The Abbey of Saint-Denis and the Coronation of the King of France

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deals with subjects of high importance which will interest many historians - Capetian kingship, Abbot Suger and the Abbey church of Saint-Denis, and coronation, consecration and the inauguration of kings - and queens. It contains new, interesting and convincing discussion of the ceremony in which the king of France accepted the vexillum, later identified as the oriflamme, from St Denis and his abbey, in a bid to establish the liturgical usage of Suger's upper choir. But it does not follow that one can assume that the upper choir was used for the coronation and anointing of Isabelle of Hainault, and the recrowning of her husband, Philip Augustus. Rigord's evidence suggests that this takes place at what remained the high altar of the monastery, within the monk's choir. That this remained the high altar is clear from the famous painting of the Mass of St Giles, now in the National Gallery, London, painted c. 1500. The positioning of altars at Saint-Denis is indeed problematical, and the author rightly takes issue with Jacobsen. They would find it helpful to look at the work on this by Michael Wyss, in his monumental Atlas de Saint-Denis. It is clear that Suger hoped, in vain,  to establish Saint-Denis as the site for the consecration of the French kings - but his building project focussed on the provision of a shrine-choir for the relics of St Denis and his companions, while leaving the monks in full possession of their choir. I discuss this in my book (Lindy Grant, Abbot Suger of St-Denis), and the author might find this helpful. 

They should distinguish more carefully between anointing/consecration and coronation. They have a useful discussion of this, but could go further. I suspect that there was more 'crown-wearing' by kings than we are aware of. And there is a real difference between the consecration, which should only happen once, and crown-wearing or coronations, which can happen as often as the king wishes. The author would find works by Janet Nelson, especially her article 'The Lord's Anointed and the People's Choice...', very helpful here, plus a new book by Johanna Dale, Inauguration and Liturgical Kingship in the Long Twelfth Century. Dale points out, p. 123, that Philip Augustus only used Saint-Denis for the coronation of Isabelle of Hainault as a second choice, on the insistence of Isabelle's uncle, the count of Flanders. Philip's intention was to use the cathedral at Sens. The author points out that the use of an abbey as opposed to a cathedral is highly unusual. They are right - and they could develop this. Saint-Denis was a special case, with parallels with Westminster Abbey. But in general the importance of the openness of consecration/coronation, in the sight of 'the people', and of the role of 'the people', who must acclaim the king (at least at a consecration), made cathedrals much more appropriate spaces in which to stage a consecration/coronation. 

On the question of the space required for a consecration/coronation, one might think about Reims. Space there was probably less than ideal, before the rebuilding after 1212 - and the coronations of both Louis VIII and Louis IX took place on what were in effect building sites, probably in the old nave. 

In short, I think this paper is not publishable as it is. But a consideration of the use of the spaces at Saint-Denis, and the claims of Saint-Denis, is always fruitful, and I think that this could be developed into a very interesting and thoughtful paper.        

Author Response

Dear Madam,

First of all, I would like to thank you very much for your compliments and your remarks, which I found particularly interesting and constructive. I apologize in advance because I was not able to consult all the books you advised me in the time allotted for my corrections. 

Concerning your reticence for the relationship that I establish between the creation and function of the upper choir and the reception of the coronation, I have taken good note of your referral to Rigord which locates the wounding of the new couple on the main altar at the foot of the new construction. This remark allowed me to refine my hypothesis and to propose that part of the ceremony take place in the new space. According to the ordo of Reims, and then, although very later, the coronation of Catherine de Medici, I propose to see the installation of the throne and thus the staging of the king in pageantry at this location. The question of the visibility of this key moment of the ceremony is indeed essential in all later sources and would only be possible in the monks' choir.

Concerning my lack of precision in the use of the terms anointing/consecration and coronation, I used all the occurrences in my text to be sure to be consistent. I have also underlined the fact that consecration is unique, as opposed to coronations.

For the context of the establishment of the coronation of Philip Augustus at Saint-Denis, I have actually been able to consult Mrs. Dale's thesis. If the decision to carry out the ceremony at the abbey was not made by the king, I have found an interesting source on the motivations that could have pushed the Count to support Saint-Denis. The correlation that I establish would show an exchange of good process between the Count and the abbey and especially the motivation of the abbey to part with a fertilized land against the prestige of hosting the ceremony. Thank you for pointing me to the case of Westminster which is particularly interesting as a comparison case. I mention it even though I do not have enough information at this time to make a meaningful comparison that is worth exploring. I think that the relationship between Edward the Confessor and St. Denis should indeed be an interesting comparative focus.

On your remark about the space required, I think that the reconstruction of Reims is to be correlated with the surrounding competition of the kingdom of France, for several reasons, including the hosting of royal ceremonies. This is obviously only an opinion that still needs to be substantiated.

Thanking you once again, I hope that my answers, corrections and reworking of the text will respond to your remarks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, your paper is good and presents an interesting argument regarding the political and cultural machinations surrounding coronations at Reims, Saint-Denis, and other churches and cathedrals in France. Although not major issues, there are awkward phrasings, particularly with respect to the use of the possessive and parenthetical phrasing, throughout the paper. With respect to readability, further editing of the text would be beneficial. The only larger issues with respect to content might be framing the shift from multiple coronations as being abandoned earlier in the paper. Also, the transition at line 225 from the discussion of the spatial organization of Saint-Denis to the liturgical practice at the abbey church is awkward. 

Author Response

Thank you for your compliments and remarks. I have had my text re-edited by a native English speaker and hope that the readability of my text is satisfactory this time.

Concerning your commentary on multiple coronations, I use it mainly to show that the historiography dealing with the French coronation did not, or hardly, take into account the possibility offered by this practice. In order to accentuate this use, I have inserted it once again in my conclusion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have to say that I remain unconvinced by the principal argument of this article. By the time Suger built his east end, two royal consecrations had taken place at Reims, and the claims put forward in DKar 286 had been lost. Nor did the rebuilding a century later, from 1230, aim to provide space for a coronation ceremony - it aimed to provide space for royal tombs. It is incorrect to suggest that the 1230 construction campaigns were continuations of Suger's works - they drastically altered Suger's plans. The issue of the visibility of the queen - she does not have to be visible in the way that the king does, to be acclaimed by the people - and so an abbey, like Saint-Denis, could lend itself more easily to a queen's coronation, and it is interesting to see the use of Suger's shrine-choir for that purpose in the 16th century. 

It is interesting that most recensions of the Ratold ordo, ie, the ordo used in 12th century France, end with a blessing for a vexillum. It might be worth thinking about that in relation to the ceremonies for the vexillum/oriflamme at Saint-Denis. 

Although I remain unconvinced by the argument, I think the article raises interesting issues, and I think that it would be useful to publish it. It needs some careful editing (line 367 has Mistletoe as archbishop of Sens!), and the suggestion that Suger might have had coronations in mind when he commissioned the upper choir should be advanced more cautiously. It was only in the 13th century that Reims Cathedral and Westminster Abbey were built with spaces specifically designed with coronation in mind. Until then, coronations took place in all sort of spaces which might or might not have been appropriate.  

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your comments.

I proofread my text to avoid problems with the translation of names, knowing that I wrote Gui and not Guy as in French, thinking I had the right English translation.

Secondly, I understand your reticence concerning my argument because such a hypothesis has never been formulated before. I do not deny that the primary reason for the construction of the choir remains the elevation of the holy relics and the need for their visibility.  However, I believe that this component of visibility may have been important, also for the design of royal ceremonies. Indeed, I believe that Suger participated actively in the strengthening of royal power during the reign of Louis VII, as is proven by numerous sources and actions of the abbot. Nor do I wish to say that his only ambition was to be the monarch's right-hand man, but this position enabled him to raise his abbey to a rank of prestige that it had lost since illustrious times. Suger was thus a politician at the service of royalty, but above all a man of the Church at the service of Saint Denis. I think it is important to see the kingdom of France and the Frankish monarchy of the twelfth century in this context of an alliance between the two powers. In this context, the role of architecture, liturgy, images, and therefore, more generally, of visibility, has been essential in my opinion. 

The coronation of the queens is indeed less important than that of the king, but the ceremony is nevertheless important enough to appear early in the ordines. Moreover, although the queen is not acclaimed like the king, she must also be visible with a raised throne, as certified by the ordo of Reims.

Concerning the continuation of the construction project, it was not my intention to say that Suger's successors maintained this design until the middle of the thirteenth century, only that the setting that could accommodate the coronation ceremony of Isabelle de Hainaut and her husband was modified later. I have modified this passage in order to be clearer and I thank you for notifying me.

I had not noted the occurrence of the blessing of the vexillum present in the ordines, but it is indeed an interesting track that I will analyze in the framework of my research, I thank you for it.

I thank you again for all your remarks and suggestions for analysis that you offer me, which allow me to make great progress in my research.