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  May 2006

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION May 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: ely jube/pulpitum thing

From:

John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 5 May 2006 21:59:52 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (332 lines)

medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

Christopher Crockett wrote:
> From John Briggs:
>> 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.
>
> ?
>
> which one of those words don't you understand, John?

"ambo" - it is Latin for 'pulpit'!

>> I would keep an open mind: it means 'lectern' or 'pulpit'
>
> my point is to keep an open mind: 'lectern' or 'pulpit' is only the
> [chronologically] original meaning.

No, I am saying those are two meanings.

> by the 13th c. (if not before --that's the original issue which
> coerced me to start this thread), _pulpitum_ means, essentially,
> "jubé".

Maybe - or it may still have all three meanings, and we  have to decide from
the  context which is meant.

> this is, as understand it, because (at Chartres at least) the jubé
> happened to have a [the?] _pulpitum_ on top of it.
>
>> - I wouldn't like to say which is the primary meaning.
>
> viday soupra, if by "primary" you mean "chronologically prior".
>

Perhaps I do - or perhaps I mean "the default 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 don't know.
>
> for the purposes of this discussion, i don't see what difference it
> might make --as long as the "ambo of Ravenna" was *not* a *jubé*,
> i.e., in addition to being a "pulpit", it was a screen which closed
> off the choir from the nave.
>
> which, given the absence of any doorway(s) or passage(s) in it,
> appears to have been the case.
>
>> I would expect a "pulpit" to be in the nave, but an "ambo" in the
>> choir.
>
> this is a distinction which i did not pick up on in Leclerq's "Ambon"
> article in the DACL, nor in any other source i've seen.
>
> is it based on any specific textual references?

It is based on me trying to make sense of the function.  I am assuming that
a pulpit in the nave was used (primarily) for preaching, whereeas one in the
choir would be used for gospel readings or responses.

>> But we have to make allowance for changes in the liturgy, cf the
>> introduction of choir screens, for example.
>
> yes.
>
> precisely.
>
> and the placing of the _pulpitum_ atop the "jubé" which, apparently,
> led to the latter structure being called (in some contemporary french
> sources at least) a _pulpitum_.
>
> for reasons which i attempt to Mare's Nest below.
>
>>> 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.
>
> viday soupra.

No, we still haven't adequately distinguished the three meanings.

>>> 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.
>
> yet another distinction.
>
> in your Insular terminology, is the "jubé" at Chartres
>
> http://ariadne.org/cc/jube/reconstruction-mallion.jpg
>
> a "Rood"?

The "Rood" is the crucifixion group (Crucifix, Virgin, St John).  A screen
which has a Rood on it is called a Rood Screen.  In English secular
cathedrals, the choir screen seems to have combined the functions of
Pulpitum and Rood Screen.  In monastic churches, they seem to have been
separate screens.  The situation in cathedral priory churches (e.g. Ely) is
not  absolutely clear, but they appear to have conformed to the monastic
pattern.

> as i say (repeatedly) the 13th c. ordinal contemporary with the
> construction of the thing calls it a _pulpitum_.
>
> i have added all of the mentions of it in the ordinal i could find
> below.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> my point, eggsactly.
>
> the ordinal is a working liturgical script, not an architectural or
> aesthetic treatise.
>
>>> 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, technically, choir from not-choir.

>> Well, the [[word/term]] "jubé" comes from its use as a lectern,
>
> "lectern", apparently, in the sense of a structure from which the
> _lectio_ is given; rather than the smaller do-hickey (yet another
> technical term) upon which the book to be read from is placed.
>
>> for chanting into the choir space.
>
> is this distinction of "chanting [only] into the choir space" (as
> opposed to the nave space) clear from the examples from the 13th c.
> ordinal which i've included below??

I would say that the only westward function is addressing the procession as
it approaches from the west.

>>> (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 :-)
>
> touché.
>
> i'm getting Punchy, it seems.
>
>> 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.)
>
> i don't think you understand Jim's point.

I do :-)

> using Chartres as an example, the "choir screen" ("cloture du
> choeur", in French, i believe) survives: it is a tall screen which
> seperates the sides of the choir and the "rond point" from the side
> aisles and ambulatory.

I'm not happy with using "choir screen" to translate that term.

> there is no _pulpitum_ on it, nor has there ever been one.
>
> the jubé, which was built in the 13th c. and destroyed in the 18th,
> was a screen which was built across the west end of the choir,
> seperating it from the crossing bay/nave.
>
> and it had a _pulpitum_ on it and is, therefore, referred to in the
> contemporary documents as the _pulpitum_.

Not necessarily - we may have to examine each instance to see what is meant.

>>> 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, because it contained a
>> lectern.
>
> this should have a little smiley face after it, right?

No, remember that I am making a distinction between the two.  A pulpit is a
structure that contains  a lectern.  And the function of a "pulpit" may vary
according to its location (it may be used for preaching, reading, giving
blessings, giving responses.)

>>> 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
>
> certainly not in the ordinal.
>
> eg., in that the _portam regiam_ is simply the west portal(s) of the
> church which one can process in and out of, perhaps stand in front of
> and say a few appropriate words at the appropriate time.
>
>> - 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.
>
> the Jung article in the (2000?) Art Bulletin which Jim mentioned
> earlier (and which i have some significant problems with, btw)
> discusses this, though sometimes with insufficient circularity.

Or do you mean too much circularity?

> the evidence of the ordinal --again, which is not an aesthetic or
> architectural treatise, but rather a liturgical script-- is silent on
> this point.
>
> "go here and do this" is its operative purpose.
>
>
> below are the mentions of the _pulpitum_ in the ordinal:
>
>
> Folio 89 : Matines de Noël : « Pergit processio in pulpitum cum cruce
> et texto et thuribulis et candelabris et legitur evangelium.»

"in pulpitum"?   "Pulpitum" is in the accusative, but I would read that as
"The procession proceeds to(wards) the pulpitum".  Using the passive voice
for "read the gospel" is not particularly helpful!

> Folio 89 : Messe de minuit : « Diaconus lecturus evangelium ascendit
> pulpitum. »

No preposition.  The deacon ascends (to?) the pulpitum.

> Folio 96 : Epiphanie. Matines : « Diaconus ascendit pulpitum cum
> processione ad legendam generationem. »

Again, the deacon ascends the pulpit, but I flatly refuse to believe that
the procession does so!

> Folio 133 : Jeudi Saint : « Evangelium ante diem festum quod legitur
> in pulpito. »

"in pulpito"? "Pulpitum" is presumably in the ablative: "The gospel is read
in (from?) the pulpitum"

> Folio 140 : Samedi Saint : « Mox paratus sit qui légat in pulpito
> lectionem in principio. »

As above.

> Folio 142 : Samedi Saint : [Note marginale contemporaine du
> manuscrit] « Processio in pulpitum cum uno candelabre et uno
> thuribulo cum cruce et uno texto. Et in vigilia Pentecostes
> similiter. »

"Procession to the pulpitum"

> Folio 184 : Vigile de l'Ascension. Retour de la procession des
> Rogations : « Clerici qui sunt in pulpito cantant preces...
> ebdomadarius cum subdiaconibus et ceteris clericis inferioris ordinis
> qui respondunt illis qui sunt in pulpito. »

"Clerks who are in the pulpitum"  (pulpit?)

> Folio 186 : Ascension, retour de la procession : « Vexilla cum
> drachone attollantur in pulpito. »

Yes, fair enough -  except that we have the ablative.  And which side, west
or east?

> Folio 199 : Fête de la Trinité : « Post impletorium reponantur forme in
> choro et vexilla de pulpito auferantur. »

"de"  + ablative: 'down from'

> Folio 232 : Purification, retour de la procession : « Si vero aliam
> benedictionem dixerit ibi [Episcopus] ut quidam volunt, tunc non ibit
> in pulpitum cum diacono ante evangelium. »

A bit more mysterious, but comprehensible - except that "in" + accusative.
So,  'to' the pulpitum!  The blessing is presumably given into the  choir.

> Folio 239 : Annonciation : « Ad processionem in pulpito portentur tot
> cruces quot texti et mox reponantur cruces in thesauro et texti super
> altare. »

"in" + ablative: what that means is anyone's guess!

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
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

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

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