My original question was spurred by several excellent
articles on the subject of Suger and Saint-Denis in
_Artistic Integration in Gothic Buildings_, especially
those by Fernie and Clark. One of these articles also
sent me to Chenu's _Nature, Man, and Society in the
12th c._, espec. the chapter on "The Symbolist
Mentality."
I've been delighted with the quantity and quality of
responses I've received and thank you all again.
MG
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I liked what little I'd
> > read by Pseudo-Dionysius (in particular, his
> _Mystica Theologia_), so, perhaps
> > I should have said, "ALAS, who has "thoroughly
> debunked" Panofsky's
> > assertion?"? So yes, I was expressing dismay and
> disappointment.
> > Once again, sorry.
> > Cheers
> > Duc Thi DeBurg Dau
>
> G'day. I have little Australian so didn't
> understand the nature of
> your earlier laconic message. Two of the principal
> debunkers are:
> Peter Kidson, "Panofsky, Suger and St. Denis,"
> Journal of the
> Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, L (1987), 1-17,
> and
> Conrad Rudolph, Artistic Change at Saint-Denis (no
> publishing details
> currently available, sorry). I haven't read Lindy
> Grant's recent
> biography of Suger, but I'm sure there, as well, a
> picture will
> emerg, as from other recent sources, of an extremely
> capable
> administrator and very important patron of the arts,
> but with only
> limited theological interests. Rather, he relied on
> others for much
> of the remarkable iconography in the stained glass
> and sculpture he
> commissioned for his new abbey church. This is not
> to say that there
> was no interest in the writings of the
> Pseudo-Dionysius, but only
> that Suger was not as knowledgeable about them as
> was previously
> thought.
> Cheers,
> Jim Bugslag
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|