Organistrum or keyed fiddle?

Organistrum or keyed fiddle?

STUDY OF AN EARLY INSTRUMENT SCULPTED ON A ROMANESQUE CAPITEL IN  SEPULVEDA, SPAIN

Jesús Reolid-Rafael Martin 

English translation Jamie Benjey

 Photo: Nª Señora de la Peña Church

Nª Señora de la Peña Church (Our lady of the Hill) is in Sepulveda, an old town overlooking the Duratón River gorge in the eastern part of Segovia Province, at the foot of the Guadarrama Mountain Range. The church is located in the northwest corner of the town's ancient walled precinct. Today this shrine is used to worship the “Virgin de la Peña”, the patron saint of the Sepulveda municipality.

It has the same church layout used in this region: a semicircular apse and nave with an attached south-facing porch. The building is intact, and includes a tower beside the northern wall, with two entrances that open onto the nave, one in the western wall at the foot of the church and the main entrance in the south wall, which features a doorway that sets it apart from the rest of the Segovia province's church architecture.

The nave is 23 metres long by 10 metres wide. The stone masonry is very good quality, with a roof formed by a barrel vault over transversal arches that rest on columns attached to the walls of the nave.

The nave is connected to the semicircular apse by a large semicircular Roman arch that transfers the weight onto the columns and capitals.

The outer walls are reinforced with four buttresses on the south wall and another four on the northern side. Impost moulding runs along both walls. The cornice is secured by a series of 90 cantilevered lips decorated with a variety of decorative animals, plants, and anthropomorphic shapes, along with a plethora of characters playing different types of musical instruments.

Several more recent constructions are annexed to the original building: the chapel of the Virgin near the apse, the sacristy on the south wall, the priest's house at the foot of the church and the colonnade and portico on the south wall.

The portico, a quite complex structure, has probably been changed considerably from its original shape. Analysis of this and the rest of the building has led to various hypotheses about the church's origin and its evolution over time.

Chronology and evolution

There are still many outstanding issues concerning the chronology and construction process of the Virgen de la Peña church due to the lack of documentation about its early construction stages, the various changes that have been made to the building and the different styles that can be appreciated.

It is quite clear that the construction process was by no means uniform, with numerous variations and alterations that point to a succession of building phases. Several attempts have been made to define its chronology and evolution. Eulogio Horcajo Monte de Oria defined several construction stages in his History and Pious Traditions of the Holy Image of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Madrid, 1910). In the chapter entitled  La Peña venerated in the town of Sepulveda and its lands and sanctuaries, he claimed that works began in 1111 following the Battle of Campo Espina, won by Alfonso I of Aragon over his wife Urraca of Castile. At the time, the church had a shorter nave, modelled on the nave of the El Salvador church in Sepúlveda, which was begun around 1095. The church was still unfinished on the death of Alfonso I in 1134. In the second phase, the nave was extended and the porch and doorway moved from their original location at the foot of the nave to the present site on the south wall.

The tower was begun in 1144, during the reign of Alfonso VII, but work on the church was again halted on the death of the monarch in 1157, and only recommenced at the end of the reign of Alfonso VIII. On his death in 1214, work stopped once again and the building was finally concluded during the reign of Ferdinand III (1217-1252).

In 1934, Gómez Moreno wrote that it was a copy of the church of El Salvador, with improved decoration and space. In 1966, the Marquis of Lozoya highlighted its exceptional doorway amongst the multitude of examples of Romanesque art in Segovia, as well as the obvious artistic influence from the Aragon region (1).

In 1988, Inés Ruiz Montejo defined two stages in the construction of this church. She claimed that the first one began in 1144, on the basis of an inscription on the tower, previously transcribed by Gomez and Moreno, which marked the construction of the tower and the apse, modelled after the church of El Salvador. The second phase involved the construction of the nave and the decoration of the apse at the end of the 12^th and 13th centuries.

The author bases her statement on a previous study by Torres Balbas, which puts the early 13^th century as the first possible use of columns attached to transversal arches, a technique evidenced in Virgen de la Peña. She also believes that the project for this strikingly distinct doorway in this rural setting, well away from the Jacobean pilgrimage routes, must have been undertaken in the 13^th century.(2)

In 1996, M. Alvargonzález Terrero claimed that the church underwent two building stages: the start and early construction phase in the 12^th and 13^th centuries, and the subsequent renovations and annexes, including the addition of the portico, the priest's house, the sacristy and the chapel of the Virgin in the 16^th and 17^th centuries. According to this study, the church began with the apse, with the tower built shortly afterwards. Work resumed in the second half of the 12th century and lasted until the early 13th century, with further disruptions during this period. Alvargonzález Terrero also claims that the porch, with its pointed features, was built in the first half of the 13th century. This construction shelters, protects and highlights the importance of the doorway, an exceptional example of Romanesque buildings in Sepulveda, which in turn probably influenced the design of a colonnade which for some reason was not built until the 17th century. (3)

The doorway and the portico

The highlight of the church is the doorway in the south wall, a unique example of Segovian Romanesque art, quite unusual in the artwork found off the Santiago pilgrim's route. Only a few churches such as Santo Domingo in Soria, Moradillo in Sedano and Ahedo in Butrón feature this type of doorway, with the Final Judgement as its central theme. Even these cases bear a close relationship to the Silos Monastery masterpiece, while the Virgen de la Peña tympanum of the church in Sepúlveda has connotations of Romanesque art from Aragon and Navarre, quite unlike the features found in Silos.(4)

The doorway tympanum depicts St. John's apocalyptic vision. We can see the Pantocrator with an apocalyptic Christ, surrounded by the mandorla or aureola and framed by the Tetramorph, while the first two archivolts show six angels and the elders of the Apocalypse. The Tetramorph is composed of four winged figures from St. John's vision. An eagle holds an elongated trumpet-like object with its feet, a way of saying that St. John, symbolized by the bird, witnessed the Revelation "to the sound of trumpets". The angel on his left, symbolizing St. Matthew, carries a book, the symbol of his own gospel. Both men look towards Christ, as does the winged bull figure at the bottom right, symbolizing St. Luke. The only character who breaks the harmony is the Lion, the symbol of St. Mark, whose gaze is directed away from Christ.

The first archivolt contains the figures of six angels bearing phylacteries, while the second archivolt contains the 24 elders of the Apocalypse, divided into two symmetrical groups of twelve, all playing different musical instruments or holding vessels, with the presence of God's hand in the keystone of the arch.

The Chrismon, symbolizing the angel's words to St. John, "I am the Alpha and the Omega", is the feature of the lintel of the doorway. This Chrismon, flanked by two angels, shows an early romanization of the Greek alphabet. A vertical cross-stroke is added to the X with a cross shape, with a P and an S at the extremities, extending the classic contents of the Chrismon which alludes here not only to the figure of Christ but also to the Father and the Holy Spirit, an overall expression of the Trinity dogma. (5)

Marta Poza Yagüe also highlights the importance of this aspect and the Trinity message in the La Peña doorway. She claims that although the Judgement theme is immediately obvious, it plays a secondary, complementary role to the Revelation and Trinity themes. According to Yagüe, the Holy Trinity reference can have two interpretations, viewed in a descending hierarchical order, from the Father's hand in the keystone of the archivolt, through the centre of the tympanum holding the Maiestas of the Son, to the centre of the lintel with its reference to the Holy Spirit in the inverted S of the Chrismon. Read upwards, we find a triple theophany for the faithful, like the End of Time, when Christ appears to reveal all the mysteries of God in a single stroke.(6)

The lintel is completed on both sides of the Chrismon with the figure of the Archangel St. Michael shown twice. On the right he is holding scales and disputing the weight of souls with the devil. Opposite him is the devil in the form of a monstrous being, aided by a snake coiled around one of the dishes, trying to tilt it in its favour. St. Michael reappears on the left of the lintel, this time in the form of an archangel riding a dragon, the symbol of evil, stabbing it with a spear. The tympanum and the lintel were built in the mid-12th century, around the time of the work on the apse and the tower. The doorway was enlarged during works on the nave in the 13th century, the same period as the second archivolt showing the 24 Elders of the Apocalypse, each one filling a vossoir and sculpted by two different artists. They are all larger than the rest of the reliefs on the doorway. A third artist was responsible for the third archivolt, which features high quality plant motifs.(7)

The archivolt showing the elders rests on two decorated capitals. The one on the right shows a pair of bird-faced sirens facing each other, their heads turned back, while plant stalks cross between their necks. They represent the damned trapped by the fetters of the plants, an allegory of temptation and sin. The author of the capital seems to have been familiar with the Silo Monastry themes, which had a great impact on the 13^th century Castilian Romanesque. Both sides of the capital on the left shows two pairs of confronted men dressed in coats of mail, stretching their hands towards their opponent's face. The theme of this capital has been identified as "Discord". (8)

Thus, both capitals represented the earthly vices contrasted with the heavenly vision of the tympanum. The entire doorway is protected, framed and highlighted by a portico on a rectangular plan with a hipped roof that stands out above the rest of the colonnade. The porch area is covered with a porticoed vault. The bay rests on columns superimposed on the outer buttresses and the pilasters attached to the nave walls. Each group of columns rests on a stepped plinth, and each column has its own base, shaft and capital with the corresponding talus and cornice. These porches are quite uncommon in Castilian Romanesque churches. Those that do exist were all built in the earliest period of proto-Gothic architecture, from the mid-12th to the early 13th century, precisely when this porch was built.

Other examples are the porches of San Vicente church in Avila and San Martín in Segovia. The porch of La Peña church in Sepulveda bears the closest resemblance to the latter. The vaulting of the porch, from a later period in the 13th century, rests on a set of capitals, most of them historiated, with a shorter barrel than the doorway. Its style is related to work found in Segovia and Duratón.(9) The capitals of the columns on the outer buttresses of the porch show several motifs and scenes. One of the two capitals on the right hand buttress are decorated with overlapping leafs, while the front side of the other shows a knight fighting a giant that is kneeling to fit into the small size of the capital, while trying to snatch the knight's shield.

This motif has been identified as the fight between Roland and the giant Ferragut. Roland represents the prototype Christian knight aided by another warrior carrying a spear, who seems to be waiting for the moment to attack the giant. The scene is viewed by an angel on the right bearing a cartouche. The buttress capitals on the left seem to have been by a different author from all the other porch capitals, who had a rougher style. One contains figures with large faces and prominent eyes, while the central face shows Samson tearing a lion apart. The scene, interpreted as an example of divine assistance and the prefiguration of Christ, is accompanied on the left and right by figures with covered heads, dressed in long tunics.(10)

The capitals attached to the church wall also show different scenes. On the left, the vaulting rests on a capital decorated with heavily worn acanthus leaves. The transverse arch makes it a capital with decoration on three sides. In the centre there is a warrior wearing chain mail and holding a small shield as he fights a large beast, with two witnesses or aides on either side in this unequal battle. The right hand is striking an instrument with a stick, perhaps trying to scare the animal with the noise, while his left hand seems to be protected, hiding amongst the plant stems on the angles of the capital. On the right side, the bay also rests on a capital decorated with two siren-birds, a repetition of the motif on the doorway capital using a different technique.

Finally, the capital containing the scene covered by this article is on the right. It supports the transverse arch on the right of the portico, and is decorated with three faces. In the centre there are two male figures dressed in long robes, both standing on the talus. The face of the character on the left is deformed for some unknown reason. However, we can see that he has a beard. The one on the left has quite clear almond-shaped eyes. These figures are framed by large leaves that also serve to separate them from their potential audience: on the left side of the capital a knight is sitting on a decorated throne, while the right side includes an elegant figure dressed in a multiply-folded cape held by his right hand. They seem to be musicians carrying a stringed instrument.

Traditionally, this instrument has been catalogued as an organistrum, a string instrument played by two musicians using a crank wheel. One of them drove the crank and the other pulled the keys on a keyboard to produce different sounds. However, in the second part of this article we argue that this instrument is probably not an organistrum but, if anything, a kind of bowed viola with a keyboard.

1-CONTE BRAGADO, Diego y FERNÁNDEZ BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS, Ignacio, Introducción a la arqueología en el Cañón del Duratón, Segovia, 1993, pp.251-252.

2 -RUIZ MONTEJO, Inés, El Románico de Villas y tierras de Segovia, Madrid, 1988, pp. 267-269.

 3- ALVARGONZÁLEZ TERRERO, M, et alii, El santuario y el camarín de la Peña de Sepúlveda, Sepúlveda, 1996, pp.119-122.

4- POZA YAGÜE, Marta, “Símbolo y concepto. Visiones teofánicas y alegóricas de la Trinidad en el tímpano de Nuestra Señora de la Peña de Sepúlveda”, in SÁNCHEZ AMEIJERIAS, Rocío y SENRA GABRIEL Y GALÁN, José Luis (coord.), El tímpano románico. Imágenes, estructuras y audiencias, Santiago de Compostela, 2003, pp.131-151.  This author relates the iconographic models in Nuestra Señora de La Peña with those found in churches in the Cinco Villas county (Aragon)- San Nicolas de Frago, San Miguel de Uncastillo, San Miguel de Biota, Nuestra Señora la Blanca de Berbegal, and the churches of Bossot (Lleida), San Nicolas and La Magdalena de Tudela (Navarra). She mentions the north porch of the church of San Miguel (Estella) as the most immediate precedent for the La Peña tympanum.

5- ALVARGONZÁLEZ TERRERO, M, et al., Op. cit, pp.263-264.

 6-POZA YAGÜE, Marta, Op. cit, pp.140-141.

7-ALVARGONZÁLEZ TERRERO, M, et al., Op. cit, p. 131.

  8-RUIZ MONTEJO, Inés, Op. cit, p. 275.

9- Ibidem p. 266

10- ALVARGONZÁLEZ TERRERO, M, et al., Op. cit, p. 134-135.

ORGANISTRUM OR KEYED FIDDLE?

In the few written references we know about this instrument, it is listed as an organistrum. In our opinion, it has not received its due attention. On the one hand, it is a small-sized sculpture on a column, which initially, without analysing the technical details, seems to be an organistrum on account of the two performers.

There are 24 royal musicians shown on the archivolt of the doorway. Three are playing fiddles while the rest are mutilated, and we will never know what they had in their hands, although indications left after their breakage may yield some clues.

Despite being a portico with special features that make it stand out form the rest of the  Castilian Romanesque work, it has is of no great interest in the field of medieval organology. This may be why it has not been studied in depth, with the presence of two performers accepted as justification for its classification.

While the present authors have always had their doubts about this “organistrum”, it was only when one of us, Jesús Reolíd, began to build Nyckelharpas and the other, Rafa Martin, started to play them that we began to see clear similarities between this instrument and the Swedish Moraharpa. We therefore decided to undertake a detailed study of the figure, which led to the conclusions set out in this article.

Description of the instrument

The body has an eight-like shape and a broad handle finished with a circular pegboard which initially seems to be a carved head with protruding eyes and nose. This head-shaped finish of the pegboard can be found in some hurdy-gurdies such as the one carved on the Majesty portico in Toro. However, on careful observation we are inclined to think that what look like eyes could be two pegs, and that the "nose" could be a separation between them. The tailpiece is fastened to a projection from the end of the body. The soundboard has six holes and two strings, with five keys protruding from the lower side.

Two figures are holding the instrument.  Unlike all the known organistrum and hurdy-gurdy iconography, the right hand of the person on the left is not cranking the handle and instead is positioned below the lower layer of the body, in a similar position to someone holding a bow, while the left hand is below the body, clearly in the right position for playing the keyboard. This position is also unknown in the organistrum iconography, where the musician turning the crank uses his left hand to hold the instrument somehow. The second person is holding the handle from beneath with his right hand. Although the left hand is unfortunately broken, we can still see that it is aimed at the keyboard. The position of this second figure is also different from the rest of the organistrum iconography, which all clearly show the way the keys are operated, either by pulling them or pressing them from above the box, using both hands to operate the keys in every case. These details make us think that this sculpture may well represent a different instrument from the organistrum.

 Sculpted instrument in Virgen de la Peña church, Sepulveda

In order to build an instrument on the basis of the known iconography, we must first try to collate all the information that may help us in the task. Even the representation of the instrument gives us clues about its shape, proportions, number of strings, pegs, tailpiece, position of the bridge, etc. However, we must also bear in mind that in most cases, the purpose of the sculpture or painting was not to faithfully reproduce the instrument, so we sometimes need to add or relocate some components to make the instrument sound properly. The musicians can also give us clues: their position, the way they hold the instrument, how they hold the plectrum or the bow, press the strings with their fingers or a plectrum, etc. all tell us about how it was played.

The instrument from Sepulveda has particular details that are not consistent with what we know about the organistrum. The postures of the musicians are always the same throughout the known iconography. It has always been argued that the presence of two performers was due to the instrument's large size, up to 2 metres according to one author. We believe this is a mistake. Firstly, analysing the proportions between the human figure and the instrument, we arrive at an instrument that is 90cm to 1.20 m. long: they were certainly not as large as some claim. We think that the presence of two musicians was due to practical musical requirements rather than size.

Although we are not entirely sure about the use of the organistrum, we can assume that this instrument was used to teach and accompany early polyphonic songs, like the organum, which required the perfect production of intervals. Through empirical testing, we have found that if a single performer turns the handle with his or her right hand and pulls or pushes the keys with the other, it is very hard to avoid the open strings from sounding when the keys are changed, which distorts the interval. This problem can be overcome by a second performer who is responsible for moving the keys with both hands, and also preparing to change them while at the same time preventing the open strings from sounding.

Representations of smaller instruments, which possibly included a melodic function that no longer required two performers, began to appear in the 13th century.  We therefore believe that to avoid confusion, the term organistrum should only be applied to a "hurdy-gurdy" with two performers, differentiating them not on the basis of shape or size but the musical function of each one.

Brief analysis of the organistrum iconography

Portico de la Gloria, 12th century, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia:

Musician 1: Right hand gripping the crank handle. Left hand resting on the centre of the box.

Musician 2: Pulling the keys with both hands.

North portico of San Miguel church, Estella, Navarra, 12th century:

Musician 1: Right hand gripping the crank handle. Left hand holding the box at the level of the tailpiece.

Musician 2: Pressing the keys with both hands

Portico del Paraíso, Ourense, Galicia, 12th century:

Musician 1: Right hand on the knob of the handle. Left hand on the edge of the box.

Musician 2: Pulling the keys with both hands.

Portico of Santo Domingo church, Soria, 12th century:

Musician 1: Right hand on the knob of the handle. Left hand raised.

Musician 2: Pulling the keys with both hands.

Archbishop's Palace, Xelmírez, Santiago de Compostela, 12th century:

Musician 1: Right hand on the knob of the handle. Left hand on the edge of the box.

Musician 2: Pulling the keys with both hands.

North portico of the Collegiate Church of Santa Maria, Toro, Zamora, 12th century:

Musician 1: Right hand on the knob of the handle. Left hand on the edge of the box.

Musician 2: Pulling the keys with both hands.

Special features of the instrument

The instrument needs to be studied piece by piece in order to assess what is really there and what is not, either because it was never actually carved or because it was broken:

1

Looking closely at the base, we see that there is a pin used to anchor the gut or cord that holds the tailpiece. There is no trace of a shaft or a crank. This is an important detail: a crank is essential to move the wheel.

2 -

What initially might seem to be the visible part of the wheel is actually the finish of the tailpiece. Looking at the tailpiece side on, we see that it is a single piece, with no appreciable mark on the side that would allow us to assume that the front part of the tailpiece was a wheel. In addition, the strings emerge from beneath the tailpiece, while the strings are always on the top of this part in all the organistrum and hurdy-gurdy showing  the wheel.

3

The right arm of the musician on the left is stretched out, and his hand is not at the same level as the base, but instead below the lower part of the body. Although the hand is broken, the arm seems to be in a similar position to that used to play an instrument with a bow. We believe this detail is especially significant: the musician's posture may be revealing the way the instrument was played.

4

The left hand of the same musician is pressing the keys that emerge from the lower part of the instrument. This is also a clear difference from the rest of the iconography, in which the musician turning the crank uses his left hand to hold the box. The position of the hand is identical to that used by keyed fiddle players, with the thumb turned outwards. However, this position of the keys would make the instrument unworkable. The same "mistaken" location of the keys can also be seen in other sculptures and designs.

5

The right hand of the musician on the right is under the handle. It does not seem to be pressing any key, and its position is somewhat passive, as if it was merely holding the instrument.

6

Although the musician's left arm is broken, it is clearly extended towards the pegbox: one hypothesis is that he is moving a shaft that emerges from the pegbox, which is unusual but found in two illuminated illustrations in a 13th century codex and the Marchiennes psaltery from the same century, although we believe that these illustrations make no sense in organological terms. The possibility that the crank of the Sepulveda instrument emerged from the knob seems thus seems unlikely in the light of the observed peculiarities.

7

Although there is no trace of a bow, there are remnants that suggest there might have been one in the past: there is a break in the outline of the box and discontinuous carving of the strings in the place where a bow may have once been.

Finally, it should be noted that the shape and proportions of the instrument are similar to those of the Dalarna "Moraharpa", dating from 1526, and the "Schlusselfidel" drawn in the Syntagma Musicorum by Praetorius. This suggests that this instrument is closer to a keyed fiddle or, to using a better known term, a nyckelharpa, than an organistrum.

 A striking similarity can be seen when a plan of a Moraharpa is superimposed on this sculpture.

Reconstruction

The first problem to be solved in the reconstruction of this instrument is where to put the keys, which under no circumstance can be placed as shown on the sculpture. The keyboard must be located in or on the neck, its logical place in both an organistrum and a nyckelharpa.

A further problem is the lack of a bridge in the sculpture. Both the bridge and the wheel have to be located correctly when constructing the instrument as organistrum, in which case their natural position would be in this order: tailpiece, bridge and wheel. If we assume that what we think might be the end of the tailpiece is in fact a wheel, the sculpted model would have to be modified substantially.

Another drastic change would be the protrusion of the shaft and the addition of the crank and its handle, as there is no trace of these components in the sculpture.

On the other hand, there are less practical problems if we tackle the reproduction of this instrument as a nyckelharpa. In this case, we would only have to resolve the position of the bridge. No aspects of the tailpiece have to be changed and no new items have to be included except for the bow, which may well have been part of the original sculpture, as possibly indicated by both the position of the arm and the signs of breakage. It should be mentioned, however, that it was uncommon but not entirely impossible to carve a fully raised bow.

In the light of this analysis, we believe it would be more reasonable and less speculative to rebuild this instrument as a keyed fiddle than as an organistrum.

We can find no explanation for the presence of the figure on the right of the sculpture, which was obviously unnecessary to play a nyckelharpa. However, in spite of this inexplicable presence, we do not believe that the undeniable existence of these two performers is a justification in itself for identifying the instrument as an organistrum. Nor can we state categorically that a bow was present in the past, beyond pointing out the possible insinuations of its existence. These insinuations are precisely the source of doubt in our minds.

Whatever the case, perhaps the enigma of this sculpture, with all its unknown aspects yet to be fully resolved, is what makes it all the more attractive.

Published by Jesús Reolid and Rafa Martín

July 2012