Tom, it's entirely possible that such a usage was adopted at Gettysburg by
some sort of convention among the sculptors. In fact, since my late father
(a US Army officer) was a dedicated Civil War buff, it's entirely possible
that he heard about this at G'burg and accepted it as universal gospel, as
it was he who drummed this into my head as a child. Until the fell day we
happened upon a statue of somebody--I forget who, a President maybe--who
had definitely never been wounded in battle but was shown on a rearing
charger with three legs off the ground. In the middle of Queen's Park in
Toronto, there is a splendid statue of Edward VII, who certainly never went
anywhere near a battlefield in his entire life, and the horse has one foreleg
raised. (Our revered listowner will know this sculpture, renowned among
University of Toronto students for the remarkable range of colors sported from
time to time by certain bits of the horse's anatomy, usually after late-night
excursions by students of the Engineering faculty.)
I've spoken about the raised-leg convention with many art historians, none of
whom were aware of such a custom and all of whom opined that showing the horse
with one or more legs raised was simply a way to add movement to what would
otherwise be a pretty dull piece of work.
John P.
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Thomas Izbicki wrote:
> John,
> I think that may be a variant of a US usage. At least at Gettysburg, a
> horse with one leg raised means the rider was wounded; two means he
> - the rider - died on the field.
> Tom Izbicki
>
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, John Carmi Parsons wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:03:44 -0500
> > From: John Carmi Parsons <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> > To: Anna Sander <[log in to unmask]>
> > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: effigies
> >
> > There's also an old canard that it's possible to tell from an equestrian
> > statue whether its rider was ever wounded in battle: if the horse has one
> > leg raised the rider was wounded once, two legs he was wounded more than once,
> > three legs he died in battle. Pure nonsense; the simple fact is that a statue
> > of a horse with all four legs on the ground is static and boring so at least
> > one leg is always shown raised. Similarly it used to be thought that knightly
> > effigies with crossed legs represented crusaders but this has now been
> > discounted as antiquarian imagination. So I'd have reservations about whether
> > animals could represent crusading status any more than they represent battle
> > scars.
> >
> > John P.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Anna Sander wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Jim,
> > >
> > > The consensus from the DPhil workroom here is that a dog under the feet
> > > of a knight's tomb effigy means he died at home, and a lion means he
> > > died on the Crusades. (!) The consensus is also that there isn't a
> > > documented meaning, which means that this is a guess. A dog under the
> > > feet of somebody's wife's effigy, however, indicates fidelity, as per
> > > another answer.
> > >
> > > Anna Sander
> > > Centre for Medieval Studies, York
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Kerbaugh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Listmembers,
> > > >
> > > > Last week I led a group of American undergraduates on a tour of
> > > > cathedrals & castles in the UK. At Salisbury, one of my students
> > > > asked if the dog at the feet of knights on tomb effigies meant
> > > > anything. Being <indifferent honest,> I said yes, but I've forgotten
> > > > what. I've been searching my bookshelves all week without any luck,
> > > > so I'd be eternally grateful for the information. I solemnly promise
> > > > not to forget again.
> > > >
> > > > Desperately yours,
> > > > Jim Kerbaugh
> >
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|