JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION  July 2004

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION July 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Subject: Re: [M-R] Statuary niches (Was: Burying Saint Joseph) Part 1

From:

"John B. Dillon" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:57:01 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (183 lines)

medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

Hi again, Rochelle

Herewith some further matter to think about. As I'm behind on a paper I
have to deliver fairly soon, this and its companion response to your Part 2
will probably be all from me in this thread. While it's quite clear that
we still have areas of disagreement, I can say that I've learned from your
posts. Thank you. And to anyone else who might still be reading this
exchange, yes, there is some medieval content here as well.

At 12:47 AM 6/30/2004 -0300, you wrote:
>Risa:
> >>Yes, arch-construction was used by the Romans -- a
> >>different shape of arch, broader and flatter and not used on religious
> >>buildings.
>
>John:
> >Romans also used a narrower arch. Here are two examples (entrance; rear
> >statuary niche) from a second-century CE religious building:
> >http://www.schule.suedtirol.it/gs-stulrich/comenius_nav/schuelerarbeiten/
> >Peldes09.05.00/geschichte.htm
>
> >The fact that this shrine served the Romanized form of Isis-worship
> makes the
> >building no less Roman and no less religious. Smallish shrines of this
> >general sort were widespread in the Roman world. I wonder what impact they
> >may have had on the design of smallish early Christian and medieval
> Christian
> >shrines in areas where they were still around to be seen.
>
>Risa:
>Sorry, it does not make it Roman; it makes it found in Roman territory.
>The Empire was a melting pot. Just because x is found in a Roman city does
>not make it Roman-Roman.

By the early second century CE, despite early Julio-Claudian proscriptions
of the mystery cults, Isis-worship was a recognized part of Roman
religion. It's generally thought the cult was officially accepted under
Gaius. Isiac festivals were included in the Roman calendar under Nero
(again, perhaps already under Gaius) and the future emperor Otho is said to
have been a devotee. Domitian rebuilt the Aedes Isidis in the Campus
Martius (Rome's chief Isiac temple) after the fire of 80; he also either
built or enlarged the Iseum at Benevento, where he is depicted in Egyptian
dress. Benevento, of course, is in Campania, where Isis-worship was
accepted well before it was in Rome. For a brief survey, see Anne Roulet,
_The Egyptian and Egyptianizing Monuments of Imperial Rome_ (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1972; EPRO, vol. 20), pp. 1-3; more diffusely, R. E. Witt, _Isis in
the Graeco-Roman World_ (London: Thames and Hudson, 1971), pp. 70-88 and
222-36. For the history of Isis temple in the Campus Martius, see L.
Richardson, jr., _A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome_
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), pp. 211-12. The work of
Michel Malaise (cf. his art. in _Aufstieg und Niedergang_, II.2.17.3
[published 1984], pp. 1615-91, esp. pp. 1629-48) has emphasized the role of
slaves and freedmen in maintaining and propagating the cult in Italy but
does not alter our basic understanding of either its official acceptance
prior to the early second century or its first-century fashionability among
some upper-class Romans. Isis was syncretized into the Roman pantheon
during this period (this was also happening to Mithras; cp. M. as a
manifestation of Apollo in the prayer at the end of Statius, _Thebais_, Bk.
1) and accepted by Romans who were _not_ immigrants from the East. A
second-century CE Isiac shrine in Rome is not a foreign object.

> And where were these smallish shrines? By "general
>sort," do you mean a class model?

Yes. Object class: small roofed shrine (free-standing or abutting some
other structure). In contravention of ancient usage, these are sometimes
referred to as "sacella" (acc. to Festus, a sacellum was unroofed); cf. the
definition of "sacellum" in the glossary of the Forma Urbis Romae project,
where rooflessness is not mentioned: "Small shrine, either free-standing or
attached to a larger structure." They've been found from Spain and Britain
to Egypt and Turkey. If the Kiosk of Trajan at Philae were roofed (was
it?), it would be an example:
http://www.alovelyworld.com/webegypt/htmgb/egy89.htm

A medieval shrine of this general class would be this from Norcia in
Umbria, dated to 1354:
http://www.norcia.net/402.htm

A larger late antique/early medieval example would be the famous tempietto
at Campello sul Clitunno, also in Umbria (4th to 7th cent.):
http://www.marfuga.it/FotoGR/tempietto.jpg
Note the shapes of the two entrances (side; base) of this structure now
thought to have been designed from the start as a Christian church. These
underscore your basic point (with which I do not disagree).

   Risa:
> >>..., the high rounded arch atop a narrow column is not Egyptian,
> >>Greek, Cretan, or Roman in concept; it is Sumerian and North Semitic.
> >>Interpretations of the arch were used throughout the North, North-central,
> >>and North-West Semitic areas. The precise shape of a narrow, straight-sided
> >>column topped by high round arch does not appear elsewhere in the Imperial
> >>domains until until after the advent of Christianity. <snip>
>
>John:
> >So the rounded-arch lararium I showed in the previous post is not narrow
> >enough to be an example of the sort of statuary niche you're talking about
> >(regardless of _whose_ icons are placed inside)? Here's another view of it
> >(left-hand column, about a quarter of the way down the page):
> >http://www.marketplace.it/pompeiruins/cmen.htm
>
> >Here's another rounded-arch lararium, this time from Ostia:
> >http://roma2.desdeinter.net/ostia025.html
>
> >Perhaps the column is insufficiently narrow and the arch insufficiently
> >high for it to be an example of what you're talking about. But if _is_
> >that sort of arch, I'm not sure that its appearance here is due to
> >specifically Christian influence. It seems to me more likely to be a
> >Roman domestic appropriation of a common Hellenistic form.
>
>Risa:
>I told you what the shape is and gave you models to look at.

You told me that it was a high rounded arch atop a narrow column. But how
high, how narrow? Is there an ideal proportion that instances may be
thought to approximate?
The only specific model you gave me to look at was this:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/images/altman_first/FIG1_sm.jpg

That's certainly narrower than the lararium from Ostia (which, however, is
a larger object). But I don't find the shape outlined by the Newark
phylactery very different from that of the space defined by these
foundation arches beneath the terraces of the Temple of Jupiter Anxur
(a.k.a. Sanctuary of Feronia) above Terracina:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/Maecenas/italy_except_rome_and_sicily/terraci
na/ac880428.html
http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/Maecenas/italy_except_rome_and_sicily/terraci
na/ac880429.html

These arches are dated to the second century BCE. I'm having a difficult
time reconciling their shape, date, and location with your assertion that
"The precise shape of a narrow, straight-sided column topped by high round
arch does not appear elsewhere [i.e., outside of certain Semitic areas] in
the Imperial domains until until after the advent of Christianity."

Another reservation, BTW, concerns your statement quoted above,
"arch-construction was used by the Romans -- a different shape of arch,
broader and flatter and not used on religious buildings." Apart from its
insistence that the Romans did not use arches of the shape we have been
discussing, this also seems to ignore the use of the flatter typical "Roman
arch" in Roman nymphaea (I had furnished an example of the latter from
Baiae in an earlier post). Or do you not consider nymphaea to be
"religious buildings"?

Here's another Roman nymphaeum with such broader, flatter arches (the
so-called Temple of Minerva Medica; 2d half of the 3d century CE):
http://www.italycyberguide.com/Geography/cities/rome2000/images/F34.jpg
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Places/Eu
rope/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/Minerva_Medica/home.html

<snip>

>As I have tried to make clear, the architectual arch (and vault) is
>Sumerian in origin in *Western* architecture. (The arch is found in Eastern
>architecture, but is quite different in execution, although not in symbol.)
>I'd be very cautious before deciding that something is "Hellenistic"
>influence.

As would I. "seems ... more likely to be" is not the language of a
decision. Moreover, I was using "Hellenistic" in a customary Roman Studies
way to indicate a culture of immediate influence, not one of ultimate
origin. This usage usually assumes that there's a lot of primarily
non-Hellenic conceptual matter involved but (as you've noticed) doesn't
distinguish specific contributions.

Now on to part 2.

Best again,
John

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager