P. 1
Kidson - Panofsky - Suger - St. Denis (Influencia D. Areopagita)

Kidson - Panofsky - Suger - St. Denis (Influencia D. Areopagita)

|Views: 7|Likes:
Published by aguirrefelipe

More info:

Published by: aguirrefelipe on Apr 10, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/10/2014

pdf

text

original

JOURNAL OF THE WARBURG AND C O U R T A U L D INSTITUTES

VOLUME FIFTY

1987

THE WARBURG INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

EDITORS D. S. Chambers Peter K i d s o n ADVISORY Michael Baxandall Lome Campbell Michael Evans J . M . Fletcher Ernst H . G o m b r i c h Elizabeth M c G r a t h

BOARD C. R. Ligota A. M. Meyer Jennifer M o n t a g u Nicolai Rubinstein J. B. T r a p p

Charles Hope John House Michael Kauffmann Michael Kitson Jill K r a y e

G r a t e f u l a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t is m a d e to the British A c a d e m y for a grant t o w a r d s the cost of production of this v o l u m e

© 1987, The Warburg Institute, Woburn Square, London WC1H OAB
PRINTED IN G R E A T BRITAIN BY W. S. MANEY A N D SON LEEDS LIMITED LSQ 7DL

HUDSON

ROAD

. . . . G o m b r i c h ) Rubens's Mus athena (Elizabeth M c G r a t h ) R e m b r a n d t ' s Woman Taken i n Adultery ( M i c h a e l Podro) General Index Index o f Manuscripts Publications a v a i l a b l e Notes for C o n t r i b u t o r s . B y Philip W a r d J a c k s o n . . T h e Private C h a p e l o f C a r d i n a l A l e s s a n d r o Farnese i n the C a n c e l l e r i a . . . I b n a l . B y Peter K i d s o n . . . . . Excellence: . . . L o r d R o n a l d G o w e r . . . . . An Early Seventeeth-Century Canon o f Artistic . . . By J o a n n a C a n n o n C l a s s i c a l T h e m e s in the D e c o r a t i o n of the P a l a z z o V e c c h i o in Florence. . . . . . . . 2 9 44 5 7 82 113 148 160 171 A n n i u s o f V i t e r b o and Historical M e t h o d . S. . 204 205 214 219 T h e V e n u s Belvedere: an E p i s o d e in Restoration (Arnold Nesselrath) T h e Illustrations of L u c i a n ' s Imago vitae aulicae (Jean M i c h e l M a s s i n g ) . . . . Nicolai R u b i n s t e i n . . . 2 6 1 263 . . . . C h a m b e r s . B y Christopher Ligota . . By E n r i q u e t a H a r r i s . V e l a z q u e z and M u r i l l o i n N i n e t e e n t h . . . . . . . . . 245 253 259 .H â y t i m o n the T a l i s m a n s o f the L u n a r M a n s i o n s . . Pierleone . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6 2 6 ) . By D. . . . . C o n c e r n i n g W a r b u r g ' s ' C o s t u m i t e a t r a l i ' a n d A n g e l o Solerti. . By Kristen Lippincott . . . 196 200 A j a x and C a s s a n d r a : a n A n t i q u e C a m e o and a D r a w i n g b y R a p h a e l ( R u t h Rubinstein) . C a r d i n a l and D u k e of M a n t u a . G u s t a v e D o r é and the G e n e s i s o f the Shakespeare M e m o r i a l atStratford-on-Avon. i 18 Pietro L o r e n z e t t i and the History of the C a r m e l i t e O r d e r . . 189 A B a r o n i a l Bestiary: H e r a l d i c E v i d e n c e for the P a t r o n a g e of MS B o d l e y 764 (Ronald Baxter) T h e M e d a l l i o n s o n the Sistine C e i l i n g ( C h a r l e s H o p e ) . . . . . . . By . . M . . . Notes and Documents T h e Earliest C h i r o m a n c y in the W e s t ( C h a r l e s Burnett) By A. . . 224 233 CaseWa's ElogialllustriumArtiJicum of 1606 (E. H. . . .C e n t u r y Britain: a n A p p r o a c h through Prints. . . By Patricia R u b i n T h e 'Bellissimo I n g e g n o ' o f F e r d i n a n d o G o n z a g a ( 1 5 8 7 . . . . M e y e r . . Benedetto V a r c h i and the V i s u a l A r t s (François Q u i v i g e r ) . . . . . S u g e r a n d S t Denis.TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Panofsky. . . . . and D a v i d Pingree . . . R o m e . . . . . .

even the most enlightened and exigent a m o n g them. A corrective of some sort w a s certainly o v e r d u e . B u t the sheer self-evident necessity for a shift of historical perspective m a y h a v e concealed some unsuspected dangers. First given as Wimmer Lectures. 4 and quite apart from the almost startling tidiness w i t h w h i c h e v e r y t h i n g seemed to fit together in his h a n d s . that patrons. especially the introductory piece on Suger. b e g a n life as lectures in 1948 and a p p e a r e d in print in 1 9 5 1 . London and New York 1951. w h i c h has supplied a w h o l e generation of y o u n g e r art historians in E n g l a n d and A m e r i c a with all they thought they needed to k n o w a b o u t the intellectual circumstances in w h i c h G o t h i c architecture w a s invented. and it could be seen to bear the imprint of m u c h c o n t e m p o r a r y intellectual activity. T h e second. it m u s t h a v e given him p a r t i c u l a r pleasure to be able to tie the origins of a great artistic m o v e m e n t like G o t h i c into the great tradition of neo-Platonic thought. if to no one else. T h e 1 Abbot S u g e r on the Abbey C h u r c h of St D e n i s and i t s art t r e a s u r e s . Ithaca and London 1984. Princeton 1946 (hereafter Panofsky. 1987 . G o t h i c at last took it place as a m a j o r manifestation of the spiritual ferment w h i c h transformed twelfth-century E u r o p e . entitled Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism.l e . 2 B o t h h a v e been influential. M u c h of this w a s u n d o u b t e d l y pure gain. the most insidious of w h i c h w a s p r o b a b l y the temptation to rewrite history rather more enthusiastically than the evidence w a r r a n t e d . 2nd edn by Gerda Panofsky-Soergel.PANOFSKY. 1 T h i s w a s published in 1946. 3 See Pol Abraham. It o u g h t to be obvious to art historians.l e . Paris 1934. 1948. w h i c h flowed from antiquity t h r o u g h the M i d d l e A g e s to the R e n a i s s a n c e and with w h i c h he w a s constantly preo c c u p i e d at every stage and turn of his life's work. St Vincent College. translated and annotated by Erwin Panofsky. SUGER AND ST DENIS Peter Kidson first took the form of an edition of S u g e r ' s writings a b o u t the a b b e y c h u r c h of St D e n i s and its art treasures. T h e task of recognizing such interactions w a s the special business of the art historian as Panofsky s a w it. 2 G o t h i c A r c h i t e c t u r e and S c h o l a s t i c i s m .D u c position w a s i n a d e q u a t e not necessarily because it w a s w r o n g — a l t h o u g h this w a s asserted 3 — but b e c a u s e it simply ignored or did less than justice to a great m a n y facets of G o t h i c that cried out for attention. 1979. T h e V i o l l e t . At the very least there has been a tendency to overstate the case. against the excessively technical v i e w s a b o u t G o t h i c associated w i t h the n a m e of V i o l l e t . do not normally invent styles.l e . P a n o f s k y and the F o u n d a t i o n s o f A r t H i s t o r y . As it remains a x i o m a t i c that G o t h i c started at St D e n i s . In p a r t i c u l a r it has led to a gross e x a g g e r a t i o n of S u g e r ' s o w n part in the creation of G o t h i c . S u g e r ) . V o l u m e 50. V i o l l e t . an artistic P ANOFSKY MADE TWO notable excursions into the field of medieval architecture. In the last resort. 4 Recently discussed by M. A. I Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.D u c et le r a t i o n a l i s m e m é d i é v a l . Holly. Edited. T h e reassessment belatedly recognized the style as a cultural as well as a purely architectural p h e n o m e n o n . the implications were clearly far-reaching. Panofsky set out to provide a cutting edge for the full-scale art-historical counter-offensive that had been b r e w i n g for the best p a r t of half a c e n t u r y . It purported to offer in chapter and verse detail the evidence for an i c o n o g r a p h i c a l interpretation of St Denis.D u c . h o w e v e r meticulous or exceptional the brief.

As nearly all m e d i e v a l d o c u m e n t s p e r t a i n i n g to the arts e m a n a t e d from the p a t r o n a g e side of the proceedings. It w o u l d be ridiculous to b l a m e Panofsky alone for this state of affairs. the other a b o u t St Denis. even if they w e r e actually put to him. T h i s m u s t h a v e been especially true in matters of architecture. for by its very nature m e d i e v a l architecture involved mysterious operations that were excluded from the conspectus of the liberal arts and therefore b e y o n d the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of even the most highly educated ecclesiastical patrons. but he w a s too good an historian to try to deceive. while on the other the d o w n to earth archaeologists h a v e resolutely turned their backs on all such nonsense. and precisely because he sought to present a w e l l . where the defining characteristic has ceased to have anything to do with architects. 5 So while it m a y be granted that any s y m b o l i s m present in G o t h i c architecture w a s the contribution of the clergy rather than the craftsmen. but this has not a l w a y s been f o r t h c o m i n g . he is v u l n e r a b l e to criticism in w a y s that v a g u e r affirmations of the s a m e point of view are not. he could not help being partially blinded by it. or court styles. the long-term effect of art-historical dalliance w i t h the s y m b o l i s m of architecture has been to a g g r a v a t e a quite deplorable split a m o n g students of m e d i e v a l buildings. busily d r e a m i n g up i c o n o g r a p h i c a l fantasies that all too often could never h a v e been taken seriously by any practising architect. T h e validity of theories a b o u t s y m b o l i s m in m e d i e v a l architecture does not stand or fall solely on Panofsky's picture of S u g e r or the interpretation that stems f r o m it. b u t are so m y o p i c a l l y obsessed with m a s o n ' s marks and m a s o n r y breaks that they scarcely ever attended to larger issues. On the contrary. W h a t he can be charged w i t h is twisting history to p r o v e his point. at best it can h a v e been no more than a partial and superficial factor in the design procedure. L i k e m a n y others w h o h a v e seen the light. they offer an o b v i o u s starting point. No d o u b t they are connected in the sense that the a c c o u n t of St D e n i s has usually been presented as an inference from a particular theory a b o u t Suger. It certainly derives m u c h of its plausibility from such a theory. but has been transferred to the patrons. On the one h a n d the a r m c h a i r art historians h a v e g o n e their o w n w a y . Reflections a l o n g such lines o u g h t to h a v e induced a certain caution. gives to P a n o f s k y ' s essay a strategic significance out of all proportion to its modest size and limited aims. if only because. . as g o o d historians should. T h a t he did so in good faith is not in question. and therefore in practice restricted their researches to j u s t those problems and aspects of p r o b l e m s w h i c h are susceptible to d o c u m e n t a r y elucidation. At the outset it should be e m p h a s i z e d that the t w o issues involved are quite distinct: one is a b o u t S u g e r . He therefore concentrated his attention v e r y 5 T h e extent to which this invidious tendency has become enshrined in art-historical terminology is reflected in the paradoxical notions of an episcopal style. a l t h o u g h as one of the f o u n d i n g fathers of i c o n o g r a p h i c a l scholarship. but they are a test case and if one wishes to reopen the inquest. in p a r t one fears u n d e r P a n o f s k y ' s influence. it follows that we are liable to get from t h e m a totally distorted impression of w h a t actually h a p p e n e d .d o c u m e n t e d case. they h a v e devoted themselves to the pursuit of d o c u m e n t s .2 PETER KIDSON i m a g i n a t i o n is a l w a y s required to translate the patron's v e r b a l specifications into visual forms. T h i s . he cannot entirely escape some responsibility. Nevertheless this truism is s o m e t h i n g that medievalists h a v e tended to overlook in recent years. T h a t is how Panofsky himself saw the p r o b l e m . coupled w i t h the intrinsic i m p o r t a n c e of assessing S u g e r ' s personal participation in the rebuilding of St Denis as a c c u r a t e l y as possible.

esp. T h e other w a s the suspicion that in addition to all his other attainments S u g e r w a s an intellectual of consequence. London 1956. In a letter d a t i n g from 1 1 2 7 . D i e E n t s t e h u n g der K a t h e d r a l e . it w a s not 6 See H. that they w e r e incensed. the friend and advisor of t w o successive K i n g s of F r a n c e . H i s fears had evidently not been fulfilled. T h e s e e m e n d a t i o n s b e c a m e the centrepiece of his case. Zurich 1950. Te te corrigeres. by 112 7 they h a d receded into the b a c k g r o u n d . pp. w h e n Pons's bravos had ransacked C l u n y . T h e enormities w h i c h provoked these remarks were not spelt out. In fact the careful distinction b e t w e e n S u g e r and the monks of St Denis invites us to s u p p o s e that B e r n a r d h a d anticipated the d a n g e r of S u g e r going the same w a y as Pons. pp. and set the c r o w n on a course it w a s to follow w i t h success in ecclesiastical matters for more than a h u n d r e d years. and not least the founder and most distinguished practitioner of the St D e n i s school of historians. 8 Panofsky. He is certainly not quite the familiar i m a g e fabricated by o r t h o d o x historians in the nineteenth century: the genial and efficient a b b o t of a celebrated monastery. not against the A b b e y .PANOFSKY. 8 P e r h a p s — b u t this is not how the letter has to be read. It w a s against y o u . Panofsky did not dispute any of this. 10-11. Epist. Solum denique te in causam vocaverant. LXXVIII. . T h e c r u x of the m a t t e r is w h e t h e r the Suger w h o emerges from P a n o f s k y ' s pages is a credible historical figure. M c K . S u g e r found himself f a v o u r e d with a taste of B e r n a r d ' s hectoring rhetoric. B e r n a r d certainly wished to e n g a g e S u g e r as an ally in his efforts to procure the d o w n f a l l of Etienne de G a r l a n d e at court. ' I t w a s at y o u r errors not at those of y o u r monks that the zeal of the saintly aimed its criticism. Te inquam mutate. T h e affairs of St Denis had been put into good order. T h e G o t h i c C a t h e d r a l . von Simson. solamque in personam tuam. esp. sanctorum carpebat zelus. a p p a r e n t l y neglected by his predecessors. PL CLXXXII. but it w a s not m u c h use to him. non et tuorum errata. T h e shocking events of 1125. B u t if he did so. w h o could act as regent w h e n one of them w a s absent on the second crusade. B u t w h a t e v e r they were. w h e r e the prospects w e r e more promising. the significance of w h i c h seemed to Panofsky far greater than had been c o m m o n l y realized. Migne. Panofsky suggests that B e r n a r d w a s putting pressure on Suger. chapter 4. and S u g e r had p r o v e d himself to be on the side of the angels. It w a s by y o u r excesses not by theirs. and hinting that in return for a favour. At first their relations seem to h a v e been s o m e w h a t cool. that arose the m u r m u r s of y o u r brothers. and for purposes of criticism there are a d v a n t a g e s in d o i n g so. B e r n a r d ' s most of all. SUGER AND ST DENIS 3 largely on the m a n . non etiam in abbatiam frateruum susurrium immurmurabat. a n d left the b u i l d i n g to others in the entirely justified confidence that there w o u l d be no shortage of epigoni r e a d y to leap in and spell out the consequences implicit in his o w n w o r k . he w a s prepared to w a i v e his f o r m i d a b l e displeasure. and St D e n i s suffering the fate of C l u n y . 235 ff. He also recognized a causal connection b e t w e e n his t w o discoveries. and S u g e r m a y h a v e complied. 7 'Quid enim? tua certe.' Bernard to Suger. quod panto insolentior appareret. tuis non ipsorum excessibus succensebant. O. Solumque ac totum erat quod nos movebat. the statesman w h o took a firm line w i t h the unruly barons of the l i e de F r a n c e . 192-93. S. Crosby cites Panofsky with approval in his many publications on St Denis. tuus ille scilicet habitus et apparatus cum procederes. quiesceret strepitur.' 7 It w a s the sort of l a n g u a g e that B e r n a r d had formerly lavished on Pons de M e l g u e i l and the e x t r a v a g a n c e s of C l u n y . n. Sedlmayr. S u g e r and St B e r n a r d encountered one another intermittently t h r o u g h o u t their p u b l i c lives. B e r n a r d wrote in the past tense. O n e w a s S u g e r ' s dealings w i t h St B e r n a r d . et nil residuum quod pateret calumniae. 6 Nevertheless it is in principle possible to treat the t w o sides of the question separately. 1 above. H o w e v e r . S u g e r . or an art-historical fiction. mox omnis tumultus concideret. there w e r e two areas. w e r e still fresh in everyone's mind.

T h e b u r n i n g issue of the d a y w a s to get the claims of the C h u r c h fully and t h o r o u g h l y recognized right across secular society. . MS grec. Both S u g e r and B e r n a r d were c o m m i t t e d to the long term success of this enterprise. and w a s himself the principal beneficiary w h e n the deed w a s done. For reasons of his o w n . T h e fact of the matter is that almost from the start Suger and Bernard saw eye to eye a b o u t w h a t the C h u r c h should be d o i n g and the part that F r a n c e should play in the fulfilment of its p r o g r a m m e . and takes it very seriously indeed. W h e r e Panofsky broke new g r o u n d w a s in suggesting that 9 In 1148 Suger was wholeheartedly behind St Bernard's indictment of Gilbert de la Porree at the Council of Rheims. T h e sort of support he had in mind took the form of philosophical or theological a r g u m e n t . the effort w a s essentially legal. vm. It w a s the reason if not the price of his support for Innocent II in the disputed p a p a l election of 1130. T h i s m e a n t insisting on privileges. it focused inevitably on the p a p a c y . with consequences that led to the confrontation w i t h Becket. It w a s the need to fortify himself against another u n b e a r a b l e c a s c a d e of B e r n a r d ' s censorious eloquence that is supposed to h a v e induced Suger to a p p e a l to higher authority. and he found w h a t he w a n t e d in the writings of one of the most influential thinkers of the early M i d d l e A g e s : the so-called P s e u d o .D i o n y s i u s . extending ecclesiastical jurisdictions and o r g a n i z i n g a p p e a l s to R o m e . At this level it w a s of no i m p o r t a n c e that one w a s Benedictine and the other Cistercian. w a s none other than their o w n patron s a i n t . and the third is that it w a s an article of faith at St Denis that the learned author w h o had already identified himself w i t h the A r e o p a g i t e converted by St P a u l in A t h e n s . collecting and i m p l e m e n t i n g c a n o n l a w . and left him w i t h guilty apprehensions that haunted him for the rest of his life. T h e r e were three good reasons w h y Panofsky thought S u g e r should h a v e espoused that particular source of doctrine. 11 It was over this that Abelard fell foul of St Denis. He t h o u g h t it m u s t h a v e struck terror into Suger. 1 1 A l l this w a s well k n o w n before Panofsky. 9 It also puts their view on ecclesiastical art into perspective. O n e is that he could hardly h a v e found a more congenial view of the w o r l d than that presented by the P s e u d o . and their substantial a g r e e m e n t far transcended minor differences of opinion s u c h as w h e t h e r it w a s advisable for L o u i s V I I to go on the second c r u s a d e . See John of Salisbury. BN. and the desired end could be achieved only t h r o u g h an effective system of p a p a l g o v e r n m e n t . and he retained throughout his life as royal counsellor the conviction that the C a p e t i a n m o n a r c h y ought to co-operate w i t h the p a p a c y rather than resist its e n c r o a c h m e n t s as the A n g e v i n H e n r y II did in E n g l a n d . the second is that the collected works. Innocent's t r i u m p h w a s s o m e t h i n g of a turning point in p a p a l history. or D i o n y s i u s the A r e o p a g i t e . E v e r y medievalist k n o w s by heart B e r n a r d ' s castigation of Pons de M e l g u e i l ' s cloister capitals at C l u n y . 10 Now Paris. 437. E a r l y in his career S u g e r had conducted missions on b e h a l f of his a b b e y to the p a p a l court. I n d e e d it w o u l d h a v e been far more r e m a r k a b l e if he had not. a cause w h i c h S u g e r also endorsed. both the G r e e k t e x t 1 0 and J o h n Scotus E r i g u e n a ' s L a t i n translation of them. and no doubt his scepticism was one of the reasons why Suger did not lift a finger to protect him from Bernard at the Council of Sens in 1140.D i o n y s i u s . H i s t o r i a P o n t i f i c a l i s . Panofsky w a s no exception. T h e r e w a s nothing r e m a r k a b l e a b o u t the idea that Suger should h a v e read the Pseudo-Dionysius. B e r n a r d w a s equally anxious to p r o m o t e an active p a p a l presence in the ecclesiastical affairs of transalpine E u r o p e . w e r e in the library at St Denis.4 PETER KIDSON necessarily to a p p e a s e B e r n a r d . It l a u n c h e d the C h u r c h on a course that w a s to transform it into a r e m a r k a b l y efficient political a g e n c y . He had reasons of his own for w a n t i n g rid of Etienne de G a r l a n d e . In other words.

but there is not m u c h to go on in S u g e r . 1 2 O n c e again. T h e other two. w h e n he w a s describing the chapel-ring at the new east end: 'by virtue of w h i c h the 1 2 The subject was of great interest to Suger's c h r i s t i a n a e f i d e i . if there had been a theory.D i o n y s i u s for the sake of his light m e t a p h y s i c s and in order to explain the w i n d o w s of St Denis. For an intellectual defence. T h e evidence w h i c h Panofsky a d d u c e d in support of his contention is to be found in the three texts w h i c h S u g e r c o m p o s e d d u r i n g the 1140s. T h i s w a s the a c c o u n t of the nine choirs of angels w h i c h the P s e u d o . nor is J o h n the Scot E r i g u e n a . P L . CLXXVI. E v e r y t h i n g turns on a subtle h e r m e n e u t i c exercise.D i o n y s i u s .D i o n y s i u s be detected? T h e only satisfactory answer w o u l d be through characteristic doctrines in Suger w h i c h w e r e otherwise peculiar to the P s e u d o . T h e style is belle-lettre rather than forensic.D i o n y s i u s is never actually mentioned by n a m e in these texts. in the course of or shortly after the building operations at St Denis. the nine orders of angels are named. Pseudo-Dionysius. As it is. and w h a t there is lacks sharpness and precision. See Hugh of St Victor. I. because in the last resort art historians have only interested themselves in the P s e u d o . but if it had been there. p r o v e d barren for his purpose. how could the presence of the P s e u d o . 260. w h i c h Panofsky took great delight in identifying.D i o n y s i u s . the Consecratione and the De administratione. w i t h o u t it. and one mention of the anagogicus mos. or rather t w o of them. 1141. N o b o d y has been m u c h interested in discovering angelic i c o n o g r a p h y at St Denis. Panofsky w o u l d have had a really conclusive a r g u m e n t . As the texts are riddled w i t h a great m a n y quotations from other sources. v. yielded passages w h i c h suitably interpreted were allegedly saturated with the spirit of the Pseudo-Dionysius. uncritical eagerness. however. though not ob. Migne. there is not a w o r d in the texts.D i o n y s i u s elaborated at length in the Celestial Hierarchies. and there are no identifiable quotations. T h i s is the most novel and distinctive of Panofsky's a m e n d m e n t s to the traditional account of Suger. S u g e r missed the one o p p o r t u n i t y that cried out for a digression into theory. with positive. the Ordinatio.PANOFSKY. and w h i c h provided the M i d d l e A g e s with its most authoritative information on the subject of the angelic orders. because the first. the effect is curiously m u t e d . On the other h a n d it has m a d e singularly little impression on the learned world outside. It has been s w a l l o w e d w h o l e by the art-historical c o m m u n i t y w i t h r e m a r k a b l y little resistance — on the contrary. T h i s silence is more serious than it m i g h t seem. SUGER AND ST DENIS 5 Suger needed a philosophy to defend his taste in art. x x x . where neighbour and contemporary Hugh of St Victor. In the a b s e n c e of explicit references. m a i n l y biblical. who certainly was acquainted with the Dionysius. Panofsky m a k e s a great fuss a b o u t light m e t a p h y s i c s in his essay. or w h i c h could h a v e reached S u g e r only by w a y of the P s e u d o . especially as they were written at a time w h e n n a m e d r o p p i n g and citing authorities were considered indispensable for c o n d u c t i n g a r g u m e n t s . T h i s w o u l d not m a t t e r u n d u l y if the remarks occurred in the right places. But they do not. D e s a c r a m e n t i s . intermediate b e t w e e n G o d and m a n in the scale of b e i n g . and that his works of art were actually inspired by such doctrines. T h e r e w a s one such doctrine w h i c h w o u l d h a v e settled the issue w i t h o u t more ado. Perhaps the first thing to be noted is that the P s e u d o . his resources are reduced to some exiguous and peripheral remarks alleged to prove that S u g e r k n e w all a b o u t light metaphysics. a sign perhaps of the o m i n o u s tendency of art historians to live in a world of their o w n . this should h a v e e m b a r r a s s e d him.

I n the a t t e m p t t o d o s o they d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e t h e o l o g y a n d f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s o b l i g e d t o rely h e a v i l y o n the r e s o u r c e s o f m e t a p h o r . Compendium studii p h i l o s o p h i a e . nisi quod dominus Robertus. Armstrong. a n y w a y . 1 9 L i g h t 13 De consecratione iv.D i o n y s i u s . 100-01. episcopus Lincolniensis. w h o l a v i s h e d p r a i s e o n G r o s s e t e s t e for his p i o n e e r w o r k i n r e s u r r e c t i n g w h a t for h i m w e r e the f o r g o t t e n w o r k s o f the P s e u d o . Robert Grosseteste. w a s a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y b e y o n d h i m . S u g e r . P L . 18. f o u n d l i g h t a n d the i m a g e o f light p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n d u c i v e t o his p u r p o s e . pp. S u g e r . 21-23. p. 1 3 H e r e i f a n y w h e r e w e s h o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d t o h e a r o f the P s e u d o . De anima. The Architecture of the I n t e l l i g i b l e Universe in the P h i l o s o p h y of P l o t i n u s . a n d w h e n t h e y talked a b o u t b e a u t y .P l a t o n i c l i g h t m e t a p h y s i c s t o w h i c h S u g e r a b a n d o n s h i m s e l f i n s o m e o f his p o e t r y ' . he e n d s w i t h a r e s o u n d i n g r h e t o r i c a l flourish. T h e y w e r e not m u c h c o n c e r n e d w i t h art o r o b j e c t s . 1 above. 474. t h e y w e r e p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h a t h e o c e n t r i c v i e w o f the w o r l d . I n the e n d . i f i t m a y b e s a i d o f a g r e a t s c h o l a r . L i g h t m e t a p h y s i c s . 1037 c . w h o i n m a n y respects w a s the s e m i n a l t h i n k e r . i t w a s d i v i n e b e a u t y . nec aliquid te septuaginta annis fecit. e t h e r e a l b e a u t y . a n d t h e v e r s e s c a n j u s t a s easily b e r e a d a s c o n v e n t i o n a l piety w i t h n o o v e r t o n e s . . Henry of Ghent and Ulric of Strassburg to Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola on the other? 1 6 T h i s . it is not e x a c t l y l a b o u r e d . . 15 Panofsky. and in a Christian Platonism ranging from William of Auvergne. D e s p i t e this m o d e s t s h o w i n g . 36. Cambridge 1940. 'Dormit igitur ecclesia quae nihil facit in hac parte.15 P a n o f s k y seems to have persuaded himself that Suger's edifying phrases contain deep neo-Platonic m e a n i n g s . S u g e r . n. lumina a n d lux in the v e r s e s i n s c r i b e d on the w e s t front. 11 7. Panofsky. j u s t as there is in the o p e n i n g p a r a g r a p h of de Caelesti Hierarchia. 1 4 W h a t this a m o u n t s to is t h a t there is a lot of p l a y w i t h w o r d s like lumen. o r e v e n t h a t h e h a d a n y s y m p a t h y w i t h o r real u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the n e o . 418b. i n w h i c h the b e s e t t i n g p r o b l e m w a s h o w t o g r a s p the r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n a t r a n s c e n d e n t G o d a n d a c r e a t e d w o r l d . T h i s is no d o u b t a m a t t e r of o p i n i o n . p e r v a d i n g the interior b e a u t y ' . 18 Aristotle. Brewer. a s the p h i l o s o p h e r s o f a n t i q u i t y a n d the C h u r c h f a t h e r s h a n d l e d the t h e m e . h e d e v e l o p e d the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the i n c o r p o r e a l i t y o f l i g h t w h i c h w a s n e v e r t h e less the i n d i s p e n s a b l e c o n d i t i o n u n d e r w h i c h the f o r m s o f the p h y s i c a l w o r l d m a n i f e s t e d t h e m s e l v e s . J. CXXII. Cited by Sir Richard Southern. H. PP. i s j u s t silly. b u t if the m e s s a g e is there. o r b e t w e e n the s p i r i t u a l a n d m a t e r i a l o r d e r s o f reality. w h i c h w a s the intelligible t h r e a d t h a t b o u n d the u n i v e r s e t o g e t h e r . 14 Panofsky. p. h a d n e v e r h e a r d o f S u g e r .53 f· . 1 7 T h e r e i s n o t the slightest s h r e d o f e v i d e n c e t o s u g g e s t t h a t S u g e r e v e r m a d e the sort o f s y s t e m a t i c s t u d y o f the P s e u d o D i o n y s i u s t h a t w o u l d p u t h i m into s u c h d i s t i n g u i s h e d c o m p a n y . P l o t i n u s . pp.P l a t o n i c s t r a n d i n C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y .D i o n y s i u s . a n d their v i e w s w o u l d not h a v e b e e n m u c h use t o h i m . D . R o g e r B a c o n . . o r i n v i s i b l e b e a u t y t h a t they h a d i n m i n d . ed.6 PETER KIDSON w h o l e ( c h u r c h ) s h o u l d s h i n e w i t h w o n d e r f u l a n d u n i n t e r r u p t e d light o f m o s t l u m i n o u s w i n d o w s . S. 225. b u t the s t u n n i n g v i s u a l effect e v i d e n t l y n e e d e d n o f u r t h e r c o m m e n t . sanctae memoriae. T h i s a m b i v a l e n t status q u a l i f i e d light for a c r u c i a l p l a c e in his d o c t r i n e of e m a n a t i o n . P a n o f s k y h a d t o settle for ' t h e o r g y o f n e o . n. tradidit Latinis de libris bead Dionysii . Did he (Suger) know or sense that his unreflecting enthusiasm for the pseudo Areopagites' and John the Scot's light metaphysics placed him in the van [sic!] of an intellectual movement that was to result in the proto-scientific theories of Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon on the one hand. S t a r t i n g f r o m s o m e r a t h e r c a s u a l r e m a r k s o f A r i s t o t l e 1 8 o n the s u b j e c t . 1 above. 16 17 S e e M i g n e .' Roger Bacon. L i k e P l a t o t h e y d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n art a n d b e a u t y . p. I n tune w i t h the p r e v a i l i n g m o o d o f late a n t i q u i t y . 19 See A. Rolls Series 1859. Oxford 1986.

pp. I t i n v o l v e d a n i n t u i t i o n o f v a l u e that w a s n e i t h e r m y s t i c a l nor i n t e l l e c t u a l . w i t h the P s e u d o D i o n y s i u s . i t v e r g e d o n m y s t i c i s m . a l t h o u g h for S u g e r the religious a n d a e s t h e t i c e l e m e n t s w e r e i n e x t r i c a b l y f u s e d . i above. like B r o w n i n g . Panofsky. a n d h a d b e c o m e p a r t o f the stock i n t r a d e o f e v e r y o n e w h o e v e r p r e a c h e d a s e r m o n . a n d to t h a t e x t e n t there w a s a f e e l i n g of u p l i f t w h i c h a l l o w e d h i m to b o r r o w the e x p r e s s i o n anagogico more f r o m the t h e o l o g i a n s .P l a t o n i s t w h o t h o u g h t a l o n g these lines h a d his sights f i r m l y f i x e d o n the reality b e y o n d light. 2 1 T h e essential t h i n g a b o u t it is t h a t it w a s g r o u n d e d in the p h y s i c a l b e a u t y of the b u i l d i n g a n d its a p p u r t e n a n c e s . a n d h e h a d n e i t h e r the i n c e n t i v e n o r the m e a n s to d i s e n t a n g l e t h e m . n o r s h o u l d w e b e d e c e i v e d into t h i n k i n g t h a t h e h a d b e e n t r a n s p o r t e d into a r e a l m b e y o n d the s e n s e s . 62-65. A t the o t h e r . 21 If Suger chose his words with care. they w e r e not e n t i r e l y o u t o f c i r c u l a t i o n i n the M i d d l e A g e s . all's r i g h t w i t h the w o r l d ' . a l t h o u g h h e did n o t d e c e i v e himself. S u g e r ' s w o r d s s o u n d like the p e r s o n a l c o n f e s s i o n o f s o m e o n e t r y i n g t o d e s c r i b e a c o m p l e x e x p e r i e n c e for w h i c h the o r d i n a r y v o c a b u l a r y o f his d a y m a d e n o a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n . S u g e r f o u n d it c o n d u c i v e to religious c o n t e m p l a t i o n . i t b e c a m e a k i n d o f solar t h e o l o g y . O n e m i g h t h a v e b e e n c o n t e n t w i t h this r a t h e r a n o d y n e s o l u t i o n . 2 0 T h i s i s not the s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d l a n g u a g e o f c o n v e n t i o n a l C h r i s t i a n P l a t o n i s m . w e r e i t not for s o m e t h i n g that S u g e r h i m s e l f tells us. and worthy meditation has induced me to reflect. F a r f r o m b e i n g a P l a t o n i s t . and that by the grace of God I can be transported from this inferior to that higher world in an anagogical manner. T h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g u n e x p e c t e d l y v i v i d a n d a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l a b o u t that p r i v a t e w o r l d p o i s e d b e t w e e n h e a v e n a n d e a r t h . S u g e r discloses h i m s e l f as a proto-Jesuit. W h i l e s u c h ideas w e r e a t all t i m e s rare. SUGER AND ST DENIS 7 f i g u r e d i n m a n y f r u i t f u l a n a l o g i e s w h i c h e m b r a c e d b o t h the s u n a n d the soul. I n o t h e r w o r d s i t c o u l d b e d e v e l o p e d i n b o t h c o s m i c a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i r e c t i o n s . A t o n e end o f the scale. i t b r i n g s h e a v e n d o w n t o e a r t h . S u g e r . on the diversity of the sacred virtues: then it seems to me that I see myself dwelling as it were in some strange region of the universe which neither exists entirely in the slime of the earth nor entirely in the purity of Heaven. it must have been just the modus o p e r a n d i of anagogy that he had in mind. I n s t e a d o f c o n d u c t i n g the soul t o h e a v e n . R e l i g i o u s a r c h i t e c t u r e w a s here p e r f o r m i n g w h a t sensitive a n d i m a g i n a tive souls m i g h t c o n s i d e r to be its p r o p e r f u n c t i o n . w h o h a t e d C h r i s t i a n i t y for r e a s o n s that h a d little t o d o w i t h d o c t r i n e . m a y b e c a l l e d a P l a t o n i s t . n. n a m e l y o f f e r i n g a foretaste of p a r a d i s e t h r o u g h the senses. W e m i g h t prefer t o call s u c h a n e x p e r i e n c e a e s t h e t i c .D i o n y s i u s . x x x m . in a r e m a r k a b l e p a s s a g e t h a t P a n o f s k y totally m i s c o n s t r u e d . When out of my delight in the beauty of the house of God — the loveliness of the many-coloured gems has called me away from all external cares. 2 . W i t h o u t this p a r a d o x the w h o l e effort lost its m e a n i n g . I t c o u l d b e a r g u e d that a l t h o u g h h e c a n n o t b e t a k e n seriously as a t h e o l o g i a n . S u g e r w a s a d i l u t e d P l a t o n i s t of this k i n d . i n the h a n d s o f j u l i a n the a p o s t a t e . transferring that which is material to that which is immaterial. H e w o u l d h a v e h a d n o d i f f i c u l t y i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g the t e c h n i q u e s o f s e d u c i n g 2 0 D e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n e . T h e r e is p e r h a p s a sense in w h i c h a n y o n e w h o . I n s o m e f o r m o r o t h e r the g r e a t m e t a p h o r o f light w a s built into the o r d i n a r y C h r i s t i a n p e r c e p t i o n o f the w o r l d . u s u a l l y t h r o u g h A u g u s t i n e a n d G r e g o r y the G r e a t r a t h e r t h a n the P s e u d o . Among orthodox theologians like Gregory the Great it was normally understood to be one of the methods for elucidating the meaning of the Scriptures. greets the s u n i n the m o r n i n g a n d feels that ' G o d ' s i n his h e a v e n . E m a s c u l a t e d reflections o f t h e m f i l t e r e d s t e a d i l y d o w n t o the e d u c a t e d c l e r g y . B u t a n y serious n e o .PANOFSKY. r e m o t e a n d d i f f i c u l t .

hoc est laico p i c t u r a ' . Constable. Leipzig 1879. sexy puns. T h e c o p y of De consecratione dates from c. S u c h sentiments found their w a y into the Decretal of G r a t i a n . W h a t is really odd is that it should h a v e h a p p e n e d for the first time at a conservative Benedictine a b b e y . 96 n. A r c h i t e c t u r e had a special part to play in this process. and w a s not a b o v e r e m e m b e r i n g that in the ninth century E r i g u e n a himself h a d actually been suspected of p r o m o t i n g pantheistic heresy w h e n his translations of the Pseudo-Dionysius appeared. Letter to Serenus. 'The Reform of the Liturgy' in R e n a i s s a n c e and R e n e w a l in the T w e l f t h C e n t u r y . in the form of a quotation from a letter of G r e g o r y the G r e a t : ' q u o d est clerico littera. and that for the spiritual elite. Bishop of Marseilles. Gratian. Benson and G. 1200. for that matter. Cited by Chrysogonus Waddell. 24 Paris. Speyer and C l u n y were cases in point. If it had any religious purpose. the exegetical role of the arts a c q u i r e d an a c c e p t e d social function. lat. and certainly a reflection of the m e d i e v a l distinction b e t w e e n the liberal and the m a n u a l arts.23 If Suger's purpose. MS Reg. who commissioned the translation of the Pseudo-Dionysius. a n d as the reformed c h u r c h g r a d u a l l y w i d e n e d the range of its pastoral responsibilities. 2 2 a distant echo p e r h a p s of H o r a c e ' s ut pictura poesis. L. There is no evidence that he went. As the initiative of the laity over matters c o n c e r n i n g its o w n spiritual welfare accelerated. B e r n a r d k n e w well e n o u g h that religion w a s a matter of love. 23 An early work was condemned by the Council of Valence (855) and the Council of Langres (859). C o r p u s i u r i s c a n o n i c i . T h e tone w a s not necessarily condescending. Oxford 1982. In any case Bernard had a l r e a d y s h o w n w h a t he t h o u g h t of intellectuals like A b e l a r d and G i l b e r t de la Porree. 1360. that S u g e r ' s instincts were d a n g e r o u s l y C l u n i a c . p. (But stranger things h a v e h a p p e n e d .8 PETER KIDSON souls for G o d through b e a u t y . w h i c h w a s being c o m p i l e d d u r i n g the 1140s. MS lat. T h e one m a n w h o quite certainly w o u l d not h a v e been impressed by these revelations is St B e r n a r d . and Panofsky cites oldest extant texts were not aimed at B e r n a r d as Panofsky claims. and it is p e r h a p s j u s t as well that he never got to hear of them. T h e r e had already been occasions w h e n architectural style had been the vehicle for ideological p r o p a g a n d a . . 2 5 T h e Ordinatio a p p a r e n t l y 2 2 R e g i s t r u m G r e g o r i i . to send Eriguena to Rome. T h e naive a s s u m p t i o n that G o d and the saints w o u l d share his delight in the o p u l e n c e of the things offered to them belonged to a level of religion that B e r n a r d had left far behind. For all his b u s y b o d y i n g and nasty. and Pope Nicholas I ordered Charles the Bald. BN. and w o u l d h a v e thoroughly a p p r o v e d . R. 2 5 Vatican Library. it w a s to instruct the illiterate. W h o w o u l d h a v e expected the unification o f G e r m a n y t o h a v e been achieved by a m a n like Bismarck?) T h e r e were u n d o u b t e d l y residual tensions between the respective outlooks of the relaxed Benedictine S u g e r and the austere C i s t e r c i a n B e r n a r d . ed.9. 25. 1. but Panofsky w a s w a y off the mark in suggesting that they were of a kind that could be resolved or affected by theories of s y m b o l i s m based on light m e t a p h y s i c s . His St D e n i s w a s a first step along the road w h i c h led to the Quattro Fontane and Vierzehnheiligen. w h a t w a s their w h o read them? T h e manuscripts are not exactly thick on the g r o u n d . C h u r c h buildings were by far the most insistent reminders to the world of the ubiquitous presence of the church. art w a s a distraction. p r a y e r and inwardness. and they provided the f r a m e w o r k through w h i c h streams of ecclesiastical i m a g e r y could be projected at the laity — or the clergy too. 9. 571. S u g e r ' s St Denis w a s exceptional only in striking a new note that turned out to be exactly attuned to the more a d v a n c e d ecclesiastical thinking of the d a y . because he disapproved of its publication without permission. 13835. one twelfth-century version of De administratione24 from St Denis itself. T h e y w o u l d h a v e confirmed any earlier suspicions Bernard m a y h a v e entertained.

D i o n y s i u s here. T h e p r e d o m i n a n t m o o d is that of an apologia. T h e y are concerned w i t h the disposal of i n c o m e from v a r i o u s properties. or preachers. the provision of decent dinners for the monks a n d . before c o m i n g to the new west front w h i c h w a s p r e s u m a b l y the bone of contention. where pillars may refer to angels. w h i c h dates from 1 1 4 0 . . or churches. .PANOFSKY. the c o m m e m o r a t i o n of benefactors like C h a r l e s the B a l d . equal in number to the Apostles of the Saviour . p. T h e C h u r c h of the H o l y S e p u l c h r e . a b o v e all. but the accounts differ c o n s i d e r a b l y . and he w a s no d o u b t anxious that they should not be repeated at St Denis.5. In short.42. SUGER AND ST DENIS 9 survives in a single c o p y .' See C. both in length and emphasis. See for instance Gregory the Great's M o r a l i a in J o b . and Suger w a s trying to allay fears as well as j u s t i f y his building p r o g r a m m e . in his L i f e o f C o n s t a n t i n e . It reminds the m o n k s of w h a t they o w e to their a b b o t ' s g o o d housekeeping. He h a m m e r s h o m e the point that these occasions r e d o u n d e d to the h o n o u r of everyone connected with the a b b e y . 2 6 T h e r e m a y h a v e been losses. A m o n g its more recent repercussions had been the troubles at St M a r y ' s . 2 7 T h e third a c c o u n t . T h e second version.4 1 . R. and it Paris. T h e s e w e r e precedents that m u s t h a v e been constantly in Suger's m i n d . But it was the kind of idea that had great exegetical possibilities. and w h i c h w e r e o v e r c o m e thanks to the m i r a c u l o u s intervention of the house saints w h o clearly a p p r o v e d of w h a t w a s being done. w a s compiled at the request of the general c h a p t e r of the a b b e y . O n c e again we m a y be reminded of the explosive situation at C l u n y in the 1120s. T h e contents explain w h y . and also the inspired resourcefulness of the a b b o t . is a fairly perfunctory statement.xxix. It w a s later than the De consecratione. T h e r e is no w h i f f of the P s e u d o . There were 'twelve columns encircling the apse. f e r u s a l e m . in other w o r d s while memories of the great event w e r e still v i v i d . T h e meeting at w h i c h the invitation w a s issued took place after the consecration of J u n e 1144. and before M a r c h 1145. See G. the one specific case being the remark c o m p a r i n g the twelve c o l u m n s round the apse w i t h the twelve apostles. T h i s is w h a t mattered to him. and there were many variants. He wrote in Greek and the L i f e of C o n s t a n t i n e did not circulate in the West. T h e T h o u g h t of G r e g o r y the G r e a t . the De administratione. T h e r e is still hardly a n y t h i n g a b o u t s y m b o l i s m . xvii. p. Coiiasnon. w h e n the mutterings of the monks a b o u t the e x t r a v a g a n c e of their a b b o t and his prolonged absence from the a b b e y on non-monastic business precipitated the crisis of 1125. London 1972. Cambridge 1986. . and lists the w o r t h y objects on w h i c h m o n e y had been spent. and the secession w h i c h led to the f o u n d a t i o n of Fountains. Evans. T h e first. Archives nationales. 91. Y o r k in 1135. but this is not the form of works that circulated w i d e l y . T h i s is certainly i c o n o g r a p h y of a sort. T h e y are o v e r w h e l m i n g l y a b o u t matters of no c o n c e i v a b l e interest to anyone outside the A b b e y of St Denis. b u t it w a s not taken from the P s e u d o . the s m a r t e n i n g up and e n l a r g e m e n t of the a b b e y church.D i o n y s i u s . The first time this rhetorical flourish was used must have been in the description of the apse of the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem by Eusebius of Caesarea. and it is w h y he w a s writing. T h e implication is that there had been complaints from the cloister a b o u t w a s t e f u l expenditure. w h i c h it mentions. they were intended solely for domestic c o n s u m p t i o n . T h e dust of that s c a n d a l settled slowly. T h i s is m u c h longer. 44· Eusebius 26 27 himself is not likely to have been Suger's immediate source. the Ordinatio. It goes into great detail a b o u t the difficulties that w e r e encountered in the course of the w o r k . the De consecratione. and the e q u i v a l e n t smaller c o l u m n s in the a m b u l a t o r y w i t h the (minor) prophets. MS K23 m. As in the Ordinatio S u g e r goes out of his w a y to stress the p o m p and c i r c u m s t a n c e w i t h w h i c h the ceremonies of consecration were performed. British Academy Schweich Lectures. w a s written after 1144 w h e n the choir w a s finished and the w h o l e operation had been b r o u g h t to a splendid conclusion.

T h i s 'scouring the l a n d ' in search of talent allows S u g e r to present himself in his favourite role as indefatigable provider. T h e s e positively invite S u g e r to s h o w himself in his true colours. x x x i v . T h i s disposition has b e c o m e enshrined in m u c h of the recent literature. It w a s here. and against the odds. 3 0 and w h e n e v e r y o n e else had despaired of finding timbers of the right size. a l t h o u g h in the end he found w h a t he w a n t e d (miraculously of course) in the n e i g h b o u r h o o d of Pontoise. T h e real subject is the decorative s p l e n d o u r of the new building and its s u m p t u o u s furnishings. 6 above.10 PETER KIDSON w a s not finished until the period of the second c r u s a d e w h e n S u g e r w a s acting as regent of F r a n c e ( 1 1 4 7 . But it is only w h e n we start to e x a m i n e the building itself that the extent of the bias becomes apparent. T h e w i n d o w s were quite certainly Suger's o w n distinctive contribution. W i t h o u t the P s e u d o . solved the p r o b l e m in a matter of h o u r s . A n d he does. in the building.D u c . one will search his w o r d s in v a i n for the proof. 3 0 D e c o n s e c . it is easy e n o u g h to slip into the w a y of thinking of him as the m a n w h o actually conceived St Denis. where the case is urged to the limit of credibility. S u g e r . T h e r e must h a v e been at least thirty of them in the choir and the west front. pp. He u n a s h a m e d l y glories in things that g l e a m and shine. n. If necessary he w a s prepared to fetch m a r b l e c o l u m n s all the w a y from R o m e to m a t c h those of the old nave. ill. He appointed a special ministerialis magistrum to look after them w h e n they were finished 2 8 and had a lot of trouble finding e n o u g h craftsmen to m a k e t h e m in the first place. 76-77. Panofsky. but it presupposes rather than repeats the De consecratione. 72-73. to w h i c h it provides a kind of sequel. He ceases to be the c o m m a n d i n g intellectual and reverts to a more conventional style of patronage. T h e y w e r e his pride and j o y . 1 pp. 222.4 9 ) · Its relation to the other records is not entirely clear. It simply is not there. a n d we are i m m e n s e l y grateful for it. 219. n. 96-97. B u t it does not follow that St Denis ceases to be his special creation. S u g e r .l e . 3 2 It does not depend on Panofsky but it shares his predilection for s y m b o l i s m and m e a n i n g f u l i m a g e s at the expense of formal or structural considerations. 31 32 . He w o u l d like to think that there is nothing reprehensible a b o u t this. 2 8 D e admin. and not j u s t supervising e v e r y t h i n g but inventing as well. But unless one is convinced beforehand that Suger w a s a c o m m i t t e d initiate. It goes over a lot of the same g r o u n d as the Ordinatio t h o u g h in greater detail. he m a y be forgiven for his part in e n c o u r a g i n g this lopsided impression. 3 1 A l l this conveys — as it w a s no d o u b t intended to d o — the impression of S u g e r the master m i n d in total control of the situation d o w n to the last detail.D i o n y s i u s S u g e r loses m u c h of his art historical g l a m o u r . L i g h t has b e c o m e for m o d e r n architectural historians w h a t the rib w a s for V i o l l e t . pp. chapter iv.D i o n y s i a c s y m p t o m s he w a s looking for. D e c o n s e c . As Suger provides the only direct testimony we have. or rather colour. 2 9 D e a d m i n . pp. Suger. Panofsky. that it is c o m p a t i b l e w i t h his religious vocation. and as the w i n d o w s were the raison d'etre of the w h o l e design. E v e n w i t h o u t benefit of light m e t a p h y s i c s there w a s still a great deal of light. See von Simson. Panofsky. As he almost certainly devised the i c o n o g r a p h y for the w i n d o w s . Panofsky. above. G o t h i c C a t h e d r a l . xxxiv. behind the e x u b e r a n t prose. that Panofsky t h o u g h t he could detect the P s e u d o . T h e r e w e r e other occasions. 90-93. B u t that is all. H o w e v e r the tone is perceptibly different. S u g e r . T h e s e had to be recruited from ' m a n y regions' 2 9 w h i c h suggests that the scale of operations w a s exceptional and b e y o n d the i m m e d i a t e resources of a n y one region. S u g e r is more relaxed and more expansive. he p l u n g e d hopefully into the forest o f Y v e l i n e s .

pp. in my opinion does nothing of the sort. any clergyman is an architect. SUGER AND ST DENIS 11 T h e one thing we do not hear m u c h a b o u t f r o m Suger is the presence on his payroll of a qualified a r c h i t e c t . M c K . T h a t m i n d w a s not Suger's. every bit as s p e c t a c u l a r as invocations of the P s e u d o . . p. S u g e r e m p l o y e d an architect of genius w h o deserves our salutations even t h o u g h he c a n n o t be n a m e d . Far from understanding why the arches of the vaults withstood the fury of the storm. 'Crypt and Choir Plans at St Denis'. because it was repulsed by the power of God' ( D e consec. . iv. the arm of the aged St Simeon. cit. not to mention a r e m a r k a b l y sophisticated sense of the b e h a v i o u r of structures. It is true that the suggestion encounters certain e l e m e n t a r y chronological obstacles at the outset. 6 above. was unable to damage these isolated and newly made arches. T h i s is i c o n o g r a p h y in the g r a n d m a n n e r . W h e t h e r he k n e w it or not. 3 3 T h e r e are fine w o r d s in praise of c r a f t m a n s h i p w h e n it produces something that delights his eye. Crosby. We learn that there w a s no shortage of stonemasons to do the work. T h e only serious a t t e m p t to come to grips with it in recent years is to be found in a short p a p e r by C r o s b y . . n. and w o r k i n g out subtle and effective solutions. Suger. the apse of St D e n i s has not received the close attention it deserves. 3 5 See n. e n o u g h is left of the plan and elevation for us to form an estimate of the range of architectural resources involved. 3 5 B u t there is no inkling that these also required the services of g e o m e t r y and arithmetic.PANOFSKY. 109). 3 7 w h i c h includes a few basic m e a s u r e m e n t s . 3 4 T h i s leads on directly to the p a s s a g e a b o u t the chapels and their w o n d e r f u l w i n d o w s . a p l a n w h i c h is i n a c c u r a t e but w h i c h represents the essential features of the design. 3 4 D e c o n s e c . 13. . It betrays the c o m p l a c e n c y of the great patron w h o k n o w s exactly w h a t he w a n t s and does not care h o w it is done. G e s t a 1966. so that he escaped disaster. Panofsky. p. 3 6 A l t h o u g h our k n o w l e d g e of the twelfthcentury work at St D e n i s has been severely curtailed by the thirteenth-century alterations in w h i c h all trace of the clerestory and vaults completely d i s a p p e a r e d . If that is technical insight. manifestly not through his own strength of mind but by the grace of God and the merit of the Saints. while making the sign of the cross. 96). S u g e r . Thus (the tempest) . T h e y s h o w a p o w e r f u l m i n d at w o r k . and what happened on a particular occasion. S u g e r ' s silence is instructive. Panofsky. K n o w l e d g e of P t o l e m y ' s a s t r o n o m y b e c a m e generally a v a i l a b l e to L a t i n readers only after G e r a r d of C r e m o n a m a d e his translation of the Almagest from the A r a b i c in the 1170s. q u o t e d a b o v e . C r o s b y proposed that the apse w a s based on P t o l e m y ' s Almagest. he piously attributed the miraculous escape of the Bishop of Chartres to the fact that 'he frequently extended his blessing hand in the direction (of the vaults) and urgently held out toward it. So it has to be argued that r u m o u r s of P t o l e m y must h a v e circulated w h e r e v e r the liberal arts w e r e 33 von Simson goes so far as to claim that 'between the patron and his chief mason there was no room for an architect in the modern sense' (op. the central n a v e (literally roof) of the old c h u r c h should be equalised by m e a n s of geometrical and arithmetical instruments w i t h the central n a v e of the new a d d i t i o n ' . w i t h o u t w h i c h there could h a v e been no marvellous lighting effects. but the only time we are told a n y t h i n g a b o u t skills of a more professional kind is w h e n 'it w a s c u n n i n g l y p r o v i d e d t h a t . v. 36 The anecdote chosen by von Simson to illustrate what he calls Suger's remarkable technical knowledge — his complete familiarity with the functions and properties of the cross-ribbed vault (von Simson op. Suger merely describes what could be seen. . and a theory. 100-01.230. tottering in the mid-air.D i o n y s i u s . cit. 225. thinking imaginatively a b o u t architectural problems. p. It also suggests the w a r y i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n of the literary m a n for w h o m the prestigious mysteries of applied m a t h e m a t i c s w e r e a closed b o o k . 97). G i v e n its a c k n o w l e d g e d i m p o r t a n c e in the history of architecture. 37 S. It certainly lives up to P a n o f s k y ' s belief that revolutionary w o r k s of art need great ideas to explain them.

i. and no one else ever seems to h a v e s h o w n the slightest interest in the idea. It is impossible to prove the hypothesis w r o n g . Q u i t e apart from the G e r a r d of C r e m o n a issue. Before resorting to such heroic solutions we o u g h t to ask w h e t h e r it is really impossible to find a satisfactory solution along more conventional lines. T h e t w o innermost. T h e apse of St Denis is not a simple matter of concentric circles. and the construction of an astrolabe described by H e r m a n n u s C o n t r a c t u s ( w h o died in 1054) indicated a level of interest in astronomy w h i c h o u g h t to h a v e been up to g r a s p i n g P t o l e m y ' s central idea. represented by the rows of . T h e first thing to establish is the extent of the deformation.D i o n y s i u s . T h i s is w h a t c a u g h t C r o s b y ' s attention. T h e apse has three c u r v e d c o m p o n e n t s . especially m e d i e v a l . w h i c h cannot be entirely swept aside w i t h o u t more ado. w i t h the chapels themselves f o r m i n g a series of subordinate circles. C r o s b y detected t w o centres and t w o radii. that the m o v e m e n t s of the h e a v e n l y bodies w e r e controlled by a system of circles a n d epicycles. the a n a l o g y must h a v e leapt at him. It is the sort of reasoning that is all too c o m m o n in art-historical studies. W h e n he d r e w it out.12 PETER KIDSON studied. on the other a rather unusual explanation w h i c h superficially seems to fit. one inside the other. It presupposes a h u g e a m o u n t of special pleading. b u t a great deal more in the w a y of a r g u m e n t is required before it c o m m a n d s assent. there is the glaring fact that Suger himself m a k e s no mention of Ptolemy or astronomical i c o n o g r a p h y . B u t that is all the evidence there is: on the one hand a s o m e w h a t out of the ordinary building.e. a n y more than he n a m e s the P s e u d o .

and replaced by a different c u r v e w h i c h satisfied all the requirements of the design. the V i r g i n ' s altar o u g h t once again to h a v e been in the axial position. SUGER AND ST DENIS 13 columns. east and south respectively. and it may be no more than a draughtsman's error. 40 The chapels flanking the upper Lady Chapel should have been dedicated to St Peregrinus and St Cucuphas. T h e s e lie on three arcs. high altar. the eastern arc extends across slightly more than the three central chapels. and in v i e w of Suger's concern for the general effect of the w i n d o w s such an inference w o u l d be consistent w i t h the overall interpretation. there m a y be no need to look further for an explanation. 3 9 D e consec. Suger mentions twenty. T h e total angle e m b r a c e d by this sector is a fraction short of 90 degrees. and essentially circular. L o o k e d at in this w a y . He does not mention this in his text. the critical factor is the location of the centres from w h i c h the small circles of the chapels are struck. but if the p r o c e d u r e w a s the same as for the crypt. L ' A b b a y e r o y a l e de S t D e n i s . and the other dedications h a r d l y seem to q u a l i f y for special e m p h a s i s .70 m to the east of the principal centre. the n a v e altar. H o w e v e r . In practical terms the distortion is limited to the outer walls of these three m i d d l e chapels of the c h a p e l ring. t h o u g h if C r o s b y ' s d r a w i n g is correct. Incidentally. this w a s the result achieved. regular. w h e r e there are no party walls between the chapels. In the crypt. There were twenty-one altars altogether. It is only the eastern arc w h i c h does not conform to this construction. w h i c h can be identified as north. are concentric. they all belong to a single. w h i c h are p u s h e d s o m e w h a t to the east — the axial c h a p e l being the one most affected.PANOFSKY. Formige. At any rate. fig. It has a shorter radius and a different centre. the effect manifests itself entirely as a d e e p e n i n g of the three chapels. and then gives four 'on the right' and four 'on the left'. If C r o s b y ' s d r a w i n g is reliable. Felicissimus and Agapitus. T h e starting point w a s a list of altars. the apse of St Denis w a s a sensitive and intelligent c o m p r o m i s e . a l t h o u g h the dimensions are not the s a m e . 2. the sequence is as follows: the m a i n . T o g e t h e r . it takes the f o r m of a slight w i d e n i n g t o w a r d the axis of w h a t it is c u s t o m a r y to call the outer a m b u l a t o r y . the V i r g i n altar. In the crypt they were assigned to St Christopher and SS Sixtus. T h i s arc determines the position of the axial chapel. In the choir a b o v e . three chapels are involved. 3 9 T h e locations are not specified. and were struck from the same centre as the two rows of c o l u m n s w h i c h form the inner circles. but clearly means twenty in addition to the high altar. Paris i960. F r o m this it follows that the V i r g i n ' s altar in the c r y p t w a s in the axial chapel. For the series in the c r y p t he begins w i t h 'the lower m a i n altar'. not one. In De consecratione S u g e r lists the altars and the prelates w h o consecrated them. 49. in w h i c h tension b e t w e e n three potentially irreconcilable factors w a s quite beautifully resolved. and it is hard to believe that it w a s not m e a n t to be a full q u a d r a n t . As it b e c a m e c o m m o n practice to put the L a d y C h a p e l on the axis. for w h i c h the appropriate architectural expression w a s a formation of chapels around part of a polygon. i a ) . T h e north and south arcs h a v e t w o chapels each. and then eight m o r e . So all that seems to have h a p p e n e d is that a 90 degree stretch of the outer circle of the regular geometrical figure w a s left out. 4 0 T h e most likely reason for including the t w o f l a n k i n g chapels with the axial chapel in the a d j u s t m e n t w o u l d seem to be the desire not to interrupt or d i s t u r b the even sequence of the c h a p e l w i n d o w s . if the 38 Crosby's drawing indicates that the inner colonnade is very slightly elliptical. 3 8 Structurally. and to give it slightly more p r o m i n e n c e than the other chapels. but there is no difference b e c a u s e the so-called outer a m b u l a t o r y is really part of the c h a p e l s (PI. 235-37. geometrical construction. T h i s is true at both levels. . VII. w h i c h is dedicated to the V i r g i n . and the vertical alignments do not coincide. the complications are confined to the outer w a l l of the chapel ring. and the chapels on either side of it. See J. w h e r e there is only one a m b u l a t o r y . In the choir above.

the a b o v e remarks w o u l d still a p p l y . w h i c h w o u l d be the sides of the p o l y g o n . and a l t h o u g h the three easternmost chapels focused geometrically on a separate centre. E v e r y t h i n g at St D e n i s suggests the second method. w i t h o u t w o r r y i n g a b o u t the visual consequences. b u t a simpler explanation is that the i m a g e w a s suggested to him by the building. But this w o u l d require m e t h o d s for c a l c u l a t i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e chords.69 degrees. It is p e r h a p s j u s t possible that this could be done w i t h o u t calculation. a thirteen-sided p o l y g o n is not the easiest to construct without a general theory. It is this w h i c h distinguishes St D e n i s from an o b v i o u s improvisation like St M a r t i n des C h a m p s . the c o l u m n s around the apse w h i c h are said to represent the twelve apostles and the prophets simply followed suit. i b ) . T h e sequence of w i n d o w s r e m a i n e d regular. A c c o r d i n g to C r o s b y the angle subtended at the centre by the sides is in the region of 27 degrees. and unless it w a s done w i t h extreme care. w h e r e the angle w o u l d be 27. T h i s could h a v e been done. by quite literally d r a w i n g on the ground: setting a string on the circumference. m e a s u r i n g and dividing its length. not the other w a y round. even m a s o n i c g e o m e t r y w a s not m u c h use on the scale required for the polygons of apses. aesthetic. and m a r k i n g off the intervals along the curve. the straight lines from one point to another. but too many pragmatic factors entered the reckoning for these to have survived as anything more than notional shapes. 4 1 B u t it is a very u n u s u a l and therefore interesting polygon. and even if this w a s present. H o w e v e r . B u t these mattered at St D e n i s . W a s there 4 1 It is highly probable that on the architect's drawing board. as it w a s in other churches. likely to be inaccurate. O t h e r w i s e it could be done by triangulation. 42 For example. In other w o r d s there w a s a single point of m a x i m u m visibility for all the w i n d o w s around the apse. Speculations a b o u t s y m b o l i s m and the eccentricities of the design h a v e distracted attention a w a y from the fact that the apse is. even theatrical.e. Essentially it w a s a matter of fixing points on the circumference of a semicircle. H o w m e d i e v a l architects set a b o u t constructing polygons is something a b o u t w h i c h we h a v e no positive information before the end of the M i d d l e A g e s . B u t at best this w o u l d be incredibly c u m b e r s o m e . but the precision of the setting out betokens i m m e n s e theoretical confidence and suggests that all the principal dimensions w e r e carefully worked out beforehand. T h e converse implies that the n u m b e r of chapels and therefore the n u m b e r of altars w e r e c o n s e q u e n c e s of the s y m b o l i s m . I suppose it is possible that S u g e r w a s prepared to institute cults at St D e n i s j u s t to c o m p l y w i t h the specifications of his i c o n o g r a p h y . 4 2 H o w e v e r . but not in any special sense iconographical. T h e second stage w a s the modification of the p o l y g o n . and so for purely aesthetic reasons the distortion w a s done in such a w a y as to be virtually u n o b t r u s i v e (PI. T h e r e is no need w h a t e v e r to introduce abstract cosmic s y m b o l i s m . O n e m i g h t postulate a d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n S u g e r and his architect. It is not entirely regular. based on a regular p o l y g o n . i. A l t o g e t h e r it w a s a r e m a r k a b l e achievement. G e o m e t r i a D e u t s c h of .14 PETER KIDSON p o l y g o n w a s chosen to p r o d u c e the right n u m b e r of chapels and altars. T h e figure that seems to fit this specification best is a thirteen-sided p o l y g o n . after all. the so-called Mattaus Roriczer. T h e p r o b l e m s were formal. For liturgical reasons the axial chapels had to be larger than the rest. their w i n d o w s were a r r a n g e d a r o u n d axes w h i c h converged on the focal point of the r e m a i n i n g chapels. but it w a s the architect w h o c a m e up w i t h all the answers. w h e n texts on masonic g e o m e t r y shed some light on the p r o b l e m . the choir chapels started off as regular pentagons.

T h i s m a y or m a y not be a coincidence. is simply e q u a t e d w i t h the segment of the circumference cut by the chord. H o w e v e r the error is subject to amelioration in two w a y s . At an a c a d e m i c level H e r o n did not really begin to surface until the scientific m o v e m e n t associated with Grosseteste.93 m. and w a s it k n o w n in twelfth-century France? T h e a n s w e r to the first part of that question is affirmative. It has come d o w n to us t h r o u g h H e r o n of A l e x a n d r i a in the formula a n = 3D / n n. fol.i i y o . Crombie. M. is perceptibly larger than the rest. V .) the result is biased in f a v o u r of the chord. and this w o u l d require perceptible a d j u s t m e n t s in one or more of the chapels. and the angle subtended by each chapel at the m a i n centre of the w h o l e apse as a b o u t 27 degrees. b u t his d i a g r a m belies this. w h e r e a is the length of the side. Up to p e n t a g o n the f o r m u l a errs on the side of excess. 23". . their radii can be no more than 2. D the diameter of the circle. and n the n u m b e r of sides in the p o l y g o n .30 m. a l t h o u g h Delisle c a m e across a reference to a copy of H e r o n ' s Mechanica that w a s in F r a n c e 4 3 See Codex C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n u s . 4 4 and this w a s principally directed toward his work on optics. It w o u l d need a r e m a r k a b l y a c c u r a t e p l a n to verify or refute particular inferences a b o u t dimensions. Oxford 1953. It is certainly not possible to p r o v e that it w a s k n o w n . C r o s b y gives the radius of the arc on w h i c h the centres of the four western chapels are located. R o g e r B a c o n and W i t e l o . Bruins.405 m. For a radius of 2. as C r o s b y shows them. p. So if the c h a p e l circles are contiguous or not even in contact. Leiden 1964. the one S u g e r assigned to St O s m a n n a . so 3D is the circumference. as 10. As the n u m b e r of sides increases. It is not easy to test the hypothesis that such a formula w a s used at St Denis. w h i c h is exactly h a l f the w i d t h of the C a r o l i n g i a n n a v e (centre to centre of the colonnades) as C r o s b y gives it: 9. 1 4 1 5 9 . it is not absolutely regular.30 m w h i c h subtends an angle of 27 degrees at the centre.85 m. the radius of the chapels as 2.213. Robert G r o s s e t e s t e and the O r i g i n s of E x p e r i m e n t a l S c i e n c e u o o . C r o s b y implies that all the chapels h a v e the same radius (2. n. it b e c o m e s 4. and then it declines toward the infinitesimal as the p o l y g o n a p p r o a c h e s the circle. T h e w e s t e r n m o s t c h a p e l on the north side of the a m b u l a t o r y . w h i c h is really a chord of the circle. and this is not available. SUGER AND ST DENIS !5 such a theory. E. so the d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n the chord and the segment diminishes. the c h a n c e s are that it w a s not.70 m they w o u l d h a v e to overlap. but as matters stand it is w o r t h asking w h e t h e r H e r o n ' s formula could h a v e been k n o w n to Suger's architect. 44 See A. T h e r e is clearly something w r o n g somewhere. P e r h a p s the most e n c o u r a g i n g sign is that while the layout of the chapels and the a m b u l a t o r y is regular e n o u g h to suggest a theory. is no more than 4. and b e y o n d the h e x a g o n the results are too low. Palatii Veteris no. H e r o n ' s f o r m u l a w o u l d produce a chord of 4. ed. N o w it requires only a simple trigonometrical calculation to show that the chord of a circle w i t h a radius of 10. If it d e p e n d e d on access to m a n u s c r i p t s of H e r o n ' s works. In fact the error reaches a m a x i m u m of a b o u t 4% in the vicinity of the thirteen-sided polygon. and the side of the p o l y g o n . T h i s is of course w r o n g . i.70 m.PANOFSKY. It m a y be noted that if the chord is the side of a regular thirteen-sided p o l y g o n .81 m.74 m. b e c a u s e the segment is a l w a y s greater than the chord.70 m in the choir). In antiquity a r o u g h and ready method for w o r k i n g out the sides of polygons inscribed in circles had been k n o w n ever since B a b y l o n i a n times. F l u c t u a t i o n s in dimensions like the radii of chapels w o u l d be one sign of a defective theory. C. T h e c o m b i n a t i o n of these t w o effects varies across the series of polygons. and this suggests that the theory w a s less than perfect. 4 3 It is a rule of t h u m b w h i c h assumes pi to be 3. . and by using a low v a l u e for pi (3 instead of 3 . F u r t h e r evidence m a y dispose of the idea. For the h e x a g o n it is exactly right.

and each ends with the number of the particular polygon. 4 5 T h e r e is one other tantalizing clue. Tabula octava. La Biblionomie de Richard de Fournival. O n e w a s C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . and the scribe hopefully turned to chapter iv of Boethius. Nevertheless. p. . Le C a b i n e t des M a n u s c r i t s de l a B i b l i o t h è q u e N a t i o n a l e . C o r d o b a i s 45 Léopold Delisle. As it stands. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. N o w at M u n i c h there is an eleventh-century m a n u s c r i p t 4 6 w h i c h contains an assortment of m a t h e m a t i c a l material culled from a variety of sources loosely related to the R o m a n agrimensores. O f the two. and partly in the calculations themselves.' The text of Heron's M e c h a n i c a has survived only in Arabic. ft 260 363 483 618 769 937 I 120 Heron's solution 166% 2340 [iic] 35S'/3 483 >/3 63 7 ՝ / 2 75° 943 1125 Munich C l m 13084 145 190 235 280 325 37° 415 460 All calculated to a side of 10. the other C o r d o b a . Heath. T h e r e are t w o places of w h i c h this w o u l d b e true. 11. 46 Munich. for w h i c h he uses a side of 30). The Munich polygons increase by 45 each time. Paris 1922. 4 7 W h e t h e r a n y t h i n g c a n be m a d e of this. H e r o n also has a series of calculations g i v i n g the areas of the regular p o l y g o n s from the p e n t a g o n to the d o d e c a g o n . 95: 'Item excerpta de libro Heronis de specialibus ingeniis. p. but b e c a u s e the extract on polygons does not include the general formula. after a fashion. It reads like the hopeful p a r a p h r a s e of someone w h o s e G r e e k w a s as s h a k y as his m a t h e m a t i c s . it is hard to say. A p a r t from the general formula for p o l y g o n s . not j u s t b e c a u s e it is full of nonsense. w h o e v e r transcribed the text had not the slightest idea w h a t he w a s doing. A more profitable line of enquiry m i g h t be to e x a m i n e earlier buildings w h i c h display a high degree of geometrical proficiency for similar evidence of p o l y g o n a l construction. except Heron's hexagon which has a side of 30. rational. Histoire Générale de Paris. but it seems to indicate that at some r e m o v e and p e r h a p s already horribly g a r b l e d . and try to establish a continuity of expertise leading back to sources w h e r e k n o w l e d g e of ancient m a t h e m a t i c s c a n be p r e s u p p o s e d w i t h confidence. The nonsense lies partly in mistaking polygonal numbers for areas. de A r i t h m e t i c a . and the method is.11. 530. Oxford 1921. there w a s a text of H e r o n on p o l y g o n s at large s o m e w h e r e in western E u r o p e d u r i n g the century before St Denis. the solutions of the area calculations got lost. What seems to have happened is that at some stage in the transmission of the text to Heron on polygons.h o w of m e d i e v a l architects w i t h texts in circulation. Tannery. Paris. 515. 47 The following figures speak for themselves: Polygon pentagon hexagon heptagon octagon enneagon decagon hendecagon dodecagon Correct solution 172 sq. the M u n i c h m a n u s c r i p t is quite useless as a source for the m a t h e m a t i c a l k n o w l e d g e in question. where he found Nichomachus of Gerasa's table of polygonal numbers. to make good the deficiency.6 PETER KIDSON d u r i n g the thirteenth c e n t u r y . pp. The manoeuvres in Munich Clm 13084 have a common starting point which is a square 10 X 10. T h e ultimate source for this farrago can only h a v e been H e r o n . but it describes machines just close enough to some of Villard de Honnecourt's visionary drawings to make one wonder whether he had heard something about Richard de Fournival's version. See P. Greek M a t h e m a t i c s . M é m o i r e s s c i e n t i f i q u e s v. H i s answers are not too far off the m a r k . a m o n g w h i c h is to be found a series of lunatic calculations p u r p o r t i n g to give the areas of the regular p o l y g o n s f r o m the pentagon to the d o d e c a g o n with a standard side of 10. In any case it m a y be a mistake to try to connect the k n o w . 64-70. His solution is equivalent to 260. with a standard side of 10 (except the h e x a g o n . Clm 13084. For the polygonal numbers see Sir Thos.

rather than St Denis. As a ' r e l i q u a r y ' c h u r c h . this w a s d u e to a m o d e of presentation w h i c h w a s d r a m a t i c e n o u g h in its o w n right. it w a s a m o d e l for C h a r t r e s . if he had a n y t h i n g to do w i t h twelfth-century religious art. that entered at once into the m a i n s t r e a m of c h u r c h design. w h i c h w a s the special contribution of the architect. and his p r i m a r y aim as a patron w a s to do h o n o u r to the saints of his a b b e y . it w a s a model for C a n t e r b u r y . b u t not a l w a y s at the same time or in the same w a y . In the absence of Suger's clerestory we cannot be sure a b o u t St Denis b u t there are signs that it w a s there as well. He w a s an orthodox c h u r c h m a n in a position of great p o w e r .D i o n y s i u s . and in so far as it w a s novel. a n d this left its m a r k on a series of buildings w h i c h otherwise were out of s y m p a t h y w i t h St Denis. T h i s m i g h t provide the starting point for a further enquiry into S u g e r ' s alleged role as one of the great innovators of medieval i c o n o g r a p h y . and o w e d n o t h i n g to s y m b o l i s m . C O U R T A U L D INSTITUTE . and it anticipated in a particularly d a r i n g w a y a theory of structural equilibrium that can be recognized in s u b s e q u e n t G o t h i c buildings like L a o n . St Denis w a s influential u n d e r all these headings. SUGER AND ST DENIS 17 perhaps the m o r e p r o m i s i n g for St Denis. H o w e v e r .PANOFSKY. T h e great m o s q u e exemplifies a great d e a l of the right kind of g e o m e t r y applied to architecture. it w a s t h r o u g h the exegetical m o v e m e n t associated ( a m o n g others) w i t h the canons of St V i c t o r .e. that opens the door to a w h o l e r a n g e of p r o b l e m s that lead far beyond the scope of the present paper. S u g e r w a s not in any serious sense a follower of the P s e u d o . T h e new choir of St D e n i s w a s conceived as a setting for altars and reliquaries. B u t it w a s the g e o m e t r y .D i o n y s i u s . the w i n d o w s ) and the architectural m e a n s by w h i c h these w e r e achieved. both in plan and elevation. T h e conclusions to be d r a w n are as follows. and as a f r a m e for w i n d o w s . As for the P s e u d o . It is necessary to distinguish b e t w e e n the decorative ends aimed at (i.

interior (p. '* *% Photo James Austin a — A m b u l a t o r y . b: Paris. St Denis .. 14) a. exterior (p. 13) b — E a s t End.Ό z ο > ԼՈ C/3 α Q W S* > 22 o ՀՈ H O M Ζ _ .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->