|
The present intervention on the
reliquaries from the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Saint Mary of
Alcobaça is the second phase of a conservation-restoration treatment
previously executed by the Institute José de Figueiredo. Essentially,
the intervention followed the same methodology, focusing on the
treatment of degradations that appeared in the meantime, redoing some
operations and detailing others. However, the remounting of all
reliquaries in the altarpiece was a more complex operation.
Furthermore, the study of the Monastery’s terracotta sculptures
proposes their correct attribution and dating, the addition of other
sculptures to the ensemble, and the existence of several terracotta
workshops in the monastery.
Introduction
This article describes the second phase of the conservation-restoration treatment of the reliquaries from the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Saint Mary of Alcobaça that took place in 2006. Given that much has already been said about this artwork by previous researches, this paper will focus on the interpretation of data collected during the present intervention and the remounting of the reliquaries. It is not appropriate to address what is not well understood and, as indeed the terracotta sculpture of Alcobaça is an enormous unexploited subject, it was a temptation hard to resist for those who dealt with it daily since 2006. Thus, the new data concerning its study is briefly presented herein, which hopefully will influence a new approach to the subject in the future, as well as some terminology and dating corrections of some of the sculptures. The Alcobaça Terracotta Sculpture In 1153, ten years after the Treaty of Zamora1, King Afonso Henriques donated conquered lands to the moors to St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, where the Cistercian monastery was founded (figure 1). The monastery became one of the most important, powerful and wealthy from Portugal due to the consecutive royal concessions, inherently having works of art of great quality. According to the Chapter XXVI of the 12th century Exordium Cistercii [1, pp. 61], sculptures were not allowed in Cistercian monasteries, except for painted wooden crosses, not to distract the monks from their prayers with mundane things. However, the rule was updated and in the 17th century the Cistercian monks from Alcobaça, as well as the others, surrender to the Baroque opulence. In this period, the polychromed terracotta sculpture became one of the main artistic fields of interest in the monastery. After the execution of the sculpture ensemble of the St. Peter altarpiece (figure 2), probably dating from the first half of the 17th century, the monastery began an intense production of terracotta sculpture, which possibly started with the sculpture of Our Lady of the Rosary [2] followed by: the sculptures of the Sanctuary (c. 1670) [3, pp. 36]; the altarpiece of the main chapel (1676-1678) [3, pp. 25; 4, pp. 9]; the first phase of the altarpiece of Transit of St. Bernard (commissioned between 1676 and 1678) [5]; the first phase of the series of the Kings of Portugal (commissioned between 1675 and 1778) [5]; the Nativity scene (commissioned between 1684 and 1690) [5]; the second phase of the altarpiece Transit of St. Bernard (possibly commissioned between 1687 and 1690) [5]; the altarpiece of the Miracle of the Loaves (c. 1702) [3, pp. 48]; the second phase of the series of the Kings of Portugal (executed before 1710) [3, pp. 41]; the altarpiece of St. Bernard Giving Alms [3, pp. 39]; and the third phase of the series of the Kings of Portugal (c. 1765) [6]. It is possible that the ensemble of the altarpiece Transit of St. Bernard was executed in two different phases and by two different workshops. The execution of the series Kings of Portugal would also have been performed in three phases. The altarpiece Miracle of the Loaves is also included in this sequence as it is referred in the chronicles together with the previous ones. Similarly, the altarpiece of the Calvary [7] may also have been executed in the same phase as there are references of its existence. Beyond these ensembles, religious and pagan sculptures existed in the monastery, although of smaller dimensions [2]. Along with the correction of the ensemble dating based on the Cistercian chronicles, we also propose the correction of some designations, according to the documentation until the 19th century. The most evident cases are the ones of the Sanctuary [3, pp. 36] and the altarpiece Transit of St. Bernard [3, pp. 29] that are called by a variety of names. Although this altarpiece is commonly called the Death of St. Bernard, it represents more than the eminent death of the Mellifluous Priest. It also represents the transit of his soul to heaven where it is received by the Virgin to whom he was especially devoted.
Some evident similarities were then detected between some of the busts and the sculptures of the first phase of the altarpiece Transit of St. Bernard. Comparing the archaic sculpture of Our Lady of the Rosary with some busts, we may find some formal similarities, especially with the bust of St. Euphemia (?), concerning the hairstyle and headdress. We propose the hypothesis that this sculpture was executed by the same workshop although it was one of their early works followed by more complex projects as the reliquaries of the Sanctuary and of the altarpiece Transit of St. Bernard [2].
The most comprehensive studies of the Sculpture of Alcobaça did not find any references about Friar Pedro [9, 10]. Thus, and following the above argumentation, it is likely that there were several clay workshops working simultaneously and not only one single. We also believe that these workshops were not necessarily made up of monks, as it is usually and undisputedly referred, but possibly by seculars, as other teams of major projects from the monastery. The idea of seculars working in workshops is also corroborated by the existence of sculptures and ensembles in other monasteries and convents that are very similar to those from Alcobaça. The Sanctuary As the medieval sacristy became too small for a monastery with the importance and splendour of Alcobaça, King Manuel I ordered the construction of a bigger sacristy behind the ambulatory. The medieval one became the Treasure Room to keep the important and renowned collection of the monastery relics. In time, however, this space also became unworthy of the relics collection, requiring the construction of a new space for that purpose that would represent the cultural and institutional importance of the relics collection. Thus, in 1670 the Abbot General Dr. Friar Constantino de Sampaio (1619-1691) [5] commissioned the construction of the Sanctuary (figure 3) with its own chapel at the top of the Sacristy. The Sanctuary has an octagonal plan and a dome in carved stone and shed dormer. The walls are entirely covered with a gilded and polychromed altarpiece with several niches that house the reliquaries. The reliquaries, of monumental scale and mostly in polychrome terracotta, were initially composed of seven full-body sculptures, 82 busts and 14 arms. Currently, only seven full-body sculptures, 68 busts and 10 arms remained in the altarpiece. One additional bust, the heads of two busts and an arm in terracotta are kept in storage due to their poor conservation state. Each reliquary represents a saint (figure 3) and has embedded in the front a container with glass with the respective relic and a rag paper [11] with the saint identification. The relics that still exist are mostly bones, teeth, flesh and tissue fragments. Seven of the busts are in polychrome wood, formally very similar to the others. Although the reason why they were made in wood is unknown, it is likely that they are part of the initial project once they are mentioned in the oldest descriptions and they are still located in the same place [12]. Given that they constituted perfectly symmetrical pairs (figure 4), both geometrically and iconographically, we believe that they would have been part of an earlier core ensemble.
Figure 1. Monastery of St. Mary of Alcobaça in the beginning of the 20th century.
Figure 2. Denomination, dating and location of the terracotta sculpture ensembles from the monastery. Figure 3. Sanctuary of the Monastery of St. Mary of Alcobaça before 1930. Figure 4. Reliquary of St. Nicholas.
One bust is highlighted among the others due to its exuberance: it is the one from St. Zacharias (?), represented as the priest of the Temple in Jerusalem. The back of the bust has marked a signal that would increase its exoticism in case it has a meaning (figure 6). This signal consists in an inverted cross painted in red, hypothetically the signal of the Antichrist. This bust seems to exchange looks with one other from a monk from the Reliquia Sanctorum which is located one level up and that has on its back a catholic cross painted in red, like representing the Good watching the Evil from above [2].
Execution Techniques Since there is already literature on the technical execution of the reliquaries, this chapter will address this thematic very briefly. The clay was extracted in the clay pits from the region, the reliquaries were executed hollow, and bars, intersected or not, were placed in their interior to support the sculpture walls. Vents were opened in the top of each one. The already modelled full-body sculptures were sectioned transversally in horizontal blocks, presumably with a cutter of untempered wired [13, pp. 98]. This operation was intended to facilitate their transport and to promote the drying and firing process. In order to avoid the switch of parts from the different sculptures during the entire execution, some of them were manually marked with the name of the saint, as in the case of the mitre of St. Edmund (figure 7). Starting from the support, the stratigraphy consists of several layers: animal glue, thick white preparation of gypsum and animal glue, and colour layers. Over the preparation of the areas to be painted, a layer of an ochre-based bolus in animal glue was applied, then the gold leaf, which was polished, and then the colour layer [11]. The pigments were applied in egg tempera and were identified as lead white, chalk, yellow ochre, vermilion, ochre, azurite, malachite, and charcoal (figure 8) [14]. Chalk was used in white layers over the metallic leaf due to its weak opacity, while lead white was mixed with other pigments in the colour layers or as underlayer [14, pp. 68].
Figure 5. Busts of polychrome wood.
Figure 6. Locations of Reliquia Sanctorum and the busts of St. Zacharias (?), with the red marks painted on the back. Figure 7. Inscription marked in the mitre of the reliquary of St. Edmund. Figure 8. Stratigraphy of one of the Innocent Saints bust. The polychromy (figure 9) is made of vegetal and geometric motifs, executed in sgraffito or with a brush directly over the polished metallic leaf, reproducing tow, silk, damasks and embroidery in gold thread. On the interior of the relic vessels, a madder oil-based glaze [11] was applied over the metallic leaf.
A total of thirteen busts and three arms are missing from the reliquaries ensemble. After research in the previously mentioned photographic collections, two feminine busts were identified as lost (figure 10 B and C). The busts disappeared after 1929 [15] and one was similar to two other busts, one in wood and another in terracotta, possibly of St. Valeria. Noting that the wooden bust is perfectly symmetrical to the existing one, the previous hypothesis that these busts may have belong to a core preceding the Sanctuary is supported. Conservation State The terracotta support of the reliquaries presented lacunas, fractures and fissures, and the wooden busts were affected by biological attack caused by wood boring insects and Serpula lacrymans (dry rot) fungus. The coatings presented lack of cohesion (extremely punctual), lacunas (in numerous reliquaries and in large areas), altered varnish, colour overpainting and extremely oxidised purpurine overpaint and chromatic integrations performed by Institute José de Figueiredo (IJF). Intervention of Conservation-Restoration The second phase of the intervention of conservation-restoration of the reliquaries of the Sanctuary, in 2006, focused on the reliquaries that had not yet been treated, namely 48 busts, 10 arms and the decapitated head of the Precursor. Although the intervention aimed to the maintenance and continuity of the treatment started by IJF, it also addressed the damages that appeared meanwhile, redoing some operations and detailing others. After the individual diagnostic of each reliquary, the surface was cleaned. The intervention then continued with the treatment of the support, namely fragments reattachment (figures 11 and 12) and fissures reinforcement. The gaps between the fragments were filled with a kaolin-based coloured paste with a similar texture of the surrounding areas.
Figure 9. Example of polychromy of the treated reliquaries.
Figure 10. Lost sculptures. A - angel holding a thurible; B and C - feminine busts. Figures 11 and 12. Before and after the reattachment of the fragments of Saint John the Evangelist bust.
After the preventive disinfestation of the wooden busts it was proceeded to the reattachment of the fragments, the filling of cracks with lower density wood and consolidation of the areas with dry rot.
The shape of the missing support was not remade, which would have been beyond the conservation-restoration ethics, although the very rough integrations performed by DGEMN were improved (figures 13 and 14) as in many cases they were difficult to remove and they distorted the formal reading and interpretation of the sculptures. The few detached areas of the polychromy were fixated. The layers of overpaintings, purpurine and varnish still existent in some reliquaries (figure 15), as well as similar numerous traces in other reliquaries, were completely removed as they covered the original polychromy, disrupting the unity of the composition. The chromatic reintegration executed by IJF was already altered, having lost its effectiveness, and therefore was replaced by other. The chromatic reintegration of the lacunas respected the previous project and sought to offer a certain colour homogeneity, to return the unity to the composition and to provide a better reading of the ensemble. On the first two levels, part of the existing fillings made by DGEMN were improved in order to obtain an homogeneous and effective chromatic integration (figures 16 and 17), given the reliquaries dimensions, the observer proximity to these areas, their irregular surface and the polishing of the flesh colour polychromy. The bust of Saint Elizabeth of Portugal was treated in the same manner, presenting some of the conditions mentioned above. The bust also occupies a central place in the composition and in the symbology of the Sanctuary, although it is at a reasonable distance from the observer (figures 18 and 19). Superficial detachments of the flesh tones from other reliquaries were reintegrated without the use of filling. The chosen chromatic was similar to the surrounding area, carefully respecting the lacuna limits, reversibly and perfectly discernible. The reintegration of lacunas should always be easily discernible at short distance but invisible when observed from a distance [16], to ensure the authenticity of cultural property and not to interfere with the reading of the transmitted message. Therefore, we chose the reintegration by overlapping of large and parallel traces or points depending on each situation (figure 20). The superficial lacunas of the polychrome and golden areas were toned with shades of Armenian bolus. In a very few exceptions when this option did not work, the areas were toned with the colour of the surrounding background, but never remade. A protection layer was later applied to all the reliquaries.
Figures 13 and 14. Improvement of the reintegration performed by DGEMN on one of the arms.
Figure 15. Removal of the purpurine and varnish layers from the bust of Saint Umbelina. Figures 16 and 17. Bust of St. John the Baptist. Filling, levelling and chromatic reintegration of the lacunas of the flesh tones. Figures 18 and 19. Chromatic reintegration of the bust of Saint Elizabeth of Portugal. Figure 20. Chromatic reintegration through overlapping of traces and points. The remounting When the second phase of the conservation-restoration intervention was completed, the reliquaries were placed back in the altarpiece. The busts and arms were first protected and then placed back in their respective niches, from the upper levels to the lower ones, with the help of an electric forklift. The previous order was followed instead of the original one due to the fact that some busts could not be identified. The remounting of the full-body sculptures was the most complex operation as they were about two meters tall, one ton of weight and were made of less fired terracotta sections. Before the sculptures could be placed it was necessary to remove the corbel’s wood linings which would support the weight. For that end, the sculptures were slowly pushed over silicone cylinders to another pallet at the same height. To avoid the displacement of the sections, the sculptures were fully wrapped in polyethylene film and a board was attached to their back. Placed over the pallets, the sculptures were elevated until their corbels and placed in positions, once again using the silicone cylinders to slide them (figures 21-26).
The sculpture of the head of St. John the Baptist (figure 27) was not remounted in the altar and its corbel was removed because originally the sculpture did not belong within the Sanctuary and in its correct position, it was not even visible.
Conclusions Apart from knowing the production techniques of the works of art, conservator-restorers are given privileged information, being in the proximity to the pieces. The study of the sculpture of Alcobaça has revealed that its execution would have been the work of several terracotta workshops, possibly seculars, and not of a single workshop of monks, as it is always referred. Through a formal and technical analysis, we have grouped the ensembles of sculpture by their provenance from different possible workshops. The present study is in its early stages but the steps are already outlined: the study of the altarpiece Transit of St. Bernard, the one of the main altar, as well as the sculptures executed by the same workshops for other convents is soon to be expected. The conservation-restoration treatment presented herein maintained the continuity of the previous treatment performed by IJF. The remounting of the reliquaries was the most complex operation due to the fact that the full-body sculptures were originally mounted and painted directly in their corbels and since then they had never left their places. Acknowledgments The author expresses his sincere appreciation to Cecília Gil, Director of the Monastery of St. Mary of Alcobaça, to Maria Augusta Trindade Ferreira and Rui Rasquilho, former directors of the Monastery, to Isabel Raposo de Magalhães, subdirector of the Institute of Museums and Conservation, and to Carlos Moura, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Social and Human Sciences of the New University of Lisbon, for their cooperation during the intervention and the research.
Notes:
1. The Treaty of Zamora (1143) recognised the independence of kingdom of Portugal from the Kingdom of León and Castile.
References
[1] A. A. Nascimento, Cister: Os Documentos Primitivos, Edições Colibri, Lisboa, 1998 [2] A. V. Remígio, “Tratamento de Conservação e Restauro de relicários do Santuário do Mosteiro de Santa Maria de Alcobaça”, Revista Estudos Património 11, IGESPAR, 2009 (in press) [3] M. dos Santos, Frei, Descrição do Real Mosteiro de Alcobaça, A. A. Nascimento (introd. and notes), Associação para a Defesa e Valorização do Património Cultural da Regiäo de Alcobaça, Alcobaça, 1979 [4] V. Correia, O Retábulo da capela-mor de Alcobaça, Imprensa da Universidade, Coimbra, 1931 [5] B. São Bernardo, Frei, Extractos das Contas das Obras do Mosteiro de Alcobaça de 1618 a 1696, National Library of Portugal, Reserved, Cod. ALC.301, fl.280-283 [6] V. Correia, Inscrições do Claustro do Silêncio, Imprensa da Universidade, Coimbra, 1929 [7] R. Ortigão, As Farpas-O País e a Sociedade Portuguesa, Tomo I, Livraria Clássica Editora, Lisboa, 1998 [8] G. Matos Sequeira, Inventário Artístico de Portugal: Distrito de Leiria, 5º Vol., Academia Nacional de Belas-Artes, 1955 [9] M. Calado and P. Canavarro, “Investigação Histórica”, in Problemas de alteração e conservação do conjunto em terracta da Morte de S. Bernardo no Mosteiro de Alcobaça, Vol. 1, col. «Alcobaciana», Associação para a defesa e valorização do Património Cultural da Região de Alcobaça, Alcobaça, 1974 [10] C. Moura, A Escultura de Alcobaça e a Imaginária Monástico-Conventual (1590-1700), 2º vol., PhD Thesis, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, 2006 [11] “A Capela-Relicário do Mosteiro de Santa Maria de Alcobaça – Processo de Brigada, 1984-1989”, Reports of Conservation-Restoration of Sculpture of the Institute José de Figueiredo (unpublished) [12] M. da Rocha, Frei, Descrição do Santuário das Relíquias do Mosteiro de Alcobaça, National Library of Portugal, Reserved, Cod. ALC. 307, fl. 60vº-fl. 66, transcript in C. Moura, A Escultura de Alcobaça e a Imaginária Monástico-Conventual (1590-1700), Vol. 2, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, New University of Lisbon, 2006, pp. 18-23 [13] I. Piedade Vasconcellos, Artefactos Symmetriacos e Geometricos, advertidos, e descobertos pela industriosa perfeição das artes, esculturaria, architectonica, e da pintura, Impressa da Academia Real, Lisboa, 1733 [14] C. Moura, A. Barreiro and I. Ribeiro, “Os Bustos-relicário – Alguns casos notáveis da escultura seiscentista de barro em Alcobaça”, in POLICROMIA - A Escultura Policromada Religiosa dos séculos XVII e XVIII - Estudo comparativo das técnicas, alterações e conservação em Portugal, Espanha e Bélgica, IPCR, Lisboa, 2004 [15] D. E. S. ALVÃO (1872-1946), Documentação fotográfica, Biblioteca Municipal de Alcobaça, BMA 406 and 407 [16] C. Brandi, Teoria do Restauro, Edições Orion, Lisboa, 2006 Photographic sources S. C. S. d'E. Barata Feio, Photographic documentation, Author’s collection (partially unpublished) Casa-Museu Vieira Natividade, Photographic documentation, Monastery of Saint Mary of Alcobaça (partially unpublished)
About the Author
André Varela Remígio
Conservator-Restorer Contact: mail@avremigio.com Website: http://avremigio.com/
André Varela Remígio is a conservator-restorer of sculpture. He has a Bachelor degree in conservation-restoration by Escola Superior de Conservação e Restauro of Lisbon and a Master in conservation-restoration by Universidade Nova de Lisboa. He currently works as freelancer and has participated in conservation treatments of sculptures belonging to monuments classified as National Monuments and listed UNESCO World Heritage. He is also member of the Direction Board of ARP, the Associação Profissional de Conservadores-Restaura-dores de Portugal, since 2001.
This html version may not include all features of the article.
To read this article with images at full quality please
Download this article
Permanent link to this resource: http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/800 |
||||||||||
