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:

Proportional 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 2

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 18:46:34 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (194 lines)

medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

Back again.

At 12:47 AM 6/30/2004 -0300, you wrote:
>John:
> >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.

That was your _interpretation_ of the subject of the previous thread ("Re:
Burying Saint Joseph").  To expect that others would necessarily share that
interpretation seems presumptuous.  After all, experience has just shown
that I interpreted the thread as having to do with niches for religious
statuary.   In my view, Christianity was germane to this topic but not
essential, since in any discussion of the form's ancestry we would be
likely to get back to pre-Christian antecedents.  And, of course, threads
do mutate.  You recognized this by changing the thread title to "Statuary
niches (Was: Burying Saint Joseph)".  If you wished others to interpret
that as meaning "_Christian_ statuary niches" you could have specified that
when you changed the title.

<snip>

>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 _interior_ door of a small shrine pertaining to a "Romanized"
cult.  See my comments on this matter in response to Part 1.  Here's the
shrine again:
http://www.schule.suedtirol.it/gs-stulrich/comenius_nav/schuelerarbeiten/Pel
des09.05.00/geschichte.htm

I agree with you that it's a hybrid ("Mischwesen" was the term that came to
mind).  It suspect that it exemplifies a stage in the acceptance process
when Isis could be accompanied by more traditional figures of Roman
religion (the figures at bottom left, if they really belong here and
weren't just found nearby) but each still gets honored in her/his "native"
idiom.  In other words, syncresis is at best very incomplete here.  But I
don't agree that this is necessarily indicative of the shine's having been
made for a non-Roman.  It could just as easily have been made for a Roman
new devotee who still wished to honor other deities (and, apparently, his
ancestors) in their customary fashion.

<snip>

    Risa:
>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.

Here again I'm afraid we disagree: the arches of the Porta Maggiore are all
Roman but they are not all broad.  The four smaller arches between and
around the two large entry arches seem closer to me to the Mosaic
tablet/arch.  See:
http://www.livius.org/a/italy/rome/porta_maggiore/porta_maggiore01.JPG
and, for the lower arch in the middle, this reconstruction:
http://www.livius.org/a/italy/rome/porta_maggiore/porta_maggiore02.JPG

Dated to ca. 50 CE, these are not quite as narrow as the foundation arches
from Terracina, but they're in the same ballpark.  Although they are from
the beginning of the Christian era, I have difficulty attributing their
form to the arrival of Christianity in Rome.

Which makes this as good a place as any to insert something you said in Part 1:

    Risa:
>And here is the real kicker. Like the Etruscans and Greeks, the Roman symbol
>of the authority/protection of god(s) is the *pediment*; not the arch. For
>these peoples, the arch was architectural, not specifically a religious
>symbol, and they used because it permitted vaulting -- that is, the
>roofing of wide expanses without columns running down the middle

Well, those terrace foundations above Terracina suggest that they used it
for more than vaulting.  And if you look at Roman brickwork (and at a lot
of concrete structures as well) you'll find the shallow arch used there as
a load guiding and stabilizing device.  Those quibbles aside, I agree with
your position here.  And because for the Romans the arch was not
specifically a religious symbol, it could come in a variety of shapes
depending on the job at hand.  Here, for example, is the Arco Felice over
the Via Domitiana at Cuma (ca. 95 CE):
http://touritaly.org/arco/Italy004.JPG
That could be taken for a big version of the Mosaic/tablet arch.  Notice
also the form of the niches on either side of the entry.  They too look
like tablets.  And I bet they once held statues.

Again, here's the arch at Orange (between 10 and 25 CE).  Notice the
"typical Roman" proportions of the side entry arches:
http://www.unf.edu/classes/freshmancore/coreabroad/pictures/2001Orange/orang
e-arch-1-PH1100.JPG

Now here's the Arch of Septimius Severus from the Roman Forum (203 CE):
http://sights.seindal.dk/photo/7832,s161+.html
Note the relatively narrow side entry arches.  More like the tablet type,
it would seem.  Before looking for Christian influence here, I'd wonder
about the taste of those Severan ladies from Syria, Julia Domna et al.  All
of whom are conveniently here, BTW:
http://www.roman-emperors.org/sevjulia.htm

And back to the "Temple of Minerva Medica" (2d half of the 3d cent. CE),
discussed briefly in my response to Part 1.  Note the form of the statuary
niche here:
http://sights.seindal.dk/photo/8014%2Cs955.html
larger: http://sights.seindal.dk/photo/8014,s955f.html
Put two of those side by side and you'd have an acceptable outline of the
tablets of the Law.  I wouldn't rule out Christian inspiration here.  But,
in view of earlier Roman instances of this form where a Christian
connection seems unlikely, I wouldn't rule it in automatically either.

<snip>

    Risa:
>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.

This refers to the page of edicole (mostly wall-mounted) from Bronte:
http://www.bronteinsieme.it/BrIns_en/1mo_en/ce_sto3_en.html
The adjacent English-language text makes it clear that they're all _from_
Bronte.  They're all modern and they're of varying date; most of them, both
pedimented and arched, are from the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries.  Within that relatively short space of time, some Bronteans
chose pedimented edicole while contemporaries or near-contemporaries did
not.

    Risa:
>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.

In this case it does seem largely a matter of aesthetics, as the people who
put these up were all living in the same small city and probably made
individual choices (or small collective ones) much as we do today in
selecting a grave monument.  Yes, those choices may have involved cultural
factors at which we can't even guess.  But to rule out aesthetics
altogether seems implausible.

Best again,
John

PS:  Here's another early Julio-Claudian monument showing what I would take
to be the tabular arch:
http://www.villes.enprovence.com/photos/monuments/mausole.jpg
Dated to ca. 30 BCE, this is the so-called Mausoleum of the Julii
(actually, a cenotaph) at "Les Antiques" on the north side of Glanum, the
Roman town replaced medievally by Saint-Remy de Provence.  According to the
Thais "Roman Architecture" page,
http://www.thais.it/architettura/Romana/indicecronologico/INDICE1.html
it's an adaptation of "Hellenized tower-tombs of the Semitic East".
Rochelle, can you pinpoint regional influence more closely than that?

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

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