medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

On Dec 30, 2004, at 10:57 AM, Christopher Crockett wrote:

> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and
> culture
>
> From: Marjorie Greene <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> Yeah, well my "water at Moissac" seems to have begun another food
>> fight. And I'm soooo glad to find cc serving himself up some crow. I
>> was wondering when he'd figure out he'd poo-pooed the "glassy sea"
>> interpretation and 'fess up.
>
> i have no memory nor aftertaste of any crow feasting, much less any
> trace of
> the Lower Tract Distress which such an event would surely have caused.
>
> i objected to the "Glassy Sea" interpretation of the Moissac "clouds"
> on April
> Fool's Day 2003, and i still object to it, on the same grounds, viz.,
> The
> Obvious.

come on cc. we like your jovial, energetic, and self-confident tone,
but this one didn't fall your way.  big deal.  it happens to everybody.

after looking at your examples, my impression is that Moissac looks
like water, and that it is a "conventional" representation for water,
and given its stretch -- across the heavens -- it's a sea.

and where do we find the enthroned xt (rule of the saints) seated in
majesty on a large body of water?   rev 4, a crystal sea.  and since
the main figures in this tympanum are the 24 kings, making it a
(relatively) rev.-heavy composition (certainly in comparison with later
programs), and those 24 kings are described in the same passage... one
finds a compelling theologic to this particular convention.  as for its
inability to even suggest a crystal sea, i can easily imagine the abbot
or guide, telling the viewer to imagine that this paltry stone carving
represented only a small token of the glory of that miraculous sea, as
different as this world is in comparison with the one to come.

i think the reason that we may disagree on this, has to do with who we
imagine the person shaping this program of sculpture was.  your
composer seems to be a busy sculptor who's got to get the job done.  i
imagine a churchman who wishes to shape the apocalyptic discourse of
his and all future generations till jesus does finally return.  for
you, the elements are part of a cut and paste workshop in which six
angel's wings is interchangeable with a line of water or clouds; for
me, they are the language of an ecclesiastical visionary, and the
source of innumerable conversations among those who gazed upon them in
wonder.  after all, these tympana were the "official" theodicy of the
hegemonic religion, and, as a result, represented a major axis of
commoner-churchmen discourse and negotiation.

the susan dixon passage you forwarded is a good example of a kind of
logic i think problematic in so many areas of medieval scholarship: her
caution about being "too-literal" seems to mean -- don't get too
specific, don't over-read... as if they didn't over-read.

okay. let's not. let's go with ambiguity.  cd be clouds, cd be water.
when some introduced people to it, they did it as clouds (it's clearly
something), others did it with a sea of glass like crystal.  i'm
interested in the latter group, and unless there were some augustinian
watch dogs ready to pounce on anyone who invoked Rev (there were
definitely times like that, like right after Dolcino was crushed), i
think the crystal sea was a big draw.

we exegetes may over-interpret, but then what we need is pruning, not
cutting off at the knees.

>
> From: Marjorie Greene <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> Am I a resource or what?!
>
> remains to be seen.

what did meyer schapiro say?
>
> jury's still out on that one.

looks good, tho.
>
> get back to me later.

okay.

r




>
>> The sky is usually above and the waters, below. Context is everything
> sometimes.
>
> i agree entirely, with the Operative Word being "sometimes".
>
> i think that there is no dispute about the Johannean Vision in Rev. 4
> being
> the (or the main) source of the Vision depicted in the Moissac
> tympanum.
>
> this text does, indeed, call for "sea of glass like to
> crystal".
>
> if "Context" were "everything" there would be no question about what
> the wavy
> forms **distributed throughout the tympanum** represented --something
> aquatic,
> if not quite Seaish.
>
> the thing about discussing *art* is, you need to actually look at the
> stuff
> from time to time when forming an opinion about what it is that you are
> seeing:
>
> http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/image/France/Moissac/abbey/porch/
> Tympanum/
>
> http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/image/France/Moissac/abbey/porch/
> Tympanum/Moissac-Portal-tymp-001-s.jpg
>
> http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/image/France/Moissac/abbey/porch/
> Tympanum/Moissac-Portal-tymp-004-s.jpg
>
> however, for whatever reason (most likely the evident difficulty of
> depicting
> an Oxymoronic "sea of glass like to **crystal** ") the Visionary
> sculptor of
> Moissac chose to revert to the normally accepted convention of
> depicting a
> heavenly scene.
>
> the wavy, cloudlike forms we see **distributed throughout the
> tympanum** at
> Moissac are simply *indistinguishable* from the wavy, cloudlike forms
> we see
> in **countless** depictions of "heavenly" scenes in all media from
> this period
> (give or take several centuries).  (viday infra)
>
> i therefore take the simple position that those wavy, cloudlike forms,
> **distributed throughout the tympanum** are wavy, *cloudlike* forms,
> not an
> attempt to depict the Oxymoronic "sea of glass like to crystal" --even
> though,
> strictly speaking, the context of the source text does, indeed, call
> for the
> latter.
>
> the only thing which *might* be dispositive to the resolution of the
> question,
> in addition to the Obvious nature of the artefact which we presently
> have
> before us, would be a restoration of the polychromy which, almost
> surely, once
> covered the whole portal (trust me on this: *all* "romanesque" portals
> were
> originally painted).
>
> i suspect that, among other details, the "eyes" on the four beasts
> which the
> text calls for
>
> "the four living creatures had each of them six wings; and round
> about and within they are full of eyes" (Rev. 4:8)
>
> but which we see no trace of on any of them
>
> http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/image/France/Moissac/abbey/porch/
> Tympanum/Moissac-Portal-tymp-002-s.jpg
>
> http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/image/France/Moissac/abbey/porch/
> Tympanum/Moissac-Portal-tymp-007-s.jpg
>
> http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/image/France/Moissac/abbey/porch/
> Tympanum/Moissac-Portal-tymp-006-s.jpg
>
> were, originally, supplied via a polychromatic, rather than a
> sculptural,
> medium.
>
> or, maybe not.
>
> maybe the sculptor decided that his already overly-complex image
> didn't really
> need to be larded down with yet another detail, **Even though his
> source text
> clearly called for that particular detail**.
>
> this same latter argument could be made to explain the *fact* that
> none of the
> four beasts has more than two wings, **Even though his source text
> clearly
> called for that particular detail**.
>
> this is sometimes called "artistic license".
>
> [btw, of the *many* depictions of the four beasts/evangelist symbols
> to be
> found in 12th c. sculpture, i can think of none, offhand, which have
> them with
> their requisite six wings.]
>
>
> From: richard landes <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> thanks for the tour.  interesting.
>
>>> "sometimes, a Cloud is just a Cloud, folks." --C.J. Jung
>
>> but these examples of clouds suggest that the moissac tympanum depicts
> not clouds but water.
>
> ?
>
> please inform me which one of these images suggests that :
>
> http://www.mcah.columbia.edu/gothicsculpt/PAGES/700imagepages/
> 700im051.html
> --Chartres, West, Left portal.
> the exact iconography of the tympanum is somewhat questionable (almost
> surely
> not *water*, even though it might appear to be), but it needn't
> concern us
> here: just note the *cloudlike* forms below the angels of the upper
> lintel.
>
> http://www.art-roman.net/vezelay/vezelay13x.jpg  --expand to full size.
> Vezelay tympanum.  *Not* based on a BoR text.  Note the two different
> and
> distinct types of "cloudlike" forms on either side of the Christ, the
> one on
> the left being virtually indistinguishable from the forms we see at
> Moissac.
>
> http://www.art-roman.net/vezelay/vezelay52.jpg --Vezelay lentel. Ditto.
>
> http://www.art-roman.net/vezelay/vezelay79.jpg --Vezelay capital. A
> quite
> typical "hand of God" emerging from the *clouds*.
>
> http://www.art-roman.net/ilebouchard/ilebouchard17.jpg
> --L'Ile-Bouchard,
> capital.  Angels emerging from the *clouds*.
>
> http://www.art-roman.net/lemanscath/lemanscath35.jpg --LeMans, glass.
> "Hand
> of God" again.
>
> http://www.art-roman.net/lemanscath/lemanscath36x.jpg --Ditto.
>
> http://www.art-roman.net/lemanscath/lemanscath38.jpg --Ditto.
>
> http://www.art-roman.net/lemanscath/lemanscath39.jpg --Ditto.
>
> http://www.art-roman.net/lemanscath/lemanscath40.jpg --Guess.
>
> etc.
>
> their number am *Legion*.
>
> "sometimes, a Cloud is just a Cloud, folks." --C.J. Jung
>
> so, there's authority for you.
>
> enfin, just to muddy the Waters (or Clouds) a bit, here's a post from
> the
> original Food Fight on MedArt-L, last year, from a little lady who
> wrote her
> Cornell dissertation on the Moissac portal a few years ago (forwarded
> to this
> list with her permission) :
>
> Date:  Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:34:19 -0500
> From:  "Susan R. Dixon" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:  Re: water at Moissac
>
> Speaking as one who, very long ago, did a lot of work on the tympanum
> of Moissac, I would like to warn against a too-literal interpretation
> of any element of that work. Although the tympanum does, indeed,
> contain many allusions to passages in Revelation, it differs from any
> particular one in such significant ways that it is not at all clear
> the sculptor intended the work to represent any passage literally.
> Even if we could determine whether the text (in English) means a sea
> made of glass or a sea made of water but like glass, neither would
> likely be represented literally with such billowing lines. So what
> are they?
>
> Perhaps the fact that we can't decide what these wavy lines "mean" is
> intentional. For those viewers familiar with the passage, they can
> mean the sea of glass. Or they can be clouds, suggesting "high and
> lifted up." (By supporting the "clouds" interpretation Christopher
> is, in my view, rightly warning against literalism.) Or - but this is
> part of a much longer argument I made one hundred years ago - they
> support a formal function among many elements in the tympanum that
> confuses the eye and creates an overall effect of movement "round
> about the throne of God."
>
> Susan Dixon
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> best to most,
>
> c
>
> **********************************************************************
> 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
>

**********************************************************************
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