Was she ill?
Little is known about the artworks in the Nidaros Cathedral, but the cornice frieze can be dated fairly precisely. It was added during the restoration undertaken after the first large fire had damaged the then newly-built cathedral in 1328. Since all work came to a halt during the Black Death (1349 – 50) (3) , we know that they were put there over a period of 20 years. Most likely, they were carved by English stonemasons (Øystein Ekroll, personal communication) (3) . Could similar figures from Britain help us further?
In St. Mary’s Church in the village of Burton Lazars in Central England, where a leprosy hospital was established in the 12th century in honour of St. Lazarus (4) , we can find a similar stone head. Seen from the front, it bears some similarities with the woman’s head in Nidaros Cathedral, even though the former is more worn by age and less detailed and direct in its expression (Figure 2). The English woman’s head is called «the leper», and the diagnosis of leprosy has been made on the basis of several characteristic pathologies that are especially evident when seen from the side (5) . Could the woman in Nidaros Cathedral also be a representation of leprosy?
Figure 2: Woman’s head, called «the leper». St. Mary’s Church, Melton Mowbray, England. Photo: Tina Negus
We have consulted several colleagues who are knowledgeable in the field of leprology and medical history. First, the figure lacks the characteristic lion’s face (facies leonata), which can occur when the disease has lasted for a long period of time. In instances like these, the subcutis is filled with small pustules packed with leprosy bacteria. This gives the face a swollen appearance, with furrows caused by folds of engorged skin (Gunnar Bjune, personal communication). It speaks against this disease that the skin apparently seems smooth and lifeless, which could possibly have been caused by a paralysis of the facial muscles. Tooth loss is typical of leprosy, but tends to primarily afflict the upper front teeth and canines. The poor state of her teeth could as easily be interpreted as an effect of poor health in general or low social status. In case of leprosy, the nose typically recedes at the root, and we cannot see any signs of this here. Most likely, the damage to the tip of the nose was inflicted at a later time.
Another issue pertains to the stonemason’s intentions and possible knowledge of the disease that was sought to be portrayed and whether this would allow us to determine the correct diagnosis after the fact (Sigurd Sandmo, personal communication). As long as the indications of the disease remain ambiguous, it becomes that much harder to arrive at a precise diagnosis and a definitive conclusion. The intentions may also be lost since we are looking at a head made of stone.
When facing a work of art that soon will be 700 years old, medical diagnoses must be made with a great deal of caution. Distance diagnostics is a complicated exercise – in time as well as in space. In addition to the intention behind the work of art as well as a historic context which is constantly changing, a definitive interpretation of the diagnosis would also depend on supplementary sources (Øivind Larsen, personal communication). In our case, this might well be that a sculpture or a portrayal appears in combination with a depiction of a saint who is gene rally associated with a particular disease. We are unable to find any such connections.