medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: Genevra Kornbluth <[log in to unmask]>
> About
>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Saint-Ursanne_Kirche_Suedportal.jpg
thanks, Genevra.
what an extraordinary survival!
untouched, well-preserved original polychrom --and quite a lot of it, as
well.
> --Leaving aside the question of symbolism, it seems to me unlikely that
the painting is 11th c. According to John's original posting, it is the
crypt of this building that is so early, and the bulk of the structure
dates from the 12th-15th c. The photos for which John gives the links
bear this out. I would have great difficulty accepting the wall (and its
integral sculpture) on which the wyverns are painted as anything earlier
than 12th or 13th c., and they could easily be later.
> On 12/20/2010 5:26 AM, Henk wrote:
> > Looks 11th c to me.
though i can see why you(s) might think, on the one hand, of the 11th c. and,
on the other, of the 13th, a more detailed look --made possible by the
magnification of the image with a left click-- suggests to me that there is
nothing there which betrays any "Gothic" sensibility or stylistic attributes.
and monuments like this must be dated by their *latest* stylistic
characteristics, not their earliest --so, for example, the presence of a round
arch or of a simple abacus profile is not, in itself, necessarily indicative
of an early date.
on the other hand, we are in thoroughly "Romanesque" terrain here --i would
point out, particularly, the studied and very finely rendered "omega" folds of
the _Sedes'_ bottom hem (a sort of meditational device, reminiscent of those
"classic" early gothic _sedes_ figures at Chartres and the Ste Anne portal of
Paris); the quiet "archaic" (*not* archaizing) hand and blessing gesture of
the Child on her lap; the totally "romanesque" form of the decorated capitals;
and the [late] archaic faces and eyes --the latter not as archaic as might be
seen at, say, Toulouse or the Moissac cloister (c. 1100), but neither are they
as advanced as later 12th c. examples would be.
the column bases of the bishop(?)/author in the upper right spandrel are quite
consistent with those of mid-12th c. "early gothic" architecture and
sculpture, as at Chartres, Etampes, Ste. Anne's Paris, etc.
if this were backwater France, i'd say a date rather late in the second or
early in the third quarter of the 12th c. would be a good guess.
but, we are not in backwater France, we're in backwater Switzerland, and it is
impossible [at least for me] to venture any sort of firm guess about the date
without much more knowledge about the regional context from which these guys
sprang, which knowledge isn't forthcoming any time soon, i fear.
yes, the painted decoration of walls of the spandrels does, somewhat, resemble
"Gothic" floral rinceaux at first glance, but there is nothing there which
suggests --to my eye-- the dessication and schmatization of once-naturalistic
folliage which might be indicative of a post-1200 date.
we have not yet arrived at "Gothic" naturalism here.
$0.002
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
|