medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

Back again,

John:
>>>Lararia contained statuettes of one's Lares and other divinities and
>>>typically took the form of small temples (edicules); these were often
>>>pedimented rectangular structures "in the round".  In modest homes,
>>>though, the edicular lararium was often a rectangular pedimented niche.
>>>That to me is a statuary niche.  The form of the edicule is Hellenistic
>>>and surely has ANE antecedents.  But were its earliest Roman predecessors
>>>necessarily also ANE-derived?  If so, how do we know this?
>>
>>Well, isn't that the "pagan" Roman statuary niche? Then, most Hellenistic
>>concepts derive from the Eastern side of the ANE -- Greek lit scholars now
>>take it for granted. Even the maths are from Old Babylon...

>Well, it's _a_ "pagan" Roman statuary niche (there are several forms, one
>of which, regardless of its ancestry, is clearly arched and rounded).  And
>I don't understand the point of your question: were you expecting me to
>anticipate the distinction -- not drawn in your previous post -- between
>"pagan" and Christian statuary niches?  I was responding, remember, to an
>undifferentiated comment about "the 'statuary niche'".

Risa:
Yes, I did expect you to make the distinction without having to expressly
state it. The distinction was already in the thread subject. The subject
was bathtubs as modern Christian statuary niches.

John:
>Again, that many Hellenistic concepts derive from the ANE is a given (at
>least to me as a trained classicist) and was, I had thought, implied in
>my wording quoted above (i.e., "and surely has ANE antecedents").

Risa:
Yes, I did notice that, but I wasn't sure after the misunderstanding of
the subject. Seemed better to be play it safe. I did not mean to offend
you. Please accept my apologies.

John:
>What most interests me in this matter of statuary niches is the appropriation
>of recognizably ancient forms in medieval and early modern Christian "popular"
>religion.  An instance discussed previously on this list is the pictorial
>votive tablet, which in Italy gets a new lease on life in the fifteenth
>century and which is still vibrantly with us today.  Another is the small
>votive shrine or niche (in Italy commonly called an "edicola" even though
>its usually not free-standing).  Here is a bunch of Sicilian examples:
>http://www.bronteinsieme.it/BrIns_en/1mo_en/ce_sto3_en.html

>Many of the rounded-arch instances given here strike me as very similar
>in form to the lararium for Ostia cited above.  Note also the "classicizing"
>pedimented instances.  Perhaps I'm being naive, but it strikes me that here,
>just as in the Roman "tempietto" of Isis-Fortuna cited above, we have round-
>arched forms and angular, pedimented forms side by side as two different
>aesthetic alternatives and that neither is more specifically Christian in
>application than the other.

Risa:
That the Roman version of the Etruscan/Greek (take your pick :-)) pediment
is found along with a rounded arch _in the rear door_ of a "Romanized" small
cult shrine is indicative of made for an non-Roman who used the Roman pediment
in the front and his or her own motif for the rear. It seems to be the
equivalent of wearing both braces and a belt. Hybrids frequently do use
seemingly disparate elements.

The modern Sacre Coeur displays a melange of every possible interpretation
of the North-Semitic arch down the centuries. The Islamic interpretation of
the arch is a pointed, stylized cloud arch. We find the Islamic version all
over Spain in Christian church architecture, yet the entry doors to the
Renaissance period Lesser Schools in Salamanca are an example of the English
"double tombstone." The Karlskirche in Vienna has the Greco-Roman/Etruscan
pediment over the entry porch, but look at the shape of the windows and doors.
Fonthill Abbey uses nothing but the Mosaic tablet, column and arch, for
windows, doors, and the interior. High Gothic is all soaring and pointed,
right? Wrong. Above the very pointed Gothic entry at Amiens Cathedral we find
a row of windows -- the shape of the Mosaic tablets. The tall open niches in
the bell tower are the shape of "The" Law. Move around to get a rear view.
Soaring stories high, narrow columns of stained glass windows -- topped by
the round arch of the Mosaic code.

Back to Rome: The Basilica of Manentius and Constantine has both the Roman
arch AND the Mosaic tablet/arch... Imperial connection requires the Roman
arch on the building, but the colonnade is the Mosaic narrow, high round arch.
What about the Porta Maggiore? Pedimented, squared support columns alternating
with entry arches, but the arches are the Roman broad arch: all Roman.
(Placing a gate under the protection of a god is quite sensible, no?) The
warehouses at Ostia? Imperial financed. Roman broad arch; one even has a
pedimented shallow porch over the arched entry. (wonder what they stocked???)
And we can go from example to example sorting out and identifying the elements.
But, NOT if we lump it all together and classify it all as "Roman." Or just an
imported Hellenistic model.

A mixed bag, like those cited above (and snipped out below) doesn't tell us
anything more than it's a mixed collection originating from various places.
IF we have a collection of, for instance, all pedimented, and IF we put all
the pedimented ones with a,b,c together and know that one came from X, THEN
when we see exactly the same pedimented one with a,b,c, we know in advance
that it came from X. If it has exactly the same pediment and a, but not b or
c, it's from someplace else. Otherwise, we're mixing peaches and plums and
roses... same class model, different and culturally decided details.

It's not a matter of aesthetics. It's not that straight forward. There are
choices made from among possibilities for any component -- shape, size,
format, script, limit system, punctuation system, etc., and they come
in hierarchies. There are choices to be made within each hierarchy. Choices
are cultural -- and the combination of choices identifies a specific culture.
Further, choices are constrained by affiliation... sacred and secular; still
are. Look how paleographers can examine two MSS written in Roman uncials and
instantly say this one is English, that one is Italian... but the uncial
is the same, isn't it? Yes and no; the class model is the same, but there
are small differences in design that distinguish one from another. English
uncials, for instance, incorporate ligatures and the uncials from Wearmouth-
Jarrow form their join to the minim at the lobe differently. Tiny differences,
but they are by choice and identify a culture.

These same types of differentiation occur throughout, whether we are
referring to the shape of a statuary niche or the orientation of wall
tablets. As you know, territorial Latin scripts can be classified and
placed by locale. The text will be in Latin, but we can say immediately
before reading a word of the text that A is Visigothic; B is Merovingian,
C is Insular. The same applies to sorting and classifying the statuary niches.

Above all, please bear in mind that the Etruscans, Romans, and Greeks used
the *pediment* for their symbol of protection/authority of the god(s), NOT
the arch-topped, narrow-column Mosaic "tablet." It does make a very big
difference to our understanding of these statuary niches.

>Best again,
>John Dillon

All the best,

Rochelle

And this is more than enough writing and postings for one day!!

**********************************************************************
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