> Francine Nicholson wrote:
>
> >...What makes you think Byzantine monks in particular went there, beyond the
> similarity in artistic style....
>
> And Christopher Crockett then wrote:
[snip]
> Indeed, speaking theorectically (and in general blisfully devoid of the pesky
> encombrances generated by actual knowledge of the subject), my own preference
> would be for the latter rather than the former hypothesis: if the Irish
> illuminator had before his eyes an actual Byz. ms, we might indeed expect to
> find some more concrete traces of its presumably quite
> sophisticated "style" than we do.
My understanding, a very general one, I'm afraid, is that the
connections were more between Irish monasticism and that of Egypt,
with the possibility of connections between Coptic art and the Irish
manuscripts. The arrangement of Irish monasteries with independent
cells for the monks might be such a reflection. Recently, a
connection has been made between the Book of Durrow and the Holy Land
by Martin Werner, 'The Cross-Carpet Page in the Book of Durrow: The
Cult of the True Cross, Adomnan, and Iona,' Art Bulletin, vol. 72,
no. 2 (June 1990), 174-223. The problem of making comparisons with
"Byzantine manuscripts" at this time is that the tradition is not
that rich in survivals before the Iconoclastic Period. There were
certainly manuscripts brought to this area in this early period: the
so-called Gospels of St Augustine is one example, although probably
Italian rather than eastern Mediterranean, and in general, it is very
difficult to locate the origins of manuscripts in this early period.
The Ashburnham Pentateuch is an excellent example of this. It has
been attributed to Spain, as well as Africa. Sorry there's
nothing Jewish here, but I've rather lost track of the point at which
this discussion started.
Cheers,
Jim Bugslag
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|