 |
 |
> From: Pippin Michelli [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > . > The fight still continues about the Books of Durrow and Kells, and it has > more recently been suggested that Durham A.II.17 may be by an Irish scribe > rather than a native Anglo-Saxon as originally thought. > I don't see how it can ever be really resolved, given the constant interflow of personnel between Iona (where the Book of Kells was produced) and Durrow and Durham. > However, all that being as it may, iconography and style do not > necessarily > go together, particularly when passing from a culture which accepts > figurative imagery to one which evidently did not until it was > Christianized - and even then kept its images very conceptual. We have to > allow that these highly intellectual scribes were sophisticated enough to > take what they wanted from their models and no more. > Agreed. > But even limiting ourselves to iconography, which Irish images are we > saying > are Byzantine in origin? The Book of Durrow's Matthew symbol has nothing > Byzantine about it - it looks more like the front of a typical Irish > crozier. In the Book of Kells - the figures stand, cross their legs, have > ceremonial beards, and wear rather odd multicoloured clothes which > emphasise > the unnatural position of their legs - these aren't Byzantine or Coptic > either. Byzantine Evangelists, such as those at Ravenna or in the Rossano > Gospels, or Coptic ones such as those in the Rabbula Gospels, are seated, > frontally or in profile, and wear white (ish). We have an Irish > crucifixion > iconography with a pair of birds on Christ's shoulders, which to my mind > seems more Scandinavian than Byzantine or Coptic; > The image of two birds on the shoulders of a figure appears throughout Irish and Welsh mythology and Gaulish pre-Christian iconography. Why does it have to be Scandinavian in origin? > and as for the carpet > pages, I will never forget my superviser long ago bursting out with - > "now, > this is Nordenfalk going. off. his. rocker!" > > So I'm not that convinced of the "Byzantine" connection except in the most > general terms - they must have got their original texts from somewhere > (Italy I should think, or somewhere between Ireland and there), but they > clearly had minds and agendas of their own. > > Well - was this relevant? Why are we discussing Byzantine monks in > Ireland? > C - was this your doing?? > I believe Pat Sloane made the original suggestion. I asked what evidence there was for the suggestion. Francine Nicholson %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%