 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture Hi David, Thanks for the details on Fletcher’s first edition and the reference to Webster. It looks like one of my local university libraries has them both, though it may be some time before I can go there to consult them. *Holding Up Clothing -* I’m not persuaded that the angels are depicted as holding up any part of the divinity figure’s clothing. Looking at actual photos of the sculptures shows that the L angel’s L hand is behind the divinity figure’s R arm and behind the drapery rather than supporting it in any way I can see. The catenary curve of the drooping sleeve or stole is smooth and shows no sign of indentation, impression or folding that would indicate support by the angel’s hand. The R angel’s R hand is missing altogether in both Fletcher’s sketch and the photographs and therefore cannot be said to support anything at all. Moreover, Fletcher’s sketch totally omits the draping of the stole or cape over the divinity figure’s shoulders, even though it is prominently visible in these photographs: - http://footage.framepool.com/fr/shot/787235563-ascension-du-christ-tympanum-portail-royal-portail-ouest - http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/Images/arth212images/gothic/Chartres/royport_ascenport_archivolt1.jpg - https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/aict/x-gt045/GT000_IMG0045?lasttype=boolean;lastview=thumbnail;med=1;resnum=400;size=20;sort=aict_ti;start=381;view=entry;rgn1=ic_all;q1=aict;evl=undefined - http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/Images/arth212images/Gothic/Chartres/royport_ascentymp.jpg - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Chartres_Cathedral_Royal_Port_Left_Bay_Tympanum_2007_08_31.jpg I think the Fletcher’s sketch shows definite inaccuracies with some details added here and others omitted there. My sense is that the sculptor intentionally left the two angels hands, the drapery and the projecting ends of the V shaped cloud attached to each other at strategic places to provide some structural strength or bracing. These projecting stone elements are all fully undercut and stand free of the tympanum stone. Had they been too fully detached they would have been far too fragile. These points of attachment are a function of the stone as a medium and not a function of the gesture or action the two angels are depicted as performing. I do not, for example see anything in the angels’ body language suggesting they are behaving as humble servants reaching forward to help their lord and master to put on or to remove an article of clothing. Quite the contrary, their body language speaks to me of an effort to avoid losing their balance. Their whole bodies strain to resist some force pushing them backwards and away from the divinity figure. Even their gaze is directed, not at their lord, but at their feet as though they were unsure of, and in need of checking, their footing. Though they are not in flight, their wings are fully deployed and plastered against the inner edge of the archivolt. While I disagree with any idea of garment donning activity being depicted, here is an intriguing blog post that supports the idea and seeks to tie it to the gnostic teachings of the *Pistis Sophia* text: - https://sophiaproject.net/chartres-and-the-pistis-sophia/ *Zodiac and Months* – Forget the hogs and the grapes. The question is not what, nor who, nor where, but when. The signs and months are symbols of time. The question to pose is when in orthodox biblical time and Chartrian cosmology are the heavenly and earthly cycles expected to be disrupted? Answer: the end times. Yes I think it is that simple. Cheers, Richard J Legault On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 5:16 PM David Critchley < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture > > Dear All > > The Banister Fletcher drawing is, I think, a major contribution to the > discussion. It looks to me like an accurate copy of the sculpture: it > leaves a blank where we may suppose the stone to have been too eroded to be > read immediately below the hood mould, and it adds a scale. I suspect that > the author had access to a scaffold, or at the least to a ladder. B-F did > not usually draw his own drawings but took them from published works, so > probably the first edition of this drawing is in some iconographical or > archeological publication. B-F's first edition was 1896 so if the drawing > was in that edition, it will have appeared before then, and surely gives us > access to an older state of the sculpture. > > The Holy Spirit as a dove is very clear. I suspect that the halo of the > dove has been retooled a bit since the dove's wings and head were lost, and > it may be that smooth surfaces elsewhere where we would expect damage are > also the result of retooling. In the top register the L hand angel's L hand > is quite clear, and I suspect that there is a bit more left of the stub of > the R angel's left wrist, though not of the hand. It seems clear that these > angels are holding up part of Christ's clothing, which appears to issue > from above his belt. I do not understand that. Christ's L hand is clearly > visible but not his R. > > Aquarius still has his legs in the drawing. Libra and September both seem > to have been in a better state of preservation. > > For me the most puzzling thing is these angels apparently holding Christ's > clothing: what are they doing? > > It is possible that the fracture in the lintel postdates the B-F drawing. > > So far as the labours and zodiac symbols is concerned, it seems to me that > the general trend seems to be to start at the bottom of one side of the > inner order, move upwards to the apex, then cross over to the other side > and start at the bottom again and then move upwards, then move out to the > outer order and do the same thing, though I grant that October and > September don't follow this pattern. Are we 100% sure that the panel > labelled September really is harvesting grapes? I see that James Webster, *The > Labours of the Months in Antique and Medieval Art*, 1938, p. 157 (with > some useful references on this tympanum for anyone with access to a good > library) interprets this particular carving, i.e. No 23, as feeding hogs > and assigns it to October, in which case we can give treading grapes i.e. > No 9 to September. > > David > On 26/10/2018 12:41, Richard Legault wrote: > > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture > > Hello Karl, David, Guenevera and Jim, > *Holy Spirit or Hand of God?:* See Figure D in this image: > > - > > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/FGothic_details_567.jpg > > Wikimedia’s source is cited as: Fletcher, Banister (1946) *A History of > Architecture on the Comparative Method* (17th ed.), Category:New York: > Charles Scribner's Sons ISBN: 0750622679, page 576. (I think 17th ed. is > wrong) > > The Holy Spirit is drawn in Fletcher’s Figure D as a dove with head > pointing downwards and a nimbus. It is impossible to know if Fletcher’s > artist actually saw the intact sculpture or filled-in missing details with > imaginative extrapolation from context. Nevertheless, if this drawing is > accurate then, I’d say that what David describes as a “star in a circle” is > what survives of a cruciform nimbus. A cruciform nimbus beneath a dove’s > head is a common enough attribute of the Holy Spirit and it is fairly > common iconography from this period judging by these other examples: > > - > > Baptism of Christ, BL Arundel 157, f. 5v (England, 13th century): > > https://aclerkofoxford.blogspot.com/2014/01/jesus-autem-hodie.html > > - > > Manuscript Illumination with the Annunciation in an Initial R, from a > Gradual ca. 1300: > https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/466086 > > This evidence is not perfect. Nevertheless, I think it is enough to safely > eliminate the Hand of God idea. > *Whole Three-tympana Composition - *Yes, I agree that the entire Royal > Portal tableau from the top of the column capitals, up to and including the > three lancet windows may be, or even must be, read of a piece. > After reading Fassler's 2010 *The Virgin of Chartres, *I came to > understand the best one-word thematic idea that unites everything into a > coherent and unified whole: the idea of *Adventus. *The idea is that all > of Christian faith may be summed up by the anticipatory posture, sustained > without interruption from the moment of the Fall and the Expulsion, in > which humanity awaits the arrival, the *Adventus*, of Christ. This > anticipation was fulfilled once at the time of the Incarnation. The > anticipation continues in faithful expectation of a second fulfillment in > the future at the final event of the Eschaton. As she describes it: > > Advent in the Roman [Catholic] rite embodies the fundamental medieval > Christian *adventus* *procession*, taking the participant on a journey *from > the dawn of time *to an evolving apocalyptic present. > > Similarly, article 524 of the *Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church*, > clarifies the liturgy of *Adventus* thusly: > > 524 When the Church celebrates the *liturgy of Advent* each year, she > makes present this *ancient expectancy of the Messiah*, for by sharing in > the *long preparation for the Savior's first coming*, the faithful renew > their ardent desire for his *second coming *(Vatican 1997, my italics). > The concept of *Adventus,* in times both medieval and modern, is the > theological glue that binds together all of the books of the Christian > Bible from *Genesis* to *Revelation.* To the extent that Chartres > Cathedral is a Bible in stone, *Adventus *binds all of the images of the > Royal Portal too. > *Missing Wing: *I think the missing wing was deliberately removed. If it > was a matter of damage or breakage then I’d expect to see remnants of > either wing bits or a supporting strut of the kind visible behind the other > deeply undercut wings. All traces have been scraped or chiseled away to > leave a clean smooth background. Note that Fletcher’s figure D clearly > shows a joint in the middle of this lintel, (as well as the two in the > tympanum), right where the wing should be. I think a slice of stone was > removed from the middle of this lintel to accommodate it in a space > narrower than it was designed to fit. I think the half cut shepherd over > the right doorway corroborates this. May we suppose that the weakness > arising from this joint in the upper lintel is what caused what I now agree > is a fracture in the lower lintel? > For more on *Adventus* and the Lintel anomalies see: http://www.academia.edu/11801856/Chartres_-_Adventus > > > *Pisces:* Does anybody have a picture of the Royal Portal Pisces that > shows both fish? I know there are two fish, but I’ve lost track of and can > no longer find the only picture I’ve ever seen that shows them both. > > *Signs and Months: *Can anybody suggest answers on these questions > about the Zodiac Signs and the Labors of the Months: > > - Why are Gemini and Pisces cut and pasted into the Incarnation > archivolts? > - Why are the Signs and Months not shown chronologically and in pairs > as in the Zodiac Window, the North Porch archivolt, and so many other > medieval examples? See: Hourihane: > https://books.google.ca/books?id=5IEuqbNeN30C&vq=pisces&source=gbs_navlinks_s > - Why try to pair up Pisces with March and Gemini with June, as > Fassler suggests, when the designers so obviously chose to depart from the > norm by deliberately not pairing up the Signs and Months? > - If the idea of selecting Pisces and Gemini for transplant was to > represent March and June, why use the two Sign images rather than the two > Month images? > - Why is the main group of 10 Signs and 12 Months in such horrible > disarray? > > For more on the Signs and Months see: > http://www.academia.edu/34341049/Chartres_The_Disconnected_Zodiac > > Cheers, > > Richard J Legault > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:57 AM David Critchley < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture >> >> Thanks, Richard, for the reference to >> >> - h >> ttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Chartres_Cathedral_Royal_Port_Left_Bay_Tympanum_2007_08_31.jpg >> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Chartres_Cathedral_Royal_Port_Left_Bay_Tympanum_2007_08_31.jpg> >> >> This is much the best photo of the tympanum that I have seen. I don't >> know whether there has been a close archaeological study of the stonework, >> and a search for any early drawings that might show the sculpture in a less >> damaged state, but I don't have access to such a study. So basing myself on >> the photo, here are some further thoughts: >> >> 1. All three tympana have a representation of the Holy Spirit at the top. >> In this case the stone is heavily weathered, and it might be either a hand >> emerging from the wavy lines or a dove. I think a hand is marginally more >> likely to suit the surviving traces. But given that, I would have thought >> that the figure is more likely to be Christ rather than the Father. Of >> course, as the Word, Christ is also he through whom the world was created. >> There appears also to be a star in a circle immediately below the hand or >> whatever it is - I don't know what that means. Given that two of the signs >> of the zodiac have been transferred to the right tympanum, it may be that >> the signs of the zodiac and the labours of the months, plus the figures of >> the arts etc from the right hand tympanum, go with the whole three-tympana >> composition, rather than being specially associated with one particular >> tympanum. >> >> 2. In the upper register, the centre block of stone is heavily damaged. >> it has lost the tips of the angels' wings. I think one can see damaged >> surface, or at any rate not-fully-finished surface, where the wings would >> have been. What has happened to the L hand of the L angel and the R hand of >> the R angel? Were they holding Christ's hands, as one might do if one was >> introducing someone? Were they pointing to Christ? And what is the stone >> object that appears to link to Christ's R hand? It was this object which >> led me to think that the flat bottomed V might have extended upwards into a >> rhomboid shape. Is the object the L arm of the L angel? >> >> 3. Christ is either emerging from something or disappearing into >> something. If he is moving upwards my guess is that he is emerging, so no >> Ascension here. I would guess that the something, i.e. the flat bottomed V, >> is either clouds or water. >> >> 4. With this new photo, I agree that the vertical stone formations either >> side of the V shape are not curtains but the edges of the tunics or cloaks >> of the angels. >> >> 5. Some of the angels in the middle register seem to be looking at us >> rather than the seated 10. I agree that the folds of fabric at extreme L >> and R are not curtains but part of the the angels' clothing, sashes almost >> around their waists. In the case on angel No 2 from the left, the sash >> seems to have broken off: perhaps one can see part of the original stalk >> just beside the wing of angel No 1. The amount of undercutting in this >> composition is really very impressive and technically of the first order. I >> suspect that the second wing of angel No 2 has broken off in the past: >> whether it extended originally over the break between the two stone blocks >> I do not know. Otherwise there would indeed be a large empty space top left >> on the second block. There may be a minute trace of the missing wing just >> above the angel's L hand. Angels Nos 3 and 4 have each lost an arm. >> >> 6. The seated 10 are, I am sure, the key to identifying the composition >> but they continue to puzzle. The break in the lintel looks to me to be a >> fracture not an original joint. No 2 from the left has made me think of a >> beardless St John but the appearance of a bun at the back of the head >> surely indicates a female figure. I am not convinced that the artist or his >> clerical advisor started with the 10 commandments, moved to the number 10, >> and then chose 10 Old Testament figures to make up the number: that seems >> to me a strange way of proceeding. I suspect there is a logic to the choice >> of the 10 which is obscure to us. Given the Christological interpretation >> of OT references to The Lord, the figures could be anyone to whom The Lord >> appeared, e.g. Abraham and Sarah. It may be that this group of 10 was >> specially assembled for this composition, but I should have thought it >> equally likely that they came as a group from somewhere in the liturgy or >> from an illumination, and that the group exists somewhere else waiting for >> us to stumble on it. >> >> 7. This doesn't amount to an identification of the scene. For me there >> are still too many unanswered questions. >> >> David >> >> >> On 13/10/2018 23:27, Richard Legault wrote: >> >> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture >> >> *Joints in the Lintels:* Regarding the Seated Ten, why is there what >> clearly looks like a mortar joint right in the middle of a lintel stone? >> And of the Four Descending Angels, why is one missing a wing right where >> there is another mortar joint? These two mortar joints tell a construction >> story corroborated by the half-cut shepherd over on the rightmost lintel. >> If a wing is missing here and half a shepherd is missing there, >> then are one or more seated figures missing too? Here are some telling >> images: >> >> - h >> ttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Chartres_Cathedral_Royal_Port_Left_Bay_Tympanum_2007_08_31.jpg >> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Chartres_Cathedral_Royal_Port_Left_Bay_Tympanum_2007_08_31.jpg> >> - https://www.flickr.com/photos/profzucker/33933610565 >> - >> https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/chartreswest/slintelshep.jpg >> >> My hypothesis is that the two leftmost lintels are facing stones, hung >> upon an unseen inner solid lintel (with no middle joint). Does anybody know >> what the masonry looks like from the inside? Of course, if the inside is >> parged or plastered, the true joinery may not show and could even be >> falsely traced in these coatings. >> If you follow the evidence of the joints and explain them by postulating >> a slice of stone having been cut out of the middle of these two leftmost >> lintels, during construction, then maybe there were originally eleven or >> even twelve seated figures. Who can say? >> *Ascension or Creation: *I will not be holding my breath waiting for a >> list of 10. However, I’m 100% with David on this: the left tympanum, >> archivolts and lintels simply do not match any imagery in the *New >> Testament* Ascension text, except for a divinity figure standing in >> heaven. The evidence for an Ascension scene is simply not there. >> As I've written, there is only one explanation that makes sense to me >> for this to be known as the Ascension Door and it has nothing to do with >> the artwork. I think it has to do with the function of the door as having >> been designated, as Fassler says, for special use in the annual procession >> on the feast of the Ascension. She has a lot to say about how the feast >> day was celebrated: Ivo of Chartres' sermon, the signing of *Rex >> Omnipotens *and so on. But she says little about how these relate to the >> actual details of imagery in the sculptures. I think she is led astray by >> looking at the wrong evidence and goes so far as to identify the strange >> shape in which stands the Divinity figure, as neither cloud nor water, but >> as cloth. See: >> >> - Fassler's Take (See pages 178 to 181): >> https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=YcQtugS41DYC&q=pisces#v=snippet&q=ascension&f=false >> - My Take: >> https://www.academia.edu/10497029/Chartres_Royal_Portal_Ascension_or_Creation >> >> I'll say more about Fassler in a separate post. In brief, I disagree with >> her Ascension idea and I read the left tympanum and lintels instead as a >> Contemplation of Creation. This is not the Creation "In the beginning" as >> in *Genesis. *It is more a Creation in its on-going mode as described in *Job, >> *but even more all-encompassing. Here Creation >> is contemplated comprehensively in its full scope and duration all at once >> - from the beginning, through the middle and to the end of time - as it can >> only be in the omniscient mind of God, creator of Heaven and Earth. Okay, >> if you prefer to name the central Divinity figure Christ, that is fine with >> me. But you have to do it with the idea of Christ as the agent of creation, >> the Word, or Wisdom, eternally present and active from the beginning, as in >> the *Gospel of John*. The Seated Ten or Sages of the Ages are obviously >> utterly bewildered as they strain to look and listen to all the signs >> around them, to read and write about what they think is going on, but >> simply can’t fully figure it all out. >> One more post to follow. >> Cheers, >> Richard J Legault >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:06 PM Richard Legault < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> *The Language:* If you find the language of the designers frustrating, >>> try reading- up on the philosophical writing style of contemporary >>> Chartrians, especially about the *integumentum - *a rhetorical device >>> they highly favored. >>> I think the concept of *integumentum,* as a form of meaningful >>> expression, is archetypically Chartrian and absolutely essential in >>> following the evidence to the deeper layers of meaning. Though it would >>> have gone over the heads of their mostly illiterate congregation, the >>> concept was widely accessible and well understood among the priestly elite >>> and whoever else completed the curriculum of the *Trivium.* >>> Ellard and Jeauneau both address this but the best is Wetherbee. See: >>> >>> - Ellard: >>> https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/S/bo5459818.html >>> - Jeauneau: >>> https://utorontopress.com/ca/rethinking-the-school-of-chartres-3 >>> - Wetherbee: https://press.princeton.edu/titles/6442.html >>> >>> The *integumentum* is a contemporary linguistic and visual tool that >>> helps segregate core meaning or central teachings from the more peripheral >>> and less significant. This is the tool that leads to depths of meaning. I >>> am currently working up a case study of* integumentum* involving a trio >>> of visual images, one from each of the 12th, 13th and 20th Centuries. >>> See the images at: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Thierry’s Heptateuchon: >>> https://www.manuscrits-de-chartres.fr/fr/reconnaitre-un-manuscrit-chartrain >>> - >>> >>> Chartres Labyrinth: >>> https://www.luc.edu/medieval/labyrinths/chartres.shtml >>> - >>> >>> NASA’s Voyageur Misson: >>> https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/golden-record/golden-record-cover/ >>> >>> Never have I had more fun working up a case than on this one. The fun is >>> in following the evidence for the pleasure of simply finding things out. Where >>> the evidence leads me in this case is, literally, as far out as it gets. >>> See the working draft at: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Close Encounter: >>> http://www.academia.edu/30679872/The_Labyrinth_of_Chartres_-_A_Close_Encounter_of_the_Medieval_Kind >>> >>> Stay positive and enjoy. >>> Cheers, >>> Richard J Legault >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:25 AM Richard Legault < >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Karl, David, Guenevera and Jim, >>>> >>>> *Drapery and Unveiling:* If you want to talk about opening drapery or >>>> unveiling in the Royal Portal sculptures, consider instead the clearer >>>> evidence of the angels in the archivolts surrounding the Second Coming >>>> tympanum. Look at the seven ones depicted in the act of unwrapping or >>>> unveiling round-loaf-like disks. Based on an earlier identification by Willibald >>>> Sauerländer, Nicole Lévis-Godechot describes these disks as >>>> astrolabes. She says one of them is still unwrapped and held within folds >>>> of drapery. Her count of 7, the context of the Second Coming and disk shape >>>> are three bits of evidence that lead me to think of a biblical allusion to >>>> the Seven Seals of *Revelation. *The faces of the disks are indeed a >>>> very good match with contemporary manuscript illuminations of astrolabes. >>>> No designer of the period could have had anything in mind other than some >>>> sort of astronomical idea. See: >>>> >>>> - Astrolabe Image: >>>> http://onceiwasacleverboy.blogspot.com/2015/05/angels-and-astrolabes.html >>>> - Lévis-Godechot, Nicole 1987* Chartres révélée par sa sculpture et >>>> ses vitraux (Chartres revealed by her sculpture and her stained glass >>>> windows*) Zodiaque, Paris. >>>> >>>> I once thought it might be possible to extract actual astronomical data >>>> from the astrolabe images hoping I could do a bit of astronomical >>>> chronometry. That idea failed, or to put a positive spin on it, I succeeded >>>> in falsifying the hypothesis. However, the only sensible reason I can >>>> think of for the horrible disarray of the Signs and Months, came to me by >>>> following and testing the astrolabe evidence and treating the findings as a >>>> true negative. >>>> >>>> You can follow me down this astronomical rabbit hole in this post: >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> http://www.academia.edu/19747483/Chartres_The_Guardians_of_Time >>>> >>>> Hoping you'll find this comment more positive than my last one. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Richard J Legault >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: Richard Legault <[log in to unmask]> >>>> Date: Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:12 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [M-R] Representation of the Firmament, and the Waters >>>> above the Firmament, in Mediaeval Art >>>> To: medieval-religion - Scholarly discussions of medieval religious >>>> culture <[log in to unmask]> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello Karl, David, Guenevera and Jim, >>>> >>>> *Cloud Shape:* I'm sorry, but the 'thingy' in which the Divinity >>>> figure stands is neither V shaped nor the bottom half of a four sided >>>> diamond. The fact is that the shape is flat bottomed, round cornered and >>>> three sided. It looks more like the cross section of a washtub than a V. >>>> The bottom segment of the washtub is in fact longer and thicker than the >>>> two sides. Flipping a symmetrical copy of this shape, at the waistband as >>>> an axis of symmetry, to fully enclose the Divinity figure, makes an >>>> irregular hexagon (unequal sides and angles), not a diamond. It would fully >>>> cover the face and extend past the edge of the tympanum into the archivolt. >>>> I don’t see how this leads anywhere. >>>> >>>> Adding instead only two more segments, rather than three, would make an >>>> irregular pentagon. Don't get me going on pentagons. >>>> >>>> Yes, it is possible the sculptures are damaged and some pieces missing. >>>> However, we really have nothing to go on to undo any such damage. >>>> Arbitrarily adding stuff is like planting evidence. This is a big no-no. >>>> >>>> *Curtains:* An allusion to the curtain of Herod’s temple does not work >>>> for me. Closer inspection shows all the 'suspected' drapery in the left >>>> Tympanum and upper Lintel to be part of the Descending Angels’ and Flanking >>>> Angels’ garments. There are no curtains. Moreover, as Josephus notes with >>>> explicit emphasis, the temple curtain omitted the signs of the zodiac: “On >>>> this tapestry was portrayed a panorama of the heavens, the signs of the >>>> Zodiac excepted.” See page 265 at: >>>> >>>> - Josephus Wars: >>>> https://ia902302.us.archive.org/18/items/L487JosephusIIITheJewishWar47/L487-Josephus%20III%20The%20Jewish%20War%204-7.pdf >>>> >>>> The wavy horizontal line of cloud (or water, if you prefer) between all >>>> three tympani and their respective lintels is plenty sufficient to situate >>>> the celestial above the line and separate it from the terrestrial below. >>>> There is also a less pronounced wavy line that follows the curved edge of >>>> all three tympani to separate them from the archivolts. This line is >>>> damaged and broken off in many places. If the horizontal line separates the >>>> celestial from the terrestrial, what does the curved wavy line separate? >>>> Different 'levels' within the celestial realm perhaps? >>>> >>>> *Firmament:* I’m not 100% sure where in their version of the >>>> Pythagorean/Platonic/Ptolemaic model of the Cosmos the Chartrians of the >>>> 1140s situated the Biblical firmament. Certainly by the 1530’s in the time >>>> of Peter Apian, it was identified with the 8th celestial sphere to which >>>> the stars were thought to be attached, well below the 11th sphere of the >>>> caelum empyreum, the dwelling place of God. My sense is that the Chartrian >>>> cosmos was pretty much modeled on a similar and earlier 11 level structure >>>> of the kind described by Macrobius in* Commentarii in Somnium >>>> Scipionis*. See: >>>> >>>> - Apian’s Cosmos: >>>> https://blog.uta.edu/14sphist4331-001/2014/04/28/cosmographia/apian-6/#main >>>> - Macrobius’ Cosmos: >>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Nks218_052.jpg >>>> >>>> Accordingly, the curved wavy lines along the innermost edge of the >>>> archivolts may be legible as an allusion to a demarcation between the 11th >>>> sphere's highest Heaven in the tympani and the lower 8th, 9th and 10th >>>> celestial spheres in the archivolts. This allusion, on first inspection, is >>>> not fully sustained for all the archivolts because the labors of the months >>>> over on the left are terrestrial rather than celestial activities. It works >>>> however if you can think of the Labors as something being contemplated in >>>> the mind of God, definitely a celestial activity. >>>> >>>> Similarly, you could say the *artes liberales, *over on the right*, *are >>>> also terrestrial activities. However, they become heavenly when you >>>> understand them allegorically, as did the Chartrians, as the handmaidens to >>>> theology. The *vium *suffix in* trivium *and *quadrivium* is derived >>>> from the Latin *via* - roadway. As the handmaidens to theology they >>>> become the divine roadways to a better understanding of God. In the >>>> archivolts any residual terrestrial impurities they (and the pagan sages >>>> that represent them) my retain are corrected by the ritual of >>>> thurification. Thus sanctified, the Chartrians placed them >>>> appropriately, in Heaven. >>>> >>>> Overall, the sculptures depict a densely populated and multi-layered >>>> 12th Century Heaven. This Heaven is utterly different from the 1st Century >>>> utterly empty *Sanctus Sanctorum* (Holy of Holies), a terrestrial >>>> dwelling for God, hidden and reserved exclusively to one visit annually by >>>> a High Priest. The Chartrian heavens in all their glorious splendor are on >>>> full and open display for all to see. It helps to remember that the >>>> sculptures were brilliantly painted in full color. This Heaven is wide >>>> open. Nothing is hidden. All are welcomed to enter. >>>> >>>> Accordingly, thinking in terms of an illicit little peekaboo behind a >>>> drawn curtain is not warranted. Sorry to be so negative, but you really >>>> have to stick to the evidence and follow it. >>>> >>>> More positive comments will follow. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Richard J Legault >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:56 AM David Critchley < >>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and >>>>> culture >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, Jim. If the issue is of wider interest, it may make sense >>>>> to continue the discussion on-list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think to be honest that both Margot Fassler and Richard Legault are >>>>> not so much alternatives as both approaching the truth from different >>>>> directions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If we start from Fassler�s article, there is little there that I >>>>> would disagree with, apart from the suggestion that the 10 figures >>>>> represent the 10 commandments. I think that if they did, they would have >>>>> some emblem to indicate which commandment was which, and they would be in a >>>>> context which required commandments rather than just representatives of the >>>>> Old Dispensation. I also think that the wavy shapes above the 4 angels are >>>>> not a cloud of ignorance but just the standard symbol for the firmamemt >>>>> between heaven and earth. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However Fassler leaves a lot unexplained, and I think we will only >>>>> reach certainty when we can explain everything. So here goes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for reminding me that Pisces and Gemini are on the right >>>>> hand portal. I would explain this by associating Pisces with the Feast of >>>>> the Annunciation and Gemini with the Feast of the Visitation. I haven�t >>>>> allowed for conversion from Gregorian to Julian etc, and dates assigned to >>>>> the signs of the zodiac seem to vary a bit. But that at least would >>>>> establish that the absence of Pisces and Gemini is not trying to tell us >>>>> something about the *left* hand tympanum: it is telling us something >>>>> about the right hand tympanum. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If the V shape within which Christ stands is the bottom half of a >>>>> diamond, then I can�t parallel it exactly except to say that the River >>>>> Jordan is in a very roughly diamond shape on an illumination (fig. 106 in M >>>>> �le Religious Art of 12th century = Lat 9438 Bib Nat), that the >>>>> firmament on the destroyed portal of St Benigne Dijon is D shaped round the >>>>> egdes of the tympanum (fig. 154 in M�le Religious Art of 12th >>>>> century - I half think I can see the same round the edge of the tympanum >>>>> here at Chartres), that the mandorla is wavy edged on a Lyon window (fig. >>>>> 11 in M�le Religious Art of 13th century) and that the firmament is >>>>> a circular wavy shape around the star appearing to the Magi on the N portal >>>>> of Chartres (fig. 111 in M�le Religious Art of 13th century). So I >>>>> think the shape represents the edges of the firmament drawn back to enable >>>>> us to see through it, whether we interpret the waviness as clouds or as the >>>>> waters above the firmament. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am puzzled: to the extreme L and extreme R of the four angels do we >>>>> see the bottom of a curtain, or is it the hem of the angels� tunics? If >>>>> the latter then the two middle angels display nothing of the sort. If it is >>>>> a curtain, does it represent a veil (of the temple?) being drawn aside to >>>>> enable communication between earth and heaven? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On the same subject, there seem to be vertical columns to the extreme >>>>> L and R of the V shape, between it and the angels. What are these? Are they >>>>> also curtains? Do they represent the veil of the Temple, say, drawn >>>>> momentarily aside to reveal the heavenly sanctuary? That would connect with >>>>> the signs of the the zodiac, since the firmament, which the signs of the >>>>> zodiac represent, was embroidered on the veil of the Temple. As mentioned, >>>>> I think September and October need more attention, since they seem to be in >>>>> the wrong places. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I note that there are plain horizontal bands above and below the >>>>> register of the 4 angels. Maybe these bands were designed to take painted >>>>> inscriptions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So I would understand the top 2 registers to show the firmament drawn >>>>> aside to reveal Christ and the angels. So who is he appearing to? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I see that on the portal at Angouleme (see >>>>> https://www.wga.hu/support/viewer_m/z.html ) there are ten faces in >>>>> roundels. I suspect that we have the same ten, since the ten roundels are >>>>> accompanied by 4 other roundels containing just a simple pattern, and it >>>>> would have been easy to increase to 12 or 14 faces if that was what was >>>>> required. I suspect that these 10 represent the Old Dispensation, but as >>>>> for identifying them as individuals, I think we need a� better >>>>> preserved set � maybe somewhere in a text in the liturgical books to >>>>> which Fassler refers, maybe in a manuscript illumination. A group maybe >>>>> like the 3 major prophets or the 12 minor prophets, maybe prophets who >>>>> prophesied Christ. Somewhere there will be a list of these ten figures � >>>>> I very much doubt whether the sculptor or his clerical advisor invented the >>>>> list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I note that in the tympanum at Moissac the 24 elders are looking up at >>>>> Christ in the same varied set of postures as at Chartres, and they may be >>>>> part of the ancestry of this tympanum. I suspect that there is a tendency >>>>> among art historians to interpret any carving in which humans are looking >>>>> up at a Christ in Glory as an Ascension, when in fact the artistic >>>>> constraints of a tympanum push any sculptor into a combination of a >>>>> mandorla and a row of humans below. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I see too that M�le was forced to justify the differences between >>>>> the Chartres tympanum and the Biblical accounts of the Ascension (4 angels >>>>> not 2, absence of portrayal of Christ�s feet) by appealing to artistic >>>>> necessity! At Angouleme he explains the ten heads in roundels by saying >>>>> that the Ascension is turning into a Last Judgement, ditto for St Paul de >>>>> Varax (of which I cannot find a picture). Maybe the answer is that these >>>>> sculptors knew perfectly well what they were doing and were not trying to >>>>> portray the Ascension at all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would be interested to read the thoughts of others. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Critchley >>>>> >>>>> On 03/10/2018 20:36, James Bugslag wrote: >>>>> >>>>> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and >>>>> culture >>>>> >>>>> Hello David, >>>>> >>>>> The fact that there are only 10 figures below is what led Margot >>>>> Fassler several years ago to propose an alternative iconography for this >>>>> tympanum than the Ascension.� Based on liturgical sources, she proposed >>>>> that it represented Christ as he was during the time of the Old Testament - >>>>> existent but not yet incarnated.� The wavy lines indicate "borders" >>>>> between the created world and the spiritual sphere, with angels breaking >>>>> through to announce the coming incarnation to the figures of prophets >>>>> below, who look up at the divine inspiration for their prophesies.� In >>>>> the archivolts, the missing zodiac scenes can be found in the archivolts of >>>>> the right tympanum, surrounding the Virgin and incarnated Christ Child.� >>>>> I'm not at all sure how widely her theory has found acceptance, nor even if >>>>> she still endorses it, but it is, nevertheless, intriguing.� See Margot >>>>> Fassler, , 'Liturgy and Sacred History in the Twelfth-Century Tympana >>>>> at Chartres', * Art Bulletin*, 75, no. 3 (Sept. 1993), 499-520 >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Jim >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* medieval-religion - Scholarly discussions of medieval >>>>> religious culture <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of David Critchley >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> *Sent:* October 3, 2018 10:23:17 AM >>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [M-R] Representation of the Firmament, and the Waters >>>>> above the Firmament, in Mediaeval Art >>>>> � >>>>> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and >>>>> culture >>>>> >>>>> My thanks to all for these useful suggestions. >>>>> >>>>> The Chartres portal is certainly an interesting one: it looks more >>>>> like a theophany than a disappearance. The angels in the middle register >>>>> seem very keen to tell us something. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder whether the V shaped frame in which Christ appears is in fact >>>>> the bottom half of what was once a diamond shape: there appears to be part >>>>> of the top half remaining on the left and perhaps the beginnings of a >>>>> return on the right. >>>>> >>>>> I suspect that if we knew who the ten figures (including at least one >>>>> female - or is it a beardless St John? - or the BVM and nine apostles?) >>>>> were, we would have the key. Several of them hold books and must be >>>>> authors, and a couple hold scrolls which were presumably painted with words >>>>> which would at once identify the holder. There appear to be circles on the >>>>> back wall of the tympanum behind them, so they must be saints or at least >>>>> the blessed. The same grouping of ten must surely recur elsewhere, if only >>>>> in a manuscript illumination that might have acted as a source. Ascension >>>>> scenes on the other hand seem uniformly to have 14 figures, ie 12 apostles >>>>> and 2 men in white - yet at Angouleme in the Ascension portal there are >>>>> only 10 - the same 10 as at Chartres? >>>>> >>>>> Is there any significance in the fact that all twelve months appear in >>>>> the surround, but only 10 of the signs of the zodiac, with Pisces and >>>>> Gemini omitted at the apex of the arch? Can we learn anything from the >>>>> arrangement of the months and the signs of the zodiac? Generally the >>>>> sequence of either months or signs starts at the bottom of an order, then >>>>> mounts up to the top, alternating with the other of the months or signs, as >>>>> it may be, then starts again at the bottom of another order and so on, >>>>> until all four orders have been populated. September and October seem to >>>>> have changed places, rather strangely, but otherwise we have summer months >>>>> on L, winter on R. Is there a connection between the ten signs of the >>>>> zodiac and the ten human figures? >>>>> >>>>> Frustrating, because the symbolic language used by the designer must >>>>> have been accessible to his audience, or there would be no point in the >>>>> exercise. >>>>> David Critchley >>>>> >>>>> On 25/09/2018 16:15, Genevra Kornbluth wrote: >>>>> >>>>> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and >>>>> culture >>>>> Richard, the "humped" river Jordan is not standard, but also not that >>>>> unusual. >>>>> See the Baptism page of my archive: >>>>> www.kornbluthphoto.com/Baptism.html >>>>> and the Codex Egberti: >>>>> https://cynthiahindes.blogspot.com/search/label/John%203%3A22%20-36 >>>>> best, >>>>> Genevra >>>>> >>>>> On 9/25/2018 10:50 AM, Richard Legault wrote: >>>>> >>>>> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and >>>>> culture >>>>> Having no German, I can't get much from the caption >>>>> of�Karl's�M�stair fresco. Nevertheless, for a work of Carolingian(?) >>>>> vintage, the >>>>> >>>>> ********************************************************************** > To join the list, send the message: subscribe 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: > unsubscribe 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/medieval-religion > > > -- > From: David J. Critchley, 46 Station Road, Winslow, Buckingham, MK18 3EH > Tel. 01296 715276 / 07967 473508 > ********************************************************************** To > join the list, send the message: subscribe 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: > unsubscribe 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/medieval-religion ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: subscribe 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: unsubscribe 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/medieval-religion