Peter Johnsson wrote: |
The abbey of Fontenay was built by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, who was deeply involved with the founding of the order of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon (the Templars).
The Fontanay abbey still exists with many of its original buildings still intact. The monks of this abbey were among other things known for their iron work. A smithy survives where the (one of?) oldest surviving water powered hammers is situated. The hammer was powered from the overflow of water from the fish pond. The smithy is huge: like sizeable church. There is only one black smith hearth surviving, however. Either there were more hearths originally, that have later been removed, or there ere other activities in the smithy that did not require heating of iron. A favourite fantasy of mine is naturally that they forged swords for the crusaders in this smithy, but there is no evidence for this being the case. The cistecians were well known for their deep interest in geometry. St Bernard famously said: "No decoration, only proportion" about how churches should be built. When we take a closer look at the proportions of the abbey church of Fontenay it seems that its plan conforms to a simple geometric lay out. (It should be noted that my analysis below is simply made from published plans of the abbey church, and therefore at best a suggestion.) 12th century swords have a likeness in the severe but sublime aesthetics of ecclesiastic buildings of the same period. The wide guards and the short grips undeniably have something romanesque or early gothic about them.They also show the same commensurable proportions of contemporary church architecture, combining simple geometric relations and modular ratios. Making an overlay of some swords over the plan of the abbey church of Fontenay makes for some striking correlations. This is naturally not proof of anything, but perhaps something to reflect on at least. |
The iron works of Fontenay makes it theoretically possible that they could produce gifts such as swords to benefactors of their order - such of Archbishop Eskil OR later members of the Hvide family like Archbishop Absalon or even King Valdemar the Great.
I found this info in an older book on Cistercian architecture:
Sharpe, Edmund (1874)
The Architecture of the Cistercians (p. 11-14).
Source: https://archive.org/details/architectureofci00shar
Of the general buildings, the church was, of course, the most important.
1) They were all dedicated to the blessed Virgin.
2) They were also all built after the form of the cross :
"Omnes ecclesiæ ordinis nostri in honorem Beatæ Mariæ dedicatæ sunt, et fere in modum crucis constructæ,
instar Ecclesiæ Cisterciensis omnium matris."
The Choir was invariably short, seldom containing more than two compartments in length beyond the crossing ; and if that part of the plan of one of these early Cistercian churches which represents the choir, the transepts, and the nave, exclusive of chapels and side aisles, be tinted with a slight shade to distinguish it from the rest, it will be found to depict very exactly the form of a true Latin cross.
The east end was usually square, and not terminated with an apse; showing a marked departure from the manner in which churches of this date on the Continent were usually finished towards the east. Towards the close of the Xllth Century, however, the prevailing fashion of the times was introduced also into some of the churches of this Order, and the apse, with its accompanying chapels, applied to the east end.
The Transepts had no aisles, but invariably two or three chapels on their east sides, completely separated from one another by partition walls in the earlier examples. Each of these chapels had its altar and its piscina. In most of the ruined abbeys of this Order the site of these altars is apparent; and at Jervaulx Abbey, in Yorkshire, two of the altar stones remain in situ.
In many of the Cistercian churches we find a portico or narthex extending across the whole of the west end of the church. It had no great width, and was generally roofed as a lean-to against the west wall, and covered the west doorway,
as at Fountains and Byland ; but in some it was vaulted, as at Maulbronn and Pontigny. Its use is not very obvious.
We find no lofty towers in Cistercian churches, except such as were built after the rules of the Order became relaxed, as at Fountains and Furness, where towers were added in both cases towards the close of the Rectilinear Period : they were, in fact, expressly forbidden in the General Chapter of 1134.
"Cap. II. —De turribus ad Campanas.
Turres lupideæ ad campanas non fiant, nec ligneæ altitudinis immoderatæ, quæ ordinis dedeceant simplicitatem.
The Cistercians absolutely prohibited the carving or representation of the human form in their buildings, and give a reason for it which deserves consideration even at the present day.
"Cap. XX. —De sculpturis, et picturis, et cruce lignea.
Sculpturæ vel picturæ in ecclesiis nostris seu in officinis aliquibus Monasterii ne fiant interdicimus quia dum talibus intonditur,
utilitas bonæ meditationis vel disciplina religiosæ gravitatis sæpe negligitur; cruces tamen pictas, quæ sunt ligneæ,
habemus.”
Furthermore no pictures were allowed - except the saviour - and neither were glass stained windows (unless it was already there in a monastery, they took over from a previous owner). Only kings and bishops could be buried in the church itself.
The Cistercians were amongst the first to employ and to utilize the pointed arch in their arches of construction, whilst their arches of decoration remained circular. There is not one of the conventual churches of the Xllth Century
given in the list at pages 27 and 28, in which this rule, to which I have so frequently called attention, was not observed.
...etc etc.
So clearly a strong aesthetic is with the order from the very beginning - it is highly likely that this aesthetic is also geometric (and not only for the resulting visual effect).