 |
 |
I liked what little I'd > read by Pseudo-Dionysius (in particular, his _Mystica Theologia_), so, perhaps > I should have said, "ALAS, who has "thoroughly debunked" Panofsky's > assertion?"? So yes, I was expressing dismay and disappointment. > Once again, sorry. > Cheers > Duc Thi DeBurg Dau G'day. I have little Australian so didn't understand the nature of your earlier laconic message. Two of the principal debunkers are: Peter Kidson, "Panofsky, Suger and St. Denis," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, L (1987), 1-17, and Conrad Rudolph, Artistic Change at Saint-Denis (no publishing details currently available, sorry). I haven't read Lindy Grant's recent biography of Suger, but I'm sure there, as well, a picture will emerg, as from other recent sources, of an extremely capable administrator and very important patron of the arts, but with only limited theological interests. Rather, he relied on others for much of the remarkable iconography in the stained glass and sculpture he commissioned for his new abbey church. This is not to say that there was no interest in the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius, but only that Suger was not as knowledgeable about them as was previously thought. Cheers, Jim Bugslag