 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture John, I'm far from being an expert in masonry structure, but I don't think that structural weaknesses, if they existed, would necessarily show up in the crypt or even at ground level: they might just as well have manifested themselves as deformations in the vaults or upper walls -- difficult to know since all reconstructions of the upper parts of Suger's hemicycle are speculative (the arrangement at Vezelay is often cited as a probable close copy). Even as things stand now, the supports of the hemicycle are far from beefy and probably carried symbolic weight. Besides encasing the Carolingian crypt, Suger actually had columns from the Carolingian church incorporated in his new chevet, and the columnar supports used throughout there are not as typical in early Gothic churches as compound piers. There are still many unknowns about Suger's structure, as is pointed out by Christopher Wilson's contention in The Gothic Cathedral that Suger's east end originally incorporated flying buttresses, which rested on the still apparent broad buttress piers located between the chevet chapels; this possibility, to my knowledge, has not received unanimous support (although it seems reasonable to me). As you say, the 13th-century rebuilding was certainly somewhat higher than Suger built and would have necessitated demolition of some of Suger's elevation, not only for structural purposes but also for "aesthetic" demands, since the Rayonnant design of Saint- Denis is remarkably harmonized and synthetic -- apart from the hemicycle piers and chevet which may have been retained, in a spirit comparable to Suger's, for its symbolic value of maintaining the venerable identity of the structure. What I've never been clear about is why Suger would have had the old crypt enlarged, since I believe his intention from the beginning was to move the relics from the crypt up to the main floor level of the new church. In any case, I'm not so sure that there may not have been structural problems with Suger's upper parts (we will probably never know for sure), but I think, as well, that you should also consider the symbolic importance of at least aspects of the structure of Saint- Denis. On Suger's reuse of Carolingian materials in his new east end, see the articles by Eric Fernie and Bill Clark in Artistic Integration in Gothic Buildings, ed. Virginia Raguin et al (University of Toronto Press, 1995). I'm not familiar enough with Bruzelius to know if she makes similar symbolic claims for the 13th-century building. Cheers, Jim Bugslag On 22 Aug 2007 at 3:16, John Briggs wrote: > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and > culture > > jbugslag wrote: > > > > A useful, very full, and highly informed overview of fairly recent > > work on Saint-Denis (and virtually any other major Gothic church) > > can be found in the copious notes added by Paul Crossley to his > > revised edition of Paul Frankl, Gothic Architecture (Yale > > U.P./Pelican, 2000). > > Many thanks, I shall certainly pursue that. The more I think about > it, I am convinced that Suger's choir was not completed. It makes no > sense to me to carefully dismantle a 'choir' (actually a retrochoir) > less than a century old, without disturbing the surrounding > ambulatory. The older explanation was structural failure, but > Bruzelius discounts this, and there is no sign of that in the > ambulatory or the crypt (where I would expect such signs to have > appeared.) > > An 'outer crypt' had been added in the 9th century to the east end of > the 8th century church (immediately to the east of the high altar), to > accommodate pilgrims viewing the relics, etc. This was more or less > at ground level. What Suger did was surround this by his own crypt, > consisting of ambulatory and chapels, again more or less at ground > level. On this platform he built his 'choir', ambulatory and > radiating chapels. This new 'ground floor' level was thus elevated > above the level of the high altar. The chevet columns were not aligned > directly above the corresponding supports in the crypt below, but that > doesn't seem to have mattered (and wasn't changed in the 13th century > rebuilding.) But the columns for the straight portion of the choir > were positioned over the barrel vault of the crypt ambulatory (which > seems to be wider than the ambulatory above). I find this > structurally dubious, and so did the 13th century masons, who inserted > supports into the crypt below the columns when rebuilding the choir. > Would they have done this if they had just demolished a perfectly > sound full-height choir? > > I think the 13th century masons found a 'choir' which didn't rise much > above arcade level - hence their readiness to dismantle it and rebuild > it to full height and in an up-to-date style, and with stronger > underpinning, columns and arches - before moving on to build a new > sanctuary and transepts. > > John Briggs > > ********************************************************************** > 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 > ********************************************************************** 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