 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture From: John Dillon <[log in to unmask]> > On Monday, August 24, 2009, at 8:38 am, christopher crockett wrote: >> Azay-le-Rideau (Indre-et-Loire): >>> http://tinyurl.com/6cayop >>> http://flickr.com/photos/33686579@N00/1519731846 >>> http://tinyurl.com/5olxee >>> http://tinyurl.com/5v8sy5 >> well, there *might* be some 9th c. stones in that facade, but the right hand portal and sculpture above it is obviously from c. 12. > Thanks, chris. > When I originally wrote that I had intended to write "ninth-century (?)", following the indication on this page from Patrimoine de France: > http://www.patrimoine-de-france.org/richesses-26-8674-66505.html somewhat reliable (if woefully laconic). > But the corresponding Structurae page caused me -- because I find those pages generally well informed -- to drop the question mark: > http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0045160 the "Date: 9th century" there is pretty worthless, obviously. > The church was rebuilt in the eleventh century but retains some stonework from a predecessor that's usually said to be Carolingian. For a different view of the predecessor's age, see: > http://tinyurl.com/m85rlw the regional Michelin Guides Bleu were my bibles, in my wandering youth. as it happens, i have (for other reasons) beneath my eyes as we speak, Hubert, Jean. “L’architecture et le décor des églises en France au temps de Robert le Pieux (996-1031),” Cahiers archéologiques: fin de l’antiquité et moyen âge, XXXVI, 1988, 13-40. which reproduces some rather good details of the sculpted arcade-cum-figures of the right facade (his figs. 26-30). > This year, as often, I simply mechanically copied the previous year's phrasing. What!!?? you mean you don't start over, each day, re-doing all the research from scratch? >Are the sculptures certainly from C12 or, given the C11 rebuilding, could they possibly be a little earlier? yes. don't believe everything that you see in off-the-top-of-the-head posts to this list. unfortunately, Hubert does not discuss this site in any detail, in spite of his very good pics of it. viewing the sculptures now in detail, i see that it is quite possible that they might date from, say, the second quarter of the 11th c., "proto-romanesque," as it were. figures like this are notoriously difficult (at least for me) to date --are they truly "archaic" or merely "archaizing" (i.e., "primitive"?). they are set within a context of stones which Hubert terms "appareil décoratif" (e.g., the diagonally laid small square and diamond-shaped stones of the faux-pignons, visible here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianritchie/1519733212/in/set-72157602074511523/ ). "...Il s'agit donc bien là d'un system, de l'expression d'une volonté concertée qui tend à substituer à la nudité extérieure des murs de l'église qui était de règle à l'époque carolingienne un décor, ou un essai de décor." (p. 34) couldn't have said it better myself. whateverthahell it's saying. c p.s., i am scanning Hubert's article and could send a .pdf of it to anyone who wishes to have a copy. ********************************************************************** 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