Talk:Castelseprio (archaeological park)

message: Johnbod, I have just reread every detal of the description.  There is nothing unusual about the layout. 
I find it rather surprising that you are having difficulty with the diagram, that is, if you understand the construction of an apsed church and about Byzantine decorated interiors. This diagram does not represent 5 registers. 
From top to bottom it shows:-
* The Arch that separates the apse from the church. Three of the pictures are on the "inner"   wall of the arch: The throne of God, the Magi and the (?)Dream of the Magi (uncertainty as to what the writer meant by "inner"!)
* Inside that is the semi-dome of the apse. It must have one. The rondels (usually spelt without a "u") would probably all be on the semi-dome. Mary and John the Baptist may be lower, but Christ Pantocrator is almost certainly on the dome itself, because Christ Pantocrator is almost never anywhere else. 
NO, This is wrong.... Just took a look at some exterior pics and the roof is too flat.... which would put Jesus above the window and just below the roofline. --Amandajm 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: correct Johnbod 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really know what to say; apparently Bognetti, who unlike you & me has actually been there (indeed is still there - buried in the church) got it all wrong, as apparently did the artists.  Do you know how many Byzantine fresco cycles actually exist from before, during and for 500 years after this one?  Not nearly enough to generalize about.  I imagine the apse has a ceiling really too flat to be called a semi-dome (it appears to be similar to the west sorry south side-chapel/bit in the photos), but it is not decorated (as part of this scheme anyway).  The building is certainly not Byzantine in style.  I will add a note on the flow of the narrative certainly, and change middle to central, but most of your comment above is original research, and clearly wrong to my mind.  The gospel book on a cushion (or something circular - it looks like a lazy-Susan) still survives, and I can add that in.  Where are you now locating the Pantocrater relative to the Hetoimasia? 
Nobody asked you to "buy in" re the description; you were asked in to support the tiny-picture agenda, which you very commendably failed to do!  I will ask Javits if he can very kindly look at a big fat book & check matters out.  Johnbod 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not logical

message: What do you mean, where am I locating the Pantocrator? It's obviously above the window that is central to the apse. If there is no dome, and having found good external views, it has become fairly clear to me that there isn't, then the Pantocrator is above the central window, lower than the roof line, rather than above it. 
The description of the "Hetoimasia" (to use a word few readers understand) is apparently on the arch between the church and the apse, but the description says "inner face" which could mean inner to the body of the church, inner to the apse or inner meaning the surface of the arch itself. It's common for Byzantine arches to have significant motifs decorating them, sometimes rondels of the apostles. 
As for the number of Byzantine fresco cycles, No, there are not a lot of early fresco cycles but there exist quite a number of relatively intact pictorial cycles in the form of mosaics. They exist from 6th century onwards and include the 9th century mosaics at Santa Prassede in Rome, for example. Regardless of whether the pictorial decoration is painted or mosaic, the schemes show a fair consistency. The motif of the Virgin swathed in the multi-folded robe lying in the particular position shown in these frescoes, for example, is reproduced with more or less skill in countless representations of the Nativity in fresco, mosaic, ivory, manuscript and painted icon. The consistency in many elements is not restricted to a particular medium and has continued in the Orthodox Church unabated to the present day. A significant element of difference is the degree to which artists include non-canonical narratives.
Quote: "got it all wrong, as apparently did the artists." I don't know what you mean by this. 
Where Bognetti is buried says nothing about his powers of description. What he has done is organise his description into a formula which is not appropriate to the artwork that he s describing. Describing a fresco cycle with the scenes running chronologically the wrong way is not a good description. The early painters had no law to say that you should read pictures from left to right. In practice, picture cycles often read in a zig-zag manner, or sometimes beginning at the door on both sides so that the left side of the building reads left to right, and the right side reads right to left. 
I am not saying that Bognetti described it "wrongly". I am saying that he described it "badly" which is an entirely different matter. That's the problem. 
--Amandajm 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad description

message: I think that this is getting closer. The proportions are undoubtedly incorrect. 
--Amandajm 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest version of the plan

message: The website says that John the Baptist is on the left between the Annunciation/Visitation and Trial. Your description puts him on the right. One of them is wrong. I would think it is the website, because the BMV should be on Christ's right hand, not to his left. That would put John on the observer's right, when facing and Mary on the left (as per Last Judgement Sistine Chapel etc). --Amandajm 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Check fact

message: Thanks for the info, Javits!
I like Leveto's proposed arrangement. It has an enjoyable balance about it. The problem with it is, if these frescoes are as early as they appear to be, then one would not expect the Marian scenes to take priority over "Christ related" scenes at a date in the 9th or even the 10th centuries. The two examples that you have given are early 14th century, which is a different matter. In fact, if these frescoes were 14th century, one would find a far greater number of stylistic parallels. 
Johnbod, I'm relieved that you have abandoned Bognetti's tiresome letters. Now, I have abandoned a few of your detailed descriptions of location. I realise that you wrote the in the interest of making everything perfectly clear, but they didn't. The Eastern apse cannot be described as right at the back of the church. Because that part of the church that everybody faces during services is the "front", as in "Now children I want all eyes to the front!" and "Hey you up the back, what's 9 times 7?"
In the interests of clarity, I have also split the two reconstructions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amandajm (talk • contribs) 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leveto

message: Look, this is absurd. It's been agreed for months that we have two articles here, and that the present article is to be split into a historical/visual arts article, and an article (or, more properly, a stub) on the modern administrative unit. The only point of contention is the naming of these two entries. 
I've twice now stated my reasons for preferring "Castelseprio" = medieval Lombard city & modern archaeological park; "Castelseprio (comune)" = modern adminsitrative unit. These points have never been addressed by Attilios. In fact, I get the impression that he hasn't understood them, since he continues to propose that the historical / visual arts article be moved to "Frescoes of Castelseprio" or "Santa Maria foris portas".
Neither option would suffice, since the subject of the historical / visual arts article is not solely a church, much less is it solely a series of paintings; rather, it concerns an extinct walled city, in which no one presently lives, and which is geographically distinct from the modern comune. (See the lovely series of maps here.)
Attilios, what is your objection to this? Or, alternatively, could you propose a different pair of names that would properly address the distinction between medieval city and modern hamlet? I apologize if I've missed something in the forest of type above, but so far as I can tell these points have not been addressed. --Javits2000 09:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really cannot understand that we are AGAIN and again losing time to such a silly matter, instead of working to improve the general mediocrity of this encyclopedia. Bye. --Attilios 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-state

message: I've started Frescoes of Castelseprio because I think there is sufficient verifiable content to justify a stand alone article. Addhoc 13:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there is, but please leave it as it is whilst the Mediation is in progress, which it is. There is already a seperate article version from the history - see top of page.Johnbod 14:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll leave this article, however, agreeing there is sufficient verifiable content to justify another article doesn't constitute a viable reason not to have the other article. Addhoc 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Sorry, what does that mean? The whole mediation is over the title of the other article, since all parties seem agreed a split is desireable or at least acceptable. Johnbod 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The mediation stalled mid-March, now over two months ago. Addhoc 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HHH is working on it now (see his talk page). Johnbod 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, he's just accepted the case. Addhoc 22:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so in the meantime could we please get rid of this new Frescoes of Castelseprio article? This particular title has been discussed before, and I, among others, find it insufficient & lacking in context (i.e. the frescoes are in a church, which was in an ancient/medieval city; and the information on all of these things is lacking in the present article -- for example, it doesn't even describe the architectural form of the church in which the frescoes are found). Mediation is now active again and I see every reason to expect a quick resolution this time around. The new article just confuses the matter. Best, --Javits2000 09:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: Have split off the comune information to Castelseprio (comune) as per the arbitration discussion. --Javits2000 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split of article