medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

From: Genevra Kornbluth <[log in to unmask]>

>You give me the courage to tackle more of my backlog, in addition to posting
new photos.

so, i've done my Good Deed for the day.

glad that Task is behind me.

> On 12/27/2011 12:30 PM, Christopher Crockett wrote:
>> though there must be other examples, this is the first time i can remember
seeing a 12th c. relief with inscriptions in both Latin and Greek

>> http://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/CruxSteatite.jpg

>> ...intended for a market somewhere in the Crusader states, perhaps?

I wondered about this as well-- one of the reasons why I shot it. The 
most useful work I know on the steatites is Ioli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, 
/Byzantine icons in steatite/ (Vienna, 1985). This panel is her no. 45. 

as i can see from one of those wretched "snippet view"s

http://books.google.com/books?ei=tg36TvLeNaPY0QHKmaWDAg&id=VastAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22Byzantine+icons+in+steatite%22&q=Hermitage#search_anchor

acquired in 1886.

from the Bazilevskij collection, no less.

>Her verdict is that the panel is C12 Byzantine, recarved in the West in 
the late C12/early C13. 

>The Greek inscriptions are mostly, but not all, obliterated and Latin ones
added. 

there does seem to be some wear to the Greek ones, but i can't make out, at
this level of detail, 

http://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/CruxSteatite.jpg

any sure evidence of deliberate "obliteration"

if someone wished to "obliterate" them, why not just do so?

the Latin ones, esp. that "CENTVRION" do look considerably fresher --and
(perhaps?) later. 

at least they appear "late" to me --later 12th or early 13th c.

the abbreviations in the NICODeMus and the bar over the "S" and the descender
of the "H" in IOHNS in the lower register certainly qualify as quite late. (i
obviously know less than nothing about Byzantine paleography, so can't speak
to the relative date of those, viz-a-viz the Latin.)

>K-M sees the basic forms and outlines as original, but the surfaces of faces
and drapery as re-cut to varying degrees.

again, the level of detail is insufficient to allow for the acceptance or
rejection of the idea and location of re-cutting.

the heads appear to me to be *somewhat* more Western than Eastern, but,
goodness, you are talking about quite a *lot* of work to re-cut over a dozen
tiny heads --one has to ask one's self: Why?

why would the heads have been re-cut, for a purely "stylistic" effect (to ask
the question is to risk participating in a considerable anachronism.

the same might be said of the idea that the drapery was "re-cut" --for
starters, such a campaign would entail an *immense* amount of work relative to
the size of the piece.

i could see, for instance, a 19th c. (or 20th c. --though that would seem to
be out of the question) "forger" working for an art dealer in Paris expending
such an effort (i.e., the cutting or re-cutting), given the possible financial
reward...

but, a late 12th - early 13th c. carver???

especially when it was *precisely* at this time that "Byzantine" style was
having such a strong influence in the West --all through the later 12th c.,
and particularly after the mini-flood of Byzantine objects which came West
after the Great Looting of 1204.

btw, on the specific influence of Byzantine ivories on a major Western
monument, see the ground breaking article by Willibald Sauerländer, 

“Die Kunstgeschitliche Stellung der Westportale von Notre-Dame in Paris: Ein
Beitrag zur Genesis des hochgotischen Stiles in der französischen
Skulptur,” Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, XVII, 1959, pp. 1-56.
[reprinted: Cathedrals and Sculpture, I, (London: Pindar Press, 1999), pp.
67-193. 

(one of S.'s ivories is quite close in style to our relief, esp. to the two
Marys to the left of the cross, in their flatness and the "brittleness" of
their bold patterns, particularly below the knees.)


if Byzantine style was so highly thought of in the West at precisely this time
--as it demonstrably was-- then one must ask what were the circumstances which
might have called for such an expenditure of labor to transform a perfectly
decent Byzantine relief into something more "Western" in taste --and (again
the anachronism) for purely "Stylistic" reasons??

as it stands, though the overall layout and the compositional and other
details (e.g., the gestures) of the individual scenes are quite Byzantine, i
wouldn't describe the *drapery* style as being either Eastern or Western, but
rather some sort of weird amalgam of both --neither Fish nor Fowl.

the drapery isn't "muddy" exactly (i.e., lacking a sufficient degree of
clarity in its conception), but rather it just doesn't "fit."  

(beyond that, the jet of drapery extending from the Virgin over part of John
is particularly troubling: what the hell is *that* all about?)

a Western artist working in (certain aspects of) Byzantine style
(compositions, gestures, etc.), but not in others?

with all respect due to M. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, i wouldn't rule out the
possibility (at least) that some Parisian dealer (covering all of his bets by
appealing to both a Western and an Eastern clientele) might have seen tovarich
Bazilevskij coming and relieved him of a few of his excess rubles.

but, if it's a "fake," it's a damned good one, i must say.

a puzzling piece.

makes me glad i'm not a Byzantinist.

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