medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Marjorie Greene <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I don't think there's any such thing as "Benedictine architecture."
certainly that's the case.
there surely were some liturgically-driven aspcts of building design, but,
beyond that other factors (regional schools --or, later, new structural
innovations-- for example) were much more important.
at least from the point of view of us modrens (middlevils might see things
differently).
>True, there was Cluny and houses it inspired.
yes, and it occured to me soon after i posted that about Cluny that there
certainly isn't any recognizable "cluniac architecture," even among buildings
constructed in roughly the same period (an important consideration) but
geographically distanced.
architecturally, Cluny and, say, Paray-le-Monial are quite similar buildings
--but then they are virtually in the same neighborhood, a stone's throw from
each other, relatively speaking, and their similarities might as easily be
described as do to their both partaking in the same regional building style.
(though, this is something of a circular argument, since late 11th-early 12th
c. Burgundian architecture is basically dominated by surviving Cluniac
houses.)
but there's certainly nothing evidently "Cluniac" about the structural form
(elevation) of St. Martin-des-Champs --the major Cluniac priory of the Paris
basin-- which is firmly within the Early Gothic stylistic sequence (as we now
construct it), a.k.a. the architectural style of the Royal Domain
("Ile-de-France Romanesque," if you like).
ditto with Cluniac buildings in other regions of France, much less Europe as a
whole --they will be much more recognizably Norman, or Spanish, or Italian, or
German than they will be "cluniac."
otOh, one of the things which distinguish early Cistercian buildings from
their more traditional Benedictine contemporaries is the ground plan of their
"business end" --a flat chevet (or chevets if the church was big enough, as at
Pontigny I) vs. a hemicycle with radiating, usually semi-circular chapels.
i've always assumed that these differences were outward and visible
architectural signs of inward and liturgical differences (though i've never
understood quite how, specifically).
the fact that the later 12th and 13th c. Cistercian buildings (e.g., the
choirs of Pontigny, Ourscamp, etc.), abandon the flat chevet plan for forms
which are, essentially, indistinguishable from those found on Benedictine
houses would, if this idea of liturgy-driving-architectural-form is at all
valid, suggest that there was a change in Cistercian liturgical practice as
the Order matured.
but, of these things i, obviously know nothing.
interesting questions.
best from here,
christopher
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|