medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

From: John Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
>> many of the examples of Italian "Gothic" you so kindly offer demonstrate
--to all who might have eyes to see-- that the "style" frequently (usually?)
took quite radically different forms there than it did in its own_patrie_,

> "frequently", yes.  "usually", perhaps.  This depends in large measure
on one's construction of "quite radically different".  

mmmm.... this problem of defining what, eggsactly, constitutes the "Gothic"
style in architecture, i think we have demonstrated to the point of
mind-numbing Tedium, is somewhat "problematic".

how many elements which we include in our catagorization of the stle must be
present before we can "legitimately" call a building "Gothic" ?

theoretically, it must have pointed arches --but what if it has round arches
but has *rib* vaults?

*then* what do we call it?

how about a building which has most *all* of the Bells & Whistles : 

round arches, rib vaults (with hanging keystones), flying butresses,
"renaissance" ("classical") decorative elements throughout, emphatic heighth,
tripartite elevation (with a glazed triforium), yaddayaddayadda :  !!

a magnificent --**GOTHIC**-- church, in the very Heart of Paris, built in the
mid-16th to 17th centuries.

which also happens to have, btw, a really wonderful set of 1960s NeoRomanesque
sculptures commemorating the dreadful vandalism of the destruction of the
near-by Halles :

i submit that, at some point, the use of these Constructs/Catagories really
serves no good purpose.

>One big difference is the frequent preference for barn-like churches somewhat
broader and squatter than the familiar French examples.  These are often hall
churches and seem to have been favored by the mendicant orders.

each building is its own unique creation, the product of a complex confluence
of circumstances only some of which we are able to tease out of the skein. 

>>  most often, it would seem, unable to fully overcome the entrenched
traditions of Italy's "romanesque" and/or Byzantine past.

> Or, at least, unwilling to let these go. 

a distinction without much of a difference.

>Though in this offering from the Venetian terraferma I privileged combined or
transitional structures often lumped together under the term
"romanico-gotico".  Additionally, there are regional differences to consider:
greater French influence in the Val d'Aosta and in Piedmont and again in
Naples and other parts of the Angevin-ruled mostly mainland kingdom of Sicily
leads to forms that are less "romanesque" in esthetic.

viday soupra, re confluences of circumstances.

seems to me that the m.a. generally was a pretty conservative period and, of
all the arts, Architecture is the most conservative, by its very nature.

folks (patrons) want to see/experience what they are already familiar with
--even if they also want to experience "the New"-- and we find regional
"schools" of architecture all over Europe, in all periods, "evolving" over
time, but sometimes changing in their "essence" remarkably slowly.

when The Gothic spreads beyond its heartland in the Ile-de-France it almost
always undergoes some more or less considerable adaptation to the traditions
of its new milieu.

the "diaphanous" walls of Anglo-Norman Gothic have their roots in the
"romanesque" of that region; ditto some of the characteristics of "Burgundian






the question of round or pointed arches here is a bit too complex to
generalise about the causes, especially when i know Zit about the medium or
its history.


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: