>b) the question of whether any given altar/table may be used for this purpose
more than once a day.
>this latter question (b) would have had --apparently-- *very*
significant implications for High Romanesque (at least) architecture
Apologies.
It finally occurs to me (duh) that not everyone on this list has bothered to
clutter their invaluable human interface-based memory banks with the plans of
various Romanesque monuments and might appreciate the courtesy
of a visual aid or two.
If this is indeed the case with anyone, we could play pretend: i'll pretend i
know something about all this and you can pretend you are interested.
Note the plan of the choir (East/business end, to the right of the "1" in this
image) of the destroyed mother church of Cluny ("Cluny II"):
http://dev8.arch.vt.edu/cybercoreweb/mainworking/media/images/0035.jpg
And compare its relative simplicity with that of its sucessor,
"Cluny III" (also virtually destroyed in the revolution: both are known from
extensive excavations conducted by Kenneth Connant in the middle decades of
the last century of the previous millennium [for some reason i *love* thinking
of it that way]):
http://dev8.arch.vt.edu/cybercoreweb/mainworking/media/images/0036a.jpg
Clearly the first building, which is by no means "petit", was constructed to
suit the most utlitarian of purposes, viz., as the work site for the
performance of the supremely important _opus dei_.
Yet, the number of chapels apparent --at least those which left a visible
trace in the architectural plan [an important distinction, surely]-- is
remarkably small.
The second building (Cluny III) went up at a time at a time (1088-113x)
of unprecedented and not-to-be-repeated prosperity for the abbey, then
not only at the apogee of its prestige but also the beneficiary of a
series of large annual gifts from the King of Aragon[?], the fruits of
the _reconquesta_, which were specifically earmarked for the construction of
the new church.
And these factors are certainly reflected in the *vast* scale of the overall
church (for comparison, that's the remains of Cluny II just to
the South, i think).
But there is also something else clearly at work: the simple apse of
Cluny II has been replaced by an apsidial complex with an ambulatory and no
less than *5* radiating chapels;
and the single, modest, almost hidden transept of Cluny II by *two* transepts
(*extremely* unusual), each arm of which is outfitted with at least two
chapels, *8* in toto.
That's a total of 13 chapels --just counting those which are made visible in
the plan-- where the previous building had only 5(?).
To be sure, there was much else going on to explain some of these differences:
e.g., my understanding is that the mother church was host to annual gatherings
of (the hundreds of) Cluniac priors from all over Europe, and, presumably, a
good-sized building would be just the ticket for such an hoedown.
But, the naive art historian might ax, was there something else at work,
perhaps some bizarre theological consideration like altar/relic fatigue?
<\end pretend
Best to all,
Christopher
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|