Talk:Romanesque architecture

External link to Saint-Trophime digital archive

I just added a link to the WMF/CyArk HD documentation site for the late Romanesque/early Gothic former cathedral of Saint-Trophime in the external links section; the site is highly illustrative of Romanesque and Early Gothic forms and contrasts so it seems to be of good educational value. DuendeThumb (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to simplify the "Definition" section

The current "Definition" section starts with a long introduction of the word mentioned in its current sense in the private exchanges before the well-known public mention in a book by Gunn. However, if contemporary unpublished materials are to be considered, Gunn seems to still have the priority, as his book, while published in 1819, was actually written in 1813. Here is a quote from an introduction to a collection of papers on the topic of history of research on the Romanesque style: "The origins of the term “Romanesque” are more complex but, in short, the word was first used in the sense we employ today by William Gunn by 1813 in his Origin and Influence of Gothic Architecture, which, however, was published only in 1819" (italics is mine), the source is:

Rudolph, Conrad (2019-04-15). "Introduction: A Sense of Loss: An Overview of the Historiography of Romanesque and Gothic Art". A Companion to Medieval Art. Wiley. p. 22. doi:10.1002/9781119077756.ch1. ISBN 978-1-119-07772-5.

My proposal is therefore to remove pretty much the entirety of the first two paragraphs (while keeping the first sentence) and base our text, which will be much shorter, on the source above.

I am adding the source to the article anyhow, as it contains other information on the history of research of Romanesque. I am also adding a paper by Fernie that describes terminological discussions that took place until 2019. Викидим (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the participants in the previous discussion: @Amandajm, @Johnbod, @Quinbus Flestrin. Викидим (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not very happy about this. "Romanesque" was little used in English until near the end of the 19th century ("Norman" being preferred for the local product), and the reason we now use it in English is surely because the French and other continentals adopted (their version of) it, and made it the standard term. Gunn was a pretty obscure figure, and his definition rather different from today's, extending much further back. This is interesting on Ruskin's highly variable and self-contradictory usage. By all means re-order the section to stress Gunn's priority, but I think the adoption in French was actually more important. Some of the French to and fro could be put in a note. Fernie is a very good source, who does not say the early figures used the word "in the sense we employ today ". Better to take him as the basis. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have tried, feel free to revert if you prefer to discuss the changes here first. I accept your arguments about the importance of the French word. Викидим (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Rudolph (ibid., p. 22) states that "The French romane appeared at almost exactly the same time, apparently under British influence, in the correspondence of Charles de Gerville of 1818" (underlining mine). I am hesitant to insert this into the paragraph about the French word, as "apparently" is likely to indicate Rudolph's opinion. Without corroboration from other sources, even a sentence with an explicit attribution seems to be too much. Викидим (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, given Gunn had not then published, one wonders where the "British influence" came from. More letters? Best left for now. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• It would be good to add the point Fernie makes at the bottom of the first column/top of the 2nd here, specifying that Henri Focillon and a de Lasterie were mainly responsible, in the 1930s (?) for the much later start of "Romanesque" that we now use. No doubt he repeats this in other pieces. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

   Done Please review. Викидим (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  To those who have contributed here, I think that, provided there is a current, modern agreement as to what constitutes the subject, in this case Romanesque architecture, then a long section that deals with the semantics and history of the term in current use is unnecessary to an understanding of the subject itself.

These pages are used by students who are learning the basics of architectural history. They do need an idea as to why "Romanesque" is called by that name. They do need to know that they will frequently come across the word "Norman" to describe Romanesque in certain regions, because of historical events. But they do not need to know what word was used by Christopher Wren, in order to have an understanding of the subject.

The development and use of architectural and other vocabulary pertaining to the arts is a subject in itself. I would like to suggest her that someone with a particular interest in this subject writes an article on it. The article could have se3ctions, and look at the history and development of a whole range - going back to the language used by Vitruvius, and including such matters as Vasari's referring to pre Renaissance painting as primitive or Greek.

Of importance in this are the origins of the terms that are used to define the developing stages of Gothic Architecture, which differ from England to the continent, as there was, from Durham Cathedral onwards, a very different process to that which spread outwards from Northern France. It means that there are two overlapping, and sometime irreconcilable sets of terms operating for buildings of similar dates.

Trying to deal with this, and analyse it in detail, in the "Definition" section of each relevant article is tedious, and a distraction from the meat in the sandwich. Readers, on the whole, do not require this stuff, and if it forms a long and boring second paragraph to an otherwise relevant article, then it detracts from the article itself, and discourages our general reader, and our young student.

Is there someone who would like to take on this task, which requires quite a bit of research, and careful referencing?

We could then simplify all our "Definition" sections with a direction to the main article.

Or has this been done already? Amandajm (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree the section, as it now is, is too long and too high up. We might summarize the current definition into a single para, placed either at the bottom of the lead (currently 3 paras only), or in the 2nd section slot, as now. The rest can be called perhaps "Development of the term" and moved to around the bottom of the article. The article you suggest would be great, but I'm not sure who would write it - not me for sure. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, we'll leave this here and maybe some enthusiast will respond!

Amandajm (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless Prof. Fernie is listening and decides to briefly come back from retirement to help us, I see no straightforward way to write a decent standalone article on the subject (if User:Somebody "Notme" Else knows his current email, perhaps someone can try to contact him, BTW, hope springs eternal). The next best option is to beef up the current Definition section, rename it per Johnbod's suggestion, and add a redirect so that Norman architecture can refer to it (hopefully some text from the Norman article "Origins" section can be moved here).

Regarding moving the section down: Treccani ([1]) takes a way actually similar to our article in approach of "history of the term first". My take on Carlo Tosco's (his CV) opinion there is that Romanesque is essentially a term of convenience to describe the revival of economy and thus large-scale construction after the Dark Ages, but before the architectural revolution of Gothics (NB: Great Cathedrals is a poor redirect, perhaps a disambiguation that needs to be written, someone daring enough might actually try the Era of Great Cathedrals, but at least separating the European Gothics from Great Cathedrals (Georgian Orthodox) is worthwhile). If we take Tosco's position into account, evolution of semantics perhaps is very relevant to the topic.

The lead can be beefed up by a paragraph briefly defining the term, along the lines of other encyclopedias, cf. Britannica ([2]). Викидим (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Great Cathedrals directs to Cathedral. That article, of which I have been one of the main contributors, has nothing to do with "greatness". It is about the nature and purpose of cathedrals. It does not talk about architecture, or anything of that nature, beyond saying that many cathedrals are indeed great works of architecture and repositories of artworks.

Concerning adding more of a definition to the lead paragraph, the moment you begin that, it will get out of hand and result in the lead becoming clumsy.

I think that Johnbod's suggestion of a new section, Development of the term, is excellent. It means that you average reader can simply skip it, because they can see at a glance whether it is highly relevant to what they want to know.

Amandajm (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) has nothing to do with "greatness" - this was exactly my point, the redirect IMHO should not point there, even Gothic cathedrals and churches would be a better fit, although a separate article about the term would be nice to have. (2) Per the suggestion, I will split the "Development of the term" section, move it lower and expand based on the Treccani article. Викидим (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just had a look at this section of the definition:

In the beginning of the 21st century there is "something like agreement" on the characteristics of the Romanesque style. Eric Fernie in his review lists, in particular:

• "clarity, simplicity, and forcefulness";
• division of space into bays, often using engaged columns topped with diaphragm arches. Wall is treated as "as a plastic, sculptural mass to be shaped and modelled both inside and out" (using half-shafts, compound piers, and bays);
• articulation, both of horizontal connections forming stories, bases, columns into limited orders, and of vertical connections
• alternating supports (for example, between piers and columns);
• use of church space partitioning introduced in Carolingian architecture, with distinctive apse with ambulatory (chevet) and radiating chapels;
• new types of vaults.

The innovations were mostly dictated by the aesthetical considerations, not the structural needs.

This is convoluted, complicated and focused on details, not the defining characteristics.

"clarity, simplicity and forcefulness"

This is in quotation marks. Who is it quoting?

division of space into bays, often using engaged columns topped with diaphragm arches.

No. not 'often using engaged columns. They are far from being a defining feature. "Diaphragm arches", nonsense! They are not part of the definition of Romanesque.

Wall is treated as "as a plastic, sculptural mass to be shaped and modelled both inside and out" .Once again, there is a quotation with no reference.

This is nonsense! The wall is treated as a surface, with applied architectural and decorative details.

• articulation, both of horizontal connections forming stories, bases, columns into limited orders, and of vertical connections

Yes, articulation. But what is a "Horizontal connection"? These connection do exist, but are much more a part of Classical and Gothic architecture than Romanesque.

:* alternating supports (for example, between piers and columns)

A feature; not a defining characteristic.

* use of church space partitioning

Not a defining characteristic.

* new types of vaults

Vaulted roofs are indeed characteristic. "new types of" is not a defining characteristic.

This section should simply be removed. The defining characteristics are given in much clearer form in the second paragraph of the opening section, and are expended upon in the rest of the article. The characteristics are so badly and confusingly expressed her as to add nothing to the Definition. Did this list come directly from Eric Fernie?

Amandajm (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, retaining all but the list of features. Amandajm (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

OED changes

I have verified our text using the up-to-date version of Oxford English Dictionary, and updated (1) the date, 1666 is now given instead of 1715 and (2) removed "descendent from Roman", as this text is no longer in OED and thus cannot be quoted. I have changed the reference, too. Викидим (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Dates

The current lead contains There is no consensus for the beginning date of the Romanesque style, with proposals ranging from the 6th to the 11th century, this later date being the most commonly held.. However, based on the now-rewritten "Definitions" section, it seems that late 10th - early 11th century start date is pretty much consensual. The variations are things in the past, no brief encyclopedic sources even mention them. My proposal is to simplify the lead by removing the reference to disagreements. Викидим (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - Pre-Romanesque now covers the earlier range for many or most writers. Johnbod (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Викидим (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Illustrations

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

The illustrations in the lead are quite similar, completely leaving out the Pisan Romanesque. I propose to replace one of the three photos with a picture of the Pisa Cathedral. Looking for comments. Викидим (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pisan Romanesque is quite specific to Pisa. The Romanesque of Sicily also has unique characteristics, as does Durham Cathedral. The chosen examples indicate that this style was pan-European.

Pisa gets a pretty fair treatment with a full-frontal a bit further down the page. It is a great building, but not a "typical" one. Amandajm (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I accept your arguments. Closing the thread. Викидим (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Archiving older finished discussion

This page is too long to read in its entirety. I am planning to archive multiple discussions for convenience. The approach will be two-step:

• I am going to mark the candidates as {{closed}} and wait for a very long time. If you disagree with the need to archive, just remove the {{closed}} template, there is no need for a discussion;
• I will archive (manually) the threads that will face no objections to archiving.

Викидим (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Three weeks passed, no objections, archiving. Викидим (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)