountof autonomywithin Ottonian
society, see K. J. Leyser, Rule and Conflictin an Early Medieval Society:
OttonianSaxony (Bloomington, 1979), esp. part 2, "The Women of the
Saxon Aristocracy,"49-74.
60.
On the history of Gandersheim,see Haight,Hrotswitha,9-11; H. Goetting, Das Bistum Hildesheim, I. Das ReichsunmittelbareKanonissenstift
Gandersheim,GermaniaSacra,N.E VII (Berlin, 1973); J. W. Bernhardt,
Itinerant Kingship and Royal Monasteries in Early Medieval Germany,
c. 936-1075 (Cambridge, 1993), 149-161.
61. For the importanceof Gandersheimas an intellectualcenterof the Ottonian rulers, see G. Althoff, "Gandersheimund Quedlinburg:Ottonische
Frauenkldsterals Herrschafts- und Uberlieferungszentren,"FS, XXV
(1991), 123-144. On the toll rights, see Bernhardt,Itinerant Kingship,
151-154. For Gandersheimas a contestedsite well before Sophiabecame
abbess, see J. McNamara,Sisters in Arms: Catholic Nuns through Two
Millennia (Cambridge,MA, 1996), 188-190.
62.
63.
See, for instance, O. Perst,"Die KaisertochterSophie Abtissin von Gandersheimund Essen (975-1039)," BraunschweigischesJahrbuch,XXXVIII (1957), 5-46, esp. 8-10; Leyser, Rule and Conflict,49; Bernhardt,
ItinerantKingship, 150-151.
Although long regardedas an essential and reliablesource for recovering
informationabout Bernward'slife, the vita by Thangmar,who in the text
is purportedto be Bernward'steacher and friend, has come under suspicion as a twelfth-centurytext with little or no connection to the actual
Thangmar, who is independently attested as a deacon in Hildesheim
aroundthe year 1000. The vita manuscript(Hanover, Niedersichsiches
Staatsarchiv,MS F 5), to be sure, is of mid- or late twelfth-centurydate.
There is, however, a second manuscript,of eleventh-centurydate, that
containsa text correspondingto some twenty-twochaptersin the Hanover
vita. This manuscript(Dresden,Sichsische Landesbibliothek,MS J 206)
is often referredto as the "Denkschrift"of Thangmar,thatis, Thangmar's
workingcopy of the materialthat was laterincorporatedinto the twelfthcentury Hanover vita. What is importantfor the purposes of this article
is thatthe events recountedin the "Denkschrift"concernthe conflict with
Sophia and Willigis over Gandersheim.Therefore,whetheror not either
the "Denkshrift"or the vita were actually writtenby Thangmarhimself
is of less consequence for our argumentthan the fact that the eleventhcenturyaccount most certainlyrecordsin authenticfashion a view of the
struggle sympatheticto Bernwardand presumablyclose to his own view
of the Gandersheimconflict. Furthermore,Wolfher'slives of Godehard,
the Vitaprior and Vitaposterior, writtenin 1034 and 1054 respectively,
corroboratethe basic outline and views of the "Thangmar"text. For an
overview of the implications of the dating issues and manuscriptevidence, with indications in the text of the materialcovered by the Denkschrift, see H. Kallfelz, Lebensbeschreibungeneiniger Bischbfe des 10.12. Jahrhunderts(Darmstadt,1973), 265-271. For an extensive treatment
of the reliability,or lack thereof,of the Thangmartext, see K. Gorichand
"OttoIII., Thangmarund die Vita Bernwardi,"MitteilunH.-H. Kortim,
gen des Instituts fiir Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, XCVIII
(1990), 1-57 (particularthanksto ElizabethTeviotdalefor supplyingthis
importantreference).For an opposing view, see the entry on the "Denkschrift"manuscriptin Bernwardvon Hildesheim, II, 489-491 (VII-28).
Without being able to decide this matterhere, we have decided to refer
in our account to "Thangmar'stext," which, despite a certain awkwardness, preserves the traditionalidentificationwhile leaving open the possibility that the text was not, in fact, writtenby Thangmar.
64. Thangmar,Vita, 765.
65.
Haight, Hroswitha, 11. Thangmardoes not mention that the canonesses
had this right, which had been ratifiedat the Synod of Aachen in 816. He
does note that Sophia sought Willigis's approval(Vita, 765).
66. Thangmar,Vita, 765.
67. For Peter Damian'scondemnationof Maria-he notes her "luxury,"her
"nauseating"incense and perfumes, and her "vanity"-and for similar
denunciations of Theophano, see A. Davids, "MarriageNegotiations
between Byzantium and the West and the Name of Theophano in Byzantium (Eighth to Tenth Centuries),"in The Empress Theophano:Byzantium and the Westat the Turnof the First Millennium,ed. A. Davids
(Cambridge, 1995), 99-120, esp. 110-111.
68. Though the see of Hildesheim was not wealthy, Bernwardamassed a
sizable estate while bishop; see Tschan,Saint Bernward,70-75.
69. Thangmar, Vita, 765. The sentence reads: "Post haec Gandenesheim
repetit, varia de episcopo inter sorores disseminavit, nisu quo poterat
illum loco expellere atque abalienareparabat."
70. The passage reads:"Quo insolito tumultuperculsus,lacrimisperfususantistes, non suam iniuriam,quamparvi ducebat,pensans, sed veri pastoris
pro persecutoribusorantis exemplo, ignorantiamseu potius malivoltiam
furentiumfeminariumdeplorans,ad altarerediit . . ." (Thangmar,Vita,
766). For an overview of the entire conflict, see H. Goetting, "Bernward
und der groBe GandersheimerStreit,"in Bernward von Hildesheim, I,
275-282.
71. Wolfher, Vita Godehardi Episcopi Hildenesheimensis, MGH SS, XI
(Hannover, 1854; rpt. New York, 1963), 167-196: "Quod ubi Sophia
praescivit, omnes quos undecumquepoterat ob favorem metropolitani
concivit, qui postis obseratis, turribusqueet aliis munitioribus locis
armaturarepletis, episcopo resisterunt.. ." (184).
72.
Thangmar,Vita, 778-779; Wolfher, Vita, 185-186, 205; Tschan,Saint
Bernward, I, 196-199.
73.
Tschan,Saint Bernward, I, 157.
74.
For a discussion, with furtherbibliography,and color reproductionsof
fols. 16v-17, see R. Kahsnitz,"Die Bilder,"in KostbareEvangeliar, 2730, and Pls. 5-6. Like the doors themselves, the manuscripthas been
ascribed to the cathedral,ratherthan to St. Michael's, although the traditional interpretationof the manuscriptas a gift from Bernwardto the
cloister for the dedication of the crypt and altar of the Virgin in 1015
remains most likely. See, in general, Stihli, Handschriften,17-50, and
Bernward von Hildesheim, II, 570-578 (VIII-30).
75.
The verse is almost a verbatimquote from an antiphonsung for the feast
of the Assumptionof Mary:"Paradisiportaper Evam cunctis clausa est
per MarianVirginem iterum patefacta est, alleluia." See R.-J. Hesbert,
Corpus antiphonaliumofficii, 6 vols. (Rome, 1963-79), IV, no. 4214.
See also Glaeske, "Image of Eve," 205-206.
76. The connectionhas been stressedin particularby Guldan,Eva undMaria,
13-20; Tronzo, "Hildesheim Doors"; and SchUtz, "Ursprtinglichen
Anbringungsort."
77. Wolfher, Vita, 184.
78. Ibid., 185. "Porta"is usually defined as a gate or door, "ianua"as a door
or entrance.
79.
Kahsnitz, Bernward, 510; B. Gallistl, Die BronzetiirenBischof Bernwards im Dom zu Hildesheim (Basel, 1990), 52.
80.
Kahsnitz, Bernward, 510; Gallistl, Bronzetiiren,52. Note, too, that the
Virgin also holds a palm on the back cover of the "Precious"Gospels of
Bernward (Brandt, P1. 2). Schaitz, "UrsprainglichenAnbringungsort,"
577 n. 31, also pointed out the wordplay between "virga"and "virgo."
This fluidity of language is similar to the interpretationof "aevum"and
"Aevam"suggested above.
81. Gallistl, "Ttirdes Bischofs Bernward,"151, connects the two scenes in
terms of the respective angels: that in the first panel is a passive witness
to God's formation of Eve (which Gallistl identifies as the Creation),
while that in the Annunciationplays an active role.
37
82. Sermon 232, for Easter.Ed. Migne, PL, XXXVIII, 1107-12, esp. 1108;
trans. Sister M. Muldowney, in Saint Augustine, Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons, The Fathersof the Church(New York, 1959), 210-211.
83. For an extensive treatmentof the scene, including the antithesis of Eve
and MaryMagdalene, see B. Gallistl, "Das wiedererlangteParadies:Zur
Bedeutung der Maria Magdalena auf der Bernwardsti4r," Die Dibzese
Hildesheim, LII (1984), 19-38.
84. Kaspersen,"Cotton-Genesis,"92-93; Gallistl, "Tir des Bischofs Bernward,"147-149. For the text of Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram,IX,
38
19, see CSEL,XXVIII, 294, and Taylor,LiteralMeaning of Genesis, II,
95, and n. 95. H. Schade originallyproposedthis Augustinianreadingfor
the figureof Adam in the San Paolo Bible Creationof Eve in "Hinweise
zur frtihmittelalterlichenIkonographie.I. Adams grosses Gesicht,"Das
Miinster,XI/XII (1958), 375-387. He based this on Adam'sopen eyes,
but as Kessler pointed out, IllustratedBibles, 17 n. 19, Adam'seyes are
open as well in the Creation of Adam scene, effectively undercutting
Schade's contention.Nevertheless, as both Kaspersenand Gallistl demonstrated, there are sufficient other reasons to accept an Augustinian
interpretationfor Bernward'sdoors.