medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Christopher Crockett wrote:
> From John Briggs:
>
>> Introducing the term 'gospel ambo' just presents us with another
>> undefined entity!
>
> p'rhaps, but, since "gospel ambo" is more or less self-explanitory,
No, my point is that it is *not* self-explanatory.
> From Jon Cannon:
>
>> The problem with the idea of a 'pulpit' (by which I mean a standalone
>> structure designed to enclose a preacher, usually centralised around that
>> preacher) as opposed to a 'pulpitum' (which you've defined well as one of
>> the names for a very substantial and wide screen)
>
> if the "you've" here is Me, then i must say that i certainly did not
> intend to define _pulpitum_ as a screen.
He probably means me :-)
> the problem with this word --as used in the sources-- is that it
> acquired, at a certain point, a somewhat ambiguous meaning.
>
> originally, it appears indeed to have meant "a standalone
> structure designed to enclose a preacher", with a lectern (by which i
> mean simply the thingie which held the book which was to be read)
> and, sometimes, extensive decoration.
>
> cf. DuCange --whose definition and examples of use are (curiously)
> confined to this one sense.
I would keep an open mind: it means 'lectern' or 'pulpit' - I wouldn't like
to say which is the primary meaning.
> though the Ravenna example is screenish in form, since there is no
> allowance for a doorway or passage through it, i assume that it did
> *not* act as a screen seperating the choir from the nave and was
> probably positioned between two piers of the nave.
But is the Ravenna example in the "nave" or "choir"? I would expect a
"pulpit" to be in the nave, but an "ambo" in the choir. But we have to make
allowance for changes in the liturgy, cf the introduction of choir screens,
for example.
> both of those are "pulpits" and, i assume, were referred to in
> contemporary sources as a _pulpitum_.
Yes, but do allow for the fact that contemporaries may have been referring
to the reading-desk rather than the structure.
> however, at some point --apparently during the course of the 12th
> c.-- we have what appears to have been an innovation: a screen built
> across the eastern end of the choir, pierced with doorway(s) to allow
> access to the choir, and upon which was a pulpit/lectern and
> (frequently) a large crucifix or crucifixion scene.
>
> this is what we had at Chartres, from the 1230s:
Do remember that the pulpit/lectern would have faced into the choir. The
Rood wouold have faced into the nave.
> the problem is that when we find mention of this structure in the
> contemporary sources (in the case of Chartres, in the precisely
> contemporary 13th c. ordinal of the cathedral), it is called a
> _pulpitum_.
>
> which is to say, the word used for it is *not* based on what *we*
> would now think of as its most important feature --or even its most
> important function.
Well, strictly speaking, that is its only active function - the division
function is a passive one.
> we call it a "screen", or, perversely, a "jubé" --which latter term
> originally comes from its use as a *pulpit*, but which now, to us,
> means, literally, a screen which seperates the choir from the nave.
Well, the "jubé" comes from its use as a lectern, for chanting into the
choir space.
> (i'm keeping in mind Jim's earlier admonition to make a distinction
> between the "choir screen" and the "jubé", the former a screen which
> goes round the inner piers of the choir and ambulatory, the latter
> only across the east end of the choir.)
West end :-) And I still say Jim's admonition is a perverse one - "choir
screen" is the normal English term (especially for secular cathedrals, where
it combined the functions of a pulpitum and a rood screen.)
> but, for the midevils, it was the *pulpit* atop the screen which was
> its most important feature
Or that the top of the screen *was* a pulpit, becuse it contained a
lectern.
> obviously, they were thinking in terms of its functional aspect in
> the context of the rituals described in the ordinal; while we are
> thinking of the structural/architectural/aesthetic nature of the
> beast.
That is fair enough, there is some evidence that they didn't think in
structural terms - that they didn't see screens as actually dividing the
space, but rather as symbolic boundaries: they wouldn't have understood our
view that screens ruined the aesthetic unity of a building.
John Briggs
**********************************************************************
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
|