The treasury of S. Denis was one of the richest in Europe. Commenced by the religious enthusiasts of the time of Charlemagne, it increased year by year, through the donations of the grateful patients who had been cured, or whose sufferings had been relieved, by the intercession of S. Denis and his companions. For every wax arm or leg, which we see hanging up in bunches at the side of a shrine in these days, the ages of Faith could have produced a valuable plaque, gem, cross, reliquary, or altar vessel. Thankfulness was then more costly in its expression. Doubtless poor offerings were also made, but the richness of the churches and their contents, as compared with the difficulty of obtaining a few thousands at the present day, shows that gratitude was more practical than in modern times. Charles le Chauve was a great donor to the monastery. It was he who gave the magnificent ante-pendium, besides some jewelled Gospels and altar-vessels. Philippe-Auguste bequeathed all his jewels to the abbey, including a cross of gold valued at 400 livres, this benefaction being for the maintenance of twenty additional monks; but his son, Louis, repurchased some of the valuables at the estimated price of 11,600 livres, a little business transaction which was not unprofitable to the convent. Louis le Gros established the custom of leaving the royal ornaments to the abbey at the decease of the kings. Matthieu de Vendôme, one of the regular abbots, gave the marvellous chef of S. Denis, a gold reliquary in the form of a head, with a jewelled mitre, and silver-gilt supporting Angels, and a young Child-angel holding another reliquary containing a portion of the Saint's shoulder-blade. Gilles de Pontoise, another abbot, presented a beautiful reliquary, containing the under-jaw of S. Louis—a marvel of goldsmithy in the form of statuettes of gold, jewelled and enamelled. The great Suger gave a number of magnificent objects of all kinds; the huge gold cross, six feet in height, placed over the altar, and another which stood upon the grille dividing the choir from the nave. These probably were made at S. Denis, as Suger set up a great school for the fashioning of gold and silver, as well as for writing and painting; and so famous did it become, that brethren from other monasteries flocked to the monks of S. Denis to perfect themselves in these arts.
There is a representation of Charles le Chauve's ante-pendium in the picture formerly in the Dudley collection, and now in the possession of Mr. Edward Steinkopff, and generally known as the "Mass of S. Giles." The altar stands as at present; on the right we see a portion of the tomb of Dagobert; and behind are the windows of the apsidal clerestory. The only difference in the sculptures, as represented in the picture, and the actual monument, is that the head of Nantilde is bent in the modern statue, but is erect in the old one; and the feet of Dagobert seem to have nothing to rest upon. A priest is before the altar; on his left is a king; behind are some assistants, one holding a tall candle; and above is an Angel bearing a paper, alluding to the legend, that as S. Giles was once saying mass before a king with some hidden sin he dare not confess, an Angel descended with a written pardon. The question is, Who is the king? May it not be Charles le Chauve, the donor of the retable? Charles was abbot of S. Denis; and his devotion to the Saint was so great that he attended the offices of the church on all solemn days, and passed the rest of the time in pious conversation with the monks. The crown the king wears is of the time of Charles V., but it has upon it the Imperial circle, which seems to point to Charles the Bald; and the later style of the crown may be accounted for, as it has evidently been copied from one in the treasury of S. Denis (see Félibien). Moreover, it very much resembles the one worn by Charles le Chauve in a miniature of a Latin Bible in the Bibliothèque; on the other hand, the king wears a moustache in the latter, whereas in the picture he is bearded.
Another question is this, Does the picture represent a mass? It probably has gained its title as much from being the companion volet to Lord Northbrook's S. Giles as to the incident of the scroll-bearing Angel. But there is not the slightest resemblance between the hunting personage in Lord Northbrook's picture and the king in the "Mass." In the former, the kneeling hunter appears in a cap, and has no beard; may not this be Charles Martel? We are told in the legend of S. Giles that the king of France was one day hunting in the South, near Nismes, when, in the pursuit of a hind, the hunters came upon S. Giles living hermit-wise in a cave. Charles Martel was never actually sovereign, although governing the kingdom; therefore a cap would be an appropriate head covering for the Maire du Palais. And the dates correspond. S. Giles died in 725; Charles Martel in 741. Is there any evidence that the S. Denis picture represents the S. Giles legend? There is no reason why each volet of a triptich should be decorated with incidents in the life of the same saint. Again, does the picture represent a mass? There are no lights upon the altar, which is contrary to the almost invariable custom of the church from all time. Two lights were used from the earliest period; whereas a single light, either taper, torch, or lantern, borne by an assistant kneeling behind the celebrant, generally denotes a communion of the faithful, after, or out of, mass. It is true there is a picture by van der Weyden in the National Gallery of the "Mass of S. Hubert," with no lights, and there is no doubt about the subject, as the vessels requisite for a mass are visible upon the altar; but in the "Mass of S. Giles" there are no evidences of the celebration of mass, except that the priest is elevating the Host while facing the altar, and reading from a book placed thereon; whereas at a communion the celebrant turns his back to the altar when elevating the consecrated wafer. Now may not the picture represent either the communion of Charles le Chauve, or his induction as abbot, or his presentation of the retable? I have not lost sight of the difficulty of the Angel. But if it be really the sin-forgiven scroll which he holds, there is no reason why this particular king should not have had a hidden sin, pious man though he may have been; indeed, that would be a reason for his thinking ill of himself. And must the subject be necessarily that incident, when we know that in Mediæval times Angels were constantly in the habit of flying about with all kinds of objects of celestial manufacture—stoles, girdles, chalices, crowns, palms, &c. (In van der Weyden's picture, mentioned above, an Angel is descending with a stole).
These are merely suggestions of a theory, which others, more qualified than myself, may be able to solve. Suger is said to have added to the ante-pendium given by Charles le Chauve, and placed it over the altar as a retable;[55] therefore there would be nothing extraordinary in the 15th-century artist placing Charles kneeling as the original donor, and Suger celebrating, as the founder of the new altar, or reredos. Has the abbot Giles de Pontoise, who died in 1325, caused any confusion in naming this picture? There is another curious resemblance in the crowns borne by the Angels upon the retable, and the crowns of Guarrazar in the Hôtel Cluny. The latter are supposed to be of Byzantine workmanship, the largest bearing the name of Reccesvinthus, king of the Visigoths, who reigned from 649 to 672. Charles le Chauve died in 823; but, according to Grégoire de Tours, when Childebert returned from a campaign against the Visigoths in Spain, he brought away divers gold and silver treasures, including a gold cross from Toledo; therefore there must have been an extensive school of goldsmithy in Spain at that time, and Toledo is the very spot near which the Guarrazar spoils were discovered. Were they made there some 100 years or so after Childebert's death? Grégoire de Tours also speaks of the king setting up workshops in the Parvis Notre-Dame, doubtless in imitation of the Spanish school; and in his Notice de l'Orfévrerie, M. Alfred Darcel points out a similarity between the Merovingian and the Spanish style of work. "Ce qui ressort de la plupart des passages que nous venons de citer, c'est que l'orfévrerie mérovingienne a pour principal caractère l'alliance des pierreries aux métaux précieux. Ce caractère se retrouve dans l'ornamentation des couronnes de Guarrazar ... et dans l'orfévrerie Byzantine." Is it possible, then, that the ante-pendium presented by Charles le Chauve to S. Denis was made at the workshops set up by Childebert in the Parvis Notre-Dame, in imitation of those he had seen at Toledo; and that the workmanship was also an imitation of the Spanish goldsmithy of a hundred years earlier?
But of all this beauty, of all this wealth, what have we now? Marvellously little; still, considering the robbers, royal and plebeian, the fires, the wars, and the undisciplined mobs, we ought to be thankful that so much has been preserved. That even the great churchmen were not above suspicion we see by the account of the coronation of Louis XIII.; the cardinal being obliged "to binde himself" to restore the "holy oyle" before the monks would let him take it into his hands; and the Prior of S. Remy, who had the custody of it, standing by and "looking sharplie to the holie oyle."
Of the few things which remain from the wreck, the following will be found in the Louvre and the Bibliothèque Nationale, commencing with the former.[56]
The beautiful Egyptian Amphora of porphyry transformed by Abbot Suger[57] into an eagle for service as an altar vessel. It is silver-gilt, and bears an inscription round the bird's neck: Includi Gemmis lapis ista meretur et auro—marmor erat sed in his marmore carior est.[58] Suger himself thus describes it: "Un vase de porphyre, chef-d'œuvre de taille et de sculpture; depuis longues années il était sans emploi dans l'écrin; d'amphore qu'il était, nous l'avons transformé en un aigle, au moyen de l'or et de l'argent, nous l'avons adapté au service de l'autel, et sur ce vase nous avons fait inscrire les vers qui suivent."
Another antique sardonyx[59] set by Suger, with a mounting of silver-gilt filagree and precious stones ornamenting it. Suger's account of this vase is as follows: "Nous avons acheté, pour le service du même autel, un calice précieux de sardonyx; nous y avons joint, en guise d'amphore, un autre vase de la même matière, mais de forme différente, sur lequel sont ces vers: Dum libare Deo gemmis debemus et auro—Hoc ego Sugerius offero vas Domino.".... "Il était de ce sentiment que l'on doit employer à la décoration des autels tout ce que l'on a de plus précieux; il disait que si les juifs se sont servis dans l'ancienne loi de vases et de fioles d'or, pour ramasser le sang des animaux, à plus forte raison doit-on moins épargner, dans la nouvelle, l'or et les pierreries pour tout ce qui a rapport au saint sacrifice du corps et du sang de Jésus Christ." Twenty-four plaques which decorated a book of the Gospels, in cloisonné enamel, are of the 9th century. Some of them are ornamented with foliage, others with the four Evangelists. They belonged to the gold book-cover bearing the legend: Beatrix me in honore Dei omnipotentis et omnium sanctorum eius fieri precepit; which probably refers to Beatrix, grand-daughter of Hugues Capet and sister of Robert, king of France, wife of Ebles I., count of Reims.